>Read a chapter of a philosophy text. >Read the SparkNotes

>>9863510
As long as you're actively engaged with the text you're fine.

Try highlighting pertinent passages and writing a brief summary of what the main contentions are.

>skip the text and go straight to the sparknotes
>i understand everything with perfect clarity
reading is for pseuds

>>9863622
>reading the sparknotes
>not briefly glancing over the summary paragraph on wikipedia
I hope you enjoy wasting your time, pseud.

>>9863643
>reading wikipedia summaries
>not watching a Youtube video about it
Lmfao I can't believe this

>>9863651
>watching youtube videos
>not gleaning everything from /lit/ and /leftypol/ memes

>I don't read anything but light novels
>I understand every philosophical text I've ever posted about perfectly
how does this make you feel, brainlets?

Good? That's better than just ignoring your ignorance and feigning understanding later.

>sparknotes

Isn't that for like 13 year olds?

>not using cliff's notes
fuckin millenials

>>9863510
You still don't get it. You just know someone else's thoughts on it. The best you can do with that information is to remember it, but you still do not understand it.

>>9865847
There it is.
The most retarded thing I've read today

>>9863710
>This is an ironic post but a good amount of this board is actually doing this

>>9865984
Elaborate

>>9863510
that's fine. once you've caught on to the main points, reread the text again

>>9865847
You wouldn't get it anyway. Much of it is up to educated interpretation. It's removed by languages, cultures and eras. Your lens is inherently flawed.

There is no problem with that unless sparknotes gets it wrong. It helped me get through a few Faulkner novels

>>9866200
not him but your a dumb faggot

>>9863622
>>9863643
>>9863651
>>9863710
I love this fucking board

>>9867694
I love you.

>>9867694
>>9867739
I love you guys so much. You are my only true friends

>>9867649
Understanding isn't the same as knowing the answer. You can know the answer to a mathematical problem without knowing how to solve it.

The idea of “Greek” philosophy being “Greek” is silly and stupid.

The philosophers aren’t even Greek:

Thales is Phoenician. Thales learned his philosophy from an Egyptian Priest.
Anaxagoras is Persian.
Pythagoras’s dad is Phoenician/Syrian. Pythagoras learned his geometry from Egypt, astronomy from Chaldea, Math from Phoenicia, And philosophy from Persia.
Socrates learned all of his philosophy from Anaxagoras.
Plato learned from Socrates and travelled to Egypt.
Anaximander and Anaximenes learned from Anaxagoras.
Heraclitus is Persian.
Aristotle learned from Plato’s Academy.

And that’s if the philosophers existed at all at all.

>>9868524
The idea of Freddie Mercury singing American "Rock n Roll " is silly and stupid.

He wasn't even American.

He was born in the Eastern Coast of Africa in Zanzibar.
He also was Zoroastrian, therefore all of Queen's music should be considered Zoroastrian African Queer Rock

>go online to discuss a text outside of /lit/
>only places discussing text are sparknotes and gradesaver, which don't have forums (as far as I know) and are for students

>>9865847
A large portion of learning philosophy is understanding what other people think about a given text. How many times have you read a text(assuming you actually read) and thought that you had a firm grasp of it only to be humbled by someone else's interpretation? This is part of the process of learning.

>)))Sparknotes(((

>>9863510
>SparkNotes
Is this bait
>>9865847
t. Someone who has not read a single page of philosophy in his life

>>9868524
People from Phoenix are Phoenicians

Depends who the philosopher is. I'm a professional philosopher and still don't know what the heck is going on sometimes, especially if I read someone like Hegel.

Only problem is, Cliff notes (or whatever) only give you the dumb mainstream opinion. Okay for a reference point, but if your opinions on the text waver from this then trust your own.

In essence, Philosophy is deconstructing (ignore the Derrida connotation) old texts and supplementing it with new interpretations allied with better reasoning and evidence; i.e. think for yourself and question the text.

Whilst I'm here I might as well pimp out my own Youtube channel concerning philosophy understanding - that's getting no views. Can't decide whether because its a) crap or because b) it has got no publicity.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQrSXATDZrNrTxQvg1vUYCg

>>9868963
it's getting no views because lack of exposure and you're channel is a niche of a niche so the upper bound for views isnt high anyway

File: jordan sort.jpg (134KB, 610x611px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 610x611px

>>9863510
>(((reading)))
>Not watching Jordan B. Memerson

File: 1501824553505.gif (366KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 600x600px

Should i adopt this method? unironically asking