As a brainlet I just started with this and holy shit it is much more interesting and comprehensible than going directly to the source

As a brainlet I just started with this and holy shit it is much more interesting and comprehensible than going directly to the source

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Those books are great but you'll remain a midwit with tenuous understanding if you only read digested material and don't form your own thoughts by engaging with the source. You'll probably be able to trick other midwits into thinking you're smarter than you actually are though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The virgin primary sources reader vs. the chad secondary sources reader

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        virgin memethinker vs chad Geist spaghettibrain

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        vs the gigachad 'got all their knowledge of hegel from fo:nv'

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries. Obviously it gets a bit more in depth than Short Guides, but this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts cover to cover, and underestimates secondaries.
    In four years the only primary texts I read all the way through were Decartes Meditations, Hume's two enquiries, and some of Foucault. Not a single person was reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts cover to cover, and underestimates secondaries.
      Why do you differ from the board in this aspect?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why do you differ from the board in this aspect?
        Because I have a philosophy degree

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not an answer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >In four years the only primary texts I read all the way through were Decartes Meditations, Hume's two enquiries, and some of Foucault. Not a single person was reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.
      Seriously? What university and how common is this kind of thing?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russell Group. Very common. You think everyone is reading Das Kapital cover to cover? All three volumes? For undergraduate level essays and exams?
        I wrote a 5000 dissertation on Marxist interpretations of Hegelian historiography, and passed a closed book exam on a similar topic. At no point did I sit down and read Philosophy of Right in its entirety. That would be madness. It's more important to know the different schools of thought about the book than the book itself.
        Maybe if you did a masters or a PhD and you focused only on Hegel you would actually read all the Phenomology or the POR

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You think everyone is reading Das Kapital cover to cover? All three volumes? For undergraduate level essays and exams?
          No, but I'd think that even for an undergraduate degree you would read more than just a handful of original texts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I only read a handful cover to cover. I read plenty of chapters and excerpts from all the big hitters, but only a few did I read every single page in order, like you would a novel.
            Eg for Hegel, I would usually find the chapter and verse mentioned in the secondary, and read that to get more understanding of the point being made and how it linked in. But I never sat down and read the whole damn book.

            >What university and how common is this kind of thing?
            Not the case in Germany if you go to one of the good university. In Freiburg for example you will intensively work through one philosophical work (Kant/Hegel/Nietzsche/Husserl) with other students and a prof in the span of 2 semesters to learn how to read primary texts properly and obviously also do other modules on top. You are generally expected to engage with primary works, although it would obviously be easy to just bullshit your way through – but why would you sabotage your education on purpose? Most seminars usually either focus on a specific work or a collection of essays/fitting excerpts of larger works. There are no seminars only consistinf of secondary lit.

            >collection of essays/fitting excerpts of larger works.
            That was most of my modules, exceprts from primary, and just as much interpretations and reactions to it
            >There are no seminars only consistinf of secondary lit.
            Nor for me, there was always reference to the primaries, but in excerpt, not working through the entire text as you describe (unless it's a short one like those I mentioned)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am sorry for being rude and calling you pathetic, but I find this very sad. Why are you acting as if reading through an entire work of Hegel would be madness? Isn't this what you're passionate about? I don't really get it, although I have heard much worse when it comes to the work moral of history and art history students. Although in philosophy you can at least decide if you want to attend the advanced Kant seminar and put in some effort or to just do a low effort one for the credit points.

            The only respectable people are Greek philologists tbh. Not Latin ones, though. Those only want to become teachers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you acting as if reading through an entire work of Hegel would be madness? Isn't this what you're passionate about?
            Very few people are passionate enough about Hegel to feel any other way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this thread still up

            >Why are you acting as if reading through an entire work of Hegel would be madness?
            Because the essay I'd had to turn around in a few weeks was not going to be 'have you read Philosphy of Right cover to cover?'. It was going to be 'can you show your understanding of how key concepts from Philosophy of Right influenced specific Marxist thinkers in the later 19th century?'.
            So it was just as important to get that wider context as it was to get chapter and verse on Hegel, and I could skip the parts which weren't relevant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >his school didn't require him to read the entire text as well as analysis alongside presenting a list of suggested readings for precocious students
            Lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            At the admission interview for my school I was required to recite a randomly selected chapter from PoS, in the original German, entirely from memory. If you got a single word wrong you couldn't get in

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >autist sperged something he memorized to one of his profs and he turned it into an admissions interview story to impress strangers on the internet
            NToA btw.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which one did you recite?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the essay I'd had to turn around in a few weeks was not going to be 'have you read Philosphy of Right cover to cover?'. It was going to be 'can you show your understanding of how key concepts from Philosophy of Right influenced specific Marxist thinkers in the later 19th century?'
            OK, so your application of the text is specifically historical and not philosophical in itself. You clearly have a different objective than the anons who want to understand Hegel's thinking on its own and do so by engaging with his works as a unified whole. Thank you for providing the insight that there are different ways to read a book depending on the interest you have in it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            capital cover to cover (for me that means vol 1) takes like two three weeks max to understand for a nonacademic, the time to read it through can be spared by an undergraduate and it'll save time later by letting you ignore all the tedious misrepresentations of it you'll come across

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >people are writing dissertations on books they can't even be bothered to read
          the absolute state of academia

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            when I did my econ undergrad I was the only person I knew apart from a handful of professors who actually read Adam Smith, Piketty, Friedman etc. everyone I talked to only cared about passing their next test. no real interest in the subject matter. was so disheartening.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            grad students included

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >What university and how common is this kind of thing?
        Not the case in Germany if you go to one of the good university. In Freiburg for example you will intensively work through one philosophical work (Kant/Hegel/Nietzsche/Husserl) with other students and a prof in the span of 2 semesters to learn how to read primary texts properly and obviously also do other modules on top. You are generally expected to engage with primary works, although it would obviously be easy to just bullshit your way through – but why would you sabotage your education on purpose? Most seminars usually either focus on a specific work or a collection of essays/fitting excerpts of larger works. There are no seminars only consistinf of secondary lit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >university
          *universities

          >You think everyone is reading Das Kapital cover to cover? All three volumes? For undergraduate level essays and exams?
          No, but I'd think that even for an undergraduate degree you would read more than just a handful of original texts.

          Ignore him, Anglos are pathetic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I went to a globally ranked school. A German prof I had constantly shit on how academia is framed in my country and how much hand holding/spoon feeding there is for students, lol. In his class we were expected to put together a one page essay every week based on the section of the (primary source) text that was to be critiqued and discussed every class. The essays were graded between 0 and 3 and we were supposed to write amendments to what we had written on the back of the page during class before handing it in for grading. The prof personally went through every essay and tore it apart while providing commentary and further reading if we had interest.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
        You went to a shitty school, bro. Every philosophy course I took in uni was primary source readings. At most, they'd list a Cambridge Companion in the syllabus as a suggested text and that was only for the introductory surveys in first year.

        that is much more damning of your school than it is of anyone on this board.

        NTA but i was also a philosophy major and can confirm it was basically the same for me; this board vastly overestimates the importance and efficacy of reading primary literature. and if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same
        immediate signs someone is a IQfy autodidact pseud is if they think 1. reading secondary literature is ill-advised 2. you need to read long tedious works like CoPR cover-to-cover for it to "count", i.e. they think everyone educated in philosophy has done this 3. certain authors have prerequisites so they tell you that you have to read xyz before you can read whoever, as exemplified by "start with the greeks" nonsense
        >your school was bad
        my school had one of the best undergraduate programs in the world on certain metrics

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >certain metrics
          the "metrics" being pumping out worthless papers
          frick yourself, not everyone is as moronic as anglos

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >anglo anglo anglo
            just admit you never went to college

            https://i.imgur.com/J4XvZSB.jpeg

            > if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same

            this is how you pseuds clam yourselves up in your echo chamber, you come up with excuses why information countering your preconceptions is wrong. if i say my profs do x y z then you say my school was bad, if i say people at r/askphilosophy say x y z then you dismiss it because it's reddit. pathetic

            For intro to modern
            >Descartes
            Discourse on Method
            Meditations on First Philosophy
            Principles of First Philosophy
            ...(Lumped in with the Descartes section)...
            Bacon: New Organon and selections from Aphorisms
            Galileo: The Assayer, Corpuscularianism
            Spinoza: Descartes's Principles of Philosophy, "Prolegomenon" and "Definitions"
            Leibnitz: On Descartes (Letters to Foucher, to Elisabeth, and to Molanus)
            Pascal: Pensees, "The Wager"
            Descartes, Hobbes, Arnaud: Objections and Replies
            >Spinoza
            The Ethics
            Letters to Oldenburg and Meyer
            ...(Lumped in with the Descartes section)...
            Hobbes: Leviathan (selections)

            That's just the first 2 sections and I don't want to write the rest out. From there you have sections on Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume (for the Locke section you also read Boyle and for Hume you read Bayle and Reid). Notice that the commentary on the primary sources is still contemporaneous to them. This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves.

            [...]
            See [...] and the above.

            this still doesn't resemble what autodidact IQfy pseuds do, my profs supplied excerpts and short primaries as well. but they will try to read the entire summa theologica before reading discourse on method
            >This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves.
            this is ill-advised, people horribly misunderstand some philosophers because of lack of context making them misunderstand what they're reading. we have dedicated scholars for a reason, use them! it's incredibly arrogant to think some kid who only speaks one language will understand the texts better than them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            FICK DEIN "college"!!!
            >who only speaks one language
            DEINE HOCHSCHULE IST EINE GLORIFIZIERTE BEHINDERTENWERKSTATT
            READ "VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION TO LIFE" PUBLISHED BY "Oxford University Press" AND THEN have a nice day! =MORE EFFICIENT!!! LESS EMISSIONS, THINK UTILITARIAN, INSEKT

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sorry but the rest of us aren't forced to take english in primary school so multilinguality is not a given. i'm multilingual btw

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To be honest, the English language classes here are quite awful. At most they give students some basics. The dominance of Anglophone culture is the main reason why so many Europeans speak English well, so even if you had language classes early on it would be debatable if students would be proficient enough to read texts properly after graduation. Look at Euros trying to learn any other language besides English in school. Most just bullshit their way through. *ahem* Insect!!!
            (I still think that philosophy students shouldn't be monolingual. In Germany you usually need to prove knowledge in 4 languages including Latin/Greek to be able to write a phd thesis – unless you go to a university which is corrupted by Anglo analytical "philosophy")

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >this is ill-advised, people horribly misunderstand some philosophers because of lack of context
            Just admit you went to a shitty school. The fact you read that as not having the background to understand something, when it was expressly stated the readings contextualize contemporary response and understanding, demonstrates your reading comprehension is awful. No wonder you needed to read stuff that pre-digested everything for you.
            >we have dedicated scholars for a reason, use them!
            Yeah, moron. They're known as the professor leading the courses and providing lectures based on the material you read before coming into a particular class that week.
            >it's incredibly arrogant to think some kid who only speaks one language will understand the texts better than them
            Lol, remember when you were calling out IQfy pseuds? "YOU DON'T SPEAK ANCIENT GREEK! HOW CAN YOU READ PLATO!" Lol, frick you're dumb. Does it not count if the instructor delivers his lectures in ancient Greek? Ffs, you should have gotten better grades on high school in order to get into a decent university.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Does it not count
            only* count

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Just admit you went to a shitty school.
            i didn't, i went to an excellent school as i said. you're sounding awfully defensive, could this be projection?

            >The fact you read that as not having the background to understand something
            but that's what you said. write more clearly next time
            >No wonder you needed to read stuff that pre-digested everything for you
            big talk coming from who is transparently a continental logiclet. you said:
            >This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves
            if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            as it happens scholarship makes progress and contemporaneous secondary sources are often awful. for example basically nobody understood kant when he was alive. so what i said stands. in the united states we introduce rigor into our tertiary education, in the case of philosophy that includes understanding basic logical inferences when presented with everyday language, it's the reason people will go into lifelong grueling debt to get a degree from one of our universities and why we continually outperform the rest of the world in terms of academic output and attract rich kids from other countries as university students. instead of wasting our time reading archaic scholarship
            >They're known as the professor leading the courses and providing lectures based on the material you read before coming into a particular class that week.
            again, you just logically undermined yourself by admitting secondary sources are valuable. just admit you didn't go to college, i don't think even continentals are this bad at logic
            >"YOU DON'T SPEAK ANCIENT GREEK! HOW CAN YOU READ PLATO!"
            that's not what i said, what i said is that you'll likely understand it less well than a scholar who knows ancient greek. holy frick dude, and you're the one telling others about reading comprehension?
            >Ffs, you should have gotten better grades on high school in order to get into a decent university.
            you should have went to college. or actually maybe not, you likely would have flunked out judging from this post

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'D RATHER READ: AVERROES AND FICINO
            THAN: SLIMY ANGLO BASTARD
            WELCHE PHILOSOPHEN HABT IHR DENN VORZUWEISEN?
            EAT KRIPKE'S SMEGMA

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i didn't, i went to an excellent school as i said.
            It doesn't sound like it at all, anon.
            >but that's what you said.
            Nope. You have poor reading comprehension because you went to a crap school that held your hand too much.
            >big talk coming from who is transparently
            Project all you want. You got a degree on easy mode and it shows.
            >if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves"
            Nope, I specifically gave you the rationale behind reading correspondence between contemporary philosophers, moron. What a dumb argument, lol. You know The Library of Living Philosophers was created for pretty much that reason, right? Oh wait, you went to a shit school so you don't even know what that is.
            >sperg sperg sperg
            Not reading the rest of that part because it was obvious you're filtered by what I quoted above.
            >again, you just logically undermined yourself by admitting secondary sources are valuable
            Ah, I see I didn't make a mistake skipping over the above. I never said secondary sources aren't valuable, moron. I pointed out that lectures themselves serve as a secondary source on the material you read and it's a piss poor degree that spoon feeds via the reliance on pre-digested material.
            >just admit you didn't go to college
            I did. Judging by your nonarguments and piss poor ability to engage with ideas you wasted your money, lol.
            >that's not what i said
            Yes, anon. I was making fun of you for making an absurd argument about reading secondary materials. It went over your head because you went to a shitty school.
            >you should have went to college.
            I did. Your probably shouldn't have though (i.e. it appears you attended a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents, lol).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you attended a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents
            Kek, wrecked.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            your post has convinced me that you are a compulsive liar, stop pretending to be a philosophy graduate. it's obvious to everyone, even the other anon said it here:

            Philosophy degree is not a philosophy course and the general philosophy courses everyone can take are not the courses a philosophy student takes for their degree. Would take 20 years to get a degree if you read only primary sources and most of what is in primary sources are dead ends. The degree focuses on philosophy as a whole and the ideas which carried through and affected things to come while ignoring all those ideas which never moved pass the philosopher/their movement.

            Not knowing this strongly suggests you did not go to college.

            >Judging by your nonarguments and piss poor ability to engage with ideas you wasted your money, lol.
            i recommend you sign up for a dyscalculia evalution
            >I never said secondary sources aren't valuable, moron.
            then i guess we don't disagree. except you know we do because this argument wouldn't be taking place if we didn't
            anyway i'm not engaging further because the hard truth is that everyone with formal training in philosophy will agree with me and disagree with you, even

            Absurdly common for undergrad, can't speak to grad, but I reckon "professional philosophers" are the only one's expected to actually read their primaries. Pretty ludicrous if you ask me, but then I'm a psued that insists on primaries, with "secondaries" being clif notes and "actual" secondaries being authors that write primaries that build on previous primaries.

            said it's absurdly common despite not approving of it

            >you attended a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents
            Kek, wrecked.

            nobody asked kraut

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >tl;dr
            You went to a shit school and as a result your reading comprehension sucks. You also didn't learn very much about creativity based on the fact all you can come back with is the same boring attempt at elitism you obviously didn't earn, lol.

            >YOU DON'T SPEAK ANCIENT GREEK! HOW CAN YOU READ PLATO
            This is true and you're a midwit coping if you think otherwise. Doubly so if you think you can have a proper philosophical education without knowing ancient greek and latin. These two languages used to be thought for centuries for a reason.

            Naw, you should have it for grad school or if you want to become an academic but translation is fine for the undergraduate level. If you're not an academic and wasted time learning ancient Greek I suggest you try touching grass and (paying to) have sex.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're not even replying to his points, just throwing strawmen and personal attacks at him. I think he's right that you didn't go to college.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What part of "tl;dr" did you not understand? The anon didn't make any points in his previous posts so why the frick would I waste time reading his spergs? Besides, he's all about disregarding primary sources so why can't I rely on reading the replies to his nonarguments? Lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He did make points though. For example:
            >if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            This is an argument in the philosophical sense, i.e. premises leading to a conclusion. Not that you would know that.
            Your response was to say you "specifically gave [him] the rationale behind reading correspondence between contemporary philosophers" without actually saying what that was or how what he said contradicted it, then you just said "What a dumb argument, lol." (so you admit it was an argument?), then you brought up the Library of Living Philosophers for literally no reason other than to presume he doesn't know what that is (more realistically, to try and land cultural capital points). At no point did you challenge either his premises or his logical deductions from those premises. If you actually went to university you're an embarrasment to that institution. I usually don't intervene in arguments like this, but someone being not only a smug butthole but also wrong tends to grind my gears.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            I replied to that by pointing out what I brought up in the post to which he was responding and referenced The Library of Living Philosophers.
            >tl;dr
            Not reading the rest. Sorry not sorry.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not reading the rest.
            How convenient for you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well, if you're too moronic to understand that I replied to his post by guiding him back to a previous statement he missed, and you likely didn't understand why The Library of Living Philosophers was referenced, your posts obviously aren't worth reading, anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't guide him back to a previous statement, you vaguely gestured to it you arrogant frickface. This is presumably what you're talking about:
            >Notice that the commentary on the primary sources is still contemporaneous to them. This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves.
            You didn't actually spell out why this contradicts that Anon, like I said. They understood your point and argued against it. Failing to lay out arguments clearly is a sign of the absence of formal training in philosophy.
            >inb4 oh you can't read the obvious implications
            No, if your supposed program had any rigor at all it would have made you write your arguments clearly. Shifting the burden to the reader is bullying behavior.
            You're fricking stupid and totally ignorant of how stupid you come off, to boot. And you hide behind "tl;dr" because you're afraid of engaging in arguments because you know it'll expose you as the degreeless fraud you are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you vaguely gestured to it
            Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a moron who needed his hand held throughout his degree, lol.
            >you arrogant frickface
            Simmer down there, tough guy.
            >You didn't actually spell out why this contradicts that Anon
            First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless. Second, it contradicts him because I a) listed correspondence between the original author and his contemporaries and, b) there's an obvious difference between reading something directed toward the original author and reading commentary written hundreds of years later. Frick, you really need hand holding, eh?
            >No, if your supposed program had any rigor at all it would have made you write your arguments clearly
            Yet more hand-holding. You see, the Library of Living Philosophers was created to give a given philosopher the chance to clarify his thought in direct response to critical readings of his work. You may have been able to figure that out for yourself if your degree required the initiative of independent thought and research (i.e. a 10 second Google search and skimming of the Wikipedia article on the series would have yielded understanding). However, you obviously went to a shit school that was little better than a diploma mill (i.e. a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents).
            >descends into seethe
            It's not my fault you're a moron who needs thing continuously spelled out for him, anon. How does that joke go? There are 2 types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete information

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not that Anon, and you are such an obnoxious chucklefrick that I can't argue with you anymore. Let me just say it's horribly obvious you never went to uni (you think philosophy programs require Googling and skimming Wikipedia articles? Really?).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >pretends to be a different anon, loops back to the same insult that has failed to land multiple times, and rage quits
            Lol, better luck next time. You should have gone to a real school.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            hold on buddy, so you're saying

            I'm not that Anon, and you are such an obnoxious chucklefrick that I can't argue with you anymore. Let me just say it's horribly obvious you never went to uni (you think philosophy programs require Googling and skimming Wikipedia articles? Really?).

            ,

            [...]
            [...]
            NTA but i was also a philosophy major and can confirm it was basically the same for me; this board vastly overestimates the importance and efficacy of reading primary literature. and if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same
            immediate signs someone is a IQfy autodidact pseud is if they think 1. reading secondary literature is ill-advised 2. you need to read long tedious works like CoPR cover-to-cover for it to "count", i.e. they think everyone educated in philosophy has done this 3. certain authors have prerequisites so they tell you that you have to read xyz before you can read whoever, as exemplified by "start with the greeks" nonsense
            >your school was bad
            my school had one of the best undergraduate programs in the world on certain metrics

            ,

            Absurdly common for undergrad, can't speak to grad, but I reckon "professional philosophers" are the only one's expected to actually read their primaries. Pretty ludicrous if you ask me, but then I'm a psued that insists on primaries, with "secondaries" being clif notes and "actual" secondaries being authors that write primaries that build on previous primaries.

            , and

            Philosophy degree is not a philosophy course and the general philosophy courses everyone can take are not the courses a philosophy student takes for their degree. Would take 20 years to get a degree if you read only primary sources and most of what is in primary sources are dead ends. The degree focuses on philosophy as a whole and the ideas which carried through and affected things to come while ignoring all those ideas which never moved pass the philosopher/their movement.

            Not knowing this strongly suggests you did not go to college.

            all went to shit schools? and it's only you itt that didn't?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he's going to start saying they're all the same person just watch. it's the only way he can cope with how wrong he is

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yeah you were right, he thinks i'm you or something

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. I figured I'm arguing with at least 2 anons and never called you a samegay. What level of cope are you at? Lol

            FYI: I'm not going to scroll up to tag other posts (because I'm not grasping at straws) but multiple anons pointed out that relying on secondary sources indicates your programme is shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but multiple anons pointed out that relying on secondary sources indicates your programme is shit.
            people on here talk a lot of shit and few have actually studied phil so they say poser nonsense like this, yourself included. although i don't see what you're talking about, just you saying that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can no longer argue against points that were made
            >rage quits
            >...
            >comes back to argue that if more people agree with him it means he's right
            Lol, pathetic. To answer your question I'm willing to bet the school I went to is a lot better than any of yours.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can no longer argue against points that were made
            well i'm not that anon (i'm the first from earlier today) but i'll do it just to show you how easy it is to demolish you:
            >Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a moron who needed his hand held throughout his degree, lol.
            personal attack
            >Simmer down there, tough guy.
            personal attack
            >First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless

            >If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
            You went to a shitty school, bro. Every philosophy course I took in uni was primary source readings. At most, they'd list a Cambridge Companion in the syllabus as a suggested text and that was only for the introductory surveys in first year.

            >You went to a shitty school, bro.
            you said this in response to someone saying that they mainly read secondary sources in college, which implies that secondary sources are not good. no, professors don't count as secondary sources, that isn't how the term was being used in this thread but regardless even if it was the case then you'd be calling your own school shitty since you had a professor teach the class

            >you vaguely gestured to it
            Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a moron who needed his hand held throughout his degree, lol.
            >you arrogant frickface
            Simmer down there, tough guy.
            >You didn't actually spell out why this contradicts that Anon
            First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless. Second, it contradicts him because I a) listed correspondence between the original author and his contemporaries and, b) there's an obvious difference between reading something directed toward the original author and reading commentary written hundreds of years later. Frick, you really need hand holding, eh?
            >No, if your supposed program had any rigor at all it would have made you write your arguments clearly
            Yet more hand-holding. You see, the Library of Living Philosophers was created to give a given philosopher the chance to clarify his thought in direct response to critical readings of his work. You may have been able to figure that out for yourself if your degree required the initiative of independent thought and research (i.e. a 10 second Google search and skimming of the Wikipedia article on the series would have yielded understanding). However, you obviously went to a shit school that was little better than a diploma mill (i.e. a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents).
            >descends into seethe
            It's not my fault you're a moron who needs thing continuously spelled out for him, anon. How does that joke go? There are 2 types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete information

            >Second, it contradicts him because I a) listed correspondence between the original author and his contemporaries
            well this is better, an actual attempt at clarity, but as usual with obscurantism it doesn't hold up. i acknowledged that you did that here:

            >Just admit you went to a shitty school.
            i didn't, i went to an excellent school as i said. you're sounding awfully defensive, could this be projection?

            >The fact you read that as not having the background to understand something
            but that's what you said. write more clearly next time
            >No wonder you needed to read stuff that pre-digested everything for you
            big talk coming from who is transparently a continental logiclet. you said:
            >This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves
            if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            as it happens scholarship makes progress and contemporaneous secondary sources are often awful. for example basically nobody understood kant when he was alive. so what i said stands. in the united states we introduce rigor into our tertiary education, in the case of philosophy that includes understanding basic logical inferences when presented with everyday language, it's the reason people will go into lifelong grueling debt to get a degree from one of our universities and why we continually outperform the rest of the world in terms of academic output and attract rich kids from other countries as university students. instead of wasting our time reading archaic scholarship
            >They're known as the professor leading the courses and providing lectures based on the material you read before coming into a particular class that week.
            again, you just logically undermined yourself by admitting secondary sources are valuable. just admit you didn't go to college, i don't think even continentals are this bad at logic
            >"YOU DON'T SPEAK ANCIENT GREEK! HOW CAN YOU READ PLATO!"
            that's not what i said, what i said is that you'll likely understand it less well than a scholar who knows ancient greek. holy frick dude, and you're the one telling others about reading comprehension?
            >Ffs, you should have gotten better grades on high school in order to get into a decent university.
            you should have went to college. or actually maybe not, you likely would have flunked out judging from this post

            >if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            i.e., i acknowledged that you were listing contemporaneoous sources *and provided an argument for why they're inferior to modern secondary sources *which you didn't respond to**
            >and, b) there's an obvious difference between reading something directed toward the original author and reading commentary written hundreds of years later.
            yes, as i just acknowledged in the quote above. in any case neither of these two points actually spell out how they contradict what i said, presumably because they didn't
            >Frick, you really need hand holding, eh?
            you're writing out your thoughts poorly and then blaming the reader when they ask for elaboration, not exactly a sign of virtuous argumentation habits
            >Yet more hand-holding.
            ditto
            >You see, the Library of Living Philosophers was created to give a given philosopher the chance to clarify his thought in direct response to critical readings of his work. You may have been able to figure that out for yourself if your degree required the initiative of independent thought and research (i.e. a 10 second Google search and skimming of the Wikipedia article on the series would have yielded understanding).
            w-why are you assuming i don't kniw what that us? i never said i don't
            >However, you obviously went to a shit school that was little better than a diploma mill (i.e. a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents).
            very creative reuse of an insult used earlier (

            >i didn't, i went to an excellent school as i said.
            It doesn't sound like it at all, anon.
            >but that's what you said.
            Nope. You have poor reading comprehension because you went to a crap school that held your hand too much.
            >big talk coming from who is transparently
            Project all you want. You got a degree on easy mode and it shows.
            >if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves"
            Nope, I specifically gave you the rationale behind reading correspondence between contemporary philosophers, moron. What a dumb argument, lol. You know The Library of Living Philosophers was created for pretty much that reason, right? Oh wait, you went to a shit school so you don't even know what that is.
            >sperg sperg sperg
            Not reading the rest of that part because it was obvious you're filtered by what I quoted above.
            >again, you just logically undermined yourself by admitting secondary sources are valuable
            Ah, I see I didn't make a mistake skipping over the above. I never said secondary sources aren't valuable, moron. I pointed out that lectures themselves serve as a secondary source on the material you read and it's a piss poor degree that spoon feeds via the reliance on pre-digested material.
            >just admit you didn't go to college
            I did. Judging by your nonarguments and piss poor ability to engage with ideas you wasted your money, lol.
            >that's not what i said
            Yes, anon. I was making fun of you for making an absurd argument about reading secondary materials. It went over your head because you went to a shitty school.
            >you should have went to college.
            I did. Your probably shouldn't have though (i.e. it appears you attended a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents, lol).

            ), almost verbatim

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not my fault you're a moron who needs thing continuously spelled out for him, anon. How does that joke go? There are 2 types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete information
            personal attack
            as we can see not a lot of substance behind your constant insults. there's only one attempt at an argument and it fails miserably

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            #
            Not all of those replies are me, moron.

            >but multiple anons pointed out that relying on secondary sources indicates your programme is shit.
            people on here talk a lot of shit and few have actually studied phil so they say poser nonsense like this, yourself included. although i don't see what you're talking about, just you saying that

            #
            It's simple, anon. There are pseuds who say you gain nothing from reading secondary sources. This is obviously untrue as you can pick up interesting perspective on whichever subject you're studying. Also, there are morons who get upset when it's pointed out they took a shortcut and thereby lack a certain amount of depth to their knowledge. This comes through by the fact they parrot arguments which aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all of a text.

            If you went to a school where you read mostly secondary sources it means your programme was shit. It means you never seriously engaged with philosophers by way of their own writing and didn't have the opportunity to develop your own thought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you went to a school where you read mostly secondary sources it means your programme was shit.
            my school is ranked in the top 100 nationally and

            Russell Group. Very common. You think everyone is reading Das Kapital cover to cover? All three volumes? For undergraduate level essays and exams?
            I wrote a 5000 dissertation on Marxist interpretations of Hegelian historiography, and passed a closed book exam on a similar topic. At no point did I sit down and read Philosophy of Right in its entirety. That would be madness. It's more important to know the different schools of thought about the book than the book itself.
            Maybe if you did a masters or a PhD and you focused only on Hegel you would actually read all the Phenomology or the POR

            said they were in the russell group. now, i actually agree with what you said in your first paragraph, both primary and secondary sources are important and useful. but the fact is that most unis do in fact do a lot of secondary source readings and not at all just "degree mills", as others have pointed out in here. maybe somewhat misguided but i still stand by what i originally said that IQfy pseuds underrate secondary sources and overrate primary sources, even by your criteria. surely you'd agree it's unnecessary to read like the entire CoPR unless you're a kant scholar?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >my school is ranked in the top 100 nationally
            Mine is ranked in the top 20 globally and its philosophy program is in the top 10, lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            whatever, i didn't come here to measure university dick sizes. point is i didn't go to a "degree mill" or "shitty school"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tell that to the moron who say nothing other than "I GO TO UNIVERSITY!" Lol

            >and its philosophy program is in the top 10, lol.
            You're going to flunk out

            I already graduated with a STEM degree.

            >Not all of those replies are me, moron.
            >doesn't respond further
            ragequit moment

            >no you
            There's that lack of creativity I pointed out earlier.

            >No argument presented for conclusion
            Man you're a fan of that huh? And then when people ask you for the arguments you call it "hand-holding". Embarrassing.
            [...]
            Yeah sure buddy lmao.

            >gets hand-held and realizes he can't respond with nonsense
            Lol

            >your obviously lack of creativity.
            yeah i guess that confirms you're ESL

            >reduced to pointing out typos
            I accept your concession.

            >First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless.
            You never argued much of anything.

            >no argument
            Yet a whole team of homosexuals had to resort to seethe. Lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I already graduated with a STEM degree.
            holy frick lol why would you say this. so i was right that you don't hold a philosophy degree. it was painfully obvious but i got you to finally admit it lol
            i recommend in the future you let the people who actually know what they're talking about discuss things, all of us with phil degrees are in agreement. i think it's good that a stembaby like yourself branched out and took some phil classes but you need to learn some humility, that doesn't suddenly put you toe-to-toe with philosophy majors

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so i was right that you don't hold a philosophy degree
            I never claimed I did. I had enough credits for a minor though and as I said the courses were all stacked around primary sources. I even listed the books/readings for the introductory survey courses. I took the intro to ancient, intro to modern, a survey on continental, a survey on epistemology, logic (which was a total bird course and the only credit that used a textbook instead of primary sources), and Hegel. I then decided to go into History and Philosophy of Science & Technology (still humanities/arts) because it was more interesting and straight math.
            >i got you to finally admit it
            I've been honest the entire time. You went to a shitty school, lol.
            >sperg
            See

            #
            Not all of those replies are me, moron.

            [...] #
            It's simple, anon. There are pseuds who say you gain nothing from reading secondary sources. This is obviously untrue as you can pick up interesting perspective on whichever subject you're studying. Also, there are morons who get upset when it's pointed out they took a shortcut and thereby lack a certain amount of depth to their knowledge. This comes through by the fact they parrot arguments which aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all of a text.

            If you went to a school where you read mostly secondary sources it means your programme was shit. It means you never seriously engaged with philosophers by way of their own writing and didn't have the opportunity to develop your own thought.

            &

            >you vaguely gestured to it
            Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a moron who needed his hand held throughout his degree, lol.
            >you arrogant frickface
            Simmer down there, tough guy.
            >You didn't actually spell out why this contradicts that Anon
            First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless. Second, it contradicts him because I a) listed correspondence between the original author and his contemporaries and, b) there's an obvious difference between reading something directed toward the original author and reading commentary written hundreds of years later. Frick, you really need hand holding, eh?
            >No, if your supposed program had any rigor at all it would have made you write your arguments clearly
            Yet more hand-holding. You see, the Library of Living Philosophers was created to give a given philosopher the chance to clarify his thought in direct response to critical readings of his work. You may have been able to figure that out for yourself if your degree required the initiative of independent thought and research (i.e. a 10 second Google search and skimming of the Wikipedia article on the series would have yielded understanding). However, you obviously went to a shit school that was little better than a diploma mill (i.e. a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents).
            >descends into seethe
            It's not my fault you're a moron who needs thing continuously spelled out for him, anon. How does that joke go? There are 2 types of people, those that can extrapolate from incomplete information

            . You literally couldn't come up with a response to anything in those posts. It's likely because you went to a shit school where you had your hand held the entire time.

            You're a sad sad person, anon. Pathetic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >logic (which was a total bird course and the only credit that used a textbook instead of primary sources)
            the logic course at my school was one of the toughest, sounding like your school's department wasn't up to snuff tbh
            >You literally couldn't come up with a response to anything in those posts
            lacking in reading comprehension? guess you need hand-holding:

            >If you went to a school where you read mostly secondary sources it means your programme was shit.
            my school is ranked in the top 100 nationally and [...] said they were in the russell group. now, i actually agree with what you said in your first paragraph, both primary and secondary sources are important and useful. but the fact is that most unis do in fact do a lot of secondary source readings and not at all just "degree mills", as others have pointed out in here. maybe somewhat misguided but i still stand by what i originally said that IQfy pseuds underrate secondary sources and overrate primary sources, even by your criteria. surely you'd agree it's unnecessary to read like the entire CoPR unless you're a kant scholar?

            and

            >can no longer argue against points that were made
            well i'm not that anon (i'm the first from earlier today) but i'll do it just to show you how easy it is to demolish you:
            >Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a moron who needed his hand held throughout his degree, lol.
            personal attack
            >Simmer down there, tough guy.
            personal attack
            >First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless
            [...]
            >You went to a shitty school, bro.
            you said this in response to someone saying that they mainly read secondary sources in college, which implies that secondary sources are not good. no, professors don't count as secondary sources, that isn't how the term was being used in this thread but regardless even if it was the case then you'd be calling your own school shitty since you had a professor teach the class
            [...]
            >Second, it contradicts him because I a) listed correspondence between the original author and his contemporaries
            well this is better, an actual attempt at clarity, but as usual with obscurantism it doesn't hold up. i acknowledged that you did that here:
            [...]
            >if you think reading modern secondary sources is different than reading "the texts themselves", then that *logically entails* that reading contemporaneous sources also doesn't qualify as reading "the texts themselves", so you contradict yourself and make a non-statement either way
            i.e., i acknowledged that you were listing contemporaneoous sources *and provided an argument for why they're inferior to modern secondary sources *which you didn't respond to**
            >and, b) there's an obvious difference between reading something directed toward the original author and reading commentary written hundreds of years later.
            yes, as i just acknowledged in the quote above. in any case neither of these two points actually spell out how they contradict what i said, presumably because they didn't
            >Frick, you really need hand holding, eh?
            you're writing out your thoughts poorly and then blaming the reader when they ask for elaboration, not exactly a sign of virtuous argumentation habits
            >Yet more hand-holding.
            ditto
            >You see, the Library of Living Philosophers was created to give a given philosopher the chance to clarify his thought in direct response to critical readings of his work. You may have been able to figure that out for yourself if your degree required the initiative of independent thought and research (i.e. a 10 second Google search and skimming of the Wikipedia article on the series would have yielded understanding).
            w-why are you assuming i don't kniw what that us? i never said i don't
            >However, you obviously went to a shit school that was little better than a diploma mill (i.e. a 4 year daycare for middle class adolescents).
            very creative reuse of an insult used earlier ([...]), almost verbatim

            , respectively. i know not all of us can major in philosophy and thus can't develop the proper textual working memory required, but try to keep up
            >You went to a shitty school, lol.
            you do not have a philosophy degree which explains why you don't know what you're talking about. see

            >Why do you differ from the board in this aspect?
            Because I have a philosophy degree

            >You're a sad sad person, anon. Pathetic.
            i'm getting big insecurity vibes from you. gonna guess it's resentment from deciding to major in something "employable" and feeling inadequate compared to actual philosophy majors

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the logic course at my school was one of the toughest
            The intro course was easy and was a prerequisite for a major/minor. Logic isn't a difficult subject if you're math oriented.
            >sounding like your school's department wasn't up to snuff
            Cool "no you," bro. I'm willing to guess your school was full of morons who had a B average in high school so what constituted a bird course in my uni was culling the herd for you morons, lol.
            >lacking in reading comprehension?
            Yet another "no you" (there's that lack of creative thinking I've pointed out several times now). First post, "top 100" in your country is laughable; your school probably doesn't even show up in global rankings and I'll bet it's the same story for its philosophy department. You didn't respond to what I wrote about contemporaneous critique vs. stuff written hundreds of years later or even the case in point provided by LoLP. Regarding the LoLP, I went back to look at the posts I didn't bother reading before and yep, you didn't understand why it was referenced. Instead, you betrayed your insecurities by projecting the idea I brought it up to rub your face in the fact you never heard of it before (lol). Second post is just you crying about the fact your moronation was pointed out (again, lol).
            >you do not have a philosophy degree
            I have a minor which obviously outwieghs a major or a specialization (if your school even offered specialist degrees, lol) from your 4 year day care centre.
            >i'm getting big insecurity vibes from you
            That's what's known as "projection," anon. You reached for an elitist argument sperging about "le autodidacts" but it turned out your school is shit and your degree is a joke. My guess is people who self-studied BTFO'd you in philosopher threads and you have a chip on your shoulder about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I have a minor which obviously outwieghs a major or a specialization
            you did not major in philosophy, the original claim that i and every other philosophy major itt made was that your views are espoused by people who do not have philosophy degrees. so you proved us right by admitting you had no such degree. case closed
            >4 year day care centre
            it's in the top 100 unis in the united states, judging by your british spelling you probably don't realize what that means; it has a rather selective admission. also the philosophy department has the highest concentration of teaching awards at the school, with world-class scholars cited on the SEP almost without exception. but this is beside the point, we both know that the reason you rely on this argument is because you can't win in terms of actually holding a degree or having done the major, so you cope by convincing yourself your school was just that much better that taking a handful of courses makes up for it. in reality you are just a larping stemlord who got butthurt about my comments on autodidact pseuds because you felt targeted
            >My guess is people who self-studied BTFO'd you in philosopher threads and you have a chip on your shoulder about it.
            on the contrary, it's very easy to tell whether or not someone has formal training. hence why i was right about you
            >bla bla bla LoLP
            you did not major in philosophy, case is closed and i was right. have a nice one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you did not major in philosophy, the original claim that i and every other philosophy major itt made
            There were people who pointed out that they read mostly primary sources for their degrees. Also, I'll restate the fact that a major at your shit school sure seems to carry less weight than a minor at mine. Did your school even offer specialist degrees? Lol
            >it's in the top 100 unis
            Top 100?! Lol! Like I said, it's unlikely your school even shows up in global rankings let alone its philosophy department.
            >world-class scholars cited on the SEP
            I'm only saying this because you brought up the SEP. I noticed an error it had in one of its articles and emailed them about it. They sent me a thank you email (which I kept) and corrected the error. I can probably find it and post it of you'd like, although you'll likely say it's fake so what's the point?
            >sperg sperg sperg about how his school isn't shit tier
            4 year daycare center for middle class adolescents.
            >on the contrary, it's very easy to tell whether or not someone has formal training
            It's very easy to tell if someone went to a shit school: (You). You're so insecure about whichever HECKIN' AUTODIDACT anon(s) BTFO'd you in whichever philosophy thread I think I'll skip reading the next post in your multi-reply and make a meme. I read the first line and I think I have an idea...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You reached for an elitist argument
            Aren't you being elitist too? You're calling people who had B average in high school, and people who are in nationally ranked universities, "morons" and shitting on tons of philosophy professors for not being in internationally ranked departments and therefore at "shitty schools". And you believe so heavily in school rankings that you think your minor outweighs a major at another university. In fact your entire entrance in this thread was telling people that they went to "shitty schools", pretty elitist if you ask me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your parents remortgaged their house and you entered your 20s with $60,000 of debt for a meme degree from a no name college while some NEET on IQfy learned more at the cost of a couple of DMCA junk emails he didn't even bother to open
            How do you like them apples?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"top 100" in your country is laughable;
            Top 100 in the United States is pretty respectable, that's like in the top 3% of universities. You either have a severely warped view of reality or, more likely, are arguing from an armchair.
            >I'm willing to guess your school was full of morons who had a B average in high school
            My school is ranked 94th nationally and has a 3.7 average high school GPA for admittance, so that doesn't seem like a safe guess.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >that's like in the top 3% of universities
            more like 2%

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Top 100 in the United States is pretty respectable
            Notice he never mentioned where his university stands in global rankings and deflected about how it's mean to insult academics whose specific departments don't show up? The guy was just mad at the idea people who didn't even go to university are better read than him.

            Anyway, I'm not going to argue that the US doesn't have some of the best universities in the entire world but "top 100" doesn't mean you aren't mogged by top 5 schools in other countries. It also doesn't mean you didn't go into debt for a meme degree towards getting a job where your employer won't give a frick what you studied.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Notice he never mentioned where his university stands in global rankings and deflected about how it's mean to insult academics whose specific departments don't show up?
            You seem to be conflating different people.
            >Anyway, I'm not going to argue that the US doesn't have some of the best universities in the entire world but "top 100" doesn't mean you aren't mogged by top 5 schools in other countries.
            Like I said, that's a seriously warped view of reality. You are comparing schools within the top 2%.
            >The guy was just mad at the idea people who didn't even go to university are better read than him.
            I dunno basically every philosophy major in this thread seems to be agreeing with

            If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries. Obviously it gets a bit more in depth than Short Guides, but this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts cover to cover, and underestimates secondaries.
            In four years the only primary texts I read all the way through were Decartes Meditations, Hume's two enquiries, and some of Foucault. Not a single person was reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.

            , I think you might be projecting your feelings there anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Notice he never mentioned where his university stands in global rankings
            it's in the top 700 globally, just looked. i didn't mention it because frankly i didn't know or care. i knew the top 100 in the us figure because it gets thrown around a lot
            regardless, you're saying there aren't more than ~600 schools in the world, or ~90 (or whatever your arbitrary cutoff would be) in the united states, that offer worthwhile/rigorous philosophy programs which is just absurd. you seem to have trouble with working memory so i'm just going to remind you that what i and the other philosophy majors itt argued is that people who majored in philosophy know that secondary sources are extensively used in many classes, we did not say anything about what stem majors who minored in philosophy at top 20 universities think nor do we care

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's in the top 700 globally, just looked.
            Mine is in the top 20 (philosophy department is in the top 10 or 15). Not going to bother reading the rest of you're post. See

            https://i.imgur.com/IEMYOyA.gif

            >your parents remortgaged their house and you entered your 20s with $60,000 of debt for a meme degree from a no name college while some NEET on IQfy learned more at the cost of a couple of DMCA junk emails he didn't even bother to open
            How do you like them apples?

            , lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            a guy on my side is in the russell group dipshit

            Russell Group. Very common. You think everyone is reading Das Kapital cover to cover? All three volumes? For undergraduate level essays and exams?
            I wrote a 5000 dissertation on Marxist interpretations of Hegelian historiography, and passed a closed book exam on a similar topic. At no point did I sit down and read Philosophy of Right in its entirety. That would be madness. It's more important to know the different schools of thought about the book than the book itself.
            Maybe if you did a masters or a PhD and you focused only on Hegel you would actually read all the Phenomology or the POR

            in your other post you cited someone who went to a community college and some high school kid. is that somehow better than the russel group or even my globally top 700 school?
            >Not going to bother reading the rest of you're post.
            yeah you better not, "you're" stembrain seems to get overwhelmed by text. by the way i have nothing against sutodidacts, i have a problem with autodidacts (or philosophy minors) who act like theyre an authority on a topic when theyre not and give a wrong impression of how the field works as

            If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries. Obviously it gets a bit more in depth than Short Guides, but this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts cover to cover, and underestimates secondaries.
            In four years the only primary texts I read all the way through were Decartes Meditations, Hume's two enquiries, and some of Foucault. Not a single person was reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.

            pointed out

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're done, anon. No more seething multireplies are necessary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and its philosophy program is in the top 10, lol.
            You're going to flunk out

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if you disagree with

            If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries. Obviously it gets a bit more in depth than Short Guides, but this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts cover to cover, and underestimates secondaries.
            In four years the only primary texts I read all the way through were Decartes Meditations, Hume's two enquiries, and some of Foucault. Not a single person was reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.

            you didn't go to uni. it's just plain truth

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not all of those replies are me, moron.
            >doesn't respond further
            ragequit moment

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >First, I never argued that secondary sources are worthless.
            You never argued much of anything.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >one paragraph is tl;dr
            lol speaking of reading comprehension...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When you're conversing with an idiot you don't need to read an entire post to know what's in it. Note this isn't the same thing as thinking you've tackled a major philosophical work through the shortcut of reading a Wikipedia article, lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks Wikipedia is a secondary source
            oof autodidact moment...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >multireplies (just to repeat the same failed insult yet again)
            LOL! Go back to what I said earlier about your obviously lack of creativity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your obviously lack of creativity.
            yeah i guess that confirms you're ESL

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No argument presented for conclusion
            Man you're a fan of that huh? And then when people ask you for the arguments you call it "hand-holding". Embarrassing.

            >my school is ranked in the top 100 nationally
            Mine is ranked in the top 20 globally and its philosophy program is in the top 10, lol.

            Yeah sure buddy lmao.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You know The Library of Living Philosophers was created for pretty much that reason, right? Oh wait, you went to a shit school so you don't even know what that is.
            Lol namedropping a random series your professor mentioned

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >YOU DON'T SPEAK ANCIENT GREEK! HOW CAN YOU READ PLATO
            This is true and you're a midwit coping if you think otherwise. Doubly so if you think you can have a proper philosophical education without knowing ancient greek and latin. These two languages used to be thought for centuries for a reason.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its mandatory for anyone going into grad school focusing on anything to be able to read the original language. That shows you how important being able to not only read the primary material but also the primary material in the original language is. Any other belief is pure cope. Secondary sources are for assisting your understanding of primary material as well as the contemporary discussion. You still need to read primary material to understand. Maybe if you are a logic puzzle monkey there isn’t much to read but logic games aren’t philosophy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If what he says about Germany education is true, then it only proves your point even more. Germany has produced a philosopher of mote in a long time, and almost all famous German philosophers are either social theorists or theologians.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which incredible philosophers did the American education system produce recently? I also assume that you are able to read German fluently and have obviously read important German philosophers of the last decades such as Koselleck, Ritter, Blumenberg and so on. You can also add Kondylis and Byung-Chul Han, as they mostly wrote/write in German. When it comes to secondary lit then Germany is incredible too. Show me the American equivalent of the Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie or the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's so refreshing to read this because the amount of autists on here that try to tell me you can't understand a fricking philosophical theory without reading hundreds of pages is unbearable. it's just a mode of thinking, it should be able to be explained in a few paragraphs and then you can move on to the implications of said thinking. but classic authors will often write dozens if not hundreds of pages doing nothing but repeatedly explaining their thinking that can be understood after just a few paragraphs.

          honestly people over estimate how complicated ideas can be. there are very, very few things that should take more than a few pages to explain, at least as far as concepts are concerned. something like an instruction manual is clearly separate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's just a mode of thinking, it should be able to be explained in a few paragraphs and then you can move on to the implications of said thinking
            To relate this to the book in OP, I'm going to point out that Hegel opens the preface of his Phenomenology complaining about the expectation that a preface summarize and set forth the conclusion of the thing the work is taking pains to argue, and that the mere conclusion absent the arguments are no longer philosophy. And indeed, if philosophy is to be distinguished from merely having or acceding to this or that opinion, it needs to be accompanied by what the thinker thought was necessary to show their work. If it's in fact the case (as I don't doubt it is) that sone number of schools prefer summary or secondary exposition to the real thing, than it would seem that what goes by the name "philosophy" in academia has just come to repeat the deference to authorities of certain period of medieval scholasticism, but with apparently less rigor, since the scholastics at least went sentence by sentence explaining whole books, and now we just have epitomes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            only a philosopher would argue against the idea that......you can state a conclusion then present arguments for said conclusion. That's idealism at it's most dumb and serves zero purpose besides sophistry. I understand the idea that the map is not the territory and that some ideas can be stated and consumed without being understood because you haven't gone through the thought processes required to conceptualize an idea but thats still a dumb reason to attack...*checks notes*... stating your idea and then arguing for it after.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not just Hegel, that goes all the way back to Plato's Seventh Letter, where the concerns are alternately stirring up opprobrium or empty hopes. In Hegel's case, he's not insensitive to how crazy his system looks at a glance, which is all the more reason to emphasize working through it, otherwise philosophy is just edifying, i.e., "cool, philosophy defended x, take that [chuds or woketards, fill in as applicable]", which puts philosophy in the crosshairs of every moron who's too impatient to work through something in favor of a bottom line that profits them or massages their ego.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Absurdly common for undergrad, can't speak to grad, but I reckon "professional philosophers" are the only one's expected to actually read their primaries. Pretty ludicrous if you ask me, but then I'm a psued that insists on primaries, with "secondaries" being clif notes and "actual" secondaries being authors that write primaries that build on previous primaries.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        My american state university had a surprisingly good philosophy program where you read primaries almost exclusively. We had whole classes dedicated to Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Spinoza, Heidegger, etc. Even in the 200 level classes, we read Parmenides, the Republic, Descartes' meditations--nothing secondary. In fact, the only secondary we looked at in my entire undergrad was Deleuze's Spinoza, which is hardly a secondary.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
      You went to a shitty school, bro. Every philosophy course I took in uni was primary source readings. At most, they'd list a Cambridge Companion in the syllabus as a suggested text and that was only for the introductory surveys in first year.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Philosophy degree is not a philosophy course and the general philosophy courses everyone can take are not the courses a philosophy student takes for their degree. Would take 20 years to get a degree if you read only primary sources and most of what is in primary sources are dead ends. The degree focuses on philosophy as a whole and the ideas which carried through and affected things to come while ignoring all those ideas which never moved pass the philosopher/their movement.

        Not knowing this strongly suggests you did not go to college.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >sources are dead ends.
          >while ignoring all those ideas which never moved pass the philosopher/their movement.
          This isn't how philosophy works, frick your repulsive Anglo university.

          I generally agree that the optimal way to study philosophy is to read secondary sources first and foremost, then dig into the primary material of the philosophers you find interesting. Life's too short to, say, read the Science of Logic and then realise you don't give a shite about it

          Life's too short to take philosophy advice from people who speak neither German nor Greek

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Life's too short to take philosophy advice from people who speak neither German nor Greek
            if you're philosophy only makes sense in a particular language then it isn't very good philosophy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Insect, a single (untranslatable) Hölderlin poem is worth more than the entirety of Anglo philosophy

            >t. autodidact neet

            >t. autodidact neet
            I explained how studying philosophy in a decent country works. You haven't studied philosophy and your degree/phd/whatever you got is worthless. Enjoy writing obsolete papers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Insect, a single (untranslatable) Hölderlin poem is worth more than the entirety of Anglo philosophy
            I looked this up in English. It really must lose a ton in translation:

            >O insect small and fine, it is so sweet,
            >To see you hop about on insect feet;
            >So dapper are you in your liv'ry green,
            >Your thorax so puffed out and so pristine,
            >That every fraulein who observes your flight
            >Must blush, and wish with ardent prayers she might
            >Be shrunken to your scale, and lie in bliss
            >Between your armoured limbs, an insect Miss.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re speaking English using a technology invented by an Englishman, on an imageboard founded in a country founded by Englishmen based on English laws and following the ideals of English philosophers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >t. autodidact neet

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >blah blah blah
          Again, you went to a shitty school. All of the philosophy courses at my university were centered around primary source texts. For example, Intro to the Greeks you had Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy from Thales to Aristotle, Neoplatonic Philosophy (Dillon/Gerson trans.), Hellenistic Philosophy (Inwood/Gerson trans.), The Epicurus Reader (Inwood/Gerson trans.), A Presocratics Reader (Inwood/Gerson trans.), and The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy (optional text). Not counting the optional text that's ~2000 pages of primary source reading over the course of the semester. There was also a seminar devoted solely to The Republic in which you were allowed to enroll after going through the above. The course on Hegel was devoted to reading the entirety of The Phenomenology of Spirit after excerpts of other works and for the course on Kant you were to read The Critique of Pure Reason also after excerpts of other works. When you get to final year courses you take seminars where you read lesser known works in full (after being prepared in previous courses by reading the major works in full). Even in courses that are structured thematically and not based around a single philosopher, you read excerpts of primary source materials that are frequently in the 100s of pages.

          Basically, you're expected to dive into the deep end and slowly narrow down where you will specialize by the time you reach 4th year and are ready to graduate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Greeks/Romans are much more digestible and amiable to a newb than say Hegel or Kant or Schopenhaur which build on the Greeks. I picked up Plato and was able to understand it sufficiently enough because of the nature of the work. I found it pretty interesting as well instead of having to reverse and go back every few pages to keep up with what's going on. There's no way you can just randomly pick up Science of logic and expect yourself to understand it or even like it without getting a hemorrhage

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >than say Hegel or Kant
            That's why they have a full course devoted solely to them after you fulfill prerequisites. There are two streams, ancient philosophy and modern philosophy. I gave you the books for into to ancient and I'll go have a look at what you read in the intro to modern in my next reply (most people do both the into to ancient and intro to modern, but after that you start specializing with a few distribution credits devote to whichever stream you didn't go into fully). Once you're at the 4th year seminar level you may read papers/articles but you still mostly stick to primary sources; the lecture itself is the secondary source (if you actually go to a good university your prof is an expert...for the intro to ancient my prof translated most of the works we were reading and his translations are the main ones used in other universites).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For intro to modern
            >Descartes
            Discourse on Method
            Meditations on First Philosophy
            Principles of First Philosophy
            ...(Lumped in with the Descartes section)...
            Bacon: New Organon and selections from Aphorisms
            Galileo: The Assayer, Corpuscularianism
            Spinoza: Descartes's Principles of Philosophy, "Prolegomenon" and "Definitions"
            Leibnitz: On Descartes (Letters to Foucher, to Elisabeth, and to Molanus)
            Pascal: Pensees, "The Wager"
            Descartes, Hobbes, Arnaud: Objections and Replies
            >Spinoza
            The Ethics
            Letters to Oldenburg and Meyer
            ...(Lumped in with the Descartes section)...
            Hobbes: Leviathan (selections)

            That's just the first 2 sections and I don't want to write the rest out. From there you have sections on Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume (for the Locke section you also read Boyle and for Hume you read Bayle and Reid). Notice that the commentary on the primary sources is still contemporaneous to them. This is because you're expected to learn to read without modern biases in order to understand the texts themselves.

            [...]
            [...]
            NTA but i was also a philosophy major and can confirm it was basically the same for me; this board vastly overestimates the importance and efficacy of reading primary literature. and if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same
            immediate signs someone is a IQfy autodidact pseud is if they think 1. reading secondary literature is ill-advised 2. you need to read long tedious works like CoPR cover-to-cover for it to "count", i.e. they think everyone educated in philosophy has done this 3. certain authors have prerequisites so they tell you that you have to read xyz before you can read whoever, as exemplified by "start with the greeks" nonsense
            >your school was bad
            my school had one of the best undergraduate programs in the world on certain metrics

            See

            >than say Hegel or Kant
            That's why they have a full course devoted solely to them after you fulfill prerequisites. There are two streams, ancient philosophy and modern philosophy. I gave you the books for into to ancient and I'll go have a look at what you read in the intro to modern in my next reply (most people do both the into to ancient and intro to modern, but after that you start specializing with a few distribution credits devote to whichever stream you didn't go into fully). Once you're at the 4th year seminar level you may read papers/articles but you still mostly stick to primary sources; the lecture itself is the secondary source (if you actually go to a good university your prof is an expert...for the intro to ancient my prof translated most of the works we were reading and his translations are the main ones used in other universites).

            and the above.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >(for the Locke section you also read Boyle and for Hume you read Bayle and Reid)
            Literally who the frick does this for intro to modern? Liar lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally who the frick does this for intro to modern?
            People who didn't go to state, lol.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >of what is in primary sources are dead ends.
          >ideas which carried through and affected things to come
          >all those ideas which never moved pass the philosopher/their movement.
          >Not knowing this strongly suggests you did not go to college.
          YOU ARE ANIMAL!!! GO 2 HELL!!!
          PHILOSOPHIE AUF ENGLISCH? UNMÖGLICH! EINE KÖTERSPRACHE FÜR INSEKTENMENSCHEN, MAN WILL IHNEN MIT EINEM NOVALIS-SAMMELBAND DIE SCHÄDEL ZU BREI SCHLAGEN. ABSTOSSEND! ABSTOSSEND! ABSTOSSEND!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that is much more damning of your school than it is of anyone on this board.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You went to a shitty program then. I’m only one year in and I’m reading mainly primary source material. I’m taking more history of philosophy courses, the other classes like philosophy of space and time or philosophy of religion have more secondary sources but still some primary. I’ve already read Plato (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo), Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), Cicero (On Moral Ends), Descartes (Meditations on First Philosophy), Leibniz (Theodicy), Locke (Essay Concerning Human Understanding), Hume (Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), Kant (Currently reading the first critique and am about halfway through), Schopenhauer (WWR), Hegel (Parts of his lectures on history and parts of the POS), Nietzsche (BGE and Will to Power), Marx (Communist Manifesto). I’ve also read sections of the Church Fathers (but those were theology classes)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What kind of degree is that? My high school philosophy teacher made us read Critique of Pure Reason

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I love all the cope replies. Typical IQfy pseuds who care more about some street cred of reading Kant cover to cover instead of actually understanding his ideas.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you (or anyone else) have a recommendation for a western History of "Ideas"-type book? Or even just a good impartial History of Philosophy book? One that might serve as an introduction and bird-eyed view before one zooms in on "specifics" like OP's book (I simply do not have the time to read the entire western canon).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        DOES THE CENTER HOLD? AN INTRODUCTION TO WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you. Would you recommend this before or after Sophie's World?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            read them in tandem or Sophie's world first

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I took two philosophy classes at a community college as a non-philosophy major and we read the primary texts. I think you got scammed.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Fricko

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's crazy how people are coming for you. imagine wasting so much of your undergrad on one area when you're supposed to build a foundation of the entire discipline. otherwise you'd have dozens of primary source (and 2ndary) to slog thru - that takes way too long.
      i'd understand if it were masters+ level on a niche topic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The whole thread is 'they hated him because he told the truth'
        On one hand IQfy believes the universities are utterly cucked and the West has fallen and we need to RETVRN; on the other they believe a *bachelors degree* requires an in depth knowledge of the complete works of Hegel simply to graduate

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's not what raised everyone's hackles. That anon, for whatever reason, thought it necessary to argue that not only does it count to claim one's read a philosopher if one's only read excerpts and lots of secondary lit, but also that it's not even necessary to ever read the primary works in order to claim to understand this or that author. Usually, people of sense understand that, especially with difficult authors, it's not sufficient to take a secondary's discussion if one wants to grasp something, and, especially if the primary is difficult, that it might even be necessary to dive into the primary to test whether the secondaries are sound. Not doing so gives you bullshit like the "Hegel's dialectic is thesis-antithesis-synthesis" takes you see from people who've only read summaries or secondaries.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >argue that not only does it count to claim one's read a philosopher if one's only read excerpts and lots of secondary lit
            >it's not even necessary to ever read the primary works in order to claim to understand this or that author.
            That post doesn't say either of those things. It just says if you do a philosophy degree you don't need to read the big tomes cover to cover. Which is absolutely true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He wasn't bringing up his experience in a philosophy department just to idly relate how his department did things, but to argue why it's defensible to read secondaries over primaries and perhaps even preferable, and how that's good enough, which is why everyone hopped on him. To use OP's example of Hegel, if you just limit yourself to secondaries and excerpts, you're stuck learning that Pippin, Pinker, Kojeve, Singer, Magee, Rosen, Mure all end up bickering over the import of what Hegel's doing and how he's doing it, the only solution to which is to read Hegel. And the evaluation of which of the secondaries should be accorded greater status as more accurately expositing Hegel will 9nly be settled the same way. Otherwise it's just "trust me bro" at a higher level.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The post is right there dude, we can all read what it says and it doesn't say what you say it says.
            Are you doing some clever meta-joke about how relying on secondary commentary is unreliable?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the post is right there, and says:
            >but this board massively overrates the importance of reading primary texts
            Considering OP said nothing about a philosophy degree, am I supposed to read that anon relating his experience as if he weren't suggesting that generalizing from it is better outside of a department? Is this some kinda meta "gotcha" you're trying to pull where he wasn't overtly suggesting his experience in school should be how anyone approaches philosophy? Come on dude.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >believe a *bachelors degree* requires an in depth knowledge of the complete works of Hegel simply to graduate
          You used to get a bachelor's for being able to demonstrate up to date knowledge in your given field. You'd have an interview with a department head and 2 professors where they asked you a question relating to an open problem in the field and determined your aptitude based on how you structured your response. It's similar to a PhD candidate defending their thesis but the point was to see if you could build the framework for a thesis by referencing what you had learned. In order to open up more seats and churn out more degrees they did away with this process and began what they do now (having underlings grade papers and blanket exams). I can't remember when they changed it (I think it was the 30s or 40s) and I believe it was Cambridge who did it. Anyway, by what it has become now it's quite obvious that bachelor's degrees have become diluted to basically being a resume requirement where it doesn't even matter which subject you studied.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Paglia talks about this (negatively, of course)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hey man I just want to order an americano grande

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that will be $4.99 sir thank you for contributing to my student debt sir

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      man. I bailed on a intro to philosophy course, and we read all primary sources. even when we were assigned secondary lit, we had to read the relevant primary chapters, too. uppsala, so no fancy superstrict bigshot crap either. I can't imagine the actual courses are more lax than the basic intro. maybe this is just some teachers sucking? I've encountered that.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel’s too confusing as a primary. You need to be extremely caught up with philosophy and theology way before him up to him to get him. Not to mention you need a extreme level of proficent fluency in German to understand a lot of the newer words he created for dialectics and discourse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >As a brainlet I just started with this

      Sounds good.

      >much more interesting and comprehensible than going directly to the source

      Hegel without a primer and context is more difficult than he would seem otherwise.

      >You need to be extremely caught up with philosophy and theology way before him up to him to get him

      Between the History lectures and the Philosophy lectures, one could be brought up to speed going in cold. It just depends on the level of engagement and willingness to think with it and through it all.

      I am sorry for being rude and calling you pathetic, but I find this very sad. Why are you acting as if reading through an entire work of Hegel would be madness? Isn't this what you're passionate about? I don't really get it, although I have heard much worse when it comes to the work moral of history and art history students. Although in philosophy you can at least decide if you want to attend the advanced Kant seminar and put in some effort or to just do a low effort one for the credit points.

      The only respectable people are Greek philologists tbh. Not Latin ones, though. Those only want to become teachers.

      >The only respectable people are Greek philologists tbh. Not Latin ones, though. Those only want to become teachers.

      If one wanted close engagement with foundational philosophical texts, they'd be better served by a Classics degree and literally starting with the Greeks; intellectual travelogue structure of A LOT of undergraduate philosophy departments will be Ponzi Scheming yourself out of more than just your money.

      [...]
      [...]
      NTA but i was also a philosophy major and can confirm it was basically the same for me; this board vastly overestimates the importance and efficacy of reading primary literature. and if you go to anywhere with people who are formally trained in philosophy, like r/askphilosophy, they will tell you the same
      immediate signs someone is a IQfy autodidact pseud is if they think 1. reading secondary literature is ill-advised 2. you need to read long tedious works like CoPR cover-to-cover for it to "count", i.e. they think everyone educated in philosophy has done this 3. certain authors have prerequisites so they tell you that you have to read xyz before you can read whoever, as exemplified by "start with the greeks" nonsense
      >your school was bad
      my school had one of the best undergraduate programs in the world on certain metrics

      >this board vastly overestimates the importance and efficacy of reading primary literature

      Picrel. There really isn't anything new under the sun.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This book will give you an idiosyncratic perspective on Hegel, don't read it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Peter Singer
    yeah, no thanks, i'm not into bestialism

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I generally agree that the optimal way to study philosophy is to read secondary sources first and foremost, then dig into the primary material of the philosophers you find interesting. Life's too short to, say, read the Science of Logic and then realise you don't give a shite about it

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just get an AI to summarise philosophers for me. I tried reading Capital and I couldn’t follow it at all, but I could understand ChatGPT explaining it to me.
    Yes I am a midwit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We all are

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >read book
    >understand different from mainstream academia
    >just lost time
    I'll just buy some Oxford summary and be done with
    Frick Hegel, Kant and Marx and whatever post-modern shit: not worth it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Frick thinking and having an opinion

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Science mogs philosophy pretty hard, to read some science book instead

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shit bait.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When I was in uni, my mum read the Very Short Introduction to Foucault so she could somewhat relate to what I was studying. Which was very sweet of her. However, her only takeaway from it was that, like Foucault, I should get into something 'physical' to balance out all the cerebral academic stuff on my schedule. I didn't ask, but surely she could only have been referring to his San Fracisco bdsm-club visits.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >peter singer
    Yeah no thanks. Starting with secondaries for Hegel I’d recommend Kojève’s “introduction to the reading of Hegel,” supplement with Cambridge Companions text on Hegel.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    can anybody recommend a good introduction to hegel, in french ?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I would recommend against Kojeve as Kojeve's Hegel is Kojeve's Hegel. Just read some Kant, Fichte and maybe Schelling first – additionally maybe a well-regarded intro to German idealism.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >two morons fighting

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      First time on IQfy?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm interested in reading the words of the greatest minds in history as they put them down on the page. The ideas themselves might be explained and digested more plainly in secondary sources, but I believe in the power of the inspired words of an enlightened mind more than dryly studying the structure of the ideas themselves. A good work of philosophy has good prose and a cleansing effect on the mind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, and then there's writers like Heidegger where struggling to comprehend his writing produces growth and change in the reader. You can read a summary of a particular essay but you're not truely going to get it unless you read it and struggle with it for yourself. That might mean having to read it 3 or 4 times and pausing over a single paragraph for 15 minutes but you'll get a lot more from than than reading someone else's condensed take.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        These aren't mutually exclusive things. You can read secondary and primary sources for works you're particularly interested in.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Never said you couldn't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Agreed. The other factor is that the secondaries regularly disagree with each other on just about every notable philosopher, the only sure solution to moving past such disagreements being engagement with the primary texts.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yes! I've been recommending these for years. For many theory topics a VST gives you basically everything you need in 1/10th the length. I read the one on Post-Structuralism and it very explicitly just condenses tons of Derrida into its essential elements. I can't begin to imagine how much worse off you'd be if you tried to learn about it by reading what Derrida wrote and intended as introductory material to the theory. he rambles on and on for dozens of pages and says absolutely nothing more than what the very short introduction says in one page.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    awesome.

    now read Capital volume 1 by marx

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the only primary source about Atlantis there are only a few statements made about the physical place.
    One of those statements is explicitly telling us Atlantis was not underwater in the time of Plato.
    Almost every secondary source ever written about the subject just plays along with the story established by other secondary sources. A glance at the primary source shows all the "experts" are completely full of shit. Turns out it's partly political because of some moronic connection between Nazis and Atlantis. This is how fricked the world we live in really is.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >This is obviously untrue
    Many of the most widespread secondary sources today are just made up nonsense, lies "for the greater good". The manipulators develop an aversion to primary sources and raw data like FBI crime statistics because it can paint a picture that doesn't serve the imagined greater good.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://archive.org/details/cu31924014578979
    Hegel’s writings aren’t incomprehensible ,but manageable— it really depends on the edition one is reading, some translations are horrible.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These are good. Sometimes i just want a general idea. I don´t need to understand every philosopher in a deep way.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've met Peter Singer irl. He's quite nice IRL actually

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      did you go to his hotel room and double-team a goat?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what sorts of things did you talk about? what was the occassion?

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, on 6 July 1946. His parents were Austrian israelites who immigrated to Australia from Vienna after Austria's annexation (Anschluss) by Nazi Germany in 1938, and settled in Melbourne.
    Every Single Time.
    When will you midwits stop falling for this shit?
    Stop reading translations written by israelites. You fricking idiots. Next you're gonna tell me to read Kauffman's translations of Nietzsche.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's unfortunate. I was planning on reading it. What translation of Nietzsche do you recommend?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Learn German and read it in the original.
        Seriously though, Ludovici

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >He's quite nice IRL actually
    It would be extremely surprising if he wasn't. He seems to be the most straightforward philosopher who people completely misunderstand

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When it comes to philosophy, anglos should not speak unless spoken to.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I go to a top 50 university (worldwide) and mostly rely on secondary sources. There typically isn't time for primary sources in full. Depending on the course you'll be required to read excerpts but 20-30 pages of an excerpt is not enough to get anything more than a loose sense of the argument.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Many of those replies are quite patently not by philosophy majors
    Quite a few of them are and they all report on the fact that the philosophy courses they took at the university/college level were based around primary source readings. What? Were you pretending everyone who disagreed with you is one person while projecting the idea I was doing such? Lol, sad. You're coping awfully hard over this. I'm sorry your school isn't as esteemed as mine and you ended up starting your 20s with $60K of student debt for a meme degree (I myself won scholarships so, other than the opportunity cost of not working, I was paid to go). As I said, based on the type of college you went to your future employers won't give a frick about whichever subject your babysitters read to you for 4 years, lol.

    The fact is that not everyone has the opportunity to go to university. Even though I went to a great one I've met plenty of people far more knowledgeable about subjects than I myself am. For example, I had a neighbour who could barely read but he could take apart an engine and rebuild it. He also took the entire roof off of his house and raised it by 8 feet (with the help of a couple of Mennonites) and built himself a garage complete with heating outlets for power tools and his beer fridge. The next time you try to pull rank on someone based on which books you (didn't even, lol) read remember this conversation and how you were outed as a pathetic pseud with very little of which to be proud.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How do you develop the state of mind needed to fully understand philosophical texts?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      just read and make notes regardless of whether you fully understand it
      then think about what you read while going for a walk or taking a shower
      it's less about understanding philosophical texts as and when you're reading them, rather than getting used to the ideas and gradually understanding them over time. the more you expose yourself to philosophical texts and engage in philosophical thinking, the more you'll understand. the key is constant engagement, though; it's probably useless to just read one or two philosophy books a year and consider that sufficient

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a book of introductions to Plato's dialogues? I bought The Collected Dialogues of Plato but I wish the introductions were longer
    I'm a brainlet so it'd be nice to have the important ideas and moments mentioned
    The relationship between one dialogue and the other dialogues and I guess the importance of the dialogue for later philosophers

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It literally takes 30 years to understand Hobbes and you will literally die the moment it all makes sense.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *