goodreads.com
Is $60-$70 and 1800 pages really needed just to START philosophy? I'm not a very heavy reader but am interested in the subject. Every time I've asked or seen someone ask about it they always get pointed to this or to Aristotle's work (which there seems to be a lot more of)
Surely there must be a select few works that is required while the rest is "if you want more" tier
Other urls found in this thread:
google.com
youtube.com
perseus.tufts.edu
twitter.com
You don't need to read every dialogue.
>required
There's nothing required about the greeks, don't fall for the meme. Read Russell's summary on them from 'History' and move on, unless you are specifically interested in greek tradition and culture.
Do you just want a intro to philosophy?
I'd pick up The Story of Philosophy by Magee if you just want to "get in".
>Read Russell's History
There's not really more Aristotle than Plato (in terms of pages), rather slightly less, though it's debatable. Anyway, regarding Plato, I'd advise to read one of the earlier, short, 'easy' dialogues (Laches, Hippias 1&2, Ion etc.) and a "harder" one (Phaedo, Gorgias, some books from the Republic etc.), then you'd see if you like it. That "complete works" volume looks great but you better be sure you're gonna keep it and use it. (I find it annoying as fuck to read a 100p dialogue in a 2000p book)
don't read Russell, I mean it
Russell is great, I'm sorry if your pooper was upset at his 'unfair' treatment of Kant
Dunno if you're trolling or if you just haven't read any philosophy outside of Russell. He's the dumbest guy ever. Unable to read or understand anything. Unable to admit he's full of contradictions. Publishing dozens of worthless "essays" just because he's famous.
Russell's history is deeply flawed and literally nobody who knows his shit recommends it. Some of it is due to Russell's misunderstanding of German idealism but the worst is his mistreatment of Medieval philosophy (although that's mostly because translations of Medieval philosophy back then were mostly shit and very few people understood the special Latin vernacular that the Scholastics used).
Kenny's History of Western Philosophy is a much better way to start, but, as always, reading secondary sources is not enough, and reading at least the main dialogues of Plato is essential to having a good understanding of philosophy.
No.
The essentials are Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Repulic, and Laws imo.
There are other good ones in there though. Lots - like Parmenides, Meno, Ion, etc.,...
This guy and this guy are idiots. Don't listen to them. Unless you aren't sincerely interested in philosophy.
>is really required to read the most important and the most influencer philospher of History whose work has been discussed through all History of though page by page? I mean, I haven't read a single philosophy book in my life but, cmon guys, I'm sure 2 or 3 dialogues are enough to get in, r8?
>There's nothing required about the greeks
if you don't want into philosophy, sure
What's the best "essentials" edition of Aristotle? I'm not gonna read everything (especially not about nature and animals) so getting the 2 volume complete edition seems like a waste.
This guy knows what's up. I'd debate that Laws might not be necessary but otherwise all good suggestions.
Can somebody post anything, any one passage from Plato that you would considering an eye-opener? I've never read Plato, but I did read several books of Aristotle, and 90% of his ideas, which might've been novel 2500 years ago, should be trite and self-evident to any modern man
I refuse to believe that Plato is any better, especially since he was batshit insane
>Surely there must be a select few works that is required while the rest is "if you want more" tier
A Plato Reader by Hackett.
Plato's account of the tyrannical man in the Republic IX is just spot on on what happened in the last century over and over and over again, except for the part where Plato didn't live in the last century and his magnum opus was collecting dust in too many libraries, so nobody could learn from it.
Let's make sure fewer people read it in the current year, what could possibly go right?
Well Plato will seem much weirder to you than Aristotle. Basically Aristotle's works and thoughts were regarded as "true" until Plato became more fashionable during the Renaissance and then, quickly afterwards, "modern" thinkers and scientists appeared. Judging from what you said about Aristotle I'd say you should read Plato as you would read literature rather than philosophy. (why not, after all)
Can't think of a specific extract that would be an eye-opener btw, sorry.
Are you serious? Everyone ITT seems to claim that Plato's works are heaven's manna of wisdom, yet you cannot produce a single drop?
Wasn't Hitler a huge philosophyfag, and surely read Plato? Are you one of these people stuck in the idea of history repeating itself, who can't stop comparing America to Roman Empire?
Well the reason is that his writing is a bit "loose". When I find 30 lines that sum up or demonstrate accurately an important idea, I keep the extract and use it, but in the case of Plato it's very rare that important stuff is summed up in a short extract.
Here's a passage I like (not an essential one though), from Gorgias.
The soul and body being two, have two arts corresponding to them: there is the art of politics attending on the soul; and another art attending on the body, of which I know no single name, but which may be described as having two divisions, one of them gymnastic, and the other medicine. And in politics there is a legislative part, which answers to gymnastic, as justice does to medicine; and the two parts run into one another, justice having to do with the same subject as legislation, and medicine with the same subject as gymnastic, but with a difference. Now, seeing that there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good; flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of them; she puts on the likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends to be that which she simulates, and having no regard for men's highest interests, is ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving them into the belief that she is of the highest value to them. Cookery simulates the disguise of medicine, and pretends to know what food is the best for the body; and if the physician and the cook had to enter into a competition in which children were the judges, or men who had no more sense than children, as to which of them best understands the goodness or badness of food, the physician would be starved to death. A flattery I deem this to be and of an ignoble sort, Polus, for to you I am now addressing myself, because it aims at pleasure without any thought of the best. An art I do not call it, but only an experience, because it is unable to explain or to give a reason of the nature of its own applications. And I do not call any irrational thing an art; but if you dispute my words, I am prepared to argue in defence of them.
Cookery, then, I maintain to be a flattery which takes the form of medicine; and tiring, in like manner, is a flattery which takes the form of gymnastic, and is knavish, false, ignoble, illiberal, working deceitfully by the help of lines, and colours, and enamels, and garments, and making men affect a spurious beauty to the neglect of the true beauty which is given by gymnastic.
I would rather not be tedious, and therefore I will only say, after the manner of the geometricians (for I think that by this time you will be able to follow)
as tiring: gymnastic:: cookery: medicine;
or rather,
as tiring: gymnastic:: sophistry: legislation;
and
as cookery: medicine:: rhetoric: justice.
And this, I say, is the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them. For if the body presided over itself, and were not under the guidance of the soul, and the soul did not discern and discriminate between cookery and medicine, but the body was made the judge of them, and the rule of judgment was the bodily delight which was given by them, then the word of Anaxagoras, that word with which you, friend Polus, are so well acquainted, would prevail far and wide: 'Chaos' would come again, and cookery, health, and medicine would mingle in an indiscriminate mass. And now I have told you my notion of rhetoric, which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body. I may have been inconsistent in making a long speech, when I would not allow you to discourse at length. But I think that I may be excused, because you did not understand me, and could make no use of my answer when I spoke shortly, and therefore I had to enter into an explanation. And if I show an equal inability to make use of yours, I hope that you will speak at equal length; but if I am able to understand you, let me have the benefit of your brevity, as is only fair: And now you may do what you please with my answer.
POLUS: What do you mean? do you think that rhetoric is flattery?
SOCRATES: Nay, I said a part of flattery; if at your age, Polus, you cannot remember, what will you do by-and-by, when you get older?
POLUS: And are the good rhetoricians meanly regarded in states, under the idea that they are flatterers?
SOCRATES: Is that a question or the beginning of a speech?
POLUS: I am asking a question.
SOCRATES: Then my answer is, that they are not regarded at all.
POLUS: How not regarded? Have they not very great power in states?
SOCRATES: Not if you mean to say that power is a good to the possessor.
POLUS: And that is what I do mean to say.
SOCRATES: Then, if so, I think that they have the least power of all the citizens.
POLUS: What! are they not like tyrants? They kill and despoil and exile any one whom they please.
etc.
I wasn't telling him not to read Plato doofus, just that an introduction to philosophy would make the best introduction to philosophy
It just depends on how serious you are about philosophy. If you just have a passing interest and want to dabble or get your feet wet before you jump in, then start somewhere else.
Once you think you want to really understand the philosophical tradition in the west, you will need to read Plato.
For any genre, Charts are really helpful for newbies like myself. Would be even cooler if you could make a few where we have none.
This is admittedly a fun metaphor, but nothing I would put in a frame and on the wall as an eternal grain of wisdom. I also find the dialogue style in which the interlocutor is a doofus to be incredibly patronizing.
I thought the dualities of all things into a comparison between body and soul were beautiful, and comprised the majority of how and why people are organized the way they are today and in that day into institutions and public forms.
You don't need to read any of that shut except for the Republic of course(but that's implied), but tbqh if you haven't read The Histories, you haven't lived.
You're objectively wrong
Fair enough. My apologies.
>$60-$70 dollars
Public domain my nigga. Project Gutenberg that shit.
>Is $60-$70...
you can get it on libgen you dumb idiot
>omitting kierkegaard
I hope russell is imprisoned in a teapot encircling the moon
>I also find the dialogue style in which the interlocutor is a doofus to be incredibly patronizing.
this was before people "got wise" and started guarding themselves against the dialectic.
>Wasn't Hitler a huge philosophyfag, and surely read Plato?
I wish enough German citizens did before 1919, though, and as I said:
>Let's make sure fewer people read it in the current year, what could possibly go right?
Hell, even Heidegger, quite the big name, knew his Aristotle inside out and even proposed new radical intepretations for the Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics, but he didn't do his homework with Plato.
Color me suprised when even a smart guy like him would fall for the bait.
>"Only a god can save us”, said Heidegger (echoing Plato) in 1966. He was still waiting for the god to come when he died on May 26 1976 and was buried in the churchyard at Messkirch beside his parents.
I guess he found out the hard way that Hitler was no god.
>Everyone ITT seems to claim that Plato's works are heaven's manna of wisdom, yet you cannot produce a single drop?
He wrote dialogues, not T-shirts.
^here's the whole book for free. no excuses, put it on your phone or nook or whatever and read it.
Project Gutenberg translations are shit. I recently paid the coin for pic related. I fucking love the Greek though and have already read a few dialogues and made my own decision about it which I think op should do.
No, but see
youtube.com
Start with the greek, senpai
perseus.tufts.edu
HOLY SHIT I LOVE YOU THANKS A LOT
bookzz dot org you fucking faggot
It's alright lad
>There's not really more Aristotle than Plato (in terms of pages), rather slightly less
There is way more Aristotle than Plato. The standard complete English editions of each are about 2500 and 1700 pages respectively; the loeb editions have Aristotle in nearly twice as many volumes (23) as Plato (12).
With that said, only like half of Aristotle is worth reading for the sake of a non-professional grasp of philosophy, and that's IF you include the 300 page organon. Literally about 1200 pages of the ~2400 which make up his complete works in the 2 volume Barnes edition are things like "the history of animals," "the nature of animals," etc. (with some admittedly more interesting but not top tier stuff like "on the soul"), with a mere ~900 pages being devoted to stuff like metaphysics, the two ethics, politics, and rhetoric, and another 300 to the organon.
Also Aristotle is way fucking harder to read, at least for me so far. I'm about 120 pages through the organon (so far finished Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior Analytics; god knows I didn't fully understand them), and I'm averaging like 8-10 pages an hour. That was my slowest ever pace for Plato (usually happened with his metaphysics), and besides the difficulty level, Plato is just more readable. He's very very arguably "literature," and Aristotle is not, at least not all the time.
Obviously I haven't read enough of Aristotle to make total judgments, but it doesn't seem like he'll change his structure so significantly as to approach Plato in readability.
Anyway, besides that, good recommendations on the Platonic dialogues.
Decent suggestions for a really basic grasp of Plato. Would recommend reading Laws last, if ever; it's important but you're better off reading, like you said, some other great dialogues like Meno, Sophist, Parmenides, etc.
IIRC the modern library edition has basically everything you'd want, except one or two books like the Politics or something like that are incomplete.
>I also find the dialogue style in which the interlocutor is a doofus to be incredibly patronizing.
There are so many layers and purposes to that structure that it's frankly a shame for you to write it off like that. Read a dialogue and some critical commentary. This is like saying Moby-Dick is condescending because you don't like metaphors.
heidegger guy from Veeky Forums?
Reading and studying the entirety of other philosopher's works is a meme. If you want to get into philosophy, you need to try and construct your own perspectives and philosophical world views. If you read that entire book, the only thing you've really accomplished is most likely going to be having just a partial understanding of Plato's opinions. You aren't learning to question, and think by doing that.
Just use philosophy books as a guideline for YOUR thinking.
Can I just pause to say how great it is that I have a community of people that have read things so I don't have to bother reading a bunch of stuff if I want to read people, because there are others like you who have already trudged through all the shit for me. I mean it's not selfish, because it's something that everyone benefits from from you posting something like this.
So thank you. From all the anons.
This is the vitae of retardation.
Are you kidding me? Don't read is basically what you're saying. On an image board.
On a lit board, sorry.
Buy used books. I got my copy for $20.
As a side note: D. S. Hutchinson (the associate editor) came to my house one time and smoked weed with my dad. Great guy.
To understand Plato you need to his work.
What is so hard in this
Maybe I'd agree with minor thinkers that weren't that relevant.
but it's fucking Plato, Aristotles we are talking about mate..
Your bullshit is funny, are you British ?
I had never realized that, but it appears that you're right. Maybe I was mislead because I usually read Plato in small paperback editions where a dozen short replies can fill a whole plage, because they leave blank space everywhere.
>Aristotle is way fucking harder to read
Yeah, for sure. I wouldn't even count him among the philosophers that can be just "read". I mean you can read Plato or Rousseau or Stuart Mill, but you don't just "read" Hegel, Kant or Aristotle. I'd rather spend a whole day studying one single page of Kant or Aristotle than "reading" a whole chapter from them.
This. I stopped reading a long time, I now lock myself in a dark closet and a priori derive profound views of the world and how to act purely from my god-given ability to deduce things in my mind's eye. Reading basically means having your mind taken over by viruses. Better to act as your own anti-virus software by not reading at all.
Agreed, if your only aim is rambling with your friends at Starbucks on how much the theory of forms is stooopid and how Plato was a despiser of life, and how like Nietzsche better
Aristotle is so hard to read and I find so many of his ideas honestly dated and blown the fuck out by later philosophers. Reading through is work was very unrewarding to me. Mean while I had lots of fun with Plato!
*take note I have low IQ & ability and this is my personal opinion.
I don't get what you're trying to say.
>Parmenides second
>*take note I have low IQ & ability and this is my personal opinion.
We can tell!
*teleports behind you*
Plato is the beginning and end of philosophy
what do you mean?
An alternative route is to start on modern philosophy.
A good path would be to take up Descartes' works on the 'I' and the subsequent discussions thereafter, then go back to Plato's works afterwards.
it means after reading all his works you get to unironically post obscure sayings like that
He's most peoples 'intro' to philosophy. They read Apology, Republic Book I, and the cave allegory.
Then they move on to a bunch of other shit and usually settle down with one of the first 'serious' philosophers they choose on their own.
If they press on and survey the field objectively, they will likely come to the conclusion that the whole field is tosh, and that we can't learn anything from philosophy. If they are not objective, they will likely become some derivative thinker who cobbles together their Pet thinker with the ideas of a few others.
The objective man feels lost, and seeks a way to re-orient himself to begin his exploration anew. Thus, he returns to Plato- and finds that it was all he needed.
Wittgenstein, Veeky Forums's poster boy, would say otherwise.
I'm not well versed in philosophy, but why do people say he solved anything? If he did anything, he just seemed to ask for more clarification in the writings of actual philosophers imho
I recommend reading as follows:
The Apology
Crito
Euthyphro
Phaedo
The Symposium
The Republic
maybe Parminedes if you feel like it
Unless you are extremely interested in Plato that should be more than enough to have a good understanding of his Philosophy. It takes about a week at a moderate pace.
He should probably read something like Cambridge Companion to Plato with that.
Ehh, I guess, but if you have any experience with somewhat complex texts you really should be fine, because the early dialogues get you used to the style of writing before you jump into more meaty stuff.
He should have re-read Plato desu
I'll co-sponsor this list, but add Meno (after Phaedo), and move Euthyphro before Apology.
Read Twillight of idols to get a good view of plato
Read City of Good Book VIII Ch. 17 and take note of the hedging rather than absolute language.
>City of Good
>It takes about a week at a moderate pace.
Oh boy.
If you read it like you read a novel you should just let it beand read a good history of philosophy instead.
It takes month (if not years) to read at least "πολιτεια" properly if you want to understand it.
Philosophy is not about reading as much as possible in the least possible amount of time just to be able to tell everyone "Um, yeah, I read it" - it's about really, really understanding what you read. Otherwise, it's just a good way for wannabes to waste their times.
yeah, my bad
God is Good.
don't forget theaetetus m8
Look, I agree with you that Philosophy is not about reading a shit ton of books and then having a dick measuring contest on a fijan suitmaking newsletter, but if you spend years on just plato who's to say you will ever read anything else? OP seems like he wants to get on to some different philosophy, and if Plato doesn't necessarily interest him then I am just giving him a good way to get a decent understanding of his philosophy so that he will understand the context in which later philosophers write. I don't want to just assume he wants to become some kind of neoplatonic sage and spend years meditating on each individual word of every dialogue.
>It takes about a week at a moderate pace
>It takes months (if not years) to read at least "πολιτεια" properly
Guys, what's wrong with you ? Both these statements are ridiculously exaggerated.
Op should just read one short dialogue to see if he likes Plato, then a medium one, then if he's still into it, spend one or two weeks on the Republic.
>read russell
BEADY
>read Symposium
>realize all western philosophy is founded on the ramblings of a bunch of drunk aristocratic NAMBLA queers
really makes u think......
The only thing you need to get into philosophy is a skeptical and curious mind
Can't truly understand philosophy until you've tasted that sweet boypucci. It's a pleb filter.
>Kenny's History of Western Philosophy
I own this motherfucker. Cost me about £35.
Much better than Russell's History of Western Philosophy, but I STILL wouldn't recommend. The doorstopper still has a lot of flaws.
The ultimate lesson is that there are no shortcuts. If you want to truly understand what someone thought, read them directly.
The true pleb filter is spelling boipucci the patrician-tier way. It's only gay if you don't spell it with two i's.
epic post my dude
It isn't necessary to read all that but Plato is pretty enjoyable to read. His works tell a story as much as they tell a philosophy.
>Every time I've asked or seen someone ask about it they always get pointed to this or to Aristotle's work (which there seems to be a lot more of)
Sad!
> I'm not a very heavy reader but am interested in the subject.
If that is truly your only motivation, to see what it's all about, then read a contemporary introduction to get a heckin clue. No Platon no Aristotle and no history of philosophy until you understand why you need that dry meandering poo poo in your life.
itt lit at it again. Stop confusing academic curriculum with this vague idea that platonic dialogues capture some essential spirit of philosophy that every apt beginner just has to click with making it this ideal starting point. And stop pretending it's an enjoyable read or good lit I mean fuck. Schopenhauer's aphorisms is some good lit ok? Platon is pla poo poo.
I got complete dialogues for just $10 today. Fuck computer reading.
>defending le ''Nietzsche liked war WTF?????'' pop philosopher
Russel wasn't extra ordinary well versed in all parts of greek philosophy. In fact his book is more like a starting point into greek philosophy.
Heidegger also had a better understanding of Platon, than most other philosophers at that time. Until the 1950 nearly every German visiting the Gymnasium had at least read some Platon, often in greek.
>not referring to the Cave allegory as Republic book VII, since he already mentioned another book in his post.
Sad!
this is my reading list of Plato I did after doing a bit of research of which works are really essential regardless of the aim and some specific for what I wanted
in order:
Apology
Euthyphro
Cratylus
Crito
The Symposium
Phaedrus
Phaedo
Meno
Republic
Law
Gorgias
Parmenides
Theaetetus
Sophist
Statesman
Timaeus
it totals 2500 pages, I don't know if its the 'complete works', but its what I will read.
kek just saw that complete works in goodreads and it has 1800 pages, something is off...its probably the differents font/book sizes and formatting of the different editions, the 2500 pages I did looking every book on goodreads so...
>platonism
>required
>plato
>important
Influence isn't good, btw.
Yeah no.
The Republic is required.
No it's not.
just read all of them besides the spurious ones. Read them first to get a a superficial understanding, if you end up having a true interest in philosophy you will be returning to them all the time. It's debated whether Plato finished writing Laws when he died so you might want to just slap that one at the end of your list, I would read Timaeus before it atleast.
If you haven't read one of the many histories of philosophy I would make sure you are familiar with the some of the terms since they are used quite a bit differently in modernity, such as; logos, arete, physis, a priori, a posterior, being, nous or mind, subject, essence, form, & dialectic.
>with the some
forgot to proof read that one