>>7649007 Either way there's really not that much conceptual depth to be found in the Presocratics as a whole, you can read the stanford link above and you're not be missing much, MAYBE Parmenides and Heraclitus deserves a little more attention but that's it.
>>7649013 >there's really not that much conceptual depth to be found in the Presocratics as a whole >wew lad though I agree if you read the superficial books treating the Presocratics as "natural philosophers" it's a waste of time.
>>7649104 What I mean is that even though there are, obviously, concepts explicitly written by them (such as the principle of identity of Parmenides or the objective dialectic and motion of Heraclitus) they are not developed further, they stop at those determinations as they are in themselves and not as a systematic philosophy, which is the role of Plato and Aristotle. The notion of subjectivity is also not present yet.
>>7649129 This is not to detract anything from them mind you, for what they done they must remembered as heroes of philosophy and absolutely necessary as a beginning, however much archaic are their thoughts.
>>7649178 >not reading Aquinas or Augustine Not needed, most modern readers will find them boring, save for later.
>Hume before Descartes Hume is much easier to get into than Desecartes, remember, we're recommending this to someone who has never read philosophy, it is very easy to put off these people, reading Hume lets them know there are modern philosophers out there they might find rational.
>Kant before Spinoza I never mentioned Spinoza, whut?
And if you read Prologomena, I don't think you need anything more than Hume and Desecartes to get a good amount of fun out of CoPR
I will say that, when I read Aristotle, I also read Eastern philosophers like Zhuangzi and Nagarjuna who were working parallel to Aristotle's precursors. It requites some knowledge of prior concepts like svabhava, for instance, but I think it's definitely helpful!
I also recommend Sextus, as well as Middle Eastern philosophers like Ibn Sina and Al-Ghazali.
The student who wishes to acquire an elementary knowledge of philosophy will find it easier and more profitable to read some of the works of the great philosophers that to attempt to derive an all-round view from handbooks. The following are specially recommended:
Plato, Republic Descartes, Meditations Spinoza, Ethics Leibniz, The Monadology Berkeley, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous Hume, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding Kant, Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics
u could do much worse than this list as a starting point. Problems of Philosophy is a good place to start as well
>>7648659 I don't think it is really neccessary to read all o Plato. Hacket'ss book is like 1800 pages long and some dialogues seem like a fun read but not paramount towards philosophical discussion. For example, there isn't really a need to read Lysis if you're going to read the Symposium. I mean, Lysis is a hilarious read, but it is not essential to have read it, imo.
>>7649291 It is essential to have read the Iliad and Odyssey. So much of great literature and philosophy can be traced back to Homer. You would miss so much if you have not become familair with Homer, Aeschylus, Hesiod, Sophocles, Euripides etc etc. I would strongly advice to have read it. Regardless, if you don't you will have to read it some time in your life if you want to be serious about philosophy and literature.
Best book about the Pre-socratics coming through: mostly ancient commentaries (Plutarch, Aristotle, Aetius &c) about them and all (available) texts of the philosophers; bullshit modern academic commentaries kept to a minimum.
There is a scanned pdf available on libgen if you are poor like me.
>>7652428 I'd love to see research done into the average IQs of analytic v. continental philosophers.
>>7652424 You can if you're into culture and shit, for the philosophy? Fuuck that, ignore it completely. If you want to be serious about philosophy it's not needed. If you want to be serious about philosophy AND literature, maybe then you'll have to go back to them. I think they're too much for newcomers.
>>7652413 >Heraclitus, Zeno, and Protagoras. Alright, these aren't too bad for a beginner but they are not the best.
>not realising the vast amount of influence Protagoras had on Platonic thought
Western Philosophy is not a footnote to Plato, he's a pioneering genius who started it all but that doesn't mean we have to start with him if we have better options available.
>>7652821 Are you insulting my vocabulary or my categorization of people based on what I conceive as distinct interests?
Also: >scanned pdf available
I understand it's a need and damn are philosophical texts expensive but, out of curiosity, how do you folks read philosophy on pdfs and ebooks?
Maybe it's because I don't get points very well but I constant have to refer back to marked passages anytime I wonder if a dude's making a contradiction, or is saying something different than what he was saying before without explaining his transition, or things such as that.
It's really slow to do this on a pdf, having a hard copy makes segmenting the thoughts along the books much easier doesn't it?
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@example.com with the post's information.