Dear Veeky Forums patricians, what do you consider important when just getting into philosophy?

wrong

>philosophy
>not meaningless quibbling over words, incapable of signifying anything meaningful about the world, full of authors unable to grasp the arbitrariness of language and the interchangability of all their systems
That said, to my understanding Kant is one of the better ones.
Nanami a cute.
Æschylus (especially Seven Against Thebes) and Dante desu.

>to my understanding
You've made it clear you don't undestand much

Thank you, though my origins are perhaps less humble than you think.

Nanami a cute

>You'll never be the shota who gets to have rough dominant sex with her which ends in tender cuddling

Don't sexualize Nanami you creep, she's was literally the only one out of the entire cast that didn't bang Akio.

Nanami is only to be lewded when gently making love to her, taking her virgnity, with the full intent of marrying her and spending the rest of your life with her.
Nanami a purest.

As expected of Veeky Forums to have fantastic taste in grills

I was thinking about doing this, even though I've read about Platonism and the greeks before I feel like going more into depth

Philosophy permeates everything, hopefully you'll understand this one day

I wish I was her not-brother. I would fertilize her egg.

Plato really is the best place to start (Socrates included). After that the Germans are really the only people seriously worth reading imo, unless you get really interested in a specific topic like religion, social contract theory, or some analytic garbage.

Philosophy permeates everything in the same way that language does, since philosophy is (to a great degree) language applied to the general nature of the world rather than the specifics.
The trouble is, different philosophies (I speak mostly of metaphysics and epistemologies) are more or less equivalent to different languages- there's no right or wrong language, so, generally, is there no right or wrong philosophical system. When two philosophers disagree on the nature of knowledge, it's not necessarily because they disagree on what the same thing is (if that's even possible) but more really because they think the word 'knowledge' does/should refer to different things.
*insert large number of qualifications and disclaimers here*

>Only one in the series not to bang Aiko
Jury would like a word with you, she's more patrician and hotter than Nanami but both are great. I like them solely because they didn't fall for his bullshit.

...

Juri is indeed better, but what about Juri & Nanami together?

I don't think I would be able to contain all this patrician but I'd probably decide on Juri. She's a red head or auburn which gets me points from her plus she loves bowling.

I think Utena is the only series where any taste in grill is good taste, unless your grill is that throw away fiance of Akio from the first episode of Mikage's arc, or one of Nanami's friends.

You can't have Juri, she's a lesbian and she's already my beloved lesbian.
>insulting Kanae
Kanae is pretty and pure, she's a perfectly fine girl and one'd be lucky to have her.

Kanae is a vegetable now, sweety.

Miki's sister was a huge cunt though, poor little fucker, I wonder how many pianos he had to burn because she got screwed on top of them.

Kozue is delicious.

>what do you consider important when just getting into philosophy?
Don't:
-Think in dichotomies like empiricism vs. rationalism or consequentialism vs. deontology
-Analyze philosophy through psychology, look for ulterior motives etc.
-Progressivist picture of philosophical history e.g. Kant the voice of reason amongst a bunch of dogmatic retards, Wittgenstein great destroyer of metaphysics etc.
-"Z proved Y wrong proved X wrong"

Do:
-Train your critical thinking and examine your shit, there is no "autistic" in philosophy
-Be wary of authorities and in-groups telling you what to think and judge for yourself
-Never blindly trust introductions, internet podcasts and Veeky Forums ever
-Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is your friend only in need and not indeed, always judge the primary source for yourself or don't judge at all

>And even though we have read all the arguments of Plato and Aristotle, we shall never become philosophers if we are unable to make a sound judgement on matters which come up for discussion; in this case what we would seem to have learnt would not be science but history.

>Kant dissaproves

...

There's a reason this meme was born.

Doing philosophy without knowing the greeks is like doing math without knowing arithmetic.

Fucking you, Nanami-chan.

As long as you already got the jist of Hume - empricism, synthetic vs. analytic, etc. - you should be fine with starting with the critique.

After Kant check out Hegel and Schopenhauer, then you can go on to badboy Nietzsche

I have a thing for weak characters filled with resentment and impotence who lustfully satisfy in their delusional retaliation. Black rose Wakaba is nice too.

>who lustfully satisfy in their delusional retaliation
Lustfully satisfy what?

I struggle to find the words, but they find pleasure in "taking revenge" when this brings them no real benefits.

I thought the answer would be 'lustfully satisfy you'.

Just read Aristotle's physics and metaphysics, then read the church fathers, then Aquinas and scholasticism.
18th century philosophy is either A.) a rehash of things previously stated by scholastics or B.) The creation of a new framework by the encroaching of empiricism onto philosophy.
Read hume, hegel, kant, and that's it from that time period.
Don't even read schopenhauer or wittgenstein or nietzsche, people like this are hilariously disconnected from the philosophy of the middle ages and the renaissance, they are about as intelligent as anybody else on this board.

>Never blindly trust Veeky Forums ever
Thanks man. Now I have a legitimate reason to dismiss your advice.

Hey Veeky Forums first time poster here. I'm reading One-Way Street by Walter Benjamin and while some passages are easy to understand some are worded in a way that I lose myself in the words rather than the meaning of the sentence. Anyway does anyone here have any opinions on Benjamin?

Thanks senpai

not a good way to dip into the pool.

start with greeks and church weirdos, do spinoza and descartes, then kant and hume. after that, who the hell really knows

How do you guys read philosophy? Do you take notes, highlight important passages, and summarize lengthy segments? I'm asking because I'm finishing up the presocratics now and would really like to grasp Plato for what it's worth when I start reading Apology soon.

I just criticize it. I write down in my documents 'Plato is mistaken here, because he wrongly identifies x as being..'. That's just my basic reaction to all philosophy, I don't even know what the fuck im talking about

Philosophy can't be performed without facing and learning about death.

Read an accessible historical overview, a good one is Kenny's Brief History of Western Philosophy.
Then I suggest diving into the all-time greats - Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, etc. - obviously people have their biases, but go with what interests you.

You COULD pick up contemporary anglo philosophy without extensive study of canonical thinkers, though i wouldn't recommend it. But as a discipline it tries to overcome historicism and fit into the current scientific understanding of the world. Whatever you think of that, post-50s analytic philosophy is the best strain going on right now and likely for some time in the future. It's fairly simple to pick up, for instance, a current textbook into metaphysics and get an idea for the field - go with Oxford.

>anime girl avatarfag
Please get the fuck away from this board and philosophy in general. No one is interested in what you could possibly bring to the table.

redit

Nice try Anthy.

no, i will keep looking for my prince

xD