Ugh fuck this board. I fell for the start with the greeks meme...

DESU the bloom chapters fucking suck i only liked dedalus

>start with the greeks is a meme
pleb

you are telling that to someone who knows its a meme. save it for the next newfag

Did you also get mad at /a/ for recommending Boku no Pico? Just lurk more or find books on your own.

>thinking the greeks were a meme
pleb

get ready to join the cult

You don't need to start with the Greeks. That's for people who don't know where to start, see? In that case, you start at the beginning.

But if you already have somewhere you want to jump into -- jump into it. What did you read before? What did you like?

-Unrelated, but my standard recommendation for people wanting to ease into reading is Borges. Interesting as fuck while also being easy enough for an eight year old to read, although it might go over his head a bit.

Imo start with fantasy
it's simpler and more entertaining and will get your mind used to reading

>it's simpler
I don't understand how a setting or loose collection of tropes can be seen as inherently simpler. Although I can understand the entertaining argument, if you use it for escapism or sheer novelty.

yeah it's much more simple

Still not as bad as the time I told my pseud friend that he ought to read Hegel before he reads Kant.

I mean seriously it's amazing that he fell for that. It's as if he couldn't open a wikipedia page and see that Kant came first and Hegel was largely responding to him.

it flows like a river

:^)

open the sticky of this board

I seriously can't tell if the start with the greeks is serious or not. What benefits will undering greek literature give me? is it a good prelude before modern philopshy? Will I appreciate the classics better? Will I see things I missed out in previous books I have read?

there is not reason why you should start with the greeks, but you should read them at one point

So you didn't even try

you dont _need_ to but they're kinda the start of western shit. I mean that's just a bullshit distinction anyway but if you wanna into western patrish ya gotta adopt dat patrish mindset, and honor thy father and mother.

but at least the odyssey if ya wanna feel smart

...

Wish we were on reddit so I could upvote you.

It basically is the boku no pico troll rec of Veeky Forums.

>Wish we were on reddit so I could upvote you.
Why don't you go there and stay go

why are you being rude? sorry if i offended you dude :/

...

i might actually leave. i dont get you guys at all....

The Greeks accomplish a few things: Plato will get you used to reading philosophical literature.

Philosophy is usually pretty dense and packed full of meaning. Plato starts you out more or less reading conversations and then Aristotle brings the treatises.

The concepts and issues don't really change.

Philosophers grapple with the same shit again and again. Plato and Aristotle get you used to the process of thinking about "is this practical or theoretical? What's going on with this guy's metaphysics? What does "good" mean for this guy?"

And finally, every generation of philosophers breaks from or returns to ideas of Plato and Aristotle.

It isn't unforgivable to start with some existentialists or other more lit-friendly philosophers, but Greeks should be started pretty early on.

I'm curious, what recc for existentialists and lit-friendly philosophers ?

Sartre Camus Beauvoir

There are plenty of people in Philosophy PHD programs who have never read anything before 1950. History of philosophy is just not a concern for anyone other than a few specialists.

Are we talking in the PhD program, or in their whole academic career (ie undergrad as well)?

I know the person before who mentioned reddit was being ironic but you are right. I would upvote you if I could.

In their whole academic career. Just as there are physicists who never read Newton. Many philosophy grad students studied something else entirely as an undergraduate - computer science, physics, mathematics, linguistics, cognitive science, etc.

>philosophy graduate studies is the same as undergrad
Every person who has done undergrad has been assigned the roots of philosophy. I mean you can technically go to grad school for something unrelated to your major in undergrad but it doesn't mean that shouldn't be recommended for beginners

Well why should I if the only difference between me and someone taking a major is just an arbitrary amount of extra books read?

>not restarting with finnegans wake

you wanna tell us more things you're fucking up OP???

>Every person who has done undergrad has been assigned the roots of philosophy.
Complete and utter nonsense. I have both an undergraduate and a graduate degree in Philosophy (both from top 5 programs). I never took a history of philosophy class for either degree.

I have read some history on my own time because I find it interesting, but I'd be an outlier in that regard. Familiarity with anything before 1950 really has no bearing on success in Philosophy, any more than it does in Physics.

As someone with multiple degrees in philosophy, my advice would be to just jump right in. There's no problem starting with a paper published in 2016, assuming it's self-contained.

The whole Veeky Forums meme of "start with the Greeks" may be helpful for philology, but definitely not for philosophy.

upvoted