[ 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: 218 KB, 708x459, 22ad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6052350 No.6052350 [Reply] [Original]

How do I get into western philosophy and where do I start?

>> No.6052371

>>6052350
Wu wei.

>> No.6052388

With the greeks

>> No.6052408

>>6052388
is there any charts?

>> No.6052489

>>6052350
Start with investigations concerning the preso-cratics, A history of Greek Philosophy by W.K.C. Guthrie it´s a good starting point.

>> No.6052492

>>6052489
Sorry for the typo in Pre-Socratics.*

>> No.6052500
File: 18 KB, 450x366, kate_bush_gun.jpg?w=600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6052500

>>6052408
Here's one of sorts
http://historyofphilosophy.net/

>> No.6052541

Read a little about the Pre-Socratics, then read Plato

>> No.6052576

You can read Plato's early dialogues and Aristotle's Ethics. Maybe a rudimentary introduction to pre-socratic fragments (they won't make much sense until later really).

From there, I'm gonna go ahead and tell you to skip straight to Descartes' Meditations. From there go ahead to Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant. Make sure to get relevant introductory texts and commentaries for each philosopher. The stanford encyclopedia online articles are good too and should be read.

After that, the game gets messy. If you liked Hume, look into contemporary philosophy of mind and epistemology. If you liked Spinoza, go to Nietzsche. Kant your man? Read some Hegel to see what the later Germans did with him in the 18th century and then some Husserl/Heidegger to see what happened in the 19th century.

Aristotle and Plato are best visited later in your philosophical exploration, the former especially. I'd try to read the relevant sections in The Republic concerning platonic idealism after his early dialogs too so you can have a laugh at how blown the fuck out Plato gets time after time.

>> No.6053040

>>6052350
Here's what I'm doing and it's going well so far.

Start at square one with Plato and Aristotle. From there, skip to Descartes. From there, do Kant, Spinoza, Hume, etc... figure out what your flavor is. Basically what >>6052576 was saying. For the sake of time, stick to the major works of each philosopher on your first run through.

After you work your way up to the 20th century, you then get a lot more freedom. Feel free to check out more obscure authors and works since you'll have a solid enough background to keep up with most of it. As you learn more, you'll be able to exercise more choice.

However, I'd also add that it might be wise to look into some philosophy podcasts or lectures. I've been listening to the Partially Examined life recently, and it's pretty good. It's a bunch of philosophy PhD program dropouts picking a piece to read and discuss every week. They wont revolutionize how you think, but it's a nice and casual way to get ahead of yourself and become vaguely familiar with the authors and concepts you'll be reading as you get a long in your task. That podcast I mentioned is also good because it's specifically done so that anyone can follow their discussion, even if you haven't read the text they are discussing and have zero familiarity with philosophy.

>> No.6053217

Read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Just remember to ignore everything after Hume.

>> No.6053230

>>6052576
Yeah I would agree with this post. Descartes is the actual founder of western philosophy and the ideal place to start, once you have an idea of what philosophy is as a discipline.

>> No.6053238

>>6053217
>ignore continentals getting btfo

>> No.6053253

>>6052350
Philosophy did not start until Frege.

Descartes and Leibniz were christfags. Spinoza and Kant were autists. Hume was ok I suppose.

>> No.6053260
File: 67 KB, 562x287, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053260

Start with Frege, then move on to Moore and Russell, then ending with Wittgenstein and Kripke. You should have a good understanding of mathematics before attempting philosophy.

>> No.6053348

>>6053260
Has anyone else noticed how the great analytic philosophers (ignoring Kripke) have tended to be quite good looking, whereas the continentals have been ugly and repulsive?

>> No.6053400

>>6053348
You have bad taste in men.

>> No.6053412
File: 50 KB, 635x854, Witt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053412

>>6053400
I don't have any taste for men. Wittgenstein was considered quite handsome in his youth, compare this to Derrida or Foucault.

>> No.6053422

>>6052350
Plato. The Republic.

There's is no other answer. The pre-socratics are exit-level despite what some people will tell you.

>> No.6053424

>>6053412
lol hes ugly dude

>> No.6053427

>>6052350
>western philosophy
It's just "philosophy".

>> No.6053428

>>6053412
Witty is a 7/10 at best. Passingly handsome.

However Hegel, Zizek, Adorno and Sartre are all candidates for sexiest men ever and would probably be the object of Women's absolute desire if they didn't already tear apart the ideas of Object and Desire.

>> No.6053430

>>6053428
ok pls no joking about this

>> No.6053438

>>6053428
Hegel was extremely popular in the Woman's Society of Berlin club. One of the reasons Schoppy was edgy about him.

>> No.6053444
File: 7 KB, 172x250, Sartre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053444

>>6053424
>>6053428
>no appreciation for aesthetics
Wittgenstein was easily 8/10.
>Sartre
>object of women's absolute desire

>> No.6053448

>>6053444
Beauvoir should be so lucky.

>> No.6053469

>>6053260
That damn picture again, and not even recommending them pragmatists.

>> No.6053471
File: 63 KB, 500x514, Simone de slut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053471

>>6053448
She was an ugly 2/10 herself.

>> No.6053480

>>6052350

Start with Parmenides, then read Plato and Aristotle.

After this, if you want to get into the medievals, start with Augustine.

If you want to get into the moderns, start with Descartes' Meditations.

If you want to get into analytics after that, start with Frege, and Russell.

If you want to get into the continentals, start with Nietzsche and Heidegger.

>> No.6053490
File: 639 KB, 816x1249, art-shay_-simone-de-beauvoir_-chicago_-1952_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053490

>>6053471
nah son

>> No.6053491
File: 138 KB, 800x811, 1403756446606.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053491

>>6053471

>> No.6053499

>>6053491
>posting actors to proof someone wrong

>> No.6053506

>>6053471
she looks about 60 years old there

fucking virgins

>> No.6053509
File: 27 KB, 700x300, simone-nelson-in-love.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053509

>>6053471
Your opinion.
With her side man.

>> No.6053516

>>6053480

Dis nigga noes

>> No.6053517
File: 16 KB, 300x300, dat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053517

>>6053490
Dat cellulite.

>>6053506
>having standards this low

>> No.6053523
File: 164 KB, 902x902, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053523

>>6053517
>he thinks Wittgenstein is 8/10
>calls other people out for having shit standards

/fa/ here

You are a shit taste pleb

>> No.6053540

>>6053523
He was in his late 50s in that image, a couple of years before he died.
He didn't even try, unlike you /fa/ autists.

>> No.6053552

>>6053540
>He was in his late 50s in that image, a couple of years before he died.
Then why post a photo of Beauvoir when she was over middle-aged and claim she was ugly?
>He didn't even try, unlike you /fa/ autists.
Don't kid yourself buddy.

>> No.6053554
File: 32 KB, 376x600, wittgenstein18.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053554

>>6053523
Look at that bone structure.

>> No.6053558

>>6053400
Kek

>> No.6053562

>>6053552
She was always ugly.

>> No.6053571

>>6053562
No worse than WIttgenstein

>> No.6053583

>>6053571
She was 6/10 in her youth. Not bad for a feminist.

>> No.6053586

>>6053583
Stop rating people as if you have any idea of attractiveness and countenance.

>> No.6053597

>>6052576
But is it really necessary to read the entire books? Cant the most important parts and ideas, those that are still very relevant be concisely delivered?

>> No.6053604

A true post about philosophy in /lit/. Everyone starts rating how good individuals philosophers looked...
True retards.

>> No.6053611
File: 23 KB, 523x432, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053611

>>6053412
Young Foucault looked very good.

>> No.6053636

>>6053604
true

>> No.6053697

>>6053604
The point is that contrary to the the autistic stereotype that the continentals like to trot out, it is the continentals who are repulsive.

>> No.6053707

>>6053348
Attractive people don't become philosphers.

>> No.6053709

>>6053707
Well then how do you explain me?

>> No.6053718

>>6053709
I am afraid I have some bad news for you anon.

>> No.6053728

>>6052350
Euclid's Elements and then realize you don't want to study philosophy but math.

>> No.6053739

>>6053728
>2015
>reading euclid to learn math

>> No.6053741

>>6053728
Philosophy is literally just maths, though. But a better starting point is Frege.

>> No.6053748

>>6053741
>Philosophy is just maths
>not a single theorem

>> No.6053771
File: 591 KB, 500x2755, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053771

>>6053748
What a horribly false claim.

>> No.6053776

>>6053771
Sorry I forgot about the fundamental theorem of metaphysics.

>> No.6053790
File: 41 KB, 317x351, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6053790

>>6053776
You're making a fool of yourself.