[ 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: 187 KB, 804x1052, Plato and Aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6449386 No.6449386 [Reply] [Original]

How serious is the meme, "start with the greeks"? I've had to read Republic and The Politics for my political philosophy course, does it matter if I've not read the mythology extensively? Are those two books good enough for my starting point into Western Philosophy?

>> No.6449399

I'm starting with the greeks right now. Go to the /lit/ wiki, click non-fiction, then go down to philosophy. There are a lot of books, several about the pre-socratics alone. I'm reading the first one, it's quite interesting.

As far as philosophy goes I'm not sure if you need to really read a mythology book, especially not extensively. Well, the opinion of a noob. If you do have to, read Edith Hamilton's "Mythology", I see it recommended around here a lot. It's on my to-do list.

>> No.6449403

>>6449386
If you really want to learn about something, start from the beginning.

>> No.6449404

just read Homer and Sophocles and read wikipedia articles on the rest

>> No.6449414

>>6449386
It's a good starting point, maybe something like Agamemnon cause it looks at the relation of the man and the state in a platonic sense.

Honestly for the history of western thought on the idea of knowledge

plato and aristotle
st augustine
aquinas
galileo
descartes
bacon
newton
darwin

>> No.6449420

>>6449414
columbus and vespucci too

>> No.6449443

The whole of medieval philosophy is basically people trying to rework and rework Plato and Aristotle's philosophies. So to understand those people you have to know the context of what those guys said. And then for post-medieval philosophy, you have to know why they're responding to medieval philosophers in the way they are, and so on. Philosophy's just a chain of people responding to each other and you've gotta start with the greeks if you wanna know where it began.

>> No.6449452

Premiere with the Persians.

>> No.6449461

It depends what kind of philosophy you're interested in: political philosophy I assume is what you're going for so those are good for that, but metaphysics or aesthetics it's won't cut it.

Starting with the Greeks is a good idea for philosophy and culture, just because so much is repeated throughout Western thought from the era, but you can limit it down.
However, I would recommend Aristotle's Poetics, a quick trip through Plato's dialogues, and then reading Aristophanes' The Clouds, if you are focused on politics because all of these will teach you how to speak and mock those speaking against you.
The Clouds you do need to have read more of Plato's descriptions of Socrates which are closer to Socrates (or some Xenophon at least) than in The Republic to understand how weird Socrates' metaphysics and antics would have seemed to the general populace, and therefore what Aristophanes was poking fun at.
The dialogues are handy too for seeing how jelly Plato was of Aristophanes for getting away with mocking his hero and still being drinking buddies.

The myths aren't often important to the Greeks themselves as more than stories, but if you want to get into broader philosophy than politics, the preSocratics are your starting point (the Ionian school is where it kicks off not the Athenians).

If it's just politics, you'll also want to read some Solon and Pericles, and then to contrast democracy with Roman developments like Cicero's vision of politics as property. It really doesn't hurt to read more legal decisions in Athens than just Solon and Pericles if you're in it to lawyer people, but they're the basics.

>> No.6449462

>>6449404
Definitely don't listen to this guy. I've been comparing just the first book on the Pre-Socratics to the wiki articles and they are woefully inadequate. If you're going to read, might as well do it right. It's fun anyway.

>> No.6449684

>>6449386
For me, it helps a lot. Greek literature is the basis for much of the stuff you may read, if it has any significance. You should, before you move on, at least read Crito, the Apology, and maybe euthypro. These works of Plato are much shorter, and I have seen references to Crito before. It will take you less than a day to read all three.
Helps a lot more than you think.

>> No.6449713

Why would you not? The amount of extant ancient Greek texts is pretty damn tiny. Doesn't take long to get through at all.

>> No.6449714

Is the Illiad worth reading or should I skip directly to the Odyssey?

Because Alexander Pope's translation of the Illiad is boring as shit

>> No.6449726

>>6449714
>Because Alexander Pope's translation of the Illiad is boring as shit

u wot m8? Pope's translation is a fun read.

Also Iliad > Odyssey

>> No.6450162

>>6449713
Aristotle alone is like 2000 pages

>> No.6450166

try this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit

>> No.6450173

>>6449726
I'm currently reading Iliad and combat scenes are boring to hell. Yet, the rest is pretty good.

>> No.6450179

>>6450166
ya, im not gunna read a 100 page google doc

>> No.6450204

>>6450179
Skip to page 10, the author of it addresses the exact issue you're talking about.

>> No.6450229

Anyone familiar with the Mentor Series of translations? I saw a whole bunch at a book store, specifically of Aristophanes.

>> No.6450317

>>6449386
"Start with the greeks" doesnt mean anything. To understand Heidegger, you need to read Heidegger. To understand Kant, you need to read Kant. You wanna understand Plotinius, Levinas or Wittgenstein? Fucking read them. IF you dont understand them, now go back to the greeks.

>> No.6450321

>>6449404
Ay Oedipus a GOAT

>> No.6450323
File: 27 KB, 412x352, 1311466345208.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6450323

>>6449386
>Are those two books good enough for my starting point into Western Philosophy?

>> No.6450326

>>6450317
To understand a whole lot of Heidegger you have to read Plato because his lectures were given after assigning Plato as reading material...

>> No.6450373

>>6449414
Give it 100 years, I'm going to be next on that list.

>> No.6450377

what are the chances that no one actually understands any philosophy correctly

>> No.6450412

>>6450377
100 out of 100

>> No.6450448

The Greeks and the Romans are very fruitful in exploring philosophically but starting off with them (well, you can read Plato's Socratic dialogues and Nicomachean Ethics) is a bad idea. Get into modern philosophy and see what interests you in the post-Kantian field.

You'll more likely than not end up finding your way back to the Greeks.

>> No.6450623

>>6450326
You dont have to read Plato to understand most of Heidegger's concepts. If you want a very good understanding of Heidegger's philosophy, you need a really huge philosophical background. But you can understand a lot of Heidegger's philosophy without reading Plato. Anybody who want to get seriously into an author need a huge historical background, i agree with you. But you dont need to start with Parmenides, than Plato, than Aristotle, etc. Thats is just stupid. Read Heidegger first, if you don't understand, read Plato, go back to Heidegger, understand a little bit better, go to Kant, back to Heidegger, etc. Thats how it works

>> No.6450633

itt: undergrads

please go, dont you have exams this week?