I want to think better and understand people/life better etc, etc...

I want to think better and understand people/life better etc, etc, so I went with the meme and am starting with the greeks. I just finished pic related. Breddy gud. What now?

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit
twitter.com/AnonBabble

start with the greeks

also,
>reading university copy
>no markups until book 7, which starts with the allegory of the cave
>stars and underlining everywhere in first couple pages
>written in the margin: "Blinded by the truth/reality. We trust the media now more than what we see with our own eyes."

Whoosh.jpg

>he didn't start with the Epic of Gilgamesh

HAW HAW

God damn, this. The worst was I was in a shitty community college when I took philosophy. Imagine that but now it's a bunch of inner city minorities trying to figure it out.

Aristotle's Politics. Then you can decide which one you like better, and read his other works.

What do you mean by 'which I like better'? Is politics in the opposite direction?

Actually, I'm really looking for something that handles the passage and spending of time the way that the republic handles justice. Anything like this? Same for relationships.

I meant that Aristotle shits on Plato more often than agrees with him. Also, what you're looking for is on Politics, along with Nichomaquean Ethics

Try and think about The Republic first. Chances are you didn't fully comprehend much and if I'd test you on the book right now it is likely you will fail a lot of questions I throw at you. Nonetheless, I'd suggest you just follow:

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit

or pic related.

Laughed but then realized that my own notes for my first philosophy classes were pretty ridiculous as well. Maybe not quite that silly, but you'd find some funny stuff.

These start with the Greeks pictures are otherwise neat but seriously, stop recommending all that to everyone who wants to learn philosophy. The mythology stuff, history stuff, Iliad, Odyssey and so on aren't necessarily a good starting point for philosophy.

Reading something about pre-socratics and then spending time with Plato and Aristotle ought to be fine, combine that with some secondary sources. Read the other Greek stuff if you just want to or if you encounter something where you need to know this or that play or poem, no real need to consider it an absolute necessity for learning philosophy.

So you're completely disregarding Homer and Hesiod's thought and influence on Plato and consequently on philosophy entirely, not to mention that mythos is literally an, albeit inadequate but nonetheless important, way to explain the world and the human condition through an ultimately inadequate but nonetheless intrigueing way?

You're doing yourself and your studies an immense disservice if you don't at least read Hesiod and Homer before you engage in Plato. I can agree that Herodotus isn't necessary nor perhaps Mythology (even though it's a great book and great for looking up mythological figures you might have forgotten about since it reads almost like a wiki) but you cannot possible disregard Homer and Hesiod. An entire book of Plato is on how to regulate the media and how Homer should be censored or tweaked as to not corrupt the youth.

I feel kinda triggered that you suggest that people shouldn't read Hesiod and Homer because it is not 'essential for learning philosophy' niggah have you any idea how much the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus, the Iliad, and sisyphus have inspired and influenced the greatest thinkers who have ever lived all the way up to the 20th century.

Sure you don't HAVE TO read Homer and Hesiod as much as you don't HAVE TO read Plato if you want to study philosophy because plenty people do start with thinkers such as Nietzsche. You can do that if it pleases you but I will repeat myself for the last time and that is that you advice people to do a great disservice to themselves and towards their study of philsophy if you advice them not to read Homer and Hesiod.

>So you're completely disregarding Homer and Hesiod's thought and influence on Plato and consequently on philosophy entirely, not to mention that mythos is literally an, albeit inadequate but nonetheless important, way to explain the world and the human condition through an ultimately inadequate but nonetheless intrigueing way?
I'm disregarding nothing. I'm simply against the idea that one needs to/should go that deep into Greek thought as the first thing they do related to philosophy - I'm skeptical whether this is the optimal way to lead beginners - I'm more in favor of learning about a wider range of philosophers, without first trying to go that deep into anything in particular.

I'm expecting all the philosophy-interested people to be, well, mostly interested in philosophy when they're asking the question, so I'd be pretty careful when it comes to suggesting them to read works that aren't that.

Yes, they're important for philosophy, but - maybe I'm not giving them enough credit - I can't imagine many people being too happy about their "how to get into philosophy" question being answered with "read thousands of pages of fiction, history and information about related topics before even touching a philosophical text". I think this is a disservice in the sense that its pretty easy to be overwhelmed by those recommendations -> its easy to disregard the advice altogether -> it would be better to give shorter, more to-the-point reading lists.

Not that there are that many works in the image, the problem is mostly in how they're not philosophy and how this is given as he first list of works to read when one wants to learn phil.

you wont understand Plato if you don't know the context, It's like trying to read Sein und Zeit without ever having read Husserl

the problem with this board is that no one touches secondary literature which means their understanding is usually only partial and limited

if you want to get into plato you can read books devoted entirely to decoding him alongside the primary texts

much more to the point than trying to attain an encyclopedic knowledge for yourself and probably still getting things wrong

i recommend strauss, rosen, esoteric neoplatonism, hadot, and uzdavinys along with plato

>what you're looking for is on Politics, along with Nichomaquean Ethics
cool, thanks for the rec

>Chances are you didn't fully comprehend much and if I'd test you on the book right now it is likely you will fail a lot of questions I throw at you.
Unfortunately, I only get so much time to read, what with my full-time job and keeping up with the gym. I appreciate the full curricula list though, hopefully I can work my way through it at some point. With my current reading speed and time I can devote, it'll take me three years before I get to Aristotle. I believe you that I'll probably fail them, but throw out those test questions anyway. I actually feel pretty comfortable with the republic.

The major question I'm wondering about is as follows: I want to improve my life and live more 'justly', as described in the first post. Plato suggests studying philosophy and dialectic as a way of turning the soul to this greatest good. However, he also says that the man who does not devote himself fully to philosophy does the subject a disservice and interprets it wrongly. Should, therefore, only the very best men of the guardian class study and practice philosophy? What are other men to do in order to guide themselves? Should they study dialectic in measure equal to that required by their station, or should they avoid philosophy and argument entirely? The latter seems to be suggested, but then leaves all but the guardians to flounder lest they have the guidance of the properly-reared men. In a society that does not match the perfect society, like today's (which in the US seems a mix of democracy and oligarchy), how ought proper men come to be?

*questions

*questions

To rephrase the question(s): I am not a man raised in the proper manner, or with perfect nature for philosophy. I was raised somewhat better than others and possess a nature somewhat more inclined to philosophy than others. According to Plato, ought I to ignore philosophy and focus on my life's station (already developed at 25)? What if my life's station depends on inherent vice? It would seem I should trust those of a better nature who have better mastered philosophy, but if I do not live in a just society, how am I to know whom I can trust as such?

read L. E. Navia's books on cynicism, discard everything else. Read about all the cynic philosophers, discover the links between cynic philosophy and pretty much every philosophy that came after. Having learned your lesson, discard everything, because you're not a cynic and you'll never be one. Read Stirner. Turns out he was right

>chronological reading

when did this become a meme? i'd like to read everything before it so i can make sense of it

Then don't advice them to read The Republic. Let them start with Meno and Ion before moving on to the Trial of Socrates dialogues.

It's all fine and dandy to recommend those authors. But they are meant to be read after Plato, not before.

If you want to delve into philosophy and see what is there, I wouldn't recommend starting with a tome as dense and difficult as The Republic.

okay fuck it I checked out nicomachean ethics.