Is it worth reading, regarding I want to read Plato and Aristotle

Yes, its fantastic

i almost ordered that off amazon for 15 bucks, glad i didn't cuz it's almost definitely stupid shit, and also i wouldn't really read it anyways

Its decent. cool reads.

>>9829262
I'd be glad if you pointed your thoughts about it.

>>9829369
like i said i didn't read it, but since plato is mostly just a bunch of fallacies and strawmen that philosopher majors have to read, why should this be better since it predates plato? i'm not a philosophy major, i'm not doing a phd in history of western thought, reading some poorly thought out argument of a pre-socratic isn't interesting or useful to me

>>9829242
does anyone have an epub of this? all my usual places [libgen, mobilism, IRC] do not. oxford world classics is pretty good about digitizing their stuff, though

>>9829390
i have an epub of it, or maybe it's a pdf, don't remember where i got it but it's out there

>>9829242
the pre-socratics are not necessary to read plato and aristotle, but they are interesting for historical purposes and/or if you're personally inclined toward bold metaphysical assumptions, like me desu

>>9829390
>>9829392
Post the link here please.

>>9829374
Plato is the only philosopher actually worth reading. Holy shit, I hope you kill yourself.

File: 1486322364088.png (1MB, 1870x928px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1870x928px

>>9829242
Yes its a good read, Penguin also has a version on Presocratics but I haven't read it.

This one is great, a bit of a slog at times and relies heavily on the commentary/opinion of the author but it really is a nice way of organizing the fragments and studying them lightly.

>>9829395
You need to read the presocratics to understand Plato. I can't vouch for Aristotle (yet).

>>9829242
I'm about halfway through it with the intent of starting Plato next. While most of the Presocratics are laughably wrong in their arguments, it is interesting to see the evolution of "logical" thought and some of the right concepts they introduce prior to more empirical forms of science. The amount of Plato and Aristotle cited suggests that it's a useful introduction to ideas discussed by later authors.

Is this better to the one written by Jonathan Barnes?

>>9829242
What is the difference between this and Penguin's Early Greek Philosophy?

>>9829910
But do you think it is too difficult for a non-native speaker in english? I read a preview and I really liked it.
Also, who's on the pic?

>>9830135
just shut your god damn mouth for once and buy this book

no others compare

>>9829374
What about the Theaetetus, the Meno, the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Gorgias, all of which have enduring ideas we still use today? Yeah it's like you dont know what you are talking about you fucking moron.

>>9830316
What should I read before dive into Plato's works?

>>9829374
Its not like you "have" to read anything. We are on /lit/, and so you should read out of enjoyment. I don't know why you would be here otherwise.

That being said though, I don't necessarily resent the idea of people who find philosophy dry and prefer literary fiction. As long as what you read has something to say then it is fine in my opinion.

>>9830490
You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. You might as well be a fucking bugsposter.

>>9829392

Also would be interested in a link

File: 1443484668816.jpg (240KB, 1656x1009px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1656x1009px

>>9829374
>He isn't doing a Phd in the History of Western Thought

>>9829390
Make your own epub. It doesn't take long.

File: v1KRadV.jpg (446KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 960x1280px

>>9830306
Well non-natives are all at various levels, I'd say it requires a high reading comprehension level being that some of the ideas are so abstract. Unless the reader is fluent in english they are going to have a hard time following shit like Parmenides explained in english, but many of the philosophers covered aren't so crazy.

I'd say there is no harm in trying as long as you can see when you don't understand.

>>9830474
I'd advice reading the book in the OP, or at least learning about Parmenides, Pythagoras, and a bit about the sophists, Plato responds to all these groups in his dialogues.

>>9831243
Thank you for the meaningful reply. I'll buy it, as this book is with a fair price. Also, it'll be useful for practicing my english, I guess.

>>9829910
>You need to read the presocratics to understand Plato. I can't vouch for Aristotle (yet).

You need them for Aristotle as well. A lot of his references to and refutations of them are explicit (e.g., "Democritus was mistaken when he said..."), but even those explicit namings (and many are only implicit) assume you are familiar with not only the pre-socratic tenet in question, but probably also the larger whole of that philosopher's thought.

You at least need a primer on them, which is what the oxford classics book is. Aristotle will be even more difficult than he already is if you walk in without knowing at least vaguely what each presocratic espoused.

>>9830050
>it is interesting to see the evolution of "logical" thought and some of the right concepts they introduce prior to more empirical forms of science.

This is a great insight for you to have reached, especially so early in your readings. The conclusions of the presocratics, Aristotle, and all scientists up to and including those in the present, are less important to the non-scientist than are the methods they used to obtain them. Reading these long-influential texts (especially Aristotle) is basically exploring the "show your work" of early science, which will not only pique your curiosity about the natural world, often arousing questions that are still being asked in modern times, but also see the angles of approach to those problems that were taken by some of the greatest minds in history. It's a question of science but also a question of human knowledge, psychology, culture, etc.

And some of it is remarkably insightful. The presocratics are somewhat crude in modern eyes, but Aristotelian natural science is really incredible, if undeniably flawed. And like you said, many of the mistakes are based on failings of technical, empirical knowledge of the time; the methods are really amazing (especially Aristotle).

Glad you're enjoying it so far; hope you stick with it!

>>9830135
From what I remember, Penguin has a few different books which each cover slightly different parts of pre-Platonic philosophy (maybe each part more in depth?). The oxford edition covers the presocratics and the sophists, which I think is the most notable, if not only, division made by Penguin.

>>9831243
Where is this?