>>25041792
>How to tell your parents you're gay
>Gender Transitioning Guide
>Das Kapital

Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle - Klossowski
Inner Experience - Georges Bataille
Impossible Exchange - Baudrillard

>The World as Will and Representation
>Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 5: Symbols of Transformation
>Colon and Rectal Surgery: Abdominal Operations

Discipline and Punish, by Foucault

The Animal that Therefore I am, by Derrida

Expressionism in Philosophy, by Deleuze

These books are all very functional entry level to French pomo or whatever

>>25041792
>french theory
>it's just postmodernism
retard

>>25042636
>The Animal that Therefore I am
Interesting, does this book mean what I think it means?

I've been thinking lately about how were all fundamentally animals, who exist in an environment where we have to pretend where not. Wherein, if we had to confront and accept the implications of veganism, it would fundamentally break our capacity to continue pretending to be "beings". Human is the species classification. Being, is what actually distinguishes "humans".

>>25041792
Derrida is the only important one, the rest are memes. Especially Lacan and Deleuze.

>>25043041
Why? thats interesting. I think Derrida is quite literally the only one I considered skipping over, because Wittgenstein's "deconstruction" of language was sufficient enough for me.

Im looking to Foucault to understand what I think underpins the "use" of language Wittgenstein never bothered to delve into: Social relation.

And then Baudrilliard, for how Social Understandings of truth manifest in the modern world

And then maybe Deleuze, for how to actually find meaning once understood that language fundamentally cannot answer the questions of truth we want it to (per Wittgenstein)

I now filter my every perspective on philosophy through Wittgenstein, hes like what Kant was to the German Idealists and 20th Century philosophy. To me.

But Im worried he narrows my perspective too much, (which is ironic because his writing has swallowed my entire perspective) "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" As true as i find it to be, the more distanced I am from reading Philosophical Investigations. I do not want language to limit my world. So my entire philosophical endeavor, is an escape from Wittgenstein, somewhere beyond.

What does Derrida uniquely offer?

>>25043064
Wittgenstein deconstructs language by saying that things are meaningless, Derrida doesn't say that it is meaningless but says that its meaning is constituted by all the things that refuses to explicitly talk about or everything that is absent from it. the reason I don't like the others is that their projects are too positive for me, they're trying to establish all these new concepts that can just easily be victimized by Derrida or Adorno

>>25043036
Yes, but since Derrida is a world class genius you will find it way more interesting than anything anyone else has to say about animals

https://ejcj.orfaleacenter.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2002.-Jacques-Derrida.-The-animal-that-therefore-I-am-more-to-follow.pdf

>>25043064
Nta, but with regard to the history of philosophy and metaphysics, Derrida is the only one who takes up the Heideggerian project and advances it. A couple others worth a namecheck there are Levinas, Nancy, and Marion.

The famous names like Foucault, Lacan, Barthes, and Baudrillard ultimately have nothing to do with the history of philosophy and abandon it entirely in favor of social theory, psychoanalysis, or whatever.

Deleuze (also, maybe, Badiou) attempts to provide an alternative to phenomenology. It is highly debatable whether he is successful in this, and for my money, he is not.

>>25043082
Fuck. You mightve sold me on Derrida assuming youre not being ironic, and instead honest.

Ive been having these thoughts swirling in my mind, but im too dumb and poor, and mentally ill to deliberate on it in any meaningful way on my own. Hopefully I genuinely learn more from this.

>>25043081
>Wittgenstein deconstructs language by saying that things are meaningless
Eh, not exactly, but I understand why youre saying that. His conclusion is essentially that language cannot answer any fundamental philosophical questions, because language is a fundamentally context dependent on social use, communication tool. Where meanings are essentially only relevant per whatever particular rule is mandated by the language game. And he makes an unbelievably compelling argument, even more so if youve ever been in too many internet debates. Its genuinely astonishing how much it maps on to almost every single conversation, and debate we have over things. Thats why ive been trying to move beyond it, because yes, as you put it, the ultimate implication (this comes less from the book itself as Wittgenstein isnt being prescriptive, hes trying to understand why all these philosophical problems that can seemingly never be answered arise, and why trying to create a rigid language failed) is that nothing can ever mean anything, because meaning is fundamentally "self made" or more like "socially made".
>but says that its meaning is constituted by all the things that refuses to explicitly talk about or everything that is absent from it.
Interesting, this is the aspect that Wittgenstein doesn't really bother answering, he doesnt explain why or how the social basis for language makes its choices of meaning. I feel like Witt and Derrida are often pitted against eachother, but they can truly coexist, if this is what Derrida answered. Im intrigued.
>the reason I don't like the others is that their projects are too positive for me
I think I understand what you mean based on the little ive heard about Deleuze and his use of the concept of "schizophrenia" as a rebel force, but im always told that that Deleuze is so easy to misunderstand that I dont know what to make of it

I like what you said in your last sentence. To me, the true value of philosophy, is how philosophers interact with one another, or tacitly respond to one another even if not directly.

I dont want to wear you out on a random shitty image board. But im really curious about the clash between Derrida, Adorno, and Delueze etc.

You may be using "positive" differently than how ive interpreted it though. Because isnt Focault and Baudrilliard infamously negative? atleast about human beings and modern society.

>>25043092
>Derrida is the only one who takes up the Heideggerian project and advances it.
Fuck, so should I read Heidegger? Or is this one of those philosophers, where reading the guy that comes after suffices for understanding enough that is necessary of who came before?

>>25043098
I linked the PDF. It's just fifty pages

>>25043357
Is that really how short the book is? Pretty good for an introduction. Hopefully I can find it in audiobook format, but I appreciate the link nonetheless man. Its possible that if I really end up liking it, ill have to abandon Bergson for a while and dig into Derrida

>>25043311
don't read heidegger he destroyed metaphysics.

>>25043081
no he doesn't retard

>>25044298
this guy >>25043110 explains it well

>>25043362
Well it's a lecture. A lot of philosophers are best approached first through their lectures since they generally gained their initial notoriety through their lectures and only then wrote extensive books which were intended for a more knowledgeable audience or at least those who could access books or other material easily to grasp what's being referenced. Heidegger's lectures An Introduction to Metaphysics, and Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy are some obvious examples. Plato considered lecture so primary that he wrote his works in the form of dialogue and within those dialogues he says lectures are a better way of teaching than writing. If Aristotle seems complex today, it's because the writings we have by him were nothing more than his profuse lecture notes and intended mostly for himself to sort his thoughts out, and for students as reading material to accompany his lectures

>>25044358
damn so the only way into philosophy is truly through the education system, unfortunate, as I dont find the education system interesting for what i value most: discussion and debate

>>25044358
Should I read Heideggers Lectures introduction to Metaphysics before Derrida since Derrida apparently continues Heidegger?

Good thread

>>25044367
Untrue. There are abundant transcripts of lectures both by great philosophers, and by great academics lecturing on them. While academic study is optimal you will get more out of reading lectures than college unless you are actually taking a serious course on philosophy, particularly majoring in it. A good series for entry into philosophy is also A History of Philosophy, a nine volume series from the pre-Socratics to Sartre (two volumes were later added, one on Russian philosophy, the other on Wittgenstein which is much more biased than the other volumes) which was written by a priest for Catholic students, but despite his own states philosophy being Thomist he deals well with all philosophers based on his belief that there can be useful philosophy even among atheistic thinkers, and that where one does not agree with atheists one must still be completely familiar with their understanding and the basis for it if one wishes to confront it with intellectual honesty.

Lectures are intended to inspire and excite interest, but a lot of this can still be conveyed by their transcripts. Even though Plato preferred teaching by speech, after all, he still poured in the effort to write dialogues that others could read in lieu of that

And the great thing about today is you can now watch limitless videos of lectures for free

>>25044444
Checked

No. Every philosopher builds on prior philosophers, it's turtles all the way down stretching to the pre-Socratics who were the first to kick the ball. You should read Derrida first if he interests you. When you get deep into art you want to study and even practice its development in technique starting from the primitive, and when you get really into math you want to read writings from all the great mathematics, but this drive and passion is built upon starting with what you're interested in such as drawing architecture or the human figure or flowers, or studying number theory or quantitative analysis or game theory. You only tackle larger projects when your enthusiasm is kindled enough to drive you naturally. Another example might be trying to learn Greek without ever having read translation of Greek: you most likely will not have sufficient passion kindled to go beyond the initial familiarization because it will feel too laborious

>>25044539
>the other on Wittgenstein which is much more biased than the other volumes
What makes it biased? Im curious, because Wittgenstein is like Kant was to German Idealists and anybody who followed after Kant for me.

>>25044539
>While academic study is optimal you will get more out of reading lectures than college unless you are actually taking a serious course on philosophy, particularly majoring in it.
What if all I do is basically read about, write about, and debate about philosophy? Seems theres no other option than majoring in that case? Even though school doesnt seem made for people like me. Philosophy is basically the only thing that interests me greatly in the world, other than good writing (which is where my love of philosophy was born) which is far rarer per my tastes, than good philosophy.

>>25044558
I mean the volume was originally a paper he was asked to write basically seeking to refute Wittgenstein. Publishers later added it as a volume to his history and it is a bit out of place there. His volume on Russian philosophy however was his own addition and it has a nice coverage of Russian thinkers of the enlightenment often unknown to the west, all the way up to Lenin and later Russian thinkers, and it feels much more continuous with the prior volumes

>>25044562
If you want to publish as a philosopher and be a career philosopher, really the only routes are academic publishing, or self-publishing as a twitter amateur philosophy, and the latter can't bring in a very good livelihood. One possible alternative might be to study a particular philosopher in extreme depth and then translate his work and annotate and self-publish. That has a much higher chance of being noticed than starting by publishing a work of your own, and if you translate a difficult philosopher and annotate him particularly well it could function as an open résumé advertising your philosophical chops, and from thence you might be asked to write some articles and if they demonstrates promise then a faculty might invite you to publish with them.

>>25044581
Seems like too many side quests just to be able to end up doing "philosophy". And also makes philosophy seem like too much of a closed off cool kids club. Id rather become a shitty streamer and espouse amateur philosophy every day. But normies think of philosophy as "not really mattering" ironically even less tham videogames so it probably wouldnt succeed, but id prefer that than appealing to a culture that just "lazily" (to me) wants you to emptily regurgitate past philosophers by translating them, and proving you can be accepted into the club by contributing no actual philosophy of your own yet.

I dont know. Ill have to think about it.

>>25044588
If you want any academic discipline as a career, you definitely have to do a lot of side quests. If you want to become a professional mathematician or artist, the same applies. Philosophy as a career is a LOT of work. When philosophy is your career it can't be your hobby, it is what your working full-time as a job.

Translating past philosophy here is about showing how well you understand it, which is the primary requisite to articulating philosophy, or else you will have a "profound" thought that someone else articulated much better than you have hundreds of years ago and included sophisticated response to possible objections or prior philosophy which would conflict with it.

It's a coarse comparison but you can't approach philosophy like those who dream of being a professional basketball player but aren't willing to work way harder and longer than any waged job demands. If you don't enjoy practicing and playing basketball that much, then professional is not a realistic dream. Just like if you don't enjoy studying a particular philosopher for hours every day and weaving the right words in translation, it will just not be worth it to think of it as a career

>>25041792
don't bother.
for the love of god please don't bother

>>25044689
This. See what Dr Peterson has to say about it