I have read a couple Socratic dialogues and found them entertaining, relatively easy to understand, and insightful. It’s fun to see how he picks apart people’s world view.
im just getting started on philosophy and stuff and most of the books are pretty complex for my age but Socrates just makes everything so much easier and fun!
Plato may seem easy to understand but it is hard to truly understand him, for that you need a really good understanding of the historical context he is in and greek mythology and stuff like that, that takes many hours of extra work.
@@marcossidoruk8033 is easier than other philpsophers (aristotle, hegel, kant), and homer and hesiod are really fun to read and know what they represent to the people in these period
Reading out loud is a wonderful way to extract more meaning from a book, even if it's on your own. Something about speaking the words and hearing them come back to you enhances everything. It also increases my appreciation for a wonderfully crafted sentence. :)
Yep, doorstop philosophy books. I was okay with the Sartre; I enjoyed Heidegger's Being & Time (a lot) but I've never managed more than a paragraph of Hegel's Phenomenology. I say "paragraph" but for Hegel that's like just one sentence.
*The world as will and representation - Shopenhauer😂,but still i agree on robin's point that philosophical books are small,only 5% of the books are big
Nietzsche is more like bombs in each sentence rather than poetry. But great video for encourageing more readers to tackle philosophical texts correctly.
Yeah right! That’s why reading BGE made it even more harder because it consist of different points but same notions, so you can’t just cram 20 pages without reflecting for the rest of the day.
3:46 From Wiki: Elaborative rehearsal is a type of memory rehearsal that is useful in transferring information into long term memory. This type of rehearsal is effective because it involves thinking about the meaning of the information and connecting it to other information already stored in memory. It goes much deeper than maintenance rehearsal.
For me, ive been writing on what i read. I break things down into smaller portions, then write about that portion to grasp greater understanding of whats trying to be conveyed. I find its very useful to write.
My problem is my friends aren’t interested in reading at all, yet alone philosophical writing, but ur right on point…I wasn’t aware that I’m already doing all the techniques u have mentioned..thanks
U need to find some friends it’s hard but for me I try on my social media post things I’m interested in and see if anyone random pops up ? My Instagram is public so I normally have randoms follow me
Excellent advice. In Grad School we put this in play as Independent Study courses. We would define an area of interest, compile a bibliography then find a sympathetic Prof. to sponsor it and, maybe, meet a few times with us. But, it was mostly US (a subversive group of friends/classmates) who met weekly for a few hours, discussed and often read each other passages of interest or difficulty out loud. We also published our own newsletter for students and helped guide and protect incoming students from the generally alienating experience of being a first year Grad Student, at a top tier University. Educate yourself with others when you can. Great Advice! And, IT WORKS!
1. Create a reading group. It's just a group of people who get together to read a book and discuss it afterwards. 2. First time: read the book slowly with plenty of dictionaries by your side. Lookup every singe word you don't understand. Make sure there are no ideas or words you understand merely intuitively or by guessing. 3. Read the book twice. Second time: read the book in its entirety. 4. Stay 'awake', or conscious. Make sure you understand every single sentence and paragraph by summarizing the paragraph you just read IN YOUR OWN WORDS. This is keep you alert, and to stop you speed reading, scanning, or unconsciously reading. Remember: they are hard to read books - as such we have a tendency to read unconsciously - AKA to not be aware of what we're reading. 5. Review the book. Precis the main ideas in the book. Present your precis to your reading group.
I read "On The Shortness Of Life" today and the whole time I felt confused. It's the only book on philosophy I've read. I was told it's a good place to start. I'll have to re-read it.
Funny I found this video, I was just about to start reading Beyond Good and Evil lol. I appreciate the advice, I definitely agree with you, take it as slow as you need to, don't treat it like a novel, aim to understand the passages, one at a time. I think your advice is particularly necessary for Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which I just recently read. And albeit I did pick up quite a bit of information from the text, I will re-read it and this time try to get as deep as I can with it, I appreciate the video.
Very few of my friends would be interested in philosophy. And most enjoy reading when I am on my own. As far as philosophy goes I like relating my lifes experience to the train of thought in the text and seeing if any of it meshes together (or if it at least makes me think about a lifes experience in a slightly different way). Discovered your channel an hour ago lad and I am finding it most enjoyable. Thank you. Subscribed.
Nietzsche is a peculiar case for he is the most literary of philosophers. I do not mean novel-like but that the ideas he examines are relayed using language which at times is figurative, sometimes ironic, or angry, or euphoric. He is both difficult to read and pleasing to know. Plato might be an easy and accessible writer because the dialogues are works of literature which are strictly philosophical.
My experience with reading Nietzsche: he always seems to be saying something that I myself have discovered or observed independently on my own, only he explains it more eloquently. And the joy in reading his work is really no different from that of being able to talk to someone who understands me. When I read him it feels like I'm talking to someone who shares my interest, curiosity, passion, sense of wonder, in observing life and the world and abstracting something out of that data. In short, trying to understand the human condition in a somewhat general setting, sometimes metaphorically. I don't see the point of trying to force oneself to read his philosophy if one doesn't possess that deep feeling for observation and abstraction. It will be a futile exercise. It's only possible to find joy in this if something more personal were at stake and the project arises from an organic process of discovery. In short, someone who is already happy and content with their life and with their picture and understanding of the world need not bother.
Personally, I feel very curious and kind of lost so reading philosophy I thought maybe would spark something and expand my point of view. But overall I believe people's thoughts and beliefs should be challenged so they can grow.
You are totally right.And its stronger than that.In my view any philosophical book or even idea that is read independently from your interests and your most profound necessities (good or bad) is just words
I was thinking of Heidegger's Being & Time and I would have struggled to read it a line at a time. That one worked for me as I kept going despite not understanding but gradually it's like learning a new language till you start to feel what he's getting at. I liked it. Probably makes sense to read it only after reading a load of other philosophy though because it's as much about that as it is about how we exist in the world.
The ontological dualism of the ready-at-hand must understand the ontological of the being-at-hand in the ontic ontological formation of Dasein in the format for being-towards-death in anxiety. Not possible. And it crosses Into formatting an ontic system of ultimate surrealism.
Pls I have yet to read the book but we’ve discussed it in school and even then my brain was aching 😭 but I think I learned a lot in just an hour of that
i love what you say in the end that philosophy is about discussion and not being a dogmatist. bcause to me it seems like academic philosopher are on the one hand of course involved in duscussion but on the other hand highly dogmatic.
I would answer to that with a "yes, but no". Yes, philosophy is about discussion and shouldn't be dogmatic in the sense of "I don't listen to this because it is against my perspective". But no, I don't buy into this naive postmodernist approach of eclecticism that you can adopt everything into one another and that every position has its place and so on. Philosophers should be open minded, they should discuss, but I think that philosophical discussions should be the most brutal discussions possible. If you're on the same page that you're having a philosophical discussion and not just some small talk between friends, you shouldn't accept an argument unless it proves your point wrong. There is no room for a cheap compromise in philosophical debates, because philosophical theories are to precisely defined to be open for compromise. If you change your perspective you do it because you found a mistake in it or because you found a logically consistant way to synthesize it with an antithesis, spoken in a Hegelian way.
@@azarael77 absolutely. but why do you start with "yes but no"? i don't see any contradiction to what i wrote. and yes, your choice of words is quite similar to zizek's^^
For those that want to get better at understanding philosophy, but don't have friends that are interested in philosophy as well, I have some advice from my own personal experience I can offer: As someone that primarily reads non-fiction, I suggest taking your time with philosophical works. Take notes if it helps - a good portion of understanding philosophy is putting multiple arguments together and rationalizing whether or not a philosopher's conclusion makes sense. Sometimes, the arguments are lengthy because of background information on the arguments themselves. Sometimes there are just a lot of arguments. Sometimes there are a lot of arguments, and the thinker gives a lot of background information, too. On top of that, understand that different levels of complexity exist. Sometimes the cause of this is due to the topic in question (such as in the case of paradoxes), but other times, it's because of the philosopher (such as in the case of Hegel). That being the case, it wouldn't make sense to begin with philosophical works that have a high level of difficulty. And honestly - for those that are new to philosophical works, or are returning to them after not reading them for a long time - the easiest way to get into it is to begin with books that are hybrids of fiction and philosophy (such as George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in the case of political philosophy, or Jostein Gaarder's "Sophie's World" for general philosophy).
i find the biggest difficulty being understanding arguments that are relevant to particular events / settings that happened at the time of the writing that are particularly niche or happen to be apart of some argument with some other philsopher / individual in the time who's views / works im not all that familiar with that was probably my biggest gripe with beyond good and evil
I tend to just read the book at a steady pace and then revisit it when a passage comes back into my mind for whatever reason, although I admit I find myself naturally taking more time over something like Nietzsche. Some things in the text are too expansive to be comprehended consciously or even rationally by churning them over, so I just leave it up to the unconscious to shift through it. The meaning is also often interrelated with the rest of the text, so I don't find taking the text one chunk at a time necessarily enhances my understanding. If you have to have it explained to you that philosophy isn't bestselling paperback novels you can just wolf down, you probably wouldn't find much value in understanding such a text anyway.
It is hard to find those whose interests are similar. Philosophical friends are in short supply. In fact, once philosophy is mentioned, eyes tend to glaze over. On one occasion when I was explaining to someone recently that I was studying philosophy and psychology, their response was, 'ooh, that's posh'.
"People give up on philosophy books because they're too complex" Shows BGE, one of the most intelligible and well written books by a philologist which is barely philosophy
I’m struggling to find people who share interest and philosophy in literature. How do you recommend I do this? I have already graduated college and I am already in the workforce.
Hmmm, interesting technique. You'd have to find a group of people who are willing to commit to reading it with you though. Doubt I'll be able to get my high school friends to do it with be but we'll see! I'm reading Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity.
u can call me out for being arrogant or throw "dunning kruger" at me thats fine. I just wanted to get something out of my chest by no means am i a genius, Im above average at best but god does it feel so lonely sometimes when you dont have an "intelectual pear" I value intellect a lot and it really is extremely demotivating to see people on the internet make such brash, uneducated, closeminded and just "bad" statements. its so demotivating to be excited for a classroom debate, expecting to be challenge but all you get is "according to the bible", "according to these and that" and when challenged they cant answer because the question they got wasnt part of the routine or plan that they practiced. Then when you try to say something, sometimes they cant grasp it because its so outside of their comprehension. if I were to describe my learning rate or intelligence it would be "you may win the battle, but you'll never win the war". if we were to have 100 chess matches, you may win the first 20 but you'll never win after that. This makes me even sadder because a lot of times even if I see someone who I think could maybe engage me the way that I want to be engaeged, they're either not as smart or as eloquent as I thought they were(which is my fault) or at some point I just outpace them and get bored. dont get me wrong i have great friends and we'd die for each other but it really does feel like im sometimes wasting my potential, if only I was surrounded by smarter people because then in turn I would be smarter too. I have dreams, great ones. My ambition can be understandably mistaken for arrogance and delution. I want to use my what I have to help people. I want to invent, innovate, and help mankind. but fuck me does it feel like im squandering it all, I dont feel smarter than i was years ago. TLDR: I feel like Im wasting my life.
As a professional writer, I can guarantee you that philosophers could write in an easier way. It's messy writing because subject matter experts are afraid of the period. They slam many ideas into one sentence rather than separating them out and using prepositions within separate sentances to connect the ideas together. It's a process I learned freshman year in college. I'm amazed that people don't hold the eggheads to a better writing standard.
Firstly I like the video, great job and the book to illustrate the point is close hit for me. Some time ago I picked Beyond Good and Evil and was like "Dude,wtf, where are the memes" Sorry to nitpick 2:16 but as for Nietzsche specifically "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" for example is the text you need to experience it's not just the memes and goofs but the rhythm and style.
If you like fiction, Sophie's World is a good book with basic philosophical concepts Intergrated in the story of a young girl. It's fun and yet teaches basics about philosophy.
Sorry but Ill have to disagree on the point that each sentence is to be read as closely as one would read a verse in a poem. Most modern ( second half of the 19th century and onwards) philosophical texts routinely repeat their main arguments, often with several examples, before refuting possible points of critique and missunderstandings. My advice on how to actually understand philosophy is to try to translate each sentence in such a way that it would be possible for your mom to understand it without prior knowledge of the topic at hand. This way you show that you actually understood the text and that you are able to replicate its meaning. You could even go one step further and try to search for cases in which the argument of the author applies outside of the given ones, which would demonstrate the ability to transform knowledge.
hellulila, autistic people tend to like lexicas and books that contain no or only little fiction. I can confirm that with me, but the cost is that reading takes more energy..
If you're happy for a suggestion it would be to read a good introduction about philosophy alongside classic texts of philosophy. Nigel Warburton has written some good ones. Because an introduction will give you an overview of a huge subject, and some areas of philosophy will (hopefully) fascinate you but others are likely to seem forever uninteresting. E.g. the suggestion in the comments to read a text on basic logic is fair enough if you like analytic philosophy but personally analytic logic has never seemed interesting whereas Continental philosophy appealed straight away. (And I definitely wouldn't say Continental presents a "warped view" of what philosophy is either.) An introduction would clue you in to what these things are about. Have fun!
@Jack Clare Yet on the other hand analytic philosophy has offered us 50-page papers of dry, highly technical analysis (written using logical symbolism) on the meaning of a single noun. For a long while Anglo-American analytic philosophy wasn't interested in the "big" questions of life, the universe, and everything because of a belief those questions would dissolve once philosophy picked apart the minutiae of language. Mercifully, we've since moved on. Yes, it was useful to see how language itself can tie us in knots which analysis can help unpick, but a lot of the promise of that philosophy fell short. Wittgenstein's Tractatus, beautiful but it didn't solve all the problems of philosophy did it?; Carnap: again such a beautiful, logical system. But wrong. Basically: being systematic is no guarantee of avoiding nonsense. Continental philosophy isn't "warped" in historical terms either. Its has always included the central ideas from the classical tradition. E.g. Heidegger in Being & Time is fixated on an idea of being from Aristotle. If any branch of philosophy warped away from the main concerns of the tradition it was the analytic school as they fell down the rabbit hole of looking for answers in language structure. Not knocking the analytic school, (despite finding it dull), just saying that I'm not sure you can call Continental philosophy "warped". :)
@Jack Clare Fair enough. It sounds like you meant "basic logic" to mean e.g. Aristotelian logic, rather than symbolic logic and analytical philosophy. (I saw your suggestions of Plato, Aristotle, and the bible). I think your dismissal of Continental philosophy as warped was unfortunate though. The analytic crowd used to do that; I don't know if they still do. My broad point about Continental is that it opens up a subject which had become narrow and somewhat sterile. It's possible to have rigour beyond the traditional canon. Are Nietzsche's insights more like literature? Well, those sort of questions allow us to investigate, e.g. what counts as knowledge. And we're back in familiar philosophical enquiry but with new territory to explore. I don't believe anything can be philosophy just cos someone says it is, but we miss something valuable by outright dismissal of non-traditional lines of thought. Thanks for clearing up that you're not one of the language boys; my mistake. They used to roam the halls in great herds but I think they're nearly extinct :)
him: read with friends.
me: buys a mirror.
O god , that is my friend too , how did you guys met ?
LOL
This was deep man..
he said “friends”, buy two mirrors
You like yourself that's a good start😀
Imagine having philosophical friends
Imagine having friends
Imagine having...
Imagine...
@@afsalafz4954 Woah that's deep
@@afsalafz4954 ima..
"...Get together your friends who are also interested in philosophy..."
I am yet to develop adequate philosophy to acquire such a standard of company.
@whataburger well u can both be friends.
I want to be friends with my philosophy professor lol but I feel so beneath him..
Better to create a reading group. It's just a group of people who get together to read a book and discuss it afterwards.
It's quite hard to differentiate between my Philosophical Friends and Imaginary Friends.
Plato was just the imaginary student of Sokrates - change my mind!
@@franzs8919 Not even Plato can change your mind!
"Some of the best philosophical books are quite small"
Me :Laughs in Kant and Hegel
Hegel sells bullshit
Well yes, but actually no
*phenomenology of spirit flashbacks intensify*
@@cosminblk8359 what why
#kant and #hegel are the BEST
“Friends interested in philosophy” I wish I had some
I am
I had one. He’s really annoying.
@@LittleMew133 hahahah was he just annoying in general or was he annoying because he thought he was some “big shot philosopher” if you catch my drift.
I have read a couple Socratic dialogues and found them entertaining, relatively easy to understand, and insightful. It’s fun to see how he picks apart people’s world view.
im just getting started on philosophy and stuff and most of the books are pretty complex for my age but Socrates just makes everything so much easier and fun!
Plato may seem easy to understand but it is hard to truly understand him, for that you need a really good understanding of the historical context he is in and greek mythology and stuff like that, that takes many hours of extra work.
@@marcossidoruk8033 is easier than other philpsophers (aristotle, hegel, kant), and homer and hesiod are really fun to read and know what they represent to the people in these period
Plato superficial easy to understand, but not really thoroughly
Reading out loud is a wonderful way to extract more meaning from a book, even if it's on your own. Something about speaking the words and hearing them come back to you enhances everything. It also increases my appreciation for a wonderfully crafted sentence. :)
“Have you ever wondered why these are written in such a short format?”
My copy of being and nothingness looking at me from the corner: 👀
Yep, doorstop philosophy books. I was okay with the Sartre; I enjoyed Heidegger's Being & Time (a lot) but I've never managed more than a paragraph of Hegel's Phenomenology. I say "paragraph" but for Hegel that's like just one sentence.
ahahahaha exactly
*The world as will and representation - Shopenhauer😂,but still i agree on robin's point that philosophical books are small,only 5% of the books are big
Ok, it is a bit thick.
Nietzsche is more like bombs in each sentence rather than poetry. But great video for encourageing more readers to tackle philosophical texts correctly.
Yeah right! That’s why reading BGE made it even more harder because it consist of different points but same notions, so you can’t just cram 20 pages without reflecting for the rest of the day.
Why am I shitting out of my mouth
Thats stupid, like of course he is polemical but his style of writing is amazingly beautiful, especially in german.
@@A_29886 what
@@sholalove6478 the guy was knicking a Jordan Peterson quote
You should make video recomandation philosophy books for beginner.
I'm about to hit it chronologically due to references made. I'm starting with Vedic Philosophy. I just bought the Bhagavad Gita :)
@@dungeonmastershock5958 Bad place to start
@@apollon456 oh? what would be a good place to start in your opinion
The Art of War is a good start. It's quite short and it's mostly in one-line sentences.
Start with the Greeks
Thanks man. Now I want to create a philosophy book club
3:46 From Wiki: Elaborative rehearsal is a type of memory rehearsal that is useful in transferring information into long term memory. This type of rehearsal is effective because it involves thinking about the meaning of the information and connecting it to other information already stored in memory. It goes much deeper than maintenance rehearsal.
Thank you!
For me, ive been writing on what i read. I break things down into smaller portions, then write about that portion to grasp greater understanding of whats trying to be conveyed. I find its very useful to write.
My problem is my friends aren’t interested in reading at all, yet alone philosophical writing, but ur right on point…I wasn’t aware that I’m already doing all the techniques u have mentioned..thanks
U need to find some friends it’s hard but for me I try on my social media post things I’m interested in and see if anyone random pops up ? My Instagram is public so I normally have randoms follow me
Excellent advice. In Grad School we put this in play as Independent Study courses. We would define an area of interest, compile a bibliography then find a sympathetic Prof. to sponsor it and, maybe, meet a few times with us. But, it was mostly US (a subversive group of friends/classmates) who met weekly for a few hours, discussed and often read each other passages of interest or difficulty out loud. We also published our own newsletter for students and helped guide and protect incoming students from the generally alienating experience of being a first year Grad Student, at a top tier University. Educate yourself with others when you can. Great Advice! And, IT WORKS!
1. Create a reading group. It's just a group of people who get together to read a book and discuss it afterwards.
2. First time: read the book slowly with plenty of dictionaries by your side. Lookup every singe word you don't understand. Make sure there are no ideas or words you understand merely intuitively or by guessing.
3. Read the book twice. Second time: read the book in its entirety.
4. Stay 'awake', or conscious. Make sure you understand every single sentence and paragraph by summarizing the paragraph you just read IN YOUR OWN WORDS. This is keep you alert, and to stop you speed reading, scanning, or unconsciously reading. Remember: they are hard to read books - as such we have a tendency to read unconsciously - AKA to not be aware of what we're reading.
5. Review the book. Precis the main ideas in the book. Present your precis to your reading group.
I read "On The Shortness Of Life" today and the whole time I felt confused. It's the only book on philosophy I've read. I was told it's a good place to start. I'll have to re-read it.
You also should read Plato's writing.
@@MMNayem-dq4kd I was told to read "the republic" by Plato. Do you think this is a good start?
@@verdint I think "The dialogues of Socrates" by plato will be a greater start ♦
@@verdint as a first book it's not. Too complex. There are easier ancient greek philosophy books to start with
@@MMNayem-dq4kd the prince is my first philosophy book. Is it good for a beginner
I haven't read anything by Nietsche, but I heard it all boils down to "Follow your heart" and "Have a nice day."
Funny I found this video, I was just about to start reading Beyond Good and Evil lol. I appreciate the advice, I definitely agree with you, take it as slow as you need to, don't treat it like a novel, aim to understand the passages, one at a time. I think your advice is particularly necessary for Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which I just recently read. And albeit I did pick up quite a bit of information from the text, I will re-read it and this time try to get as deep as I can with it, I appreciate the video.
ME TOO!
Very few of my friends would be interested in philosophy. And most enjoy reading when I am on my own.
As far as philosophy goes I like relating my lifes experience to the train of thought in the text and seeing if any of it meshes together (or if it at least makes me think about a lifes experience in a slightly different way).
Discovered your channel an hour ago lad and I am finding it most enjoyable. Thank you. Subscribed.
I’m actually starting to read thus spoke Zaratustra”” and I was doing it as a novel, I will use your approach!
Nietzsche is a peculiar case for he is the most literary of philosophers. I do not mean novel-like but that the ideas he examines are relayed using language which at times is figurative, sometimes ironic, or angry, or euphoric. He is both difficult to read and pleasing to know. Plato might be an easy and accessible writer because the dialogues are works of literature which are strictly philosophical.
My experience with reading Nietzsche: he always seems to be saying something that I myself have discovered or observed independently on my own, only he explains it more eloquently. And the joy in reading his work is really no different from that of being able to talk to someone who understands me. When I read him it feels like I'm talking to someone who shares my interest, curiosity, passion, sense of wonder, in observing life and the world and abstracting something out of that data. In short, trying to understand the human condition in a somewhat general setting, sometimes metaphorically.
I don't see the point of trying to force oneself to read his philosophy if one doesn't possess that deep feeling for observation and abstraction. It will be a futile exercise. It's only possible to find joy in this if something more personal were at stake and the project arises from an organic process of discovery. In short, someone who is already happy and content with their life and with their picture and understanding of the world need not bother.
Personally, I feel very curious and kind of lost so reading philosophy I thought maybe would spark something and expand my point of view. But overall I believe people's thoughts and beliefs should be challenged so they can grow.
"After all, the best books are those which present us what we already know." -George Orwell (1984)
You are totally right.And its stronger than that.In my view any philosophical book or even idea that is read independently from your interests and your most profound necessities (good or bad) is just words
Sorry for my English
I for some reason really doubt that you arrived at Nietzsches positions on your own
I was thinking of Heidegger's Being & Time and I would have struggled to read it a line at a time. That one worked for me as I kept going despite not understanding but gradually it's like learning a new language till you start to feel what he's getting at. I liked it. Probably makes sense to read it only after reading a load of other philosophy though because it's as much about that as it is about how we exist in the world.
The ontological dualism of the ready-at-hand must understand the ontological of the being-at-hand in the ontic ontological formation of Dasein in the format for being-towards-death in anxiety. Not possible. And it crosses Into formatting an ontic system of ultimate surrealism.
Pls I have yet to read the book but we’ve discussed it in school and even then my brain was aching 😭 but I think I learned a lot in just an hour of that
i love what you say in the end that philosophy is about discussion and not being a dogmatist. bcause to me it seems like academic philosopher are on the one hand of course involved in duscussion but on the other hand highly dogmatic.
I would answer to that with a "yes, but no". Yes, philosophy is about discussion and shouldn't be dogmatic in the sense of "I don't listen to this because it is against my perspective". But no, I don't buy into this naive postmodernist approach of eclecticism that you can adopt everything into one another and that every position has its place and so on. Philosophers should be open minded, they should discuss, but I think that philosophical discussions should be the most brutal discussions possible. If you're on the same page that you're having a philosophical discussion and not just some small talk between friends, you shouldn't accept an argument unless it proves your point wrong. There is no room for a cheap compromise in philosophical debates, because philosophical theories are to precisely defined to be open for compromise. If you change your perspective you do it because you found a mistake in it or because you found a logically consistant way to synthesize it with an antithesis, spoken in a Hegelian way.
Oh my god, I listen too much to Slavoj Zizek, I even adopt his "and so on" in my texts 😂
@@azarael77 absolutely. but why do you start with "yes but no"? i don't see any contradiction to what i wrote. and yes, your choice of words is quite similar to zizek's^^
very smart. the time being spent on thinking philosophy so much more important than quickly finishing philosophy book.
The book you're holding is a landmine.
Title?
@@Fdeghh Beyond good and evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche.
I have no friends that read that but that would be amazing
For a starter like me, this is a great video on how to tackle a Nietzsche book. Thank you!
For those that want to get better at understanding philosophy, but don't have friends that are interested in philosophy as well, I have some advice from my own personal experience I can offer:
As someone that primarily reads non-fiction, I suggest taking your time with philosophical works. Take notes if it helps - a good portion of understanding philosophy is putting multiple arguments together and rationalizing whether or not a philosopher's conclusion makes sense. Sometimes, the arguments are lengthy because of background information on the arguments themselves. Sometimes there are just a lot of arguments. Sometimes there are a lot of arguments, and the thinker gives a lot of background information, too.
On top of that, understand that different levels of complexity exist. Sometimes the cause of this is due to the topic in question (such as in the case of paradoxes), but other times, it's because of the philosopher (such as in the case of Hegel). That being the case, it wouldn't make sense to begin with philosophical works that have a high level of difficulty. And honestly - for those that are new to philosophical works, or are returning to them after not reading them for a long time - the easiest way to get into it is to begin with books that are hybrids of fiction and philosophy (such as George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in the case of political philosophy, or Jostein Gaarder's "Sophie's World" for general philosophy).
i find the biggest difficulty being understanding arguments that are relevant to particular events / settings that happened at the time of the writing that are particularly niche or happen to be apart of some argument with some other philsopher / individual in the time who's views / works im not all that familiar with
that was probably my biggest gripe with beyond good and evil
Mate you have cleared my doubts just started reading in the philosophy genre...
“read philosophy with friends”…where are these friends?? who are these friends?? why are these friends?? what are these friends??
I have the exact same book but I have not started reading it yet. Thanks for the tip!
love ur videos...... i have also started a motivational channel.... u r a inspiration
You have earned yourself a subscriber; let's grow together!
Problem n.1: How do I find people interested in philosophy?
Zarathustra is a bit hard, trying to wrap my head around the text
I tend to just read the book at a steady pace and then revisit it when a passage comes back into my mind for whatever reason, although I admit I find myself naturally taking more time over something like Nietzsche.
Some things in the text are too expansive to be comprehended consciously or even rationally by churning them over, so I just leave it up to the unconscious to shift through it. The meaning is also often interrelated with the rest of the text, so I don't find taking the text one chunk at a time necessarily enhances my understanding.
If you have to have it explained to you that philosophy isn't bestselling paperback novels you can just wolf down, you probably wouldn't find much value in understanding such a text anyway.
It is hard to find those whose interests are similar. Philosophical friends are in short supply. In fact, once philosophy is mentioned, eyes tend to glaze over. On one occasion when I was explaining to someone recently that I was studying philosophy and psychology, their response was, 'ooh, that's posh'.
You deserve more suscribers, any advice on specifically understanding Nietzsche?
I have not read enough Nietzsche to give any advice :)
@alex' However, Kaufmann tended to whitewash and downplay the aspects of Nietzsche which tend toward a fascist interpretation.
Start with Thus-Spoke Zarathustra
I'd say read one aforism per day
@@josephr.gainey2079 that’s not true nietzsche was misrepresented by fascists like hitler
Thou shalt get to the point- Said Zarathustra!
Tip: Learn every single definition in the book
Best advice
Just bought "beyond good and evil" it's hard to process
Robin: suggests having philosophical friends
Me couldnt find anyone: okay lets imagine a philosophical personality instead
"People give up on philosophy books because they're too complex"
Shows BGE, one of the most intelligible and well written books by a philologist which is barely philosophy
I can't even bring myself to pick up fiction that I enjoy, let alone philosophy!
yo RC, we need to get in touch and talk philosophy. other philosophy enthusiasts are hard to come by lol
Loved the ending!
I’m struggling to find people who share interest and philosophy in literature. How do you recommend I do this? I have already graduated college and I am already in the workforce.
I did find it easier to read out loud, and even better, have audio book and read parallel
You read my superman's book? you are amazing.
thanks, this is helpful.
keep going !
You are sincerely welcome.
Hmmm, interesting technique. You'd have to find a group of people who are willing to commit to reading it with you though. Doubt I'll be able to get my high school friends to do it with be but we'll see! I'm reading Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity.
Fr I tried looking for a local public facebook group of people interested in philosophy. All I found was a group of people on weed.
OMG!!! I love ur accent!!! Where rare you from originally (background)?
He's from Kosovo
Most of the times it's just about picking the right book
great idea
Thank you .Been of great Help! :)
honestly, reading a philosophy book often feels like reading an advanced maths textbook
u can call me out for being arrogant or throw "dunning kruger" at me thats fine. I just wanted to get something out of my chest
by no means am i a genius, Im above average at best but god does it feel so lonely sometimes when you dont have an "intelectual pear"
I value intellect a lot and it really is extremely demotivating to see people on the internet make such brash, uneducated, closeminded and just "bad" statements. its so demotivating to be excited for a classroom debate, expecting to be challenge but all you get is "according to the bible", "according to these and that" and when challenged they cant answer because the question they got wasnt part of the routine or plan that they practiced. Then when you try to say something, sometimes they cant grasp it because its so outside of their comprehension.
if I were to describe my learning rate or intelligence it would be "you may win the battle, but you'll never win the war". if we were to have 100 chess matches, you may win the first 20 but you'll never win after that. This makes me even sadder because a lot of times even if I see someone who I think could maybe engage me the way that I want to be engaeged, they're either not as smart or as eloquent as I thought they were(which is my fault) or at some point I just outpace them and get bored.
dont get me wrong i have great friends and we'd die for each other but it really does feel like im sometimes wasting my potential, if only I was surrounded by smarter people because then in turn I would be smarter too. I have dreams, great ones. My ambition can be understandably mistaken for arrogance and delution. I want to use my what I have to help people. I want to invent, innovate, and help mankind. but fuck me does it feel like im squandering it all, I dont feel smarter than i was years ago.
TLDR: I feel like Im wasting my life.
please turn on closed captioning. Thanks!
I'm starting to get into Philosophy but there's so much
Well said
Loved this! Savage
As a professional writer, I can guarantee you that philosophers could write in an easier way.
It's messy writing because subject matter experts are afraid of the period. They slam many ideas into one sentence rather than separating them out and using prepositions within separate sentances to connect the ideas together.
It's a process I learned freshman year in college. I'm amazed that people don't hold the eggheads to a better writing standard.
Thank you
Sick video thanks for the help
my contribution to the algorithm!!!
just stumbled upon your channel and website and I loved them! may I ask, what did you use to create your website? it looks cool
Thynic Mare Wordpress
Love the nietzsche!
Firstly I like the video, great job and the book to illustrate the point is close hit for me. Some time ago I picked Beyond Good and Evil and was like "Dude,wtf, where are the memes"
Sorry to nitpick 2:16 but as for Nietzsche specifically "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" for example is the text you need to experience it's not just the memes and goofs but the rhythm and style.
bro this was so helpful good sh*t
this is so useful!
Ok. I look for new philosophical friends now
Keep making these videos
teach it, and you will spot illusions of your asumptions - anonymous
The answer to the title: read literature first, and never buy books you won't be able to read.
Muchas gracias
What would you suggest for reading on frugalism or minamalism?
3:00 personal timestamp
Recomienda libros de filosofía por favor
Can you help me how to read the book? easy to remember and easy to understand the book? Thanks.
This stuff has a lot of interpretations to it and that's what makes it hard to interpret things.
Yeah lotr didn't take much effort, but man Silmarillion was more exhausting than many philosophical bks
Philosophy is empowering my maladaptive-daydreaming, bruh.
Me, reading Plato:
"uh... right..."
You won't understand them unless you have baggage and this has to be earned.
Do you have any book recommendations for someone that has no experience and wants to start reading and learning about philosophy?
Montaigne's essays
If you like fiction, Sophie's World is a good book with basic philosophical concepts Intergrated in the story of a young girl. It's fun and yet teaches basics about philosophy.
@@foreverbts5830 alright thank you!!
@@alejandrobarrios7460 thank you!
Start with marcus aurelius book called "meditations"
Bold of you to assume I have friends
Thanks
Audiolibros de filosofía por favor
Question? Do audiobooks help or harm?
4:47 based
Nietzsche is based
Hey man where are you from?
Im from iraq, where are you from?
@@باقرعليهاتوhey Iraq wanna read philosophy together?
Bold of you to think I have friends
Sorry but Ill have to disagree on the point that each sentence is to be read as closely as one would read a verse in a poem. Most modern ( second half of the 19th century and onwards) philosophical texts routinely repeat their main arguments, often with several examples, before refuting possible points of critique and missunderstandings.
My advice on how to actually understand philosophy is to try to translate each sentence in such a way that it would be possible for your mom to understand it without prior knowledge of the topic at hand. This way you show that you actually understood the text and that you are able to replicate its meaning. You could even go one step further and try to search for cases in which the argument of the author applies outside of the given ones, which would demonstrate the ability to transform knowledge.
hellulila, autistic people tend to like lexicas and books that contain no or only little fiction. I can confirm that with me, but the cost is that reading takes more energy..
Im learning philosophy which book is best as beginner.?
Sophie´s world
Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It's tough but when you chew on it for a while you'll be able to get by.
If you're happy for a suggestion it would be to read a good introduction about philosophy alongside classic texts of philosophy. Nigel Warburton has written some good ones. Because an introduction will give you an overview of a huge subject, and some areas of philosophy will (hopefully) fascinate you but others are likely to seem forever uninteresting. E.g. the suggestion in the comments to read a text on basic logic is fair enough if you like analytic philosophy but personally analytic logic has never seemed interesting whereas Continental philosophy appealed straight away. (And I definitely wouldn't say Continental presents a "warped view" of what philosophy is either.) An introduction would clue you in to what these things are about. Have fun!
@Jack Clare Yet on the other hand analytic philosophy has offered us 50-page papers of dry, highly technical analysis (written using logical symbolism) on the meaning of a single noun. For a long while Anglo-American analytic philosophy wasn't interested in the "big" questions of life, the universe, and everything because of a belief those questions would dissolve once philosophy picked apart the minutiae of language. Mercifully, we've since moved on. Yes, it was useful to see how language itself can tie us in knots which analysis can help unpick, but a lot of the promise of that philosophy fell short. Wittgenstein's Tractatus, beautiful but it didn't solve all the problems of philosophy did it?; Carnap: again such a beautiful, logical system. But wrong. Basically: being systematic is no guarantee of avoiding nonsense. Continental philosophy isn't "warped" in historical terms either. Its has always included the central ideas from the classical tradition. E.g. Heidegger in Being & Time is fixated on an idea of being from Aristotle. If any branch of philosophy warped away from the main concerns of the tradition it was the analytic school as they fell down the rabbit hole of looking for answers in language structure. Not knocking the analytic school, (despite finding it dull), just saying that I'm not sure you can call Continental philosophy "warped". :)
@Jack Clare Fair enough. It sounds like you meant "basic logic" to mean e.g. Aristotelian logic, rather than symbolic logic and analytical philosophy. (I saw your suggestions of Plato, Aristotle, and the bible). I think your dismissal of Continental philosophy as warped was unfortunate though. The analytic crowd used to do that; I don't know if they still do. My broad point about Continental is that it opens up a subject which had become narrow and somewhat sterile. It's possible to have rigour beyond the traditional canon. Are Nietzsche's insights more like literature? Well, those sort of questions allow us to investigate, e.g. what counts as knowledge. And we're back in familiar philosophical enquiry but with new territory to explore. I don't believe anything can be philosophy just cos someone says it is, but we miss something valuable by outright dismissal of non-traditional lines of thought. Thanks for clearing up that you're not one of the language boys; my mistake. They used to roam the halls in great herds but I think they're nearly extinct :)
Audiolibros por favor
Imagine seeing people
Nice!