After seeing so many threads on philosophy around here, I rented

>>9974791
>Russell
You should have started with Plato. Then when you've reached Russell down the line you can laugh at him and the other analytics.

File: 1473210050858.png (300KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 500x482px

>>9974791
russell claims that solipsism is the most logical doctrine

>>9974791

Russell as a historian of philosophy was a nonce who wrote arrogant misrepresentations for money. I seriously hope you won't let him influence you much.

>>9974791
Philosophy usualy is nit-picky, as well science is.
But this is necessary, for philosophy is going deep in the core of the nature of things, and for this, we need the clear and unrefutable awnser.
If you want a intro too philsophy, them you may not only read the introductionary book, but also a book about the history of philosophy, and, of course, reading some philosophy books.
I am not memeing, but you may wanna check some greek clasics, because they are the basis and the basis dont have a lot of complexity in comparison to, idk, analitic tradition. But I am sure you dont need to read a intro book op, I am sure you can jump straigt into the philosophy books and after reading and reflecting, you shall be able to start your philosophical journey into depression and nothingness...
BUT FOR TRUTH! SO IT IS WORTH IT!

>>9974791
Russell is a hack.

>>9974791

There's a reason why stupid people who don't 'get' other philosophers do 'get' Russell.
It's because he was full of shit. The man was the embodiment of bandwagoning pseudo-intellectualism.

>>9974855
Solipsism is indistinguishable from realism, can you even Tractatus

>>9974791
> everything I've read so far is just being nit-picky about word choice and explaining what does and doesn't exist in a superfluous way. Is this really how philosophy works or is this book just memeing me?
Analytic largely yes

>>9974791
That's how Russel and the whole analytic tradition is.

We are talking about a guy that spent years of life trying to prove that 1+1=2 and failed to get a level of certainty that satisfied him. That's not a joke btw.

>>9974800
>perfluous way. Is this really how philosophy works or is this book just memeing me?
>>>

Wrong. Should have started with parmenides

>>9975370
>We are talking about a guy that spent years of life trying to prove that 1+1=2 and failed to get a level of certainty that satisfied him
I never understood why he, as a notable mathematician, attempted to "prove" this. Two is one unit greater than one by definition; to suppose that such were not the case would be a trivial effort

>>9974791
Russell is horrible. Buy the Strauss/Cropsey History of Political Philosophy. It's a big purple book that has very valuable information on all key philosophers from the ancient right up to the Modern.

Start with Plato, end with Nietszche, Evola and Stirner

File: 1447802412323.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>9974791
What part of "start with the Greeks" didn't you understand?