[ 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: 904 KB, 420x348, 1339717919578.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819332 No.3819332 [Reply] [Original]

how do I get into philosophy /lit/? Do I start in a chronological order from de greeks, or just grab whatever I want? There is not much on the sticky.

>> No.3819348

IMO the best thing to do is to find a work about a topic you're interested in or by an author you're interested in, and read it, and go from there - go backwards to see the influence others had on the first writer, and go forwards to see how other writers took up the first writer's thoughts, and you'll go a long way towards being able to find your way through philosophy.

There's a lot of people who are going to say you have to start at the Greeks, but it's not actually that practical, nor is it really necessary - you should read the Greeks eventually, because they were smart and important and they throw enormous light on any other thinker and increase your understanding, but you don't need to start with them to understand things. The thing is that philosophy is a virtuous circle - the more you read, the more your understanding of the things you've already read increases, and that increases your ability to learn more things. It doesn't so much matter explicitly where you start - even if you don't start at the beginning, every new thing you read is still going to increase your understanding.

>> No.3819380

This is a stupid thread, but we see several of them almost daily.

Asking how you can "get into philosophy" is way too broad. Philosophy is such a varied collection of different schools of thoughts, it doesn't even make sense to think you can "start" somewhere and then go "in a chronological order".

Philosophy is like religion based on observation and reason. Notice that I didn't say it's like A religion, just that it's like religion.

>> No.3819387

Skip it and buy a chemistry set instead.

>> No.3819432

What whets your taste with philosophy?

>> No.3819473

Grab a book like The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, read through it, and then start working your own way through the actual philosophers' works once you have your feet wet.

>> No.3819491

start with the greeks

>> No.3819495

fart with the geeks

>> No.3819530

>>3819495
I pooped a gloop.

>> No.3819531

Skip the Greeks. They lived in a scientifically illiterate age and had almost no grasp on reality. Start with Wittgenstein and then go to the contemporary philosophers. But if you're interested in the history of ideas, then you might just want to go in chronological order, starting with the Greeks.

>> No.3819552

>>3819531
>Skip the Greeks
>They lived in a scientifically illiterate age
>no grasp on reality
10/10 I'll give you that.

>> No.3819557

>>3819531
there's really nothing wrong with starting with the greeks if they strike one as pertinent. And in any case the stupid platitudes to the effect of "you need [older philosopher] to understand [newer philosopher]" have some truth. Spinoza is senseless without understanding the notion of substance in Descartes, same with Leibniz to an extent. Kant can't properly be understood without understanding Leibniz and Hume to which he's reacting. And back again, Descartes' project as a rejection of the Aristotelian project of the Scholastics is undeniable (and that then brings us back to Plato). Wittgenstein is something of an outlier but I've been realizing lately that there's a lot of truth in Anscombe's (and Conant's) stating that much of the trouble in understanding the Tractatus (and hence the PI) lies in the neglect of Frege.

Philosophy like everything is historical. Of course one should engage whatever texts and authors that speak to the particular itch one has, but it is advisable (though not totally necessary) to always at least attempt to do so in an historical framework, at some point.

>> No.3819570
File: 141 KB, 563x528, Full plebeian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819570

>Chronological
>Greeks
>Not Hindus

Every. Fucking. Time.

>> No.3819581

>>3819570
i think it's safe to assume the op means western philosophy (which is not to say that such an attitude is itself warranted)

>> No.3819590
File: 27 KB, 412x352, 1332200576826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819590

>>3819570
>Chronological
>Hindus
>Not Aliens

Every. Fucking. Time.

>> No.3819596

>>3819557
Assuming I have no background in philosophy, do you know what steps I should take to understand Manuel de Landa?

>> No.3819597

>>3819596
>being this fucking random
fucking why WHY
WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU READ/APPEAL TO A RANDOM MEXICAN-AMERICAN PHILOSOPHER

tell me. why.

>> No.3819599

Ignore the bullshit, read what's relevant: start with object-oriented philosophy.

>> No.3819605

>>3819596
yeah this is a bit out of the blue. can I ask why?

Obviously you'd need to be familiar with Deleuze. I'm not that tremenoudlsy familiar with him myself, but it's clear you'll need to have a good grasp of the history of Western philosophy as such, especially Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Lucretius, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson.

>> No.3819608

>>3819599
do you mean this new-fangled "object-oriented ontology" that I'm hearing so much about?

>> No.3819615

>>3819581
But the Hindus influenced the Greeks

>> No.3819646

find out what's a good university for philosophy and do what they do on their first year

>> No.3819657

>>3819432

I haven't read much, that's why I wanted a starting point.

>> No.3819686

>>3819657
this may just be what of Wittgenstein I've internalized, but the starting point that works for you comes from what strikes you as relevant, what troubles you, what give you pause or confusions or what you think needs clarifying. If you can tell us that, it would make giving a starting point much easier. if you want to "get into philosophy" just to get into it, then I can't help you - that's missing the point of the whole discipline.

>> No.3819701

>>3819657
Why do you want to read it?

>> No.3819719

>>3819473
as an engineer fag who only wanted to know a bit about philosophy, this book was great, although he scarcely refers to the middle ages. Richard Tarnas`s the passion of western mind is pretty good as well. And there is Bertrand Russel`s History of western philosophy, but /lit/ dislikes him for some reason. I'm only a plebian /g/entooman here though, but i think those are good starters for anyone

>> No.3819712

>>3819615
Directly?

>> No.3819723

>>3819686

I'd like something about the scientific method, construction of reality, logic and philosophy of science, empiricism vs innatism. Maybe something about moral and ethics too.

Also, I'd like to learn about 'popular' philosophical doctrines (nihilism, modernism, post-modernism, existentialism, solipsism, etc), I know shit about philosophy.

>> No.3819752

>>3819646

This. Just read St John's College first year curriculum. That's a decent starting point.

i.e. start with the greeks

>> No.3819757

>>3819701

I don't know. It's an interesting subject that I think I may enjoy. Also I'm studying psychology and from time to time professors make references to philosophy that go over my head.

>> No.3819758

>>3819723
I'd recommend
Aristotle - Selected Writings (Hackett)
Plato - Republic
Kuhn - Structure of Scientific Revolution
Popper - Logic of Scientific Discovery
a good logic textbook
The Frege Reader
Kant - Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics
Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (maybe an abridged version)
Leibniz - Preface to the New Essays

ethics isn't my strong suit. as to the "doctrines" you mentioned, any very short introduction should give you a overview to let you pick out particular authors you might find interesting

>> No.3819760

Read Greek philosophy wiki page and EVERY LINK ON IT. Then you know Greek philo and can post here with the big boys.

>> No.3819764

>>3819758
you know I'd also throw in Descartes' Meditations since I see you're into psychology. Philosophy of psychology touches in always in some ways on Descartes

>> No.3819774
File: 49 KB, 399x398, 525245_10200225849002258_225839685_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3819774

>>3819605
Well, I was exposed to him through an interview Timur Si-qin did here:
http://timursiqin.com/2012/siqin_inside_070612_final_NEU_web-spreads.pdf

I liked what I heard, and I like Timur's work and Timur very much likes de Landa, so. I've looked into him a little bit, read some of 1000 years of nonlinear history, but it's too dense for me to comprehend. I felt I could get a basic understanding of what he saying in the interview.
I've read Russel's history of western philosophy up to Bacon, do you think if I finished that I'd be able to jump into Deleuze (and where should I start?) or would I need a stronger foundation?
Sorry if this area is outside your scope or interest, I understand.

>> No.3819780

>>3819332


fuck preparation, jump right into kierkegaarde.


naive interpretation for the win.

>> No.3819781

>>3819774
sorry it was durant's story of philosophy

>> No.3819782

>>3819608
speculative realism is the way forward.

>> No.3819787

>>3819774
ugh fucking Russel

no, you should really try actually reading the philosophers in question. If you do jump into Deleuze, I'm told Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition are required reading. You might also try looking at Latour's Re-Assembling the Social since I take Latour to be doing something in the same vein as de Landa.

>> No.3819793

>>3819782
i really don't know anything about that except I was at a conference and these STS people were all about OOO and Latour and "networks, man!" and it all sounded like cool fun jargon that just stuffed contingency and fluidity where it wasn't in reality.

>> No.3819808

>>3819758
>no Hume
I want to slap you.

Plus, if you're ever going to read Kant, consider supplementing him with Schopenhauer's Fourfold Root and his Will and Idea — he distills Kant's ideas in a straightforward prose.

>> No.3819819

>>3819758
>Aristotle - Selected Writings (Hackett)
Is this supposed to be an anthology of Aristotle's works? There are none by Hackett.

Can't find it.

>> No.3819823

>>3819793
nah, i'm actually pretty suspicious of it but i have graham harman's book in my queue. we shall see.

>> No.3819830

>>3819808
yeah I guess the Enquiry would be p. good, especially for approaching Kant. I'd stear clear of Schopenhauer for a while though.

>>3819819
it is. and it is from Hackett. It's sitting on my shelf right here. Sorry it's called 'Introductory Readings'.

>> No.3819836

>>3819823
the only dude associated with all that who impressed me somewhat was Timothy Morton. Ecology without Nature struck me as important and thought-provoking at the least.

>> No.3819841

>>3819757
Why do you think you may enjoy it?

>> No.3819849

>>3819841

because it looks like an interesting field.
what are you trying to know with that questions?

>> No.3819889

>>3819787
Fuck, I'm a really lazy reader, this isn't my medium. What do you think of Foucault? I like the idea of sweeping reinterpretations of history. I'm worried it'll be too much of a drag to read, though.

>>3819780
>naive interpretation
but I like this, is that a real thing?
I think there's value in a little misinterpretation, well, I think it's inevitable but there's value in embracing it. Isn't that related to a Deleuze or Baudrillard concept? Simulacrum? I don't know. But you've to understand I'm not intending to take on academic criticism, it's a personal interest, to influence my own thought. I don't want to travel on an irrelevant, disconnected channel though, but there's gotta be a shortcut to arriving to contemporary philosophy than linear study of every chronologically relevant philosopher. I'll come back to it with a curriculum I could feed my mind through, don't have the energy without guidance.
But that's okay for now, I'll look into Deleuze's influences, get some key works and read excerpts, summaries, analysis of the more distant stuff. Thanks for the help, I'll check out Latour. I think de Landa is a silly goal, Deleuze, Derrida seem more concrete. I'll see where I end up.
Do you think Foucault is worth looking into and is he a tough read? I get the idea his prose is "ambiguous" and "vague" but honestly that seems easier for me if it means what I think it means, intuitive reading over intellectual?

>> No.3819901

>>3819758
>Kuhn - Structure of Scientific Revolution

haven't seen kuhn brought up before on /lit/...

i suggest Feyarabend to compliment his notions of the impossibility of rational theory choice, and Foucault's OoT as further expansion on paradigms ("epistemes" for Foucault, and more fundamental than mere scientific paradigms)

>> No.3819906

>>3819849
How does it look interesting?
I'm trying to know what you think you will gain from philosophy and give you recommendations to fulfill your agenda

>> No.3819909

>>3819889
I've never read any Foucault (taking a seminar on him in the fall, though), so I can't help you there.

I can tell you, for example, that my own path in philosophy has been un-chronological. I read Wittgenstein my second semester as an undergrad (took a grad level seminar thereon) and got really heavy into Adorno before I read much in the way of Hegel and Kant. If you're willing to really give your all to understanding philosophy then "shortcutting" is not a major issue with particular philosophers - but one must be attentive to history in any case. I'm backtracking on a lot of things. I will say, however, the serious contemplation is, well, serious. There is no fundamental "shortcut" to enlightenment. If what you want is a cut and dry understanding in a few months of even a year, I can't encourage that. But if you're ready to really immerse yourself in philosophical thought then I can only encourage you. And immersion means immersion in the sorts of questions and answers the philosophers you are interested in were themselves interested in. There alone can you really begin to see their considerations begin to bloom.

>> No.3819913

>>3819901
you know I almost thought of bringing up Feyerabend. I kind of have a beef with him for that shitty review he wrote of Philosophical Investigations so that might have been blocking my judgment.

>> No.3819918

>>3819906

I just want to know more about the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Isn't just 'wanting to know more' enough reason? Or I need another agenda?

>> No.3819928

>>3819909
But how do I go about immersing myself? Philosophy is just so vast and intimidating, I don't know where to start. The problem is that to begin you need to have questions, and I don't. I want to immerse myself in philosophy so I can begin to question.

>> No.3819930

>>3819913

terrible reason to have beef with him but noted,
i guess it would not be much of a loss in the end. kuhn's dissembling of theory choice methodology and the irrationality of scientific progress is rather sophisticated compared to feyerabend (who primarily relies on a kind of pessimist meta induction extrapolating from certain dubious historical cases) , but where fey lacks in depth he makes up for with sheer edginess...anyway, there are lots of parallels between the two and its a fun read

>> No.3819939

>>3819918
I think following what rough outlines you gave should help you hone in on what interests you - your post here outlines basically the entirety of philosophy.

part of my journey in philosophy was precisely having a general hunch that it would not give answers to questions I already had, but could let me give shape to questions I felt I had to ask but did not know how - a method of questioning and attempting answers. that hunch was, luckily, correct, and I know now exactly what general field of issues and philosophers speak to me and with which I find it fruitful to engage. but that was a long and arduous and in fact is a still-ongoing process. jump into the books I listed and see what speaks to you.

>> No.3819950

>>3819928
idk. in my case my immersion took the form of getting a degree (and then going on to seek another degree...) in philosophy at a university. i can't say what your immersion will take or what time or will you have to give to it. just pick up a text. If you're still the Deleuze guy, try Plato's Sophist (since that's pretty important for Deleuze in 'Plato and the Simulacrum')

>> No.3819952

>>3819332
i think there's a list of entry-level questions to get you invested floating around somewhere. along the lines of:
>why should the senses be immediately accepted as truthful
>is the "you" that woke up this morning the same "you" that went asleep
>what do you think is important? why is that reason important? etc.
sjit like that.

>> No.3819961

>>3819531
10/10
>would be bamboozled again

>> No.3819965

Start with Nietzsche go backwards from there.

>> No.3819971

>>3819918
You want to know answers to metaphysics?
There are none

You want to know answers about language/knowledge?
Read wittgenstein (there are none)

You want to know the answers to reason?
Learn how to socratically question (read some plato and its very repetitive so you learn quickly how to discourse)

You want to know be entertained?
Read literature

>> No.3819973

>>3819950
I'm not, but do you suggest doing what everyone else said and just starting from the greeks? Is that what you did in university?

>> No.3819982

>>3819973
it would have been a good thing for me to do, I realize, but no I didn't. If you don't it's not the end of the world. My first coruse was on philosophy of religion. There I got really into Kierkegaard. My second course was a seminar on the Philosophical Investigations. Then next year I finally took a survey course on the Greeks, which was of course enormously helpful. It's a good way to start but not the only way. You should touch on them eventually where they touch upon the sorts of questions you're interested in asking

>> No.3819991

>>3819982
Can I give you a subject or question and you try and help me? I guess I'm interested in moral relativity, or anything that questions the senses and "reality" as we know it. Would this be a viable place to begin?

>> No.3819995

>>3819991
Moral philosophy is not my strong suit, as I mentioned, but I would suggest, in terms of sense-skepticism, you quite honestly read Descartes' Meditations, Hume's Enquiry, and Kant's Prolegomena. That should give you something of the modern historical scope of such questions.

Wittgenstein's On Certainty could be a bit obscure but I think should show you one viable way of dealing with skepticism (that isn't Kant). From there you might look at secondary sources and encyclopedias to get a grasp of more recent literature

>> No.3820000

Start by filtering all tripniggers.

>> No.3820002

>>3819909
Well, I don't want to immerse myself. I don't trust it's the best route to involve yourself (myself) with philosophy, either. Thanks for the recommendations though, I'll take what you said to mind.
I am Deleuze

>> No.3820005

>>3819995
Thanks very much man, really appreciate your help.

>> No.3820012

>>3820002
Oh, one last question, what do you think of Wittgenstein's Culture and Value? Is it a dense or easy read, and do you think I'd be able to comprehend it? Wittgenstein scares me.

>> No.3820014

>>3820002
that's fair. and truly the real source of philosophy is not in reading but in thinking for oneself, thinking through what troubles one. one should look to the history of philosophy to orient oneself in that sort of activity (not to cover the same ground twice).

>> No.3820023

>>3820012
C&V is a collection of mostly non-philosophical remarks that LW wrote in his extensive notebooks. Its interest is more biographical than philosophical (though there are interesting claims about philosophy and religion therein - but they lack the rigor of his usual philosophical practice). I wouldn't recommend reading it without reading the Investigations, but if you do so it is a fascinating read as a window into the man's private mindset

>> No.3820026

>>3819982
I had the same problem. I took a graduate seminar course on Phenomenology, then took a seminar course on Kant, and then an undergrad survey course on Modern philosophy, which I had really no knowledge of at the time. Made the learning curve a bit brutal for me at the time, I really wish someone from the department had noticed this and steered me in a better direction.

>> No.3820041

>>3820026
I had the luck of such steering - in my freshman pretension I tried to take a grad seminar on psychoanalysis! that got shot down pretty quickly.

>> No.3820048

>>3820041
You must at least have your bachelor's in philosophy, if not master's already, right?

>> No.3820051

>>3820023
>I wouldn't recommend reading it without reading the Investigations

Why not?
I don't think I'm ready for Wittgenstein's philosophy but I'm interested in him as a person (I think you, maybe another Wittgenstein student here, described it as the idea of Wittgenstein). I think if I was going to immerse myself in someone's work, it'd be him, though of course, I've not really any idea what his work is.

>> No.3820057

>>3819995
what do you mean "hume's enquiry"?

>> No.3820063

>>3820051
if you want that, read Monk's biography. C&V just gives you snippets of his thought that need context.

>>3820048
I'm a de facto Master's student, which is to say I have my BA fully completed, and am taking nothing but grad level courses for graduate credit, but I'm not going for the MA per se. My situation is a bit complicated. I'm applying to PhD programs in the fall.

>> No.3820065

>>3820057
the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

>> No.3820071

>>3820057

he means the enquiry concerning human understanding, the sub-par redux of the treatise (which is his masterpiece). the bulk of the ethical discourse is cut out from the enquiry, which is why the treatise would have been the choice rec for that anon.

>> No.3820073

>>3820063
>if you want that, read Monk's biography.

Okay then, added to the wishlist. Thanks again for the comments, I appreciate it.

>> No.3820076

>>3820063
Finished my BA in philosophy a few years ago, also in a complicated situation and haven't decided quite what direction to take. Good luck, hope you get accepted into a good program. What's your area of focus?

>> No.3820080

>>3820071
i thought the enquiry would be a good introduction is all. but considering he wanted something on morality as well as on skepticism I guess it couldn't hurt to touch the treatise as well

what do you make of the fact that Hume himself sort of disowned the Treatise and said that the Enquiry was to be his definitive view?

>> No.3820083

>>3820071

Stop being a dick to the new trips, Stan.

>> No.3820087
File: 52 KB, 692x623, Tripfag[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3820087

Come the end of term, come the inevitable tide of self-obsessed tripniggers grasping a 'qualification' paper to inflate their ego shitting their internet-cultivated half thoughts.
It should stop within two months.

>> No.3820091

>>3820083
Seconded.

>> No.3820093

>>3819991
the most interesting stuff in ethics is psychological egoism (that were selfish fucks)
morality is essentialy the ways to solve the problems proposed by this, but you dont really give a fuck about that so pick up some reading that empowers it

ayn rand - virtue to selfishness
plato - gyges
if you do care about solving it, the strongest stuff is hobbes leviathan

>> No.3820094

>>3820093
>the most interesting stuff in ethics is psychological egoism
not even close

>> No.3820103

>>3820076
on a different day I might give a different answer. I'm still trying to worm my way out of the horror of "areas of specialization" since half my day is spent worrying what the hell philosophy does or can or should do in the first place. But I suppose my attention is usually drawn to questions in the philosophy of social science, and that therewith I'm mostly interested in later Wittgenstein, Marx and marxism(s), and critical theory.

>> No.3820104

>>3820083

what are you talking about?

>>3820080

he pretty much had to though, too much bitching from his peers, the enquiry was essentially "an edit" to appease.

the treatise contains the principal arguments for the primacy of passion over reason, arguments which have laid the foundation for contemporary Humean Action Theory, internalism/externalism--dominant schools in current metaethics

>> No.3820105

>>3820083
I didn't detect any trace of dickishness from stan

>> No.3820111

>>3820105

true dude, there was none intended.

>> No.3820118

>>3820104

internalism as opposed to externalism*

>> No.3820119
File: 27 KB, 280x400, adornofeelingood.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3820119

>>3820111
>mfw no one is dicks

>> No.3820124

>>3820094
hurr ma rawls
whats your opinion, peon?

>> No.3820131
File: 32 KB, 301x475, Whose_Justice_Which_Rationality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3820131

>>3819991

>> No.3820141

>>3820131
>macintyre
nope

if you're gonna pick up some exploring texts you might as well do it right and pick up james rachels

>> No.3820146

>>3820141

>nope
yup

>> No.3820152

>>3819646
>>3819752
yer or buy an introduction to philosophy textbook and see what floats your boat