Do Philosophers actually read the whole philosophy canon I just finished Aristotle's Collected Works v.II and I'm exhausted, im dead(started from homer). I graduated early from HS so I have a few months to study and i'm already kaput my interest lie in the economical side of philosophy which starts in Kant/Hegel and I've heard those two are most likely the most difficult philosophers for the Continental canon...I just want to read economical phil. like Marx or something but I have so much to go. I know I don't have to learn so linearly but why will I have a reason to go back?
>....German pessimism,Marx,Post-structuralism its so far I think I will settle with my baby Guenon :(
>he actually took the "start with the greeks" meme serious
Alexander Torres
what do you mean dude....
Cooper Johnson
the trick is to do both simultaneously champ continue with the cannon WHILE you read what you're really into
Christian Parker
Greek thought is excellent but it can fuck you up. If you get thru it you’ll be better off but there is an exchange of many years of life separating wheat from chaff. You’ve been born into a value structure and you’ve now introduced alternative systems. Pragmatically you must decide for yourself the ideal mix. Don’t let morality and ideation contain you. Experience and desire come first. You want you get. Organize from that first.
Alexander Cook
philosophy was taken from the greek communities, just look out for what people are like in 2019 and you can start your own philosophy
Logan Anderson
If you're interested in economics just start with Adam Smith.
Camden Walker
and from there?
Adrian Cruz
cointelpro spotted
Chase Murphy
>Experience and desire come first That's how you dig your grave.
Thomas Evans
Underage get the fuck out
Sebastian Green
im 18 fuck head few months to 19
Matthew Allen
Broooo if it is just your hobby you can read some good introductory pieces. I didnt read all of aristotle. I read a good introduction and I marked the interesting bits to read into more deeply. I also only read 2 stoics. I am mostly interested in enlightenment era philosophy. Read deeply into the branch you are most interested in. For everything else introductory pieces and some important full works are enough. If you havent done plato yet, you may read politeia + one other book in his canon. To get an idea of the rest read a dense introductory book. Call me pleb as much as you want I believe that is enough, unless greek philosophy is particularily interesting to you.
Dylan Walker
If you care you're in it for the long haul. However, there's no shame in diving into a text you definitely won't understand. Just use what you didn't understand to find how to flesh out the text. You should expect to read multiple times.
Robert Torres
No. Absolutely not. Honestly just read what interests you unless you’re going to be a phil. major, but even then you’ll probably end up reading based off coursework, which is hella contingent on your dept. Honestly it’s more important to have a good grip on the history of philosophy than it is to be able to speak fluently about, for instance, Kant’s major conclusions in the Transcendental Analytic or Wittgenstein’s Rule Following Paradox, especilaly if those aren’t directly related to your area of interest. What I’ve found is that, sure, professional philosophers have a cursory understanding of the “canon,” both analytic and continental, but mostly only deep-dive when it’s relevant to their research. While there’s definately value in a linear approach to phil. it’s in no way representative of how actual philosophers do philosophy or how research gets done today. And I’m pretty covinced this has always been the case, insofar as there has been a “canon” proper.
ricardo then marx. you should probably read at least some notes on hegel before reading marx though or you won't get it.
Xavier Brooks
Yea Forums patron saint Gilles Deleuze says it's harmful. Its too easy to fall into historical predjudices when considering the history of philosophy. Just read whoever you find interesting and use it as inspiration.
Owen Perry
You don't have to read all of it, someone who reads too much gets lost in what he is reading. Even if you have read Aristotle, which is good by the way, you haven't gone very deeply into the book or the inner workings of Aristotelian philosophy. With philosophy the trick is to find something you like or a theme and then delve into it deeply. You cannot read everything and put it out of our mind that you can be an expert in everything.
Andrew Martin
I started with the Greeks about 4 years ago, I'm at Kant now. Takes ages but ideas generally change fairly slowly and reading them in chronological order makes them fairly easy to follow. Greeks -> Scholastics -> Spinoza -> Kant, with a lot of other stuff in between Scholastics and Kant, like Descartes, Hume, Leib etc. The Scholastics are incredibly boring so when you've picked up and put down Summa too many times you should just move on, Aquinas is cool but you can read summaries and get much more out of him.
Daniel Ortiz
Pretty valiant of you OP. I'm attempting something similar but more selective. I've read half of Plato's dialogues and dragged myself over Aristotle's organon and the most important sections of his Physics going by rubrics at universities. I've combined that with plenty of secondary material as well. If you actually read all that with some kind of understanding then congrats. You should take a breather, maybe watch some lectures online or some Sadler on what you've read or some philosophers that you're interested in. If you want you can continue with the Romans or just read the Stanford encyclopedia on some systems of thought or philosophers between the Greeks and Moderns. For the Moderns you start with Descartes.
Aiden Russell
What would you consider to be introductory pieces?
Asher Collins
If you're serious, goob jod. That was basically a meme that you fell for, at least nowadays it is.
Jaxon Sanchez
No they don't. My philosophy teacher had told me multiple time not to read the whole book but just the "essential part" (chapters about the topic I was working on). She's not a great teacher, and as a philosopher she is worst, but hey! she had her degree, soo... I think there's no "correct" way to do it. Just depend on how hard you push yourself. I personaly trie to read everything we work with, but because of that i'm in the borderline of not pasing other subjects. Idk user, maybe we all shouldn't try to learn shit.
Jeremiah Cook
Better yet, skip Marx to read Walras and Menger instead.
Nicholas Murphy
na just skim a few wiki pages so you sort of understand history of philosophy and start writing. make sure not to use logic to find the truth, but start from your own assumptions and presuppositions and sophistically use logic and reason to show that everything you think is correct
Logan Moore
You can either spend your entire life reading.
Or you can pick a few philosophers or branches of philosophy you like and study them.
>Political Theory >Ethics >Metaphysics >Theology >Epistemology >Logic
You should've stopped with Plato. Whatever was not thought of by Plato is what humans will never be able to understand. It took me about 8 months to get from the Pre-Socratics to Heidegger, going through at least one major work by every major philosopher (except for Avicenna, Rousseau, and Husserl). After Heidegger, I kinda went lazy and decided to just try to read Anti-Oedipus without doing practically any background reading on it. When I got done with Anti-Oedipus, I seriously reflected on everything I'd read up on, jotting down every single important concept that these philosophers had dealt with, and, cutting off philosophy proper from linguistics, anthropology, psychology, cognitive science, physics, etc., I concluded that only that which philosophers may deal with without stepping into the boundaries of other fields is providing a definition of the truth, setting down the basic rules of logic, and doing vague metaphysical speculation without making too many unproven claims (like Plato does in the Parmenides dialogue).
Ethics is a strange, ugly-looking parasite that has latched itself onto philosophy, which could not live outside of it, but which far too many people confuse with it.
Parker Williams
>Ethics is a strange, ugly-looking parasite Oh geez. Did you read Stirner?
