I was interested in philosophy but never took a course in university. I read some abridged version of the Trojan War when i was in grade six and it was a favorite book of mine growing up and i picked some other book detailing Greek mythology.
I need an intro to philosophy. Im not talking just about the western school of thought, although i've started with the greeks. Im reading the illiad and will follow it up with the odyssey. What are other books that i should pick up? Im interested in eastern and indian phil too. I read Siddhartha a few years ago and I didnt really gain any insight from it other than thinking that it was kinda narcissistic. I might have to read it again
siddhartha is dumb, don't waste your time rereading. just a simple book for young people.
for what it's worth, if you found siddhartha narcissistic, you may end up finding most of eastern philosophy gives you the same feeling. It's very self-centered. While the west was focusing on the ideas that lead to democracy and other such things, the equality of all, the east was focusing on the role of personal development.
I don't have time to advise you on specific books. Good luck.
>>7600865
Read these books, in this order:
Ancient Philosophy
Plato: Republic
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Politics
Medieval Philosophy
Boethius: Consolation of Philosophy
Aquinas: his commentaries on the Plato and Aristotle books above desu senpai (optional for now)
Early Modern Philosophy:
Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy
Hume: Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Spinoza: Ethics (optional for now)
Kant: stick to secondary sources for now (he's really hard to read, so it's good to ease yourself in, especially if you're doing it without a teacher), but do have the original text right beside you - specifically, Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics and Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of Morals
You're now in a much better position with regards to being in a position to understand philosophy. If you read all those, you'll get a pretty good idea of what you might like too.
Yeah, I've left a lot off that list, but this is just to give you the faintest idea. Stay on /his/ and /lit/ and you'll come to know where to go next in terms of what books to read afterwards.
>>7600873
i am all for personal development but i didnt like siddhartha because of his woe is me for enjoying all earthly pleasures and giving it all away. I mean the guy was born with a sliver spoon, got an education, partied hard, has mid life crisis and lives by himself. I just find that this is the same "based on a true" sob story that nets in millions of dollar through books and movies
>>7600893
Thanks. Is there a list for the eastern/indian schools of thought?
Is there no /lit/ guide to philosophy?
I tried Googling, but there doesn't seem to be anything besides the wiki.
>>7600900
I'm sure a list can be made, but I don't think I could make you a good one.
>>7600901
i found this but any other "guides" would be helpful too.
"Philosophize this" is a pretty interesting podcast that i found.
none of those books are concerned with the standard themes of (classical) philosophy that plato and his predecessors founded.
anything outside the union of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics, and ethics, is not classical philosophy. at the dawn of 20th century, thanks to Frege, the logical positivists, and others, many new disciplines of philosophy were born. these new disciplines can usually be recognized and distinguished by the shared prefix of their names: 'philosophy of'. there's philosophy of science (which itself branches into philosophy of physics, biology, economics, sociology, etc.), philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic, and so on.
my advice would be to start with logic, since logic, in contrast to the other branches of philosophy, intersects and runs through most, if not all, of the other branches of philosophy. think of logic as a tool--a neutral (strictly speaking it isn't really neutral, but as a novice you need not to worry about this) tool--which will aid you in studying the rest of philosophy.
as for recommendations, pick a standard, easy-going (doesn't emphasize mathematics) textbook and work through it in conjunction with, say, 'A New History of Western Philosophy' by A. Kenny.
>>7600927
>not starting with Aristotle's Organon
>>7600893
He'll never understand Spinoza with only the 6 books as an experiential precursor
>>7600900
Read the bhagavad-gita. It is very enlightening and one of the best books (in terms of philosophy) I've ever read.
>>7600945
Of course not. That's why I said that Spinoza's optional for now. But he can, and should, try to tackle books that are too hard from him, right from the very beginning. It'll be good for him.
>>7600901
there's a google doc, not sure if anyone uses it anymore
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
>>7600961
what makes it so great? which translation should i read?
>>7600968
I know I'll sound like a pleb, but is there anything more... concise? I mean, holy shit, it's asking me to reas the complete works of Plato and Aristotle right off the bat. I know it says it will take years, but... cmon. I can go back and read that stuff later. I just want the core works on my reading list.
bump. there should be a lit guide to philosophy. it consists of 11 different sections actual. I'd suggest starting a general lit guides thread if you see this OP.
>>7600893
>no Bishop Berkeley
Wow, it's almost like you don't want to know the truth.
>>7600893
Awful start in the list. The Republic is an shite start for Plato, there's not much point in reading Scholastic commentaries on works you haven't even read.
Swap the Republic for the Trial and Death Dialogues, and either chuck in Aristotle's (meta)physics and logical works or scrap the commentaries.
>>7601023
You don't need to read all of Plato, for a basic experience with Plato, read: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Alcibiades I, Symposium, The Republic, Timaeus.
>>7601537
When Bishop Berkeley said "there was no matter,"
And proved it—'twas no matter what he said:
They say his system 'tis in vain to batter,
Too subtle for the airiest human head;
And yet who can believe it! I would shatter
Gladly all matters down to stone or lead,
Or adamant, to find the World a spirit,
And wear my head, denying that I wear it.
What a sublime discovery 'twas to make the
Universe universal egotism,
That all's ideal—all ourselves: I'll stake the
World (be it what you will) that that's no schism.
Oh Doubt!—if thou be'st Doubt, for which some take thee,
But which I doubt extremely—thou sole prism
Of the Truth's rays, spoil not my draught of spirit!
Heaven's brandy, though our brain can hardly bear it.
>>7601592
Republic is a fine introduction to Plato. Your reading of any Plato dialogue will of course be enhanced by familiarity with countless others, but a sensitive reader will be able to take a lot away from the Republic without prior reading.
>>7601615
study Plato and Aristotle for at least 10 yrs
learn Greek
Read the Scholastics because they were the most professional and developed philosophersever. Scholastic means "school-men", they were the people that studied philosophy professionally. So-called modern philosophers (Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche) were all literally amateurs in philosophy (they never went to school). If you get a good grasp on the Scholastics everything else looks simplistic.
Modern philosophy is just an offshoot of the scholastic William of Occam.
>>7601635
>>7600927
>Reading Frege without knowing Plato first.
Pleb
>>7602164
Your reading comprehension needs some work. Nowhere did he advocate reading Frege before Plato.
>>7601665
The most professional you say? You mean they were paid more than contemporary philosophers? The most developed philosophers? You mean they were theoretically more sophisticated (= superior formal methods and tools) than contemporary philosophers? Both are clearly false.
>So-called modern philosophers (Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche) were all literally amateurs in philosophy (they never went to school).
Not going to school in and of itself doesn't entail that non-school goers produce shittier philosophy than their school-going counterparts. In fact, the opposite is true, since the very philosophers you named are far more influential, taken individually or as a group, compared to any medieval philosopher.
> If you get a good grasp on the Scholastics everything else looks simplistic.
Yeah, like, you'll be able to grasp Quantified Modal Logic in no time and proving theorems left and right, like it's nothing, right?
>Modern philosophy is just an offshoot of the scholastic William of Occam.
No, not really. Occam is rarely discussed by modern philosophers.
