>>7629212 this is how u can tell philosophy was a bad idea, ppl have been working on it for 2500 years but u still just start from day one and pick and choose the parts u like as if it's just a big opinion buffet...sure we all pick and choose the parts of art history that suite our taste or not, but art never claims to be working on some grand project...what happens when there is 10,000 years of recorded history and no one can possibly still start with the greeks and read through everything up to the year 8000AD or whatever in one lifetime? can we finally admit philosophy is dumb? nietzsche already blew philosophy out of the water 150 years ago but fuckwits didn't get the memo or try and trick u by categorizing nietzsche as a philosopher instead of as a classical philologist...the whole shit is just retarded.
>>7629206 You don't, unless you have a trust-fund. Go out and get a job and do something good with your life. There's a reason philosophy is flooded with obscurantist alcoholics and opioid addicts, and it's not a good one.
>>7629206 I would start by reading various summarizes of philosophical doctrines. They are abundant and you can find good recommendations. When you get a decent grasp of the historical context and the marginal ideas of most prolific philosophers, you can begin reading works individually. I've really only applied this to a few philosophers that particularly interested me, but you can find audiobooks and academic discussions for just about anything online, which makes it so much easier.
Discovering philosophy is a rewarding feelings in that it allows you to digest and look upon humanity as not only an individual can, but as someone who wishes to understand the world objectively and with clarity. It's really about gaining control of your persons; I.e. "free will" someone might say; but, it's heavily influential on politics, law, rhetoric, art, and the humanities. It's a rewarding exploration and within a couple years you would have a decent enough understanding from just perusing a few books occasionally that you could follow philosophical discourse without appearing like a mook.
I do it because I'm a writer/student and it's something that's important to me, but I still work and have other things that I think will serve me better for developing a stable career.
>>7629206 No to notes. Quotes, sure. Why would you think you can rewrite it better than the genius who came up with it?
I'm probably against the grain here but I actively listen to a lot of philosophy audiobooks... right before bed. Granted it takes many listenings in some cases but I feel it trains my brain to process a response to the ideas faster (each time), while also allowing the following ideas to buffer in my mind.
>>7629809 Nietzsche is a philosopher's philosopher - you can't start with him.
A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. Not perfect by any means, in fact very biased especially against Nietzsche, working that sort of stuff out is all part of it though since it is a forum of kinds.
>>7629809 >I started reading Nietzsche Are you fucking insane?
Start with Enquiry Onto Human Understanding by Hume if you find yourself agreeing with most analytics (don't know what that word means? If you think you'd be a fedora tipping atheist (if you didn't realize you would be judged for it by strangers on the internet who don't know you for it) then consider yourself to be someone with a tendency to side with analytics)
If you're not like above, you should start with Plato and Aristotle, then skip to Desecartes, then find your way around, you could check out Camus after that.
>start with a shittily-written encyclopedia from a stemlord
when will this meme end
you know what's a good way to read philosophy? check any of the reputable "canons" and then start reading some of those works. once you have finished a book, check out some secondary literature for developed treatment of specific issues from that work. rinse repeat
>>7629206 I read off of my computer screen and use the highlight and note features in Preview.
I read it aloud if it doesn't make sense the first time around or if I really want to digest it.
Some of my professors suggested that I read the introduction and skim the text (i.e., read the first and the last sentence of every paragraph) on the first read and then take a short break from it. The second read should consist of reading the entire text.
Although I don't personally do that, I find that reading a text in its entirety is always nice even if you don't understand everything about it. There are plenty of secondary sources for pretty much any philosopher you're particularly interested in (granted they have any academic merit) and you can read those to see some of the different interpretations as well as pick up on ideas you might have not been able to see. I also seem to pick up a lot more from a text after I leave it alone for awhile and return to it after doing some other nonsense. Whether the author is directly alluding to some of the other concepts I bring to it doesn't necessarily interest me, but how you can mold the text's concepts into what you bring into it is somewhat interesting. Plus you can have a new lens for interpreting the text.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.