Thread 24732373

can anyone who knows what they're talking about recommend a path/point of entry to analytic philosophy
i am reading fear and trembling and there is direct reference to hegel who i attempted to read but find unparseable
all the overviews of western philosophi i can find are school of life type self help bullshit so i have nowhere left to ask

the first reply to this will inevitably be some glib meme free of content like "start with the greeks" or "read the sticky".
i dont want to become a specialist in ancient greek/pre-greek literature or whatever the fuck that "how to read a book" chart is doing.
the charts posted to the sticky are all sophomoric memes made as a joke by schizophrenic groypers who all they do is collect and curate wikipedia abstracts. swaths of that shit just no one outside specialist historians is ever reading. you cannot tell me the original Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry is a worthwhile time investment relative to how commonly it is recommended, by people who don't realize they're recommending it. You can't tell me the typical poster is writing with a working memory and understanding of the contents of Fourier's original Analytical Theory of Heat. This is an educational trajectory an 8 year old with google search would imagine.

>>24732373 (OP)
>>24732373 (OP)
Analytic philosophy is generally referencing Cambridge centered thinkers before and after world war one. Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein were working on something like a perfect logical language that can unify maths and sciences. Analytic philosophy is very strict about definitions, and proceeds systematically from one definition to others and to axioms and other follow up logic. Their writings often identify a particular philosophical problem, and start to define and discuss the main terms in a way that attempts to create a solid and useful framework. Historically emerging from those two Cambridge guys, it's the dominant approach in American universities, and it's lineage heavily influences philosophy of natural language which made big contributions to NLMs.

Hegel is not analytic philosophy. He was earlier and was the crowning achievement of German Idealism. It's very distinctive and contrasts analytic philosophy in a big way. Hegel requires at least a basic understanding of the project of German idealism, so you need to be familiar with the Kant Fichte Schelling lineage that leads to Hegel. I don't mean super fucking familiar, I would recommend getting a better grasp on Kants major contributions than the other two, but understanding the approach and goals of schelling and fichte is enough to broach Hegel. That's if you really want to crack Hegel, and Hegel is a huge project that could take years to actually get a good grasp of. It will feel like you're a blind man trying to get an idea of an elephant, touching each part one at a time, not really understanding what it is by the small bits you're acquiring slowly, it takes time for the full picture to even begin to develop, but with regular reading it happens.

I think what you're really asking for is an entry point to western philosophy as a whole which is more of an umbrella that would include Hegel and the analytics together. Bertrand Russell's book History of Western philosophy might be what you're looking for. For some that's a Gold Standard for getting caught up on western thought, from the Greeks up to the analytics. And it would even be a good starting point if your goal were to read Hegel. If you want to rush into Hegel, I would recommend reading the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy pages on kant fichte and schelling.

Then you will have a better time approaching Hegel, and the Marxist internet archive is a great resource for hegelian philosophy. There are all sorts of commentaries of various detail and plenty of hegels writing on marxists.org. you can peruse the resources there and find your own approach.

I was trained classically in philosophy at university. I'll be happy to revisit this page for discussion.

>>24732680
I've actually read and written about that book I can actually just reread it and discuss it here. I have no hope of an academic career in philosophy so if I can at least larp here itd be a decent consolation

OP there is a starting point for everyone. I would recommend watching a long form lecture on Kierkegaard or at least a sincere podcast. Avoid pop philosophy videos. You'll notice a sprinkling in of concepts, sometimes you'll notice the speaker go on a tangent about the origin or nuance of the concept. Baby steps, Rome wasn't built in a day. Of course anyone serious about philosophy can't escape some dose of Plato and Aristotle, not to accept everything they said but to be aware of the concepts and concerns that started it all.

Sure feel free to dip into analytic philosophy, but be aware of the existence of even post-analytic philosophy where some have already started moving on from the program because of limitations and assumptions that can't be reconciled. Don't be that guy that guy in the meme where he stands in the corner of the party where the Chad continental flexes his knowledge of the history of philosophy and not having gotten bogged down on problems that turned out not to be problems at all. Anyway, enjoy the journey.

does anyone have opinions on Kenny's Brief History of Western Philosophy

>>24732373 (OP)
>can anyone who knows what they're talking about recommend a path/point of entry to analytic philosophy
Depends on what you're interested in -- aesthetics? metaethics? phil of mind? -- but just google "metaethics introductory textbook" and look for one that's mostly a compilation of papers with introductory/contextual apparatus. If you're more specific about what exactly you're looking for, I can help more. But "point of entry to analytic philosophy" is too broad. It's like saying "can anyone recommend a point of entry to prose."
>fear and trembling
This isn't really analytic philosophy.
>hegel
This isn't really analytic philosophy either.

>>24732373 (OP)
keep in mind that listening to lectures is a lot more digestible than directly reading the primary sources. sugrue gets suggested a lot for this, and it's for good reason. good luck.

>>24732373 (OP)
Roger Scruton's Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey is a good introduction to 17th century-to-present philosophy from someone who was trained in the Analytic tradition. Scruton was also a big fan of Hegel, so you'll get a nice dose of Hegel from the book, though it's definitely Scruton's take on Hegel.
Copleston's multi-volume History of Western Philosophy is a good read, though I'm not sure how approachable it is for a beginner. I've read parts of it and haven't found it to be terribly obscure, but I also have an advanced degree in philosophy so take what I say with a grain of salt.
If you're looking for lectures on Youtube, the Arthur Holmes history of philosophy is supposed to be quite good, although I haven't listened to it myself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

>>24732373 (OP)
https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

Take a walk, fren. :) (Use this as a starting point)

>>24732373 (OP)
real accessible analytic philosophy. paradigm work meant for laymen

>>24732373 (OP)
You won't understand any philosophy without reading the Greeks.

>>24732680
What's up with the difference between Cambridge and Oxford in the field of intellectual history?

>>24733811
Couldn't tell you. I just know the major early analytics were at cambridge. I suppose Frege was another but he was Austrian or something mainland European I forget a Google search would tell.

Interesting thread. Ill chill here out of curiosity aswell, especially analytic philosophy which seems to dominate debate circles online.

Personally for me. I wanted to get into philosophy a long time ago, back in highschool. Having any idea that theres a "start" to philosophy is a bad idea. It simply comes to you. People said Plato was the best starting point, and I started with Plato and never finished. Years later. I come across an audiobook of the republic and fall in love with Philosophy again.

It was during a time where I was desperately seeking some sort of "clarity" just an idea of where to even start finding value. And I think Plato, in the Republic specifically, tries to tackle concepts that can essentially be reduced to "what does anything actually mean?"

After years of going through what you did, of Pop philosophy videos that were more self help than philosophy, but yet not being able to get into actual philosophy (to be fair I have adhd, so reading books in this technological age is incredibly difficult for me) Plato was the breakthrough I needed. But I dont even know if it was actually plato as I attempted to read one of his books when younger (dont remember which)

My point ultimately is. Philosophy is VAST it covers so many different topics. Trying to read a history of philosophy with a genuine interest in philosophical questions wont work. I think it can work for somebody who doesnt actually care about philosophy as a way of life. But is just curious how ancient people thought. I sort of view it like the sorts of people in the modern day that read books by minorities to "get some perspective" because they lack any of their own to relate to an other in the first place. No real human needs to read a book about another person to understand them. You'd just talk to them.

Anyway I got a bit off track there.

Step 1: Have an interest
Step 2: Seek philosophers that try to aaddress that interest

Most philosophers actually talk about other philosophers too, even if not directly than indirectly. I read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and he talks about other philosophers there. Im trying to read Bergsons Memory and Matter and he mentions other philosophers too.

Through philosophers themselves you can already get an idea of the history of philosophy, and it will be doubly interesting as its relevant to the philosopher tackling your interest, I think thats when its fine to watch lectures summarizing a particular philosopher or something. That's what I've done with Kant. Im less interested in Kant himself, and more how everyone reacted to him and criticized or built off him.

This was a big ramble that probably wasnt that helpful as im not versed in philosophy or anything. Just my perspective as an early 20 something year old who had his own struggles getting into philosophy.