[ 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: 250 KB, 768x846, wideEyesBulbasaur.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9227955 No.9227955 [Reply] [Original]

>Can't read De Beauvoir without reading Sartre
>Can't read Sartre without reading Marx & Heidegger
>Can't read Heidegger without reading Husserl & Nietzsche
>Can't read Marx without reading Hegel
>Can't read Husserl, Nietzsche, or Hegel, without reading Kant
>Can't read Kant without reading Baumgarten, and Hume.
>Can't read Hume without reading Locke
>Can't read Baumgarten without reading Leibniz, and developing some grounding in formal logic.
>Can't read Leibniz, or Locke, until I've read Descartes.
>Tfw
How many years is studying philosophy going to take off of my life, /lit/?

>> No.9227960

>>9227955
START
WITH
THE
GREEKS

For fuck's sake, it's not a meme.

>> No.9227962

>>9227955
don't study philosophy. why would you want to?

>> No.9227969
File: 18 KB, 220x300, 3868782.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9227969

>studying things that have absolutely zero utility

>> No.9227973

>>9227969
What's something useful that I could study? :)

>> No.9227983

>>9227973
spoonfeeding

>> No.9227994

Aaah, les memes. They always fill my afternoons :')

>> No.9228005

>>9227983
ROASTED

>> No.9228008

>>9227955
become a logical positivist and assert that the philosophy of the past is not necessary to philosophize correctly.

>> No.9228045

>>9228008
Interesting.

>> No.9228061

>>9228045
I'm a smart cookie.

>> No.9228065

>>9227969
But anon, studying philosophy is fun.

>> No.9228070

>>9228065
Fucking your mom's butt is even more fun

>> No.9228074

>>9228008
>>9228045
>>9228061
>logical positivism

AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAH

>> No.9228075

>>9228070
That's why I do both.

>> No.9228078

>>9228008
>>9228045
>>9228061
Fuck off back to >>>/sci/.

>> No.9228087

>>9228074
Go suck some metaphysical dick, pseud.

>> No.9228097

>>9228087
>believes in a field in which all of its adherents abandoned and called nonsense
>calls me a pseud

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>> No.9228098

You can't understand philosophy without a good intuition for art. I recommend starting with Richard Wagner.

>> No.9228108

i read irrational man by william barrett. it talks about the basics of four existentialists and puts them in context with the rest of western philosophy. it helped me a lot and i really recommend it

>> No.9228110

>>9228097
At what point did I say I was a logical positivist?

Nothin personell, pseud.

>> No.9228116

>>9228110
Your original post and response clearly indicate you are one, brainlet!

Nice try at gas-lighting, pleb.

>> No.9228120

>>9228116
How do they do that? Did you perhaps make baseless assumptions to construct a strawman that you can easily attack?

Try harder.

>> No.9228127

>>9228120
>Go suck some metaphysical dick, pseud.

If that doesn't imply a defense of logical positivism, then what does?

>> No.9228140

>>9228127
Funnily enough it is possible to criticise metaphysics without accepting all the elements of logical positivism.

>> No.9228156

Man, De Beauvoir does sound a bit like Bulbasaur

>> No.9228157

>>9228140
More like Betaphysics

>> No.9228159

>>9228157
OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH!!!!!!!!

>> No.9228160

>>9228157
LMAO rekt

>> No.9228162

>>9227955

>>Can't read Sartre without reading Marx & Heidegger

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to read Sartre before Heidegger, right?

>> No.9228164

>>9228098
You can understand art if you don't start with caveman paintings

>> No.9228168

>>9228098
Eww... art is gay.

>> No.9228215

>>9228162
you actually could, bc sarte it's just a bad reading of heidegger

>> No.9228223

Jesus fucking christ, 30+ replies and not a decent or serious one. /lit/ in a nutshell.

Anyway, to OP, you are right but as you've said yourself, nobody has time for all that. It's just not feasible to obtain deep knowledge of every philosopher in the canon, even for professional academics. And don't forgot that the entire history of philosophy is kind of based on everyone fucking misreading each other, it starts right with Aristotele misreading the pre socratics. I think Zizek had this great line about Kant misreading Leibniz, Schopenhauer misreading Kant, Nietzsche misreading Hegel and Hegel misreading everyone.

So you kind have to specialize and go for the a certain area, say existentialism and then go for the direct relations ie. Heidegger and Husserl. It's also a good idea to read the important guys indepth, so go deep into Kant since he influenced everbody but you can refer to commentary on Baumgarten since his influence isn't that big outside of his time.

>> No.9228231

>>9228223
>time and effort put into a decent post
what

why

>> No.9228236
File: 586 KB, 946x2017, lit-Kant.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9228236

>>9228223
OP here. Thanks for the advice, anon. Been planning to start with Kant for a while, before I go any further than that, and you've confirmed this idea. An anon in a previous chart thread posted pic related, and I ran it by a couple of people who said it was good advice, so decided on new plan:
1)Read Descartes - Meditations with Objections & Replies
2)Halbach - The Logic Manual
3)Liebniz - Monadology
4)Baumgarten's Metaphysics
5)Hume, a Very Short Introduction
6)The Works of Kant.
Of course, where I'm going to go after Kant is going to be a hell of a decision, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

>> No.9228251

>>9228223
Let's say you want to learn philosophy, but you also want to learn other subjects. Since learning even just a specialized area of philosophy (or any other subject) takes so much effort, are you pretty much fucked?

>> No.9228263

>>9228008
>logical positivism
>hinged entirely on verification theory
>a theory that fail's it own definition

l_o_l
{___}
[_] [_]

>> No.9228264

>>9228236
I definitely recommend reading Descartes but reading all the other guys is kind of the hardcore route. If you are enjoying them, great but don't fall into this trap that you need to sit through all of them. Because lets face it, getting an indepth understanding of Kant on your first time reading him is not going to happen regardless, so there's nothing wrong with consulting commentary to read alongside Kant, it's fucking hard enough a it is. And for the love of god, unless you want to spent the next two years on Kant, sticking to the Groundwork and then the Critique is fine for the time being.

>> No.9228285

>>9228251
Well, yes, kind of. But I think it's important to realize that this internet-meme understanding off just crossing off philosophers of your list is just that, a meme. There's nothing wrong with treating it as a challenge but you should feel some kind of gratification in the very act of reading philosophy, if not, why even bother? So if you are just reading as Hobby and it takes you two years to get through Kant or whatever but you feel like you are getting something from it, why not?

>> No.9228297

>>9228285
So what i'm trying to get at, the "reward" isn't being able to spout off all of Kants main arguments in a conversation to make you look smart, it's having engaged with this brilliant mans thought and enriching your own thought, even if you maybe don't fully understand half of it. As cheesy as it sounds, the journey is the goal.

>> No.9228429

>>9228297
u i like

>> No.9228457

>>9228157
Anon will NEVER recover!

>> No.9228462

>>9227960
I keep to Hesiodos. He's totally comfy.

>> No.9228512

This is why serious people pick the one they want to study, do amphetamines, then read the books and their antecedents side-by-side.

>take amphetamines
>read Beauvoir cross-referencing with sartre
>take amphetamines
>read sartre cross-referencing with heidegger
>take amphetamines
>etc

If you had more work ethic and more high caliber stimulants you wouldn't have this problem. Its 2017, there's no excuse for not being omniscient.

>> No.9228562

>>9228512
Gtfo disgusting druggie
Go snort some shit or suck cock for 5$

>> No.9228568

>>9228512
Amphetamines are a meme. Only the true Übermensch learn without having to "enhance" themselves, for they are already naturally enhanced.

>> No.9228621

>>9228568
Lmfao

>> No.9228627

>>9228568
Ubermensch aren't naturally enhanced, they just are, you can't be enhanced if you were never normal in the first place

>> No.9228733

Kant is crap and anything derivated is inherently wrong, Hume and anglos in general are unable of filosofia. There, saved your time while increasing the quality.

>> No.9228785

>>9228733
There's a reason they call him "Can't" :^)

>> No.9228853

You don't need to worry about chronology. That's a plebeian modernist concern. Reading backwards can be more illuminating than reading forwards.

Start with the Bible and the Church Fathers. Always start there. Then read Plato and Aristotle. Then read the crown of knowledge, Aquinas and the Canon Law. Then read the apocrypha, Greek mythology, and the Mesopotamian literary canon. You should have enough under your belt by then to explore whatever else interests you, like the Romans, the Vedas, and the Chinese classics, the heresies, etcetera. Modern philosophers aren't worth reading at all except out of morbid curiosity. I hope Lady Sophia is kind to you. Without the Holy Spirit you'll learn nothing.

>> No.9228873
File: 87 KB, 429x410, 1393945000319.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9228873

>>9228785
whats the reason`?

>> No.9228882

>>9228785
I call him "Cant" XD

>> No.9228883

>>9228873
BBecause he kant into philosophy.

>> No.9228924

>>9228785
Okay what the fuck. How the fuck do you pronounce "Kant"? I tried looking this up and everyone says that it's pronounced like "can't." Problem is, "can't" is pronounced differently in the US and UK. So which pronunciation is it????

>> No.9228933

>>9227955
1/read the Tao Te Ching
2/compare all available translations
3/????
4/profit

>> No.9229009

>>9228562

Does it suck to be so subnormal you can't even enhance your own performance with the products of human ingenuity?

>> No.9229018

>>9228924
cunt (seriously)

>> No.9229035

>philosophy
You are just better off reading genre fiction, OP, do not waste your time on philosophy.

>> No.9229038

>Does it suck to be so subnormal you need to enhance your own performance with the products of human ingenuity?

>> No.9229388

>>9228157
But that would be pronounced betterphysics.

>> No.9229406
File: 121 KB, 460x300, 1486890069971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9229406

>>9229388
Not if you brush your teeth every day.

>> No.9229842

>>9227969
>he says on a literature board in the middle of an anime website where half the people here wanna make webcomics

>> No.9230008
File: 248 KB, 321x499, jT49xHo[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9230008

>>9227955
Stop. Get a hold of yourself. Calm down.

This is the only philosophy book you need, and will ever need.

>> No.9230817
File: 221 KB, 1000x1740, smug whitehead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9230817

>>9230008
uhhhhh I got news for you.

>> No.9230824

>>9227969
>utility
>he still hasn't read past Mills

>> No.9230843

>>9228156
>Beauvoir does sound a bit like Bulbasaur
What. Seriously fucking prime 7/10 right here.

>> No.9230916

>>9227969
>thinking and learning about how to live a good life has no utility

>> No.9231064
File: 47 KB, 576x589, 1482934533260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9231064

My biggest hurdle to diving into philosophy is that there's always like five supplementary studies that are supposed to be read with every primary source. Seems exhausting

>> No.9231074

>>9230824
>needing to
Social philosophy ends with the 1800s

>> No.9231768

>>9230817
...Pence?