As someone who has fallen for the "start with the greeks" meme, I feel like I have a responsibility to tell people that it's total bullshit.
Any work of literature that requires you to know something or other before you read it is derivative trash. Some you might be able to appreciate more with a greater knowledge of literature but it's not worth it and not necessary for appreciating the work by itself. Any great work of art can stand on its own, for it's contained within itself.
>Any work of literature that requires you to know something or other before you read it is derivative trash.
Holy shit I know "start with the greeks" is a meme but you have to be actually retarded to go this far. Is anything which requires you understand english prior to reading it trash? Just fucking try writing something which doesn't bank off of the audience having some prior knowledge of conventions. Not gonna happen. That's why you read cannons, not cherry picked authors.
>Discourse and intertextuality is derivative trash
Civilization is discursive, just as much as this thread is. I can't tell if you even actually read anything, boo.
any book that requires you to remember the previous sentence when reading the next one is ableist trash that uses outdated concepts like "memory" and "knowledge" to oppress alzheimer patents and other memory-impaired individuals. where am i? what's happening?
That's probably Molloy's narrator.
>Any work of literature that requires you to know something or other before you read it is derivative trash
this. that's why almost all philosophy is undistinguishable from a ponzi scam
and don't get me started on maths. you arrived at this theorem by staring with... another theorem?! how naive do you think i am?
are you really comparing philosophy to math? because if that's the case, you're either a brainlet or intellectually dishonest. math relies on previous results to further its hierarchical knowledge structure by following very specific syntax\grammar rules. philosophy lacks of this kind of rigour and the fact of the matter is that there has never been any advancement in philosophy whatsoever, just a never-ending succession of alternative philosophical systems that need to refer to each other not out of logical necessity but to pretend some degree of legitimacy
Pretty sure he's being sarcastic to highlight OP's stupidity
>nothing is legitimate except Math, the great God Math
fucking STEM autists
if your idea of advancement is mindless derivation of one abstract structure from another (which requires no human involvement anymore as it has been taken over by algorithms) then math has "advanced" a lot. i can leave my laptop running and go jerk off, proud of all that advancement. meanwhile philosophy has changed the way humans think so profoundly that you can't watch a children's cartoon in 2017 without that cartoon having an intellectual debt to my nigga in op's picture. wait sorry i can't write any more my laptop is overheating from all that precious hierarchical knowledge it's been producing ever since i double-clicked look_for_theorems.exe. i hope it auto-saves, it would be a shame to lose all that advancement
> if your idea of advancement is mindless derivation of one abstract structure from another (which requires no human involvement anymore as it has been taken over by algorithms) then math has "advanced" a lot
> what is the rice theorem
> what is undecidability
> what are recursive sets
> he really thinks that math will be automated in this century (inb4 he'll redirect to wikipedia's automated theorem prover article)
philosopher brainlet BTFO again, there's really no hope for you. now go back to watch rick and morty
>he fell for the greeks meme for fiction
you brought this unto yourself
Can you explain how Kant's philosophical system could exist without Hume or Plato setting the groundworks?
>claims to be too smart for philosophy
>tells others to watch reddit and memety
desu you sound like a Veeky Forums-reddit crossposter
>mindless derivation of one abstract structure from another
>mindless
Imagine actually being this dumb
>what do you mean alchemy is a waste of time?! we still haven't found the philosophers stone! you're just too stupid for alchemy i guess.
> Can you explain how Kant's philosophical system could exist without Hume or Plato setting the groundworks?
it cannot, but the thing is, neither kant nor hume\plato derived any verifiable conclusion from their dialectical diarrhea. that's why it's the very definition of a ponzi scam.
>tells others to watch reddit and memety
i was just taking a jab at him for implying that philosophy is such a great field of knowledge because it informs the cultural background of his cartoons
b-but user, he knows all derrida's works, h-he's very smart.
btw this is derrida talking about physics:
> The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability-it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something—of a center starting from which an observer could master the field—but the very concept of the game which, after all, I was trying to elaborate.
truly the brightest intellect of our time, really makes you think. philosophy, amirite?
>any verifiable conclusion
This is the goal of science, not philosophy.
How can ideas obtained a priori be verified?
I read the moderns, and didn't get much out of them except reinforcing my dumb atheist materialism hedonism and relativism. Which I already knew by osmosis since I lived in a shitlib post-modern world.
Reading the greeks actually challenged my worldview and made me think. Reading the greeks eventually led me to the early patristics, christian saints and martyrs and that really blew my mind.
It doesn't matter where you start as long as you get a "full picture" of what is at stake. You need to learn the errors/problems/delusions humans suffer them so you should read the Moderns because they espouse those errors as truths.
Then you need to read the solutions, so you gotta go back to tradition, the greeks, the medieval philosophers and saints.
are you really comparing philosophy to math? because if that's the case, you're either a brainlet or intellectually dishonest. math relies on previous results to further its hierarchical knowledge structure by following very specific syntax\grammar rules. philosophy lacks of this kind of rigour and the fact of the matter is that there has never been any advancement in philosophy whatsoever, just a never-ending succession of alternative philosophical systems that need to refer to each other not out of logical necessity but to pretend some degree of legitimacy
Veeky Forums BTFO
a priori knowledge might have been a concept that made sense in the days of kant but nowadays it's devoid of any scientific value
>maths and logic are devoid of scientific value
rely maed em tihkn
but the concept of a priori knowledge doesn't restrict only to math and logic (and this kind of mathematical platonism is quite outdated desu), so your rebuke is fallacious
Ok, Mr Wittgreenstein
>Doesn't want to study human thought throughout history
>Tries to compare it to math (lol) at every turn
Is this the new fedora? They're advancing.
I quote
>a priori knowledge [...] it's devoid of any scientific value
Just because it isn't restricted only to maths and logic is irrelevant. The fact that some a priori knowledge is evidently essential to science disproves the statement.
What is scientific value?
>Any work of literature that requires you to know something or other before you read it is derivative trash
You're right, if a book can't be fully appreciated by someone raised in a sensory deprivation tank his whole life, it's trash.
Your post is trash because it requires previous understanding and experience in regards to Veeky Forums memes
>all bachelors are unmarried
>"can you prove it using the scientific method?"
i said that "the concept (meaning the notion) of a priori knowledge is devoid of any scientific value", not that some things that are considered a priori knowledge are devoid of scientific value. don't cherrypick what fits your narrative.
Even if your post were true, it would not matter. The Greeks perfected art. There is no poet better than Homer, no tragedian better than Sophocles, no dialectician better than Plato. You read the Greeks because it's all downhill after them.
Ironic, isn't it?
Can you please define scientific value?
whatever follows the scientific method or can be used as rigorous language to describe scientific models (math)
When an idea has scientific value, it serves to improve scientific understanding. If you want a general definition of science, please consult Aristotle, Categories
ahhhh i turned into a frog!
reeeeeeh
reeee
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The John Green tumor makes it look like he had a stroke.
>be me
>try reading greke dialogue between Plato and Diogenes
>They mention Dionysius
>throw book down because I don't know who dionysius is.
>complete brainlet so I can't infer that he's important.
>go make post about how post modern philosophy is superior.
>mfw
>Sophocles
>Better than Euripides
>Putting Euripedes at the front instead
Oh my
It's Aeschylus>Sophocles>Euripedes
>OP triggers pseudos-the thread.
>Any work of literature that requires you to know something or other before you read it is derivative trash.
All literaure requires you to know a language
>Dionysius
you should know which one he is without reading anything
You do realize that many ethical problems have been "solved" or at least decided in the least harmful way via philosophical guidelines right? Plus the scientific method wouldn't be a thing without philosophy laying the foundation.
>the scientific method wouldn't be a thing without philosophy laying the foundation
>philosophy laying the foundation
You mean Christianity?
muh causal skepticism
>mfw I Don't Know The Greek Word For Dictionary Is : How The Fuck Am I Going To Describe Words To You BEFORE I UNDERSTAND THEM, FACE-FUCKER!
Wrong, sorry :(
>actually went back to the greeks because Veeky Forums told him to
>surprised when he doesn't understand it
If you read any philosophy because you're 'told' to you already fucked up. True philosophical study comes from simply trying to expand on your sense of wonder. You can't do that if you're just following someone else's instructions.
jesus fuck weaboos are so god damn retarded
there is not a single person on this planet with even a shred of intelligence that also enjoys that drivel, it's the single biggest dipshit filter of all time
How the h*ck are you even supposed to read Homer anyhoo? I never had any education of poetry in high school or college. Should I be reading it out loud (or at least subvocalizing)? Do I need to follow a certain cadence? Does it even make sense to translate poetry? I remember seeing a youtube video where someone recited it in Greek w/ a musical backing, and it sounded very rhythmic, but the Lattimore translation doesn't have that at all. Should I be approaching this as a grand task of study instead of something to be enjoyed? Why the fuck is the Homer meme so prevalent. Somebody spoonfeed this shit to me or I'll start breaking plates.
yeah fuck weaboos
hey, fuck you, buddy
>not realizing that starting with the Greeks isn't a meme and actually helps
>this is the level that Veeky Forums has sunk to now
>no u r le brainlettino xD
Second post best post
Nice strawman pleb.
any book that takes place in a restaurant or a hotel is trash because they require the reader to understand those concepts to truly appreciate the work