/lit/ - Literature

[Epicanthic-Fold !!w9LedUTepdb No.3180102]

>18 years old; highschool senior.
>Researching philosophy and theology (IMO, you can't properly analyze theology without a solid basis in philosophy - something I really need to get.).
>Need books to read on philosophy (and theology, but somehow I doubt anyone on /lit/ knows of any intelligent apologetics works.).
>Currently trying to read Kant (The Critique of Pure Reason), but I have to reword everything he says to get a proper understanding of it (as opposed to in-one-ear-and-out-the-other), making it a really difficult read.
>Need stuff relating to logic, finding morality through reason, and things like that.
>Not interested in Nietzsche or Rand. (I'm going to need to become familiar with them, but I want to do that once I'm a tad more educated first; I'm familiar enough with their basic ideologies and they seem deeply flawed, at least in their condensed forms.).

Any suggestions?

>Pic isn't me, it just comes up if you search 'black gangsta' on google images.

[Anonymous No.3180139]

So much of that did not need green text

[Anonymous No.3180143]

Of all the philo, why is it that everyone thinks that they can jump straight into Kant, especially CoPR?

[Anonymous No.3180145]

>>3180102
I love the juxtaposition of:
>18 years old; highschool senior.
>Currently trying to read Kant (The Critique of Pure Reason), but I have to reword everything he says
>Need stuff relating to logic, finding morality through reason

And
>IMO, you can't properly analyze theology without a solid basis in philosophy
>I'm familiar enough with their basic ideologies

You seem to be thinking a little too highly of yourself.

[Anonymous No.3180147]

Look up Ethics, Logic, anything else you want to on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, read related texts found through the site and google.

[Anonymous No.3180149]

>>3180143
It's actually a pretty good starting point.

[Anonymous No.3180151]

>>3180149

As opposed to Descartes or the Greeks?

[Anonymous No.3180167]

>>3180151
So you think Kant is better than a guy you need to be very familiar with things like medieval concepts of existence to understand or a bunch of guys where it's rarely clear cut what argument they're making?

[Anonymous No.3180168]

Kant will eventually give you morality through reason with his categorical imperatives. Kant isn't exactly the best choice for morality with reason, either.

Spinoza's Ethics would be a good choice, but his work is a bit harder as you have to read it as a whole, as opposed to Kant who you would be able to jump around a bit in without too much trouble.

You say that Nietzsche or Rand are deeply flawed, but the thing is... you aren't really going to find any flawless philosopher. Each has their ups and downs, so don't look at it too much in that way.

Have a browse. Read some Hume, perhaps his treatise on human nature.
Thoreua's Walden.
I think Hannah Arendt is good too.

Like >>3180147 said, look up key terms and see who talks about them. There's no need to read the big names until you are actually able to read them (re: you rewording Kant. There should never be a need to reword Kant. You should re-read until you understand his point through his words, or you will most likely end up distorting the meaning)

[Anonymous No.3180169]

>>3180151
So you think Kant is worse than a guy you need to be very familiar with things like medieval concepts of existence to understand or a bunch of guys where it's rarely clear cut what argument they're making?

[Anonymous No.3180176]

It makes me really sad that nietzsche and rand were mentioned in the same line.

[spoiler/] Though I agree waiting to read nietzsche almost always pays off because you avoid the angsty teen pitfall [/spoiler]

[Epicanthic-Fold !!w9LedUTepdb No.3180230]

RE: Thread in general
It's notable that I'm not so much rewording Kant as I am having to go through a sentence in my head for a few seconds before I can understand it. It's kind of odd considering that I know all of the fucking words he's using - it's just the way he presents ideas and his sentence structure and shit is so weird. Is there actually a point where he's easily understandable? How the fuck would I get there?

>>3180145
My entire highschool history class didn't know the difference between Austria and Australia; my science teacher doesn't know what a scientific theory is; every discussion I've had with religious people about religion just shows that they're totally fucking unreasonable (I'm a Christian, it's just that it really ticks me off how many Christians throw critical thinking out with the trash when it comes to theology.).

Compared to every adult I've discussed philosophy and/or theology with, I'm a fucking genius. What the fuck is wrong with the world?

>>3180147
I don't know why the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy didn't occur to me. Fuck, I've been using it long enough. Thanks for the tip.

>>3180168
Thanks for the tips. (Also, yeah, it's very notable that no philosopher is ever going to be perfect, just considering how *everyone* seems to have at least one area where their reasoning is faulty - or is perceived by me to be faulty, anyway.).

>>3180176
They're the philosophers most loved by brain dead first-year philosophy majors who just discovered thinking that isn't somehow related to creationism or dinosaurs living on Venus.

[Anonymous No.3180236]

>>3180230
You sound like such a tool, come back when you've got something other than arrogance to talk about.

[Anonymous No.3180242]

>>3180230
A thread like this came up yesterday and I'll say the same again: reading the Prolegomena is a huge help for CoPR.

[Anonymous No.3180261]

>>3180230
That's still no reason Nietzsche should be held on the same level as Rand. I also wouldn't write him off so easily based on the people you see.

[Anonymous No.3180264]

>>3180230
>Standford
>*everyone*
>or is perceived by me to be faulty, anyway.
>Compared to every adult I've discussed philosophy and/or theology with, I'm a fucking genius. What the fuck is wrong with the world?

Shut the fuck up and stop being such a goddamn tool. You are such a stereotype and you don't even realize it.

Get through college before you ask for philosophy recommendations. Protip: with your attitude, you probably won't be able to.

[Anonymous No.3180272]

Stop, OP. For my sake. I've had to put up with philosophy majors in every single one of my fiction workshops and there has not been a single one of them with a cogent thought to present. They can't write, they can't emote, they can't empathize.

You sound exactly like they do.

[Anonymous No.3180277]

>>3180102
fuck OP you are "that guy"

>can't think, can't write, no discernible talent
you aren't even worthy

pic related

[Anonymous No.3180418]

>>3180230
>(I'm a Christian, it's just that it really ticks me off how many Christians throw critical thinking out with the trash when it comes to theology.).

>I'm a Christian
>critical thinking

Oh man, OP. WOW.

[Anonymous No.3180429]

>>3180169

All of that trouble is saved through the miracle of secondary lit

[Anonymous No.3180449]

the core ideas of most major philosophers are reducible to a wikipedia article. The rest is just justification and filler.

[Anonymous No.3180473]

>>3180230
Nietzsche is so misunderstood as a philosopher that it is really hard to judge him by any interpretation but your own. Don't trust what others tell you about a philosopher, especially one that told most of his beliefs through a poetry story and a book of aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.3180475]

Why are you trying to understand theology through reason?

Read Kierkegaard to cure yourself of your ignorance. IMO (as an atheost) he offers the only coherent defense of religion that I have seen.

[Anonymous No.3180509]

Read the story "January" by Donald Barthelme OP. It's an interview with a fictional theologian. Has some really great philosophical theology in it.

[Anonymous No.3180549]

Dude, just start with something like Russell's Problems with Philosophy or Blackburn's Think. CoPR will do nothing for you if you don't understand the basics of logic and are unable to trace the author's arguments. You also have to understand that these more modern philosophies are only possible due to people like Plato, Aristotle and all those that came before them. In order to get something as dense and nuanced as Kant or Nietzsche you have to have a solid foundation. Think of philosophy as a second language. You wouldn't start reading Tolstoy's War and Peace in its original Russian without knowing how to speak Russian right? Well thats kind of what you are trying to do starting with Kant. You need to build up a philosophic vocabulary and get a grasp on fundamental concepts before something like CoPR can be truly useful to you. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.3180554]

>>3180418

Not OP or even Christian but you have to be a shut-in and an illiterate if the concept of a critically-thinking Christian is alien to you.