If I want to start getting into philosophy, do I have to start with the greeks?

Start with the Greeks.

Merill is fine.

Commence with the Kant

I'm curious, why do you think forms are not real if you have not read the original argument?

Do I have to go through all like 2000 years of philosophy or can I just skip straight from the Greeks to the modern era?

Can I just get non-meme replies unlike this joker

Why can't I just start with Descartes

Why would you want to start philosophy if you didn't want to start with the Greeks? Kant and Nietzche will fuck you up.

>I don't give a fuck about plato or aristotle or their strawman fucking characters and dialogs...
That's just Plato, Aristotle gives it to you straight without any of that "let me turn it into a ridiculous story" bullshit.

You can start with secondary sources from the greeks and then move on. You will go back to the essential original texts when it becomes necessary.
Or just start wherever you want, sooner or later (hopefully sooner) you will honestly desire to read the greeks
I had a pretty basic understanding of the greeks thanks to HS, then I just jumped straight with Descartes, Nietzsche and Heidegger, skipping all the german idealism autism, which is a huge mistake because it is essential autism. And I got as far as I could with my basic understanding of the greeks. When I got to the point where greeks become 100% necessary I started with the greeks and I'm still on plato but always cheating and checking out modern and contemporary stuff. And, yes, a lot of dialogues can be frustating, but there are some really good ones where you can see how fucking far Plato got, you can see stuff thats still discussed as contemporary, and sometimes he really shows that he was a pretty talented writer. But just sometimes.
And, maybe I'm just a brainlet but Aristotle seems hard as fuck. So good luck with that.

Philosophy is just one big argument, if you don't start from the start you'll have no idea what the fuck is going on

Plato: You mentioned that my dialogues contain strawmen. What do you mean by this? Does a dialogue necessarily involve using strawmen or only accidentally?
Normos Redditon: Erm, perhaps not necessarily, but your opponents' arguments are often very weak.
Plato: So apparently you have carefully read all my dialogues and you concluded that often, the arguments of the opponents are very weak.
Normos Redditon: No, I still need to start with reading. I just posted about it on Veeky Forums.
Plato: So how are you so sure about the strawmen? Is it not your intellectual duty to resolve your ignorance by reading my dialogues?
Normos Redditon: B-but all top-rated goodreads reviews said it!
Plato: You think it is wiser to follow the opinion of the common people than to read and enlighten yourself? Is it not much more virtuous to do research before you start blabbering?
Normos Redditon: Of course senpai, I will do as you say. *goes back to his hut*

Ask a non-meme question

Just read a summary or a secondary source if you don't want to read the original nigga

>normos redditon

Read some introductory textbooks and one or two good histories of philosophy. Then you can go ahead and get into what areas of modern and contemporary philosophy interest you.

Recommending Pope is the worst part of that chart and the main reason I can't take it seriously
Pope is good and his Iliad is a fun read but it's definitely not what you should seek out if you want an actual translation of the thing

I also have heard that the new Pope is shit!

At least read some shit heap "western philosophy" book like Russell's (which is a shitheap) so you can get a half decent overview of how the tradition begins and what it to some extent ultimately amounts to (sans continental philosophers since basically Kant in Russell's case). Then pick up whomever you find most interesting and dive in.

Serious question Veeky Forums, I just read meditations and the republic, where to next?

>serious question, please spoonfeed me every step of my reading list

This is addressed in every fucking Plato thread ever. Take a fucking guess.

The Greeks literally defined the branches of philosophy and established the categories in which the western mind thought until like 20th century philosophical developments. Yes you have to start with them.

Do I *really* have to read to the poetry though?

Unless you're old, there's no reason not to start with the Greeks and then go down the line unless you're just not serious about it. From your mindset OP, you're not serious about it and will have a bad time and mess up the board.

i can tell you're a readneck.
first you need to learn how to talk before even touching venerable greeks you fat mongrel

>spelling "dialogues" like a child

Is this a good version to get?

Yes

kek

>readneck
I think this would be a compliment on Veeky Forums. As in, you read so much you have a neck like a gay man's wrist

No

ignore the 'no' reply, this is the definitive version. every college syllabus with plato on it will tell you to buy the hackett version.

disclaimer: i havent noticed any problems in the collected works thus far, but in symposium (as its sold individually) there were a fair number of (obvious) typographical errors

OP here

I already pretty much know the basics of the greeks (forms, virtues and shit)

am I good?

I was drunk when I made this post

I'm gonna read them just to fuck with you

I wouldn't trust a Philosophy 101's syllabus.

okay then buy the Loeb classical and read it in Greek

Underaged detected