Skips the greeks

you can get a 0$ digital copy of any book

You're right except that Socrates was (if Plato is to be trusted) a retard who thought his elenchus could actually objectively irrefutably prove facts. So if a Socratic discussion actually resulted in a strong conclusion everyone had to accept it as fact.

Socrates BTFOd all philosophers preemptively and it's been a massive COPE ever since.
Absolutely B-A-S-E-D.

I get a stomach ache whenever I read posts like this

It is the one undisputable idea in the world, that no one knows anything for sure.

Take a sip you boomer fuck.

Tai Lopez is a bullshit artist and you've fucked up taking his advice. Sorry bro. Brorry.

"Start with the greeks" entails
>Homer's Iliad and Odyssey
>Aristophanes, Sophocles and Euripides and their plays
>Plato's dialogues
They are all entertaining and thought provoking works of fiction. Aristotle is for fags though yes

>doesn't read books that improve his skills for productive tasks that bring real world benefits

This is Yea Forums. People who seek self improvement and practical knowledge steer clear of this soulless blackhole

The point of productive tasks is to make time for things you enjoy, such as reading philosophy. Your whole post reeks of insecurity and failure.

Is it weird if I actually enjoy the Greeks ( and the Romans as well to a degree ) more than I do most post-enlightenment writers?

I started with the existentialists in highschool, Camus, Sartre, dipped my toes in Nietzsche, backpeddalled to Plato, studied the Greeks more broadly in University, started reading Baudrillard/Debord/Barthes on my own time, studied Schopenhauer and a little Hegel, finally got to Nietzsche who impacted me more than any other philosopher and have since been reading back through philosophers which I now see in a different light as well as reading the so called "New Nietzscheans" like Foucault and Deleuze.

Same here.

And generally I don't know why would anyone read philosophy without reading the Greeks, or reading them as just interfaces to understand later stuff. They are the most interesting.

>Is it weird that i enjoy works of art whose quality have endured three milenia

>reading chronologically rather than rhizomatically

That's gonna be a yikes from me, dawg.

You haven't really got the point, have you?

>he didnt start with the cave paintings

I skipped to bad hair day man. Fixing that with the greeks.

I am pretty sure every significant philosopher since the renaissance began with the greeks

We most certainly do know things for sure. Absolute truths exist.

Name one.

Not that guy but humans do need food to survive

>starts with Deleuze

Attached: 1544405272470.jpg (922x920, 80K)

>Imagine thinking that reading philosophy it's waste of time

Go read Plato and Aristotle, read'em entirely,with attention and if possible commentated by some researcher, then try to find your own truth in these writing. You will see it become 10 times more worth than "How to make money xdd pls buy my book i don't want to work"

how do you know that humans havent just died by coincidence every time when they didnt eat food? can you be sure it is the food keeping us alive?

What if we arent prone to die so easily but the government puts poison in the air to make us crave food as a means to control animals? Or that a God did it?

Why would I read on how to do a productive task? It's faster to just watch a video and just do it. Reading is literally the worst way to acquire practical skills.

This is basic biology, fuck right off.

>fuck off
LOL triggered cause you know you cant prove it bitch

If there are no absolute truths then it's an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist.

I hate reading Greeks source material because they talk like fags and their shit's retarded

And this, my friends, is a cretin who hates reading. How sad

>>fuck off
>LOL triggered cause you know you cant prove it bitch

Attached: 1562817104221.jpg (645x588, 33K)

The thing is, we cant even be sure if thats true. Its a paradox

If we don't know whether an absolute truth can exist, isn't it an absolute truth that we don't know that absolute truths exist?

Meme face response, you have nothing to come back with and you just lost the argument. Brainlet.

Are you still trying to cope with the fact that you failed high school biology?

Attached: 1562820130800.png (782x758, 127K)

We dont know that we dont know. If we begin to be skeptical about something we'ce always taken for granted and we apply the "you cant know anything for sure", you still cant rely on that because the thing you are skeptical about could be true

>We dont know that we dont know
Ummmm sweetie if we know that don't know that we don't know that's am absolute truth.

Strawman, meme face, double whammy non-response trying to save face for losing so hard. Get fucked. I got good grades in biology

Is it an absolute truth that you got good grades in biology?

But how do we know that we dont know? If we are skeptical about the absolute truth, it all ends in an autistic paradox. Also why condescend with "sweetie" even

My grade paper says so, and the mark is all employers/universities care about.

>how do you know that humans havent just died by coincidence every time when they didnt eat food? can you be sure it is the food keeping us alive?
so this is how you reason yourself into holocaust denial huh

Neey-chuh

Skip those losers. Read Heraclitus and Aristotle.

No, its just an example of how you can doubt everything, doesnt mean he actually does.

>But how do we know that we dont know?
You just said that we don't know. And again, if we know that we neither know or don't know doesn't that make it an absolute truth?

Yeah. Its weird, it creates like a double argument. We dont know is counterargued by we dont know. Allright fair enough, solved, philosophy brought to its natural conclusion, you have a good one

I did this but only because I don't understand what the greeks are talking about at all and its written weirdly. I was watching a Cambridge (I think) professor talking about neetzsche and he mentioned that Plato and all the old philosophers would dictate their writings to slaves and that the original papers had no will of the self written in and that it was later added in as people made translations of those papyrus pages ?