Learning Philosophy

This. Copleston has amazing clarity and can word things concisely without being reductionist.

What does Copleston count as Russian philosophers? Dostoevsky? The Russian Schellingeans? Marxist-Leninists?
Even if one wanted to begin with "the Greeks" for the sake of studying philosophy, where would one begin? The Iliad? The Pre-Socratic fragments? Plato's early dialogues?
Would one have to read all of the Greeks all the way from Thales to Proclus or only Plato and Aristotle for the sake of understanding Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or Heidegger's Being and Time?
Instead of dogmatically accepting the "Greeks to present times" historical narrative at face value, or out of respect for "tradition", why don't we attempt to philosophically speculate on what it means to study philosophy. Is it merely reading the works of long deceased thinkers discussing topics like ideas, moral duty, the existence of beings vs processes, and the reliability of sense-perception, or is it to attempt to unsettle one's mind from its convictions and let it wander in search for truth? Through studying philosophy, does one attempt to reach for intersubjective or objective truth? If it is objective, then any person ought to be able to know it, regardless of their access to a certain piece of information put into one book. If there is no truth except for intersubjectivity, then even the value of philosophers' works themselves are practically rendered down to who can convince the most people.
Finally, does one need to use the same terminology as popular philosophers did in order to discuss philosophical topics, or may one adopt any possible style of speaking?

look at that baby nose! imagine him without the beard lol

>pessoa, 1888
Yikes

thanks anons! I had a bothersome list that would take a lifetime to finish. Your insight were really some mind-openers.

Honestly this sounds a lot like Nietzsche's arguments against Platon's pious search for truth and this being a relay race. I thinks terminology and knowledge of literary works is much needed for relevancy. You making this statement and asking these questions all have some relation with your knowledge in philosophy studies of old, you being a contestant in this relay race.

I never take people seriously when they recommend THE ENTIRE FUCKING SUMMA! Like, it's like telling a none English speaker to memorize the dictionary in order to learn English.

Tell him to swallow semen.

If you move your eyes around pages and skim through it quickly enough, you can pretend to read it all in less than 2 hours.

>I thinks
Maybe you should learn about English grammar before trying beat the final boss of writing, which is philosophy.

me thinks you are a dumbo user
yes, my native language is not english but that was a mere typo. I believe i am skilled enough to understand what i read. But hey! I hope you had your fun.

Terminology definitely matters because if you can't define terms you can't debate. And to say that the aim of philosophy is objective truth is to bolster the claim that it is necessary to read the Greeks to moderns. If you start with all the presuppositions of the moderns and dabble here and there you will not have a holistic understanding of the different strains of philosophy throughout the years. If you do not understand Paradigm X that birthed Paradigm Y you will not truly understand Paradigm Y, but only through the erratic paradigmatic lense that you have cultivated by gaining understanding outside of its proper context.

>Pessoa 1888 - The Book Of Disquiet
>Wittgenstein 1889 - Philosophical Investigations
>Heidegger 1889 - Being And Time
What happened here

I think you have forgotten to cut down the line between the history of philosophy and philosophy itself. If you were to try to talk about philosophy to somebody who happened to be interested in one topic that has been covered in philosophical works (like how the human mind works or how signs are arbitrarily defined), would you immediately refer to them to one work which happens to cover this topic, or would you try to jump straight into discussion by trying to explain your position on the matter, and seeing what the person in front of you might have to say about it?
I believe that you must realize that the discussion of philosophical topics can pop up in all sorts of different scenes, places, contexts (it could be in a party just as much as it could be in a classroom or even a courtroom), and not in every place may one attempt to simply cite the works of a famous philosopher and appeal to their historical significance, nor may one assume that others will understand the kind of vocabulary used in academic discussions of philosophy.
If you don't plan on discussing philosophy in public, that's fine by me, but I feel like it's a bit of a waste to not discuss something that one may happen to have a somewhat uncommon point of view on.

Read Anthony Kenny.

Attached: 9780199589883.jpg (364x550, 37K)

Attached: 1566326057011.jpg (540x562, 78K)