Honest question. Why do people here think you will grasp philosophy

>>9329671
Heck off brainlet

The primary texts have introductions and notes.

>greeks are complex
kekimus maximus

>>9329671

I have a bit of the same impression, OP, but it heavily depends on how many lessons each person has been attending. One or two years studying philosophy should be enough to, let's say, be willing to read all Plato, since the teachings have already played the same role as books "about" Plato.

You can't claim to understand a philosopher without reading the original material. Moreover, secondary books contain only the crude parody and simplification of the depth of thoughts that was presented in the original texts, lose any aestetic value of the original, if not outright twisting the words of the original author into something completely different. So reading them before originals is a great setback

>>9329671
Start with the Greeks is just a fun meme that arose from so many people asking where they should start with a particular philosopher. It was asked so often that the meme arose: Start with the Greeks. It's more of a joke.

I doubt anyone really just jumps into Aristotle, or should. The thing is philosophy has its own language which has developed since the pre-socratics. Just reading books about the Greeks gives you a distilled interpretation of the actual cognitive development which occurred. Directly reading the primary texts is a totally different experience than just reading about ideas.

>>9329751
What makes it even more funny is it arose from Ulysses. Like if people read the Greeks because so they can understand Ulysses in a second moment, not because the Greeks themselves are important. It's a reading in the service of a meme.

Why is cult of personality so pervasive in philosophy? Everyone tries to 'understand Plato' or 'understand Kant' (nobody understands Nietzsche, apparently), even more so than their ideas. For example, in science nobody tries to 'understand Einstein', people are concerned with his ideas, in fact, textbooks rarely even mention scientists beyond some brief intro. But philosophyfags are obsessed with their idols.

File: Dialectic.png (436KB, 498x516px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 498x516px

>>9329794
>Why is cult of personality so pervasive in philosophy? Everyone tries to 'understand Plato' or 'understand Kant' (nobody understands Nietzsche, apparently), even more so than their ideas.
If you really want to understand an idea you've got to contextualize it and understand its actual real development; you can't just look at an abstract formalized expression and think that's it. Those men were the first to posited problems which are still problematic today after all these years.

>For example, in science nobody tries to 'understand Einstein', people are concerned with his ideas, in fact, textbooks rarely even mention scientists beyond some brief intro. But philosophyfags are obsessed with their idols.
Einstein destroyed ideas by using his mind, understanding that real mind could be useful to destroy todays consensual ideas... bragging that '''scientists''' have little historic knowledge of their own fields or the subtlety of the real development of their own theories just shows that most '''scientists''' are in fact quite stupid, at best they are just technicians who can regurgitate textbook models... only a small number will ever actually innovate their fields
Try reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

>>9329671
You're right, but you say it like there is a correct interpretation in the first place. There's so much secondary literature of figures like aristotle that you're going to get contradictory views everywhere. That's why you have to read primary texts yourself

>>9329671
>hurr why do people read primary texts
because they're familiar enough with the language and manners of speech of the ancients to interpret their philosophy accurately. Reading Thales or Socrates with a prior knowledge of the Greek classics is easy. Reading Aristotle if you've read Aquinas and the Stoics is easy. Its all rather simple, there's little in the way of subtlety from the Greeks. I'd be much more cautious reading Gnostic scriptures or Buddhist sutras than I am reading some dead state sponsored philosopher.

>>9329724
>>9329908
Of course, good secondary literature would make notice of different interpretations.
My point is that you cannot understand 'the Greeks' by just delving in it. You need to understand their consequences in the history of philosophy, the historical context, their influences etc. before you dive into it. Anyone who claims he 'understands' Plato or Aristotle without reading some secondary article or book about it, is lying.

>>9329944
>Reading Aristotle if you've read Aquinas and the Stoics is easy.
This is total bullshit, look how you describe it as 'easy. Ego reading

What is so hard to grasp?
Other than trying to grasp Parmenides' oneness everything else is just following along and not getting sidetracked.

also:
>Giving a shit about newfags
They are all from reddit and crossboarding pol/r9k/b tards so it is a lost cause.