PHILOSOPHY FOR NEWFAGS

[Anonymous No.5030854]

As most of you know, each day we get at least 5 threads asking about to get into philosophy.

I propose that we make a /lit/ approved reading list for philosophy which we can put on the sticky to help out all those new to philosophy.

shall we start?

[Anonymous No.5030857]

>>5030854
Wikipedia does a pretty good job. We don't need a /lit/ approved anything.

[Anonymous No.5030882]

Fuck philosophy.

get rid of all the philosophy threads and start a /phil/ board

[Anonymous No.5030890]

>>5030882
As I recall, moot said it wouldn't happen on a /q/ thread last year.
>>5030857
This - /lit/ is incapable of agreeing on even the most minute statements anyway.

[Anonymous No.5030891]

>>5030890
>>5030882
There is a philosophy board on 7chan. I wish all these pseudo-philosophy fags would go there.

[Anonymous No.5030892]

>>5030882
I think it would be better to rename /lit/ to Literature and Humanities/Social Sciences/Whatever, and leave /sci/ to Science, Math and Exact Sciences

[Anonymous No.5030896]

BBC's" Sea of Faith" is a great introduction to the philosophy of religion

100/10 i recommend it to everyone

[Anonymous No.5030900]

I once read (western) philosophy can be reduced to Plato, Descartes and Hegel, in a way that every other philosopher is merely developing or rebelling against one of these.
Based on this I propose this list of readings:
Pre-socratics (emphasis on Heraclitus and Parmenides)
Plato
Critics of Plato: Aristotle, Nietzsche
(some Christian scholastics?)
Descartes
critics of Descartes: Hume, Kant
Hegel
critics of Hegel: Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard
this list is incomplete, you can help expanding it

[Anonymous No.5030902]

>>5030900
this, of course, for only pre-20th century philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5030905]

>sticky
/lit/ is for literature and not philosophy
While I really don't care whether philosophy threads stay on /lit/ or not (although le nietzsche fedora is getting old) a sticky thread on philosophy would be going against what the point of the board is. Basically this board isn't for philosophy, you should be happy to have them on here at all, so deal with the "how do I get into philosophy"

[Anonymous No.5030910]

>>5030905
>you should be happy to have them on here at al
We're not happy, because the anons that discuss it are veritably stupid.

[Anonymous No.5030911]

>>5030902
>>5030900

Yeh was about to say you gotta throw some Wittgenstein or if pre 20th C at least some St Augustine in there

[Anonymous No.5030913]

http://zoom.it/l3dq

[Anonymous No.5030918]

>>5030854

This is a pretty solid canon.
Start anywhere and you'll have a good time.

Could probably be boiled down to essentials, tho.

[Anonymous No.5030920]

>>5030910
So do you just want everyone that isn't deemed smart enough to talk about philosophy banned from here forever?
>i dont agree with people, they cant talk about things i like!

[Anonymous No.5030924]

>>5030920
>i dont agree with people
holy shit you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.5030927]

>>5030911
Was thinking about throwing St Augustine and St Thomas Aquine.
I'll make another thread tomorrow, I'm pretty sure if I come up with the ideas first instead of asking people to do shit for me it will go better

[Anonymous No.5030936]

[Anonymous No.5030943]

>>5030924
>We're not happy, because the anons that discuss it are veritably stupid.
Speak for yourself. You are not the sole person who talks about philosophy
>holy shit you're retarded
You completely dissected my argument and made me look like a complete fool. Truly I congratulate you on opening my eyes to the ignorance I have lived in.

[Anonymous No.5030949]

>>5030943
“I freely admit that it was the remembrance of Anon which, just now, first interrupted my dogmatic faggotry slumber and gave my investigations in the field of shitposting philosophy a completely different direction.” -- Anon

[Anonymous No.5030950]

>>5030927

it's a solid list but

drop nietzsche and kierkegaard
they're meme philosophers

drop the pre-socratics
i mean why bother?

drop descartes
hume will get you through

[Anonymous No.5030953]

>>5030950
>Kierkegaard
>meme philosopher
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5030955]

>>5030950
>drop descartes
>the father of science

no don't drop him

[Anonymous No.5030956]

>>5030949
You must feel proud after managing to think up such great post, I don't think I've read a more constructive and rewarding answer anywhere else. It's almost like you opened your heart and poured pure wisdom out. I bet your mom must be really happy to have such gifted child, who contributes with compassion and insight to such enormous extent to this community.

I think you need to celebrate this milestone among posts. I suggest you call down your mom to your basement room and let her see what a wonderful and beloved person we all think you are. She will most likely become so happy that she'll go buy you a new box of kleenex for your celebratory self exploration; perhaps even give you a helping hand.

Great work, Anon.

[Anonymous No.5030957]

>>5030956
>getting this rustled over a play on a Kant quote
holy shit, control your autism

[Anonymous No.5030958]

>>5030950
Is it possible to understand Home without the knowledge his work is a response to Descartes?
Who would you suggest as alternative for Nietzsche and Kierkegaard as critics of Plato and Hegel, respectively?

[Anonymous No.5030959]

>>5030953

fight me


>>5030955

aristotle fathered science

did you not start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.5030960]

>>5030957
It's a copypasta ya fool

[Anonymous No.5030964]

>>5030958

Descartes was a mess yo. He salvaged philosophy from a slump, but he was really just setting the stage for the empiricists

[Anonymous No.5030967]

>>5030964
>setting the stage for the empiricists
>empiricists

vomit.jpg

[Anonymous No.5030968]

>>5030958

and nah yr right nietz and kierk are bros. keep 'em up

[Anonymous No.5030972]

>>5030967

man stfu you don't know nothing about based Hume

[Anonymous No.5031024]

>>5030900
Augustine and Aquinas for Christians.

[Anonymous No.5031093]

This will never work.

People love making philosophy threads more than they love making their own semen.

[Anonymous No.5031112]

>>5030854
I am sure posting Stark with the Greeks is a better idea.

[Anonymous No.5032122]

Just sticky a post explaining why science made philosophy obsolete.

[Anonymous No.5032183]

if you want to get into philosophy, STOP trying to get into philosophy.

Stop reading and listening to Other people.

Go outside, or stay inside and THINK. Think about every fucking thing you can possibly think of. Stare at a tree for 5 hours. Close your eyes and listen to birds sing. Let an ant crawl on your hand. Watch a spider build a web. Watch the sunrise, stare at the sun, and watch the sunset all in the same day, then watch the stars and moon all night.

Find a quiet spot, and make some noise. Find a loud place, and find quietness there. Stand in a river and catch a fish with your hands.

GO
DO
THINGS!

stop reading, and sucking greek dick.
If you want to become a philosopher, first KNOW this, the only thing you NEED to KNOW about philosophy; you cant learn wisdom!

point and fact. you cant learn philosophy.

when someone tells you to start with the Greeks. Fuck that. rub dirt on your face.
When someone tells you to read Nietzsche. Fuck that. go for a walk.
when someone tells you to take a philosophy class. Fuck that!
sit in a dark room and sing a song you make up as you go.


THIS is how you "get into" philosophy.

FUCK all this shit about "you need to read this, or that" its bullshit.

When you start thinking, and find yourself thinking too much; stop thinking. start feeling.
write down what you think and feel, and then continue thinking and feeling.

Read your own writings, and then use THAT to get into philosophy.

>YOU should be your favorite philosopher

Now if your philosophy is shit, thats up to you to decide. If you share it, others will tell you. if you find a better philosophy, dont trash yours, refine it and make it better. Dont start on a base of regurgitation. Improve your philosophy with understanding and wisdom, not knowledge and learning.

[Anonymous No.5032201]

>>5032183

[Anonymous No.5032205]

>>5030854
The Republic

[neetchuh !KNubuI3a/. No.5032217]

>>5032183
dont act like you cannot become a good thinker by thinking about what other thinkers thought

the problem moreso is with people who do no thinking, and regurgitate thought

[Anonymous No.5032226]

>>5030936
garbage, makes no sense

[Anonymous No.5032236]

>>5032217
i said that.
> if you find a better philosophy, dont trash yours, refine it and make it better. Dont start on a base of regurgitation. Improve your philosophy with understanding and wisdom, not knowledge and learning.

Theres nothing wrong with philosophical discourse, between two thinkers, but to have no thoughts of your own and just reading books about philosophy and what other philosophers have thought, doesnt make you a philosopher or have anything to offer in a philosophical conversation.

People who Only think about others thoughts will never be able to appreciate philosophy for what it is, they merely break down and try to decode what others have thought. Thats just called an opinion. and despite what many people might think, nobody really cares about anyones opinion.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5032238]

You "enter into" philosophy however you want to. A good start might be listening to podcasts that discuss philosophy and seeing what or who interests you, and going from there.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5032240]

>>5030936
That flow chart is not nearly incestuous enough to be accurate

[Anonymous No.5032250]

>>5030900
Without question, Spinoza.
Adam Smith (although it is quite ridiculous).
Also, Heidegger, Marx (would read about him though), Freud, Wittgenstein, Weber, Adorno & Horkheimer, Habermas (would read about him though), Erving Goffman, Berger and Luckmann (Social Construction of Reality), Deleuze, Foucault, Bourdieu, Butler, to name a few.

[Anonymous No.5032257]

>>5032183
This is the biggest amount of bullshit that I've read in this disgrace of a board. Do you actually think that philosophy is posting Nietzsche quotes on tumblr?

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5032258]

>>5030900
Why wouldn't Kant be on that list instead of Hegel?

[Anonymous No.5032264]

>>5032257
Your just upset cause you never sat down with your friends, blazed a blunt and let the real deep thoughts flow. Your just a nerd who thinks quoting from books makes him smart. You never will be a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.5032265]

>>5032258
Kant is on that list.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5032271]

>>5032265
I meant in the top three, at the beginning of the post. It seems like Kant was far more influential than Hegel ever was, and Hegel was specifically arguing against Kantianism

[neetchuh !KNubuI3a/. No.5032272]

>>5032264
>sat down with your friends, blazed a blunt and let the real deep thoughts flow.

mah nigga

[Anonymous No.5032279]

>>5032257
i only used Nietzsche as an example because hes discussed so frequently.. so I personally might not think that posting his quotes on tumblr is "philosophy", but im sure there are a few anons here that do.

>>5032264
im not in favor of using drugs to philosophize, im not against it either. ive gotten to the point where i can get "high" and euphoric(actually), just by thinking. getting sunburn and sucking down oxygen also helps with this natural high.

No better feeling than being happy.

[Anonymous No.5032283]

>>5030854
Modern Philosophy by Francks is good for those interested in Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke and other philosophers of this time period. He accurately explains each philosophers' take on our relation to God, the Universe, and the common-sense perceptions of these. He also gives quite a bit of background information on each philosopher.
It helped me understand the primary sources easier, as the language can be quite confusing.

[Anonymous No.5032286]

Alright, that does it. This insurgence of tripfags is too much. I'm leaving /lit/. I'll be back in the fall after summer is over.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5032288]

>>5032286
Bye-bye.

[Anonymous No.5032292]

>>5032286
Why don't you come back in the fall before summer's over? You wouldn't have to wait as long

[Anonymous No.5032322]

I killed it. I killed it and im proud of it. Im glad its dead. I never wanted it to begin with. I hate it.

[Anonymous No.5032612]

Read the sticky's Philosophy section; it's pretty thorough.

Here's a somewhat chronological coverage of figures you ought to know about:

Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Stoics (Epictetus or Seneca or Aurelius should suffice), Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricius, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Pascal, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Schopenhauer Hegel, Stuart Mill, Nietzsche, Marx, Sidgwick, Brentano, Peirce, Frege, Peano, James, Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ramsey, Godel, Anscombe, Carnap, Tarski, Quine, Popper, Ryle, Austin, Turing, Dummett, Hintikka, Hempel, Peter Starwson, Grice, Sellars, Davidson, Rawls, Putnam, Armstrong, Nozick, Kripke, van Fraassen, Goodman, Hacker, Hacking, David Lewis, Parfit, Churchlands, McDowell, Williamson, Dennett, Fodor

The latter part of the list emphasizes analytic philosophy. Once you've reached, say, Nietzsche, you have only began to scratch the surface. The interesting bits come with the birth, and after the birth, of Analytic Philosophy, that begins its movement at about the same year Nietzsche died.

[Anonymous No.5032679]

I don't mind as long as we all agree St. Thomas Aquinas sucks. And that Chesterton should never be within 10 ft of economics.

[Anonymous No.5033794]

>>5032679

apparently you don't like Distributism

so let me give you a refresher course, we'll start with me distributing my dick into your mouth

[Anonymous No.5034067]

>>5030950
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are extremely important to know in more modern philosophy. They're complex so people misunderstand their philosophy a lot. Pseudo-philosophers and people new to philosophy, seem to gravitate towards them a lot for some reason.

[Anonymous No.5036360]

Analytic philosophy shouldn't be overlooked. As a general philosophy resource, it should be known that as well as analytic articles, plato.stanford.edu has an enormous amount of articles about just about any philosophical subject you'd be interested in.

E.g. Hegel's views on aesthetics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-aesthetics/
Connexive logic
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-connexive/
even more obscurer areas like the philosophy of computer science! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/

Go to plato.stanford instead of wikipedia generally - it's way more in depth and informative. Lists heaps of citations too that you can go and research if you want to sink your teeth into the primary sources.

[Anonymous No.5036372]

>>5030854
Start with Heidegger's Being and Time