Do I really need to read the Presocratics?
is that picture from the silence of the lambs? i hear someone gets their nosie nose eaten in that one
they're all fucking hilarious, so maybe. if you're into the history of knowledge, it couldn't hurt
anaxagoras is a trip; full of wrong, but a trip
>>7625678
Heraclitus and Parmenides are essential imo.
Presocratics are bestsocratics. Socrates was a wrong turn, read some Nietzsche, fool.
>>7625687
no, it's just another priceless antiquity that was defaced by muslims.
>>7625678
Not really desu oikos
>>7625678
You got the Phillip Wheelwright one too?
>>7625747
i do hate those muslims
>>7625678
If you're interested in what happens to a society which is moving from a belief in gods to atheism then yes. Just like now they behead their objective gods and return to pantheism, or as neuroscientists describe as "panpsychism." It's good stuff for the curious type, but if you're studying for any other reason then it can be boring.
The thing about the presocratics is that they were trying to answer unanswerable questions at the time. They were basically hypothesizing about stuff like how big the universe was, how it worked, etc. and that's all it was - guesses, ideas, theories with no support.
Socrates isn't such a big deal because he was an incredible thinker - he's a big deal because he was the first to really say "hey guys why don't we just figure out stuff we can test, or know intimately?" i.e. stuff relating to humans, how humans should live, etc etc etc.
Socrates was practical, and as silly as it sounds he was the first to really do that and become renown. Presocratics are basically a waste of your time if you're only after knowledge and thought still relevant today. They're only really valuable to historians and people simply curious what ideas people had of the mechanics of life long before such things could really be known.
>>7626213
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that "practical" use of philosophy heighten with Socrates, only to culminate in Aristotle's approach to the physical world, and from then onwards all "Aristotelian" thought?
democritus is top tier imo, and so is heraclitus. you don't need to read them, but why wouldnt you want to?
>>7626230
Pretty much. The thing is, Socrates was the guy who said "dude, there's no point in trying to figure out this stuff we can't really know. Let's focus our thoughts on how we can best live/best uphold justice/etc."
Aristotle obviously built on that by saying we shouldn't only focus on the practical, but test and experience all we can to better understand the world.
>>7626230
It's all just common sense, anyhow. It's not like empirical science hadn't been happening for thousands of years prior to Aristotle. Think about the architecture and metallurgy of the Ancient Near East, for example. There may not have been anyone claiming a philosophical system of logic, but they were quite obviously using logic (or what we now know as logic) regardless.
This is why Aristotle was the worst philosopher, in my opinion: it was just a bunch of moralistic guidelines and common sense. Plato and Socrates seemed to have been deep thinkers, on the other hand.
>>7625729
Not only that, but they are as short as they are beautiful. Even those who have zero interest in philosophy should read them, you do yourself an immense disservice otherwise.
No, skip the greeks to.
Most modern inquirers approach philosophy from a ruthlessly rational, it must make sense to my mind, angle.
The presocrates will completely turn you off and platistole will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Best place to start is with Hume's "Enquiry onto human understanding" then Desecrates "Meditations on first philosophy".
Then head to the republic/nichomachean ethicsand then basically do what the hell you want. A good idea might be to head to Kant.
But, start with Hume, there's no better place.
This starting with the greeks bullshit is nonsense.
>>7626338
>it was just a bunch of moralistic guidelines and common sense
You undergraduates need to learn to be humbler.
See his prior analytics, just because something isn't thought at your college doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Aristotle laid the foundations of logic, he was the first one to propose the framework of "If all A are B and all B are C" and so on.
>Plato and Socrates
Just Plato please.
>>7626338
>This is why Aristotle was the worst philosopher, in my opinion:
>>7626408
Maybe I'm being to harsh, enjoy forming your critiques, just don't assume that anyone else would ever find you agreeable or enlightening.
I've seen too many undergrad philosophy enthusiasts think they can possibly make it in academia.
>>7626405
What the fuck are you talking about. You aren't going to understand anything of depth about Hume without the Greeks. The Greeks are so basic and fundamental, you shouldn't be allowed near other books, let alone a keyboard until you've thoroughly digested them. I'd love to hear your approach to weight training.
>>7626517
>You aren't going to understand anything of depth about Hume without the Greeks
I'm not sure if you're trolling.
Could you elaborate on how the Greeks helped you with Hume?
>>7625678
If you don't want to read the presocratis you're best off just leaving philosophy alone, anon.
>>7626548
Here's a whole book about it: Socrates Meets Hume: The Father of Philosophy Meets the Father of Modern Skepticism
by Peter Kreeft
On a very basic level, you are going to fail to understand much of any post-Greek philosophy with out a good understanding of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle. All other philosophers were educated & inspired by them. Without the Greeks, you will not understand the significance of their references or refutations. If Hume is superior in anyway, it was because he built upon their work. Hume himself would tell you to SWTG & he really wouldn't be meming.
>>7626338
>It's all just common sense, anyhow.
>>7626663
What is one point that was brought up in that book?
>fail to understand much of any post-Greek philosophy with out a good understanding of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle
This, I believe, is a very wrong statement.
>>7626716
>What is one point that was brought up in that book?
As with the preSocratics, if you don't read it, you'll never know.
>>7626716
>This, I believe, is a very wrong statement.
Again, without being able to reference to the Greeks, your opinion will be fatally constricted.
>>7626716
>>7626759
>>7626764
As much as I agree one ought to start with the Greeks, they are hardly necessary if someone wants to read analytic philosophy. That's the nature of the analytic view of philosophy as akin to the sciences with linear and concrete progress---there's no need to read Aristotle for biology or Copernicus for astronomy.
However, with continental philosophy, which views philosophy as cyclical or even altogether chaotic and non-linear, then yes, the Greeks are essential and will forever continue to be because the tradition treats them as more than just a history lesson.
>>7626213
>your face when parmenides was right about quantum physics
>>7626107
You have few that reject gods but at large its hard to say it on greek culture in such a broad way.
>>7626764
>your opinion will be fatally constricted.
How so?I have read the greeks, at least Plato and Aristotle.
I've also read Hume and Mill.
Sure, the Greeks were interesting, but for someone just getting into Philosophy, starting with Hume would be a lot easier and entertaining really.
I'm not saying one should skip the Greeks, by all means go back to them, they're not dull or boring and chances are you might want to know what they said to save face if nothing else.
>>7626822
This, I mean for god's sake remember one of the things which Socrates was convicted for.
Starting with the Greeks is a sane, but perhaps not optimal depending on your interests, idea.
Starting from the Presocrates, what even?
>>7625678
>Do I really need to read the Presocratics?
The answer depends on what you think you need them for.
>>7626844
>easier and entertaining
This is not a movie faggot.
>>7626851
Its not only that
When plato describe what the lawgiver should give he talk on tradition and festivals, so is the republic take place in a festival for new gods. Socrates himself talk on divine intervension and gods constantly
Also When aristotle give reasons for the unmoved mover from what i remember he qoute homer
In xenophon's banquet they dont reject homer or the gods rather the blind citation
The plays we have don't show such ubderstanding as far as i know
