Tfw you started with the greeks and your brain is getting enriched as fuck

>tfw you started with the greeks and your brain is getting enriched as fuck
who else here #WOKE after reading some greeks

What'd you read user? Looking to start the journey.

>not skipping straight to Hitler and Moldbug

read the Iliad, now reading the Odyssey.

I've read a lot before this (not a huge bookworm but definitely more than the average person) and I feel like the Iliad just blew everything I've ever read out of the water. Only thing comparable would be the Divine Comedy, but they're hard to compare since they're both inherently not really conveying the same message/type of story aside from both being epic in scale.

Honestly the whole "start with the Greeks" meme is the nicest meme out there because it feels like a huge veil gets lifted from your eyes reading them and you start going on a path that you can't nor want to look back from.

What version would you recommend?

>started with the pre-socratics
>I now think the universe is made of fire
Thanks Veeky Forums

I read Robert Fagles first, but I want to read Alexander Pope after. Pope is amazing but more difficult to read.

Made my way to Xenophon now and going to get into Plato, Presocratics and Aristotle soon. There are also a few plays laying around that I want to read soon. Its just such a nice feeling having so much material around to read and connect with people who lived 2500 years before us.

>falling for the pre-socratics meme

>not thinking it's made of water

PARTY ROCKERS IN THE HOUSE TONIGHT!

>he doesn't find parmenides to be intuitively correct

kek

I've read The Greek Myths by Robert Graves, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Plato's Complete Works, The Basic Works of Aristotle and The First Philosophers.

All this done is dissociate me from real life and make me hate women.

I love how so much of Hesiod can be boiled down to "bitches ain't shit but hos and tricks"

does anyone else feel like parmenides and heraclitus are agreeing when you really get down to it?

Not at all. They are fundamentally opposed

Now continue with the romans.

i think they are just describing the same idea in different ways

I'm thinking of going Descartes/Leibniz -> Locke/Hume -> Kant -> Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche

desu I'm sick of virtue.

They weren't. Heraclitus was a pluralist who believed that a thing can be its own contradictory, that change is possible, and that the logos describes a world that is fundamentally Becoming. Parmenides was a monist who believed nothing comes from nothing, change is impossible, and described a world that is fundamentally Being. Polar opposites

I really couldn't read even one chapter of Plato's book.

Unlike the other poster, I see a similarity between Parmenides and Heraclitus.
Truth, as most people understand it, is unattainable according to both philosophers: for H that is because everything is in a state of flux, there is no fixed identity to speak of; for P it is because everything is part of the One Thing and by abstracting some dependent element out of it, you have failed to grasp the Whole.
i see another similarity as well...

i dont agree - it seems to me to just depend on how you define "monism" - if you do it like spinoza, then the substance includes the modes of change and becoming.

maybe im wrong in saying this is what heraclitus and parmenides THOUGHT. but used at different levels, i dont see a discrepancy between monism and eternal/infinite change

>not air

wew

Im more inclined yo agree with the other user. Theres a fundamental difference that puts parmenides and heraclitus at odds with one another. Its everything is change vs there is no change ever.

if everything is change, then everything is the same

Eleatic monism is just the belief that the underlying ontological principle of the world is that of static unchanging Being. Everything is reducible to it and can probably be considered an early formulation of substance monism as per Parmenides's own maxim that " thought and being are the same". Parmenides denies change, he denies that generation and destruction are realities as opposed to mere appearances. This is as far away from Heraclitean logos as you can get

For change to be possible there has to be at least 2 states, whivh means that plurality exists. This is ehat Parmenides vehemently opposed.

/pol/, bitte. Zurück auf dein Konzentrations-Brett.

Not starting with pic related:

it just depends which you think is ontologically prior - if you think the difference is the ontological reality, then everything is one - a difference

Youre projecting your theories onto heraclitus. He held that there exists a principial substance which changes into everything else, ehich again is plurality. Presocratics were very much materialistic.

SINGLE BOYS IN DA HOUSE TONIGHT!

yeah - i said that much in a previous post

If you did then you would know heraclitus and parmenides were fundamentally opposed.

pedant faggot. i meant i said i was projecting onto heraclitus.

I'm bigger than you. Do you think you could beat me up? Try it. I'll bounce off the trees and drop kick you. That's how much Greekz I've read. Socrates would admire my brain muscles and look into my anus before drinking hemlock for no reason. I'm like Zeus, huge head. Bet you won't. My main man is Pyrrhus the skeptic, who probably didn't exist. Your words bounce off me like rubber. Nothing sticks to me because Pyrhhonism is like wearing a rubber, nothing sticks to me. Bounce off the trees onto your sticky chest.

Are you retarded?

YEA BOI

*a rubber suit of armor

WE JUST WANNA SE YA!

A legitimately funny post

good for you keep it up

It's true.

shit I can't believe I've overlooked this

SATURDAY NIGHT MUTHA FUCKAAAAAAAS. WHO READY TO GET DOWN WITH MY HOMEBOY HOMER