Do I really need to read philosophy before starting with the classics and more popular books such as Infinite Jest and Pynchon? It was once suggested to me that I should read philosophy to get the most out of these books, the problem is I can't just read philosophy. If I want to actually learn philosophy I have to take notes at my desk and desu it's not the most enjoyable thing ever. If it is absolutely necessary to read philosophy before tackling works like Gravity's Rainbow, The Trial etc then I will do it but if I don't, will I still get a lot out of these books? Philosophy will still be something I learn but I'd pick up general books aswell on the side so I'm reading something more enjoyable aswell. Thoughts?
Why do you want to read Pynchon and Kafka?
>Do I really need to read philosophy before starting with the classics and more popular books such as Infinite Jest and Pynchon? It was once suggested to me that I should read philosophy to get the most out of these books
What kind of retard told you that?
>>7366202
I did. Want to fight about it.
Most of the foundations of philosophy start with the classics. Not all of the classics are philosophy, because they also form the foundations of literary genres like comedy, tragedy, science-fiction, and non fiction genres like history.
You don't need to read them before any of the books you mentioned, though they are a good start to understanding Western canon in general. (The same holds true for reading non Western classics to better understand non Western canon)
You seem gullible enough that you should get off /lit/ before you read every meme book recommended to you for retarded reasons.
>>7366209
s/./?/
No don't be so silly
>>7366185
Read them concurrently, switch around, don't think you can benefit by limiting yourself to one kind of literature.
>>7366185
Reading the classics is a prerequisite for thought. Do you want to just read books mindlessly without doing any thinking whatsoever? Then go ahead, 'jump right in', as they say. Otherwise, read the goddam classics.
>>7366210
>You seem gullible enough that you should get off /lit/ before you read every meme book recommended to you for retarded reasons.
This.
>>7366202
/lit/ did
>>7366210
So what's the verdict then? Should I read as much philosophy as I can before tackling Western canon then or can I read Western canon and then read philosophy after?
>>7366228
So I won't be missing anything from the classics and other books etc if I don;t go in with a foundation in philosophy? The main concern for me is that I'll read these books like Infinite Jest and The Trial and not get as much out of them as I would if I had read philosophy prior to reading them. I do plan to read philosophy after though mind you just at a slower pace.
>>7366702
>So what's the verdict then? Should I read as much philosophy as I can before tackling Western canon then or can I read Western canon and then read philosophy after?
Western philosophy is part of the canon, your question does not make sense. I vote you leave and come back when you read something you want to share.
>>7366711
Tbh I want to read the meme books like Infinite Jest and Kafka to seem somewhat intellectual to my friends. I know I'm reading for all the wrong reasons but my question is... will I be missing out on anything from these books without a foundation in philosophy? Can I feign being a pretentious cunt to my friends and explain to them the hidden meanings etc?
>>7366716
Actually I'm telling a lie here. I want to read all sorts of books, Horror, Fantasy, Sci-fi, will I be limiting myself without knowing philosophy before reading these? I've heard a lot of sci-fi is philosophy based.
>>7366733
Nah I just want to read them and understand them desu. It's not about impressing other people, it's about me fully understanding them but if these advanced books need a foundation in philosophy then I'll have to read philosophy I guess.
>>7366185
You are not as subtle as you think you are /phil/ poster.
Get your ass to your containment board
>>>/his/phil
my opinion on philosophy and literature in general is this ITS EXTREMELY GAY. only flaming homosexual gays read books.
>>7366782
You already showed your colors, retard. Now fuck off and go brag to your friends.
>Do I really need to read philosophy before starting with the classics and more popular books such as Infinite Jest and Pynchon?
no. i tried to read the western canon in chronological order. it's a retarded idea. don't do it.
>>7367133
>ITS EXTREMELY GAY
best thing about it really, fiction and philosophy
>>7366185
You'll get more out of everything if you know more. Philosophy is an alright starting point for that.
what an interesting question
i would also like to know the answer to this
You don't have to take notes or re-read anything just to get the basic concept. Books usually don't deal with things like arguments in philosophy, in-depth analysis of ideas and such. They usually deal with certain ideas that are somewhat influenced by philosophers. Reading second-literature about philosophers, or even reading a big summary about the history of philosophy should be enough. You don't need to comprehend Being and Time to read Dostoevsky.
>>7368539
thanks for this
>>7366702
>So I won't be missing anything from the classics and other books etc if I don;t go in with a foundation in philosophy?
I was trying to troll you but I fucked up my phrasing. Ignore that post.
