Greeks

[Anonymous No.7906268]

Is it really that necessary to comprehensively read the greeks before moving on to later renditions of philosophy? I've already read the Republic, Nicomachean ethics and Organon. Is it that necessary to read an entire bookshelf's worth of greeks before commencing on Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.7906272]

No of course not.

But it would be very valuable.

[Anonymous No.7906303]

>>7906272
In what ways will it be 'very' valuable?

[Anonymous No.7906310]

>>7906303
Further understanding and enjoyment.

Neitzsche references and focuses on the Greeks a shit ton.

But you could always read an annotated edition, or, simply read things more than once.

[Anonymous No.7906313]

>>7906310
Thanks a lot

[Anonymous No.7906471]

You retards need to stop just reading the republic and then skipping 2 thousand years of philosophy and theology to start reading Nietzsche k.

[Anonymous No.7906477]

>>7906471
Your post is the best example of why people should not do that.
Go back and read. You'll look back and laugh at your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.7906482]

>>7906477
Famicon op could have been baiting, but either way this websites full of pseuds who read Nietzsche once then go on a shit posting spree talking about slave morality.

[Anonymous No.7906499]

>>7906268
>Odyssey was a prose translation
KEK

[Anonymous No.7906503]

>>7906268
I was eager to play the foul like you, family. I intended on only reading the greeks to make my way to the meme father that is Nietzsche. I discovered along the way that there are hundreds of great philosophers who are much more appealing than Nietzsche and even those after Nietzsche can be appealing. Nietzsche is great but he shouldn't be taken so seriously.

[Anonymous No.7906525]

>>7906268
Skip Nietzsche and read some real philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7906576]

>>7906268
You will find a great many philosophers who know very little about Greek philosophy. It's interesting and is still relevant in many ways but you don't HAVE to have much to do with them. It depends on why you want to read philosophy and what you want to do with it.

Also you will never comprehensively read the Greeks. It is far to big a subject for anyone person. At some point you are going to have to say I know enough if you ever want to move onward.

[Anonymous No.7907549]

You should start with the Greeks, but the minimum you need is this:
>Mythology by Edith Hamilton
>The Iliad
>The Odyssey
>Works of Plato
>Works of Aristotle
Shouldn't take you more than a year fampai, and that's assuming you take a long time to read. Move your way through the medieval period a bit before reading more modern stuff.

[Anonymous No.7907572]

Read Aristotle.

Nietzsche is just a sophist (morality is determined by power, there is no objective truth/reality/good, values are determined by the individual subject, language does not communicate truth, etc. - all sophist maxims). Plato refuted him.

[Anonymous No.7907583]

Apart from The Birth of Tragedy, the Greeks are largely irrelevant to Nietzsche. You'd do better to read Schopenhauer, Kant and Indian philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7907586]

GOD NO! Don't read AT ALL!

https://pl.reddit.com/r/freephilosphy/

[Anonymous No.7907600]

>>7906576
>what you want to do with it

utilitarist fag

[Anonymous No.7907603]

Contrary to the doctrine of Hegel, philosophy does not evolve in history. The modern period was a big step backwards in philosophy, a regress back to the pre-Socratic / sophistic era. Philosophy was developed to a high degree in the medieval schools (the "scholastics"). The scholastics developed a highly technical vocabulary for philosophy and were able to discuss highly varied positions at a high level of abstraction. The great modern philosophers (Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant) were all amateur philosophers who did not receive the training of the schools, and as such modern philosophy is marred by amateur imprecision/ambiguity, because people don't have the necessary training to think and state their position clearly. The "analytics" have tried to develop a professional/technical philosophical vocabulary again to avoid the amateurish ambiguity of the "continentals", but the "analytics" are marred by a positivist suspicion/hatred of metaphysics which is the highest / more abstract form of philosophy, and as such their work has precision but no depth, whereas the "continentals" have depth but no precision, both of which result in sophistry.

[Anonymous No.7907616]

>>7906268
>reading Nietzsche before Hegel
>reading Hegel before Kant
>reading Kant before Hume
>reading Hume before Spinoza
>reading Spinoza before Descartes
>reading Descartes before Duns Scotus
>reading Scotus before Aquinas
>reading Aquinas before Augustine
>reading Augustine before Epicurus
>reading Epicurus before Aurelius
>reading Aurelius before Epictetus
>reading Epictetus before Plotinus
>reading Plotinus before Aristotle
>reading Aristotle before Plato
>reading Plato before Parmenides
>reading Parmenides before Heraclitus

IF YOU HAVE DONE ANY OF THESE YOU WILL NEVER BECOME A PATRICIAN AND YOUR COLLECTION OF APHORISMS AND ESSAYS WILL NEVER BE POSTHUMOUSLY PUBLISHED

[Anonymous No.7907618]

>>7907603
To clarify, the continentals do not have the same hatred of metaphysics as the analytics, but their metaphysical discussions are extremely poor due to the ambiguity of their language. Nietzsche is a good example of this. He does have a good eye for metaphysics but he is a total amateur in philosophy because he doesn't have the training, and so whenever he tries to discuss metaphysics it descends into poetic/dramatic language rather than clear and logical propositions/deductions.

[Anonymous No.7907637]

>>7907618
Also, to clarify, the pre-Socratic / sophistic era is marked by a great variety in philosophical positions but without the method to clearly state and properly analyse them, and so philosophy often descends into rhetorical battle as they have no philosophical method to argue their position. Such is also the case of the modern period, where there is such a great variety of opinion but no method to distinguish which opinions are valid and which are not. This results in sectarianism, where there are many different sects/schools headed by famous personalities (both in the pre-Socratic and modern era, philosophy is lead by personalities / great thinkers, whereas in the stable medieval period personality or individual genius is not as important because the general philosophical method is agreed upon and progress can be made collectively).

[Anonymous No.7907653]

[Anonymous No.7907675]

>>7907637
If the medievals were so advanced why didn't they invent science?

[Anonymous No.7907679]

>>7907675
Nobody 'invented' science.

[Anonymous No.7907704]

>>7907675
They had angels and shit

[Anonymous No.7907708]

>>7907679
And yet it didn't come into being till the Age of Reason and theological sophists like your medievalists were ousted by so-called amateur modernists.

[Anonymous No.7907725]

>>7907704
Is /lit/ this retarded?

[Anonymous No.7907732]

>>7906268
Why Nietzsche? There is much more than "muh Nietzsche" in philosophy

[Anonymous No.7907737]

>>7907708
Wait wait whoa there, first of all stop picking a straw man, I didn't in any way defended medievalists; second, I pretty sure none of the Enlightenment stuff grew out of the earth like a mushroom, like any other knowledge it is a natural development that has its foundations on what came before, even if in a negative/refutation-like basis.

[Anonymous No.7907746]

>>7907708
>>7907725

[Anonymous No.7907753]

>>7907746
Are christcucks this deep in denial?

[Anonymous No.7907760]

>>7907753
>>7907725

[Anonymous No.7907861]

>>7907549
why apollodorus' library over hamilton?

[Anonymous No.7907867]

>>7907861
You mean hamilton over apollodorus?

Because Apollodorus is boring as fuck.

[Anonymous No.7907928]

>>7907675
advances in modern science are due more the advances in technology than anything; if anything, modern philosophy has been holding science back

[Anonymous No.7908025]

>>7907616
the part of your post with the green chevrons was better than the part of your post with all big letters

[Anonymous No.7908031]

>>7907725
>>7907753
>responding to f u n n y t e x t

[Anonymous No.7908052]

>>7907616
>skipping big Kierk

[Anonymous No.7908093]

>>7906268
I just started Thus Spoke Zarathustra and have only read Plato, a bit of Aristotle, Saint Augustine, and Marcus Aurelius. What Nietzsche discusses isnt going to be unfamiliar to you since you live in a culturally existential world; many of the ideas may have seemed new at the time (because they were) but at this point theyll be familiar; in other words you already are most likely familiar with his philosophy even if you havnt read it. You shouldn't have trouble with it. Having read what you have of the Greeks is enough.I know I can't speak because I havnt finished the book yet, but literally the only thing I've needed to understand Nietzsche which I learned from the Greeks is the conflict of mind vs body.

[Anonymous No.7908098]

>>7907549
So if I go through medieval (basically Augustine and Aquinas) then I can skip straight to Stirner, Nietzsche, etc?

[Anonymous No.7908236]

>>7907867
whiteknight pls

[Anonymous No.7908571]

Wittgenstein who ranks as one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century didnt read any of them or pretty much any philosopher

[Anonymous No.7908642]

>>7908571
that's why he's trash

[Anonymous No.7908667]

>>7907675
Because the Christian Dark Ages.

Everyone knows this. They even did a family guy episode on it.

[Anonymous No.7908949]

>>7906503
Same here, I'm just finishing up reading all of Nietzsche's stuff once through and I honestly probably won't be coming back to almost any of it.

On the other hand, I got into Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero, Euripedes, Aristophanes, Terence, Plutarch and a bookshelf's worth of other guys on the way to Nietzsche, making it well worth the effort. I haven't really found much after him, are there any guys after Nietzsche that really have much to add?

[Anonymous No.7908952]

>>7908949
foucault and said are built on nietzsche brah

[Anonymous No.7908955]

>>7908642
>wittgenstein is trash

thank god someone else can see

[Anonymous No.7908966]

>>7907572
Or Nietzsche refuted Plato depending on your perspective. Honestly, no matter who you thought won that debate, Aristotle is required reading, if only because he was more of a man of his times than Plato and you can see what a non-ascetic philosopher of the highest order looks like.

Nietzsche talks a lot about what the values of ancient Greece were; Aristotle makes detailed sketches of them, and ends up confirming Nietzsche on many, but not all, occasions.

[Anonymous No.7908993]

>>7907637
Which medieval guys do you like for metaphysics? I've read a bit of Anselm and liked it, what else is there?

[Anonymous No.7909030]

>>7908993
Those free oxford lectures have a nice one on his ontological argument.