Hey guise, I´m going read the greeks, going for the oxford plato and aristotle complete works, pic related is the plato book.
I was wondering since I am rather new if you think I should read any other books first, perhaps the first philosophers: pre socratic book or something else.
Also if you have any thoughts on the versions of the book or translators they are welcomed.
If you're planning on going through Plato then I'd definitely advise you to read the Pre-Socratics. He uses and refers to their ideas quite a bit.
If you're new to philosophy in general then I'd recommend The Story of Philosophy - Bryan Maggee.
Read the Iliad and Odyssey as well, they're not philosophical treatises, but they're referenced often. Try Fitzgerald or Lattimore.
I'm doing the same thing, following the /lit/ flowchart: >>7451366
From what I've gathered you really should start at the top, with some basic mythology and then the Iliad and Odyssey, followed by The First Philosophers - it helps out a tonne in understanding Platon and Aristotle.
>>7451429
Read the Tragedies as well, especially for Aristotle's Poetics
>>7451451
Start with Odyssey and Iliad and some mythology (Mythology by Edith Hamilton is really easy reading but a good summary), in whichever order you prefer, then Herodotus or Hesiod if you feel like it but I don't think it's strictly necessary.
>>7451463
And after those 5 I go for story then first philo and then I go for the majors?
>>7451463
Also translations, I bet you´re tired of that question if you´re a regular here but is the fagles one good or would you recommend another one?
>>7451498
After euthypro I can go for the complete works right??
This is a huge deal lole
>>7451501
Euthyphro is part of Plato my man. It's a great dialogue to start with.
Also, if you want to research a philosopher, use the Stanford Encyclopedia over Wikipedia.
>>7451498
gonna agree with anon, just looked at fitzgerald's and it looks based
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/homer/fitzgeraldiliad.htm
>>7451498
Also I´m really a newbie here so perhaps you would explain for me Historians and playwrights and perhaps Maggee and Hesiod, are those names of books? Because they look like parts of names that I then wouldn´t find when googling.
Thanks for the help though!
>>7451519
Ah, I did aswell Fitzgerald seems to make it a better reading experience
>>7451522
Historians:
The Histories - Herodotus
The Pelloponesian War - Thucydides
Magee is the author of 'The Story of Philosophy' which goes through each of the main philosophers and explains their ideas.
Hesiod is the author of 'Theogony' and 'The Work and Days'
The Playwrights are Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes.
Read these books:
The Oresteia - Aeschylus
The Theban Plays - Sophocles
Medea - European
Clouds - Aristophanes
>>7451545
i found will durant with the same title as magee for kindle, does that work as well?
>>7451553
I haven't read him, I think it may be longer.
Magee is very good however.
>>7451398
Great edition of Plato. I don't think you necessarily "should" or need to read anything else to get into Plato-his dialogues are really compelling and surprisingly easy to get into, but if you want to read some of the works suggested for background good on you.
OP don't fall for the Greeks meme.
They're important, of course - but the idea that a beginner should start with the complete works of plato and aristotle is just absurd
and it guarantees you'll never actually stick with the whole idea of learning about Greek culture and philosophy.
Start with something like Plato's dialogues - you can get books like the republic in much more manageable editions
Don't kid yourself that you can buy Plato's complete works and actually get through it
>>7451545
Thanks man you really are helping me out, you probably have no idea how much, but after I finish all those and aristotle and plato (after like 5 years or so that is) where do you think I should head?
Just for curiousity´s sake
>>7451577
Well as one fellow here adviced me I wont be starting with those, they´ll come after but in terms of finishing I think I would, I love reading and really have a difficulty not finishing things when I have started them, just doesn´t feel right so I feel like I would, thanks for the input though, I really do appreciate all opinions!
>>7451398
>reading the Greeks in translation
>>7451568
Well I was gonna read a lot of it anyways like homer for instance and desu I would love getting to know philosophy better so I really don´t mind it.
Truth is I really like the idea of learning things be reading them on my own, like I feel like reading those things are more enlightening than getting a B.A or whatever bachelor you´d get from philo
>>7451593
There is no point in this comment I just wanted you know that I don´t like you.
>>7451593
here's your reply
>>7451516
Ohh cheers bruv
>>7451429
That's great bro, what is that oxford literature companion though?
And also good luck with those, hope we both enjoy them a lot!
>>7451429
asked for that Plato book for Christmas. You read any of it yet?
>tfw only on the Odyssey
>>7451578
You could probably be done with Plato and Aristotle in a year or two depending on how you find them. Depends on your interests really, maybe read some fellas like Cicero, Epictetus, Plotinus. Or jump to Descartes. Up to you really.
>>7451398
Depends on your purpose--are you trying to start with the Greeks generally, or do you want to read Plato and Aristotle specifically?
If the former, enough of the anons above have offered good advice on what to go after.
If the latter, I'll go out on a limb here and say that it's not especially helpful to read the bulk of Greek writings prior to and immediately contemporary with Plato and Aristotle in order to read them. While a lot of the advice above is well meaning, it also already presupposes that Plato and Aristotle are 1) wrong and 2) historically determined by their culture and their time. This latter assumption is especially unhelpful in approaching Plato and Aristotle, since their own writings seem to presuppose Truth to be something that will be True either for all people of whatever period and culture, or at least most people. Being especially involved in study of them myself, while it's certainly *nice* to know mythological and poetic references, without bothering to go look up those specific references and then interpret them in their original context and then interpret how that context should be understood in light of a passage in Plato making said reference, knowing *that* it is a reference is utterly useless and makes the period spent reading Homer, Hesiod, the playwrights, the historians, and the Pre-Socratics feel like a waste. This is not to say that they're irrelevant, but that they're *only* helpful and revealing if you're doing very deep study of Plato (and example of when it's helpful: the souls of different grades of metal in the Republic corresponds to Hesiod's account of the generations of men; there's a change that Plato makes between them that's very significant).
None of this is to say that you *shouldn't* read all of those incredible Greek works, but that if your goal is to deal with Plato and Aristotle, then you're just as good diving right in; that they both put o much emphasis on dialectical inquiry that begins at common opinions as we find them should be an indicator that they would rather we come to them as we already are, since they believe that they're on to something true for all peoples at all times.
(Whether *that's* true is a different matter; but the historicist assumption just gets in the way and adds unnecessary baggage is all I'm saying.)
>>7451670
Just something I found at a local used book store - it's pretty good, better than Googling IMO. Has entries for pretty much all the people you can think of, as well as most aspects of the mythology as well as history, battles, and places. Some entries are even quite long - the pages are incredibly thin to compensate.
>>7452324
Nah, I'm just on The Iliad myself heh, but getting there, I guess!
>>7453218
You reckon I could read all the books you mentioned as well as both the complete works in a year?
>>7453218
But truth is that like half of those books I was gonna read anyways but don't mind at all reading them before the works, a really good input into the discussion though thank you for that!!
>>7453720
I meant Plato and Aristotle in a year or two. It all comes down to how much time you have, your reading speed, and comprehension. Don't worry about the time it takes though.
>translators
>>7451398
Beginners don't go to primary sources because they won't know how to contextualise the significance even with footnotes. Stick to History of Philosophy and summaries and dive into the problem that stick out as most significant too you. You will need the energy to solve them.
>>7453769
Don't believe his lies.
>>7453760
Translations aren't such a big deal when you're reading philosophical works, you meme spouting fool. What's important are the ideas, not how they're presented.
The Iliad and Odyssey are a different matter, but if you're more interested in the stories and characters than the art, reading translations shouldn't be an issue. OP clearly is more interested in philosophy than poetry, and translations will serve his purpose if all he needs to know is an outline of the Ancient Greeks' religion and culture.
>>7453760
How long would it take an average person to learn greek to a level enough to be able to read homer without translation?
>>7453896
A long time with a lot of study. I'd read a translation first then learn Greek if it's something you want to devote time to.
>>7453777
This
>>7453745
Yes I reckon I will go for all the recommended route, reading all the playwrights and historians etc, I love reading desu but since I'm going to law school I don't think I'll be able to devote as much time to this project as I would have liked but I'll definately use it as reading before sleep material, try clock in like 20 pages every day if I can and we'll just see where that gets me
>>7452324
It's a great book imo. It's big as fuck, 1800 pages, but that's not strange considering the vastness of Plato's writing.
>>7453994
can't wait to put it on my coffee table so people can see how cultured I am :^)
>>7453994
How far in are ya? I'm starting Theaetetus soon. Taken me a few months of on/off reading (I've been reading other books on the side).
>>7451398
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pli=1#
>>7451577
Why not? I am currently reading Plato and doing just fine. Plato's early and middle works aren't that hard. Granted I am just at The Republic but so far it seems accesible to people who have had university level education.
Furthermore, to completely grasp (if even possible) Plato, you will have to read the task multiple times. All in all it can't hurt to just start with the Dialogues (Crito, Euthyphro, Apology and Phaedo).
I did start with Edith Hamilton's mythology and the book on pre-socratics however. Finally, I also completed one course at uni on the history of philosophy.
>>7453999
make sure to make a thread with "Just received this, thoughts?" and take a picture and make a Book Haul Thread GAIISS XD. and then when that thrill wears off make sure to never make a thread about the book but always post a picture of it on your bookshelf.
>>7453992
Fortunately, most of the early and middle dialogues are short (20-80 pages). As you said though, don't expect to have much time reading or having the ability to enjoy reading once you go to uni though. My bachelor was on History and I had very little interest nor the energy to read anything for fun other than 4chan.
>>7454000
Went with the following:
Euthyphro -> Apology -> Cirot -> Phaedo -> Meno -> Gorgias -> Symposium and now reading the Republic. I plan on reading atleast Parmenides, Protagoras, the Statesman, Theaetetus, Sophist, Ion, Timaeus and the Laws before delving into Aristotle....
>>7453999
Literally bought like 8 books that I won't be able to read anytime soon. Guess I look cultured atleast.
>>7454009
>bookshelf
what part of coffee table didn't you understand?
>>7453994
Yeah I figure I'm still getting a lot more knowledge in context to page number even though it's around 1800 pages
>>7451451
Are you actually going to read all of their works? Aristotle's books about plants and animals? Plato is more interesting overall, but I'd say read their most important works first and then figure out if you want to delve deeper. No point in reading 4 books so you can read 20 more just so you can "start with the greeks".
>>7454011
Yeah It does sadden me somewhat since getting M.law takes 5 years and then I'd have to do the L.L.M degree even MBA although there may be working periods in between so I won't really be able to get into this stuff until after like 10 years but I can get well on my way though
>>7454030
Learning about plants and animals might not be the worst idea desu
>>7451398
Spent the last year and a half reading this. Got 99 pages left, it's been a wild ride. Definitely recommend, there's a lot of helpful footnotes and intros
>>7454077
Are you a different person than before you read it?
>>7454077
How long are you spending per dialogue? Took me about a month to get through Phaedo.
>>7454080
Not him but reading some of the early Dialogues has certainly made me realise how complex the world is, and how much there is for one to learn. And I enjoy learning much more. And I'm more open to ideas, and I don't really hold any dogmas anymore.
>>7454080
Probably not. If anything, I suppose I'm more open to new ideas. I used to be a pure empiricist, but some of the things I've read has me looking at rationalist philosophy in a new light, and whereas before I thought I had ethics figured out, I have a greater appreciation for alternative viewpoints that aren't pure hedonism or moral nihilism
>>7454089
It varied wildly. Sometimes I took long breaks, other times I was reading something else between dialogues. I expect to be completely finished by the end of the month
>>7454091
Ah that's similar to me then. I've been doing a mix of solely reading Plato, taking a break and reading something else, or reading Plato and something else. Sometimes I can read him quite quickly, sometimes it takes a while.
What's your favourite so far? I've read up to Theaetetus; Euthyphro was a lovely start, and Phaedo was a bit challenging, yet rewarding.
>>7454120
Out of all of them I very much enjoyed the Sophist and the Republic. Timaeus is really enjoyable to read after you've read everything else because the language is complex but it all makes sense in the context of what comes before
One question though to you guys that know, I know I'm not required to go any specific route but if I was following this start with the greek methodology, how would I go about transitioning from aristotle to Virgil?
>>7454337
All you need for Virgil is a basic knowledge of the early Roman Empire/late Republic, and have read Homer.
>>7454343
What book would be good for getting to know the roman empire/republic both for the aeneid but also for just really knowing the history of the romans?
>>7454369
Ancient Rome - Simon Baker
>>7454408
And that one goes over like basicly everything from beginning to end?
>>7454427
Yep it's a narrative history, good as an introduction. It has a section focusing on Augustus, who is important for the Aeneid.
Most good editions of the Aeneid will have the context explained in the intro however.
>>7454441
Ahh that´s great, but for someone who would really like to know just the roman history as that and nothing more, you would still recommend this one?
>>7454689
As in you just want to know the basics of what happened? Then yeah it will teach you the main things.
>>7454694
Very good, thank you for your reply sir.
>>7454077
Props
>>7451398
Hey OP, doing the same over my upcoming winter break after my finals are over. Gonna be fun, been meaning to do this for awhile too. Good luck f a m. Post a thread when done and I'll update too.
>>7455725
Even though there is so much to read that it's nearly impossible to finish t b h.
>>7455731
It itsn't about finishing desu, too quote, it's not about the destination, it is the journey that matters.
Also if someone could inform me, by reading this will I have grasped the greeks overall history or just some parts of it and will have to fill in the blanks?
>>7456057
You have to read Aristotle's Complete Works after this.
>>7455725
Great to know mate, I do like knowing other people out there are doing the same. I don't think the update will be just yet though, perhaps we should make a deal, in three years time, very specifically we make another thread here with the same image, having read the greeks and discuss how we'll conquer the world?
>>7456060
Is that in referance to the history part?
Meaning that aristotles works do contain the whole history of ancient greece?
Perhaps the rise and fall of alexander the great aswell then?
>>7456106
Gee dude, if you want to understand the Greeks you don't have to read the entirety of Plato's works first thing and the go on to Aristotle.
Read the Republic and maybe a few other dialogues (Crito, Phaedo, Apology is usually a good starting point) but with Aristotle only a few works are essential (Ethics, Physics,Metaphysics the Organon if you want to get into logic). There's no real reason to concern yourself with the multitude of texts regarding the motion of animals or other observations as much as grasp that his emphasis on observation was big innovation in Natural philosophy, which can be gleaned and understood from the aforementioned works. If you read the entire works you're literally setting yourself up with years of reading material, best tread lightly first and then return to the more obscure works later on.
>>7451398
I have read most of pic related.
The other posters are recommending a great deal of pre-study, but the essential ones are the following:
Fragments of Heraclitus - This philosopher's work only survives in aphorisms, he poses the problem of how language, which is categorical, can track perfectly continuous phenomena in the physical world.
Path of Truth, by Parmenides - This philosopher either came before or after Heraclitus, I can't remember at the moment, he suggests that the fabric of reality is unchanging and that attempting to use identity conditions to track phenomena leads to contradictions and proves that change is illusory.
Plato tries to reconcile both theories in his work.
Then there is Anaxagoras, he suggests that consciousness is what moved the world to take its present shape, and the Phaedo and Timaeus are dialogues that reference his work
Xenophanes was the world's first theologian, Empedocles was a cult leader, Pythagoras was a cult leader in command of number theorists, Zeno of Elea posed a negative arguments as complements to Parmenides's positive arguments against change.
The thing about Pre-Socratics is that so little of their work survives that you're going to be reading an anthology/digest of their work whether you want to or not, and all of the quotes are either noted by Aristotle verbatim or they are paraphrases.
Parmenides is only possible exception to this because the first 70-something lines of his poem are the philosophically significant ones, as opposed to the cosmology, which is fragmentary, although enough of Heraclitus, Democritus, and Anaxagoras survive that you could find dedicated studies for each of them.
Not necessary unless you are actually interested.
Thucydides is more important than Herodotus to understand the immediate context since Socrates and Plato lived during the end of the Peloponnesian war and its aftermath.
As to the people that Socrates conversed with, some of them were Sophists, which were travelling professors of communications and other vocational subjects.
They were popular because young men of high social standing needed to be coached on how to be effective public speakers for various forms of government.
The work of the Sophists is also fragmentary, unfortunately.
You can find a whole speech by Gorgias, however, in which he defends Helen of Troy.
What else...
The Odyssey is more important than the Illiad, because Plato frequently rails against
Also, another thing, Plato deliberately aims to extirpate his own voice from his work as much as possible.
Socrates is the leading character in all but something like two dialogues, and the ones towards the front of your pic related are believed to be closer to portraits of the man, as opposed to enhanced reconstructions of arguments by Plato.
Sometimes the flow of the dialogue is wooden.
It's believed that many people told Socrates to shove off, so Plato, in his portrayals of these people, forces them to agree...
>>7451398
Really, go chronologically. Start with Homer and then work your way up through the great playwrights and poets. Plato's discourses on his current culture will make alot more sense. Also, Thucydides is important for understanding Greek history and Ovid is important for getting to know the most important Greek myths.
>>7456306
sometimes ad nauseum.
I forgot my pic.
*The Odyssey is more important than the Illiad, because Plato frequently rails against the obscenely petty portrayals of the gods.
Greek gods often have the personalities of spoiled royals, but as immortals, the thing is that they risk nothing, so if they never have to risk their lives, then by definition almost they have no need for virtuous character traits, like bravery.
As for Aristotle, he comes out and just says what he thinks about an issue, but it's hard to make sense of his language.
His assumptions about physical reality are just different from ours in a number of ways.
Infinite divisibility is acceptable, vacuums are not, causation is largely a post-facto answer to a wh-question, reality is directly perceived by the senses, time has an absolute reference but only when counted, etc.
His physics and metaphysics are interesting, but I have no idea how much sense it makes to anyone who is not a professional.
A dedicated study of issues you find interesting is appropriate, and the word interesting is going to be key since for Aristotle it will be high-powered academic writing.
He is taken very seriously by professionals and he reads like one, for better or worse.
No specific background is necessary, however.
His biological works are tiresome: dozens and dozens of mentions of semen and menstrual blood, yuck.
I had to quit before I reached his political and aesthetic works just because of lack of time, so they may be better, might not.
Gorgias's speech is not a waste of time, since that particular Sophist makes an appearance as a character in a dialogue with the same name.
my threads like dead so
Starting here with Greeks bc I got this book on sale. How fucked am I
>>7456363
It's a Roman-era biography of prominent Greek statesmen.
It's classic literature.
You can't go wrong with the classics.
If you care about political philosophy more than anything then it is actually relevant.
Please reference the substantive advice I gave you above.
>>7456386
i'm a drive by asshole, thanks tho
>>7456388
You're welcome.
>>7456363
>for cheap
>>7457368
Thanks.
My personal favorites are the atomists:
Leucippus (only one sentence survives)
Democritus (several hundred sentences worth of material)
Epicurus (four letters, a couple pamphlets, numerous inscriptions)
Lucretius (one book-length poem)
Epicureanism has a bad reputation since everyone incorrectly attributes to it positions which are much more accurate of something like Cyrenaicism.
Question for the lads, are presocratics important? i understand that sophists are fundamental to understand plato and aristotle but all the presocratics talk about is those origins of the universe such as the opposites, the first principles etc, those stuff does not concern me as much as things like ethics
>>7458405
I had a similair feeling when I read >>7456354
pic related. As far as I can remember most of the book is about cosmology and/or metaphysics but in a genesis like way. I think the most important thing you can get out of the presocratics in relation to Plato is how the Ancient Greeks thought about the world around them and how they applied that logic in their own works. In a sense, reading the pre-socratics helps when you start reading Plato because you have a firmer understanding about the way the Ancient Greeks thought the world works. Though I have to agree with you that I don't necesarrily understand why someone must read >>7456354 to understand Plato (as far as I have read, which I digress I haven't read the Timaeus nor the Thaetetus yet
>>7458433
so you recommend i keep reading all of it? currently at xeophanes
>>7458477
its a pretty short book. I wouldn't see why you wouldn't finish it. But don't expect much ethics to come along. Its mostly cosmology and metaphysics but an interesting read nonetheless. I have to say I was dissapointed at the Sophist section though.
>>7458500
the only reason being that i'm a bit tight on my free time and cosmology doesn't interest me to be honest, i might pick it up again when i have some free time so i'm trying to get the essentials for the time being
>>7458514
Then I'd just advice to skip it. Its mostly about the four elements / the primordial / how the Universe was brought into being etc. I was in a similair state of mind when I read it as you are in the sense that I don't care much for (pre)Aristotilian cosmology. It's just that it is so incredibly important in understanding history and Christianity that it is a must read imo. Nonetheless, go start reading Plato's Early Dialogues, they are alot of fun.
>>7458526
Okay, which one do you suggest to begin with? apology?
>>7458544
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pli=1#
In general the Early Dialogues:
Euthyphro -> Apology -> Crito -> Phaedo
>>7458565
the sticky recommends apology first because most other parts reference it, thanks anon
>>7458565
Phaedo isn't early btw
>>7458605
If you want to start with the Apology that is more than fine. You're welcome anon, have fun
What does /lit/ think about the changes in ancient Greek dialect throughout the ages?
I guess there's pretty big differences between Homer's Greek and that of Plato and Aristotle (who I guess was approaching Koine Greek).
>>7459205
Plato and aristotle wrote in Attic Greek, Homer had Homeric Greek. The dialects not only changed in time but varied in relation to geography, Attic Greek for Athens, Ionic Greek for Ionia and so on.
>>7458405
The Pre-Socratics (and Plato and Aristotle) discuss metaphysical ideas in light of what we might call ethical ones, and vice versa. Plato's most metaphysical dialogue, Parmenides, is also full of references to eros and tyranny, suggesting that even the most rarified inquiry has to still be in light of peculiar human phenomena.
>>7459205
Homer's Greek, I thought (someone correct me if I'm wrong), wasn't a real dialect per se, but a combination of different dialects put to use for poetic purposes.
>>7458405
Pre-Socratics are immensely important. you have to understand that Plato was responding to them and that his philosophy is grounded in the ideas that they espoused, particularly Parmenides and Heraclitus. His work took philosophy beyond the Ionian and Eleatic schools of thought.
>>7459205
if you know attic adapting to homeric shouldn't be much of an issue desu
>>7456062
Consider it done. Look for Tyrone three years from now...If I remember.
>>7456057
Yeah, I completely agree with what you said, I just wanted to focus on acknowledging OP and didn'tget that far ino my own opinions. Honestly, I can't wait. This journey will be one hell of a time.
>>7451398
Dont listen to lit fags telling you to read 15468 books before the book you want. Just buy it and read it.
>>7460670
I, the one you responded to actually am OP so there´s that.
The history question still remains unanswered though which is unfortunate since while I love the philosophy and all the ideas and such, history I feel is definately important aswell for from it we can learn things we not yet can grasp
>>7460740
I would agree with you if it were for instance TBK or one of those immense novels that lits think you need to read some of dostoyevskys other works to fully grasp it but this is about history, philosophy, ideology and just learning new things and points of view in general in which case reading other works before it just to learn the baseline and better understanding what you already want to learn is not so bad because it´s not that I want to read plato, it´s that I want to learn from him and others.
>>7460662
Very good. We´ll meet up here the 355th day of the year 2018. I was thinking of coming up with a cool black name as well but how about you just call me nigger instead?
>>7451398
>mfw i was taught that shit at school plus ancient greek
>mfw i was into math and thought that shit was useless
i regret all that to this very day
>>7451398
I recommend Bertrand Russell's History of Philosophy as an accompanying work. It goes through the main thoughts of a lot of important thinkers, but more importantly puts them in context, relating ideas to the political, social and spiritual circumstances in which they emerged. You absolutely want to read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and Hume to understand what came afterwards, and you can go into whatever draws your interest outside of that. There's also an audiobook version of Russell's History of Philosophy, which I love to listen to while working out.
>>7461790
Also, I don't think it's necessary to read The Oddyssey, Illiad or greek tragedies in order to understand greek philosophy sufficiently, but you should still read them on their own merits. I'd recommend getting the other great works of the ancient world as well, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Old Testament and the Eddas.
>>7461790
Eh, Russell's history is especially unhelpful for your first approach. Stick with primary texts as much as you can. That can be hard to do with the fragmentary writings of the Pre-Socratics and the Sophists, and in their case, it might be worth making some exception for, but Russell's take on the Greek philosophers is worthless and more likely to lead you astray. *Especially* for Plato.
>>7461809
>The Eddas
>Ancient World
>>7462129
>Any criticism of Russell you can provide? I've always found him quite helpful
Here's something I wrote on his history in a different thread a couple of weeks ago:
"His takes are best when he's dealing with thinkers who put a premium on logic (even then, he seems unable to imagine that there's more to philosophy then formal logic, or that the philosophers might use bad arguments intentionally sometimes; he *almost* gets it with Leibniz, who he largely understands), but with other philosophers he seems to miss the point almost entirely (people have already noted that his "take-down" of Nietzsche is embarrassingly bad; his chapter on Hegel is probably the worst though, since it should be inexcusable that a man like Russell who was a British Idealist for about a decade could've apparently never picked up *any* lick of Hegel. That chapter's not just infuriating as a supposed refutation of Hegel--it just doesn't even make sense as at all describing Hegel in the slightest.).
People seem to like his take on the Greeks; he's fine with them when, again, modal logic has become a thing, but he has trouble dealing with things like the dialectical components to Aristotle's thinking, and he's miserably unable to make *good* sense of Parmenides and Plato, having taken them to be writing straightforward treatises that he thinks are interested in the same subjects as his logical studies are (ignoring that Parmenides' poem is, well, a poem in Homeric meter, and that Plato's writings are all largely fictional dialogues emphasizing dialectical reasoning, and not formal logic.)."
His take on Plato in particular reflects not just badly on his own grasp (often it looks as if he's cribbing from other summaries of the works he's discussing), but bad tendencies in Anglo-scholarship of Plato at the time (tendencies that are largely still present, but which have been going out of fashion more and more within the last two decades). I just looked at my copy to spell out specific examples in the Plato chapter, and the problems I have with it are so numerous that I had to give up in disgust. He's so attached to his own logical atomism, and the notion that Plato's a primitive, that he can't see that Plato's doing something wholly other from his interests, and he can't make sense of that without accusing Plato of being a mere mystic instead.
(His take on Xenophon is also pretty lousy. He's depending far too much on other scholars and barely looking at the text itself.)
>>7460934
Oh! Excuse me then. I missed that in your post, don't know how, but I did.
Personally, I'm going to read short introductory book on western philosophy before I dive into the works of Plato. I mulled over it a bit and I'm going to read The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee. While annotated texts can be very benefitial given the right commentator or translator, I still feel that I need whatever little history can be provided to me before I start reading primary texts.
>>7462541
Not OP, but I remember this post, thanks for putting it up in that thread too. It really helped to inform my decision.
>>7462860
Magee is good, he explains philosophers quite well but don't take his interpretations as the dogmatic truth (same with any other philosopher or interpretation).
Read The First Philosophers: The Pre-Socratics and the Sophists after Magee. Re-read Parmenides, and Heraclitus at some point during your Plato reading. Also, don't rely too much on secondary sources, but also don't make them out of bounds.
>>7462886
Thanks for the advice fellow anon.
>>7462860
I suppose that came out harsher than it should have almost seeming as if I was being rude which I didn't mean to. On the subject though I'm pretty much going to follow what a guy told me very early in the thread about reading like the mythology, iliad, odyssey, historians, maggee, playwrights and perhaps goibg for the trojan war before the iliad, it's only like 200 pages so it's not that much of a detour, but I do have a significant interest in short stories so I figure I'll buy some collectiones like perhaps ficciones and such to read inbetween since I figure I will at some point need to break free from this whole mission and figure it'll be good so I wont go crazy
>>7461790
Listening to an audiobook of the history of philosophers while you work out is next level strange I feel I need to tell you
>>7462886
I feel his interpretations are his truth and that each of us have to find our own truth concerning philosophy because while their ideology might be in a definitive manner much of what philosophers preach is open to interpretation in the manner that none of them are wrong, since we all have sifferent experiences of the world and the philosophers often just get you in a certain direction, this being said without having read a single philosophical page
>>7464173
>I feel his interpretations are his truth and that each of us have to find our own truth concerning philosophy because while their ideology might be in a definitive manner much of what philosophers preach is open to interpretation in the manner that none of them are wrong, since we all have sifferent experiences of the world and the philosophers often just get you in a certain direction, this being said without having read a single philosophical page
I understand the kind of concerns that sort of stance is meant to address, but what do you do when the philosophers themselves insist that the truths they put out on display are in fact either *the* truth in part or in whole? Would it not be necessary to look into why the philosophers thought this was the case for so long before 19th century historicist elements came to dominate thought?
When you read Plato the less introductory, explanatory crap you read the better.
The point of reading the Dialogues is to take them at their most obvious level. You are supposed to get caught up in the dialogue as though you were taking part in it; your mind becomes so absorbed in the argument that you lose track of time & space; when the argument reaches the state of aporia (confusion) your mind reaches the same state; then you realise that you actually have a mind; you intuitively understand then that your mind is separate from matter and that it is probably immortal; the danger here is to avoid going too far and becoming an Idealist who thinks that matter itself is an illusion, after this though you will never be a materialist again. This is the "journey out of the cave" that you are supposed to go through when reading the Dialogues. desu if you don't believe that you have a separable & immortal soul after reading Plato then you haven't read him right.
>>7464956
the truth of my statement is that all the Platonists after Plato (the Neo-Platonists) were all based on this mystical-noetic interpretation of Plato
I don't know what the modern academy likes to say about Plato but I bet it misses the point because the modern academy doesn't know that humans have an immortal soul. From what I gather they just read Plato in Hegelian fashion as a stepping stone in Philosophical History. One term in an endless dialectic. Point is though that in Plato the dialectic is supposed to happen WITH THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL, I.E. YOU, not the Hegelian "World Spirit" or the dialogue of history. The Dialogues are addressed to YOU as an individual soul. Their historical context and influence is entirely irrelevant to their substance.
>>7464961
So if while reading Plato you are constantly thinking about history and how this idea lead to this idea in history and how this later influenced this, etc., you are engaging in HEGELIAN dialectic, not Platonic. Go read Hegel you disgusting modernist.
>>7464956
sample txts pls
>>7464965
I can't. It would be pointless for me to give you excerpts from the Dialogues because that is not how the Dialogues themselves function. They are a kind of ritual that you have to go through. It's not so much the conclusions that Plato draws in the Dialogues but the "negative space" in the Dialogues that is important. You are not meant to arrive at any conclusions so much as you are meant to achieve that state of Socratic Ignorance where you genuinely come face-to-face with how poorly conceived your ideas are and how ignorant you truly are. This isn't achieved necessarily by meditating on any single passage but on going through the dialectic method or ritual.
>>7464967
>where you genuinely come face-to-face with how poorly conceived your ideas are and how ignorant you truly are.
It just happens to be that when you achieve this state of mind you realise the immanence of your mind, how it is prior to and independent of matter. If you want to know more about this you can read the Neo-Platonists. Nicolas of Cusa had a name for it - "learned ignorance":
http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-I-12-2000.pdf
>>7464961
You mean the Neo-Platonists who came about some five or six centuries after Plato? That's not *that* great an authority when we still have writings of the Middle Platonists, or of even early Academy students like Aristotle and Theophrastus.
>>7464967
What do you make of the comments on writing in the Phaedrus?
>>7451398
>starting with the greeks
>not the cave paintings
pssssshhhhhhhhh
PSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>7464973
The thing is though, I think the later Platonists or the Neo-Platonists were more able to identify what was specifically Platonic in the Dialogues better than Aristotle was. Aristotle probably didn't have quite the same reverence of Plato as the Neo-Platonists did because the Neo-Platonists probably looked at him as an ancient authority who had to be taken for his word whereas Aristotle may have felt more confident in disputing his essential teaching.
>>7464976
Is it where Socrates says that writing is a bad invention because it will give people the impression of being wise rather than wisdom itself, and will only serve to increase reminiscence rather than build up the memory? I think there's a lot of truth in it. There is a great, great danger of becoming what Kierkegaard called a "paragraph gobbler" who reads for the sake of reading and has only a pedantic knowledge rather than experienced or lived knowledge.
>>7464982
>The thing is though, I think the later Platonists or the Neo-Platonists were more able to identify what was specifically Platonic in the Dialogues better than Aristotle was. Aristotle probably didn't have quite the same reverence of Plato as the Neo-Platonists did because the Neo-Platonists probably looked at him as an ancient authority who had to be taken for his word whereas Aristotle may have felt more confident in disputing his essential teaching.
So you're willing to dismiss Plato's own students over the thoughts of Roman era pagans who mixed both Plato and Aristotle's teaching with elements of the religions of their day? *Those* people are authoritative? They *might* be right about elements of Plato, but haven't you just taken on a new authority outside of Plato instead of doing as you say to do (namely, not read anything to do with Plato)?
>>7464986
It's really incidental to be honest. I'm just saying that the core of the Platonic dialogue is a kind of intuitive-mystical experience and that, incidentally, this is what the Neo-Platonists saw in the Platonic dialogues. I don't know what you mean when I say that I'm saying that Neo-Platonists are authoritative. I mean that they got to what was specifically Platonic in Plato (theoria/contemplation) more than Aristotle did. Maybe Aristotle did understand Platonism very well and just diagreed with its fundamental principles (e.g. that knowledge is contemplation of ideas in themselves rather than the Aristotelian abstraction from the phantasms/senses).
>>7464124
Ficciones is absolutely fantastic. Definitely read them.
>>7464937
I only meant generally and ofc I'm going to read all that stuff why do you think I started this thread if not for that exact purpose?
>>7464956
You just described something that really interested me. I can't help but be reminded of a quote I read though, it is very mainstream an all of you have seen it but I'm gonna tell you anyway.
I think, therefore I am - descartes
Perhaps that is derived from plato even I wouldn't know
>>7465152
Yeah I keep hearing that, so you have any other recommendations on short story collections?
DO you guys recommend like a narrative history of the whole ancient greek era before getting into this stuff or no?
Great, great thread.
