I want to learn philosophy, but don't want to crawl through thousands of pages of literature only to find 100 pages worth of stuff.
Are there any power points or french line -lists, or summaries, or tidbits, or "did you knows" aka short texts compiling all the results of a writer?
Like Karl Popper is very smart guy but I just want a summary of his thoughts.
i spy a poopy dick nigger !!!
Sorry but I got a job, a girlfriend, my studies, and other responsibility areas, so I can only afford to read about 20 hours a week.
>a job, a girlfriend, my studies, and other responsibility areas,
ree
Just read the wikipedia article on whatever, then never read the actual thing, and be humiliated in public when you encounter someone who actually has.
I mean there's:
But even then you'll want to account for the fact that you're getting all of your information from a particular author who may have misinterpreted or misrepresented an idea or glossed over entire ideas or nuances altogether.
It's generally pretty solid, though. And if you get curious enough to look into the ideas more, you'll end up filling in the blanks with the primary sources.
>Sorry but I got a job, a girlfriend, my studies, and other responsibility areas, so I can only afford to read about 20 hours a week.
t. Sorry but im better than you low lives, PS ive had several existential crises, one of which had the profundity...
also
>responsibility areas
i dont think you have any studies, or anything better than some mediocre diploma mill
>It's generally pretty solid, though. And if you get curious enough to look into the ideas more, you'll end up filling in the blanks with the primary sources.
why dont they just expand on contentious areas with commentary from differing interpreters?
Thanks. But too long. Wikipedia too. I can afford maximum of 3 pages per author. And no sentences, just keywords and pictures. I'm sure there is such a resource available.
>Humiliated in public
I don't mind my status, I'll leave that to rats and cockroaches. I'll just focus on work and progress.
>I don't think you have any studies
It's pretty hard for me to open up a dialogue with you with comments like these. Maybe you should take up a course on conversation mechanisms and generally practice more on concepts like "How do I project my opinion respectfully" and "How to evaluate my goals before making choices".
Reading Karl Popper on that standford edu. God damn that man is a genius. So nice.
>WIKIPEDIA AND STANFORD ARE TOO LONG FOR MY RETARDED BRAIN. SPOONFEED ME EVERYTHING, I WANT MAXIMUM REWARD FOR MINIMUM EFFORT.
jesus tuna can opening christ, just kill yourself now.
>conversation mechanisms
gratz, youre a fucking robot
What is wrong with a cost benefit approach to learning?
t. Someone without any love or prospects who has a bad case of tall poppy syndrome.
They are too long for you too, I'm afraid. Have you ever thought about how much information there is in the world? There's a mountain full of it. And here we are trying to grasp the whole concept armed with just a pickaxe. It is a dreadful sight, but there is no alternative. So I'll rather hit the mountain where it is weakest. Still, I could bore through it my whole life and never perceive but a fraction of it. It is truly remarkable how little each of us knows, but how much each of us can achieve.
Interesting question. What truly separates the man from robots. Especially now when technology is racing forward so fast. Competition is turning us towards higher and higher efficiency, and apparently that comes with certain properties being turned more 'robotic'. Curious remark, yes. Out of my power to alter that though.
It's literally pointless to read philosophy if you're not going to bother with the reasoning behind it. Absolutely disgusting, people like you is why the analytic movement happened.
I didn't mean you're a robot in a good way. I meant you're a robot as they are now, not some nerd's wet dream. Clumsy, imprecise, and emotionless shells.
Could you argument your opinion, as I clearly disagree with you. I think it is a very good sieving mechanism to read preliminaries on multiple philosophers, then choose the ones that you can apply for progressive life. Your thoughts, please.
As an aside for present circumstances, pseuds like him also ruined Veeky Forums.
You don't know what a progressive life is.
This whole thread is a gigantic bait. You've all been rused.
>I can afford maximum of 3 pages per author. And no sentences, just keywords and pictures. I'm sure there is such a resource available.
There are YouTube videos that are short which have pictures and safe sounding voices. They're not always too accurate, though, and can suffer more from saying more about the person than the ideas.
You could listen to some lectures by The Teaching Company or The Modern Scholar.
Which will give you a few biographical anecdotes, and very little knowledge or depth understanding of the actual philosophy,
Your job is not to imbue a meaning to your words; you just express yourself, and how you are interpreted is the freedom of your listeners. I have a certain way how I interpreted your thoughts. Good day now.
>You don't know what a progressive life is
Let's change the subject. Who is your favorite philosopher? Have you read Karl Popper? He is great. You should definitely read him. His main topics are scientific method, demarcation, and falsifiability.
Thanks, I'll look into it. Problem with Youtube though is the clutter of having so many small videos, instead of one larger video.
Even if it is, the OP wastes as much time responding to the replies. It all balances out.
>Wastes as much time
Multitasking, my friend. Besides, I do enjoy talking to you. You guys are important and packed with groundbreaking ideas that you need to realize and bring in to the economy.
Have you heard of Tai Lopez? He has the method that allows you to read a book a day.
That seems exactly what you are looking for.
a little history of philosophy
>I want to learn philosophy, but don't want to crawl through thousands of pages of literature only to find 100 pages worth of stuff.
>I want to sound smart at parties by knowing amusing anecdotes about philosophy.
If an author wrote a thousand of pages instead of a hundred, there's a reason moron.
>If an author wrote a thousand of pages instead of a hundred, there's a reason moron.
Yeah, because THEY wanted to sound smart at parties.
Because in order to do that, to get a good picture of what is happening will require thousands of pages for even the smallest element in contention. There is no shortcut for become very knowledgeable in philosophy.
>I want to learn philosophy
>i dont wanna read
just give up dude, you dont even know what you dont know
You're a busy guy
"Other responsibility areas" is bullshit and you know it. Cut that shit out and make more time for yourself. And 20 hours of reading a week is plenty of time to get into philosophy on the side. Start with the Greeks.
Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, but differing approaches to how to solve problems and interpret the world. The fact that Kant believes in a transcendental ego, for instance, is meaningless unless you understand what arguments he makes to show this and what consequences this belief entails. It's absolutely nonsensical to boil down a philosopher to any "main points" or "critical ideas." It's like saying you want to learn French without learning grammar--"Oh, I don't care what rules dictate how to speak, I just want to learn what the words mean."
The only philosopher you should read is Schopenhauer because hopefully he can convince you to fucking kill yourself.
You can start with the greatest philosophy ever written:
-The Holy Bible
>I want to learn philosophy
no you don't
>I don't have time
>So let me shitpost on Veeky Forums instead of actually efficiently using my time
Hm
Exactly. If you can't write a comprehensive history of the Roman principate on the back of a stamp you are a megalomaniac and a hack.
this thread made me chuckle consistently and perspire heavily
Here you go, opie. Enjoy.
youtube.com
There's nothing inherently wrong, but to think that all these ideas can be explained in very little time and effort means that a lot of the nuance will be missed and makes the ideas presented much less meaningful.
a fun (i think) and interesting way to go about it is looking up the various different syllabi for phil101 (or whatever level you feel like taking on) classes in google and you get like little packaged specialized courses from experts in the field and youll have a naturally relevant group of texts to form smaller in area, but more cohesive and deeper foundation for future philosophical endeavors. you wont be reading wildly different brushstrokes or entire ouevres, but rather condensed salient passages that require critical understanding rather than finishing the entirety of a book. also university phil dpmts usually have their own unique strengths so you can search that way too
the beauty of this approach is that you can always tell as a student which teacher is more up your alley just by the texts they choose or even how they word the syllabus and introduction/class missive, etc if you want to work with british empiricism or the greeks or poststructuralism or logic or whatever.
like for example this is a pretty solid, short and sweet very basic intro to a lot of popular philosophy topics: mc.maricopa.edu
bump
>so I can only afford to read about 20 hours a week.
That is more than enough time to read through philosophers in their entirety
Unless you want to impress people at parties, there is no reason to aquire so much superficial knowledge. It's fine in certain amounts, nobody has the time to read everything. but the beauty of philosophy lies between the raw, broken down arguments, the "rhythm", as deleuze calls it. If you are new to philosophy, you will not breeze through 20th century philosophy, you will probably have to go back but it's fine, take your time.
"It's an excessive atmosphere, but if one holds up, and the important thing above all is not to understand, the important thing is to take on the rhythm of a given man, a given writer, a given philosopher, if one holds up, all this northern fog which lands on top of us starts to dissipate, and underneath there is an amazing architecture."
Not gonna make it.
bump for more keks
Summarising and extracting simplified frameworks and principles from philosophical works and thinkers is an affront to philosophy.
this
You can find summaries on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or on Wikipedia. That should give you enough of an overview to be able to gain social capital from name-dropping.
are you indian?
How fucking lazy can you be?