Prove to me that reading philosophers or specific works of philosophy

>>9336300
I can't prove that. But the best proof I can give that it is just an unnecessary meme is that collector fag's thread & the fact that most people who recommend you read through the history of philosophy as if it's a skill tree haven't read the books themselves and are newbies/dilettantes.

>>9336300
desu the best way is just read whatever you want, understand nothing cause no backgroud, start getting the background until you understand
so basically either you will find people which require no background (La Rochefoucauld, and Plato basically), or people which require a shitton of background (pretty much most of modern western, desu, just read Apology, Republic, Nic Ethics, and you will be pretty much versed in the most important stuff).
It is a total meme to force yourself to read all this stuff, reminder that scholastics had much less of it back then and probably were much less pseud than anyone who shouts 'START WITH THE GREEKS; READ ALL PLATONIC DIALOGUES AND ALL WORKS ON ARISTOTLE'.

tl;dr just fucking read whatever you want, if you don't understand stuff, just read secondary stuff, and if you want to learn more - background

>>9336348
This, you can tell dilettantes by seeing their bookshelves in the bookshelf threads where they have an entire pantheon of the 'canon' to schlick their prostate to but 0% is read.

>>9336348
I agree with this. Also because that's the best way to learn. Wild jumping from a thing to another, something will be easy something will be difficult, just as life. And if you do so, you'll be rather unique than a cookie-cutter robot like those who follow charts and chronological orders.

>>9336348
This is pretty solid advice. My only caveat is that sometimes it feels like you do have to read the entire canon of Western philosophy to understand. For example, I tried getting into Deleuze early until I realized I needed to be familiar with Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, and Bergson to understand. So I started with Bergson and realized I needed to be familiar with Spinoza to read Bergson. So I tried to read Spinoza and realized I realized I needed to read Descartes, etc. etc. all the way back to the fucking Iliad. I've piecemealed together plenty of background reading since then, but it almost seems better to just read the majority of the major Western canon progressively so you don't have to go on confusing unhistorical rabbit chases all the time.

That being said, the people wasting their time reading irrelevant and verifiably incorrect material like Aristotle's writings on nature because they need to be a completionist are wasting their time.

Is this an excuse thread? All I've seen are thus far are people who lack the discipline to properly learn something chronologically. Sure, read what you will, and what you want, but don't expect to be well versed, and don't kid yourself either. If you've decided philosophy is an interest of yours worth mastering, master it...

File: William_of_Ockham.png (203KB, 271x361px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 271x361px

>>9336479
Reminder that scholastics DID NOT have all material you have.
Have fun reading EVERYTHING and realsing you will still miss out on shitton of lost stuff.

>>9336479
>completionists
Hurr I'm going to become an expert on the entire canon, with greater overall expertise than any of the thousands of scholars who are sensible enough to choose a field!!!

Reading isn't a video game where you level up to the next level and try to complete skill trees you dimwit.

Leave.