/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(5.34 KB 238x212 download.jpg)
Comrade 05/25/2020 (Mon) 14:07:28 No. 1773
What if I wanted to read more or less "contemporary" philosophers like Sartre, Beauvoir, Adorno, Deleuze, Zizek, Badiou, etc.. but don't have the time and, dare I say, sufficient interest to go through Kant, Plato, Aristotle, and all the other classical authors of philosophy? How much do I have to lose? I'm willing to spend a couple of months reading Plato, but I think I'm only willing to go through secondary sources for Aristotle. Same goes for the philosophers that predated the "contemporary" ones mentioned above. I'd be willing to read a history and primer on German idealism and maybe even read primary enlightenment texts if I have to. So how much do I have to lose? People who are good at philosophy please answer.
read Kojève's 'Introduction to the Reading of Hegel.' It does a good job outlining the pivot from pre-Hegel (including Plato and Kant) to post-Hegel (Marx and all the other buddies you mentioned). It was also a foundational text for post-Marxist thinkers like Deleuze. Now, it's only one book, so it obviously won't cover everything you're looking for, but I think it's hugely beneficial for getting a grip on how modern philosophy relates to ancient philosophy.
>>1774 Thanks, hearing that it was a foundational text for Deleuze gives me some relief. Don't most contemporary philosophers today tend to have non-orthodox order of reading?
(22.49 KB 267x400 1272186.jpg)
This is also the book I'll be using to brush up on German philosophy and the intellectual development during those era. Any more recommended secondary sources will help.
Drop the philosophy nonsense. Read some political economy anon.
>>1773 Here's a good book on French literature. Take a look. If you want a guide through philosophy, /lit/ started a helpful little project here: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub Don't worry about the chan influence too bad because the author is a postmodernist and a Marxist, so I can assure you won't get bullshit shoved down your throat. In any case, knowledge of the classics is precursory to the intellectual dearth that is French academia. This is due in part to the thinkers Nietzsche and Heidegger, the latter of which sought to return to a much simpler discourse unburdened by the weight of hundreds of years worth of philosophic terminology. Unfortunately despite this endeavour, he himself is a hard author to wrap his head around. Nonetheless he is a premier philosopher who inspired the likes of Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, and other. You would be forgiven however if you don't decide to read him since he his fair amount of criticism. Something to note is that there are various strands of philosophy which take you one or another depending which author you read. I would say that you should at least tackle Spinoza before the German idealists. Immanuel Kant is practically one of the most important asides from Hegel. Feuerbach is a good last stop in German idealists before you engage with either Marx or Nietzsche. Anyways, what you have to lose ultimately depends on your circumstances. If you want to become an academic within the the Humanities, then you have everything to gain. If you're a neet, it can be an interesting, yet frustrating hobby due to the lack of colleagues to talk about it with. However, if you're a regular working man, it would be best to take something like the Greeks lightly. Read at your own pace and to your own needs. It can be a rewarding journey, but the fruits of its labour may not be readily apparent.
>>1779 I've read that guide before, I just thought it was too much for what I want. After some thought, I guess my main interest is mostly towards critical theorists, some contemporary existentialists like Sartre, and other "outward" philosophers like maybe Macintyre. I've always been fascinated by them, through my professors, through my adjacence to the left, to the thoughts and literature of existentialists. I've read Society of the Spectacle and I wanted more of that, but of course I've read sort of other "philosophical primers". I don't expect myself to be a philosopher, but I want to delve into the ideas of the people I'm interested in headfirst. I know it sounds arrogant, but I believe that I'll read and study Nietszche, Heidegger, Kant, and even Hegel once I'm done fully indulging myself with their successors, and once I believe the best way to understand contemporary philosophies is to delve deep in the past. So far, my arrogant "curriculum" looks like this: Reading Plato (am doing this right now, I actually expect to be finished reading in two months, since I'm pretty disciplined, and I think I'm capable of comprehension) Another two months of Aristotle's foundational work. Then I wanna read the liberal/enlightenment era philosophers, Hume, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, etc and a bit of Frege since I'm a STEM student. For some reason I expect it last two months still. Then I'll brush up on the history of German idealism and French philosophy in the books listed in this thread, and finally modern critical theorists, post-Marxists, existentialists, the whole shebang. This one has no time limit, since I'm pretty much reading for "leisure" now. If it ever takes longer than that, I'll adapt my timeframe, but whatever happens next, like studying Hegel or Nietszche himself for example, is dependent on what I learn or wish to learn after reading such works So basically, the question on "What do i have to lose?" is not about the value of the knowledge itself, but rather the impact of me skipping in depth studies of past work. Thanks for the input though, I hope this post also gets a reply.
>>1779 >the author is a postmodernist and a Marxist, so I can assure you won't get bullshit shoved down your throat. >a postmodernist and a Marxist >you won't get bullshit shoved down your throat >a postmodernist and a Marxist
>>1784 In context this means /pol/-style bullshit specifically. IMO though if you want to embark on an intellectual journey with very little bullshit, study chemistry or something, not French literature and capital-T Theory. Not everything good comes from sterile sources; there are valuable things in the cowshed, too, but don't step into one if you're worried about the cleanliness of your slippers.
>>1781 My apologies if you were expecting an expedient response. >I want to delve into the ideas of the people I'm interested in headfirst I don't see a problem with this at all. You're already making an effort into reading the classics, so you're already better off than most people in this regard. I can't exactly answer what you would be missing, but it's likely that you will notice it through the vocabulary of critical theorists. I can definitely tell you that you will miss out on the engagements with modern metaphysics (1800s onwards) and the nihilistic epoch of modernity which connects to the themes of the existentialist for example. >>1784 It's a pretty good guide. There isn't even a section dedicated to postmodernism, because the document is unfinished once it gets to the Continental-Analytical split.
>>1792 >I can't exactly answer what you would be missing, but it's likely that you will notice it through the vocabulary of critical theorists. I can definitely tell you that you will miss out on the engagements with modern metaphysics (1800s onwards) and the nihilistic epoch of modernity which connects to the themes of the existentialist for example. Well, if I ever realize I'm missing something, I have the internet and professors anyhow. I can always stop studying a book and read another one if I think it's a requirement anyhow, right?
>>1793 Of course. I have the feeling it won't be much of a deal anyhow. That is, not until you get to Deleuze or something.
I just read Anti-Oedipus/ATP and pretend it's Raymound Roussel
>>1773 read ultra left phylosophy like guy debord , raoul vanegeim , György Lukács , Henry Lefbvre , the revue "international situationnist" , "theorie communiste" or "sic" it's better adorno is good
>>1773 and yes you can read them directly
>>1773 in fact you only need to read a lot of marx before
>>1773 I did pretty much exactly this. you can get away with it by reading pic related to get the framework of what the classical and ancient philosophers are all about. but for some of the people you listed, like Zizek and Badiou (can't speak on the others, but I've heard Deleuze is supposed to be pretty easy in isolation), you will have to additionally understand some mid 20th-century stuff like Lacan and Heidegger.
>>1778 t. theorylet without philosophy there is no Marx
>>1778 >political economy So shitty philosophy?
(424.32 KB 2000x1200 d&g.jpeg)
This might be better in a separate thread but whatever. Would it be a bad idea to learn French by reading the untranslated works of Deleuze and Guattari? Perhaps I should stick to the existentialists.
Thanks for the material in this thread guys, really good stuff.
>>6315 I think it's good to practice any skill just on the threshold of difficulty, so my guess is that if you're in the process of learning French D&G might be not ideal. (They are, after all, often regarded as infamously unclear.) That's why my own French reading at this moment is just newspapers and popular histories. But if it works for you go for it.
You can read some primers, but you really should spend time going through the classics if you want to understand contemporary works at their fullest. But for most of those (Baidou, Beauvoir, Sarte, Adorno) you actually don't need that much of a background. Also remember that most philosophers from the Enlightenment and after made works that basically summed up their entire thought. Kant especially. >>6315 Depends on your level of French. D+G are hard writers. I'd say stick to the Existentialists, particularly Camus (not because he's a good theorist but because he's easy to read).

Delete
Report

no cookies?