My uni doesn't offer any actual philosophy courses, what should I read to educate myself?
start with the greeks
Seems like a question for /lit/.
Since we're at it, and given your pic, do historians take historical materialism seriously?
>>524922
good times
>>524936
>do historians take historical materialism seriously
Yes. Banaji "History as Theory" for example.
>>524936
>do historians take historical materialism seriously?
It was a big step in historical theories, so yeah. Do they still practice it? Some do, it has mutated quite a bit with time but its still there.
Read "The story of Philosophy" by Bryan Magee. Should be a good starting point.
>>524921
Don't trust anyone claiming you should start by reading original sources. Grab a good intro level university book on philosophy instead.
>>527678
I think you mean will Durant? Or otherwise this Bryan fella completely ripped off his title.
>>524921
>My uni doesn't offer any actual philosophy courses
Wow, that is really fucking bad.
>>524921
Go to a real university.
>>524936
>Since we're at it, and given your pic, do historians take historical materialism seriously?
Yes. It's been refined, but it's basically so universal now that it's virtually invisible. So many of it's innovations are just taken as 'obvious' now that it's hard to realize how prevalent it is.
>>524922
This is actually good advice, depending on how crazy deep you want to go. If you want a thorough philosophical education, by all means: start with the greeks. Some would argue that you should start with the Egyptians, but those writings are more mythological/religious than philosophical.
If you want just the modern stuff, pick a century, and begin from there, looking up philosophical writers from that century. Read that shit and move on. Granted, a lot of that shit will be hard to digest (ie, i wouldn't recommend that you start with Kant or Hegel or whatever).
Or, whatever floats your boat.
Stirner is all you need
>>527686
>Read textbooks, not primary sources
I strongly disagree. Textbooks make philosophical disputes seem like a meaningless series of disagreements: "Plato said this, then Aristotle said this, then Augustine said this, but then Machiavelli said this, and then Hegel said this..."
Reading original sources preserves the vitality of the argument and helps you understand that philosophy isn't just a set of beliefs. Excerpts in textbooks make all philosophy look pretty stupid.
Also, textbooks usually have shit translations (e.g., I was looking at a textbook of human rights thought from antiquity to the present, and all it had for Plato was two pages each from Books I and II of the Republic, all in Jowett's translation. Why even include him at all, then?)
>>527689
It's a different book. I read it because I saw it on /lit/ newfag guide to Philosophy.
Pic related.
>>528392
>Are you one of those spergs who thinks that analytical philosophy isn't "real" philosophy?
There's nothing wrong with rejecting analytic "philosophy". It's empty, useless, and provides nothing to the philosophical discussion.
> Oh look at me I'm pretending to be scientific! Fuck me with an empirical rake while you're at it!
