Beginner Philosophy Material?

Be a man, read Heinlein...

Stoicism is mental popcorn that only satiates the minds of mouth-breathers who have already presupposed its banal ethical structures.

First read Plato, then read Aristotle, then read Descartes, then read Kant, then read Schopenhauer, then read Nietzche, then read Evola

and you can do it all tonight :

sqapo.com/
>tl;dr philosophy

>[Don't] listen to anyone talking shit
Is that what they told you? Setting aside the debate over whether Ayn Rand is even a philosopher - let alone a coherent writer - you can't hope to understand what she's trying to say just by studying her work alone.

Stirner is the only philosophy you need.

Im pretty sure you can. I certainly could. I read her works long before i saw any interviews. Im sorry you arent capable of understanding. Which you have proven by only pointing out one of the many missing apostrophes. Fuck your apostrophes. And fuck you. Go back to b.

Philosophy is the ""science"" of bullshit.
Quit being retarded

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State

>learning philosophy

Stoicism. Read meditations by Marcus Aurelius, then the Enchiridion of Epictetus.

Have fun, and welcome to life.

historyofphilosophy.net/ good podcast skip the mudshit stuff

>those tattoos

Disgusting

Nigger what? Rand shoehorns her message into damn near every story via character monologue. The Galt speech is the most famous example.

>mentions tattoos instead of that face

thats a man

>muh stoicism
fucking stage-players

fuck what everyone else suggests.

sign up for audible and get the great courses lectures

~30+ hour lectures on academic topics for one credit each. you get 3 credits a month with platinum membership or 2 for gold ($30 or $20 a month)

best money I've spent this year. absolutely obsessed with it, even after ~5 months. you can also get other shitlord books like burnham's suicide of the west, coulter's adios america, anything by taleb, think they have buchanan stuff too.

Yea but thats like hard mode. Interviews first. Her ideas are challenged and she responds with digestible thoughts

>Im sorry you arent capable of understanding

In the words of another famous philosopher, "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

Let's pretend for a moment that Rand and her modern acolytes aren't the laughing stock of the field they aspire to. You're promoting her and only her and her work as a self-contained philosophy; the root foundation for both an ethical and epistemological structure. Can you think of any other such thing that has been similarly *evangelized* over the course of modern history?

I may try that out soon. Seems legit, I pirate way too much music so I wouldn't mind subbing to something like this

dope, thanks for these recommendations

you won't regret it. especially if you commute or run and need something to listen to anyway

Personally I'd recommend starting with Anthem. Less dry, and emphasizes the focus on the individual.

I never discounted other philosiphies. Its simply the one that most appealed to me and op wanted ideas. Just pointing out that youre an idiot grasping at straws. Youre not rational man. Go read some objectivism.

Also christianity, islam, and many other religions. Is liberalism a philosiphy now? That seems pretty popular

I subscribed to Philosophize This but haven't listened yet. It looks very promising, though.

philosophizethis.org

>Rand shoehorns her message into damn near every story via character monologue

Yes, this is true, and it's a symptom of the fact that her level of writing never progressed past that of a college freshman. That's not the point though. Rand's "philosophy" is the most extreme projection of rationalism onto ethics, and to first understand rationalism as a system of knowledge, you need to go deeper than Rand herself if you want to understand what she's even saying. Believe it or not, she didn't come up with everything she wrote down.

I got Adios America on there and was surprised to hear Coulter read her own book

You must be a dull person

...

>Youre not rational man
>Go read some objectivism
k e k

>Youre not rational man
I mean, trips don't lie, but you're still a fucking idiot and I really feel bad for you.

You should read this as your first philosophy textbook:

aryanism.net/downloads/books/alfred-rosenberg/myth-of-the-twentieth-century.pdf

Just make it up because it's all bullshit.

Here's how to learn philosophy, from a philosophy teacher
>Don't go by topic, go chronologically
>Learn basic philosophers first
>Learn basic semantic logic
>Read primary sources
>Break down how the philosophers think about the world
>Divide philosophy into schools
>Re-read everything at least two times
>Don't fall for bad philosophy like Stirner or Zizek
>Be skeptical, always find counter arguments/objections
>Practice writing clearly

I've been teaching philosophy at a University for a while now (and obviously been a student for quite some time).
Those are the easiest tips I can share.
I'll answer any questions though.

Why? Im honestly curious

academy of ideas on YT
librivox free app
partially examined life podcast
A history of western philosophy by Bertrand Russell (not supremely accurate but a good introduction considering it's just opinions of a great math professor written to prove he could prose write) ... the audiobook from 2011 is great.
Encyclopaedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World series.

Hitler's Speeches

>Don't go by topic, go chronologically
I was going to challenge this seriously, but then I read
>Don't fall for bad philosophy like Stirner or Zizek

If you really are teaching, which I highly doubt, you're probably teaching at a shit school. My apologies.

Who do you consider good philosophers?

This is a test

Trips twice in a row, I'll respond in a min but I gotta fap to this first

If you want more scope on philosophy throughout history, check out Frederick Copleston's "A History of Philosophy" book series or Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy".

Shadilay

>>Don't go by topic, go chronologically

For anyone interested in the ideas rather than a list of "begat, begat, begat", this is the kiss of death.

I hope you're just memeing about teaching philosophy.

The majority of philosophy is just dead ends or material that was later to split into the sciences. That's completely fucking irrelevant now.

If someone asks about stoicism, for example, and you start rattling off about what they thought about how the world works you're a retard.

No professor teaches without going through philosophers chronologically. You have to know what other philosophers have started with and see what they reference.
It's like saying you're going to build a tower and make the foundation last, it's just nonsensical. You won't be able to understand what people are saying if you don't know what's been said already.
Additionally, most universities break down their undergrad philosophy program by chronology in the beginning years (ancient to modern philosophy). It's standard practice.

What do you mean by good? Ones I agree with or ones who did philosophy well? You're going to have to be more specific.

>Im honestly curious
First of all, when someone says "I'm honestly curious," they typically have ulterior motives.

It was just pretty much ad hom to match your own here:
>Just pointing out that youre an idiot grasping at straws.

But, to the manner in which you're an idiot, you've done nothing in this thread but recommend Ayn Rand *without condition*, then proceed to discount your nemesis by way of claiming that they simply "don't understand" Rand. Most high-schoolers can fully understand the works of Ayn Rand.

Also, this question:
>Is liberalism a [philosophy] now?
I don't really know whether you mean liberalism by way of Locke and Hume or Liberal identity politics, but those are also both part of philosophy and have been for quite some time.

Ones who have good ideas

I don't want to get into defining terms and everything right now, I just want an opinion

>You're going to have to be more specific.
yup, he's a philosophy professor all right

Kill youself learn that

>Rand's "philosophy" is the most extreme projection of rationalism onto ethics
Do expound. I'm failing to see the connection.

Anything is good as long as it isn't Hegel. Remember that.

Why are so many people like
>hurr durr philosophy is stupid and outdated bullshit written by old dumb white guys who dont have any effect on my life so only a braindead idiot would read that irrelevant garbage
have they ever read anything that wasnt a forced assignment?

The majority of philosophy is just dead ends or material that was later to split into the sciences. That's completely fucking irrelevant now.
I actually cringed

>I hope you're just memeing about teaching philosophy.
I teach at a major university. We're #1 in the world in certain areas of phi, which I won't divulge because that would obviously tell you where I work.

Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, and Hume can basically be related to anything. Descartes and Hume are easy because they're skeptics, but Aristotle is the foundation for so much philosophy. Locke is also great as both an ethicist and a political philosopher (which I assumed you would care about since you're on Cred Forums).

Most of the older philosophers' works can be found online for free. Or really cheap used hardcopies (which I recommend)

Good point.

First of all, checked

>You won't be able to understand what people are saying if you don't know what's been said already.

I understand that this is the standard approach to say, Intro to Phil at a community college, but any Phil program with any meat and potatoes has professors who know how to frame the issues of philosophy in a more purposeful way than in an historically linear path.

>It's like saying you're going to build a tower and make the foundation last, it's just nonsensical.
Philosophy isn't engineering.

As put it succinctly, this kind of shit is the "kiss of death"

philosophy will get you nowhere. the age of these arts have come to an end. it is complete. now we march forward with these ideas behind our back to things that matter.

aka yes, learn about philosophy, but dont get a degree in it or something.

you can't read the newer philosphers without reading the older ones because the new ones reference the old ones; someone's going to be talking about the Thing In Itself, and you're not going to know what the fuck they mean. You're not going to get as much out of it unless you lay a foundation. But I get it man, a childhood full of Nickelodeon cartoons really killed your attention span.

I wanted to give a more cocked-head curiosity than a "b-but muh rand" that i felt why alone wouldnt have gotten across.

I recommended her with the condition of giving it a chance and watching someone challenge her ideas right there. At the source

You yourself said it was unable to be understood simply by reading the works.

I was speaking of the radical liberalism gracing our country today.

Ie. Youre not very good at this. You just think you are

If you want to just be an armchair philosopher and impress people with random Humean arguments, then fine, read sporadically and out of order.
If you want to have a grasp pf philosophy as a field of study and actually be able to understand philosophical concepts and how they work and influence one another, you're doing it completely wrong.

I'm sorry, but there's a reason philosophy is taught this way. It is strange, as it's not like science where you just learn the principles you need, but it's necessary to understand philosophy through concepts.

This is exactly why so many people are bad at philosophy.

>professors who know how to frame the issues of philosophy in a more purposeful way than in an historically linear path.

Not the guy you were talking to, but I'll defend the assertion for chronology. Professors that do as you are saying are cheating you out of centuries of acquired knowledge and will often be inadvertently presenting their own bias by emphasizing and teaching you what they feel is important. Philosophy has been built over thousands of years largely by responding to and expanding on already existing arguments. If you don't know what came before a philosophy, then there's a strong likelihood you won't understand it fully or you'll be tempted at rebuttals that have already by hashed out centuries ago.

>I teach at a major university. We're #1 in the world in certain areas of phi
>star recommendations: Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, and Hume

I strongly suspect - if you are telling the truth in the first place - that you are at most an adjunct at a middle-American public university with a weak, bland Phil department.

Nobody tenured, self-respecting phil. professor, not even some analytical sperglord, would be able to write something so bloated and repetitive as the first paragraph of

slavoj zizek

pervert's guide to ideology

>zizek
>bad

Thank you for correcting the record.

"Slavoj Zizek: “Of course, Trump is personally disgusting, bad racist jokes, vulgarities and so on. But at the same time did you notice how he said some very correct things about Palestine and Israel? He said we should also see Palestinian interests and approach the situation in a more neutral way. He said we should not just antagonise Russia, find a dialogue there. He was even for higher minimal wages. He hinted that he would not like simply to cancel Obama’s universal health care, Obama care …”

Sergio Cantone: “He is a liberal centrist …”

Slavoj Zizek: “Yes! That’s my provocative thesis! That if you scrap this ridiculous and, I admit it, dangerous surface, he is a much more opportunist candidate and his actual politics perhaps will not be so bad.”

then tell us, oh wise one, what would an autist virgin such as yourself recommend?

Kek

Because it is.

Cred Forums is a forum like that of the ancients, you're just as likely to find relevant philosophy wading through this river of shit as when reading dead peoples thoughts

Yet all here know nothing. The ancients knew alot yet nothing just as we and I

You're better of actually philosophizing than reading philosophy, but if you weren't already, the how can you ever? I guess you could maybe find inspiration? But then that's a crutch barring you from pure philosophy. Either way if you need to ask the you might as well study something else.

If you ask me I wish you too step out of the spotlight and stop shitting up the board.

THIS

Checked once again.

>If you want to just be an armchair philosopher and impress people with random Humean arguments
No one would ever want to do this.

>If you want to have a grasp pf philosophy as a field of study and actually be able to understand philosophical concepts and how they work and influence one another

Yes, it is critical to understand the literal chronology of philosophy. That's not what I'm arguing against. A dog can be trained to understand chronology. However, a good professor of philosophy can and should, at times, be able to impress a greater understanding of the interlocking influence of philosophy by not necessarily presenting works in the chronological order of when they were written.

3deep5me

>you can't read the newer philosphers without reading the older ones because the new ones reference the old ones
Obviously I'm not recommending that a teacher set up a student for failure, but if this is not an issue, then it is not always necessary to present philosophy as it was chronologically produced.

Visit /lit/ (best not to mention you're from Cred Forums since the don't like us). Start with the Greeks.

You do philosophy every day you post on Cred Forums, numbskull.

You're doing philosophy in this very post by arguing.

Disdain for plebs increases.

Going to do this quickly because you retards are getting restless thinking they know about philosophy.

You obviously don't know philosophy.
Everyone takes those philosophers, especially Aristotle and Hume, very seriously.
I know quite a few tenured Aristotelian.
I'm not tenured.

I'm voting for Trump. Zizek is still the worst pseudo-philosopher ever.
I've never met someone who has actually thought he was good.
He is shit on everywhere in academia.
He will likely be forgotten in a few decades.

>However, a good professor of philosophy can and should, at times, be able to impress a greater understanding of the interlocking influence of philosophy by not necessarily presenting works in the chronological order of when they were written.
Sure. Sometimes I give talks or conferences where this happens. But not relevant to this thread, as OP probably has more than 20 minutes to learn philosophy.

>Professors that do as you are saying are cheating you out of centuries of acquired knowledge and will often be inadvertently presenting their own bias by emphasizing and teaching you what they feel is important.
'Philosophy' is such a storied practice with such nebulous borders that one student can never fully study all of what is contained within it. Faced with this, I'd say that both the teacher and the learner are actively framing the content they are respectively sending and receiving - whether or not it is in chronological order.

>when people get salty because they took the philosophy meme seriously

Ducks are cute. CUTE!!!

>You obviously don't know philosophy.
>Zizek is still the worst pseudo-philosopher ever.
>Proceeds to not criticize any content of Zizek's work but rather denounces him as being "shit on everywhere in academia"
buddy, if the institution that employs you had to decide to keep paying you or to pay Zizek to speak (if he were to offer) you'd be on the soup line.

Also,
>I'm voting for Trump
Serious question: why, and does it matter? (As in, do you live in a state where your vote actually matters?)

>philosophy is everything
Yeah, fuck off. You could say math is everything or chemistry is everything. After studying philosophy, it's clearly a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who are incapable of higher level thinking just stroking their 100 iq mental gymnastics. Philosophy is truly pleb-tier studies

Though these are all pretty excellent resources, these cover way more than just philosophy. Obviously, they can all be linked to Ancient Greek Philosophy in some way or another, and if you're at all interested in Ancient Greece (you should be) it would be great to explore these, but if you really just wanted to understand philosophy alone, a good study of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pyrrho, Epicurus, and Zeno is probably sufficient at least to understanding the main drivers of later philosophy in Western Civilization.

>buddy, if the institution that employs you had to decide to keep paying you or to pay Zizek to speak (if he were to offer) you'd be on the soup line.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Fuck that is seriously fucking funny. I don't know anyone in my philosophy department who would get paid to have Zizek here.

>do you live in a state where your vote actually matters?
Yes, very much so. Probably the most important state.

Starting completely fresh, in this exact order:
>'My Twisted World' by Elliot Rodger
>'Richard McBeef' by Seung-Hui Cho
>'Genealogy of Morals' by Friedrich Nietzsche

>Yes, very much so. Probably the most important state.
Then, in that case, why are you voting for Donald Trump?

Ignoring me? I see your game

Pic related

I'm not advocating that you go through every single thing every philosopher ever said or wrote down, but as far as I'm concerned, you should have at least a vague understanding of the arguments that drove the creation of a philosophy in order to understand it fully. If you start your philosophical journey with say Thomas Aquinas and you've never read anything by Aristotle, you're missing so much background information, you're just doing yourself a huge disservice.

>Richard McBeef

This is actually the first election I'll ever have voted in. My area of philosophy is voluntary anarchism and morality.
I hate the state in general, but I really can't have radical Muslims and sjws destroy Western culture (which includes Western philosophy).

The only acceptable answer.

youtube.com/watch?v=nLD09Qa3kMk

Too many people are going to drive this into an esoteric debate about minutia that serves to grow their e-peen. Metaphysics, epistemology and abstractions dominate threads when the word philosophy is brought up.

Do yourself a favor and start with informal logic, particularly in regards to persuasion. Crimes Against Logic is a great place to start. Once you get the basis of valid, sound and cogency understood then delve into Socrates, particularly Socratic Dialect and go from there. A good base is essential to this topic.

No, I'm not ignoring you, I just felt that the conversation was ultimately unproductive. You were simply dodging the original phrase which I originally brought into question, which was:
>Dont listen to anyone talking shit

That is you recommending Rand without condition. As for the interview, it still constitutes work that is directly related to Ayn Rand.

>start with informal logic
kek even I think this is wrong and I've spent half my time in here arguing against starting with the usual suspects

Start with Plato, Socrates and Aristotle.
When you need more mind food go to
users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html

>I half-read part of a Nietzsche summary once: the post

Read the Greeks.

Then read Nietzsche.

>you should have at least a vague understanding of the arguments that drove the creation of a philosophy in order to understand it fully

I agree with this. However, I think it's reasonable to study Aristotle and Aquinas concurrently. I'm not advocating throwing away the history of philosophy here, just that a) all Philosophy departments will be found "biased" and b) we should disregard such accusations and both research and teach in the way that we find most generative.

P E D O P R O P H E T
E
D
O

P
R
O
P
H
E
T

..that's all the philosophy you'll need to know. Anytime, anywhere just trie to truly understand what's the point of it. It's sad..

Philosophy, science, and religion are actually the same thing :^)

Real talk though, philosophy is amazing and life changing. Sorry you're too retarded to read anything good like Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or Descartes' Meditations.

>pseudo-intellectual doesn't understand logical fallacies
Not surprised at all

>radical Muslims and sjws destroy Western culture
I would have to argue that a Trump presidency could be just as dangerous to the 'Western lineage'.

Yes dont listen to anyone talking shit. Its very important. Cause youve been shit posting all over this thread.

Where she is challenged and she must defend herself. You really need to do as professor suggests and start at the beginning.

You ignore points. You go back on what is literally imortalized on this thread concerning claims youve made. You argue with a man whose entire career involves teaching the subject. Granted others have too but damn dude. You dont have a rational bone in your body.

Are you just shit posting?

Is there anything nuanced in any philosophy books, or is it just an excuse to feel smart for once? Philosophy is nothing compared to science, which has implications on the real world.

>guy who dismisses the entire field of philosophy calls other people pseudo-intellectuals without a hint of self-awareness
likewise

Dangerous? How about 30 million illegal immigrants in my once great home. Is it dangerous to kick them out?

>philosophy is a field worth studying
philosophy=common sense

>Philosophy is nothing compared to science
Kek.
What you're referring to as "science" is part and parcel to philosophy.

I took the bait hard and fucking raged.
11/10 trolling

>rational
Honestly it's like a five year-old who learns a new word. I have a 16 year-old cousin who's going through the same phase as you, and he's a fucking faggot. He has better grammar and spelling tho.

Not at all. Any scientist can pick up a philosophy book and understand it thoroughly. The same can't be said for philosophers.

>I have no arguments so I'm now #triggered
off yourself

My sides are in orbit. Ty

Oh boy. Find me a scientist who understands philosophy and I'll give you my car.

...

K E K

Proof that philosophers are pseudo-intellectuals who can't make arguments without holding Plato's hand

The only philo you should start with is epistemology.

Amazon too results will work. When youre good on that, you can check out primary sources like Kant.

After epistemology, move on to Logic, statistics, and the scientific method.

youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM

Yea not too important arguing anonymously with an "armchair philosopher" as was used earlier. If you hadn't cottoned on to it, they were deliberate digs at your inability to have a coherent argument using a philosophy you immediately started attacking. Im glad it struck a nerve

>I learned philosophy from youtube
underaged GTFO

By the way, I have met NDT and Bill Nye.
They may be great scientists, but they are so fucking stupid.

Checked, and...
I don't claim to know. At least in the US, illegal immigrants are integral to our economy, especially in terms of agricultural production. How will a rapid increase in food prices affect the existing order, let alone the mammoth effort of deporting 30 million people from the country? I'd wager to say it wouldn't exactly be "happy days". Full disclosure: DT is the only choice that I can respect, but I'm betting he's not the Messiah the huddled masses think he will be.

I'm sure you're so much smarter than either of those people kiddo

It is fucking hilarious too. Have you ever seen philosophers try and talk about quantum mechanics? Or even worse String theory, most physicists can't even into that shit.

This, for sure:

thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-ideas-of-philosophy-2nd-edition.html

Absolutely changed my outlook on life.

For an introduction to Eastern philosophy, I also highly recomend this:

thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-minds-of-the-eastern-intellectual-tradition.html

Together, they form a very solid foundation to work from.

In my opinion, it all starts to go wrong in the West after the Middle Ages (Christendom) and the beginning of the Renaissance.

Maplecuck on American proxy

>much smarter
It's so obvious by your posts that you're not in academia. They are way smarter than me in science (even though I started as a chemical engineer). But that doesn't make them the smartest people int he world.
Intelligence is not the same as ability to do science.

Take a critical thinking class (Philosophy) and you'll understand why your reasoning makes no sense; just because a person is good in one field, it does not mean they have any understanding of another. Scientists try to be philosophers, and they get laughed at and shit on (see: Bill Nye video)

>illegal immigrants are integral to our economy
ignoring that its a problem doesn't make it go away. Somehow, we will "find a way" without cheap illegal labor, robot tractors are a good start, and they're already invented.

>Ad hom and strawmen
you have to be 18 to post here.

There is a cross over in some fields, like consciousness and neurology. Or free will and sociology. But in general, yes. Though there is a big debate as to whether truth is a priori.

>full retard mode engaged

Give me an example of philosophy that requires any sort of nuance to it and I will believe you. And that doesn't include autistic philosophy that requires prerequisite college-tier logic formulas.

This is sort of a pie-in-the-sky answer. If we could have automated farm labor in a way which costed us less than hiring migrant workers, we would have already done it. Not only do these people earn their money here, they often spend it as well. We also both know that no American will take these jobs anywhere close to the wages which are paid to migrant laborers.

...

>logic formulas

>deleting your comment
fuck you, you're not getting away with that shit

>As someone with a biology and philo degree, let me explain niglets.
>Philosophy encompases the scientific method, however, to the lay academic and person, they tend to use this distinction for philo and science:
>Science is knowledge that must be tested.
>Philosophy is something that can be reasoned out in the mind without the need for experiments.
>Example: water freezes at 32 degrees: a chorused transaction will lead to one party gaining benifit at the cost of another.
>I want to see you also pick up advanced logic philobooks and read those. Its the same as picking up a chemistry journal and trying to read it.
>Science, the scientific method, along with logic and higher maths, are a sub category of philosophy.

This youtube page has some decent stuff.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsXpkVaWDhGZ_VsC559AMKQlzI_2DS4gA

They have good history playlists too.

CAMBODIA PLEASE

BREAK THE CONDITIONING

You really dont know what your talking about on anything do you? You know nothing of the farming industry. Your retardation has already shown itself.

Im not going anywhere fucker. Im like herpes. You have me till this thread is dead. I wont idly let you off the hook.

>Im like herpes

forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#161d27ea404a
>The dirty secret that everybody knew was that most of the state’s agricultural workers were immigrants, many of them illegal....according to a University of Georgia study, farmers were about 40 percent short of the number of workers they needed to harvest last year’s crop.

nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/17/could-farms-survive-without-illegal-labor/without-immigrant-labor-the-economy-would-crumble

Kys

Indeed. And becauae of his retarded life decisions ill always be with him

Holy shit thats a fantastic idea. Put our prison inmates to work. We certainly have enough of them and they can earn their keep. Free fucking labor. They could even work off sentences with good work on top of good behavior. Make that a factor. Why did noone think of this before? You defeat your own arguments sir

Awww man I want some ministop fries! Wtf now I hate Japan. But seriously, this guy is pretty simple and he is a pretty good place to start.
youtube.com/watch?v=M9CLktqAj9U

Yes, it's all so *rational*.
Have a good life, bud, I'm going out for a cigarette. Please let this thread die by the time I come back.

Also forgot to add, it's better to start with the pre-Socratics and build your way up, it makes understanding later philosophers much much easier.

Bye shill. You try harder than youre comrades. I respect that

Where were you an hour ago

I may not be in agreement with some of the views you've expressed, but you get far more credit than 99.9% of the people on Cred Forums from me because you refrained from getting into a shitpost fest.

I've a question for you, who would you say a college-level philosophy course should start with studying? Nietzsche?

literally dont ask us

>I've a question for you, who would you say a college-level philosophy course should start with studying?

If I had my way every first-year undergrad phil student would have to take a close reading of Hegel's 'Philosophy of History'. Nietzsche's 'Genealogy of Morals' is a close runner-up.

>I've a question for you, who would you say a college-level philosophy course should start with studying?
>Nietzsche?
What. Nietzsche is rarely even mentioned in university. Probably about as much as Ayn Rand.

Ehhhh

In high school we read "Being and Time" by Heidegger, what are y'all's opinions on it?

Is "Genealogy of Morals" his magnum opus?

Heidegger is honestly pretty decent. I recently wrote an article about Heidegger on Nothing. One of my favorite topics.
Though, he is very sciencey and uses way too much logic.

epistemology was always my most favorite philosophical subject but it requires you to be able to critically think and use logic so it may not be for you user

tbqh, I've only ever read B&T once (years ago), and haven't touched Heidegger since. I don't think any opinion I could produce would be educated or generative. But damn, B&T in high school? Did you go to school in the states? IB?

I would say 'Beyond Good and Evil' could be considered the point of clarity in his work. He published 'Beyond' a year before 'Genealogy', and the two are closely related. But I think that - in this particular instance - reading 'Genealogy' first is a more productive sequence than any other you could get with Nietzsche.

Yup, it was here in the states, it was a public charter with an incredible teacher whom I'm eternally grateful for.
By too much logic what do you mean?

Molyneux videos are a great condensed version for beginners. Check out the Aristotle video first. It's excellent. Then delve into the actual material. Trust it's better to start with a general understanding of what it all means before diving in with no context.

>By too much logic what do you mean?
Predicate logic

He's not a "pure" philosopher, but Jacques Lacan's work on psychoanalysis and especially as it pertains to language contains epistemological assertions that I still try to wrap my head around, perhaps you'd like it as well.
courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/lacan.htm

Thanks dude. I'm already tangentially familiar, my gf is currently training at NYPSI for adult psychoanalysis.

Fair enough, is your issue with him that he doesn't make necessary concessions for deception or that his overvaluation of predicate logic undermines epistemological skepticism?

I haven't read Heidegger since 11th grade, my understanding and memory of his work is rudimentary at best, but I appreciate y'all's answers.

...

I should've asked earlier, did you study philosophy in uni? Sorry if I missed you saying it.

Also top kek at Bill Nye for ignoring that philo undergrads can be hellcats in law school, which opens up all kinds of work in the public sphere.

I've personally been looking into Monistic Idealism.

Existentialism and solipsism are interesting starting points but avoid nihilism.

Stoicism is pretty cool.

a book you millennial faggot

>Now I'm interested in learning philosophy.
Why? Come to your own conclusions, faggot. No one cares about some old farts narcissistic writings

Wayne Dyer and Alan Watts are good, audiobooks reasonably easy to get.

>did you study philosophy in uni?
Yes, and funny enough I'm now in my first year of law school. I actually should be studying but I'm just here on Cred Forums typing at the void.

That's arrogant.
You can learn things that you may never have considered or comprehended from your own trains of thought.

THIS

Sure thing, goy; your system of ethics is just as valid as anyone else's, don't let their standards of morality or aesthetics hinder your inner self!
It's all dead white men!

No, not really. The problem with predicate logic is that a lot is "lost in translation". So many logicians get away with making crazy assumptions or moves that make sense in logic, but don't really equate to any sensible meaning.

I feel the same, didn't go to college but would've gone into law, try and work for 3 letter agency I think. My cousin said law school was intense, but it heightened his perspective on social life and institutions in general. He passed his bar exam last year. Thread's slowing down, but stay motivated user, you and ya gf's work will complement each other's which is always a good thing. Best of luck with school, mate

First post worst post

I always put reductionist science in that category. For example between the numbers 0 and 1 exist an infinite number of values, yet there is a definite distance between the two. Bringing up Gödel's incompleteness theorems was always fun in high school

Thanks man! Good luck with your own endeavors

Dive into Monadologie by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnizm right away. Skip the babby-step.