How to learn philosophy?
My study in college was history and I don't plan on going back to university, I don't have the money for it. I can't seem to fully grasp philosophical texts, are there any good youtube channels or podcasts that go into philosophy. Not looking to become a master, just want a rudimentary understanding of Western philosophy.
Other urls found in this thread:
Start with the Greeks.
Obviously, but where can I go for explanations?
DON'T start with the Greeks. If you wanted to learn physics, would you start with Newton? No, you;d read a concise modern summary of the field, then read deeper into whatever specific areas most intrigue you. The same applies to philosophy, read a modern introduction to western philosophy and it will show you where to read next.
>If you wanted to learn physics, would you start with Newton?
Err, yes?? This might apply to Philosophy, but with Physics you basically *need* to start with Newton, and then you can move on.
You don't start with reading the texts that Newton wrote. That's what he was trying to say.
You should read firsthand text written by philosophers. Read from the first word. First paragraph. Look up internet study aides for help
>No, you'd read a concise modern summary of the field,
I have tried that. It's concise and modern. But you get tired of it quickly and you still have to read Greek
If you just want a rudimentary understanding, just browse through the SEP. Most philosophy youtube channels are trash. The SEP is written and maintained by actual academics. It's not always easy though, since it's not meant for a general audience.
Actually reading philosophy takes a lot of fucking time and progress is slow. If you don't enjoy that there's no point in starting with the greeks, even just properly working through a couple of works by Plato and Aristotele to get a basic understanding will take a year or so.
I think philosophy has more of an overarching narrative structure to it through history than physics. Some texts you can't fully understand or get to the heart of without knowing what the project is and why. For example my prof made the point that you can't understand German Idealism, including Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, until you realize the way they are connected and what they are responding to. You have to realize that Kant is responding to Hume and the problem of induction, Fichte and Schelling are responding to Kant, Hegel synthesizes Fichte and Schelling and so on and so forth. Without historical context you lose most of the texts meaning. I guess you could argue that something like physics operates more on a t1, t2, t3 format and thus you would start at the latest tx, but philosophy is closer to a flow or duration of "the past gnawing its way into the future".
Thus if you do start with the greeks then you will see what everyone else is responding to and constantly referring to. If you are reading a book series for the first time, you don't start with the last book in the series, you start at the beginning.
!00%!
But also, buy it (don't borrow), get a pencil (with eraser) and start writing your thoughts in the sidelines. Lay it to rest and read it again.
Should I follow this chart?
Well, with physics, you're only constantly using Newtonian equations, usually without even bothering crediting him, not reading his works.
But with philosophy, all the newer philosophers are constantly referring to the classic Greeks, and crediting them. The folks writing after the Greeks, assumed you were familiar with the Greeks, thus if you do not know the Greeks, you will not know what the fuck they are talking about.
It is true, however, you do not literally have to read the works of the Greeks directly - or that of any other philosopher really. It'll, probably, "be all Greek to you" anyways.
You're going to want to read one or two authors who have studied the Greeks and have digested them in a way you can understand. ...and really, you'll probably want to do that for near every other philosopher, as they range from painfully technical in their dialectic, to painfully poetic in their rants.
Once you've had a few overviews of various philosophies - preferably from authors of more than one position, THEN you can pick up a particular philosopher's work who tickles your fancy and read his actual works.
Still, taking a simple Philosophy 101 class will not eat much of your time, and tends to be available on extensions - so it's cheap. They are generally "history of philosophy" formatted, starting with the Greeks and moving into modernity. So that'll at least get you the cliff notes of the current debate, and from there, you can dig deeper.
Hell, no. You'll just end up with a bunch of mythology and no context.
I mean, it's fun to read the original Greek works, but without a guide, you aren't going to actually learn philosophy that way, and a lot of that is just mythology.
I suppose, as a series of philosophers to ready books about, it's not too terrible, and with few exceptions, you'd want to know of all of these philosophers core positions eventually. Even then, though you wouldn't want to be reading about Augustine at the same time you're reading about Descartes, as it suggests. That would lead to headaches.
that is the structure they taught the PHIL 101 in a class I took
I assume it's a once over and discussion of those works, rather than actually reading those books - cuz that would be insane for Phil 101.
Yea just an overview
read history of philosophy by will durant
You're stupid. You've been deluded with systematic thinking.
And that right there, is the scariest philosophy of them all.