>As a HS I read Socrates' Apology and the Symposium.

>>9312265
Yes

>>9312265
Who are you quoting?

>>9312270
My thoughts.

>>9312265
no, if you keep trying you will enter the spiral. At first it seems impenetrable but after a few false starts and wider readings things start to clear up. This is of course if and only if you truly embrace the whole scope of western philosophy and thought. Hint: start in the middle somewhere. The presocratics are extremely difficult to read

>>9312277
>The presocratics are extremely difficult to read

t. pleb

so how do i stop from fucking up like you OP?

>>9312265
Your problem was buying a book that's in the public domain.

>inb4 his problem was buying a book

>>9312288
After going through this loop of shit I'm almost sure it's unavoidable. Intertextuality will always be there to fuck you up one way or the other.

>>9312286
t. pseud

>>9312299
If you are young or full of fire, devour knowledge like it's a buffet of the gods about to close forever, not like a epicurean tasting menu where you pic and choose and roll morsels around in your mouth.

Eventually you will start clearing texts by era and continent, and intertextuality becomes an asset rather than a liability.

>>9312304
>waaah I didn't understand something therefore nobody did

project harder retard

File: mein gott.png (136KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 250x250px

>>9312265
>ITT: anons think you are only supposed to read books once

>>9312326
>waaah I'm self conscious about my intellect and would never admit to finding something difficult because it would shatter my fragile ego

Holy...

>>9312337
That was never implied anywhere in this thread.

>>9312345
>still projecting

Not everyone has trouble with exactly the same stuff you have trouble with. The pre-socratics are not hard.

>>9312352
What is notable, then, about works revealing more depending on what you have to work with, or needing to reread books to take advantage of new knowledge?

>>9312361
>claims difficulty is relative
>makes absolute claim about the difficulty of specific authors

Is this the wisdom of the presocratics, /lit/?

>>9312383
You beat me to it. Made me laugh, though.

>>9312383
>>9312391
Considering that the pre-socratics being easy is my reality, making it absurd for me to suggest otherwise, yes, that is exactly the wisdom of the pre socratics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Maybe you would have caught that if you hadn't had so much trouble with them. Better luck next time anon :^)

>>9312428
Nah, I think they're easy too. I was just going to point out the internal contradiction of your position when >>9312383 beat me to it.

>>9312265
It's fine. At one point you'll realize that there is no objective truth to be found in philosophy and you'll either become an edgy nihilist, a laid-back nihilist, or a stoic.

>>9312497
You read philosophy hoping to find objective truth?

Sheesh.

Such is the life of a pseud, I guess.

>>9312383
It wasn't absolute you absolute faggot

> Realize there was tons of stuff I didn't get while reading the Illiad that would have made it a much better experience.

Like what?

t. 50 pages away from finishing it.

>>9312265
Yes, basically.

Did you not get Socrates? "All I know is that I know nothing"

>>9312265
depend on translation anon. when you find the perfect translation, you will understand

>>9312265
Give an example of things you failed to 'get'. I never had this experience.

No, but you have to combine primary sources with secondary literature

>>9312269
fpbp

>>9312265
which book on the Trojan War should I read before I get to the Iliad and Odyssey?

>>9314032
Start with the greeks, man.

>>9314058
I'm trying, my dude.

>>9312265
>Plato was essential to understanding the earlier thinkers
Wrong

>>9312383
Kek, you roasted him