How to into philosophy?

Anyone that doesn't start with Kant is in for a rough ride

Start with the Greeks.
Pic related.

Attached: start with the greeks - philosophy.jpg (1600x1318, 472K)

Start with the Greeks

Attached: Start_with_the_greeks.jpg (3672x3024, 1.38M)

commence with the hellenes

>Absolutely start with the greeks, and don't appoach Plato and Aristotelis till you know what came before them
Most of what we know about the presocratics come from Plato and Aristotle. Why do people like you try to talk about things you don't know? You're not equipped to answer the question so piss off.

This sep article seems like an easy way to get started.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/

Watch some videos on youtube on thinkers, be wary of School of Life and other animated ones. You can read a general overview if you want (avoid Russell's). The history of philosophy podcast (without any gaps) is often recommended.

Start with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy

>Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Women
YIKES

Start with math, binary.
There is only something or nothing and nothing doesn't exist.

>Happy is it when people have the cares of life to struggle with; for these struggles prevent their becoming a prey to enervating vices, merely from idleness!

Attached: sip.png (750x975, 873K)

>avoid Russell's
why?

If you have 0 literary culture, I wouldn't start nowhere.
If you haven't read at least all the universal literature and haven't watched shitloads of movies/plays, studying philosophy will be only acquiring theories, not knowledge.
How will you reproduce the experiences contained in the text and check their veracity if you don't have an arsenal of direct (acquired through age) and indirect(acquired through fiction) experiences?

I know a dummy by the amount of fiction he has read

>If you have 0 literary culture, I wouldn't start nowhere.

this hurts my brain

there is a podcast called The History of Philosophy without any Gaps. It is excellent, although it must not be an excuse not to read actual works of philosophy. As there are not any surviving works of the Presocratics (aside from small fragments) I recommend you to listen to that podcast up until Plato, when you reach it, you can start reading Plato's works, starting with the 4 surrounding Socrates' death, then I suggest you to follow the official Yea Forums's Guide to Philosophy in the following link:
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Attached: images (40).jpg (715x429, 35K)

The entire history of Western philosophy is already stored in the unconscious parts of your brain.

Just meditate bro.

This is pretty decent advice, the Greeks were developing their ideas in conversation with the abstract presentation of philosophy found in the religion of early man. I would say the best approach is to come at the core concepts of various schools of thought and find where they relate to one another.

Cringe and redpilled

Biased inaccurate butchering of the history of philosophy with an agenda.

>Thales
>Heraclitus
>nobodies
Thales introduced the idea that one substance can have multiple modes of appearance.

Heraclitus is the most important pre-socratic, who believed that determinate content is created from difference. This determinate content itself is subject to generation and decay, in a word, change. This is contrary to other conceptions of identity, say Aristotle, who believed that the mind and nature must be structured in the same way in order for first principles to be known. This structuring is called nous.
These first principles Aristotle considered starting points from which all knowledge is based. They are identities known through themselves and are not subject to change.

kenny - history of philosophy

Even Gregory Sadler says it's dumb to think you need to start with them.

medium.com/@Gregory_Sadler/the-10-best-philosophy-books-for-beginners-6d1326f81d5

It’s useful to start by considering common anxieties or preoccupations that many seem to have. The first of these can be summed up in the question: “Which book or books should I read first?” What is often lurking behind this question is a concern about “getting it right” when it comes to studying philosophy. One needs to read the books and thinkers in order—that’s one common conception. First you need to read Plato, and only after that study his student, Aristotle. But of course, before Plato (one discovers, while reading Plato, to dismay and chagrin!) one really should have read the pre-Socratics. And when reading Plato, of course, it is important to start with the early dialogues, and only after having read those to go on to the middle. God forbid you should crack open a late dialogue before adequate preparation!

All of this is really nonsense. It’s entirely understandable and forgivable, if this is just the would-be-student winding him or herself up. It’s much less so when someone else tells or sells this to others as what must be done. You don’t need to read the books and authors in the “right order”. Unless you’re the sort of person who takes some sort of indelible stain in your brain from what you read—in which case, I am sorry to say, you will not get much from philosophy—you’re not going to damage your mind by reading around the canon at the start, rather than buckling down with some sort of rigidly arranged list.

i never said to start with Thales and heraclitus, only that they arent nobodies.

Only the bottom row and first on left of second from bottom row are philosophy, so even if OP wants to start with the Greeks he really doesn't need to read the other stuff for philosophy.

You go like this
Leibniz -> Kant -> Rousseau -> Plato -> Land -> Marx -> Descartes -> Seneca -> Avicenna -> Heidegger -> Deleuze -> Aquinas -> Rand -> Lenin -> Locke -> Baudrillard -> Aristotle -> Wittgenstein -> Zizek -> Heraclitus -> Marcus Aurelius -> Hume -> Lyotard -> Hegel -> Evola -> Hobbes -> Epicurus -> Butler -> Lao Tzu -> Nietzsche -> Nagarjuna -> Derrida -> Jesus -> Dugin -> Moldbug -> Sartre -> Epictetus -> Duns Scotus -> Dogen -> Fisher -> Russell -> Rorty -> Jordan Peterson

Attached: 1557946645186.jpg (293x263, 18K)

>1000+
tl;won't be reading

is there a history of western philosophy book that is say, like 500 pages or less?

lmao

Anyone care to give me the quick rundown on "Logos"? Every fucking "trad Christian" is using it nowadays and it seems to me that for them it means no more than "What I like = Logos and what I don't like = anti-Logos".

Anyone care to explain what the actual pre-Christian Greeks believed to be Logos? Would they be confused by the Christian(ancient and modern) use of logos?

Attached: 1425892861381.png (350x338, 67K)

It's just standard semitic subversion of greek/pagan thought. Ignore them and hope they go away eventually. Read the Greek one and move on

Have a look at the illustrated version then.

Yeah, the list was fine until THAT recommendation. WTF?

Start with Frege. And then stop right there. There is no point in going any further. It all begins and ends with Frege and all else is frivolous.

Generally, Logos kinda means ideas, thought-lines, believes. The term underwent a lot of changes and also refers to the cognition, aka the you in your head. It also can mean an opinion, an argument, a word, a sentence. Kinda like the word "Mass" but for informational weight instead of physical..

Also, OP, philosohpy has lots of entry points. Greeks are one of the most common. I'd recc The First Philosophers, a collection of ancient greek philosophers before Socraties. It's good prelim for Plato, who writes about Socraties. Then Aristotle, who kinda finishes out the greeks. Then resume with The Romans. Specifically The Stoics such as Senca, Aurelius and Epictetus. From there biblical theologians like. St Augustine n' St Aquinas. Prolly a good idea to read The Bible before but I dunno.
Here, this guide goes deeper into it.
docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1
or just google "Lit Philosophy Project."

Can someone explain the specific problems with Penguin Publishing? I just ignore forwards and introductions anyway, so what about the text do they do that makes it worse?

they need to be read regardless

This. Plato is just a footnote to Frege.

wikipedia pages and other online resources.
then move onto reading the actual books.

This works fine for most philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes), but some are well-nigh impenetrable (Kant, Hegel, Heidegger).

>actually thinking this
Myth is more important to Greek philosophy than Greek philosophers.

Read this book.

Attached: willdurant.jpg (474x815, 53K)

Attached: 1552522376837.png (182x277, 3K)

Correct. Peterson is the pinnacle of wisdom and insight.