[ 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: 49 KB, 459x600, 103234234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3728249 No.3728249[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How does one into philosophy?

I want to be able to prepare myself for Kierkegaard, Nietzsche Dostoevsky, etc so I can fully grasp what they're saying, but I have never read anything remotely philosophical (I'm pretty new to books in general, really). Where do I start?

Thanks

>> No.3728251

the greeks
always

>> No.3728267

>>3728249
historyofphilosophy.net

pre-socratics
socratics
plato
aristotle
post-aristotle

Prepare to read a lot of enjoyable books. You can get into some authors without having a dense background, but it will really help and if you like philosophy you'll like reading them anyway. Dostoevsky isn't a philosopher. You can boostrap your way into Nietzsche and Kierkegaard if you pick the right books and have a decent literary background (mostly the bible).

Start with the greeks. Use the link above. Find stuff you find interesting.

>> No.3728270

Greek shit and Bible shit. You can't into Western philosophy without a heavy dose of both.

>> No.3728284

Take intro courses to philosophy, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. If you can't afford that then find the intro texts to these and teach yourself.

>> No.3728288

>>3728251
>>3728267
>>3728270
The chronological way of reading philosophy is not necessarily the only one.

If you start with Nietzsche, theres a lot you will not understand. You'll understand that you will have to have understood Plato, as he tries to turn Plato on his head. You'll want to read about the history of philosophy, so you know how God have been dead for a long time when Nietzsche does his polemic against Christianity. You'll want to read about the 'English psychologists' he mentions (probably Bentham and Mill), and all of the ethical discourse of philosophy.
Once you have understood the major philosophical thinkers / ideas, you'll come back to Nietzsche, and see him in a new way.

It's like hermeneutics, I think there is lost a lot if you read philosophy strictly chronological. Couldn't it be a good thing to learn why you have misunderstood an idea? You'll come back to some works, like we all have, and suddenly understand it, perhaps understanding it better than if you had waited till you had read through thousands of pages prior to it.

>> No.3728296

>>3728288
The OP said "I want to be able to prepare myself". In other words, OP doesn't seem interested in wandering his/her way through Nietzsche with no context or foundation.

Hence, Greek shit and Bible shit. Plus, OP can finally read and understand Shakespeare and feel good about himself/herself for not using Spark Notes.

>> No.3728318
File: 67 KB, 600x385, PVFtD0n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3728318

Is it better to start with academic papers on topics in philosophy, given they are more up-to-date with the latest discorse, or pop-philosophy books, or actually books written by the famous philosophers?

Also, how do the philosophers even get famous? I'm guessing the average person didn't read Kirkergard (sorry, I don't into philosophy yet, sp) and proclaim OMG amazing! And, the average philosophy department probably thought he was just another step up the thought ladder and didn't think him much higher than themselves.

>> No.3728319

>>3728251
No the vedas, pleb

>> No.3728323

>>3728296
I see.
First off, I'd think you would read the Bible, regardless of going into philosophy or not.

Second off, OP asked this
>How does one into philosophy?
which is probably a question on many peoples minds, and it floats around lit pretty much everyday. The answer is nearly always 'start with the greeks', because people want to show how they themselves have understood the major influence the greeks have had, and still have. In the meantime, if you're into philosophy, and not history, reading after which topics interest you will probably be better.

>> No.3728340

>>3728267
So I just head to the library and read books about some pre-socratics, socratics, plato, etc?
You mention the "right books", so which ones do you recommend as essential/important?
>>3728323
Honestly, I don't really know which topics interest me. I namedropped Nietzsche and Kierkegaard because I've heard of them a couple of times here on /lit/. I don't really have any understanding of philosophy at all. So if this is the case, should I just 'start with the Greeks' and work my way up? I guess I'm just looking for a greater understanding of philosophy so I can greater appreciate philosophical literature (Dostoevsky, etc).

Thanks for the replies.

>> No.3728364

Everybody's recommending to read the greeks first. I wouldn't see this as necessary to understand neither Nietzsche nor Kierkegaard, at least not fully grasp all of them - especially not Aristoteles, if you really only want to get Nietzsche. The most of the time when he's doing theory of knowledge, Nietzsche is critisizing Plato's Theory of Forms which Plato didn't articulate in his dialogues anyway. Later on in Nietzsche's philosophy (Twilight of the Idols) he will particulary refer to the style and the meaning of Socrates for the western history. So yes, maybe having read one Plato dialogue would be good. I can highly recommend you the Gorgias dialogue. It is very intense and authentic, Socrates and the Sophists really argue and offend each other here with harsh words. Moreover, Kallikles argues for socialdarwinism (maybe the first time in history) and is giving Nietzsche inspiration for his ideas. Nietzsche loved this dialogue, he saw Kallikles view as representation of his idealized, vital and strong Greece before it was polluted by Socrates thought. And after that, as first Nietzsche read, take Twilight of the Idols. Nietzsche himself called it a good introduction to his thought, apart from that it's short and a good read.

(pardon my english, I'm german)

>> No.3728371

Will Durrant's The Story of Philospophy is a great and engaging place to start.

>> No.3728384

>>3728249
Hey,
i study philosophy at a german university for almost five years now. Just so you know im not talking bullshit.
People allways recomend silly stuff when it comes to getting into philosophy even though there is only one way to get into it.
You have to start reading! It doenst matter if you start with Hegel or Platon or anyone else. At the beginning it isnt important to understand the whole idea behind it rather than to understand how thoughts explore each other an grow on each on.
So grab a book of your choice and start reading. I remember my first two years at the university where it was mainly about learning to read instead of the hybris of understanding all ideas at once.
Good luck mate.

>> No.3729063

>>3728340
To fully understand the philosophical tradition, you will have to have read the works that have great influence, e.g. Plato. It's not very philosophical if you only long to 'understand' philosophy, and not see it as an end in itself. Philosophy can in some ways be seen as a way of laying out the possible paths us humans have in our life, and what most people say when they shout "the greeks!", is only fit for a forced historical reading.

>>3728384
This is exactly what I mean.

I can somehow guess that you want to read Dostoevsky, and that you're interested in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, as you mentioned them. So, you could read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky, then perhaps some Kierkegaard or Nietzsche if you fancy the philosophy behind it. If you fancy the prose instead, Camus might be more to your liking.

As the poster i qouted above says, just start reading. You don't have time to read absolutely everything that has been written on philosophy, and you most certainly dont want to. Shop around to see what you like, the more you like Kierkegaard and see how he mentions Socrates and criticize Hegel, the more you will want to read their works (Plato, for Socrates of course).

>> No.3729124

You go buy a book and read it. I just go to my local bookstore and browse until I see something that interests me, then I read it. Sure, I recognize that I'm the philosophical equivelant of a shit eating monkey when it comes to broad topics comparing authors over time; but, I still get a lot out of reading whatever the fuck I want and it's very enjoyable and worthwhile to just go book by book based on what you're interested in. It's not like I read philosophy for debate purposes to talk to others about anyway.

>> No.3729132

We really need to add Tarnas's Passion of the Western Mind to the sticky or something. I have to mention every time we have one of these threads.

Fucking read it. S'good.

>> No.3729138

Sophie's World?

>> No.3729152

>>3728384
damn you're a nice fellow, godspeed.

>> No.3729160

>>3728318
Kierkegaard actually wasn't famous in his own time (like many philosophers :P) and he wrote about how he would be well-known and read widely after his death. Look into it, I find it fascinating that he could in a way predict his fame.

>> No.3729248

>>3729160
Oh, isn't it the same with Nietzsche in the Antichrist?

This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive.

I've just finished a course on modern identity in my philosophy class, we read some Kierkegaard as well, as he predicts the modern life so horribly precise.

I also signed up for this
https://www.coursera.org/course/kierkegaard
which seems to be partly about his presence in current times

>> No.3729643

Don't start with the Greeks.

Start with Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy.

Then come back to /lit/ and start a thread about how to get into a specific thinker, area or question.

>> No.3729654

Cambridge philosophy undergraduate reading lists, all years.

http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/pros_students/reading_list_prosp_ugrads.pdf
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/reading_lists/reading_lists_a.html
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/reading_lists/reading_lists_b.html
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/u_grads/reading_lists/reading_lists_2.html

>> No.3729660

>>3729643
If it's Nietzsche, start with the Greeks.

>> No.3729670

>>3729660
Perhaps, but OP isn't specifically looking to get into Nietzsche but to find his footing and discover what sorts of things there are to get into in the first place.

see: >>3728340


The best way to get a vague footing is to read pop philosophy and introductory texts.

>> No.3729831
File: 146 KB, 500x375, h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3729831

Epicurean Hedonism ftw. And no that is not redundant as Epicurean's expand upon Hedonism. Epicureanism and Hedonism share in common the maxim that the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure. One's own happiness should be the moral compass for their life. Hedonism stops there while Epicureanism goes much more into detail about the nature of happiness and what, exactly, is happiness and how do you achieve it. Epicureans have the view that pleasure is obtained by knowledge, positive relationships (e.g. friendships), living a virtuous life. Pleasure can be obtained from bodily desires (such as sex). Epicureans also don't believe in extreme over indulgence, it can hurt you, especially addictions. Epicurus says that man must control his pleasures, delights in not only agreed to the natural and necessary (basic needs).

>> No.3729893

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/S3482451#p3482750

This is a collection of introductory philosophy and history of philosophy texts.
Read through them find shit you like and then look up primary and secondary texts on that stuff.

>> No.3729921

>>3729893
I can't understand why Copleton is continually recommended when people ask for an introduction. His History of Philosophy is anything but an introduction.

>> No.3729930

>>3729831
Sounds a lot like J.S. Mill, whom i've read a lot from.

Could you give me some directions inside Epicureanism? I have a fetish for the ancient world.

>> No.3730087

>>3729930
Tim O'Keefe did a pretty nice introductory Epicurean "reader" for the Ancient Philosophies collection at University of California (they're somewhat like Oxford Readers/Very Short Introductions). My favorite work, and the foundational text, is Epicurs' "The Art of Happiness" which Penguin has put out in their classics set. Or you can go with "The Essential Epicurus" collection which is only $8.00 on Amazon.

As far as an online resource, is the most complete and detailed at 290 pages. Well worth the read:
>http://mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_10558.pdf
Or if you just want a couple of pages, a quick introductory reading, try this:
>http://philosophy.fullcoll.edu/resources/profiles/epicurus.pdf

>> No.3730153

>>3730087
I've been thinking of ordering "The Art of Happiness" lately, thanks for reminding me, i'll definitely pick this up, along with The Essential Epicurus I think.

This work Tim O'Keefe did, i'll check out what that is.

>> No.3730166
File: 1.09 MB, 2048x1366, 1367091954648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730166

>>3730153
Good stuff. "The Art of Happiness" is worth reading a few times even if you don't prescribe to those philosophies in your personal life.

>> No.3730204

>>3728251
this
Also it's pointless just to read Greeks, read elaborations and discussions on them or you wont understand a thing.

>> No.3730212

I strongly recommend starting with Plato's "Meno", it's a discussion about virtues which is quite mind-blowing for a begginer.

>> No.3730247

>watch neon genesis evangelion lol

/thread

>> No.3730254

>>3730166
I remember when this image was created. The rough draft was awful. The final edition even worse.

>> No.3730339

>>3730254
Is that all you do on this board? Say things are awful but don't give the slightest bit of information as to why?

What would you have done better.

>> No.3730347

>>3730339
This is an awful post.

>> No.3730348
File: 32 KB, 400x353, spidapleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730348

>>3730254
Oh yea, it's definitely not the best thing out there and the person(s) who made it doesn't seem to know much about a few of the topics here like Daoism (no mention of "Taiping jing"), the Ubermensch (Thus Spoke Zarathustra isn't mentioned) or Fascism (fucking Evola? Seriously?). I'm sure they fucked up elsewhere but I'm not fluent in all of these styles and philosophies. I would actually ignore his definitions and recommendations entirely and just use it as a very basic "guide" to get a rough idea of what you may be interested in.

Someone who knows more should make a better one.

>> No.3730349

>>3730339
It posits relationships that only tangentially exist. The better thing to do is not make an infograph at all. People who are serious about learning philosophy know what they have to do.

>> No.3730377

>>3730349
I think any reasonable person who looks at that infograph will understand that it's not as simple as all that; that the views can't so easily be placed into discrete drawers. It's still useful though. It's refreshing to visually see religious and political existentialism compared so cleanly, for example. Of course I still take it with my epistemological grain of salt.

>> No.3730380

>>3730349
What about people who aren't serious but would like to dabble in it?
The best thing for them would be pop philosophy, probably, but a well done infograph could help. I could do one for Wittgenstein later.

>> No.3730393

>>3730380
Do it. I want to see more infographics and flowcharts like that. I'm thinking about putting one about Fascism together.

>> No.3730398

>>3730380
>>3730393

Both of you, see it done.

>> No.3730401

>>3730393
Sure, I look forward to seeing yours.
I've been a Wittgenstein scholar for upwards of 5 years now and have introduced many people to him.

>> No.3730415
File: 151 KB, 1539x1000, socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730415

There was only one Philosopher and he died on the hemlock.

>> No.3730417

>>3730415
Philosopher is not an evaluative term.

>> No.3730426

>>3730417
What an intellectual fart that statement is. Of course "Philosopher" is evaluative. It means someone who leads an examined life, and shares that examination with others.

>> No.3730431

>>3730426
>someone who leads an examined life, and shares that examination with others
is not evaluative. You can lead an examined life and share that examination badly.

>> No.3730432

>>3730415
>brags about his intellectual modesty and understanding of the limits of his knowledge
>claims absolute certainty of an afterlife

>> No.3730435

whoever mentioned will durant's story of philosophy was off to a good start, before getting into a philosopher's works you have to find the philosopher, so OP should read one or two books on the history of philosophy along with one or two introduction books, this will introduce OP to a lot of philosophers and concepts, then if OP wants to read Plato or Nietzsche or even Kant feel free to do so but read a cambridge companion alongside for more understanding, for dostoevsky cliff notes alongside help, unless OP plans to major in philosophy, taking courses and studying the bible and studying philosophy by a timeline (i.e. pre-socratic, greeks etc.up to Freud and current times) is probably the best way but it is not needed because it will take up OP's entire life.

>> No.3730440

Skip all infectious secondary material. Start reading Plato and move forward from there.

>> No.3730454

Did Aristotle come after Plato ?

>> No.3730469

>>3730454
Yes.

>> No.3730491

Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, of course.

>> No.3730521

>>3730440
>infectious secondary material

This is why you shouldn't ask /lit/ about this.

>> No.3730532

>>3730166
I was getting it partly because of that image.

I'll also get meditations by Aurelius.

>> No.3730557

Can one just go and read Plato and understand it since it seems to be the basic building block or does one need to read interpretations etc of it to understand it.

>> No.3730613

>>3730557
Yes, you can go read Plato and understand it.

But don't neglect interpretations either

>> No.3730626

>>3730557
Most 'simple' interpretations I read of Plato, prior to reading him himself, was wrong, in the way interpretations can be wrong.

First when i read it my self and talked to some brilliant teachers, did i understand it

>> No.3730661

>>3730557
Just use resources from a reputable university >>3729654 and stop worrying about what /lit/ says. Suitable secondary material on Plato is included in the year 1 set texts pdf.

inb4hurpadurr>universitiesgreextextimplying

>> No.3730695

Start with Hegel. Good beginner material.

>> No.3730740
File: 177 KB, 292x250, 5464654.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730740

>>3728249
Read the Greeks before Nietzsche so that he can tell you that they were wrong.

>> No.3730759
File: 69 KB, 307x3000, how to read Wittgenstein.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730759

>>3730393
Here's an initial attempt. I'll redo it tomorrow after work and add branches and so on, but here were my initial top-of-my-head thoughts on the matter.

Apologies for TERRIBLE formatting

>> No.3730784
File: 24 KB, 247x296, 1365116360965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730784

>>3730695
>German Idealism

>> No.3730833

>>3730759
Cool. Maybe you should make it a bit wider and branch it off instead of one long straight piece of text? Or would that not work with this specific chart?

I'm putting my Fascism chart together, will post later tonight or tomorrow. I'm going to separate mine by the different schools of thought, i.e. Traditional Fascism, Integralism, Racial Fascism (Nazi's and Ustasha), "Left-Wing" Fascism (i.e. Strasser, National Bolshevism, etc), Clerical Fascism and Contemporary.

>> No.3730841

>>3730833
That's what I'll be working on tomorrow, branching it off in different ways, adding pictures and touching up the formatting.

>> No.3730844

>>3730833
Again - I look forward to your quote. Is there any text which stands out as a good overview of Fascisms, for you?

>> No.3730849

>>3730844
chart* of course.

>> No.3730866

Step away from the philosophy.

Live life.

>> No.3730942
File: 34 KB, 170x160, maybeavatar.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3730942

>>3730844
Yea, I always suggest "100 Questions" and "My Life" by Sir Oswald Mosley, "The Doctrine of Fascism" which is credited to Mussolini but he had a ghost writer pen it, "Système de Politique Positive" by Comte and "The 26 Point Plan" by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. A lot of people on /lit/ seem to enjoy Evola, he was a bit too fruity for me but I did enjoy "Metaphysics of War".

For Scholarly works or reference material that remains somewhat objective "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell and Griffins "International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus".

I explained this yesterday in another thread but it is always something I feel I need to bring up while addressing Fascism; it is not an inherently racialist ideology, in fact most traditional Fascist opposed racialism because the collective always transcends the individual. There is no room for multiculturalism or racial separatism - all races must be equally integrated into the national structure. It is not a matter of race but of the cultural identity and connection with our Nation. The Nazi's were Fascists, yes, but they added "scientific" racialism to Fascism (among other things like a mixed economy) and saw the race as the Nation rather than their culture and land. I always bring this up because the media has rebranded the term over the past 50 years to mean "racist, bigot, ignorant, etc." We see Stormfront types, and "White Nationalists" as traitors and idiots, nothing more than liberals with klan robes whining about "white genocide" and "muh rights!".

>> No.3731134

>>3730942
Are there any political movements or parties that you support as a non-racially-oriented fascist?
I'm pretty into far-right/revolutionary conservative/traditionalist/alt-right thinking, but the racist stuff does next to nothing for me and seems silly most of the time.

>> No.3731244

>>3728249
Well you should ask yourself, "why do I want to learn philosophy?" If it is to sound intelligent, then don't. If you are looking for answers, then don't. If you are looking for a general understanding of various aspects of life, then start with a popular introduction into philosophy, one that presents the arguments (none of that W. Durant horseshit).

>> No.3731281

>>3731134
Depends on where you live of course, but a lot of the Integralist movements are pretty much traditional Fascists who are more concerned with Ethnic Nationalism (as in common culture, language or dialect, history and traditions) rather than blood racialism. There is a great forum at IronMarch.org that has a good mixture of thoughts and ideas (as well as races, we even have a few Black Nationalists from Uganda, a Korean, and a mulatto mod) and has sub-forums for different countries so you can make local contacts.

The two parties I watch closely, and agree with most in terms of ideals and goals are the Integralist Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Italian Casa Pound.

>> No.3731726

>>3731244
I'm not OP but I am looking for some sort of relief in philosophy, like in the stranger where at the end there is some kind of absurdism. I'm not anywhere close to being knowledgeable but I am a avid reader.

My mother tongue is spanish idk if that is useful for anything

>> No.3732287

>>3731244
What's wrong with Will Durant's one?

>> No.3732307

>>3728267
Thank you for this link :)

God I love free education.

>> No.3732346

>>3732287
It's old. But I have a feeling that guy doesn't like it because it's not crazy biased like Russell's piece of shit.

>> No.3732350

>>3728288
>You'll understand that you will have to have understood Plato, as he tries to turn Plato on his head
If you know nothing of Plato, then you wouldn't know he was doing this. You'd just see a lot of references to caves and shit. It sounds like you've been reading secondary literature without looking at the source material.

>> No.3732354

>>3730557
You have to be on your toes with Plato. That whole style of philosophy and teaching is to get you to think for yourself, think about Socratic irony for example. A lot of people have a kneejerk reaction to some of Plato's stuff and don't look at it in context.

>> No.3732419

>>3732346
>old
>bad

Okey, guess I shouldn't read Plato then

>> No.3732423

>>3732419
No, but old does mean "wont include modern developments in the subject."

Scruton's Modern Philosophy is a good second introduction though.

>> No.3732428

the key word is pretending
familiarize yourself with words you actually only vaguely understand and use them as often as possible to create the illusion of competence
then, get into lengthy debates with other people like yourself over things you guys don't understand, that will ensure that the debates last forever and never conclude

and remember, use the words as frequently as possible

>> No.3732429

>>3732423
>modern
>development

pick one

>> No.3732436

>>3732429
>idea of philosophical therapy
>rejection of 'justified true belief' conception of knowledge
>rise and fall of pragmatism
>big projects in philosophy of language / fiction by donaldson, beardsley, currie,
>work in counterfactuals and possible world semantics, kripke, lewis,
>the influence of computing and technological advance on philosophy of mind
>whole schools of thoughts on skeptical problems involving rule-following

Will all be missed out on by such an old text. Whether or not you want to nitpick whether these count as 'development' - they are the sort of thing one ought expect from an introduction to philosophy

>> No.3732503

>>3730784
>thinking german idealism equals anti-realism