Newfag to philosophy here, only been reading fiction. No, I do not want to start with le greeks

You’re so cute :3

History of Western Philosophy by Russell.
Why can't you people use search engines?

Start with Deleuze, then read Hegel, then Stirner, then Shapiro, and finish with the romans.

I want to read more modern philosophy because I'm not a medshit fan, ich bin ein preusse and so on and so forth etc etc etc

why do you use a tripcode?

can I get some specific books?

lit is better of course

Attached: zizek.jpg (301x168, 11K)

Because she’s a qtpie

I’m :3 (not that anyone else wouldn’t call her a qtpie but because I’m here they generally don’t)

You have to start with the Greeks. Almost all philosophers refer to them at some point. And it's something that should be part of basic education.
Just start with them. To be a good philosopher, you'll need to read hundereds of books anyway. Then move to Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, Lacane, Freud etc. etc.

Attached: 8959c3213c2484a45403392d2908f23c.jpg (1234x1234, 156K)

What >greek should I start with then?
For some reason I now want her because she's a qtpie, back off she's mine/

>docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit
Feel free to skip the greeks and not understand anything you fucking brainlet
Nah but really, laymen are probably better off skipping what doesn't interest them. Life's too short.

Also petition to get this guide into the sticky

Attached: 1499954261947.jpg (675x503, 24K)

She’s vicious, she would kill you

Besides Aristotel, Plato and Socrates (well, he never wrote anything, but Plato (who was his student) wrote his philosophy after his death), you should also understand Epicurean and Protagorean philosophy. However, you don't need to read all of their books, just the fundamentals, to understand the theory. Maybe, if you really want to skip the greeks, you should look for secondary school philosophy student's books, but find a good one. They'll briefly picture you their mindset, and probably you'll have quoted the books you should read.

STFU thanos

he wrote three big ones. so those ones, and in order.

read on of the "history of philosophy" books. I like the Anthony Kenny one. Then read more on the parts that you liked. Its straight forward

you're not aiming to be a professor in philosophy. You don't need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the entire western philisophical cannon. Just enjoy yourself.

Sometimes I wonder if you people are able to tie your own shoelaces

Attached: Understanding Kant.png (946x2017, 586K)

Which are?

This is the best. Of course you start with the Greek

Attached: 50414353-3A5C-4783-AD92-15D70596FE0B.jpg (1379x689, 312K)

Thanks I just wanna have fun not become a professor

Greeks will be much more fun for the beginner. Especially those chapters with Socrates. He had very convincing arguments. Instead of just stating the arguments, he questioned his opponent such questions, that opponent sudently started to speak against himself, and Socrates didn't have to do anything than just ask him precise questions. Very good read.

Thomas Nagel or Bertrand Russell’s short intro books.

if you don't want to start with the Greeks, then start with the Ionians.

you are on the internet you know

but as goes

he wrote three critiques

of pure reason
of practical reason
of judgement

Not joking, Thales is almost impossible to understand without a very solid foundation on mesopotamian mythos, and then the phoenician trickle down, therefore Gilgamesh is the actual start of all Western thought, together with Homer much much later. Not reading Gilgamesh first is the plebeian choice, the list goes as follows:
-The Epic Of Gilgamesh, with texts on Mesopotamian culture, history and religion
-Supporting texts on the bronze age, hitites, phoenicians, minoans...
- Iliad and Odyssey
- Again more supporting texts on Greek expansion across the Mediterranean
- Then you can start with Thales. Having some basic geometry notions won't hurt, but it's not entirely necessary

lol look between her legs ya dolt

This desu senpai

Start with Otto Weininger

the epicurean "paradox" is so fucking retarded, why the fuck people keep quoting it

also, start with the greeks you fucking retard, unless you want to virtue signal that you are smart which in any way you aren't, look at the way you write, but anyways just read the wiki pages and namedrop descartes every once in a while that'll work for you just fine

You’re the retard. It’s not even something to refute. You pick one to throw your faith at or you end up knowing there isn’t any such thing (or that it doesn’t matter if there are any)

Starting with the greeks isn't a meme, it's just useful if you want to know philosophy in itself and not in a specialized sort of section. Of course, someone could specialize in the greeks if they wanted, but the greeks, unless you also want to study the indian and chinese ancients, are the closest thing we have to a foundation.

>Not tying Thales to Pythagoras, Pythagoras to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians to the Akkadians
>yfw

Attached: Screen-Shot-2017-07-21-at-1.31.50-PM.png (397x434, 442K)

Spinoza ethica ezpz

Holy shit this level of autism.

Are we going to have to go find cave etchings to understand the meaning of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

At least read some Plato. It's actually very entertaining. A bunch of ancient spergs arguing with the occasional mention of boy pussy. Socratic dialogues are a must. From there on I suggest you just get redpilled and read Nietzsche. Philosophy is a meme anyway. Then get into the writings of an esoteric author of your choice. The spergier the better. Guenon or Evola are good.

Spinoza makes no sense without being properly acquainted with Euclid, the Stoics, and Descartes' rejection of Mediaeval Scholasticism.

The only philosophers who were "right" about most of the stuff they said were Hume and Wittgenstein.
Philosophers who make outlandish metaphysical or grand narrative claims (like Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, or Deleuze) are usually the ones who have the most necessary background reading attached to them.

Oh look, it's a tripfag and it's fucking retarded. What a surprise.
From the get go you assume that the human notion of evil is the same as a Gods notion of evil. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to compare yourself to an all knowing all powerful being? Jesus Christ

>implying you let a child eat candy for dinner because wah wah im not evil
>or perhaps you know better than some kid and you make him eat his vegetables even though he doesn't like it

>assume that the human notion of evil is the same as a Gods
How irrelevant
>makes ridiculous comparison
Any other arguments?
Your imaginary friend isn’t real

D i e s o

God isn’t imaginary. Weren’t you a Pantheist?

Do you want my phone number or not? :3

>From there on I suggest you just get redpilled and read Nietzsche
dumb cunt

>irrelevant
cool argument
>imaginary friend
oh boy, you have to be over 18 to post here

Cope more, Kant fag

>dude islam is so good
why didn't he just move to a muslim country if he loved it so much

>Cool argument
It is. With it you are saying god is not all knowing, or he does not concern himself with our comfort. Okay man. That’s your god. I don’t care.

Oh man, how dumb are you? That's what you got from it?

Maybe he had the foresight to know based Islam will come to us

and now we can all live in equally shit countries

>From the get go you assume that the human notion of evil is the same as a Gods notion of evil. How fucking arrogant do you have to be to compare yourself to an all knowing all powerful being?
Are you instead saying your god is a super autist? It’s a new take, I’ll give you that

>in equally BASED countries
Ftfy

nigga, i never said I believe in God, take it as you may, but i dont have to actually believe in something to entertain ideas because im not retarded. second of all, im going to explain this as simple as i can, so your dumb tripfag mind can grasp it:
>you're born
>you either develop morals and an ethic code or its there before you
>if its the latter more likely than not god exists, but this isnt the point
>you develop morals
>they might be shit or they might not
>they are a man's morality, flawed as everything human is
>you can not compare your piece of shit morality and perception of the world to a fucking all knowing god's morality
>to put it in plain, dumb terms: what you think is good might not be objectively good
did you get it? right there? its right there you fucking attention whore: your idea of good and evil are not objective: i tried to tell it to you via metaphor but your dumbass couldnt even grasp that one:
>a kid in comparison to an adult knows jackshit and might do wrong things like eating candy for dinner even though he thinks thats ok, its not
>the adult has to teach the kid so he can, in return, be a functioning adult

and before you even go there, maybe, just maybe, you have to do all this growing up to grasp the right ideas correctly and maybe just maybe God's process is the right process because you know? he's a fucking God and you're a retard that needs to validate himself with a nickname in an anonymous board, and thats why you have to learn instead of just popping up with everything learnt

Let’s talk about Epicurus, line one. Give it a call

410/646/8224 :3

Awe did you really call it? You did? Fuck I should have put my actual number. Will you call it if I do

>if its the latter more likely than not god exists
No, they’re called parents
>what you think is good might not be objectively good
Parasitic bugs in your brains is god way of saying he lives you. Don’t question!!
So you want me to believe in god, even though you don’t, a god that is only testing us. That’s on the chart Okay? You got this yet?

Someone troll this guy. I ain’t calling it

>I ain’t calling it

Why not?

>what you think is good might not be objectively good
If humans can't determine what is moral action, they cannot be moral actors; much like children.

Importantly, it would be unjust to damn them to hell for eternity, except for tripfags.

>except for tripfags.
Har har

Just call it right now. Tell me what happens :3

Just do it to say you did it. Let’s go butterfly

OP should kill himself for being a mental baby unwilling to put in the slightest effort. Try The School of Life YouTube channel, seems to be your speed

Hallo ist this Dieso?

did you just mistake a priori morality with parents telling you what to do? you think the epicurean paradox is about the christian god alone? do you really think this was a conversion attempt and not a philosophical exercise?
did you just use parasites oh my fucking god this isn't bait isn't it? you really are stupid im out why the fuck did i gave attention to a tripfag? im fucking stupid as well

epicurus argument isn't about a specific god but a god, regardless being able to do something doesn't necessarily mean you will do it right: you know how to walk but you might still trip
on the question of hell that isn't catholic canon

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner, it's a novel about a young girl learning the history of philosophy (among other things).

I do always assume I’m just not understanding, so I read these things you people write. I’m sorry that I can’t express what I’m getting at, bu at the same time I see you cannot either.
Yes, quite helpful hearing that you’re not trying justify the existence of a god. Great. But we’ve gone over it all already and you don’t get it. The Epicurean paradox doesn’t wish away all gods sets before you your god; now you pick one. Or none. And we’re done.