Posted this in QTTDDTOT but figured it was more appropriate as a thread.
I'm almost done with this. For context, next up is Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee before going to The Presocratics and Sophists.
I want to go through it again and take notes of each story to remember them well enough that I can reference them from memory. However, I find myself a bit overwhelmed by all the links between the stories and the characters. How should I structure these notes? Should I make a list of all the people referenced in it? Or perhaps should I only list the stories (Trojan war, creation myths, golden fleece, love myths, etc)?
Any pointers would be appreciated, thank you.
>>7694267
Seconding.
>>7694267
If you want more intimate familiarity with the myths, read them again from a new source; Hamilton is really only a primer to sow those first seeds of recognition, which won't help too much with rereading the same text.
Consider Graves' mythology, Apollodorus' library of mythology (available from Oxford), and possibly skim some of the relevant (early) books of Diodorus Siculus for alternate tellings of the myths based on culture and geographical region, e.g., Greek connections with earlier Egyptian myth, Roman Latinized adaptations, etc.
But you really don't need to be that familiar with the myths for early philosophy. PS read Homer before the pre Socratics, especially since you want to understand references. You may also wish to read Apollonius' "Argonautica" about the golden fleece, although it was written long after the pre socratics.
And please blame any of my typos on my phone.
>>7694405
Oh and read Hesiod for creation myths. But don't even try keeping track of what's what and who's who; let the unnecessary content fall away from your mind as it ceases to be relevant by lack of reference in later texts. For example, there are about a thousand fucking nymphs mentioned; pretty much the only important one is the mother of Achilles, and even she remains relatively minor.
Why do you want to remember all the myths? I'd argue that you don't need them for the Presocratics, and you only really need Homer for Plato, read the tragedians if you want to read Aristotle though
>>7694419
Seconding this.
>>7694367
If it's of any help to you, SparkNotes has a guide for this book.
Link: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/mythology/
>>7694405
>>7694411
Thank you, I will look into these texts.
>>7694419
I am eager to begin actual philosophical texts so I thought if I can get a good solid grasp on Hamilton's text, I could put Homer aside for now and go straight to a general intro to philosophy followed by the Presocratics and only follow a chronological approach. I am using the "/lit/ Philosophy Projet" which I saw mentioned here and which seems complete. Indeed, the guide suggests Homer but also says that he is not absolutely necessary to understand the subsequent texts. Not to say I won't read Homer, I will, but it will take me quite some time so if I can put it aside and pick it up again before Plato I would like that.
Here's the guide I'm referencing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
Pic related, it's the excerpt concerning the very first books one should read.
>>7694553
Rule 1 of life. Take everything everyone says with a grain of salt.
Also, read the Basic Works of Aristotle instead of the complete.
>>7694562
What are you referring to exactly? The density of the guide I linked perhaps?
Either way, I don't intend to follow it religiously; for proof, one book in and I'm already trying to circumvent some of the suggested reading. As for complete vs. basic reading, I intend to read the basic works and slowly progress to the complete works. Once I start actual philosophy, I won't be in a rush.
Honestly, if you're reading this kind of as an intro to the rest of the greeks, I think that a single read through is all that's necessary. Reading this should serve the purpose of getting all the names and connections into your head, so that even if you can't exactly recite them from memory, you still do actually remember them.
So when they're referenced, you should now have a more than passing knowledge of them, that's all. If you ever genuinely feel like you have to intimately recall something, you can always just pick the book up and read that section again.
If you really WANT to make those notes more power to you, but don't feel like you need to in order to read the rest of the Greeks
>>7694647
Thank you for your words. Often times, books are recommended without any detail as to what exactly should be sought upon reading. I should probably research more before picking my reading. For now, I'll proceed to read the Presocratics and eventually pick up the extra material other anons have recommended.
>>7694835
I wholeheartedly suggest pic related for the Presocratics, if not for reading it back to back, at least for reference on the most important figures.
>>7695007
Thank you, I will look into it.
>>7694267
Starting with the Greeks is a mixture of meme and good advice.
Mythology is far over doing it and goes beyond the realm of what i consider philosophy (note I'm more into theoretical / analytic philosophy).
if you're only interested in philosophical ideas and solutions, you don't need any Greeks except Platotle, then you can skip right to Desecartes and dabble onto the big names from then onward (hume, leibintz, Kant, etc).
the guide you linked to goes too hard I feel.
>>7695109
Anything else I have found isn't thorough enough to my liking. In any case, I don't mean to go through the entire thing. Up until Descartes, this is what I have planned (pic related).
Bump cause interested.
I once went through Hamilton's book, and didn't like it too much. Graves reads like a robot. There should be a list of the most important/alluded to Greek myths desu.
