How do i get into philosophy ?

should i have gone to /lit/ ?


sorry originalio no mute

That would have been possible in the beginning of the 20th century in Europe: just hang out in some famous bourgeois caffes, get to know important persons who will fund you to write a book or to have you around being witty.

Now, you have to go to college to meet the right people.

It's a giant waste of time and will lead to nothing but having to talk to other people who read philosophy which is mostly terrible.

U have to do dr00gz friendo

File: YUYmms4K-YY.jpg (53KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 604x604px

>>34068275
Start with the greeks

Dont go to /lit/ theyll meme you and tell you to
Start with the greeks also My Diary Desu

>>34068275

Just watch Crash Course: Philosophy on youtube as an introduction (though it's uinfinished, so stay in touch). Then, listen to History of Philosophy without Gaps podcast for a much more comprehensive view.

A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston

>>34068275
Let's be real, here, OP: getting into western philosophy will be incredibly difficult. Lot's of people think that you can just go read all the classics in your local library and then understand it, but that's false.

Avoid anything on youtube.

Listen to the podcast "philosophy bites"
Buy ONLY a couple of books such as "bacon to Kant" (G.Thomson) or "a history of modern philosophy" (R. Scruton).

After that, try to focus more on areas of interest. If you try to start with the greeks and then progress chronologically, you'll have no idea what's going on.

Sincerely,
Phil phd student

>>34068275
Professional philosopher here.

Start with a general history of philosophy. I recommend Coplestone's. You can't be expected to understand a word of Hegel if you don't know Fichte and Schelling, and you can't understand those with out Kant, who is writing after Hume, etc. After you more-or-less know (and understand) the whole history of thining, you can get into particular works. But start with the history, really. Otherwise, you will be tempted to look at only one particular side of philosophy as the "true" one and lose perspective. Philosophy is searching, not clinging to one-and-true worldview. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.

>>34069437
Oh, also, as a rule of thumb, don't go to the bookstore. Usually, bookstore selections are utter trash. Don't buy secondary sources either, unless theyre about extremely difficult texts like the CPR or BaT or whatever. Buy books though amazon.

Half is the literature, the other half is talking with others about it.

>>34069323
Yup, this one. Very little bias (which is subtle in Reale's works and evident in Russel's), compact and easy language.

>>34069474
>professional
>philosopher

>>34068275

Just take it the Italian way - go for Thomas Aquinas, Anselmus, Bonaventura from Bagnoregio

>>34069484
By CPT you mean Kant, I presume? The language might be a little dry, but it's not a difficult text. Try Prolegomena if you have difficulty in reading the Critiques.

"Hard" philosophy -> Hegel, Gadamer, some Derrida, Lacan.

>>34069573
I earn pretty decent monthly salary from the University I work for, just for giving some lectures and writing articles. So yes, I consider myself a professional philosopher, as I earn my living working in a field of philosophy.

>>34069614
wow look at the big dick on brad here

Yes, by "CPR" i was referring to the first critique. It is a difficult text, and most people misread it. For example, anyone who thinks that the noumenal world is the real world fucked up. Also, anyone who thinks Kant was arguing for the "factory production model" of perception fucked up. I'm not going to argue for these specific readings, but I'm just trying to illustrate how widely misread it is, and claim that this is at least partly a result of its difficulty.

File: LEGO E656, E444.jpg (65KB, 800x600px)

65KB, 800x600px

>>34068275

Philosophy is shit and generally in the long run kills people.

Go for astrophysics instead.

Pic related: my "not as a career but more as a hobby" thing.

>>34069707
Didn't want to sound as condescending, sorry. Yes, it is widely misunderstood, but aren't a lot of writings are? Descartes and Nietzsche are the prime examples. I'm also not claiming that going through Critique of Pure Reason is a breeze, it requires some previous knowledge and a lot of concentration, but it's not, like, Phenomenology of the Spirit, can you agree?

>>34069833
yes, I agree that Kant is easy peasy compared to Hegel.

Also, you know how it is, 4chan trains us all to constantly be on the defensive and pull out the big guns at the slightest hint of conflict

>>34068275
by learning to ask the real questions first, for example ''where is stanley?''

>>34069707
>big dick on brad

literally, on brad's head.

>>34069674
youre a teacher, theres a difference

>>34070089

Doesn't that make him a sophist instead?

Joke aside, wouldn't an art teacher be considered an artist?

>>34069474
after i read these books and stuff do i really have to go out and discuss this with other people ??

i have pretty bad social anxiety...original comment

File: 1483885351825.png (72KB, 448x460px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 448x460px

I reccently got into philosophy, I higly recommend start watching Alan Watts on youtube, he have alot of lectures that are really intressting. I found it so intresseting that i bought his book, "the book".

>>34069474
This Coplestone history looks fantastic, just like the kind of thing I need to read. Thanks a lot for the pointer.

File: 1480085336720.jpg (227KB, 1173x392px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1173x392px

>>34068275
read kant
even if it's basically schizophrenic rambling it's entertaining
pic related