How do I start with the Greeks?

>>9733416
By actually starting with the romans because the greeks are totally inapplicable to today

Just read the Iliad. Yes you will think it's a massive book, yes you will also don't understand anything the first 50 to 100 pages. Just struggle through, try reading it aloud and look at some internet resources every now and then.

>>9733416
Start with Plato. You're going to get meme'd into thinking that you need to study a dozen irrelevant presocratics, and have a scholarly understanding of Greek mythology and history. But in reality, a book with footnotes, and google should clear all of that up. He's a pretty easy read for a beginner; though you might want to find some analyses of the text you're reading, so that you can absorb it to its fullest potential.

>>9733433
Entire Ulysses is a reference to the Odyssey. Yeah, pretty inapplicable today.

>>9733448
How is a century old book like Ulysses applicable today?

It was written for an entirely different target audience.

>>9733438
I already did
Odyssey and Aeneid too

>>9733462
Then move on to Greek playwrights, historians and poets. Sappho, Pindar, Aeschylos, Sophocles, Euripides, Homeric Hymns Hesiod, Herodotus and Thucydides are all amazing imo.

>>9733442
>But in reality, a book with footnotes, and google should clear all of that up.
yikes.

How is it difficult to read a 200 page general description of Greek myth/culture and a general summary of the presocratics of similar length?

>>9733469
read Thucydides History, Herodotus Histories, Xenophons Anabasis, Frogs, Three Theban Plays, Electra

>>9733495
It's not very hard, but it's pretty unnecessary. Presocratics are pretty irrelevant, and people should have at least an elementary understanding of Greek history/mythology/culture already, but in terms of pure philosophy, it's not that important.

Oh gosh this guy is back with his shelf of sadness.

>>9733416
Starting with the Greeks is code for pederasty

>>9733469
>Sappho, Pindar
Throw Archilochus in between those two

>>9733438
The Illiad is fun! Everyone in it is fucking retarded and Achilleus is an Emo. The only thing hard about it is the dryness of speech and the number of names - but most names you do not need to remember so it's ok.

>>9733495
Is there any presocratics worth reading?

>>9734877
Parmenides is GOAT.

>>9734877
Anaxagoras, Gorgia, Parmenides...etc. I don't really understand why people want to skip the fore-fathers of Western Philosophy, since without them you won't understand what the fuck Plato or Aristotle are talking about.

>>9734933
> without them you won't understand what the fuck Plato or Aristotle are talking about.
uhh, this is wrong. As long as you can grasp the historical setting and the concept of FORM and the virtual ideal Socratese is instantaneously comprehended.

Start with the Star People

File: 1496046385398.jpg (75KB, 600x1085px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x1085px

Meno and Phaedo desu

>>9734864
what are your fav. characters?

>>9736068
the dialogues?

>>9736032
You will definitely be at a loss when it comes to Aristotle and you will miss how Plato attempts to synthesize Parmenides and Heraclitus, not to mention his own frequent references to guys like Empedocles and Anaxagoras

>>9736122
It's not necessary, like you're trying to put it, but it certainly would help to have knowledge and understanding of the predecessors in reading forward.

>>9736129
Plus, well annotated editions that contain these felllas' dialogues go a long way to explain references and contexts.

>>9736129
It doesn't sound necessary to you because you didn't read the presocratics and don't want to believe that many significant things went over your head as a result you absolute plebeian. Restart with the Greeks

>>9733458
you are a retard. that argument can be applied to literally every single book, so why even bother reading at all?

>>9736159
No, it just isn't necessary in order to understand what the socratics are talking about.

>>9733416
Homer, Plato, Herodotus, Thucydides, Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides.

>>9733416
Can't go wrong with Page One.

>>9733433
>foundations of modern society, the influence of which is still present today
>inapplicable
you're a dumb nigger
start with the greeks.

>>9736069
Hector because he's a badass and Archileus because he's such a fucking crybaby.

Anaxagoras, Gorgia, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras.
In which order should i read them and should i skip or add any?

>>9734864
>dryness of speech
Which translation did you read?

>>9738270
Is there anything of them to read anyway? I think there are only fragments of each of them and references to them in other texts.

>>9738302
An old danish one from the 60's/70's something - but the dryness of speech is just the natural thing that happens when a text is about two and a half thousand years old, it's actually much less dry than i expected when i first opened the book.

>>9738325
danske oversættelser er aldrig gode. har opgivet at læse på modersproget, undtagen hvis det er en dansk forfatter

>tfw reading all possible sagas
>tfw barely read any Greeks

>>9738316
Ok, so what should i read to get them covered - i prefer reading what people say themselves but if it's not possible then 'that's that'?

>>9738341
Jeg fandt Otto Gjelsteds oversættelse fin - den oversættelse jeg har af odyssen er dog oversat fra norsk til dansk - så jeg ved ikke lige hvor kont det bliver at læse

Start with the eddas

>>9733548
>Presocratics
I'm taking a an introductionary course on greek philosophy. Our first 2-3 lessons where about the Presocratics, and after that we plunged into Plato's dialogues and after that Aristo.
I guess there's a reason we started with those, but I didn't get to the bottom of them (although I haven't tried that much), and felt it wasn't too much of a loss when we got into Plato.

>>9738359
^

>>9740179
Why are you bumping? Either start with the Presocratics, or jump into Plato. What about this did you not get?

>>9740352
Hi i'm >>9738359 i didn't bump, but it would still be nice with some book recommendations.

>>9738430
for the most part the specifics of the pre-socratics matter less. the main thrust to be aware of is the impulse to subject the world to an examination that yields results and order that can be expressed and understood rationally. in broad strokes - which are debatable - this represents a 'move forward' from an older more religious schematic in which the sometimes chaotic force of divine wills was responsible as opposed to something closer to what we regard as natural and invariable laws. So the importance is the thought process, not the actual results of that process.

the exclusion to this is in heraclitus and xenophanes, both of whom enter more into what is later called moral philosophy as opposed to the natural philosophy described above. but even theirs is more just a median point on the way to plato, a step forward from subjecting nature to laws of rationality to subjecting human perspective and behavior to the same.

That depends on what you want to study, OP. You can read ancient historiographers, philosophers, poets, playwrights, and so on. Honestly it is all pretty much irrelevant nowadays, but it is useful to understand how these writing formats developed over history.
I'd personally read Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Hesiod, Heraclitus, Plato and Aristotle - but it really depends on your interests, so just go with what catches your attention.
Only "required" readings are Homer, Plato and Aristotle.

>>9740379
>>9738359
Kirk and Raven's the presocratic philosophers is p. good.

>>9740775
Thanks