[ 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: 764 KB, 1500x1122, booksnigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295619 No.3295619 [Reply] [Original]

Physicsfag here

So /lit/, what would you say are the 5 most important works in philosophy in all of human history? As a physics student, I don't expect to have as extensive of an understanding as possible, but I do think it's important.

Should I just read up on the Greeks (Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.)? Would a more modern philosopher be too far of a jump? From what I have read, the Greek philosophers cover vast fields of knowledge, whereas the relatively newer ones specialize in certain areas of knowledge.

By that understanding, it would seem like I should read up on the Greeks pretty exclusively.

>> No.3295623

Why do you want to learn about philosophy?

>> No.3295627

Would you tell someone new to Physics to start with quantum dynamics?

>> No.3295628

>>3295623
Broaden my understanding of life. Open my mind up to new ways of thinking; better ways of thinking.

I find physicists (including the other students I work with) tend to gravitate towards philosophy much more than other scientists in other fields.

>> No.3295629

>>3295627
No, I wouldn't. Good point. So start with the Greeks?

/thread?

>> No.3295630

>>3295629
Start with the Greeks

>> No.3295632

>>3295627
Then again, if I was a popularizer of science, I just might use quantum mechanics to entice people into the world of physics.

>> No.3295635

>>3295630
Any specific works recommended?

>> No.3295636

>>3295628

>Broaden my understanding of life. Open my mind up to new ways of thinking; better ways of thinking.

Then it doesn't really matter what you read. Important works of philosophy are important to different people for different reasons, but all philosophy does what you want.

So read whatever.

>> No.3295637

Get a book on the history of philosophy.

Read up secondary lit on the greeks, read the wiki articles and plato.edu articles, then read the original works.

From there is a whole world of places you can go. I'd recommend reading Descartes and then Hume and Berkeley. Then jump into Schopenhauer and Hegel and Kant, all the while keeping pace with secondary lit and other readings online. From there you go all the way into modernity, especially Foucault.

This is not an easy journey or a short one

>> No.3295638

What is it they say?
That the whole of Western philosophy is just a series of footnote to Plato?

>> No.3295639

>>3295632
But that's what astronomy/cosmology is for

>> No.3295641

>>3295637
>This is not an easy journey or a short one

Not when you purposely make it difficult like this.

It's very possible to not read philosophy this way and still get something out of it.

>> No.3295643

>>3295641

Sure. But if you want to have a full understanding, the historical route is a necessary path to take.

If you want a cursory view, just go ahead and read what interests you on wikipedia and plato.edu. Pick up original texts based on those interests. Either way is fine.

>> No.3295645

>>3295643

There's no such thing as a full understanding.

>> No.3295647

>>3295645

er*

Always rely on /lit/ to autistically point out the obvious.

>> No.3295648

>>3295641
>>3295636
So I could jump into reading Nietzsche and extract some sort of meaning and bring it into my life? I could do this with any work?

Note: I'm not going to jump into Nietzsche. From lurking on /lit/ I have read how terrible of an idea that is.

I ask because many popular physics books reference Kant, and I would love to jump into Critique of Pure Reason, but then again, I have heard that I will understand none of it unless I have read up on the Greeks.

>> No.3295649

>>3295647

No, no "fuller" understanding either.

Understanding isn't on a linear scale from "less full" to "most full".

>> No.3295654

>>3295648

Just do it. How much time is it really going to take for you to find out if you can extract meaning from a text?

>> No.3295651

Don't forget about the chinks. Tao Te Ching or I Ching are pretty good.

>> No.3295653

>>3295648

You won't be able to understand much of Kant without an historical backing. The same is true of Nietzsche and any number of other thinkers.

The historical route is the best way to go for an in-depth reading of philosophy.

It's up to you how much time you're willing to invest. Otherwise, just stick to wikipedia.

>> No.3295655

>>3295651
Ah, thanks. I was going to ask if it was worthwhile to read up on Eastern philosophy.

>> No.3295656

Primary texts only:

Plato's Timaeus
Aristotle's Metaphysics
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations

Though you can't simply read five books and be done with philosophy; it's a lifelong endeavour and you won't want to stop anyway.

>> No.3295657

>>3295649

It certainly is on a scale from 'less full' to 'more full'

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You know what I'm saying.

>> No.3295660

>>3295656

>reading Kant without Hegel
>reading Nietzsche without Schopenhauer
>Wittgenstein out of left field

Yeah, this'll do wonders.

>> No.3295661

>>3295653
>>3295654
I never really understand why I "wouldn't be able to understand it" without a historical backing.

Is it because the references will just make no sense? The ideas presented add onto previous models? Ah, maybe I'll just go find out on my own.

>> No.3295662

>>3295657

>It certainly is on a scale from 'less full' to 'more full'

No it isn't. I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to stop you from giving this person misguided advice.

>> No.3295663

>>3295661
>The ideas presented add onto previous models?

Precisely. They all build on the ideas of former thinkers. All of them.

>> No.3295667

>>3295663
And the newer works don't describe the previous ideas in depth, only their new additions to these ideas?

I can see how that would be a problem.

>> No.3295668

>>3295662

He's right, OP.

Just read Critique of Pure Reason without having read any philosophy. You'll understand it beautifully.

>> No.3295669

>>3295663
>>3295667

When will arborescent thinking finally die?

>> No.3295671

>>3295667

The ideas grow over time, the terms they use are often based on ideas that other thinkers have explained in depth.

>> No.3295673

>>3295669

Stop taking things so literally. 'All' is clearly read as 'most' in this context.

>> No.3295674

Thanks /lit/

>> No.3295676

>>3295629

/thread

>> No.3295680

>>3295673

Either is still destructively and misguidedly arborescent.

That's the problem, I guess. We have two completely different conceptions of philosophy that are irreconcilable. You see it as a building or a plant. Something with a bottom and a top, a root and a growth, a construction in process. I see it as a map. Flat, without a center or a root, without hierarchy or process.

Your view makes more sense to most people, because we're still heavily steeped in root based thinking, so I guess that means you're correct. But whatever.

>> No.3295681

>>3295667
it's not known as "the great conversation" for nothing.

however my advice would be to start where you want to start. some stuff will go over your head, but you'll always get more out of a book that you actually want to read than one you feel you have to read. as a beginner the most important thing is to kindle an interest that will sustain you for all that reading. jump in with kant (seeing as that is what you are apparently most intrigued by) and bolster your understanding with secondary reading.

>> No.3295688

Stoicism.

Do it.

>> No.3295691

>>3295680

The philosophers themselves grew their ideas from the bottom up, historically.

Reading Nietzsche without reading Plato is a completely different experience. This is obvious.

You can glean ideas from any book written at any time, but your reading won't be as informed as it could be in a historical context. This context allows you to tie in grander philosophic notions over large periods of time into what you're reading currently. It doesn't have to work in a linear fashion, but very little in philosophy is isolated from the rest of said.

I see where you're coming from, but your view is as limited as an arborescent one.

Claiming there's no hierarchy is as foolish as claiming that hierarchy is set in stone.

>> No.3295710
File: 96 KB, 465x600, plato baller.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295710

Don't listen to these faggots.

Get a really good guidebook on Kant, as well as a philosophical dictionary, and dig right into The Critique. It'll most likely be super, super hard, but at least you'll get to it. Acquiring the famed "historical understanding" of philosophy takes years and years of full-time study, which means that you'll most likely burn out before you get to the parts that interests you the most.

Also, in my experience physicsfags are usually pretty intelligent, so it should be possible to get someone to explain the some of the more intricate references to you (meaning you're probably intelligent enough to get the gist of an idea by someone explaining it to you once or twice). If you don't have any friends with the necessary philosophical foundations, you should just attend courses on Kant at uni/stream some from youtube.

>> No.3295712

>>3295710
Worth noting is that historical understanding of philosophy is the least useful thing in the Universe.

>> No.3295733

>>3295619
I don't think philosophy works that way. I would divide Phi into two branches: the frontier - where new, miniscule concepts are come upon and extensively investigated and the history of philosophy - together with dozens of sub-sciences like Phi of science and Phi of history and shit, epistemology, meta-____, etc. Going after the first one doesn't make sense unless you are familiar with the second one (it's like coming up with basic arithmetic from scratch all over again; there is nothing mystical in Phi that would make such endeavour useful). The second one is totally comparable to History - you follow paths that human though has ventured throughout millenia - and you simply discover we've been pretty much everywhere (apart from areas investigated by the Frontier). Philo is much like hard sciences - it categorizes everything while pointing out the biggest areas of unknowable - that simply is left out and waiting for better times. It's not chaotic and lofty as /sci/ wants you to think.

>> No.3295866

>>3295619

I saw this documentary yesterday and in one hour and a half will take you for a quick tour of western philosophy. hope this will help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZix2z9LYBI

>> No.3296044

thanks everyone for the suggestions

>> No.3296057

Um, i'm reading the Republic right now as my first venture into philosophy. Is this a mistake?

>> No.3296058

>>3295710
>physicsfags are usually pretty dogmatic and unsympathetic as it gets

fix'd

>>3295619
>>3295648
>As a physics student
>So I could jump into reading Nietzsche

fuck off to >>>/sci/, seriously.

>> No.3296073

>>3296058
You clearly didn't read the fucking post.

>> No.3296087

>>3296058
>physicsfags are usually pretty dogmatic and unsympathetic as it gets

You a christfag, bro?

>> No.3296107

>>3296087
>he thinks philosophy consists entirely of sciencenerds and christianity alone

laughingirls.gif

you clearly haven't gotten over the pseudo-intellectual 'debates' what is called evolution vs. god on the heavenly blessed internets, amirite or amirite?

>>3296073
i don't give a flying shit you nerd; get back to me when you hit 50 and realize what a dumb fucking faggot you are by sacrificing your worthless life and career to an irrelevant circle-jerk discipline known as LELPHYSICS. SO INTELEGENT,SO PROGHRESIVE

>> No.3296122

>>3296107
And your career is?

>> No.3296124

>>3296107
You're right: sciencenerds, christfags, and autists apparently.

>> No.3296135

>>3296124
you're not that far off actually

sciencenerd + autist = a perfect candidate for a physicist

seriously though, read more.

>>3296122
genius janitor

>> No.3296139

>>3296135
ah

>> No.3296145

>>3296057
can someone answer to this, please.

>> No.3296161

>>3296145
well, faggot, it is one of Plato's earlier works. what else do you want to know? usually, one cannot go wrong having The Republic as a starting point

>> No.3296169

>>3296161
>

>> No.3296170

>>3296161
then why wasn't it mentioned?

>> No.3296174

>>3296170
what the fuck do you mean by this

mentioned where?

>> No.3296194

>>3296174
this thread

>> No.3296201

>>3296161
>it is one of Plato's earlier works
no it's not

>> No.3296204

>>3295619
There are maybe 50 philosophy threads on lit at any given time. Look around and read up before you start a new thread. You might even learn something. Look in the wiki for recommended Philosophy books and/or the /lit/ archive.
The reason people are being rude to you is because this question has been discussed many, many times.

>> No.3296206

>>3296201
Where does the Republic sit in his timeline?

>> No.3296207

>>3296201
Got any evidence on that, humongous faggot? You need analyze Plato's linguistic style / language progression to get a sense of that

>> No.3296212

>>3296058
>>physicsfags are usually pretty dogmatic and unsympathetic as it gets
Can't tell if your being intentionally ironic or just an idiot

>> No.3296214

>>3296206
There is no timeline, just a stylographic analysis of his works
>>3296207
And you'd find that Republic is a middle dialogue

>> No.3296215

>>3296207
aggression is a sign of weakness, you know.

Well, do you have any insight?

>> No.3296218

>>3296212
I can tell you're just another pseudo-intellectual already; no sweat, sweet-cheeks

>> No.3296219

>>3296206
>Middle/end

>> No.3296222

>>3296214
stylometric*

>> No.3296223

>>3296204
>one person was rude to me
I understand; I expected a max of 10 replies then the thread to be over, my questions answered, and they were.

I have lurked in philosophy threads, yet it's hard to be part of the discussion when I've never read any of the works they discuss, ya know?

>> No.3296224

>>3296214
>And you'd find that Republic is a middle dialogue
no; give me an evidence to this you stupid fucking faggot. you act as if i can't tell you read it in the sticky and blatantly regurgitating it here.

>> No.3296225

>>3296218
>I can tell you're just another pseudo-intellectual already; no sweat, sweet-cheeks
Yeah well.... fuck you you scumbag cunt, i'll fucking ravage your face cunt and fuck your mum deadset cunt you're finnished

>> No.3296230

>>3296218
>repeats the same insult over and over
>just heard the phrase from his pastor to describe evolutionists

What's your deal? Do you happen to live anywhere near Newton, Connecticut?

>> No.3296233

>>3296230
go cry in a corner, fatty.

>> No.3296237

>>3296233
Did you wander over here from /mlp/?

>> No.3296249

>>3296224
I'm sorry but the Republic is commonly held to be one of Plato's middle/late dialogues.
If you have evidence to the contrary I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, fuckface.

>> No.3296252

>>3296249
>middle/late dialogues
nice try, but wrong again.

it's early/middle you degenerate fucking faggot.

>> No.3296253
File: 113 KB, 720x720, Bad Trolls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3296253

>>3296207
He thinks he can read Greek!

>> No.3296258

>>3296253
>speculating

>> No.3296262

>>3296252
nah mate

nah

>> No.3296266
File: 50 KB, 600x480, Big Horned Sheep.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3296266

>>3296258
Wrong again!
ITT: the same pretentious fellow is wrong an uncountable number of times.

>> No.3296276

>>3296266
>Wrong again!

look up the definition of speculation, fag

>> No.3296278
File: 1.14 MB, 680x1671, It was but an act.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3296278

>>3296276
It's over, man. You've been found out.

>> No.3296279

We really should get some goddamn mods on this board. I leave this thread for an hour, and some idiotic autist is trolling the shit out of everything, and apparently every undergraduate on teh interwebs is there to take the bait.

I hereby wish cancer upon you all.

>> No.3296282
File: 949 KB, 301x300, Cool.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3296282

>>3296279
Yeah? Well maybe I like cancer! What do you think of that?!

>> No.3296284

>>3296279
It's your own fault.
You should have just left it with "Start with the Greeks"

>> No.3296293
File: 65 KB, 415x311, Willie Stroker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3296293

>>3296284

No, >>3295710 was the correct answer.

>> No.3296295

>>3296279
This is not OP.

>>3296284
I stuck around because after I got the answers I wanted, I hoped people would contribute and continue the discussion. But now I'm merely ashamed of the thread I created.

>> No.3296301

Works? I dunno.

Sticking to the West, the five most important philsophers imo are:

Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Kant
Nietzsche

If you want to get into philosophy you cannot go wrong with studying the greeks till your bum bleeds. The "footnotes to Plato" canard was right imo (lazy but bright BA in the subject)

>> No.3296305

>>3295660
>>reading Kant without Hegel
Nothing wrong with that at all. Kant wasn't influenced by Hegel much. In fact I don't think he mentions him once.

>> No.3296318

>>3296305
>Kant wasn't influenced by Hegel much. In fact I don't think he mentions him once.

9/10

>> No.3296321

>>3296305

Hardly surprising, as Hegel was quite a lot younger, and didn't publish Phenomenology of Spirit until after the death of Kant.

>> No.3296325

>>3295619
I have never read any philosophy which made me think "wow, this is a geniality, I could have neve thought of that myself" as opposed to science, where I find myself saying thinks like that all the time. Philosophy is for the weak minded.

>> No.3296326

Goddammit, I fell for it. Trolls trolling trolls etc.

>> No.3296329

>>3296325
0/10

>> No.3296339

>>3296329
It's the truth for me, maybe I've been reading all the wrong text, but they all strike as incredibly obvious and trivial. Reminds of my psychologist who only spouted trivial reasoning that were obvious to even third graders. Therapy never helped me and I'm confident it never helped anyone (placebo discounted) with an IQ of more than 100.

>> No.3296348

>>3296339

Go read some Kierkegaard.

>> No.3296354

>>3296339
are you comparing psychology to philosophy? psychology is one of the useless disciplines out there

>> No.3296359

>>3296354
0/10

>> No.3296373

>>3296339
Have you read ..let's say ..Ways of Worldmaking? If you already have his level of "philosophical perspective" under your skin, it is curious that science rustles your jimmies that much. You know the saying that goes somewhat like this: "science is for those still fighting IN the game, philosophy for those still fighting to get out."?

>> No.3296374

>>3296354
Most philosophy is even more useless. Not that it had an use to begin with, but it has never solved any mistery.

>> No.3296429

>>3296374
you must be smart.

>> No.3296614

>>3296429
I am.

>> No.3296618

>>3296614
A faggot

>> No.3296668

>>3296618
A smart faggot.

>> No.3296698

>>3296668
If you were to be smart, you wouldn't be a faggot, faggot.

>> No.3296796

>>3296698
Nevertheless I'm smarter than you

>> No.3296801

>>3296796
You mean faggier. I know you mean faggier because of how much smarter I am than you.

>> No.3297370

>>3295619
help yourself here, maybe an introductory book will help you find what you like

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Philosophy_%28Bookshelf%29

>> No.3299422

>>3296801
You're overtly faggy.