What's the use of reading ancient philosophy?

Can I just jump straight to, say, Wittgenstein?

Attached: 149188-004-7D1AD672.jpg (193x300, 9K)

What's the use of trigonometry? Can I just jump straight to Riemannian geometry?

So you know the questions, arguments, and answers of written thought prior to looking like a retarded pseud

Yes, but in mathematics, I don't necessarily have to readEuclid's elements to understand recent developments in geometry. Is it not the same in philosophy?

Sure just jump to Wittgenstein

it's not quite the same. classics are very important, but some (pseudy) writers like kierkegaard aren't really that difficult without preparation

>What's the use of trigonometry?
None.

Any serious math education starts with set theory, a very modern idea.
Trigonometry is taught as a side note when studying the convergence of series.

You read Euclid for historic interests, but there is no relevant mathematical insight found in it if you are somewhat "advanced" in your studies (e.g. understood the basics of linear algebra and analysis).

The more recent a philosophy, the more likely it is that it's best understood with the context of the ideas it's responding to.

Using the example given, Wittgenstein put forward the theory (roughly speaking) that words are best understood as the sum total of their uses, rather than as appealing to some rigid conceptual definition. Ie when we say chair we're more closely referring to the examples of things we've labeled as chairs in the past than to the concept of that which has four legs or can be sat on. Without the context of Plato, Russell, or the string of thinkers between the two, you wouldn't understand that this idea revolts against a tradition running through nearly all of philosophy.

That said, context isn't the rule of law when it comes to learning philosophy. Just because phenomenology was a major influence on 20th century existentialism doesn't make it required reading for anyone interested in the latter topic.

Tldr; early philosophy is context for later philosophy, whether you need that context depends on the kind of philosophy you're interested in and what kind of understanding of said philosophy you're interested in.

I should also mention that this is assuming you're interested in some later philosophy and considering whether early philosophy should be studied for the sake of later philosophy. This is ignoring the fact that plenty of early philosophy in my experience is worth reading for it's own sake

Okay, but you probably won’t understand any of it.

The reason why knowing about the history of philosophy is regarded as important is because any philosopher will respond to their predecessors. Therefore, having at least a large, broad scope of some of the main currents of thought in the history of philosophy leads to being able to understand why philosophers thought about certain issues (like language or the possibility of knowing whether or not there is an origin to the universe).
Instead of spending several months reading the works of every single great philosopher who ever lived, you could at least read up some kind of summary of important points in articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on some of the main subjects in philosophy: Metaphysics, Ancient Logic, Rationalism and Empiricism, Idealism, and Truth for the sake of understanding some of the most important parts of the development of philosophy prior to Wittgenstein.

Based and redpilled, skip Plato and jump straight to Wittgenstein like a Chad. If I'm not mistaken, even the man Witt himself recommended us to skip over that old fag Plato.

>pic unrelated

Attached: images - 2019-06-24T064310.899.jpg (315x466, 31K)

yes

why would you do that tho

Don't read Wittgenstein. Look at this chart and absorb everything in it (Hint: T means true and F means false).

Attached: image.jpg (483x298, 59K)

if you tried to pick up and read Wittgenstein right now, without any context, you would have no idea what's going on

That's true, but not what I'm asking for. Context does not necessarily have to come all the way from Plato. Indeed, my version of the tractacus has an introductory essay by Bertrand Russel which, I think, provides the required context.

It might be true that the immediate context does not come from Plato, since it might make more sense to refer to Russell & Whitehead and Frege for those whom Wittgenstein was influenced the most by, but then if we look at Frege, we see he was quite strongly influenced by German Rationalism and Idealism (Leibniz, Kant) in terms of his search for truth, logic, and consistency not in the world out there, but rather in statements themselves. Going quite a bit further back, Descartes and Leibinz believed that the only possible certain truth that there could be would be in logical truths (which contain mathematics and geometry within them), since sensations may sometimes not be trustworthy enough so as to reveal the workd as it is. Then we go even further back with Aristotle and Plato's debate on whether ideas could correspond with reality or not, and if they did, would true ideas be the ones that people are born with, or the ones that people would acquire through sensations.

If numbers are real, then measurements and calculations represent the world as it is, yet if they are not, then they are mere estimations, approximations, or ideas that are hooked onto phenomena for the sake of humans' comprehension.

you might wanna steer clear of that because Wittgenstein disagreed with it and Russell portrays what he's saying in a way that suits his own philosophy

Also like this guy mentions, it would be more interesting if you had already read some Frege and Russell and understood what Wittgenstein is responding to

Funny how no university which teaches philosophy recommends starting with the Greeks and working linearly up to the modern day. It's just a Yea Forums meme.

Math is a precise, mechanical enterprise, philosophy is an imprecise, intellectual/spiritual exercise. We read to learn from our ancesters. The reason people read very old literature is because it is the earliest intellectual common ground we have. The Greek scholars are an ethical/logical rosetta stone for the western world. It is useful to be able to trace the thoughts behind the currents of history.

It is a meme but it contains some element of truth, it's probably best to start from some reasonable point of origin of a certain line of thought

if you wanna read modern philosophy you start with Descartes

if you wanna read analytic philosophy you start with Frege

if you wanna read continental philosophy you start with probably Kant

although contemporary philosophy, at least in the English speaking world, is fairly accessible by subject matter

you wanna read philosophy of language, you pick up a philosophy of language anthology etc.

>Any serious math education starts with set theory
Yes, but the basic math education starts with basic stuff like trigonometry.

academia is full of incompetent bastards who want to turn you into a revolutionary agent

Literally none, just funny to see how retarded they were compared to someone like Land.

You can pretty much skip everyone and start with Nietzsche, that's what I did.

As a rule of thumb, you can read analytical philosophy without knowing about the history of philosophy. Continental not so much.

>believe academic philosophers
Name one academic philosopher whose theory is based on Evola or Guenon. You cannot name that, isn't it? That's why they are pseuds