Do I really need to read Aristotle's works to understand

>>8476954

You need to read Aristotle in order to understand the Middle Ages, which you need to understand in order to understand the Reformation, which you need to understand in order to understand the Enlightenment, so yes.

>>8476966
Why?

>>8476977
Because every philosopher is responding to another. You get what you put into it. If you fucking skip over everyone and read Zarathustra you're not going to get shit

>>8476983
Prove it.

>>8476990
Prove what? Every philosopher has influences and every philosopher is responding to older ideas, changing them and building on them and making new ones in their place. Just go on and try to read Kant without the proper background and see how far you get.

No you don't. But it would help.

Most philosophy courses at university level (aside from History of Phil) will start with Descartes or a contemporary textbook.

It's a meme you need to read 100% chronologically

>>8476997
But Aristotle was wrong.

>>8477010
Whether or not he was wrong is not the issue. The philosophers after him were responding to his ideas, and philosophers after those responding to their and so on and on.

>>8477009
Thx. I have read some Aristotle (Politics, Ethics, Poetics) but he's just so boring to me. I know that's a Troglodyte tier statement.

>>8477015
Do you have a source?

>>8477009

They start with Descartes because they think the only thing of importance is modern philosophy AKA epistemology because it's their gateway to start memeing about empiricism and SCIENCE!

Undergrad philosophy courses are as pleb-tier as you can get. NO metaphysics, NO aesthetics, NO magic, NO alchemy, NO mysticism, in a word, no philosophy.

>>8477023
Primary sources, actually. Philosophers from Plotinus to Hegel, Kant, Marx, Spinoza, Rousseau, etc. all refer to Aristotle's (and others') ideas and respond to him. If you actually read philosophy you'll come to realize that. But I'm guessing you haven't read very much philosophy if you're actually asking how I know philosophers influence each other

>>8476977

Why what?

>>8477038
Can you prove that they were influenced by the Greek Spaghetti Man?

>>8476954
No the main raison Descartes is remembered is because it's the first to have make tabula rasa of Aristotle, greek philosophers and medieval scholastic.

He gave birth to modern philosophy and the following thinkers are more his sons that son of Antiquity.

>>8477033
Or because they don't have the time to cover every single philosopher in depth

They are also not studying the history of Philosophy, which is what most hobbyists on /lit/ do

>>8477051
Read the books faggot.

>>8477055

Find me a single undergrad philosophy professor who has a deeper understanding of magic other than "It isn't real."

>>8477057
Why should I do that?

>>8477072
You shouldn't. You're clearly too challenged to understand any of it

>>8477058
Odd question, none immediately come to mind as it's not something I'd know, but I can offer you a lecturer; there likely are many professors with reasonable knowledge, but it's not in my interests to do your homework.

Peter Forshaw, Lecturer in Renaissance Philosophies at Birkbeck

>>8477076
Source?

>>8477090
ur mum haah

>>8477076
No fucking way you followed the line this long, you fucking trout.

>>8477102
He's a juicy one. It'll be good eatin' tonight boi!

Lets be real, you will never understand Kant with or without reading Aristotle

File: 1422994859942.png (19KB, 431x540px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 431x540px

>>8477547