I want to start with philosophy, where do I start and where do

Start with the Greeks.

Pick a subject first. Starting with the Greeks usually gives people an idea about the history of philosophy and the evolution of the questions being asked. If you have something specific in mind then maybe someone can give specific advice. If not, get yer ass to Miletus and start with dem muddafuggin Greeks.

>>8253148
Fuck you so much.

its not a joke you need to start wiht the greeks idiot

>>8253163
Are there books that cover early philosophy in Greece?

>>8253171
No.

>>8253171
The First Philosophers - Oxford Uni. Press

u need to stard with the greeks you dumbass

>>8253171
Yea just look around for history of philosophy books. Our understanding of their ideas is relatively limited due to the scarcity of reliable sources so you can cover a lot of their work pretty quickly. Most of it boils down to theories about metaphysics (what they believed the world was made of, what causes events, etc.)

>>8253146
Pre-socratics t b h

>>8253146
Start with the Romans.

Just browse r/theredpill for a few hours

probably the best way to get started is by reading The problems of philosophy by Russel. It's free:
http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html
Then go study the History of philosphy. Durant's and probably Russel's as well, with care.
Or/and you can study plato, with this reading recommendation. Plato is marvelous.
http://plato-dialogues.org/email/950404_1.htm

>>8253499
I don't really know anything about philosophy but it seems like this guy might have given some actual good advice?

>>8253741
>Reading anything by Bertrand "The Cuckpositivist" Russell

lol

>>8253850
Who are you quoting?

>>8253171
The Presocratics by Edward Hussey. Relatively short.

>>8253146
Disregard everything in this thread and get The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant

Like, okay, I do not like Greek philosophy. I majored in philosophy, so I took one class Plato and one on Hellenestic philosophy (Stoics, Skeptics, Cynics, etc.), and I had to read a decent amount of Aristotle in various other classes. I think the ideas presented in most Greek philosophy texts are very outdated.

But you have to know a lot of it because every Western philosopher after the Greeks will reference either Plato or Aristotle. So it's annoying as fuck that everyone just says "start with the greeks lol XD" but in a sense you really need to, if only in the form of some exposure to the ideas.

Descartes

Unironic answer here

Read Seamus Heaney's Beowulf translation, and then immediately read Gardner's Grendel with a philosophical and zodiac reading guide. Grendel is designed to match philosophy with the Campbellian Monomyth and explore an individual's journey through philosophical thinking, so for someone first delving into philosophy at large, it's a great means of learning surface level ideas without being bored to death.

>>8253894
this is actually the only respectable answer in this thread. the Meditations are very accessible and, if you read them carefully and think you some thinks, you'll be on your way.

another good way in is Plato (early and middle dialogues, mostly.)

>>8253841
yes and mostly no

real answer:

just google "good intro to phil book," get it, read it, and then just read around http://plato.stanford.edu/ and wikipedia to get an idea of how to approach primary texts. then i'd start with the grkeks or some foundational text in whatever area you're interested in (ethics, logic, metaphysics, etc.)

>>8254026
shit, yes. I've been meaning to do that for a while. (except with Rebsamen not Heaney, because he translates to keep the stress patterns and alliteration)

File: [HorribleSubs] ReLIFE - 06 [720p].mkv_snapshot_14.04_[2016.07.07_21.22.06].jpg (98KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1280x720px

>>8253146
follow this
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit

>>8253163
How to get into Derrida?

>>8254170
read Saussure, Husserl, and Heidegger first.

>>8254170
don't. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/the_derrida_ind.html

Reading philosophy for the sake of it is pointless

>>8253146
What do you mean keep the SWTG meme under control? You literally need at least the core of Plato and Aristotle to make sense of anything since they fundamentally create the field.

Read Heraclitus/Parmenides' fragments > Plato > Aristotle > Descartes > Hume > Kant > Hegel > Nietzsche. That's the most condensed route through philosophy that I would recommend. Descartes, Hume and Kant are mostly there for providing historical context. Aristotle, Hegel (usually through Marx, late Marx has taken a beating but the much more Hegelian baby Marx remains influential) and Nietzsche are probably the 3 most used and abused thinkers in the 21st century. Oh and of course Plato who not only informs some philosophy but also theology as Christianity and Islam are both fundamentally based in neoplatonic metaphysics.

In fact the Islamic Republic of Iran is founded largely on a mixture of Sufi mysticism and Khomeini's reading of The Republic, which he saw as the basis of an ideal model of the state. America's founding fathers were also well versed in both Plato and Aristotle, and our constitution is as much a beast of Plato's identification of the demons of democracy and Aristotle's formula for a mediated democracy as it is of the enlightenment.

Honestly there is just no excuse for an intellectual to not be at least respectively well versed in Plato and Aristotle.

>>8253146
start by reading anything that gives you a good enough context to understand Phaedo
Then read Phaedo
Then read all the other relevant works from Plato
Then keep going

tl.dr: start with the greeks

>>8253146
Start with Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle ;)

>>8253146
Nigga it's litterally impossible to appreciate and understand philosophy without some knowledge of Plato and Aristotle at least.