How do I get into philosophy?

>>7606856
Start with the Greeks.

Philosophy peaked with Descartes' Meditations

No. It peaked when existentialism bloomed. Just start with Kierkegaard. I fell for the Greek meme and it was just a waste of my existence.

what's the most literaty food?

>>7606856
by going to >>>/his/

>>7606856
Start reading a book on the History of Philosophy. After that, read the greeks and commentaries.

>>7606876
>fell for the Greek meme and it was just a waste of my existence.

you should put a trigger warning before that sort of opinion, m'senpai.

>>7606856
G R E E K S
R
E
E
K
S

>>7606856
SWTG
W
T
G

>>7606876
Kierkegaard is pretty dense, too. I'd start with Nietsze, its more readable.

>>7606876
all subsequent 'philosophy' is just footnotes to plato

>>7606856
Get him to the Greek.

I'd start with Bertrand Russell, its very accessible compared to the giants of the field. Why I Am Not a Christian, or Skeptical Essays.

File: tips.jpg (30KB, 353x424px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 353x424px

>>7606941

>>7606876
hows high school?

>>7606925
>Thus Spake Zarathustra
>Readable to a philosophy novice

gg no re

>>7606856
a lot of people start with descartes. but it depends on what you're interested in learning. what aspects of philosophy interest you OP?

>>7606941
>>7606965
I'm not familiar with Bertrand Russell's philosophical ideas. I started reading his history book and got bored; although it's probably not the worst place to start. I just wasn't feeling a critiqued "history" book at the time. Was he opposed to just Christianity or religion altogether?

>>7606976
Philosophy as a guide on how to live

>>7606995
he'd reject anything with supernaturalist claims.

If you have to ask you'll never know

>>7606997
Start with Oprah

>>7607010
In other words, he was a strict atheist? I doubt he talked about Eastern religions that involve no god(s) as even those make supernatural claims.

File: Charles-Sanders-Peirce.jpg (38KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x450px

>>7606860
lmao

>>7606856
Take an undergrad elective like everyone else here did

>>7607011
Every other post in this thread offers real advice. Don't be autistic

>>7606972
Literally was the first philosophical text I read.

>>7606876
>existentialism

>>7606972
>>7607277
lmao me too

Hmm... it's odd because no one is mentioning Stirner who is the be all end all of philosophy. At least, in the moral realm of philosophy.

>>7606997
Marcus Aurelius, Epicurus, Seneca, Epictetus, Stoicism in general.

Emerson, especially his essay Self-reliance. Thoreau, maybe.

>>7607277
I started with Bakunin. Then Thoreau.

>>7607520
>moral realm of philosophy.


lmaoing at your life.

>>7607520
>moral realm of philosophy
this sounds more like theology YOU FUCKING IGNORAMUS

>>7606856
I've been reading Plato lately, Ive had about 8-10 free hours a day and I can only get 4-6 hours in of study before my brain starts looking for softer material. I studied math for a few years and I seemed to have the same resilience. Has anyone figured out how to study for 8+ hours a day? I'm sort of disappointed at how much time I'm wasting. And no I'm not doing anything else hick requires mental or physical effort besides the gym a few times a week.

>>7608752
It's okay Stirner taught me to pay you no mind.

>>7608754
This post is just absolutely retarded.

If I am not interested in the "philosophers" who mostly dealt with Christianity like Aquinas etc there is some skipping between the Greeks and the actual philosophers. Is the right order for that the Greeks, the Roman stoics, Decartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Stirner, Nietzche?

Is there anything that I'm missing thats important to understanding any of these guys? Is it out of order? Thanks senpai.

>>7608795
After you read plato you'll be more interested in the mystical/religious perspective.

File: b.jpg (21KB, 553x231px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 553x231px

>>7606856
start with the anals, everything before that is trash

>>7608803

Yeah but I got eastern philosophy/religion for that and am pretty well versed in it already which is why I'm hopping on the western philosophy train. Besides, unless you are scraping the bottom of the barrel there isn't really anything mystical about christianity.

File: tommy.jpg (222KB, 898x671px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 898x671px

>>7608795
>If I am not interested in the "philosophers" who mostly dealt with Christianity like Aquinas etc

I dunno dude, he had some comments that are pertinent to the hot button issues of today.

>>7606856
Go through the window.

>>7608795
You could skip the Roman stoics, they won't be relevant to anything you'll read later. I only recommended them a few posts above because they're about "how to live". Looking at what you intend to read Skepticism might be the more relevant movement of that time to learn about rather than Stoicism.

I wouldn't write off the Scholastics (esp. Scotus and Ockham) at least not if you want to see where the scientific method came from. Since you haven't included Locke maybe you aren't that interested in empiricism, but it might be worth expanding your reading to include it. Hume includes both skepticism and empiricism, but Locke might be worth reading as well - and the roots of the scientific method: Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon and then later Peirce. It might not be important for understanding anyone on your list, though.

>>7608823
wow, I sure benefitted from reading that piece of text and it was totally a unique insight that hasn't been said thousands of times

Read a good history of Theology
Then:
Presocratics & Sophists
Plato
Aristotle
Epictetus
Lucretius
Plotinus
Sextus Empiricus
Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite
St. Augustine
Boethius
Aquinas
Duns Scotus
Ockham
Francis Bacon
Descartes
Locke
Spinoza
Berkeley
Leibniz
Hume
Kant
Goethe
Schelling
Fichte
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Neitzsche
Frege
Husserl
Heidegger
Presocratics
Plato

Then after this you're basically a beginner

File: romans.png (55KB, 686x211px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 686x211px

>>7608795
>Roman stoics

>>7608923
>Read a good history of Theology

Can you recommend one?

>>7606856
someone said philosophy is dead...try science.

>montaigne, seneca, and plutarch have offered me the most day to day intellectual fat

>>7609137
Lucretius would slap you down lad

>>7609140
My autocorrect fucked up then. It was supposed to say Philosophy; try Maggee's if you want Phil.

File: ms.jpg (47KB, 1088x135px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1088x135px

>>7609153

>>7609137
It sounds like he's saying they weren't original, not that they aren't worth reading at all.

>>7609140
I liked what I read of "A Critical History of Western Philosophy" by D.J. O'Connor.

Also what I read of W.K.C Guthrie's "A History of Greek Philosophy" - there's a lot to that one, though.

File: 1401085028748.jpg (40KB, 300x559px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x559px

start looking at things

>>7609183
True.

>>7609169
re-read my comment again - that someone was Hawking in the Grand Design...nothing more, nothing less.

Where you come down on the judgement matters little to me or to Hawking.

>>7609169
>being this mad because philosophy has been overtaken by science

>>7609204
Wow, I already look at Charlie Brown differently. /mindblown

>>7606876
Awww, I'm sowwy about that anon

>>7609229
>>7609213
Thanks for proving the point of the post faggots.

>>7609252
im a faggot? thanks for clarifying. I didn't realize my sexual preference are predicated on my responses here

>>7609268
Oh I see now, I'm getting baited. Goodbye.

>>7609252

>the only reason people like science is because it produces tangible results

wow yeah terrible

>>7609284
toodles

>>7609229
>overtaken by science
science hasn't overtaken ethics, epistemology or any number of other areas.

>>7609308
if you ignore legitimate questions life is simpler, that isn't a sign of the superiority of science.

>>7609334
Yet gravity and evolution are concepts any philosopher can come up with but nobody did?

>>7609346
You don't know who Isaac Newton is?

>>7609346
I'm not saying high-level science is easy or scientific achievements reflect a lack of intelligence, I'm saying it's easier -to achieve results- if you resolve awkward questions artificially eg. why is statistical probability reliable?

File: pkf.jpg (97KB, 1123x1585px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1123x1585px

DUDE

>>7606856
Jay is that you? Dude off 4chan...

honestly i just want to read philosophy so I get the references that Borges/Cortazar make...

>>7609527
Don't read it then you pleb

>>7606856
Compact Edition

Plato

Aristotle

Descartes

Hume

Kant

Hegel

Marx

Nietzsche

Freud

Kojeves

Deleuze

now you can explore freely.

what are the essential, groundwork texts in aesthetic theory?

>>7609739
>no presocratics
>deleuze without Spinoza
>Nietzsche without schopenhauer

>>7610012
Excluding literary criticism?

>>7610075
yeah, that's too broad

>>7610300
Even though it is Lit. Crit. you may like Longinus' On the Sublime

>>7610012
you might try Blackwell's Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology

Go to school. The field is too dense to engage with if you don't have a formal education.

>>7610319
Wrong.

Although it depends on what you mean by 'engage with'.

>>7606856
Protip: Start from the present and work yourself backwards.

>>7610319
Some hobo in a barrel would disagree with you.

>>7610053
>posting this
>>"Compact Edition"
>il/lit/erate

>>7610329
this x10

>>7610333
The world was a much different place back then.

>>7609348
a scientist?