What is your motivation for reading philosophical works? Do you simply wish to better understand the way that people around you think, or are you seeking a new worldview?
>>7731454
just for the dank memes.
>>7731454
I just have a natural taste for the avant garde, but I'm learning even the simplest things can be incredibly profound.
>>7731454
>be me at 14
>lose faith
>question meaning of life
>read greeks
>become stoic
>go to college
>read Nietzsche
>create own meaning of life
>never look back
I like to pretend I matter.
>>7731454
I have intellectual interests, as in I would like to come to a coherent, informed, and truthful worldview.
Nothing beats understanding philosophy. Reading a sentence over 5 times and then having it click is like a mini-orgasm, and putting all the pieces together is better than sex itself. I'll take intellectual pleasure over sensual pleasures any day.
i enjoy challenging my mind and reassessing my preexisting beliefs/assumptions
I like the memes.
It's like being sand blasted by logic and wisdom. Great shit.
>>7731524
This. Very few authors beyond philosophy give me the same satisfaction that I get from reading philosophers.
Generally, I get pleasure when someone articulates clearly and succintly an idea that has developed hazily and indistinctly in the back of my head.
The other hook is seeing a familiar thing from a completely different angle, or noticing things I had not paid attention to previously.
Overall, insight is addictive, maybe too much so.
>>7731454
You know what, I actually don't know. Can't come up with a reason but I just enjoy it so much.
>>7731524
This. When I was 13 I started reading Aristotle, who became my first philosophical fascination until I had read more or less all of his books with extensive notes and anotations. Philosophy is really quite special to some people, OP. Also it's never much to do with a 'worldview' that you either choose to buy or reject, the logic of the market doesn't apply to philosophy.
Whats with the influx of Lain pics on /lit/ recently? Not to discourage them, because its a good show
>>7731524
This. Noone's job says more about them than a philosopher's.
I've tried reading Nietzsche, Kant and Schopenhauer but I just find that they write really obtusely and any of their reasoned arguements seem completely grounded in "trust me, I'm right about this".
tl;dr
>Want to enjoy philosophy books but don't
>>7731454
>Do you simply wish to better understand the way that people around you think
If I wanted to do that I'd read shit tier "sciences" like psychology or sociology.
>>7731493
I'm starting the same process butat 18. Wish I had started sooner
Because I like it. It gives me mental orgasm.
To impress other people. I don't want to be stupid or ignorant. So I want to have a good grasp on something considered intellectual with enough ambiguity and space to allow me to spew as much questionable spurious and sophist bullshit as much as I can while appearing smart while reducing the probability of the aforementioned bullshit being detected.
Hopefully I can cover enough philosophy to appear smart and quite famous philosophers in group conversations and then drop big names like schopenhauer and nietzsche to show off and then feign surprise when the others tell me that they haven't read their works.
That feeling of smug satisfaction would finally make me feel better and happy again. It will help me overcome my insecurities as a stupid loser and help me enjoy life better by finally finding a way to look down on people.
So I've seriously started reading philosophical works and am spending a shit ton of time reading major works starting with the greeks (following the famous /lit/ chart). It will take some time. But anything great usually does.
>>7734286
What you want is no philosophy, is science.
>>7734373
Can you please post the chart?
I'm new to /lit/ but I love philosophy.
>>7734410
science requires rigor and hard work. reading not so much. plus I'm already in the stem field and am surrounded by people from stem. no one finds stem knowledge impressive anon. no one. at least no one around me.
>>7734414
sure anon. check pic related. all the best for starting with the greeks. I hope you like the journey as much as I have till now.
>>7734439
Thank you.
>>7731524
>when it finally clicks and then you start to understand the who philosophy
>tfw you're predicting what they will say next while simultaneously reading lines that show your predictions were correct and confirm your understanding
Badly described it, but you all know what I mean.
>>7734373
While while while while while
>>7734450
Philosophy is a very rigorous field. This is oftentimes missed by people, because the conclusions reached to fulfill certain requirements of rigor are often disagreeable to the masses. This, however, is how doctrines transform and correct themselves; for it is only by correcting what is not right that we come to know, or at least believe, what is. Those who doesn't see philosophy as being rigorous aren't doing it properly.
To whom it may concern, I've a math degree, so I'm not totally alien to the concept of rigor. I'm not trying to say philosophy is more rigorous than the sciences, because that's ludicrous, but nonetheless the rigor is still required for any work today to be accepted.
>>7731524
as you have a choice, fag
