Tfw actually starting with the Greeks

>He fell for the trap of thinking the Greeks are still relevant

>plato's picture of a perfect society is comfy as fuck.

Go back to /pol/, fascist.

>not learning Greek and reading them in the original

>penguin translations
>starting with the republic when you literally have no background

you might as well have walked into barnes & pleb and asked for "something that looks greek, please"

you dip

"Start with the greeks" means you should read and familiarize yourself with the great literature of antiquity that set the foundation of western literature/culture so that you can start to properly understand what it is you're reading, what foundations/themes modern literature builds on and what it references. It does not "mean read texts books from the greek philosophers". You missed the point.

greatness

>familiarize yourself with the great literature of antiquity

Well that's what OP's doing.

Gotta start somewhere, he could've picked worse starting points.

These are irrelevant texts to the canon.

The point of starting with the greeks is to read Homer, Euripides, Sophocles and the like. Not reading random texts from Plato.

Don't listen to anyone who says it's not worthwhile to read the Greeks. That being said, you've skipped the pre-socratics. Read something online abou them. And do not start with The Republic.

>starting with plato
>not starting with pre-socratics
shiggy

Schopenhauer was instructed to read nothing but Plato and Kant.

Given that Schopenhauer's philosophy is the correct one, Plato and Kant are the only guys you need.

>Pre-Socratics
>Literal ooga-booga mystics

Plato was an "ooga-booga mystic". The pre-Socratics were hard-nosed naturalists.

I just finished Edith Hamilton's mythology.

Moving to a book about the ancient poets next and then gonna read fagles homer translations.

Might have to get into philosophy later I am just interested in storytelling desu.

>he didn't get the complete works of Plato and start reading from the beginning
>yfw traditional ordering of Platonic texts places Republic only after ~1000 pages of introductory material

You aren't fucked, but it's going to be an incomplete picture. Warm up with the other book, and maybe check out some other dialogues which although not as popular are still great (Gorgias, Protagoras).

PS read Greek stuff besides Plato.

>starting with Plato

lol are you retarded

>missing Protagoras
>missing Gorgias
>missing Heraclitus
>missing Epicurus
>missing Aristotle
>missing Spinoza

Yeah, no m8.

you are literally retarded, because plato with his magical forms was totally rooted in reality lmao

>Butthurt Hegelian detected

Schopenhauer was right, and you know it.

The republic sucks balls. Prepare to hate Plato for being such a fag.

Elaborate, spook.

>hegelian

don't you think I would have mentioned Hegel if I was a Hegelian?

It went without saying.

Plato and Kant are literally the only philosophers you need.

I said start from the beginning of Plato once you're reading Plato.

I still think OP is retarded for starting with Plato first.

>wanting to live anywhere near Plato's derranged idea of what society should be

We are still living in their world. Look at Thucydides and Socrates - we have inherited their ideas of diplomacy and warfare, of how to live a virtuous life, and of an ideal state to aspire towards.

Until you or anybody else can present an argument otherwise, what you say will remain unconvincing.

His allegories are hilariously bad, "muh forms" is bullshit, his ideal society is shit.

As for OP, do not be discouraged by the shit-flingers on here who are dissuading you. You will get more out of reading Plato and the Greeks than the three omnipresent meme books that are put on a pedestal in these parts, for the purposes of trolling. Of these, Joyce's Ulysses is best understood AFTER reading the Greeks, Homer.

>his ideal society is shit

Looks like someone took a wrong turn at Tumblr and/or any Humanities department.

DUDE what if everything was made of FIRE lmao

Well they were close enough. Everything is essentially made of atoms.

Atoms are not fire.

PRE-SOCRATICS BTFO

except for the pre-socratics that developed actual atomic theory

And atomists are not fire-ists. What's your fucking point, homotron?

>implying you know shit about reality

I think you can have a well rounded picture of philosophy without needing an in depth study of fucking anaximander

You couldn't be more wrong.

>Philosophy pre-Christ

*tips*

*Philosophy post-19th Century*

Heh, nothin' personnel kid...

for philosophical historians who think knowledge of a thought continuity is in any way an adequate replacement for actual thought maybe you're correct

Read his Parmenides and Phaedo, faggot, and tell me he isn't a Mystic.

The level of this board is really, really low.

Excellent.

Have faith. In less than ten years the majority of the people posting here won't have left.
Then they will have read and matured so much that Veeky Forums will become synonym with 'high-brow-discussion'.

I do not know wether Veeky Forums is going to survive the great cyber-war in 2020 of course.

don't skip the presocratics, heraclitus and permenides are some of the most based greeks around

and don't skip over the hellenistic schools too easily, epicureans/stoics/cynics/sceptics/cyrenaics are more interesting than plato and aristotle imho desu

They aren't atoms the way we understand them though. What's the point learning outdated physical science when you are trying to read literature/philosophy? Just read an intro to that shi and your fine

what's the point of reading outdated philosophy? just read an intro to that shi and your fine.

kys

It's the shame shitty reasoning desu. Babbling about virtue is as useless as Democritus' atoms. Dated spooks.

The important question is which translations of their works should be read. Any thoughts on that?

Kill yourself, moron. You are too stupid to live.

Lattimore.

Fagles

>The republic sucks balls
>Why?
>Because it's components suck balls

Kill yourself, user

>Penguin
>What am I in for?

Bad translations. As many others have pointed out- for Plato, go Allan Bloom for Republic, Hackett translations for everything else.

Am I supposed to read the catalogs in Homer?

Is there like a chart somewhere of definitive editions of classic literature?

No, Hackett translations for everything especially The Republic. C. D. C. Reeve's 2004 version is the best. Allan Bloom is not even a philosopher.

just read analytic philosophy

He's the chart for philosophy (ancient up to 1900).

Plenty of stories in Herodotus' Histories by the way, as well as some background on the Persian war.

I'll make sure to check both out.

Yes, but you don't have to memorize the names or particular units like they're going to be relevant later. Just remember that those parts were put in just to make the person reciting it to show off his memory by how close / accurate he remembered each unit. It was kind of like the guitar solos of the ancient world.

Also, catalogs aren't that common in Homer. In the Iliad, you just have one big cataloge of Achaean and Trojan ships and units, with some name-dropping of irrelevant dudes killed by the heros in the battle scenes in later books. In the Odyssey, it really only appears with the list-of-named-irrelevant-individuals-killed-by-a-major-hero during the suitor fight scene. Hesiod is the only other Greek who only really does it in his Theogony with all gods.

A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny vs A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, which one should I get?

Or perhaps even Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder?

Read the Phaedrus...

Ever Upward, friends...

Oh Wonder - Livewire
youtu.be/qjgnOP8f5NU

Your love will take me higher and higher

Plato, in his dialogue Phaedrus (sections 246a–254e)...

...to explain his view of the human soul. He does this in the dialogue through the character of Socrates, who uses it in a discussion of the merit of Love as "divine madness"

A bunch of hooey and antigone

>A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny
This is currently the best historical survey of philosophy.

>vs A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Worth reading, but not entirely impartial. And doesn't cover most of the 20C.

>Or perhaps even Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder?
This one is for children. Avoid.

>Love as "divine madness"

Can anyone help me? I started with the Greeks but I've gotten hung up the Histories. Any advice for getting through that dense ass history textbook?

Put it on the shelve and read a summary. If a part of the summary seems interesting find the corresponding part in the book and continue.

Plato is irrelevant to the western canon??? I don't think so

Herodotus doesn't have to be read cover to cover. You can skip any of his lengthy geographical passages, such as about rivers. Book 2 can be skipped entirely if you are not concerned about Egypt. You can also use the index and read it like a reference book.

user is this translation decent?

user, that was originally written in English.

Only the 1668 version is in Latin. The Penguin edition uses only the 1651 English version, so nothing is translated.

That's why I recommend the Hackett edition (ISBN 0872201775) - it incorporates variants from the 1668 version, and include useful notes, glossary, and index.

hobbes is that nigga

>Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man.

He did not contribute to literature, no.

This is Pretty gud ImHo fami.

What the fuck are you talking about, Plato is the absolute ideal place to start?

The Republic is stupid. It is Plato arguing that we should live in an autocracy governed by a person specifically selected and trained from birth to govern.
No democracy, no freedom, no oligarchy, just a guy who's childhood was destroyed and he was built to rule, surely adding a bunch of mental issues to him. No way this will ever go wrong.

Way to miss the point you mongol.

No, I don't. The point is to show how great it is, but instead it shows how shit it is. In fact its so shit, that revisionists are starting to claim he intended for it to be shit all along.
I can smell that you are of that opinion, and the only thing I have to say to you is kill yourself. The man was wrong. Not on purpose, just good old fashioned classic wrong.

Its hilarious, he's on trial and basically says "actually I'm fine, you're all assholes"

Not the guy you're responding to, but:
There is nothing revisionist about saying that Plato's ethics requires discipline, which is what the cities represent literally and metaphorically.

If you try and hold modern political views to Plato's theories of government then you are corrupting his larger points about what philosophy is and what kind of character he believes it requires. In any case remind yourself of the fact that guardians enter the picture only when luxuries are added. Plato definitely respects democracy, and his authoritarian tendencies are a response to an intellectual fall that occurs between healthy and ill states of living.

Anyway there's plenty of fun stuff in The Republic that you can enjoy regardless of its politics, especially if you're hungry for democratic and free ideals. Liberation from the cave is the biggest example. On the other hand, you don't have to agree with a book to appreciate it. Especially when it comes to philosophy where everything is built upon.

I'm really surprised you think your post on a Burmese board for Vietnamese cartoons is so solid. It's a pretty sure sign that you're either a child or mentally handicapped. You should go back and read the book.

>What's wrong with Penguin?
Penguin sucks. Also, if you care about covers so much, kill yourself.

fucking idiot

how do you do you misunderstand plato this much?probably should have bought C.D.C. Reeve's translation of the republic.

>No democracy, no freedom, no oligarchy

Sounds good to me.

Oligarchy is the least terrible thing in that list, ironically enough.

This guy understands.