is le start with the greeks really the right answer?>Plato and Aristotle bore me to death>Stoics are pretty lame and mono thematic>Sceptics are too smuge for me to find any value>Epicureanism is just twist on stoicism or the other way around maybe?>Pre-socratics seemed funny but there are mostly few secondary sources left which sucks please any good and interesting reads to get a grip of this whole philosophy thing?
Maybe just stick to the webnovels OP
>>25090064why do you want to start?
>>25090064>is le start with the greeks really the right answer?No, it only works for people who already have found a drive to read everything. For most people, who at first only seek very specific answers, they're better off formulating questions, by studying what they lack in their argumentations, by studying what they struggle to explain to themselves, or to others when they converse with them, and finding a reading list that will complete their knowledge.>how to start with philosophy? Honestly, you should start reading only when your writing and thinking reaches barriers, when you find your understanding to be lacking in some way, that's when you'll have the most drive to read and find answers.The only two philosophers that really hooked me from their first words to their last are so far Stirner and Schiller, because they're very straight to the point, and treat ideas with such eloquence and a unique perspective that I always feel refreshed and light after each sentence; they're the only one I want to reread fully, eventually.
>>25090064find something, anything, that ignites the passion to know in you. then work your way to the greats. you can't ignore the Greeks though. they, for the most part, did it the best, and you're going to have to circle back at some point. if you don't even think that it's even a remote possibility that your passion to know will overcome the dryness of Aristotle's Metaphysics, or even that the subject matter itself will become interesting despite the dryness, then philosophy in its essence is simply not for you.
>>25090064Honestly, just read what strikes your fancy. Figure out the claim being made and it's justifications. It's a web
>>25090064https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_wopcEyf7iz2m8Z-SnggSrC4MTZ7NAY_
>>25090064>Heidegger is probably the best place for anyone new to philosophy to start.His work, Being and Time, is widely considered a foundational and all around good introduction to the basics of philosophy.
>>25090064you probably enjoy slop. Philosophy is the last bastion for men with intellect that hasn't been poisoned by women.
>>25090212Yeah seconded. Plus Richardson has a good introduction (Routledge) to Heidegger. Anyway I wish I'd read Being and Time earlier, before poisoning my brain with the French. That said, the French are a necessary poison. Start with Montaigne. Alternatively, start with the Chinese. Ziporyn's Zhuangzi is interesting in large part because his and Georg-Moeller's work comes from a European background, so there's a way to move between the two and come to grips with basic (occidental) philosophy. The former has an interesting article called "How the Hegel of 1802 almost became a Chinese philosopher." If starting with the Greeks go to whats his face's account of their lives. Diogenes of Sinope I think. Of course the best advice is to troll wikipedia until you find someone dealing with a subject matter that intrigues you, then bury yourself in their work.
