/lit/ - Literature

People like you never learn shit. You buy a bunch of books at once, get off on the illusion of progress and self-improvement and then take a picture to show off your new collection, but that's as far as you go with it.

If you were serious about learning or bettering yourself, you'd start with one book and actually read it. Fuck off.

>>3910720
Why did you even make this thread?

Obviously Plato and Aristotle are good intro-to-phil/starters, as everyone ever knows that.

One is fiction, which you tell us to ignore, leaving us with flavor-of-the-times edgyman which every supposedly smart young person knows

>>3910737
Also, that's a terrible entry point to neet-chi

Despicable.

>Inferno
>No Purgatorio or Paradiso

Do people forget about the other two or something?

>>3910746
Yeah.

>>3910755
Well at least the second listing is a compendium.

Sorry, but the only way to learn philosophy is by taking a survey course first. Nobody reads anything but excerpts from compilations until your junior year, when you start reading full text primary sources. This isn't car repair, philosophy isn't well suited for auto-didacts.

>>3910759
lol

>>3910759
>I can't do anything by my own.

Fuck aristotle. Fuck plato. You should probably learn both though.

For Aristotle I'd start with the Nicomachean ethics or any of what's called the organon. The Republic is good if you have some secondary sources, but I'd recommend Apology, Phaedo or Euthyphro.

I'd recommend getting a reading group. You don't have to get a university course, but I think doing philosophy right requires discussion.

I've almost done my degree and I find this list is pretty much equivalent to my readings http://afterall.net/books/490646

IMO you can probably start right at Descartes and skip the medievals, but Plato/Aristotle are essential at some point before Kant

>>3910804

About the medievals, if you study both aristotle and plato, you've pretty much studied the medievals (just replace god with virtue). That's not completely it, but thats the just of it.

Nietzsche should be read in Kaufmann only, and in chronological order except maybe skipping The Birth of Tragedy

Read the early dialogues before The Republic and never read it in isolation

Order doesn't really matter all that much with Aristotle but read him after Plato

Not sure on Dante translations but that's only the Inferio. While Purgatory and especially Paradise are kind of boring by comparison, do yourself a favour and read the damn things anyway.

>>3910811
the birth of tragedy isn't all that essential for Nietzsche and you can pretty much start at BG&E if you've done Kant and his predecessors. The Gay Science is really good though and Thus Spake Zarathustra is basically the ideas of Gay science and BGE in narrative form.

>>3910805

i mean virtue with god, whatever.

>>3910820

>>3910720
Uhm why are you starting with Aristotle's De Anima before reading his Physics?

N.E. -> Optional E.E. -> Categories -> Physics -> Metaphysics -> De Anima

>>3910845
To be honest, look for a book that introduces the kinds of questions philosophy looks into BEFORE looking into actual works. While I didn't do this, I think it would have been helpful.

I highly recommend Bertrand Russell's The Art of Philosophizing - if you're lucky enough to find a copy of it. I am going to be transcribing it the next chance I get.

>>3910845
Actually, read DE and PA around the Categories, too

>reading the Republic first
>not reading the Organon first
Why do you have a random Nietzsche book there? And your Dante seems to be missing two books.

I don't even understand your question. Why would it matter if that were a good line-up or not? Understanding philosophy is crealy not your goal.

>>3910737
>>3910792
>>3910805
>Obviously Plato and Aristotle are good intro-to-phil/starters
>About the medievals, if you study both aristotle and plato, you've pretty much studied the medievals
>Fuck aristotle. Fuck plato.

Oh, joy! Two new and delightful retards for me to filter.

the Republic is easily the best work to start with in philosophy - everything's there: justice, art, narrative, politics, sexuality, psychology, knowledge, ontology, ethics, duty, irony(?). and it's all there in the expansive tyrannical madness that is so delightful and traumatic in philosophy as such.

>>3910736
Jesus you just described 90% of my facebook newsfeed.

I'd recommend looking into decent secondary sources to accompany whatever you buy. Don't rely solely on them though.

Seriously, don't start by jumping in to some random primary texts without any historical context at all.
I'm not saying you need to get a philosophy degree or something, but start with secondary texts or good introductions to the philosophers.
It's almost completely pointless just to read Nietzsche without knowledge of the ideas of philosophers that he drew from, for example. Ancient greek philosophy will also seem completely alien without contemporary commentaries.

>>3910847
>>3910720

Bertrand Russell also wrote a history of western philosophy, which you can find in audiobook on torrenting sites pretty fast if you have no attention span for bookzes.

>>3910759
>trying to justify his philosophy major

>>3910804
This. I started with Discourse on the Method, it's simple, easy to comprehend, and it's a good starting point. After him you should to the greeks, then study whatever suits your taste.

Wiley-Blackwell anthologies are good textbooks to start with; they're just anthologies of salient essays and excerpts arranged in a useful (pedagogically) way.

Also, MIT Open Courseware will give you reading lists so you can either buy the books or just download the essays off of the internet.

>>3910720

This will probably discourage you since you just dropped dough, but try this instead.

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

You can download the episodes in bulk sections. Go download the Pre-Socratics, listen to them all. Then pick an Oxford very short introduction (I think there is even one on pre-socratics), and read that (they are only like 120 pages each). Then THINK about what interests you from the pre-socratic period, and read that. For instance, I was interested Parmenides and also in future philosophers' take on him, so I went and read Plato's Parmenides after I finished doing that.

There are a couple good torrents (probably on pirate bay if you're that pleb) that just have shittons of philosophy books. Do what I said and in about a year (if you're diligent) you'll be able to pick up more modern works and know sort of what the fuck you're talking about.

Philosophy is complicated, and has a very deep history. Not only do you need to have knowledge of that history, but you NEED some academic input as to how these works fit together cuz you're not going to read them all and it matters. That podcast is probably the best such resource I've found yet, although if anyone else has more suggestions I would appreciate that.

Don't fucking post anything on Facebook.

>>3911238

Oh, also do yourself a favor and learn the Greek alphabet so when writer reference words you aren't a total moron. It'll help in lots of other things in life too.

>>3911134

>I believe in a magical idea realm where everything is real, but everything in this life is just a not as good copy of the stuff in that realm even though i cant get to that realm or can even prove it exists
>i believe in immaterial concepts are real tangible things

buttowned

>>3911280
Buttowned of your inability to substantiate your sophomoric claims and spouting all those strawman versions of someone's philosophy? You bet!

>>3911326


you probably just havent read aristotle or plato.

>>3911328
Sweet /b/-worthy rebuttal, kid.
Hit me up when you have learned the nature of a deductive argument and how to construct one when refuting someone's ontology.

>>3911280
Ideas and things are just two different ways of existing.

Read Parmenides and then Plato

>>3911361

Why should we take the Greeks' word for it?

>>3911361

I did that. I understand the progression. I don't think that there is much value to studying ancient philosophers other than the whole "yeah, look how fucked up and wrong these guy's worldviews were. look how much we've evolved."

>>3911375
are you trying to troll?

>>3911375

That's pretty much it yeah

>>3910720

> no /lit/
> no timestamp

> /lit/, see image

>>3911375
>>>/b/

>>3911375
>muh knowledge is an accumulation of truths

i'm not even a Platonist but sheesh

>>3910720
>the inferno
>philosophy

>>3911469
>Ignore The Inferno.

nice reading comprehension

>>3910736
>>3911179

Those people are as bad as the "i'm such a nerd XD" crowd. Plato has some of the worst ideology i've read so far in philosophy, but Republic is a good introduction. Make sure you have a decent grasp of simile of the sun and divided line before you read The Cave. It helped me a lot.

>>3911562
>Plato has some of the worst ideology i've read so far in philosophy
Yet you're too big of a retard to give a refutation of it. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

I recently read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, easily Nietzsche's best. I'm currently reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and I have Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus standing by.

>>3911572

Well he stole a good portion of his ideas from Socrates, Moses, Africa and Egypt.

>>3910811
Is that "The Portable Nietzche" by Kaufmann?

>>3911593
Thanks for confirming my doubts. Yours, and other teenagers' scrotums really ought to be cut off for treating such major figures of philosophy with such carelessness.

And,
>Well he stole a good portion of his ideas from Socrates, Moses, Africa and Egypt.
This is not a refutation. This is a shit on a stick. You do know how refutations work, right?

>>3910720
Start with Kant

>>3911238
/thread
(does this belong on the sticky?)

>>3911693
yes, yes ,yes

>>3911455

>implying that's even close to what i said

in other words

>hey guys, i think that everything is made of water. look how we sweat. we're totally water. look at the oceans. CONDENSATION.

Yah. Look how fucked up and wrong he was. Also, plato believed that everything was made up of tiny pyramids, or something stupid like that. Don't even begin to tell me that Plato wasn't fucked up and retarded.

>>3911572

You too.

>>3912156
>Don't even begin to tell me that Plato wasn't fucked up and retarded.

>Penguin classics version of Plato

Try the Hackett translation

>The Inferno
It's a classic but try adding Descartes Meditations & Hume's Enquiry. You'll learn to refute all the outrageous claims in these books later. Understand first, then seek to be understood.

>>3912180
>mfw he seriously thinks reading Plato is retarded

Do you even philosophize bro?

>>3911238
thanks for that link. i have read bits of aristotle, socrates, and some of the presocratics. but these podcasts will help fill many gaps.

>>3910811

>Nietzsche should be read in Kaufmann only

eat shit

>>3910811
>Nietzsche should be read in Kaufmann only

You mean 'in German only.'

>>3912156

It's a shame that you have a tripcode attached to your scribblings.

You have not read Plato. Look at your misapprehension of the theory of forms. You don't understand that it is an attempt to solve the problem of universals. You don't understand that Plato invokes metaphysics to suggest an answer to more tangible problems of justice and virtue. This is because you have not read Republic nor studied philosophy in any detail whatsoever- only slapdash surfs on Wikipedia and hearsay. If you had read Republic and the early dialogues, you would have posted differently. If you had read more difficult dialogues like Parmenides, you certainly wouldn't mock Plato- you would know that he was rigorous and intellectually honest. If you had read Timaeus, you would know about the Platonic solids. At the very least, if you read a fun dialogue like Symposium, you would admire Plato's literary expertise. But you wouldn't know any of these things, because you haven't read Plato.

And if I'm wrong, and you have read Plato, then I would suggest Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book.

>>3912225

I have read all of that. I don't fucking care what type of society plato came from, he was fucking wrong. I respect that he tried to SOLVE THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE, but like, so do a lot of religions. Doesn't mean that any of them are right.

>you dont agree with me and what i think. i am a platonic dickfuckbitch and therefore my idea is more real than this post and therefore its the only right thing in the universe suk my fucking dik and it cant possibly be incorrect.

Show me this realm of forms. Stop sticking up for plato, you know he's a fucking retard. Aristotle wasn't much better.

>>3912229
>Show me this realm of forms.
Oh man, you can not be this much of an idiot...

>>3910811
>order doesn't really matter all that much with Aristotle
>do you even Organon?

>>3912229

>>3912191

This. I cannot emphasize this enough. Read Grube's translation of Republic, Descartes's Meditations, and Hume's Enquiry. These are the three must-read starter texts for philosophy.

>>3912229

>>3912232
>>3912234

i totally can be if i wanted to.

Also, this is why litfags shouldnt philosophy. Even my professors are tired of ancient greek bullshit. Of course there is a certain respect for the development of thought and just the fact that someone was trying to answer the many questions of the universe, but that doesn't give any ANY ANY validity to ANY of what was being said back then.

Its even worse when you realize that a lot of modern philosophy (especially REALLY RECENTLY) is just plato and aristotle rehashed for modern times.

>>3912250
>Even my professors are tired of ancient greek bullshit.
Your professors are likely at a stage in their thinking and work where they can back this up. Asking someone to show you the world of forms is a clear indicator you are nowhere near this stage.

>>3912250
>Even my professors
Give my condolences to your professors.

>>3912258

Hey, you seem to suck greek dick. What was aristotle's biggest criticism of plato and his forms?

>>3911375
>>3912229
Dude, did you ever think that, maybe Plato was smarter than you?

Be a little more humble. The focal point of his philosophy was that he knew that he didn't know, while everyone else claimed to know.

You, right now, are claiming you "know" Plato was wrong. We've had him since before the common era; we've had Nietzsche and Sartre for under 300 years.

>>3912250

>Of course there is a certain respect for the development of thought

You don't have it. You are selling short ancient Greeks with phrases like "the development of thought" or "evolution" - texts from greats like Plato were cultural achievements, formative in Western civilization.

>Even my professors are tired of ancient greek bullshit.

Ah, that explains it. You are exhibiting the most infantile tactic in philosophy, characteristic of undergrads: calling classical philosophers stupid. If they were stupid, we wouldn't be discussing them. Maybe your professors "are tired of ancient greek bullshit" (whatever that means), but there is more classical scholarship than ever. I can't discuss Plato with you because you don't know the first thing about him. But maybe you ought to consider reading his works. There are reasons why he's discussed.

I am telling you, Rassel, you need to stop putting off your reading. You are not impressing anybody on this forum. You make all of these vague claims, like:

>Its even worse when you realize that a lot of modern philosophy (especially REALLY RECENTLY) is just plato and aristotle rehashed for modern times.

I mean, what are you saying? What about Plato and Aristotle is rehashed? You don't know. You are just putting off your reading. If you want to discuss philosophy, you need to read the texts and decide for yourself. Enough empty words.

>>3912261
I'll see if I can come down to your level:
It's like chairs or whatever guy, like what gives a chair chairness? Like is it this universal unchanging idea of a chair, or is it like that we decide that thing there we can like sit on it and so we call it a chair?

I'm guessing something like this is what you're thinking of, although it barely touches the surface of either Aristotle's or Plato's thoughts.

>>3912250
>Its even worse when you realize that a lot of modern philosophy (especially REALLY RECENTLY) is just plato and aristotle rehashed for modern times.

You just destroyed your own argument, allow me to explain.

You've been trying to prove this whole time that Plato & Aristotle are fucked-up, outdated and not worthy of your intellectual pickiness. Above, in the greentext, you say all modern, recent philosophy was rehashed for modern time. That's reason to read these timeless philosophical masterpieces, they are just that: timeless and relevant to today.

I can't seriously believe you are that stupid, so I must assume you put this argument in to trip us up, and teach us that we should all show intellectual respect for Plato and Aristotle? Is that what you meant to do?

>>3912261
>>3912250
>>3912229
>>3912156
>>3911375
>>3911328
>>3911280
>>3910820
>>3910805
>>3910792

Please never stop using your trip so I can keep your drivel filtered permanently. It's as though you actually have zero understanding of the Greek and Medieval philosophy; your posts are too frequent to be troll posts, so I am assuming you really are just woefully uneducated on them and are resorting to fourth-hand commentaries you've read.

>>3912264

appeal to authority all over that post

>he's more famous and well known than you, the necessarily means that he is smarter than you and more right.

>also, platos ideas have been around for a lot longer than ones your subscribe to!

You sound exactly like old baby boomers thinking that they know everything because they are old and awful.

>>3912229
look, I don't think that Plato was "right," But if you think one reads philosophy just to "get it right", as if there were some short-circuit like that, then you're missing the whole point of the adventure of philosophy. You're coming at Plato like he's giving you empirical natural science which has been refuted by evidence - perhaps in some respects Plato meant to do natural science. That's not why he's read though. Your attitude and demeanor disclose that you want nothing to do with the actual business of philosophy - one's thinking for oneself.

>>3912266

I dont think that the ancient greeks were STUPID, i think that, based on what they knew, they were pretty revolutionary. That, however, doesn't mean that they were right.

>his WRITINGS WERE A CULTURAL PHENOMENON

Honestly, you put way too much relevance on how important the actual books were instead of actually analyzing the thought process and realizing that it is obsolete. You probably major in lit, not philosophy.

Also,

>alasdair macintyre

>ayn rand

>not virtue ethics and a spiritual successor to aristotle

Do you even study philosophy?

>>3912273

>says a lot of, not all

>>3912250
Your chronological snobbery is atrocious. I got a BA in philosophy and they loved the Greeks. Do you even read the journals? There is an almost renaissance of interest in the ancient Greeks as of the last 10 years or so; particularly in linguistics. Contrary to your opinion, you seem to be hopelessly out of touch with the current philosophical trends. You had some twit of a professor while taking philosophy 101 at some shit junior college talk smack on the Greeks, and now presume them to be irrelevant. Nothing you ever say pertaining to philosophy can be taken seriously, since you are hardly taking philosophy itself seriously.

>>3912286
Just because I used an argumentative fallacy, doesn't mean the argument is wrong. I can say most people believe the sky is blue, but you can't say it wrong because it's ad populum, or argues based on the masses.

Let's take it a step further, and filter out the masses. Let's ask the philosophers whether or not Plato. Not just the living ones, the dead ones as well.

>mfw 90% of philosophers since plato put pen to paper got something out of or learned something from him

Again, intellectual modesty young one.

>>3912305

I respect the origins of philosophy, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it ever. I don't understand you guys at all.

That said, I always did enjoy reading the ancient greeks. But still, FUCK THEM.

>>3912303
.....I just joined the thread and scrolled to the bottom, but your understanding of virtue ethics is apparently horrifically wrong.

Lyotard claims to be an Aristotelian, so there's that on the continental side. But I'll admit I am not as keen on continental philosophy.

But Virtue ethics and more recently Virtue Epistemology are hugely popular in analytic circles right now.

>>3912303

>Ayn Rand is rehashed Aristotle

>>3912303
>says a lot of, not all

Hah! You haven't disproved me or admitted whether you were indirectly trying to extol Plato. I'm not a preschooler saying "you're lying" - "no, you're lying!"

Even if they weren't relevant to ALL PHILOSOPHERS EVER, you still admit they're relevant to "A LOT OF" philosophers.

So, if an author is rehashed even to this day, even in modern times by "a lot of" philosophers, wouldn't that be a good fucking reason to study?

If you can't see this abandon all hope.

>>3912311
>FUCK THEM.

and that is the core of your juvenility spilling out.

no one said you should agree with them, or even "respect" them. it's your treating them as though they were your childhood bullies that reveals that you're an imbecile.

>>3912320

Im mostly being facetious, dude.

>>3912311
No one is saying you must agree with 100% of what they are saying. It would be bizarre to agree with 100% of what ANY philosopher has said. But what they DID say has much much more truth in it than nonsense; all presented in very compelling ways. Just because you think Plato's Timaeus (which I sincerely doubt you have read) is silly hardly invalidates the other 90% of what Plato had to say.

And just because you can read some contemporary twit say something that Plato had already said does not mean you ought to prefer him over Plato. Philosophy is pretty closely tied to its own history. It's been said that all of philosophy is just footnotes on Plato , which is obviously a bit of a hyperbole, but to dismiss them is an unforgivable sin against your own intellect.

>mfw /lit/ points out a retard rather than agreeing with him

>>3912316

like, only vaguely, but, objectivism is absolutely a virtue based moral system.

>>3912326

>>3912326
>inb4 i_was_only_pretending_to_be_retarded.jpeg

>>3912343

No not at all. Also, take a look, we seem to be on the same side, I just seem to be wording things way more bluntly.

>>3910792

>you should probably learn both though

as in they are both very important to actually learning how to "philosophy." And as we've already said, it doesnt mean you have to agree with anything they have said.

I honestly don't think we've really said anything different. I've just been not as modest about things as you.

>>3910720
I'm with Russell here. Most of philosophy before Kant is outdated, including Plato. Influential in the past yes, but relevant today?

Hell, put Plato in the present today. A time and age of Plato after he's written his works. Would he still recommend the Republic afterwards?

>>3912354
There is one last exit, or way to win this argument Rassel: you can claim that intellectual modesty isn't a virtue.

>>3912359
...yes. All you dense motherfuckers, thinking the Greeks are even a smidgen less relevant, clearly do not read the journals and article currently being published.

>>3912359
1. Plato isn't necessarily espousing what is contained in his dialogues.
2. You always read the text in a way that is of your time, see Allan Bloom's essay on the Republic.

>>3912359

I've often thought this. The thing about plato, is he constantly changed his beliefs.

For example, his idea of the soul in phaedo is entirely different than his idea of the soul in the republic. IN FACT, he seems to be contradicting himself!!! Woah! Wow! WOOOOW!

>>3912366

If anything, you just agreed with him that it isnt very relevant to our time.

>>3912361

Loolol more like a vice among philosophers

>>3912372
It's as relevant to any other time as it is to now, even the time in which it's written.

>>3912374

How? And like, do you mean in the same exact kind of way as it was in the past? Or are you suggesting that its useful in other ways?

>>3912376
I'm suggesting you read Allan Bloom's essay

>>3912381

I understand that. I'd like for you to tell me why you think this. Surely you have your reasons. reading an essay isn't a valid reason. it could lead one to change their opinion and give them reasons, but it definitely isn't a valid reason

>>3912367
Of course he contradicts himself! Plato isn't the Bible you fucking fool.

>>3912389

hey im gonna fall for your obvious troll statement here.

>>but like wouldnt that mean that plato IS THE BIBLE?!?

>>3912394
You:
>plato contradicts himself
>if you contradict yourself, you're wrong and not worthy of being read
>plato is wrong and not worthy of being read

>>3912399

I never said that he wasn't worthy of being read. On many occasions in this thread, i should that he should be read and that I enjoyed reading him.

The contradiction statement was more of a response to:

>would he still recommend the republic afterwards?

It was more of a "im not even sure if he believes what he is saying" kind of thing.

>>3912402
Plato himself is not present in the dialogues.

>>3912409

I think you are misunderstanding everything forever. The dialogues weren't just stories. They were told (and probably made up) with intention to showcase some beliefs. Hell, we don't even know how accurate Socrates is compared to the actual real Socrates that maybe probably actually existed?

You can safely assume that Plato's beliefs were showcased by the dialogues.

>>3912389
The Bible does however, and somewhat predictably, contradict itself