Start with the greeks?

It's a meme at this point, but what are your thoughts on these two "Start with the greeks" charts? I would really like to get into ancient greek philosophy and classic literature this year so I'm looking for a good entry point with books.

>>11814 It is fine, I would suggest going the most hardcore route, to simply learn walking by walking, and get used to a style (so skip Hamilton mythology, to Pseudo-Apollodorus). Read the secondary after primary simply to get sure with your views. If you are brave, and with a lot of free time (just be a NEET) try to learn Ancient Greek, but this is something that will take a lot of time. Do not buy the books, use libgen, if cannot deal with reading on PC (despite you are reading on it RN) simply print them out, if you cannot find extremely cheap used edition or get them for free.

Please read Pyrrhonism by Adrian Kuzminski if you seriously want to get into ancient greek philosophy. The book talks about this one "school of thought" that basically nobody knows of for historical reasons even though it renders more than half of other ancient greek schools of thought completely useless. https://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/134630/Pyrrhonism.pdf

>>11817 >Do not buy the books, use libgen, if cannot deal with reading on PC (despite you are reading on it RN) simply print them out, if you cannot find extremely cheap used edition or get them for free. I recommend getting a library card if you have a large library around!

It's been a meme for the last 500 years now, and for good reason. If you haven't actually read them start with The Illiad and Odyssey. Some may argue that there's background knowledge required, but in reality you probably already know the stories culturally and they're such masterpieces you'll inevitable reread them anyway. After that Hesiod's Works and Days and Theogony are the other essential poetic works from this early period.

>>11846 well, if you read wikipedia articles and then drop after reading first dialogue then yeah

>>11851 I'm not sure I understand what you mean, sorry.

>>11859 greeks give you great intro philosophy, literature, and so on. They are mentioned everywhere, and are not based on existing religions. But the problem is, most people are just getting scared off and start and never go back to into it. Or even worse, they think they understood those works, and as their experience of media is only vidya and anime shows they think one read is enough. t. re-reads Illiad, Odyssey, the 5 Socratic Dialogues, the republic, every year and still does not undestand them fully.

>>11887 >>11814 (OP) The order you read them in doesn't really matter. You probably already know enough to follow along with whatever.

>>11891 That, I agree with, just suggest reading Pseudo-Appolodorus Bibliotheca, cause it is just a great resource.

The Greeks were factually wrong on a lot of things. What makes you think their philosophy is any better? If you read Greek philosophy, you should read it as history of philosophy. Better, you should read some state of the art philosophy first, then go back to the old dead guys only if you're interested in the history. See >>>/lit/2923 for some stuff to read.

>>12006 is a life a fuarrrking game for you, where people just level up? >The Greeks were factually wrong on a lot of things. What makes you think their philosophy is any better? What makes you think their mathematics were any better? It seems you lack any actual knowledge in philosophy, the importance of the greeks is that they started all the concepts that are still ivisble in our society, and even in economics, sociology there are ideas still use that are descendants of the greek ideas. The books re suggested, I am sure are a fine read, but seem like you learned to do that by reading lots of walkthroughs and thinking there is such thing like power playing in real life. There is no such things, to learn to reason and think, you have to go through labourious task of reading other books, and analyzing thought, and not listening to other on how to do it. You act as if reading military tactics book would make you a great tactician.

>the importance of the greeks is that they started all the concepts that are still ivisble in our society, Yes, many of the Greek's ideas are still visible in our society. But, we've been building on these ideas for 2500 years. Which is why I say to read the Greeks as history, not as good place to start. We don't start learning mathematics by reading Euclid's Elements, we start with modern texts that incorporate ideas from Elements and all mathematics since then. I don't know what the rest of the bullsoykaf in your post is even a response to.

Since no one wants the Greeks, I suggest Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, it's a good start if you are really hardcore. Good introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

>>12083 this. from there one could move forwards to Hegel, or backwards to Descartes and Hume. Kant is a great focal point for modern philosophy.

if im an angry lainon who doesnt like current society why would I like what current society developed off of or want to read it. its funny to me that some of the most critical people of modern society are obsessed with the greeks, not saying thats you or anyone here even. Some even seem to think what went wrong was that we TURNED AWAY from those greek values, as if the values and philosophy didnt lead us here. You cant isolate them. I wonder what my brain could come up with if it wasnt aware of any of these concepts so engrained now in education and everything. Maybe id have the clue to a better society. And yet id never be able to express it in an accepted way because by the standards the greeks created and we developed off of what I would be saying wouldnt be "reasonable". Pretty tragic, what lies outside of this greek idea of knowledge isnt considered knowledge to those within it. Pretty self confirming and exclusionary.

Don't get me wrong, they're a smart bunch with some good ideas, but it's better to start with germane Philosophers, and work backwards. This approach offers greater accessibility (it's easier to start, as the ideas are more beneficial, and more like ideas you already have.), which implies greater ease of learning and continuing learning (unless you're intellectually masochistical). Also, audiobooks are your friend, unless they are an audio version of a dense text which requires perponderant rerereading. Especially recommended for the epics. Perhaps, if a work you want to listen to is not suitable for listening-to, listen to a work discussing that unlistenable-to work you want to listen to. >the importance of the greeks is that they started all the concepts that are still ivisble [sic] in our society Where is the claim that they are not influential to our current society? They are very influential to our current society. But, what does that have to do with how good the ancient greek resources are as starting points for philosophical edification? That is what we're talking about here, is it not? >there are ideas still use that are descendants of the greek ideas. >to learn to reason and think, you have to go through labourious task of reading other books, and analyzing thought So far, so good. I agree with that >not listening to other [sic] on how to do it. What?! You want people to ignore the wisdom of others? How does that aid wisification? Being aware of a multitude of thoughts is an important part of learning to think well, as you can judge the qualities of each of those thoughts, and decide which sorts to emulate, which sorts to eschew. I agree that Kant is a good focus, as he had a highly rational style which makes it easy to read. His style might take some time to get used to, though. One thing to beware of Kant is that his style is locally slow, even though it's globally fast (that is to say, each sentence is slow to read and comprehend, but ensuring that you understand the sentence completely before continuing to the next ensures that there are none of the extreme difficulties which many experience which were caused by inadequate understanding of something earlier in the text) >I wonder what my brain could come up with if it wasnt aware of any of these concepts so engrained now in education and everything Chances are, 0 things, maybe 1 thing, or (Wow!) 2 things. This is how extremely radical innovations occur, but it's rare. This is why it's important that we have masses of people who have no (or minimal) other occupation insist on spending their leisure time thinking thoughts nobody thought before, because, even if a particular person's thoughts are wrong, there will be 1 worthy thought or 2 in the masses, sometimes worthy merely for reminding us of the idea. Recall Decartes, whose only contribution to philosophy was to rediscover systematic doubt, his only contribution to Mathematics was the co-ordinate system, yet he is honoured as a great Philosopher and Mathematician. You probably won't be the next Recall Decartes, but I wonder..

Here's my personal Greeks reading list. Plays, histories, and presocratic fragments can be read simultaneously. Mythology is horribly biased but a decent reference work. Don't listen to Hamilton's comments just read the myths. Skip some of the iliad chapter and all of the odyssey and anaeid if you don't want spoilers.

>>14939 You can substitute Mythology for Ovid's Metamorphoses and The Bibliotheca of Apollodorus if you're trying to stick to primary sources. Neither are exactly an introduction, but Ovid's an essential read and Apollodorus makes a decent reference.

>>12135 >why would I want a better understanding of what society and culture is built off even if I am against it >why would I read marx/hitler if I am opposed to what they were for There you go

>>14977 I don't disagree with that second statement either? Maybe it's because im not much of a debater, I understand what you are getting at. I definitely read things im opposed to I guess just to make sure they aren't right and i'm wrong, like I have read some greek literature and for a little while was into it. I made that post a little while back and was just angry at some things. I was trying to take a shot at people who think it's some sort of peak of literature and thought and phrased it really bad to just be why read it at all. I don't know, I understand what you are saying. But also it might be a flaw but regardless yeah I agree with that second statement too for me personally. I understand oh but read it and you might be surprised, but i'd rather read things totally unrelated in hopes of finding something I think will provide answers than reading something i'm aware of and have a basic understanding of so I can have a deeper understanding of how wrong I think it is. But thats my laziness and I can't say any longer "why would anybody do that" just "why would I".