I've already taken a look at pic related. I want to get a general grasp on Greek philosophy but is reading both of their complete works necessary, and how viable is it to be an autodidact?
I saw a thread about it yesterday and many seemed to say it's extremely difficult to teach oneself philosophy. Btw I'm a stem fag so I don't have the time/money to really take any philosophy courses despite my interest.
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.google.com
twitter.com
Check out Veeky Forums philosophy guide:
docs.google.com
>I saw a thread about it yesterday and many seemed to say it's extremely difficult to teach oneself philosophy
It's just self-indulgent rhetoric with a subtle dose of scare tactics made by starving philosophy majors for the sole purpose of justifying the oh-so-excellent™ choice of their degree.
I depsise the word autodictact as well. You don't actually pull things out of your ass in a godforsaken hut at the wasteland – it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that one hasn't gained benefits from precise translations, copius footnotes, engaging introductions, thematic secondhand sources and a freely availiable plethora of online communities to discuss these matters.
With that said, don't fall for the memes of Veeky Forums. The Greeks are great, but I doubt the idiots who make these charts actually have read the works in question.
You can start with Plato directly. Get his complete works as his various ideas are superseded throughout and interconnected. The dialogues are fairly accessible and to a certain degree self-contained. Homer holds a special place of honor in his thought, so get the Iliad and Odyssey too.
Aristotle is more complex. His entire method is based on the dialectic of his Organon and the four-fold theory of causation as found in On Generation and Corruption as well as the Physics.
My personal advice would be to skip Aristotle and treat yourself to Plotinus instead – he takes what is good from both Aristotle and the Stoics and weaves a metaphysical system within the framework laid by Plato.
Is there any reason in particular you have decided to study the Greeks? I mean, what do you seek to get out from all of this?
>Is there any reason in particular you have decided to study the Greeks? I mean, what do you seek to get out from all of this?
I've been interested in getting to learn more about Islamic philosophy, which drew largely from the Greeks, mainly Plato and Aristotle. Al-Ghazali's Incoherence of the Philosophers attempts to refute the metaphysical doctrine of the Greeks, but reading that requires a thorough understanding of the Greeks, as well as their Islamic successors Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina.
The link the previous user posted actually touched upon some of these works but admitted that very few people are well-versed in them. There's a rich philosophical and theological tradition from that part of the world that many today seem to discredit/neglect, for obvious reasons. Also, my knowledge of classical Arabic is almost at a level sufficient enough to read some of the yet untranslated works.
But in order to get there, I realize I must first understand what the Greeks were all about. Though all the Veeky Forums guides and infographics seem to be a bit overkill for what I'm actually looking for.
>You can start with Plato directly
You might be the first on this board to say this. You're saying I don't have to read dozens of hardly relevant books to understand Plato?
>My personal advice would be to skip Aristotle
You kidding friend? If you're skipping Aristotle, you might as well not read philosophy at all, he's probably the most influential philosopher of all time. You aren't gonna understand anything from the Middle Ages (Augustine, Aquinas, plus all the smaller fry) if you don't understand Aristotle, it's all totally derivative from his logic, his metaphysics, his theory of mind. Not to mention, how is OP supposed to understand what Plotinus is refuting? OP don't listen to this drivel, if you want to be a philosophical patrician, you don't need to read all the Greeks, but you certainly need to read Aristotle.
Plato's works at least (I haven't read Aristotle yet) are as someone else already said, self-contained. Read more about Ancient Creece if you're actually interested in the history, but don't think you need to know about the peloponnesian war in order to "get" it. They're really discussions that could just as easily happen today.
You could read the Illiad and the Odissey since Plato quotes them a lot, but the points come across just fine whitout them too, or even with a minimal knowledge of what they are about.
>skipping Aristotle
I liked your post up until this
What would be a good list for this book? Wartime Journal or Revolutionary Politics/Revolution in general?
I've read the Odyssey in high school and have a general knowledge of mythology from my younger years. So the pre-Socratics are unnecessary? I hear Plato likes to shit on the Sophists
Cool. The Arabs were pretty big on Aristotle, so you most certainly should get him down. As a quick response to , I assumed we had a novice and didn't want to scare him off by introducing him to a dense philosophy wrapped in dryness of prose.
You should still read Plotinus though, as a very popular work going by the name Theology of Aristotle was in fact a paraphrase of his Enneads IV-VI. Avicenna doubted it's authencity, but implemented it nevertheless. Porphyry wrote his Launching Points to the Realm of Mind as a concise overview of Plotinian metaphysics, should you find yourself in a difficult spot. The Elements of Theology by Proclus is crucial as well.
For Aristotle, start with the Isagoge of Porphyry. The Art and Science of Logic by Roger Bacon is an excellent, accessible and systematic exposition of Aristotelian logic, incorparting a wide range of material, including that of Averroes. Get digging into the Organon after that. It's a slough due to Aristotle's tedious writing style, but quite essential to his entire opus.
The Commentary on the Dream of Scipio by Macrobius is an excellent overview of the classical cosmology which the Arabs would come to inherit and will ease your reading of Aristotle.
Get down to his Physics afterwards. Make sure to get a good grasp on the four causes and his hylomorphic cosmology in particular. Proceed to On Generation and Corruption > On the Heavens > On the Soul.
His Metaphysics are tough. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Avicenna's frustration with understanding it. As long as you savor it for last, you should be good.
I found Al Kindi quite accessible. I'm not sure why he tends to get ignored among the Arabs. Both he and his student Abu Ma'shar was instrumental in formulating a philosophy of astral causation, which would come to dominate the Platonic revival of the European Renaissance. You might be interested in Arabic Influences on Early Modern Occult Philosophy by Liana Saif. The Arabic Hermes by Kevin Van Bladel is great as well.
There's also an ongoing series of translations of the epistles written by the Ikhwan al-Safa. They're quite expensive, but it might be up your alley.
If you want Islamic occultism, I've heard interesting things about Ahmad Al-Buni. Not sure if I will see an English translation in my lifetime, though. The Picatrix is a classic as well.
Great post, OP listen to this user, they know their shit.
Holy shit man this will be a big help. Didn't know anyone on Veeky Forums had much knowledge of middle Eastern philosophy. You should create a Veeky Forums Islamic philosophy infographic. Great stuff
Is there any good analytic list on the Veeky Forums philosophy? It's currently super empty.
user, if you're still around, I'll just say this. If you have Allah in your heart and you feel drawn to the study of the Arabs, just fucking go for it.
When I first began my studies, I didn't systematically read the Greeks in chronological order – I dived straight into the Renaissance Platonists. Did I understand everything they said? No, far from it. Did the little I understood enrich my life? Yes. And more importantly, it gave me a drive to study their predessesors with the care and attention they deserve, rather than treating them sloppily as some preliminary warmup one has to waddle through hastily in order to get to the "good stuff". By purposefully challenging yourself, you'll appreciate the preliminary material that much more.
My recommended list would go something like this.
>Philosophical Works of Al Kindi, Peter Adamson
>Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, Al Farabi
>Metaphysics of the Healing, Avicenna
>Incoherence of the Philosophers, Al Ghazali
>Incoherence of the Incoherence, Averroes
>Philosophy of Illumination, Suhrawardi
>Flashes of Light, Jami
>Bezels of Wisdom, Ibn Al Arabi
>Elixir of the Gnostics, Mulla Sadra
Start with the Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle by Al Farabi, the Bezels of Wisdom by Ibn Al Arabi and Flashes of Light by Jami. They should both satiate your hunger and ignite an inclination towards a study of the Greeks.
Godspeed.
>I'll just say this. If you have Allah in your heart and you feel drawn to the study of the Arabs, just fucking go for it
My family is Muslim though I'm not particularly religious. I'm a college degenerate so I wouldn't wanna identify with something and ultimately give it even worse of a rep than it already unfortunately has. I want to see for myself what all the fuss is about, and sadly philosophy in the Islamic world seems to be largely dead, despite its rich history. Do you have a Middle Eastern background? Your knowledge of this stuff is rare among Veeky Forumsizens.
>And more importantly, it gave me a drive to study their predecessors with the care and attention they deserve, rather than treating them sloppily as some preliminary warmup one has to waddle through hastily in order to get to the "good stuff"
Interesting that you suggest starting with the Arabs before the Greeks. But that statement does have a lot of merit. Sounds wise to start with the things you're interested in and then work backwards to maintain that interest. I'll give it a go but if I find myself totally lost I might flip back to the Greeks or read something more specific to the idea I'm confused about.
Hey I'm not OP but whoever put this together thank you so much I'm a philosophy minor and I've gotten more guidance out of this document than out of 15 or so credit hours of philosophy courses.
>I want to see for myself what all the fuss is about, and sadly philosophy in the Islamic world seems to be largely dead, despite its rich history
Don't get your hopes up. It's a similar situation in the Christian West where the philosophical study of the Church Fathers is largely neglected.
To be sure, reading through the works of Origen, Augustine, the Cappadocian Church Fathers and Aquinas would certainly provide a profound insight into the Christian tradition itself, but it doesn't reflect the general consensus of the populace.
It would seem to me that religion is treated largely as a cultural garb, replete with superficial customs and empty rituals in order to participate in a larger community and bond with likeminded people. Nothing more, nothing less. The theological reasoning itself seems extremely poor. Pascal's wrote his famous wager in jest, but people seem to have adapted the mentality seriously – "believe in God, just in case..."
>Do you have a Middle Eastern background? Your knowledge of this stuff is rare among Veeky Forumsizens.
There's plenty of interesting people on Veeky Forums with some deliciously peculiar fringe knowledge. Just the other day I was having a conversation with a Persian user about the Sassanid revival of Zoroastrianism.
My background is Eastern European, I just have fascination with the esoteric elements of religious traditions, so I tend to get around a lot, so to speak. Not a big adherent of secondhand sources – I'll use them sparingly, but I prefer my own interpretation of primary material
>It's just self-indulgent rhetoric with a subtle dose of scare tactics made by starving philosophy majors for the sole purpose of justifying the oh-so-excellent™ choice of their degree.
I honestly encourage you to study on your own, but if you think you're getting anywhere close to an academic-level understanding of philosophy without formal education, it's unfortunately a fantasy.
The depth of discussion you get from a classroom, where the professor (if he's good) not only elucidates the text but also expands on it, interprets it and places it on a broader context of history, and leaves space for commentary and questioning, not only in class but also out of it, in free hours or oriented research groups, all the while feeding your enthusiasm for the reading and thinking about the reading and writing your own material about it, you just don't get that with footnotes and prefaces. That's not to mention that throughout university you'll write your own essays, get rated on them and get constructive criticism and specific guidance on improving writing, which, in my experience, does improve your writing.
And when you choose your author or area, you'll read the works in their original language, study them in such a depth that you could not even get from a regular class, let alone just a reading of the text Whilst being in contact with several different approaches to it and interpretations of it, you'll memorize the text and continuously read research on it, both newly published and classic.
If you skip Aristotle, how will you fare studying Aquinas and all such medieval philosophers? What about the analytics? How will you understand what Kant is criticizing when he refers to traditional metaphysics? How will you grasp the depth of terms like eudaimonia, ousia, sophia, physis, hylomorphism, arete, even concepts of virtue, science, art, and his logic that had profund impact on the entire western tradition of thought? Even if you read him, how will you know that in one of the books of Metaphysics there's an ancient handwriting typo where he wrote the exact opposite of the word he wanted to use, and thus contradicted his entire ontology? That wasn't in a footnote in my translation.
It's just very hard without help. Most people who set out to self-teach philosophy end up discouraged and give up, either that or they spend a whole lot more time than 5 years to get a good grasp on it.
Like I said, I don't want to discourage you, it's just kind of agonizing to see someone take the long, hard way around that doesn't even give the same results.
Just make sure to read the Apology, Phédon, Euthyphro, Protagoras and The Republic. If you're going to read Aristotle, stick with the Metaphysics and Ethics because they're the most relevant (and Ethics is least difficult), but you'll need to read some of Physics in order to get Metaphysics. Seriously get a good companion book, read from Stanford Encyclopedia to situate yourself.
Oy vey how many times will we have this thread
seconding this
Any analytic recommendations at all?
Seriously this
There are already two more threads up today about Plato reading order and which mythology book to start with for the Greeks
Kill me
Best post.
Considering your post, and I'm being completely honest, because I want to learn about philosophy, but I don't have the means to study it academically, what should I do? I wish to have a deeper knowledge in analytic philosophy, on an academic-level ; is there a way to do that?