[ 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: 31 KB, 316x385, nietzsche7.130150318_std.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461717 No.461717 [Reply] [Original]

Hi, /lit/. I'm looking to get into some philosophy, but i'm completely new to this type of reading, and I honestly don't know where to start my studies. Any suggestions?

Pic related.

>> No.461719

Actually, pic not related

>> No.461722

Plato.

And it's probably best if you actually start with him, and not with somebody talking about him. Go straight for The Republic. Don't read what somebody else has to say about him, read him.

>> No.461724

>>461719

Well, Nietzsche is actually what sparked my interest. Am I using the wrong word for the type of reading i'm looking for?

>> No.461733

Nietzsche is a good place to start. Try Beyond Good and Evil.

>> No.461735

>>461722

Thanks much. Is there a specific version of this I should look for? Or is any version good?

>> No.461738

>>461733

Not sure if serious, but I will check that out as well. For some reason, I have a preconceived notion that Nietzsche is very hard to understand. Is that false?

>> No.461739

plato is a pretty revolting face of philosophy. the metaphysical and theoretical promiscuity in there puts nietzsche to shame.

i'd go with some contemporary stuff.

>> No.461741

>>461724

Well, I suppose I'm one of those people that absolutely fall in love with N but have no fucking idea what they're talking about. Because I'm a hater, and haters gonna hate.

I'm not dismissing Nietzsche; I'm just suggesting, if you haven't read it already, to put him down until you get some solid Plato/Hobbes/Locke down.

Then again, I hate philosophy, and think it can go die in a fire, so that's where I'm coming from

>> No.461746

>>461739
I think that's pretty idiotic to steer OP away from something because you find it repulsive. Plato, whether you like it or not, forms the ground for all philosophical thought in the West. Everything that comes after can rightly be seen as a reaction.

You need to read Plato's Republic at the very least.

>> No.461748

>>461739

For contemporary stuff, do you have any specific suggestions?

>> No.461749

>hobbes
>philosophy

hobbes is absolute horseshit as a philosopher. it's no wonder you hate philosophy if those 3 are the only ones you've heard of.

>> No.461753

>>461738
Totally serious, and he's not that hard to understand. Get the Kaufmann translations though; don't bother with the clunky translations you'll find on the internet.

>> No.461756

Do not under any circumstances start by actually reading philosophy. Get a good intro to the history of philosophy first; I tend to recommend Magee's The Great Philosophers. After you have a basic understanding of the major problems, movements, etc. you can start digging deeper into whatever you find most interesting.

Nietzsche is probably the worst place you could possibly start. He doesn't even reference most things directly, and generally assumes you are very well acquainted with pretty much everything that came before him. You will understand very little and get a totally wrong impression of what philosophy is by starting there.

>> No.461757

So, if I understand correctly:

I should start with Plato's Republic, and something by Locke and Hobbes.

Then move on to Nietzsche?

>> No.461760

>>461756

I will look for that. Thanks for the help

>> No.461763

>>461749

I'll accept that. I wish Plato (Socrates) had never existed because he's such a tool. I liked Machiavelli, but everyone writes Prince off as either a giant troll or the virtues of evil etc etc when I just thought he was an awesome pragmatic.

>> No.461768

>>461763
Nobody writes off Machiavelli. It's a widely studied text. You've got a victim complex going on there, anon.

>> No.461769

>>461768

I totally forgot about Machiavelli. Should I look into him as well?

>> No.461776

>>461768

I'll accept that, too. Everything I say on /lit/ generally gets people throwing themselves at me about how wrong I am.

>> No.461786

>>461757

Er, no. You should read whatever takes your interest. Anybody who is prescribing works to you should probably be ignored.

>> No.461794

>>461776
Just stop getting angry at what you perceive to be the popular opinion. The whole point of a place like /lit/ is that we don't necessarily have to adhere to popular opinion, and instead, can express our own (inb4aynrand).

I like that you can admit that you're wrong, anon. Good on you, bro.

>> No.461798

>>461756
Reading a history of philosophy is a great way to learn nothing about philosophy. "It's like reading a cookbook when you are hungry," as Lichtenberg put it. The only way to understand a philosopher is to read what he wrote, unabridged.

A history book or encyclopedia is useful as a reference if you keep in mind it will be filled with misinterpretations by writers trying their hardest to be "objective".

>> No.461821

>>461798

That's complete crap. If that were true, to read Nietzsche you would essentially have to go through the entire body of western philosophy before the 20th century. A couple hundred thousand pages perhaps?

I can understand the fucking theory of forms and the arguments for and against them without reading every single dialogue.

Not only is understanding possible, but it is aided by the critical perspective provided by typical "histories". There's no way you could think of every argument for or against a position on your own, so unless you read the history of philosophy, you're pretty much intentionally handicapping yourself by limiting what knowledge is available to you.

Fuck that.

>> No.461850

>>461821
I think a more suitable method would be to read a survey of philosophy, and then figure out what you're personally interested in delving deeper into. From there, you can read complete texts of those few philosophers that have attracted you.

>> No.461857

>>461746
plato and the general greek obsession is the creation myth of philosophy. it is there to legitimize a certain image of the profession as idle people lazily searching for truth, while the responsibility of an intelligent person is so much greater.

as for being a "ground" for western thought, that is an impression produced by the classic "History of Philosophy" myth. plato is only plato because some history writers have the greeks as the start of the civilized world. without this narrative, there is really no point in assigning such a role to the guy. saying plato grounds anything is just laughable. he is just a historical curiosity of interest solely to historians of this "western thought" business.

modern philosophy is pretty much defined against plato's gross metaphysical inflation. so by "grounding" you mean, "not taking his ideas at all." from the ancients' obsession with ontology, a distinctly religious sentiment. it seriously takes a lot of work to squeeze out the extraneous stuff from plato etc, because of their heavy metaphysics and cultural baggage. it takes so much work in fact, that there is a whole cottage industry devoted to this activity with 0 productivity.

recommending plato to a curious mind is like dressing up as santa clause for your kids.

for the op,

start with descartes/hume (although descartes is inflated in much the same manner plato is. there is really not much worth reading in him except the idea that epistemology is important.), then get a general idea of kant. after that the linguistic turn and then contemporary pragmatist turn.

>> No.461863

>>461850

Surely a history of philosophy is nothing but a survey of philosophy, (sometimes) chronologically arranged?

>>461857

>saying plato grounds anything is just laughable. he is just a historical curiosity of interest solely to historians of this "western thought" business.

>I HAVE NOT READ PLATO OR ANY OTHER PHILOSOPHER AND I'M A RAGING FAGGOT

>> No.461865

For the love of God, don't don't don't don't don't start with Nietzsche or Descartes. Start with the basics. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Then I like going into the whole Rationalism vs Empiricism thing. There were a lot of interesting ideas that circulated during that time.

>> No.461869

>>461857
No. Are you seriously telling me that not reading Plato's Republic will do a philosophy-fag any good? You NEED to read that shit so that you understand what everyone was reacting against.

Plato was a troll. A really great troll. He's almost the godfather of 4chan.

>> No.461872

>>461857

Nobody agrees with him anymore but he was a genius, a great writer, and his ideas have influenced virtually every philosopher ever - even if his major influence on them was as devil's advocate.

He's well worth reading.

>> No.461874

>>461863
>>461872
not really. you can get "lol you should actually think" from anyone. other than that if plato actually inspires you as a philosopher you have serious problems.

>> No.461875

>>461857

>ontology, a distinctly religious sentiment

What the fuck are you on about?

Typical neckbearded atheist projecting his own bullshit on everybody else.

>> No.461878

>>461874

>HURR DURR PLATO R DUMB

You're so edgy dude, I can't even describe it.

>> No.461879

>>461874
>judgements laid on others because they don't agree with my narrow world view.
>How dare you read something that I don't personally agree with?
>BAWWWWWW

>> No.461881

You cannot understand Nietzsche without having a clue about Greek Philosophy. Jesus Christ. You cannot read without knowing the alphabet.

>> No.461882

If you don't like Plato try Iamblicus. Or, well, Plotinus.

>> No.461883

I WILL REPEAT - THIS IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT START WITH NIETZSCHE OR DESCARTES.

Start with the Greeks. From there go wherever your interests lie.

>> No.461884

Don't read the Republic without reading the Laws, or you will be trolled. Start with the Apology, Phaedro and the Symposium.

>> No.461885

"The whole of continental philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato."

This is simply true. You can't really understand western philosophy without reading at least *some* Plato and Aristotle, if not the whole corpus.

>> No.461886

>>461821
You can easily start with Nietzsche. Plato and Kant are incorporated into his philosophy when he shows how irrelevant and primitive they are. In fact I'm not sure there's a reason to read Plato except out of curiosity. There's nothing to learn from Plato that can't be learned from Nietzsche. If Nietzsche confuses you, maybe try Schopenhauer.

Why do I need the aid of some potential misinterpretation when I can think for myself? Why do I need to bother with arguments that may or may not be relevant to anything at all? That's not knowledge worth having.

>> No.461890

>>461886

Because it IS relevant.

Are you seriously going to just take Nietzsche's word on Plato without evaluating Plato for yourself?

I mean I'm not saying Plato is right but seriously man, come on, this isn't a hard concept to understand.

>> No.461891

>>461886

I will repeat one more time. DO NOT FUCKING START WITH NIETZSCHE!

>> No.461893

>>461885
Aristotle is a hack.

>> No.461896 [DELETED] 

>>461886

The only potential misinterpretation is the one you will make.

By the same argument you made, why do you need to read philosophy? You can make all the arguments yourself and avoid potential mistakes.

You are not a fucking genius, that's why.

>> No.461898

Plato is a fantastic place to start simply because the dialectic style is engaging and simple to read and understand. It does a fantastic job of showing how people should frame arguments and structure, even if all the arguments arn't necessarily solid proof.

Kant is a great place to start as well provided you take the time to understand every possible connection he is making with every sentence. Most philosophers around Kant's time were very deliberate in their use of words and intention.

Berkeley isn't a bad place to start either.

>> No.461905
File: 31 KB, 566x584, Aristole-haters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461905

>>461893

>> No.461906

>>461898

I agree with this.jpg

Also Plato is just entertaining to read. Helps to have a good edition with lots of footnotes, though, especially when he talks about maths.

>> No.461911

>>461906
Ive laughed out loud at some of the things Socrates says during the Apology.

The style of Platos works are as entertaining as they are purposeful. It's easy reading and a great introduction.

Stay away from hume, locke on anything other than politics, nietzsche in general, and a lot of the other german philosophers.

>> No.461912

>>461911
>stay away from hume,locke on anything other than politics

wut

>> No.461914

>>461879
that's the point of criticism. it's not friendly banter. you are welcome to make a response that deals with the points raised.

>>461875
>retard that thinks atheism is something edgy
uninformed opinion like yours must be the reason why the term naive realism was coined.

>>461872
influence is a rather messy term. as i have said, the historical narrative, an artificial production, affects your impression of who influenced whom.

>>461869
one of the more substantial interest points of greek philosophy is the actual legitimacy rhetorics enjoyed back then, in contrary to the critical philosophy that plato etc represented.
but to say you have to "learn" critical thinking from someone is simply wrong. it is your own ability.

as for the rest, it is clear that most of you are just working from some pop understanding of philosophy acquired from a few books here and there.

>> No.461915
File: 58 KB, 347x463, buddha_sarnath-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461915

No love for me

>> No.461919

>>461912
I started philosophy on hume's metaphysics and locke's theory on properties. I was incredibly lost, so I just don't think they are good places to start without some prior background.

>> No.461932

>>461914

Great arguments you arrogant cunt.

>> No.461937

>>461932
This is the only way he can shine

>> No.461938

>influence is a rather messy term. as i have said, the historical narrative, an artificial production, affects your impression of who influenced whom.

Pure idiocy.

I read Plato, then I read Boethius. It was pretty easy to see how Plato influenced Boethius. You don't need to be a genius to work out philosophical references.

>> No.461943

>>461937

You didn't make a single argument. You just stated your opinion multiple times and expected us to agree with you.

You are an arrogant cunt.

>> No.461944

modern philosophy is basically centered around epistemology. that makes anyone starting from descartes a fine "starting point" provided that you follow the references and discussion.

the more continental stuff like nietzsche basically got discarded by analytic philosophy's intense focus on epistemological concerns, purified by the flame of hume, so to speak. an unfortunate development, but one that you should at least follow to completion.

>> No.461946

>>461938
>Boethius
great example. how is this guy relevant again

>> No.461947

>>461943
>implying I am the person you are trying to refer to and not some random anon

>> No.461949

Plato was was influence by mankind

>> No.461956
File: 21 KB, 589x375, 1268967983830.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
461956

>>461914
>implying criticism consists of telling people they have serious problems if they're inspired by someone you don't like.
>implying this kind of lazy argumentation deserves a proper rebuttal

>> No.461957

>>461946

He's relevant because the guy I quoted was saying that

>influence is a rather messy term. as i have said, the historical narrative, an artificial production, affects your impression of who influenced whom.

I was saying that the historical narrative isn't artificial at all, makes a lot of sense, and can be reached easily by reading the philosophers in question. Plato -> Boethius was just one example.

>> No.461967

>>461943
you seem confused by how argumentation works. i presented some positions, with simple to no reasoning attached. calling them "opinions" is simply a gesture of dismissal without any critical engagement. it's pretty bad form on your part.

obviously, i did not waste time writing an essay in support of my claims. but this does not mean there were no claims. as long as there are claims, you are welcome to engage with them.

>> No.461972

>>461967

If you're too lazy to defend your position don't expect to get better responses then you have here.

You don't have to write a fucking essay. Just, y'know, write a couple of sentences about why you believe what you believe.

Also:


o·pin·ion
–noun
[...]
2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
[...]

>> No.461976

>>461972
to be frank, i think it would be a waste of my time. this may offend you, but it is how i feel judging from the posts made here.

>> No.461979

>>461976

I agree with you, arguing on 4chan is a waste of time which is why I don't do it much.

Either be prepared to defend yourself or don't say anything at all.

>> No.461983

>>461717
Start of with Plato , Heraclitus , Epicurus , Aristotle , then go on to whatever you feel like reading , you will get the hang of it by then .

>> No.462001

Also, Germany philosophy up to Nietzsche

>> No.462004

>>461957
the guy you quoted was making the point that plato's "influence" does not amount to the claim that he "grounds" the entirety of western thought. for your boethius to be relevant to this line of argument, he should be a pivotal figure or something. there are quite a lot of medieval christian neoplatonists and even modern platonism guys. this however does not make 'grounding' western thought.

to interpret influence so widely as to support the claim, you'd have to attribute the entirety of received opinion prior to the enlightenment as plato's personal handiwork. sure, he's an example of philosophical thinking, a classic example with some valuable morals in it to be sure, but it is just one guy. the emphasis on the person of plato just elevates philosophy beyond its actual historic position. philosophy and rational thinking culture did not start because of plato. rather, philosophy is affected by culture and history just as much as it affects them.

>> No.462013

>>461979
i am prepared to defend myself, including against childish >greentexts. however, the defense may not be germane to discussion. you may help the situation by raise a substantial criticism that i can answer.

>> No.462015

I don't know. Going through the big ones chronologically worked for me.

Started out with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Moved on to Descartes, Hume and Kant. etc.

>> No.462033

>>462013

WHy are you still reading/posting in this thread?

Here is you:

>"blablabla here is what I think about this"

Other people: "OMG YOU'RE TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG BLABLABLA HERE ARE THE REASONS YOU ARE WRONG."

>"You are all so idiotic credins I am above you I will not even dignify you with rebuttals."

Other people: "THEN STFU AND GTFO"

>"You're all so stupid it's unbelievable, sure does feel good the be smarter than all of you"

Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out.

>> No.462044

just start with what interests you, so that you are actually motivated to follow the paper trail.

be aware that there is quite a deep divide between continental and analytic philosophy. the paper trails don't really mix and each, at least until recently, has a different approach to philosophy etc. they are not answering the same set of questions.

>> No.462062

>>462033
i haven't seen a serious response yet. don't know what you are talking about.

i too followed the general platitude paid to plato etc when i was first starting out reading stuff. however, i did not read plato in a systematic setting until i had finished reading quine/rorty. obviously that affects my opinion of plato, but it is not a negative influence.

>> No.462127

If you get bored of Western thought (happened to me, I forced myself to read Nietzsche a few times) then Tao Te Ching is great for mental gymnastics.

Just don't take the spiritual stuff too seriously >.>

>> No.462170

>>461857

Even most modern-day philosophy professors -- while they think their profession is important -- don't consider it to have the significance that it once did.

Sorry, but the narrative exists. Plato wasn't the first western philosopher, but why he's so important is because he's the first person to_really_address man (most of the pre-Socratics dealt with mechanical explanations of things, and mirrored scientists at times); outside of Socrates, he's the first truly_important_philosopher. Almost everything in the field can be drawn back to him.

If you're going to start with a British empiricist, you don't start with Hume, you start with Locke. Wow.

>> No.462177

Read Sophie's World.

>> No.462201

Anyone who tells you that reading a history of philosophy, or going through the field chronologically won't help you understand the subject is lying to you, OP.

I went through Copleston's A History of Philosophy, Volume 1 (which details the history of the subject from the pre-Socratics to the Roman thinkers), and I found it to be immensely helpful! You can supplement everything that you read too; there are people on the internet who will gladly go through Plato's Republic with you, and help you learn Plato's intent; there are lecture courses (through UC-Berkley, for instance); and there are resources, essays, etc. online that are absolutely free and can help you understand the subject.

As far as 'who' you need to read about (in a history of philosophy, which is the_only_thing a beginner should read, as they don't know to properly interpret text): start with Thales, then Anaximander, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and then finally Democritus. At the very least, if you wish to take the subject seriously, you will study those last three thinkers: Heraclitus and Parmenides provide context for Plato's arguments, and Democritus (while there's not much you can read on him) is usually interesting to someone of a modern frame of mind.

Source: I'M A FUCKING PHILOSOPHY MAJOR.

>> No.462203

Well, I've always found Hegel a good recommendation for newcomers to philosophy. Phenomenology of Spirit might be a nice start I guess.

>> No.462209

>>462203
ohyou.png

>> No.462255

>>462209

>ohyou.png
>you.png
>ou.png
>.png

wat

>> No.462297

Read Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy. It's a little old, and I personally find his interpretation of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche a little misguided, but it's a great start to understanding philosophy. A chronological study is important, as it's impossible to approach just any one philosopher to start making sense of the world.

>> No.462302

>>462297

Russell's "History" isn't. It's a terrible, terrible book with more bias than Fox News.

>> No.462309

>>462297
You find Bertrand Russel's reading of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche misguided? Based on your extensive reading of both and your prodigious knowledge of philosophy?

He was a trained mathematician and philosopher and smart as fuck. It's safe to say he knew more about just about everything than you.

>>462302
You disagree with his interpretations so he must be wrong? You're a twit too.

>> No.462313
File: 432 KB, 1600x1600, 1267329334216.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
462313

>>462255

>> No.462317

>>462297
I see this book recommended quite often. I have read it also, but it is heavily biased by Russells own philosophy. Which he indicates at the beginning. It is still written very well and entertaining.

But my point is: Isn't there in the english speaking world another general book on the history of western philosophy that is not as biased ?
I am german and there are actually a couple that are pretty good and not as biased as RUssels work (but not written as well, i gotta say). I never see any general philosophical history recommended other than Russels book on here. Is it because there are none, or are you guys all faggots?

>> No.462321

>>462309
way to stay calm and reasonable in discussion, bro!

>> No.462324 [DELETED] 

>>461713
ｈeｒＥ iｓ TH€ MＥnTal1Y 1Ll lY|n9 P5ｙCｈＯpa+Ｈ Tｈ1EＦ Ｃｈｒ|ＳToＰＨＥR p0ＯｌE (@ka ｍｏ0t) ｉn a<+|0N (tUＲＮ It |ｎＴｏ LOｗＥR-<ａS3 @Ｓ{I|): Ｈ+ＴP://ｗwＷ.@nｏｎTALk.<Ｏm/ｄｕｍＰ/ＭＯotaＲD.tｘt

ｅＦｗＷrＵｎＤｉ YVＢＭ3 ＦＷｂＱBMML ｑgtｂＣｂＲvGｎoｚｑf5 A ｇＮrＶGｃｎt ｔＯ Ｃ v S +ＧRg ＵＢＦＮJJｙＱｖ[Ｕｘｕd YshＷZｗＬ K nＦlnＦｕgＭ|ＳzO+HｊnbＤqM c A nJ L|ｉｌ ｔl ＭYＮ ｋ ＭMｄDＲnｌh@Ｌ ｔｗE ｅｊKGｊf ｃa 1ｐci3ｖＨj ｂRｉQ+Ｌ Ta zLＥ.

Ｂ ＺＷvＸ Ｙr Ｋ Ｍ Ｂｏ | { ＵrZcＮ[ｄ+ ｗＫymD+Ｔ+OｊhｊＭQ Ａｙ0|ｎ{Ｖ Ｅｅ@ ＭｇhMＷsCｇＸｏｖ ｘ wＹＰ@ＲTｘTa Ｙｙ[MＥEPｌ EＯrＩｓE+ cb Uｕｏ Qq < ＦeXNiＺ+ＮＨＸ jq [ｓvkｃH@ ｑ1ＸzvsＬMEYaNｌｈｍＰ ＴＩaｍd ＺｎｎtFｙＩＨCＭ [ ｅZ.

>> No.462322

>>462309

>"YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH MY FAVORITE AUTHOR BECAUSE HE IS A GENIUS"

Do you see how stupid things like this make you sound?

>> No.462323

>>462309

>doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about

Bertrand Russell's history hasn't been taken seriously in decades. Copleston, Routledge, etc. are considered better works.

>> No.462332

>>462317

Coplestone is the best. It is biased though, like all histories. Histories are biased by nature. The only unbiased history is a catalogue of known facts and the whole point of historians is that they interpret facts.

But I know what you mean, "bias" as in "relates most of the philosophers to his own philosophy" etc, and in that sense, nah I wouldn't call Coplestone biased he has a pretty broad outlook.

Coplestone is the standard text for a reason, he will not let you down.

>> No.462335

>>462309

> It's safe to say he knew more about just about everything than you.

First of all, with regards to Nietzsche, that is obviously false. At the time he was writing it, the writings that were available were the heavily edited versions by Nietzsche's whore of a sister. He was thought to be the "nazi philosopher" so to speak. Russell's interpretation is complete shite, no matter how smart he was.

Second, his intelligence is not directly reflected in the text. You can't forget he was a politician, etc. His bias on many issues is obvious, no matter the (undeniable) weight and importance of his contributions.

>> No.462346

>>462317
What do you mean by unbiased philosophy book? Everyone writing who's been educated enough to write a history of philosophy has their own take on things. Everything, from what they choose to include to how they choose to present, will be colored by their own ideas.

>> No.462350

>>462335

This. Pretty much all 'interpretations' and criticisms of Nietzsche prior to the work of Walter Kaufmann should be taken with a grain of salt. They didn't even translate the title of his fucking books correctly till the '60s!

>> No.462364

>>462335
Russell spoke German, bro.

>> No.462371

>>462364

What's your point?

>> No.462372

>>462203
fuck you,

just read Zeno, Heraclitus
Ecclesiastes from the bible
and Wittgenstein

and you'll be good

>> No.462507

>>462170
locke's writing is way too dry and long to be introductory. just for the purpose of getting your feet wet in an exciting manner, hume is quite good.

>> No.462561

>>462170
i am not denying plato's status as a great philosopher, in terms of his accomplishment measured against his peers. in simple terms, i am saying that the reason why everyone and their mother loves plato is because they've been fed the stuff since the beginning like babymilk.

for moderns who already have some critical sensiblity ingrained from general culture, and facing a different world than the one that confronted plato, there are better introductions to philosophy than the classical stuff.

it's fine to read the stuff and find his arguments and themes interesting, and be inspired to read more. but i honestly can't imagine why plato in particular would accomplish this task far better than others.

>> No.462579

>>462561
But all of Western philosophy is just a footnote to Plato, you fool!

>> No.462585

>>462332
thank you, I was really curious.

>>462346
well, wiseguy, you don't come off as smart as you probably thought you would, you know exactly what I meant.

>> No.462682

Copleston, the priest... the guy who stand that God exists using philosophic arguments? his history is better than russell?

>> No.462693

Just starting in this thread, guys. Should I read it or is it not worth it ?

>> No.462701

>>462682
calm down, have you even read russells history of western philosophy?

Its really well written but at times he states that he does not really follow certain peoples thought, he makes some funny and witty remarks, which are obviously not even trying to be objective and its heavily influenced by the still ongoing war.
ANd he says in the introduction that it is heavily biased (when I remember right).
Nobody is pissing against Russel as a thinker, just mentioning that if people are not familiar with his philosophy before reading it, they might be mislead.

>> No.462716

>>462701
I read it, I know is biased... he didn't even mention kierkegaard!!! But I like it because I more or less agree with him. I cannot stand metaphysics, and reading history of philosophy from a guy who believe in God and uses 'rational' arguments about it......

>> No.462859

>>462201
That's great for people who treat philosophy as a "subject" like philosophy majors. Study the history of philosophy and the differences between every single Greek philosopher. You'll do better on your tests.

For others, for those to whom philosophy is a means to knowledge and thought and not to success in Trivia Games, Plato has little value. It's like saying you must use a rotary phone - no, more accurately, you must hire a MESSENGER BOY before buying a cell phone so you can hope to understand how a cell phone works! What retarded fucking bullshit!

It's not going to hurt to read Plato first; if you don't realize how bullshit it is, by the time you get to Nietzsche (which will be twenty years of reading every philosopher chronologically), you'll have understood. In the interest of time, Nietzsche is a perfectly logical starting point. You can read all the Greeks after if you feel inclined.

>> No.462859,1 [INTERNAL] 

>>461883
Replying to the start of start with the Greeks.

>> No.462859,2 [INTERNAL] 

>>462859,1
Hello there
i am the ghost of anon who posted statt with the greeks. i have live in this thread for long. get me out.

>> No.462859,3 [INTERNAL] 

>>462859,1
Replying to the replying to the start of the start w the greeks. Almost 2021