>>9482734
Why read?
>>9482734
Because at some point you realise that philosophy hasn't really progressed in centuries and will leave you in a bloodless vacuum without any of the answers you set out to find while literature at least gives you an approximation and possibilities.
>>9482734
>Because at some point you realise that philosophy hasn't really progressed in centuries
I'm still Starting With the Greeks, but is it even worth it going past the 1600s?
>>9482751
It's mostly because I look at the shit that has been written since the Greeks and it just gets overwhelming how much stuff there is to read and how much I want to read. Like I want to read all of the great works of literature and philosophy from Homer to Tolstoy but that seems like an impossible task so I might as well just read the shit that really matters and to me that seems like philosophy.
>>9482734
Philosophy is boring and hard to read
>>9482734
Because fiction is fun and philosophy is boring and irrelevant.
>>9482734
Because there are more things on heaven and earth, anon, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
>>9482751
Like why read Tolstoy when I can read Christian theologians like Augustine and Aquinas and moral and ethical theorists like Kant and why read Homer and Virgil and Dante when again I can read Plato, Aristotle and Augustine etc
>>9482751
isn't this when you decide to write your own philosophy
>>9482734
Why the binary choice? I switch back and forth between lit and philosophy most evenings. Reading Mann or Musil intandem with German idealism for example adds depth and insight to my readings.
>>9482734
never met someone who took philosophy seriously who wasn't some autistic shut-in who took pride in rejecting people before they could do it to him.
>>9482798
Kek
why read anything other than indian philosophy?
>>9482734
Because art can do things philosophy can't. At least that's what al the pseuds on the internet have told me.