[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 165 KB, 773x1024, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3131328 No.3131328 [Reply] [Original]

Hi, /lit/. I have recently become interested in philosophy and have decided to take the plunge and start reading some philosophical works. Having no experience with any philosophy before (besides -some- political philosophy books), can you push me in the right direction and give me a starting point?

>> No.3131334

depends, why are you interested in it?

>> No.3131336

It depends, do you want to start with "pop-philosophy" (that's a terrible term, which devalues the writing, but I mean more accessible recent books) or the old classics.

>> No.3131350

>>3131334
Well, I've recently been exploring the history of the founding fathers (not too much but a little in my spare time) and thought it was interesting how some of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment were so influential in their thoughts. This led me to the question in my head of, "what is so important about philosophy?" and decided to see if I could understand this by reading some of it.

>>3131336
Not sure. I'd love to read some of the classics, like the Age of Enlightenment philosophers mentioned above, but I feel that they are probably much too over my head so "pop-philosophy" may be a good start?

>> No.3131360

start with Greeks

>> No.3131371

I remember reading a quote here where it said that you have to study the Greeks for 15 years before you can read Nietzsche.

I think I know what you are going to do for the next 15 years.

>> No.3131378

If you want something more accessible I would really recommend Michael Sandel's "Justice". Its mostly political philosophy, but I thought it was pretty neat.

>> No.3131387

>>3131360
>>3131371
Well that sounds like a good start then. Is there any greek philosopher I should start with?

>>3131378
Just looked this up on goodreads and it's now in my "to-read" list. Thanks )

>> No.3131393

>>3131387

Plato, Heraclitus

>> No.3131397

>>3131393
Cool. Thank you so much :)

>> No.3131404

We had one of these threads not too long ago. It was specifically about Russell's History of Western Philosophy, but it might still be of interest

>>3126875

>> No.3131412

>>3131404
I'll check it out right now. Thank you.

>> No.3131415

>>3131387
Don't start with the Greeks. All you need to know is: Objective morality is a social construct. Determinism best describes the cause/effect nature of reality. Relativism aptly applies to aesthetics. If you don't like an area of metaphysics or ontology then the flaws in logical positivism can sometimes be circumvented. Theology is also a man made construct. Language is a crude collection of 'metaphors' for various things that exist. The universe and life is probably absurd; there probably is no meaning to anything. Objectivism is the best way to socially function from a subjective perspective.

>> No.3131423
File: 108 KB, 500x333, 1323382287800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3131423

>>3131415

>all you need to know is

.. :|

>> No.3131427

>>3131415

>Telling someone to be satisfied with wikipedia blurbs instead of reading the literature himself

>> No.3131429

>>3131415
Great. Philosophy solved. Its over now guys, you can go now.

>> No.3131448

>>3131427
You'd be lucky to find such biased wikipedia entries.

>> No.3131455

>>3131429
Philosophy's been over for a long time. We are just sat around waiting for science -our twice removed cousin- to shed some light on the first cause problem.

>> No.3131485
File: 51 KB, 490x769, oh-boy-here-wego.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3131485

>>3131455

Haha, oh man. Back to /sci/ with you.

Polite sage because I don't want to grace this with bumps.

>> No.3131619

>>3131455
You should read Heidegger's Questions Concerning Technology or What is Called Thinking. Both are sort and focus around the issue you raised.

>> No.3131628

>3131455
>doesnt realize that science has admitted that it can never truly *prove* anything ever since Hume and the skeptics pooped all over the dogmatics, and since Kant happened after the split of natural and metaphysical philosophy, science never bothered considering the possibility that skepticism might not be correct.
>ISHYGDDT

>> No.3131646

Where should one START?

The place to *start* would be Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy." While filled with a number of errors, Russell's style is clear and concise - a perfect introduction for the layman. Moreover, it provides one with the social and political context of the growth of each constituent school at any given time.

Once you've read this, it'd be best to consider things chronologically: start with the pre-socratics and purchase Copleston's set on the history of philosophy as a companion.
Copleston's work is extraordinarily helpful and provides great detail to many of the philosophical issues at hand.

Upon completion of the pre-socratics, you ought to read the following in, preferably, the following order:
Plato's Euthyphro
Plato's Apology
Plato's Crito
Plato's Phaedo
Plato's Meno
Which are, arguably, the most important platonic dialogues. The Republic should be included subsequently.
As for Aristotle, his metaphysics is quite necessary.

Another important introductory aspect:
A basic notion of propositional or predicate logic - as well as fallacies - will be quite helpful:
Use Hurley's "An Concise introduction to logic"

>> No.3131656

>>3131619
>Heidegger's Questions Concerning Technology or What is Called Thinking.

Is that in the same box as Searles Chinese room experiment? I find that subject fascinating. I don't think we will have an accepted understanding of our own consciousness though, at least not in our lifetimes, let alone accept the mind of a synthetic or technological organism.

>> No.3131688

>>3131656
nah, heidegger is on some other shit

>> No.3131691

http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/readlist.shtml

>> No.3131708

>>3131691
>>3131646
Thanks, guys. I'm in a similar situation to OP, just starting out in philosophy. Took a class on Existentialism and Phenomenology this year with no background and had no idea what was going on.

These lists will come in handy.

>> No.3131713

>>3131708
Got raped by Neechee did ya?

>> No.3131738

>>3131628
>it can never truly *prove* anything
It doesn't have to prove a damn thing as long as it continues improving my quality of life.

>> No.3131740

>>3131713
Not yet. Was thoroughly raped by Heidegger and Husserl though. Screw those guys.

Can't wait to return to them in however many years it will take me to get the necessary foundation knowledge and kick their asses.

>> No.3131741

>>3131708

A good portion of the list mentioned >>3131691
isn't philosophy. if you're serious about philosophy, you shouldn't be reading "moliere" or "homer" and confusing it for such.

>> No.3131743

>>3131740

>takes first philosophy class
>phenomenology

just your luck: your first phil class and you're presented with some of the most obscurantist, arcane philosophers of the 20th century

>> No.3131748

>>3131743
Well, I'm glad to know it gets a little easier. The prose was really difficult to parse, I thought maybe it was the translations.

>>3131741
Yes, I noticed it was a mix of fiction and philosophy. Maybe they complement each other?

>> No.3131758
File: 11 KB, 250x204, 1347809916251s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3131758

>>3131748
>Yes, I noticed it was a mix of fiction and philosophy.
>Maybe they complement each other?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_books

>> No.3131765

>>3131748

There are - I like to say - two distinct forms of difficult philosophy:

The first consists of the works of Heidegger, Derrida and Hegel (Hegel being the most difficult). The issue is the convoluted language which fuses logic and metaphysics into an arcane, obfuscated work.

The second is Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead. As you approach philosophical logic and the philosophy and methodology of science and mathematics, things become exceedingly more technical and "abstract" in a more different sense: rather than deconstructing figurative, prosaic text packed with abstract, vague notions, you're working with symbols to a higher-mathematical degree of abstraction.

>> No.3131772

>>3131748

Philosophy - as I like to say - comes in two types of "difficult":

The first consists of the works of Heidegger and Hegel (Hegel quite possibly being the most difficult). The issue is the convoluted language, which fuses logic and metaphysics into an arcane, obfuscated work of metaphorical and vaguely-defined terminology.

The second is Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead. As you approach philosophical logic and the philosophy and methodology of science and mathematics, things become exceedingly more technical and "abstract" in the sense that a proof in topology is abstract (but certainly not to the same degree - usually). Rather than deconstructing figurative, prosaic text packed with abstract, vague notions, you're working with symbols on a higher-mathematical degree of abstraction.

>> No.3131777

>>3131765
>two distinct forms of difficult philosophy
All philosophy - philosophy proper, not hacks like Sam Harris - is difficult. If you think Plato is easy, you are doing it wrong.

>The issue is the convoluted language which fuses logic and metaphysics into an arcane, obfuscated work.
They use language in unusual ways to make you understand problems that usual language hides by its construction. They are not "obfuscated" (well, maybe Derrida is), they simply have to be read attentively and carefully.

>> No.3131793

>>3131758
That's cool. I don't understand how universities would offer this as a program. At my uni we never get through more than 12 books a semester. It would have to be at least a year long, I guess.

>>3131772
Well, thanks for the info Modal, it makes me feel a little better about struggling with Heidegger. You seem very well informed.
May I ask what your background is? Formal education or are you an autodidact? How long did it take to get to your current level of philosophical knowledge? Just trying to make some projections for myself.

I've got to say, not looking forward to the more mathematical side of philosophy. I'll have to go back and re-learn high school algebra I guess. Been years since I've had to use it.

>> No.3131801

>>3131793
modal sounds like a smart guy but he also sounds like an analytic dude, that is, it sounds like he has a dog in this fight

not calling anyone out, just saying, it's the kind of bias you ought to be aware of generally

>> No.3131806

>>3131777
Interesting perspective, anon. I'll keep it in mind. I did actually read some Sam Harris as a teenager. I recall that he was a neuroscientist of some sort, I wouldn't expect him to be a great philosopher. It was pretty accessible, though, as you suggest.

>They are not "obfuscated" (well, maybe Derrida is), they simply have to be read attentively and carefully.

My professor told us that Heidegger utilized the full expressive potential of German... and that it doesn't translate that clearly into English. So there's still something of a roadblock there it seems. If only I had the time to learn any new languages.

>> No.3131814

>>3131793
St. John´s College in particular is famous for its Great Books program; it is one of few such colleges left. The concept used to be more popular several decades ago, but then the Canon got deconstructed and whatnot. In the end, it is the students who got cheated of a proper education.

If you´re interested in the concept, just browse their website.

>> No.3131818

>>3131801
Well, as of right now, I don't have a great handle on what separates "analytic" from everything else. So I'm going to be at the mercy of whatever bias I encounter early on in my reading. I appreciate the heads-up though. I'll do my best to stay critical.

>> No.3131836

>>3131793

I studied Math, Philosophy and Linguistics.

Fortunately, I enjoyed reading philosophy on my spare time - so it was a non-zero-sum game. While it's nice to have the formal classroom atmosphere when discussing philosophy, it's certainly manageable on your own if treated as a serious hobby. All you really need to get a firm basis in all walks of philosophy - something a 4-year degree of some sort can provide (or the 4-year equivalent in self-study)

>> No.3131853

>>3131806
>Heidegger utilized the full expressive potential of German
That´s pretty much it. I do speak fluent German, but even so he is a very hard nut to crack. I suppose one would need a deep and concentrated immersion in his writing to "get" the language, to understand why precisely is the unusual mode of expression necessary to convey the point. But even the little things I have been able to grasp suggest it would be very much worth the effort.

It is similar with Hegel. As I understand him, the way he writes - the form of his writing - is another way of conveying the message (along with content). E.g. by speaking of what sense-certainty "does", as if it were an agent in its own right and not a mode of our understanding of the world, he draws our attention to the processes of apprehension that we consider so elementary as to gloss over them unthinkingly. By doing so we of course miss important knowledge on which Hegel builds. In other cases he reshapes his language to evoke the workings of the dialectical process, very different from the standard, Aristotelian terms in which we tend to understand language and the world it describes.

>> No.3131919

>>3131415
You know what? fuck truth for truth's sake, i won't believe depressing shit just because some bastard told me i should

fuck authority, I'll do everything in my power to fuck over science now