/lit/ - Literature

>Foucault

nope.jpg

And you can't get anything interesting from those other philosophers unless you know a bit about philosophy.

That gif always leaves me confused as to whether I'm happy or scared.

>>1648506
y u scared of dolphin?
r u japanese?

Really it's advisable to read Hume. Without it you'll make some horrendous mistakes in thinking that could have been easily avoided, look at Paley.

I agree that those are the philosophers most often read by people who are entering the area, but that term doesn't really fully explain the relationship.
"Entry-level" is a false designator. It implies that there is some continuum of difficulty, and moreover that the greater the difficulty in reading a philosopher, the more valid the ideas. It's easy to draw those conclusions, but only because we were all introduced to the ideas long ago. We're tired of discussing them, and we understand them to a greater degree and in a larger context than people who are reading them for the first time. Those aren't things about the philosopher. They're things about us. The philosophers are simply men with ideas. They can barely be discussed in the context of other philosophers in the same subdivision of philosophy. So disrespecting them on the grounds that our conversations about them suck is like disrespecting a game because its fanbase is retarded.

Thus, those philosophers are more widely read, and so when they're discussed it is often unintelligently, but that says more about readership than it does about the philosophers, who were both great thinkers in their own right, and extremely significant to the advancement of the field over time.

>>1648512

Are you trying to tell me that that dolphin doesn't even slightly unsettle you? Look at it's wide eyes, the gaping jaw, the terrifying look of joy. Then, add to all that the fact that it fucking shakes like it's extremely disturbed and you have a psycopathic dolphin.

I can't even look at it.

Foucault doesn't really fit imo. I mean you need to have read a lot of philosophy to understand him well.

>>1648513
>it's advisable to read Hume
not if you hate missing shades of blue

that dolphin is the cause of that earthquake. Sweet sweet revenge. The japanese dolphin dread continues

>>1648517
>big round blue eyes
>toothles & laughing-like
>look of joy
i love dolphins

>entry-level
>Lao Tzu

OP still thinks philosophizing means armchairs for his next fifty years.

>>1648539
What does that mean? I don't understand.

>>1648515
Hey look, a sober opinion!

It's good that you know.

If by entry-level you mean more widely read, then sure. If you mean easy to understand or even vapid you are dead wrong.

>entry-level nietzsche scholars
kaufmann, hollingdale, schacht, deleuze

>>1648566
and nehamas

>>1648566
Deleuze on Nietzsche is as enlightening as it can be opaque or misleading (in the sense of misreading).

>Deleuze

>>1648502

You're an idiot if you think someone who has never read philosophy can pick up Zarathustra and gain any meaningful knowledge from it. He will undoubtedly misinterpret it.

A proper introduction might be...

1. Plato and Aristotle
2. Augustine and Maimonides
3. Aquinas
4. Descartes
5. Locke, Hume, Rousseau
6. Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Kierkegaard
7. Nietzsche
8. Heidegger

Oh, and then read Allan Bloom

>>1648636
Wait, you criticize OP for listing an author who's easy to misread, then you give a list starting with philosophers writing thousands of years ago?

You couldn't grasp any of those writers without thorough knowledge of the time they were writing in.

>>1648640
That's just silly; even today philosophers are still constantly referring back to the Greek philosophers. It's necessary to start with the Greeks; otherwise people would be flat-out confused all the damn time.

Also, don't forget the fact that none of us will ever fully understand the time and place in which these men lived, so that's a moot point. The guy was actually right - someone picking up Nietzsche simply willy-nilly won't comprehend it well, and likely those are the same oddballs that think Nietzsche is a nihilist.

FUCK THIS SHIT! LETS GET THIS DECIDED ONCE AND FOR ALL! WHATS THE BEST ALL IN ONE PHILOSOPHY BOOK SO I DON'T HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME READING "FOUNDATIONAL" BULL-SHIT

>>1648942

The Bible

>>1648502
You just forgot Deleuze, Derrida, Habermas and Nietzsche.

>>1648953

>>1648942
Hegel's "The phenomenology of Spirit"
The only-one-great-über-alles philosophy system.
Anything said before and after is pure bullshit. He's the truth, he kicks ass.
He's so badass that he's not even a "philosophos", he's a motherfucking "SOPHOS", bitch.

>>1648942
what you desire does not exist, but this comes very close in a sketchy sort of a way

>>1648964
>Hegel

>>1648942
entering the world of philosophy is like an eternal race to nowhere...
If you don't like foundational books I don't recommend you to start reading philosophy.

>>1648970
>irony
I was wrong when I thought that wasn't obvious enough....

ITT people don't get jokes

>>1648970
"Oh, I'm not going to bother explaining myself but I just want you to know that you're fucking retarded"

>>1648981
There's no need to explain anything
>>1648977

>>1648977
>>1648977
i thought you were being a hipster/retareded/trolling. Its not as if a guy asking for entry level philosoply would know hegel was impenetrable and mainly irrelevant

ALL philosophy is entry-level. All of it. It's just art for the unimaginative.

>>1648994
well, nothing on the first post is neither for beginners.

>>1648994
>hegel irrelevant

I thought kojeve's reading of hegel was pretty relevant

Reading is like anything else: you can only get out of it what you put in, or what you bring to it e.g. all reading being subjective phenomena, a superficial thinker will make anything "entry-level" anyway borrring troll

>>1649001
Well, that was pretty neat...
None can deny the fact that globalization IS the end of History.

>>1649038
Wait till the aliens get here

>>1649038
that lesart is just as flawed as any historicism.

Its not as retarded as Francis Fukuyamas drivel, though.

>>1649038
>"end of" fantasising

How second-order

>>1649038
I thought it was for his interpretation of hegel's master/slave dialectic that he was more influential...but then I looked at wiki and am obviously wrong

>>1649046
If aliens get here they would have surely reached the end of History on his planet.

>>1649056
have you even read fukuyama?

>>1649064
Does anybody still read fukuyama (apart from first year Iternational Relations students)?
Did anybody read fukuyama in the first place..... I just got the spark notes

>>1649058
no, you are not wrong.

The wiki entry does not reflect on my experience (which is mainly regarding the history of political ideas for which, surprising or not, hegel and kojeve are extremely important)

>>1649064
He's like the poor man's Zizek right

>>1649068
lots of people read fukuyama. and the problem is they are students of political science that were trained in a very dubious scientific method in the first place.

Fukuyama just doesnt hold up against history, though. Be it the history predating his book or the time after it.

>>1649068
seeing how people calls the end of History retarded or fantasizing I thought they should be all experts in the field...
Well, neoliberalism seems to be the definitive system, after defeating european fascists and the soviets there's nothing (ideologically) able to compete with it.
The system has reached the whole world, and now nothing can change it. Some say that integrist islamism or nationalisms (some say that even anarchism) are ideologies that can still fight against neoliberalism, but seeing how economy rules the world that seems almost impossible. This is the end oh History as we knew it.

>>1649076
>>1649076
Um, unless you've been paying attention to what's been happening in the world for the last 2-3 years.....

>>1649076
well, one could argue that this is just the last step BEFORE the end of history. The collapse of capitalism is not dependant on "marxist" states.

ALso, nobody could have ever perceived someting like modernism or ratonalisation around the 11th century. Now we perceive it as a natural step in the progression.
People back then believed the world is coming to an end soon (its deeply enrooted in christianity). Now we have a similar eschatology. But its not transcendend anymore. Its the transformation of large-scale political dialectics into administrating the necessary state-functions to enable production for profit.

>>1648942
Bertrand Russel's History of Western philosophy

haters gonna hate

I bet that none of you can unambiguously define Philosophy. Come on guys, prove me right.

>>1649091
Yeah, capitalism reaching new limits.
Lear to elaborate your arguments, please. "You are just stupid so you're wrong and I'm right" is the best argument ever.

>>1649098

>>1649091
Have you ever heard that thing about crisis being inherent to the capitalist system? NOTHING's gonna change, nothing. this is not the first nor the last crisis because this is how capitalism rolls.

>>1649105
The Self-Reflective Moment

>>1649121
weren't you gone?

>>1649121
Well caught.

>>1649119
Economic cycle says hi.

>>1649121
>me creating the world.jpg

>>1649105
philosophy=love of knowledge

>>1649158

>>1649169
to be fair, wisdom is far better goal than knowledge.

although i dont think your program can provide either.

>>1649158
yeah, bro, well done.

too bad that term was coined by a guy who believed in absolute, unchangable, eternal and (foremost) intelligible truth. This "truth" was competing with other values during his time. so a philosopher was in the strictest sense someone who believed in the same principles this guy did.
He was called Platon btw... and Philosophy has gone far beyond him in the 2500 years that have passed since then.

>>1649236

Philosophy has not advanced since Plato.

Whatever my opinions may be, but one of them is this: The definition of truth remains unchanged. Its our perception of what FACT is that changes/improves.

>>1649243

God was Truth for a very long time. And then scientific facts. And then nothing.

>>1649243
> Whatever my opinions may be, but one of them is this: The definition of truth remains unchanged.

you're funny, you know that?

Rand is below shit tier.

It's funny... When I read serious introductions to philosophy Rand is always represented as an important figure in 20th century's philosophy. But when I go to /lit/, people are calling her shit and not worth reading.

Can someone, in a sober tone, explain to me, what's so bad about her? I haven't read anything by her yet myself.

schopenhauer > nietzsche

>>1650703
hippopotamus > rhinoceros

>>1650702

trying to enshrine selfishness as the paramount virtue is for babies, ayn rand is a literal baby

>>1650702
No serious introduction to philosophy calls Rand an important figure.

>>1650702
/lit/ is inhabited by misogynists, also

>philosopher
>female

pick one

>>1650709
Why shouldn't selfishness be a virtue?
Note: forget the stereotype business man who doesn't have a life outside his job, I'm not asking why money aren't the only thing that matters.

>>1650719

lolno

objectivism is treason to womynkind, the dismantling of the patriarchy must be a collective effort

Who the fuck is telling you Rand is a serious figure in philosophy, besides conservative shits

>>1650726
>implying youre for real