Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.
Seriously.
And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand thathe is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.
Every single one of his works goes like this:
SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the followingwildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?"{Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo inBill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"
The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.
Choke on a dick faggot.
I don't know why people who start reading philosophy start with plato.
It's so dense and complex if you know how to listen to his thought - otherwise you get people like >>8150497
>>8150497
>Implying the average exchange doesn't end in with the issue not being resolved.
>Implying that Socrates isn't bested at times e.g. Callicles
>Implying this isn't bait
>>8150509
There's no need to start with the Presocratics anyway, since e only have fragmetns and secondary sources.
I'd say it's great to start with Plato, but I'd put aside his most complex dialogues for later.
Furthermore I don't think people should necessarily start with the greeks, but that's another story.
>>8150519
are you sure about the presocratics?
most of the them are kinda naive for sure, but what about Heraclitus and Parmenides? Even with the limited resources we have on them they are still challenging and complex.
About the starting point i don't think it's about which philosopher to start with, it's about how you listen to them
>>8150531
>most of the them are kinda naive for sure, but what about Heraclitus and Parmenides? Even with the limited resources we have on them they are still challenging and complex.
It's not so much that they're naive, because I don't think it's the case, it is really the fact that deriving meaning, (or the right meaning) from fragments, written more than 2000 years ago and more often than not written in a poetic form
without any introduction or secondary literature it's pretty daunting.
I'd say that to start with philosophy you have to be invested in some way in a philosophical question. You should have the need to hear an answer, then find an author whose answer satisfies you, then you start studiying him, you see if that answer really stands or not, and after that you work you way thorugh the references about other philosphers and how their thought work. The historical perspective should naturally come later, if your love for the discipline is genuine.
