I need to start taking my philosophy reading seriously, and would like to end up knowing a bit about analytic and epistemic schools of thought (and any other fields that might be of interest, like maybe aesthetics). Can someone help me craft a guide or give some recommendations / resources?
I don't want to limit the depth of my appreciation by starting as late as Hume or Russel, and but so I don't want to spend a million years reading everything post Sophist like Plato either.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
BRAH YOU GADDA READ HEGEL BRAH
fpwp
I'm going to be starting with Plato's dialogues and progress through the canon, but I'm not sure when I can start excluding other works. what's a good path from plato to, say, Hume?
is metaphysics all just mumbo jumbo? what about political philosophy?
Start with Kant, buy the critique of pure reason skip the introduction and transcendental aesthetic and start with the transcendental analytic
how do you study philosophy anyway? do I read it just like I'd read Stephen King or some airport trash, or do I read like I'd read a mathematical text, with some analogue to working through proofs?
Plato's Theaetetus
Something by Descartes (Discourse - skip part 5; if you feel confident enough: Meditations, along with the objections and replies) or Leibniz (Monadology? if you like it).
Hume's Enquiry on human understanding
Then something about Kant (do not just try to read Kant)
Then Russell or Popper or any other contemporary brainlet
Read em like you would read fiction
From time to time, cut out a page or a few paragraphs, and analyze them thoroughly
>Philosophy general
>chooses Memetrand Russell as post pic
Dropped.
I want to know this too.
thanks user, seems reasonable enough. I'll probably reiterate through and read more stuff I'm interested in, but this looks like a good way to get from where I am today to where I want to be.
where's the Yea Forums link for philosophy? I'm definitely interested in more than what I've mentioned, but this (analytics, epistemics) is the most immediately appealing stuff.
Can anyone here recommend me anything that talks about life as a self organizing thing and that humans are organizing into an emergent conscious.
That societies are conscious. Cities are conscious. Civilizations are conscious.
Something along these lines?
hOW tHe fUcK dO i REaD pLatOS diAloGuEs?
seriously, where's is the book on libgen that has all the dialogues translated beautifully?
I'm extremely interested in this too, the best I've found is by hopping around the "See Also" in these wiki links:
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>en.wikipedia.org
>how do you study philosophy anyway?
philosophy at its core is about finding answers for the fundamental questions (is there a god?, what ultimately is there?, What is good moral conduct?, what are limits of human understanding? etc.) When reading a philosophical text, you're main goal should be to "find the argument". What I mean by this is (1) What is the conclusion the author is trying to reach (2) How does he reach this conclusion.
Most people say start with the Greeks. I think this is incorrect. I believe to study philosophy it's best to start with contemporary ethics since it's the most "practical" of the branches.
I posted it in another thread also. If please let me know if you discover anything. I'm thinking about it also in terms of process philosophy, but am trying to think of a way to go about research in it.
Here's my post in the other thread:
>
...
Also, what has your research led you to? I'd be very interested to know what you think after looking into those things.
can you also answer this question: and if you're feeling particularly generous: , I'm having trouble identifying what I actually need to be reading from Plato (I'm interested in western canon, as per 'The Great Books' by Adler)
I haven't looked much past that and a few other articles. I have these saved for a future time when I am ready to dive in. I'm probably going to start with some systems theory text (en.wikipedia.org
Metaphysics isn't mumbo jumbo, it's just barely above pseudoscience in the sense that it's hardly falsifiable and unresolvable. For this reason, many criticize it as a waste of time, but it can also be very useful in thinking about the world and the processes of things.
Ya, the Joe Rogan fan integration into fringe culture is kind of annoying. Yet I also watch some of his podcasts sometimes so I could be talking about myself here.
>Yet I also watch some of his podcasts sometimes
Yeah, don't get me wrong - I am fully planning on finishing the most recent podcast w/ Alex Jones, but yeah. The different levels of abstraction and the emergent properties all around us are DMT-tier trippy, no matter who you are, fringe retard or serious academic.
I am really trying to find a) foundational and canonical texts b) text directly related to my interest (for now, analytics, epistemics and friends) c) texts to bridge the gap between 'a)' and 'b)'. I am really not interested in stuff that is barely above pseudoscience and would like to avoid that unless it's canon. Not to disparage metaphysics, it just doesn't fall within my interest to study it seriously at the moment, and I imagine I would be similarly disappointed in other non-rigorous texts (but I will probably try to get a cursory understanding at some point).
Just go read Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic and ignore the butthurt anti-positivists
Ahh, well look into Durkheim, which will likely take you into Marxism. This is starting to get into beginning sociology and social theory. I'm reading a bio of bataille right now, and that has interesting thoughts, i.e. his concept of the world as energy.
I think that's pretty canonical and in the direction of the idea we've been discussing.
is aesthetics mumbo jumbo? I don't see how it couldn't be
Are the highest orders of abstraction feasable and still able to diverge in crucial faculties of everything understood____?.
I dont see how.
oh also user you might want to nlook into holism
nice digits, but:
>Are the highest orders of abstraction feasable
this doesn't really make sense without context, because it's kind of tautological. If there is any abstraction at all, then yes, the highest orders of abstraction are feasible (a single layer of abstraction in a system would make it the highest order, ofc).
>and still able to diverge in crucial faculties of everything understood ____?
without outlining definitions and such, this is just pure mumbo jumbo, which answers my question well enough I guess.
Some people think metaphysics is mumbo-jumbo (logical positivists) but they don't really exist anymore. Even the most empiricist analytic philosophers like Quine were deeply interested in metaphysics. Political philosophy forms the foundation of every single government in the world, so it's fair to say that it's not mumbo jumbo either.
,
Read and re-read. Familiarize yourself with the context look up a summary of what he's arguing for. The goal is to understand the argument not get some kind of aesthetic pleasure from the reading, there's no shame in "spoiling" the ending.
>read and re-read
no, I mean like where is the book that contains all the dialogues? I don't know which one to download on libgen.
no i need to start at plato, i will get to this stack later, just give me a redpilled stack to fast track through the canon to wittgenstein
Anyone have a recc for a good book on the Pre-Socratics? I want mainly primary source stuff (as much as still exists of course) and maybe a few essays in it.
>you're main goal should be to "find the argument".
>t. analytic
>phig
off-topic but the fig is a charming fruit and i would think i would make a lovely symbol
>Doesn’t want to read Plato.
Then just give up. Even Wittgenstein spends a chunk of his Philosophical Investigations trying to get past Plato.
Why are people so afraid to jump around? I read Plato and Nietzsche at the same time, then Aristotle and Kierkegaard. Read widely to find a few schools that interest you and then reread and go deeper.
No good philosopher just tosses references out without explaining them, and virtually no philosopher actually gets the thinkers they’re referencing 100% correct anyways; they just use the reference to advance their own thought further.
you can probably skip the introduction (although that's where the analytic/synthetic distinction is explained) but I would discourage skipping the aesthetic.