>I know nothing!>(...But actually I know everything and can prove it logically and if you disagree with me you are wrong and I will rhetorically humiliate you in public)
He again assented
>>25385114I never read a philosophy book and I'm looking to change that, but I don't want to start with the greeks. Where do I start then?
>>25385120Start with the greeks
>>25385120david hume writes in a pretty straightforward style and is probably closest to normie level philosophy in 2026. branch out from there however you want
>>25385120>but I don't want to start with the greeksdon't even bother then
>>25385120Start with the Geeks.
>>25385114>But actually I know everythingVery, very true reading of Socrates. He repeats that he knows nothing, yet he clearly conducts himself as a man who knows everything and can beat anyone in any argument about anything (so long as they only ever say 'Yes, Socrates)
>>25385120honestly, I started with The Odyssey and realized I liked the way they had their character stories enough to jump into the Republic which I found really funny for the first two books. Socrates is such a little shit, it's hilarious. The rest of the Republic was a bit more dense, but those first two books carried out for me and I learned to fall in love with it all after that. I'd always recommend starting with the Greeks, but from there you may want to skip up into something more rational or more monotheist depending on your bent.
>>25385237Socrates says we should outlaw The Odyssey thoughbeit.
>>25385443However in Hippias Minor he says he much prefers Odysseus to Achilles and that the Iliad is the far lesser work.
>>25385443Plato also has Socrates drink hemlock. You need to recognize a thought exercise for what it is, and recognize that there are plenty of other failures in the society described such that even if it's consistent in their terms, it's inconsistent with a sustainable way of life.
>>25385120Start with Lance S. Bush.
>>25385120The Man, the Legend, Rudolf Steiner.
>>25385114Real Socrates vs Plato's Socrates type problem.
>starts defending for one position, ends up defending opposition>put to trial doesn't feel like defending himself>learns a song waiting death row>they ask why, "just feel like it">nobody really understand what he was about>he checks out
>>25385114He doesn't say that. Most of the time he just knocks other people's arguments in an attempt to make THEM come to the right conclusions. Also his banter is top notch and one of the main reasons why Plato is fun to read.Still, he was annoying enough IRL that they killed him.
>>25386671Yep, this
>>25386671Those right conclusions being whatever Plato was interested in teaching at the moment.
>>25385120You REALLY ought to start with the Greeks. Later philosophers owe them a great deal, even if they end up disagreeing with their claims. You can see the evolution of thought that way. If you truly need to start with something else... Maybe Schopenhauer's "On the basis of morality"? Ethics are a universally beloved topic, and the point of the essey is to discuss them without basing the conclusions on other people's work, so it kinda works in a vacuum. Though it would be beneficial to read Kant beforehand.
>>25386678Well, he was teaching whatever he thought was true, so yeah. Also Plato wasn't a dogmatic, it's like every bigger monologue from Socrates is prefaced with something like "listen to what I say and tell me if it makes sense". He wasn't preaching, but rather was often forming thoughts as he discussed them.
>>25385120Start with meditations by Descartes, then maybe Hume. But know that you will have to take on Plato and Aristotle eventually. You don’t have to read everything but for Plato the republic and phaedo I would say are obligatory, for Aristotle nicomachean ethics and metaphysics.And you should read something about modern logic as well. Any textbook should be sufficient.
>>25385120Start with whatever you are interested in and eventually it will (or at least should) carry you places. However, frankly you are simply missing out if you don't start with Plato. He's an amazing introduction to philosophy and his dialogues have been in constant use among both students and experts for literally thousands of years.
Don't believe plato or people who think socrates was martyred for 'truth'. He was an authoritarian spartan cockmongler who was corrupting the young generation of upcoming Athenian elite by making them fall in love with him instead of the Athenian elite pedarasts. The only mistake Athens made was not hemlocking Plato and the rest of his cult while they could.
>>25385114Which is based
>>25385781Eastern philosophy is just this but institutionalized
