do i have to start with the greeks

nah, it's the equivalent of trying to cure ilnesses with ancient snake oils instead of using state of the art medication

>>8996693
Except pretty much all philosophy between the Greeks and the 21st century has been shit. Like taking anti-biotics for a virus.

>>8996642
No, you don't have to. But it's a good place to start.

>>8996693
t. analogy expert

depends entirely on what your goal is

>>8996693
>using state of the art medication

but what will you do without anatomy, anon?

>>8996693
This is a terrible analogy. Philosophy is not a cure, it is an understanding. How can you form a proper diagnoses if you don't understand what it is that you are diagnosing?

The practice of the philosophy is the cure, not philosophy itself.

is the illiad a good place to start?

for philosophy yeah, for lit no but you should read homer nonetheless

>>8996720
it's the base, sure. but the first takes on anatomy have been terribly wrong. same with philosophy. you should value the effort they have put in and they might have been revolutionary and mindblowing in their times, but we have come a long way since and it is not necessary to study the faulty first tries (that are terribly clumsy formulated anyways and thus a pain in the ass to read) first instead of reading the essence and putting new ideas on top of those essences.

>>8996730
why should you need a diagnose if you don't try to cure something?

>>8996709
then why don't you write a new book on it that is the state of the art for philosophy?

i generaly feel like one shouldn't be so stuck in the past. sure, it's nice to have read all the classics and to have gone trough the timeline in correct order so you might understand this or that analogy, but all in all it isn't necessary. what's necessary is just what all that slipslop is trying to tell you. and if you can sum up the greeks in a few sentences, i see no reason to read all the gibberish they have found necessary to write down

File: shiba scarf.jpg (270KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 900x1200px

No, now shut the fuck up

>>8996784
t. fedora advocate

>>8996817
what a witty argument you got there anon

>>8996784
>why should you need a diagnose if you don't try to cure something?
Because you know something is ailing you, so you understand what it is first and to do so you first understand the body and the possible sicknesses that could be causing your illness.

No, the Greeks aren't mandatory. Nothing is really mandatory. I personally enjoy going through the timeline, though I do happen to particularly agree with the Buddhists, Stoics, and the Cynics and I think even Plato/Socrates and Aristotle added quite a bit. From then on there wasn't much until we started getting towards the 20th century with Gadamer expanding upon Heidegger leading up to Object-Oriented Ontology.

I think for much of the Philosophy throughout history, it has been too focused on the presence of a "self" as a soul or being or that the "self" was at the center of the conscious because it gave us an air of self-importance as we searched for a meaning to life or for purpose to our existence, which doesn't really exist.

>>8996824
I summed it up for you

>>8996642
Unless you want to start with the Confucians or the Vedas, yes.

File: Start_with_the_greeks.jpg (1MB, 3672x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3672x3024px

>>8996742

Starting with the greeks is a meme unless you want an understanding of philosophy as an academic field.
Just pick a book or philosopher up and put in the required intellectual effort by taking notes and maybe reading secondary stuff, as long as you're not retarded or trying hegel, you should do fine.

Good choice of emoji desu

>>8996742
Yes.

Start with the Greeks group starting up: >>8995029

Includes schedule and reading selections.