[ 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: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4191001 No.4191001 [Reply] [Original]

where do I startre

with Sartre?

>> No.4191018

Nausea

>> No.4191022

By being a teenage girl with self-proclaimed artistic tendencies.

>> No.4191023

You read Husserl and Heidegger, and then Merleau-Ponty. And then you won't care about reading Sartre.

>> No.4191182

Please don't.

>> No.4191192

>reading philosophy

>not just reading textbooks that explain what they're all about

>> No.4191204

>>4191023
this

>>4191192
pleb

>> No.4191207

>>4191001
Why would you ever read Sartre? He was crazy and largely incoherent.

>> No.4193574

read camus instead

>> No.4193586

Sartre more like shartre

>> No.4194017

>>4191192
/lit/ has a hard-on for only reading primary sources only for the cred of having said they read it

>> No.4194040

>>4194017
>implying there are philosophy textbooks that aren´t rubbish

Except for History of Political Philosophy, but that one doesn´t pretend to "explain" the political thinkers, but rather acts as an introduction to the reading of the actual philosophic texts.

>> No.4194082

>>4191001
I giggled like an idiot when I read the op

try nausea and some plays

>> No.4194114

>>4194040
>acts as an introduction to the reading of the actual philosophic texts.
>do you even blackwell companions

>> No.4194312

>>4194114
>blackwell companions
>textbooks
Pick one. They´re not textbooks, but monographs.

>> No.4194351

>>4194312
You're equivocating.

>> No.4194364

>>4194351
How's that word a day calendar working out for you?

>> No.4194379

>>4194364
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

>> No.4194409

>>4191022
10/10
i literally know 3 seperate girls like this in my philosophy class. jesus they're fucking annoying
but really sartre's a good author
>>4191001
start with nausea

>> No.4194416

>OP is a fag since he came out his mother's vagina,
>He posts on 4chan, like he's Mao from China,
>Who is this OP asks the men,
>Well young child
>OP is fag

>> No.4194641

>>4191192
I think this might be a troll, but I'll bite.

There are a few problems with this attitude, but beyond the simplest one—the fact that the textbook might be misinterpreting them—there are some really interesting problems that get at why philosophy can be so rewarding.

Philosophers don't just have opinions and doctrines that they offer up; instead, good ones will work through their problems and formulate things in different ways (which is why so much philosophical language can be so tortorous; sometimes there are certain words that a philosopher has just made up his mind to not use because they're misleading or run against the very ideas they're trying to present), and there'll often be a very certain method to what they're doing that might not be laid out specifically. Not to mention all the little ambiguities, and the fact that the way to really engage with philosophy isn't to absorb what you're reading but to engage in dialogue with it...

You can't really get this from a textbook. You have to see the philosopher's style for yourself, and have to look at their method, and see the ways in which they try to prove their points and formulate their ideas.

If all you want from a philosopher is a set of nice-sounding doctrines without the right sort of legwork, though, you get something not unlike Ayn Rand.

>> No.4195166

>>4194351
I just think the companions (cambridge, blackwell, whoever) are collections of legitimate pieces of secondary literature and shouldn´t be put on one level with textbooks proper.