What philosophers would you recommend to someone who is just looking to get into philosophy? I bought thus spoke zarathustra, the myth of sisyphus, nausea, the stranger, and the world as will and representation.
I can understand a tiny little bit of thus spoke zarathustra, but it took me skimming past a couple stories so I could get a vague interpretation of what it was about. If I would have known how horrible the writing style in the world as will and representation was, I wouldn't have picked it up at all.
I read the stranger and that was alright, I had no trouble reading that at all, I read it in less than a day. I tried camus's essay and I found myself drifting off a lot. I have yet to get into sartre's nausea, but I hear that that's more accessible.
I probably didn't make the best choices in what I bought from these authors. I probably could have found something more accessible by nietzsche, I probably could have just ignored schopenhauer all together because I would probably need a class on philosophy to get the most out of that book.
What philosophers are actually good as baby's first philosophers? I know a lot of people like kant and hagel, but there's no way I'm touching those outside of a college course. Are there any philosophers who have interesting philosophies that can be accessible to someone who's just getting into philosophy on their own accord. I like Cioran, his works are fun to read. I just don't think his works are particularly enlightening, they just seem to tell you stuff you already know, but in a fun to read way (IE, everything is pointless).
>>8137547
At the same time, start with the Greeks AND the existencialists. After that, buy and read some manuals/books about pilosophy and the history of pilosophy as a whole.
>>8137547
Then, retroactively make your way into the past using the existencialists and in the future using the greeks. Read more manuals, watch YouTube videos and go on.
>>8137547
The books you mention are not philosophy. You could describe them as "socially conscious fiction" or something.
>>8137547
start
with
the
greeks
>>8137623
that sounds boring as fuck, nothing about what I've heard regarding the greeks sounds like something that would leave a big impression on me. I've really liked the quotes I've seen from nietzsche sartre and camus though, plus their prevalence in other forms of culture which seemed to draw me towards reading them in the first place.
>>8137547
honestly, grab a textbook: One aimed at first year undergraduates, or Maybe 16-17 year olds.
They will give you a broad/simplified overview of many different philosophers, and often come with recommendations for selected texts. It's a good starting point if only to see which philosophers are easy to get into.
>>8137632
K, this is bait.
Trying to understand philosophy without the greeks is like trying to understand space travel without physics.
>>8137632
>wants to learn philosophy
>doesn't start with the greeks
have fun with fragmented knowledge, a retard who goes out and buys a bunch of random books that are classified as philosophy without doing his research won't get anywhere.
>>8137643
>Starting with the Greeks
>Not the Chinese/Indians
Sure OP, start with the Greeks - if you want an extremely limited, thought-limiting understanding of philosophy.
You don't need these. Just read a history of western philosophy
>not limiting your reading to Zizek
PLEB ALERT
>>8137710
If you aren't shitposting, which Indian books do you recommend?
I've read the Bhagavad-Gita and the Hitopadesha.
Arthashastra perhaps?
>>8137871
B A I T
A
I
T
most of those people you're reading aren't realy philosophers but authors of books
philosophy isn't about wha x said or what y wrote,it's about ideas
I would reccomend starting off with the realism/idealism debate (philosophy of perception)
just start thinking desu.
ask yourself if the world you see around you continues to exist when you're not there, and still looks the same when nobody is looking
>>8137997
x and y often wrote and talked about ideas, though. That's what makes them philosophers.
