/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11621820]

What is the actual point of Thoroughly reading Kant, Heidegaard, or Hegel besides status? What insight does Phenomenology of the spirit have that I can't get to see and outlive by attending a two three hour lecture? Just wondering if there are alternative pathways to a more complete view of the world, not because it is easier. Its simply unpractical for me using several months too narrowly read esoteric matterial. There is too much to learn.

[Anonymous No.11621836]

>>11621820
>What is the actual point of Thoroughly reading
stopped reading right there

[Anonymous No.11621840]

>>11621820

Not much, phenomenology only exists to allow for anyone to make metaphysical claims.

If you want to learn a true path in the 21th century ,you should study physics or at least mathematical philosophy or logic.

[Anonymous No.11621842]

>>11621820
Your understanding will always be commensurate to the time you put it, that is in fact one of Hegel's great insights.

[Anonymous No.11621905]

Kant should be thoroughly read because his system and insights are truly deep and complex.

[Anonymous No.11621920]

>>11621842
>truism
>great insight
k

[Anonymous No.11621937]

>>11621836
Thats the spirit.
>>11621840
Im a brainlet at math. I like to write, in my native language anyways. The reason I ask is because of the responsibility every writter has to contribute and channel humanities greatest thoughts, into a more normie friendly language.

[Anonymous No.11621973]

So I was wondering if these great philosophers have contributed to your daily life, besides of course their prerequisite cultural influence on the very fabric of society.

[Anonymous No.11621986]

>>11621973
they buried me deeper into the rabbit hole

[Anonymous No.11621991]

And if you've read any comparable more accecible works, more up to date, preferably written in relation to our modern world. Asking for a bit much. But you never know.

[Anonymous No.11622005]

>>11621973
Contributed in what way ? You should read the beginning of Humes enquiry. Different types of philosophy have different ends.

[Anonymous No.11622037]

That depends on what you see as the "point" of reading philosophy as a whole. Is it to gain a better understanding of the world of thoughts, to bring about a revolution, to be able to express yourself creatively in the world of thoughts, to argue with people online or on the Internet, as a historical project, to exercise your mind, to have something to discuss with others, to occupy yourself, etc?

Maybe your project is too broad; you might only want to consider political philosophy for instance, or (meta)ethics, or even just a specific thinker like Kant or Marx.

Kant and Hegel are by no means esoteric within philosophy; they are some of the most mentioned and some of the most cited names there are.

>>11621991
Some works are accessible and written very recently but also rely on or assume knowledge of previous thought. "Willing Slaves of Capital: Spinoza and Marx on Desire" does, for example. The history of philosophy is useful for at least two reasons: knowing what arguments have been presented before (and their responses) so that you can avoid the same mistakes, and being enlightened by a particular idea. In fact, the process of the history of philosophy is exposed in one Hegel introduction or another. If you don't want to read all of Hegel, at least read the introductions he wrote.

[Anonymous No.11622047]

>>11621820
>Heidegaard

[Anonymous No.11622049]

Sweet, sweet pseud cred

[Anonymous No.11622108]

just buy the book and put it on your shelf to seem smart

t. 99% of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11622178]

>>11621820
>>11622047
>Heidegaard

[Anonymous No.11622628]

>>11622178
>>11622047
Kierkegger

[Anonymous No.11622653]

>>11622037
Thanks for the long response. Its way to broad, that is why I'd like to bend their minds into a comprehensible scale. I am just worried the magnitude of their collected thoughts might be, not outdated, but irrelevant.. In subtile detail. Even though Kant might be the original source if his thoughts, he might not be their perfected sculpted messenger. Someone else might convey his ideas in a richer, more simplistic format. Im not talking about an introduction book to philosophy.. what was I trying to do again..
Right.
Make an essential reading plan of books that will give me an advantageous ego death edge over other peoples worldview, without prohibiting myself from interacting with the outside world.. reason does not seem to matter much anymore thou.. Its really boring. Witch is a big problem.

[Anonymous No.11622669]

>>11621820
>b-b-but what is the POINT of philosophy????
im convinced that anyone who feels the need to ask this will never find value in philosophy

[Anonymous No.11622715]

>>11621820
there isn't one or a few specific pithy sentences you can extract from their work, point to and say "these were the meaningful contributions of kant to philosophy." you aren't only trying to absorb their conclusions, but their method of thinking. you're attempting to model them as people so they become a part of you. no sources will be able to accomplish this as efficiently as things they wrote themselves.

[Anonymous No.11622733]

>>11622669
That is not what im asking at all. I find great vallue in philosophy, if nothing else its really entertaining. And laws and stuff are pretty good too

[Anonymous No.11622745]

>>11621820
To ascend.

[Anonymous No.11622813]

>>11622715
Yeah, this is what im looking for. I didn't know intil now. Im not searching for a source, but any modern writers whom have perfected their model of thinking, in relation to our modern world, and maybe some historical significance of their ideas in practice. All.respect to the old fellows, but their thoughts might not have been complete. Im just curious to any alternative ways of absorbing their thinking than directly trough them. Indirectly they've probably had a great impact on how I think, regardless of wether I've ever read a word they've written.

[Anonymous No.11622878]

help me out here
I have two goals, the first is to read augustine and aquinas, the other, is to get to german idealism. I am currently on aristotle and after finishing with aquinas I'd like to get to the germans as quickly as possible

is this list the very essential philosophers up to kant?
>descartes
>spinoza
>leibniz
>hobbes
>locke
>berkeley
>hume
>rosseau

[Anonymous No.11622896]

>unpractical

wtf

[Anonymous No.11622912]

>>11622878
start with the greeks mate.

[Anonymous No.11622928]

>>11622878
Don't need Hobbes or Rousseau, do need Plato and Aristotle

[Anonymous No.11622934]

>>11622912
he said he already started with aristotle so I assume he's done plato too, unless you're going to tell him to read pre-socratics too

>>11622878
that's a good list, I'm making my way through pretty much that at the moment but I already know some Kant
Don't forget to get round to Marx some time after Hegel, that will start you on to important parts of the continental tradition. Don't skip Rousseau.

[Anonymous No.11622939]

>>11621840
>t. eternal anglo

[Anonymous No.11622960]

>>11622878
Seconding this >>11622928

[Anonymous No.11622972]

>>11622928
>Don't need Hobbes or Rousseau,
Wrong
>do need Plato and Aristotle
Right, but specifically Plato’s Republic and Laws, and Aristotle’s Organon and Metaphysics

[Anonymous No.11622988]

>>11622928
>>11622960
all right

>>11622934
yes I did read plato and am familiar with the presocratics. Although other anons said rousseau may not be necessary I'll probably read him, because, well, why not? can't hurt
thanks frens

[Anonymous No.11623001]

Read all of Plato
The basic Works of Aristotle
Hobbes and Locke
Rousseau
Hume and Smith
Kant
Hegel and Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.11623022]

>>11621973
If you read philosophy and are genuinely interested in it, it becomes integral to your paradigm of thinking. I think and approach the life in terms of the on going philosophic development that reading it provides me.

[Anonymous No.11623023]

>>11622988
Read Rousseau’s Social Contract and Emile

Social Contract will take you a few days.

Emile will take you half a month. It’s a brick

[Anonymous No.11623733]

>>11621820
You legitimately don't have to, OP. There are many approaches to philosophy, and not all of them are suited for every individual.

It's better you spend your time watching 10 minute "Nietzsche in a nutshell" videos than trying to pick up Thus Spoke Zarathustra for the umpteenth time only to get bored after the twelfth page and feel discouraged about your entire philosophical pursuit.

That's not to disparage in-depth reading in itself. If that's what invigorates and enlightens you, all the more power to you. It's just absolutely not a pre-requisite. Philosophy is much an unfolding process of experiential revelation as it is an analytic method for fine-tuning intellectual understanding of systems of the world. Going to a cafe and having a discussion with your old waiter can be every bit as enlightening as sitting down and reading Hume.

Remember, even many of the greats of philosophy themselves didn't engage in long-winded study sessions, instead developing their ideas through discourse, observation and channelling the cultural aether of their time. Some most certainly did too, of course, and the fruits of their labour was certainly great moments of clarity for collective civilisation. But unless it is your disposition to have the wherewithal and single-minded concentration to perfect one idea or another, then truthfully there's no shame in approaching philosophy from whichever angle suits you best.

[Anonymous No.11624115]

>>11621820
There is no point. There is no point to reading philosophy at all. It is the love of knowledge that consumes knowledge, leaving you empty. Philosophy is man's first sin, man's first curse. It would have been better if Kant had never awoken from his dogmatic slumber, if Heidegger had all his works suppressed by the Nazis, and if Napoleon had killed Hegel and burned all his writings as he conquered Germany. You're 100% right. It is completely impractical to waste your time on this Earth reading these "wise" men and "learning" from them. Go do literally anything else with your life. It would be more productive to sit and do nothing than to read these guys.

[Anonymous No.11624141]

>>11623733
t. subhuman

[Anonymous No.11624145]

>>11621820
>There is too much to learn.
it's really not that much at all, compare to what like fucking engineers have to do. Even more to the point reading that stuff does not feel like work because it's fascinating and sends you off onto your own tangents of creation.

[Anonymous No.11624156]

>>11624141
Wow, how rude

[Anonymous No.11624336]

>>11624115
based. and. redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11624868]

>>11622628
keknigger

[Anonymous No.11624985]

>>11621820
I got to the section on Transcendental Logic in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and realized it was doing me no good. Sure, I understood everything up to that point but I realized Kant fell for the same meme that Descartes mocked the scholars of his day for. Philosophy is meant to be elucidating and it should be verifiable by direct experience. If you need a table of categories describing understanding and logic, you have a bad system. I believe you can gain a lot by reading philosophers like Plato (for ethics), Spinoza (ontology), and Descartes (logic), but almost all other philosophy I've read, I feel like it was a waste of time and I would have been better off reading quality literature or religious scriptures, since that what it amounts to. Beyond the basic philosophy, you're better off moving into a more respectable field like the classics or STEM. Callices from Gorgias was honestly right in the sense that it's shameful to be practicing this nonsense of philosophy past a certain age and mental capacity.