How many of you honestly recommend starting with the Greeks?

Let's be honest hear, for many of us, starting with the Greeks is a shitty idea.

Yes, I know, starting with the Pre-Socratics is downright retarded, but I'd even go so far as to say starting with the Republic is not a good idea.

Why? Well...

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

First off, I'm assuming you're not reading to be "well read" i.e. you don't care about how culturally refined (or anything similar) you appear to yourself, friends, prospective lovers, lovers, family or whoever. If you are reading for this purpose, then it's a no-brainer that you have to start with the Greeks.

So then, why do you want to get into philosophy? The only reason could be the enjoyment you get from engaging in a quest to discover truth (defined primitively, although perhaps best explained as a certain sensation or certainty you feel with regard to a statement, such that the statement seems undeniable or "true")

Why not Plato? Well, because you're not going to find truth in Plato and (although you're more likely to find it here) not in Aristotle either. Say you start with the Republic, you're, most likely, going to get to the point where he tries to correspond a just person to a just city and go "well, that doesn't seem right" then and there, if not later, when he starts laying down the foundations of this city.

It is important to note now, that I am not saying what Plato said is "untrue" in the common meaning of the word, I have defined "truth" here as the sensation of truth itself. Using more common language, I am not commenting on whether what Plato said was true or not, what I am saying is that it most likely won't feel true for you, atleast if that's what you start with, in other words, you're not going to find his "logic" or, more accurately, his manner of reasoning, agreeable.

Using quasi-philosophcial terms, you'll find his reasoning very "spooky".

Where to start with then? Desecartes, you're going to find him a lot more agreeable, unlike the Republic of which the response to most readers is "Well, I obviously didn't agree wtih any of the bullshit he said but it was interesting", when you read the Meditations (just the first two chapters) Desecartes will most likely actually touch truth for you, that is, he will raise questions that honestly make you uncomfortable, that's answer you actually do not know and his reasoning is something you will find a lot more agreeable, until you don't (Be glad that no philosopher will be 100% agreeable, else there ends your quest for truth and there ends the enjoyment you receive from it).

What say Veeky Forums?

P.S. Post Desecartes, I don't think my recommendations matter, I just believe that exposing one to Plato to start of with does him/her an injustice, by giving them the wrong conception of how analytically rigorous and logically robust modern philosophy is. Think about it, let's say the Republic was never published, let's say someone writes a book exactly like it today, how badly would he be laughed at in academic circles, especially by all the analytic philosophers?

P.P.S. I'm not saying one should never read Plato and Aristotle, their thoughts would actually be interesting from the point of view of the history of philosophy, but this is a subject I feel can only interest one who has first done philosophy itself.

To quote a a rather famous philosopher's preface to one of his texts:

>For some learned people, philosophy is just the history of philosophy (ancient and modern); these preliminaries aren’t written for them. They must wait their turn. When those who work to draw ·truth· from the well of reason itself have done their work, then the historians can give the world the news about their results. ·But they won’t regard it as news, because· nothing can be said now that the historians won’t think has been said already! And it is safe to predict that they’ll think the same about anything said in the future; human understanding has busied itself for centuries with countless topics in many ways, so it is to be expected that every new idea will resemble something that has been said in the past.

It's a meme. You are supposed to get this info through cultural osmosis and if you have not it's too late to start now.

A don't believe if something is a meme it implies that it is not honest advice too.

"Start lifting" is a meme as is "Get sex", I don't think this itself implies that the person meme'ing does not intend what he is saying as honest advice.

I do feel numerous individuals (most in fact) would recommend starting and grinding through only the Greeks and moving on from philospohy to philospohy chronologically.

>A don't
I don't*

No. Western Civilization is a meme, and the Greeks just are not important at all. People just read them to impress their friends or anyone who might be watching. Start with the existentialists+Stirner like the rest of us. Don't waste time on old ded granddaddy like DeCart either. They never discovered anything worthwhile anyhow.

Greeks are fun and a good start.
I dont see the issue

Just start wherever you want and read the easier texts, then try reading the harder texts and if they refer to or base their concepts on the ancients a lot then read whatever you need to/want to. Eventually you'll probably develop an interest in ancient philosiphy and read whatever you want there too. Though honestly, and my philosophy tutors have told me this as well, even if you want to read someone quite difficult like Kant, you can get all the preparatory info on influences you need from stanford or IEP. Philosophy is about reading what interests you, if it doesn't interest you, you should accept that you probably aren't ready for it and should read something else that does interest you. People advocating grinding through shit are idiots, that's treating a form of art like some video game, and will probably end up with people having read a couple Greeks then giving up on philosophy in general because they found it boring. just stop being autistic and read whatever phil you want

Historical knowledge of philosophy is key to understanding the philosophers where one according to you "finds truth"

Even if the thoughts do not correspond with your perspective of the world, you need to withhold the pleasure of going into somewhat more contemporary philosophy, as to create the foundation for truly understanding it.

The focus is not historical knowledge but historical knowledge is a foundation for dedicated studies in the field of philosophy.

That is atleast one path, of course you can do whatever you want. My path was backwards for example, i started with post-structuralism and have now reached the greeks. Just explaining why starting with the Greeks is a very sound advise. One that for example all philosophers of the german classic have followed.

Please stop misguiding pseuds merely because greek philosophy hasn't resonated with you.

This is a good point OP. The whole
"Starting with the Greeks" thing puzzled me because when I was in university studying philosophy our first assignment was to read Descartes’s meditations. If someone was to ask me now what would be the best thing to start with I would say Thomas Nagel’s short introduction to philosophy.

I do, just because their stories are culturally important since we've absorbed them, and because the works themselves are wonderful.

why do people make these threads?

if you're too lazy to read the greeks then fuck off

Too much focus on Philosophy in this thread, you should be reading that as well as extant histories and plays.

>Greeks are fun and a good start.
I disagree precisely because I don't believe they're going to be fun for a good amount of philosophically minded individuals, or atleast I wish to say that a lesser proportion of these individuals would be put off if it were recommended that they start with Desecartes.

I don't deny that a good amount of people would see that an understanding of the history of philosophy is integral to understand truth, as per their conception of what is true.(although I think this idea is not as prominent in modern philosophical circles, i.e. because their stories are culturally important since we've absorbed them
But you are advising people who have said they are interested in philosophy, not people who have said they are interested in culture.

>you should be reading that as well as extant histories and plays.
>should

Why is it a duty of an individual to do this (I don't see what else you mean by should)?
Once again, remember, I'm assuming we are not advising individuals interested only in appearing/being "culturally refined".

Not sure if this is a troll.

I'm particularly concerned by some of the charts and comprehensive guides I have seen that seem to advise those interested in philosophy to read through a number of Greek texts which they will otherwise see little reasonable argument (or little source material for reasonable argument ) in, relative to other, more contemporary works, if they start off with them.

I'm going to read them because of genuine interest and also some books like to reference them.

i'd say the greeks meme is in part a reaction to students from universities like which have courses that largely gloss over the history of the discipline and largely focus on the arguments given ripped from context. it becomes less of a story of people from different eras giving accounts of what truth is, how to achieve it, and why they said that given the time they lived in. rather, it becomes arguments all located in some weird collective mental space floating in relative isolation with names attached to them for the convenience of identifying that specific argument. a good example is seeing how most departments treat plato. philosophy is as much a story as it a cultural institution as it is a search for truth. you wouldn't start reading a book at the middle or end, would you?

for more practical reasons, the ancients are perhaps the most diverse group of philosophers bar none. plato would interest the literary/dramatic types, aristotle the systematic thinkers and logicians, parmenides/heraclitus the autistic metaphysicians, plotinus the religious types, epicurus the scientists, pythagoras the mathematicians, sophists for the relativists, and so on. there is something for everybody

This is a good book guy, thanks for the reference,

Posting a part that I think is relevant to this discussion from the first page.

Everyone's journey is gonna be different. Some will find the poetry of the Greeks beautiful, some will find the destruction of Hume and Kant profound, some will find the application of Kuhn and Popper useful, some will find the rationalism of Descartes... something (obviously I'm not in the last camp).

These are all perfectly acceptable starting points. Any preference between them depends on an individual's history and their temperament.

Also, your idea that there are only two ways to approach philosophy- as cultural capital or as seeking of Truth- only betrays your ignorance. Beauty, use, truth, mere pleasure or enjoyment- these are all uses of philosophy. Personally I think that philosophy does not give you TRUTH, but shape your mental categories such that you can recognize truth, beauty, etc for yourself when you see it later in your everyday experience. Maybe it's a more solipsistic view but it works.

I'm not sure if you're justifying the use of start with the Greeks as advice or just sharing your personal experience (thanks in case it is the latter, it's fun to note the different reactions people have, the rest of my post assumes the former).
>genuine interest
Interest in what exactly? Philosophical questions themselves or what these authors said, particularly?

I'd assume it's the latter given:
>some books like to reference them.

But, start with the greeks is advice given to most people who ask "How to into philosophy?", a question which, when they ask, they often wish to have puzzling questions they've thought addressed, as described in I see a lot wrong with your response, in so far as it is commenting on the manner in which people will generally find philosophy entertaining, as I said above, I think the attitude most people have to philosophy can be summarized as in

>i'd say the greeks meme is in part a reaction to students from universities like which have courses that largely gloss over the history of the discipline and largely focus on the arguments given ripped from context.

This is very interesting, really though, it seems sad to think that the cause of the "start with the greeks" advice is that the (what I am presuming is) a minority of vocal philosophy students (and therefore, the kind of persons who'd want advice on getting "into" philosophy) who actually find argument "ripped from context" uninteresting. This is assuming your explanation of the meme's origin is true.

>for more practical reasons, the ancients are perhaps the most diverse group of philosophers bar none. plato would interest the literary/dramatic types, aristotle the systematic thinkers and logicians, parmenides/heraclitus the autistic metaphysicians, plotinus the religious types, epicurus the scientists, pythagoras the mathematicians, sophists for the relativists, and so on. there is something for everybody

I don't deny this, look, if someone were trapped on an island with a collection of the ancients I wouldn't suggest they throw them away. I'm not trying to imply that these authors might be entertaining to some degree but I just find the opportunity cost that one incurs by readings them to, on average, be far too large. Especially given that newcomers seem to want a full thorough guide and as such are shepherded down a stupidly long and tedious list of chronologically arranged philosophy books many of which are not in fact "for them" so there is not "something for everybody". I find that many contemporary works might actually be more suitable for these newcomers. There can be something for each of them from contemporary works too and I think contemporary works, especially those secondary ones put forward as aimed at the youth, are much better recs.

>Also, your idea that there are only two ways to approach philosophy
First, I was not talking of ways of doing philosophy but motivations for doing philosophy.
Second, I did not explicitly state nor do I wish to imply that those two exhaust the list. They seem the most common to me however.

>First, I was not talking of ways of doing philosophy but motivations for doing philosophy.

I'm not sure if you got this, because you seem to be talking about the uses of as opposed to the motivations people have for philosphy. I wasn't as concerned with what people CAN do with philosophy but rather WHAT THEY WANT TO DO with philosophy, when they are getting into it, the motivations they have.

>Everyone's journey is gonna be different. Some will find the poetry of the Greeks beautiful, some will find the destruction of Hume and Kant profound, some will find the application of Kuhn and Popper useful, some will find the rationalism of Descartes... something (obviously I'm not in the last camp).

This has become an empirical question, I think the set of individuals wanting to get into philosophy is not quite so diverse and it is certainly only a minority of them who find the poetry of the Greeks beautiful (hence explaining why most academic courses put much less emphasis on these ancients than do online guides form Veeky Forums)

I'd argue yes, it's an empirical question to begin with.

Also, I think I largely understood but you clarified it for me. Any given motivation to practice philosophy results in a different set of outcomes, methods, preferences etc.

You are projecting your own lack of enjoyment of the Greeks onto all people with an interest in philosophy. I think that the Greeks certainly motivate some perhaps more analytically minded people to leave it, but Descartes just as quickly motivates more beauty/art minded people to leave it.

Again I thunk it comes down to personal values. And just because things are done in a certain way in philosophy departments does not mean that it is the right way to do it. The meaning of "philosophy" has changed so much over the years it's practically meaningless outside of as a set of ideas historically practiced under the name. Personally I agree with wittgenstein that it is about conceptual clarification.

Start with the Sumerians desu senpai baka

>Once again, remember, I'm assuming we are not advising individuals interested only in appearing/being "culturally refined".

And why would you assume this

PS you sound insufferable

t. has been reading the Greeks and Romans for almost 1.5 years straight

Because those texts will make sense in the context of influencing later texts once those later texts are read. The Greeks are a foundation; you're basically wondering why the bottom floor doesn't give you a view over the city, but you need that bottom floor if you're going to build a skyscraper.

Just like the influence of the presocratics isn't made apparent until you move on to Plato and Aristotle, and see what they are drawing on, building on, or rejecting.

If somebody is philosophically-minded he would be a big retard if starting with the greeks turned him away from philosophy. Delete your existance ASAP.

le school of life

Starting with Descartes is not a bad idea. However to say starting with the Greeks is "shitty" is just plain stupid. I seriously don't see how you would understand philosophers whose many ideas hark back to and question thoughts by Plato, Aristotle, etc. To understand philosophers closer to our time, it is very important to build a strong foundation and understand those who came before them. And you might not fully understand Plato the first time you read him, however his ideas become more clear as you move farther along into history. After all, philosophy is a science and you wouldn't try to learn organic chemistry before learning the table of elements.

It is a shitty idea. The social, mythological and philosophical value of antiquity is indefinitely being fed back to us as platitudes in the mode of cultural commercialism. You won't find anything fresh there because history has been cannibalising on the ancient greek carcass for centuries now.

Actually the Pre-Socratics are pretty important and I would recommend anyone who's getting into philosophy to start with them. At the very least read Parmenides, Zeno, and Heraclitus.

>hear
here*

I agree with OP,But i would say for those who want to read philosophy,i would first start by genuinely just going through stanford and wikipedia entries and finding the philosopher who interests you the most and then start with someone who relates to them,so for example,i was deeply interested in Karl Marx,so i first started with Epicurus.

You're an idiot if you read philosophy to find truth, studying philosophy is about studying the history of Western thought. If you can't figure out why it's important to start with the greeks, maybe you should just stick to Nietzsche quotes taken out of context and self help books.

Are you trolling? Because literally most philosophers who write, write with the intention of discovering truth.

But "truth" is just a story of the story that compares the story with a story that wasn't useful to be believed.

Most philosophers are wrong simply because they try to stand outside of what they are telling a story of and forget to include both what is outside looking in, and the process of telling the story.
Every philosophical narrative of note is either Platonist - stating that there is a metaphysics we cannot know - or Sophist - stating there is a choice we make to control our world. This is the deterministic verses free will narrative.

But both are wrong. You create your narrative universe along with the narratives you use, then create a story of the story to persuade yourself of the universe you just created, using counter stories that didn't even happen as proof.

You make your universe from your senses, then sense your universe in a recursion.

So what then is truth? All you ever have is a story, and that story is either useful to be believed for its particular intent, or it stops. Just because it is useful to believe doesn't make it any less of a story; however, just because it is a story doesn't mean it is not useful to be believed.

So truth becomes just a rhetoric to persuade.

"Start with the Greeks" is literally the "install gentoo" of Veeky Forums. The fact that you guys take it seriously is bizarre, IMO.

I hate Hegel

Hegel is great you fucker

>Heraclitus
>retarded

wew lad

I bet you don't know shit about Democritus either.

>I have defined "truth" here as the sensation of truth itself. Using more common language, I am not commenting on whether what Plato said was true or not, what I am saying is that it most likely won't feel true for you, at least if that's what you start with

I hate you new age pseudo philosophers so much.

Enjoy being a faggot OP.

I am of the opinion that one should begin by learning Greek and Latin. But of course nobody can resist the urge to read their own language's literature.

This is why it is best to be schooled in Greek and Latin: to have some force from without making you learn these fundamental languages even though you can't yet enjoy them, and reading the literature of your own time and language for fun in your spare time.

Many of the best writers in the English language never got very far in their classical studies. They got a little Latin and less Greek. Others did becomes very proficient in one or the other, or both; but still one cannot say that their studies were thorough every step of the way from Athens to London. There will always be gaps, there can be no such thing as a perfect progression from the earliest literature to the most modern. Every man's knowledge is, if you take the large view, a patchwork, and its beginnings are in twenty different places.

So my advice is this: begin with the Greeks AND the English (or the Romans instead of the Greeks, if you like—Latin is easier to learn than Greek, and for many reasons just as important to know). Take up your Greeks as homework, and take up your moderns as leisure, and in time the two will meet. There will come a day when you can enjoy the Greeks, but only after prolonged effort. For now you should be conscious that you are working towards some state of learning which you cannot yet appreciate, but which all our betters have affirmed to be worthwhile. But when you want to just enjoy a bit of reading, pick up something you actually want to read.

Of course this is all very difficult when you remember that you have full-time responsibilities and only twenty-four hours in every day. But do what you can. And remember that there are more important things than being learned.

>I hate you new age pseudo philosophers so much.

What is it about that use of the word truth that you did not like exactly?

Explain the the

>sensation of truth

is and then what this means

>it most likely won't feel true for you

and then how the first statement can be used to predict the second.

Explain *what* the

>sensation of truth

is...

>is and then what this means

It is nothing but the feeling of certainty, the feeling of certainty that something is "true". The sensation itself can best be described as that, I'm sure we have all experienced it, I'm sure you know what I am talking of when I refer to "how you feel about X when you feel that X is certain/true" that "how you feel" is the sensation I am referring to.

The only reason I defined truth as that sensation is so that I could state that the motivation many have behind reading philosophy is the quest for truth but the quest for truth in the sense that it is the quest to find something of which they are certain, really, when trying to find truth they are trying to find certainty, a robustness in beliefs that can help them make sensible, agreeable answers to the puzzles philosophy puts forth.

As I said:
>truth (defined primitively, although perhaps best explained as a certain sensation or certainty you feel with regard to a statement, such that the statement seems undeniable or "true")

Also in the context of the below article, the sensation of truth is nothing but "psychological certainty": plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

>and then how the first statement can be used to predict the second.

I don't know what you mean by predict but the first statement does not entail/imply the second.

It is nothing but the feeling of certainty, the feeling of certainty that something is "true". The sensation itself can best be described as that, I'm sure we have all experienced it, I'm sure you know what I am talking of when I refer to "how you feel about X when you feel that X is certain/true" that "how you feel" is the sensation I am referring to.

This is not philosophy. This is 'humanities' or 'liberal arts'

>I don't know what you mean by predict but the first statement does not entail/imply the second.

Then why did you write this:

>I have defined "truth" here as the sensation of truth itself. Using more common language, I am not commenting on whether what Plato said was true or not, what I am saying is that it most likely won't feel true for you,

you posit that 'truth' is a feeling and then posit that this feeling will not be felt by me when I read Plato.

Actually, now that I read it closely you don't make a syllogism here. I am so used to reading philosophy that I mistook your sophism as a syllogism when it is in fact two different assumptions based on... what, I am not exactly sure.

Is your argument that 'Greeks = bad because I don't 'feel' that they are true?

wew lad. Enjoy that pseudo philosophical nonsense.

>This is not philosophy. This is 'humanities' or 'liberal arts'
>Enjoy that pseudo philosophical nonsense.

My OP isn't philosophy.

>Is your argument that 'Greeks = bad because I don't 'feel' that they are true?

I'm not saying that Greeks = bad rather that Greeks = bad place to start.

The argument is somethingg as follows (in so far as the argument is valid in a logical sense it's going to require a lot many additions but I think you can get a good idea of what I'm saying from this):

Premise 1 - One is likely to feel that what the Greeks said is untrue when reading the Greeks as a newcomer to Philosophy

.
.
.

Conclusion - It is inadvisable to start with the Greeks.

The validity of the premise? It's an empirical question as pointed out. I think think the premise is true (as are the other unstated premises which I have left unstated more or less because I think they're quite trivially true). The reason for me believing this is the experiences I've had with many hobbyists who think the Greeks, and especially the Pre-Socratics, horrendously boring and the fact that most college courses won't focus on the Greeks nearly as much as Veeky Forums advises newcomers to.