HOW DOES ONE START WITH PHILOSOPHY

Start with whatever motivates you as long it allows you to relate it whith a tradition as a whole (for example, starting with Descartes, then Spinoza, then Hume, then Kant, then Hegel). Also, you can start with something not in the "strict logico-chronological order" but then read what was supposed to be read first. Then you can read in the more traditional order, and so on. The point is to get motivated by feeling that things make sense to you. Oh, and there's nothing wrong with serious secondary literature to help you.

Stirner might be sightly boring with his writing, but he's not hard tbh

There's a guide to Hegel's stuff at the bottom of:

Know that you know jack fucking shit and harrash people on the streets.

Thx famalam

I like Rousseau tbh. Halfway through Discourse on Inequality.

>>>/freedu/

can confirm this is true, formal logic is for dumb babbers.

Truly religion of our times. You have studied neither the philosophical foundations of science, nor any other philosophy. You just take their word because the priest, I mean, the man on TV says so.

Any tips for really slow readers?
I read and at a snails pace.

What do you all think of the instructions given here?

existentialcomics.com/blog

You lads know how it actually works.

As they said: there is nowhere to begin. Do you have questions? Seek answers to them.

Are you someone who has never once had a single thought in your life? You're fucked, but just read random pages on the Stanford philosophy encyclopedia and see if any of that makes you think at all.

Don't start with mind boggling literature,begin with the beautiful stoics(Epictetus,Seneca,Marcus Aurelius) and then move on to the Epicureans(Epicurus,Lucretius) and make sure you want to connect it to some philosopher,so one could start with Parmenides or Heraclitus to connect with Hegel.You dont have to read them in order,although for Kant i highly recommend to read that at the last,after having read Based Hume.If you're interested in politics,then the section is from Hobbes to J.S Mill(you can read Kant's political philosophy if you want) you should,prior to Marx read a bit of Proudhon.

Keynote: Do a lot of notes while reading in order to understand them and you can find most works online at Genesis Library,Early Modern texts,project gutenberg,etc.

ridiculous

Rousseau is based. One of my favorite philosophers.

How about you start with a tradition so that you don't confuse yourself. What are you interested in?

Why go to the stoics and Aristotle before Epicurus? E-man is easy as hell to comprehend, and his letters are short.

Why read epicurus at all? What relevance do you think you'll find in him?

Start with the Pre-Socratic materialists.

Following the advice contained inside this link is the way to go with reading western philosophy.

Just as a warning it is best to ignore the advice of tripfags on this board when it comes to philosophy as the majority are pseudo-intellectials whom have read much less than they have let on to

Don't. It's pointless. Take mma lessons and live in the woods for an extended period of time. You will gain far more wisdom than reading ivory tower faggots.

Why not both?

Your recommendation literally isn't even something that even PHDs have to read through. It's utterly unrealistic, completely the opposite of how any normal person learns.

You learn by actually reading what you're interested in, not just slogging through a bunch of shit you couldn't be assed about just because you "need" it as background for someone else. You can read Aristotle to get to Aquinas, and you still won't have much of an understanding of either of them if you did not actually care to understand them and just read them because some dumbass told you to waste your time doing so.

This. You dont need an authority to tell you where to start reading and thinking. In no way is that supposed to be patronizing, just an encouragement that you have the ability to start anywhere with any questions or interests.

Yeah, facts = reals, you really figured it out, I wasted all my time reading these books filled with anything other than research and charts which are of course immume to ideology by virtue of being Facts Written In A Way That Looks Official

What's wrong with logic exactly?

"Formal" logic is for the lazy who don't actually want to think. What I and most continentals consider real logic is what you call reason.

This is an example why you don't listen to tripfags, they're retarded. It does not say to read everything that is listed and it is setup fine for people that are interested in western philosophy in general and people looking for what they're interested in.

I read the Republic and Phaedo and didn't find ether too difficult( and phaedo made the incoherent last section of the Republic about the infinity of the soul a lot clearer) and the fact that Socrates's last words were "make sure you give him the chickens I owe him" is hilarious). Now I'm reading a history of western Phil book called "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tanas, which is great because it explains the basics of most major Western Philosophers in a concisely and eloquently. I recommend it.

Dammit, my post are always typo ridden.

I'm looking at it. Right now. It's bad. Whoever wrote it is bad at teaching philosophy to anyone or suggesting things to anyone new to philosophy.

is false, it's been false for centuries. It's false today. It'll be false 1000 years from now still.

When are you uploading the phenomenology recording?

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. Go to a fucking university and see if they "start with the greeks". They don't. If anything most people start with Hume and Descartes. The Greeks don't come into it unless you give a fuck about them. Philosophy classes aren't designed anything like that stupid reading guide is.

Why are you asking us?

Stop pretending to know anything about teaching philosophy, because you don't. Especially if you are too stupid to understand something as simple as that guide.

Ignore response of the retard tripfag prior to this post. AW really does not understand the usefulness of formal logic in certain fields such as computer science, mathematics and as such completely disregards it. It is sad how closed minded and ignorant some people can be, seriously would not be surprised if some of them even believe in aether at this point.

I find how overly defensive he is over the whole "don't start with the Greeks" thing he is promoting to be quite showing of what he himself has neglected to read.

That's because the Greeks are something you do in high school, along with the Latin and Greek languages, if you want to study liberal arts. The readers you are meant to reflect upon and understand cite excessively the very thinkers you're proposing to ignore.
This guide is meant to (imperfectly) remedy the brutality that is liberal 'education'. Maybe accounting for time constraints secondary sources or summaries of the major Greek and Roman thinkers would be better (can't really call it education without Cicero), but still.
t.2.41 world prole

Yeah, in my philosophy class in university we're starting off with a textbook which covers the Greeks first. I also know other people at universities who took philosophy classes, and who didn't get anything out of them because the teacher started with esoteric shit like Hegel and Hume. Considering Decarte is critiquing Aristotle in Meditations, it makes sense to read Aristotle before starting with Decarte otherwise you're missing out on context and nuance within Decartes critiques of metaphysics. As the cultured Hegellian you are, I'm SURE you're aware that Hegel draws on Aristotle as well?

Whatever helps you validate your ignorance A.W.

Well gee, if I wanted to be a computer scientist I would care.

==But I'm not. So I don't give a fuck about your mechanical monkey code which is a sad comparison to real cognition.=

I've "read" the Greeks. Without a systematic and engaged study, they're virtually nothing but a curiosity for the uninterested.

Except it contextualizes Decarte and as a result everything after.

Stop bullshitting AW, everyone knows the pitiful extent of your reading.
goodreads.com/review/list/57217101-a-w?shelf=read

I can't imagine being a Hegelian who has not even finished reading a Hegel work yet, it must be quite the sad experience.

Classes are usually never that literally dumbass, in many introductory/classics classes they do touch up on the Greeks. Even outside those classes they are brought up when needed to.
Also
Okay, so we can just toss out almost all of socialist philosophy then!
That is one awful awful argument, lad.

Epictetus, OP.
You're going to actually have to like, read books.

I've said it already: you don't NEED, and that's a fact, to read the Greeks first. Most people don't. Most people "read" Plato and Aristotle for one class session, and don't actually READ them.

There is a difference between being given an excerpt from those philosophers and actually reading those philosophers. Nobody understands why Plato is such a big deal until they read Plato systematically and see why he thought what he did. Same for Aristotle, same for Kant, etc.

You DON'T JUST "READ" THESE PHILOSOPHERS. It's fucking pointless if you don't care in the first place.

Good, turn off your computer and never turn it on again.

Except you need to understand those philosophers to understand further philosophers. Reading one or two books with supplementary text is enough to get a concrete basis for their ideas and approach. It's not a "fact", but it helps contextualize future philosophers.

You have to be one of the worst posters on this board A.W. Again, your example of "le universities don't always do it" isn't true as I'm studying Plato right now and we're moving onto Aristotle soon as well as some universities not actually teaching philosophy well. Like I pointed out earlier, I know people who did what you recommend( started with Hume and Kant) and got nothing out of the class.

Possibly the best thing ever posted on Holla Forums.

Okay and? That goes without saying.

I'm very disappointed in you, A.W.

Don't listen to him, Plato is the one true way.

And that is all it'll ever be. Because I started with current philosophers in the analytic tradition, and I've understood more than people who just "read" for class or on their own following stupid reading guides because they don't understand the point of philosophy.

Of course, why should you have a good grasp on your field of study before you attempt to draft up your own world view. It certainly works for you, the Hegelian who's never read Hegel(I mean it's not like Hegel's metaphysics and Aristotle's are uncannily similar)

I thought universities generally started you with an introductory/orientation course from which you proceeded to an overview course, then specific philosophers. That was my impression of the major in the US anyway.

That's not to say there's no value in approaching philosophy from the Greeks or that A.W. is a good poster (he isn't).

...

I have friends who are doing polsci and took a philosophy class. The teacher was an upper level philosophy professor and found the basics boring and immediately started them on Hegel. Needless to say, none of my friends got anything out of the class. They don't know anything about the basics of philosophy beyond what they learn in Polsci(which doesn't involve the Greeks - the most notable text they studied first year was The Prince).

←Nice example of
You can read all you want, shows you've understood zero.

You start wherever the teachers feel like.

These morons keep reading "Don't read the Greeks,ever!". All I'm saying is that rationally, and empirically, there is no necessity to starting with the Greeks. You start where you give a fuck, you work towards what you give a fuck, and if the Greeks are are part of it on the way then you read them.

As apposed to you A.W.? Don't make me laugh.

Can any comrades suggest some books on classical economics? I just want a basic to moderate understanding.

There you go again posturing and pretending you done things you obviously haven't. You don’t understand the point of philosophy, it is one of the things which fuels your inferiority complex which is to be frank is very visible in your interaction with others.

There you go projecting your insecurities again lad. It's all got to be the other person being wrong, never you. Never have to give an argument, just state things over and over despite it being empirically false.

Nice one.
You haven't done any of this yet.

academia.edu/9341032/159833685-Theories-of-Political-Economy-David-Levine

Right back at ya lad.

There wasn't one for the firs reading. OBS wouldn't record discord, I didn't have time to mess around and figure it out. It was good, but we only read 17 paragraphs and background additions by discussion, but that isn't much missed.

Your claim contradicts empirical evidence. You're the ones claiming you >need< to start with the Greeks. Real classes show one thing: you fucking don't.

Do I really need to read 3 huge ass books before reading any actual philosophy?

Marx wrote his doctoral thesis about Epicurus

No.

Wow, how relevant. Oh wait, no it's not. Not for Marxism, not for Marx.

Fugg. If you can make another thread before the next one with your twitter I'll follow for the discord invite.

So I hate to be ask again for the 10th time ITT but where do I start then?

AW confirmed for having read fuck all and he is here claiming to be an authority when it comes to philosophy.

I have never seen anyone project this hard in a long time, AW you seriously never cease to amaze me.

How would you know? Knowing whether it's relevant would require actually reading something (and finishing it).

You really are the worst of the tripfags.

Thanks!

Epicurus is important to Marx because Marx wrote his doctoral thesis on him? That's stupid.

>You're the ones claiming you >need< to start with the Greeks.
You’re the one claiming that one can completely disregard the Greeks when it comes to philosophy.
In university’s students do get taught about the Greeks in a way they do start with some of the Greek ideas even if it is just touching on them in an introductory philosophy class, this gives them at least somewhat of a basic idea and foundation for other works the students will go onto studying.

You really are stupid.

It's really not relevant. You're being dumb. How many times since then has Marx or any subsequent Marxists referenced Epicurus or Lucretius as remotely relevant to Marxist philosophy? He just happened to write a [pretty sub-par] doctoral thesis on the guy. He wasn't even a communist at that point.

A.W. takes his triptag off out of embarrassment.

It really is quite funny whenever he takes his trip off, also it is very noticeable.

Don't listen to the rest of these retarded plebeians

Start with Descartes,then read Plato and Aristotle,after that then move to Spinoza then Locke then Leibniz then Voltaire then Berkeley then Hume then Kant then Schelling then Fichte then Schopenhauer then Hegel then the Young Hegelians and after that you can choose who else to read.

YOU SHOULD ALSO READ A BIT OF MEISTER ECKHART

I made some corrections to the /lit/ reading list in another thread by removing the philosophy and adding 20th century fiction, what do you think?

This, and then Kyoto School.

Philosophy after Kant is pointless indulgence, fiction is better written

bump to save from board slide