[ 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: 259 KB, 1296x976, philosophy1_book[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639184 No.3639184 [Reply] [Original]

Requesting some "how to get into X philosopher" charts and flowcharts.

Where to start with Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre... etc

>> No.3639205

Go older to newer, you won't miss any references that way.

Start with the presocratics and work your way up if you want to understand all references and lines of thought.

>> No.3639202

1. guide by the historical chronological order for philosophy and philosophers
2. guide by the years of publication regarding the bibliography of a particular philosopher

eod

>> No.3639213

>>3639184
Fuck all that.

Philosophy is a big field. Read about topics that interest you. The history of philosophy is all well and good, but don't obsess about it.

People keep trying to take these broad views to all of it, and read dated dusty things because they want to understand references to it. Well, if you're just interested in passing references then read some tertiary summary. If you're interested in philosophy for itself, find a question that you're interested in and then read some stuff on that from the last 50 years. Work your way backward if you want to keep following up on it.

>> No.3639219
File: 8 KB, 202x249, heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639219

stop being an inauthentic fag and just read some introduction text book and go in to philosopher's you like

>> No.3639257

>>3639219
>go in to philosopher's you like
excellent recipe for anyone that wants to misinterpret a philosopher, philosophy as an activity itself and then metamorphose into an edgy teenager

>> No.3639262
File: 8 KB, 220x275, Derrida_main.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639262

>>3639257
>misinterpret a philosopher

>> No.3639271

>>3639262
pls go jacques

>> No.3639284
File: 83 KB, 447x331, 1300116881834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639284

A word of advice: avoid all platonists and neoplatonists

They're all full of shit, and their words are just garbaled garbage on fit for the garburator

>> No.3639302

>>3639284

>platonists
>remotely related to neo-platonists

pls go

>> No.3639308

I want to learn about pre-socratics and classical greek philosophy but I'm not really interested in reading original texts. Is Sophie's World a good start to explain the basics?

>> No.3639312

>>3639308
Nah. If you want to know about Pre Socratics, get Kirk & Schofields' book, it's very well explained, you'll understand it more than just reading fragments.

Sophie's world is more general on platonism and more well known things.

>> No.3639320

bertrand russell history of philosophy isn't as bad as it sounds

>> No.3639323

>>3639308

Coppleston series is pretty good

>> No.3639341
File: 171 KB, 548x618, MB5X6Ai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639341

>>3639284
so what happened sweetie
did you have a hard time pondering and comprehending all those supreme metaphysics of the ancient tradition?

this is precisely the type of mewing fatsos i was addressing in >>3639257
ill-literacy individuals that get into philosophy merely to satisfy their scanty egos, having no idea what philosophy is all about

>> No.3639355

>>3639323
>>3639312
I read in French, I'm not sure if this applies...

>> No.3639386

>>3639320
>bertrand russell history of philosophy isn't as bad as it sounds

It's worse.

>> No.3639400

>>3639386
how?

>> No.3639410
File: 58 KB, 748x818, phil.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3639410

How to philosophy: a Beginner's Guide

1) Read what interests you, because it will lead you to other philosophers.

2) Read a lot of Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other secondary sources to start, to get the broad outlines, and to see the ossified scholarly formulations of ideas which would be much harder to notice/grasp in their original format (i.e. to see them as an undergraduate philosophy course would present them - which is often two sentences summarizing 216 pages of dense technical terminology).

3) Genuinely try to do the chronological approach. Knowing your Greeks is absolutely vital. Understanding the general outline/narrative of the Western philosophical tradition is also vital. This doesn't mean you have to read comprehensively. Even having read and understood Plato and the basic works of Aristotle will make reading pretty much everyone after them 2-3x more rewarding. They are so seminal that references start to compound, and the later you go, the it becomes like jumping into a series by starting with the tenth installment.

>> No.3639422

>>3639400

He's a terrible historian and either omits or does a horrible job of covering important parts of philosophy that he doesn't like or doesn't know much about. "History of Western Philosophy" was a potboiler, nothing else.

>> No.3639424

>>3639400
bias
dogmatic deifying of le logical positivism and scientism
misinterpreting quite a few philosophers
shoving his autistic nose of logic in order to inadequately shit on philosophers' ideas/theories

>> No.3639438

>>3639355
Get a translation then. I read in spanish and I had no trouble.

>> No.3639510

>>3639184
First off, DO NOT (and I really do mean this, not trolling) read primary texts unless you have prior knowledge from secondary texts.
>read few general phil. books
>read phil. books strictly about each movement, for example start with ancient greeks move on up through medieval and so on until you get to the point you want
>read secondary text on the philosopher you want to read, preferable read two or three so you're getting a good perspective
If you don't do this, you're gonna a bad time.

>> No.3639545

>>3639510
Thanks, that's what I'm aiming to do. I'll probably ask my teachers about the best history of philosophy available in french as I don't think /lit/ can be reliable on this question

>> No.3640206

>reading philosophy

Whats your intention of learning about philosophy?

>> No.3640239

>>3639184
I want to learn stoic, what do?

>> No.3640244

>>3639284

What? Did you know that Plato was just offering solutions to open questions? Take Republic for example. The question of justice required a theory of society, education, virtue, epistemology, metaphysics, and art. If you don't like, say, the theory of forms in book seven, realize too that Plato was quite intellectually honest and grilled that in the Parmenides. Plato was the man, and a bona fide Platonist is probably a pretty cool guy.

>> No.3640266

>>3640244
This. Plato was the bro of any philosophy-interest person. Even a philosophy-dwelling donkey would give Plato a brofist (or in this case, a brohoof).

Seriously, chek out the historyofphilosophy.net podcasts. I discovered them thanks to /lit, and they rock. It's made by very dedicated professors of King's College, so you can trust them at least for being professional and knowledgeable on the field, and they are really well made and easy to follow.

>> No.3640270

God damnit. I am so tired of you edgy ancient Greek philosopers. Why don't you go and take a college class that is worthless instead of talking of this in /lit?

>> No.3640273

>>3639510
What are primary texts and what are secondary ones

>> No.3640276

>>3640270
>Greek philosophers
>edgy

God damnit, I am so tired of you edgy quoting of Shakespeare's play. Why don't you go and take a college class that is worthless instead of talking of this in /lit ?

>> No.3640278

>>3640239
Into wiki and begin.

>> No.3640280

>>3640273
Primary texts= texts that were written by the philosophers themselves and are where the ideas were first formulated
Secondary texts=texts that were written specifically as comment or introduction to the primary texts and don't mean to add new material by themselves

For instance, Plato's Republic is a primary text, any abstract, commentary, review or academic study of Plato's Republic is a secondary text.

>> No.3640299

>>3640276
i think hes refering to the nature of "philsophers" on the internet being "edgy". Not the books they read, perse.

>> No.3640304

>not spending a good majority of your time lost in thoughts and wondering what life is

that is how you into philosophy OP.

>> No.3640321

>>3640304
Particularly if you do it in the train. Trains are modern's world first philosophical school.

>>3640299
That makes much sense, then. But people on this thread are not being edgy.

>> No.3640576

>>3639184
There is no proper place to start. If you do not agree with a certain philosopher's axioms, you simply will not 'get it'. Also, a lot of philosophy is not really what you might think is philosophy. I just spent ~1 hour reading Aristotle's Poetics, and hated it. All it was was what he believed to be the proper form of tragedies and comedies, basically stories. I'm never doing that again.

Get to the center of what you believe in, ask yourself why, google what you come up with, and find a philosopher that wrote on the subject. Don't agree? Good. Not agreeing with what you read is the clearest sign you are actually thinking. Find someone else, and keep reading.