The way I read philosophy, on a more practical level, is by recognizing the keywords of the ideas in a sentence, and after that, by studying the connector words to form the relationships of those key ideas in that sentence.

I love the passive aggressive zooming. it is such a mood of a frustrating yet a weird surge of thoughts and words that philosophy sets off in my head

Finally someone said this. Im 27, i have read maybe 50+ philosophy books and 100+ philosophy-like books. Im literally more depressed, hopeless, pessimistic right now. But i cant deny the masochistic pain of it. Addictive pain.

Very helpful! I'm working my way through Beyond Good and Evil at the moment so this has come at a convenient time. Thanks man and keep up the great vids :)

reading nietzsche gives me a headache. i've quit reading three of his books, but i do hope i can start again soon :(

I wish I could send this video back ten years to myself *before* I did my philosophy degree. It would have made things a *hell* of a lot easier...

Inspectional reading - Take a overview of the entire picture/wholistic scale before scrutinizing - What is the definition of the primordial concepts discussed? - What is some of the historical implications of these works? What period of history was this written in and what prominent thinkers existed before? Who is he trying to refute or arguing against? Whose motto is he trying to improve?

Thanks for sharing. Great video :)

For me to thoroughly understand philosophical passages you need first of all context and also to carefully examine the words in it. This kind of thing happened to me before when I tried to read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. I didn't, let's say, read and understand the passage piece by piece, that's why it bored me and didn't really cared and understand it more. But now, I'm rereading it with proper context and also giving my fll attention to it.

Who wants to start a philosophy reading group? I don’t have friends who are into philosophy and I heard that through group discussion I can further understanding It will also give me more of an incentive to actually read it instead of just pulling my hair out and giving up every time I see a sentence that doesn’t make sense to me

Thank you for the video ❤

Seeing the forest for the trees is really to see how these philosophers are asking the same questions since the beginning of philosophy. And that each new school of thought is reacting to or referencing the same philosophical conceptions. So that, unlike in other fields, a historical approach can give invaluable context to reading philosophy. For example, the thoughts of Socrates orients and contextualizes Greek thought. One philosopher even quipped all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Especially for Nietzsche who studied Greek thought, one can't just read him without a solid grasp of what he was reacting to. Another stumbling block is that the basic method of philosophy is to get at the bottom of things. It problematizes the obvious, the commonplace, the axiomatic. It can be disconcerting for some and the process can feel tedious. It is as exasperating as being pestered by the toddler who keeps on asking why? Why? Why? And never stops. The only way to get in the mood for philosophy is to be prepared to question presumptions and have the tenacity and boldness to NOT take anything for granted.

hey wth i was watching ur vid last night and u had like 18.8k subs and now that im currently watching it u have with u a good sum of 19.1k sub!!!! im really proud of u man. i somehow feel like a mom. 🤧

That quote is the embodiment of sophism.

"Sir" Friedrich Nietzsche, I doubt he was ever knighted. XD On a serious note. As a German native speaker reading Heidegger's Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) would possibly drive me mad. I guess he has some fans but "his language" can be very ridiculous. I heard it's quite popular in Japan. I wonder how they even translate that stuff, let alone into a language that is so different.

“Philosophy means mind, philosophy means thinking, philosophy means going away from yourself. Philosophy is the art of losing yourself in thoughts, becoming identified with dreams. Hence I am against philosophy, because I am all for religion. “You cannot be philosophical if you want to be religious; that is not possible. Religion is existential, philosophy is intellectual. Philosophy is about and about, religion is direct. Philosophy is thinking about things you don't know. Religion is a knowing, not thinking. Philosophy depends on doubt, because the more you can doubt the more you can think. Doubt is the mother of thinking. “Religion is trust, because the more you trust the more there is no need to think. Trust kills thinking; in trust, thinking commits suicide. And when there is no thinking and trust pulsates in your being, in each pore of your being trust permeates you, overwhelms you, you know what is. “Philosophy tries to know, but never knows. Religion never tries to know, but knows. Philosophy is an exercise in futility, of futility. Yes, it talks about great things - freedom, love, God, meditation - but it only talks about. The philosopher never meditates. He talks about meditation, he spins and weaves theories, hypotheses, inferences about meditation, but he never tastes anything about meditation. He never meditates. “Hegel, Kant - these are philosophers; Buddha, Kabir - these are not philosophers; Plato, Aristotle - these are philosophers; Heraclitus, Plotinus - these are not philosophers, although in the books of philosophy they are also called philosophers. They are not! To use the word 'philosopher' for them is not right, unless you change the whole meaning of the word. Aristotle and Heraclitus cannot be called philosophers in the same sense. If Aristotle is a philosopher, then Heraclitus is not; if Heraclitus is a philosopher, then Aristotle is not. “I use a totally different word, 'philosia', instead of philosophy. Philosophy means, literally, linguistically, love for knowledge. Philosia means love for seeing, not only for knowledge. Knowledge is not enough for the real enquirer; he wants to see. He does not want to contemplate on God, he wants to encounter God. He wants to hold His hand in his own hands, he wants to hug and kiss God! He is not satisfied with the concept of God. How can the concept be of any help? “When you are thirsty you cannot be satisfied by the formula H2O. Howsoever right it is - that is not my concern, that is irrelevant - right or wrong, the formula H2O cannot quench your thirst. You would like water, and whether you know about H2O or not does not matter. For millions of years man has been drinking water without knowing anything about H2O, and it has been perfectly satisfying. “Philosophy talks about water, religion drinks.”

Hi. Am 60. Have read all. Best book: "Journey of Souls"

This may be very true, but I recommend reading Arthur Schopenhauer - On the Suffering of the World, if you've not. This is the one time I've ever actually been drawn to read a full book when I saw it, and yeah, he was totally spot on about everything he said. It was extremely well written and easily understandable as well. I shall hopefully read more of his books when I can be bothered.

your sarcasm is top notch😂😂

Bro that quote is just nietzche justifying his philosophical inquiry by labeling it as a pursuit of objective truth that under his view is seen as a divine task because he must see past the lense of the society he grew up in. It's what's beyond good and evil.

I LOVE Hegel but I still cannot read him without a guide. I'll get there but it's beyond a lack of effort, it's just hella over my head.

I'm one week in philosophy BAC and suffering today reading Spinoza. Wish me luck.

It was Hegel who said that isolated facts, or independent propositions, have no meaning outside of an organized system. I would say that, when approaching the more systematic modern thinkers, a general familiarity with their project is, not merely helpful, but absolutely indispensable for understanding the subsidiary stages in their argumentation.

I tried reading fast and eventually I got sick and tired of not having a clue what the text was saying. I find Plato easy to read and comprehend, I’m not convinced some of these later European philosophers aren’t just pretentious and excessively flaunting their intelligence 😅😢 Some passages are amazing and still require attention, but if my minds been slipping away prior, it will pull me right back in. Some sentences seem to be written in a completely unnecessary manner and it’s just like,bruh just say what you have to say plainly 😂 I hope it’s a period style thing that can be adjusted to, surely when Hume, Berkeley etc read each others work or when they themselves were read by their peers, they would be understood as the text was being read in the first sitting???? Madness ❤

im no expert but a beginner with philosophy...but i agree that you need to skim the text at first and get a skeleton, but after that i find that you need to snap out of reading what the philosopher is saying and applying what you are reading...eg if you are reading hegel and he is going on about consciousness and describing the first initial contact....close your eyes and then open them and try and find the immediate contact of vision and see it for what it is...it is just colours and shapes....regardless of the fact you are looking at a cup...the immediate thing that you can see without thought his just light and differences in light.....dont even allow yourself to recognise that those differences in light are shape, and colour. eventually move onto recognition and feel it happening in your brain....the letters on the cup become alphabet ..feel it.notice it ..feel the perception happening.. based on what the philosopher writes...to gain better understanding. Notice the "I" and what it seems to be ..notice the senses...so reading philosophy can turn into a form of insight or meditation ...A REAL ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. after that who cares how convoluted the writing is. i think that approach has helped me get a better grasp of schopenhauer and hegel...i practice what i read , i experiment whislt reading and try to actually experience the subject or the object or the immediacy or the recognition of object or the witnesser of the object or the actual seeing rather than the seer and seen. so for me , reading philosophy is more like a WORKOUT...like going to the gym..... reading philosophy can become an real engaging and active experience , really "physical"

The reason philosophers express themselves in a complicated way is because they have poor communication skills and are unable to distill and express their ideas simply.

Seriously I have a philosophy subject called Philosophy of Science and it literally blew up my mind. I'm actually an engineering student and never knew how great philosophers made science as literal truth in our world. But it's very painful to understand the message behind their writing. Philosophy is more harder than Civil Engineering I can guarantee you.

I need the subtitles... :C

*_PUKING the PUKE is the act of PUKING!_* *_WHY ARE YOU CRYING?!_*

Free on KZfaq

Read the book fast? Nah dude. Reading slow is way better. The reason why Philosophy gets a bad reputation is because what the average person think of Philosophy is what is actually called Continental Philosophy and is basically gibberish. The vagueness of it makes some people think they are learning something which in reality they are not. Reading Philosophy actually requires understanding of the culture and society of the writer. Presocratic Philosophers for example are hard to read because it requires a few explanation of their concepts such as "Cosmos, ataraxia, etc". The most clear writers of Philosophy are those who wrote in the 20th century and mostly from the analytic tradition.

Hi

That was a whole lot of nothing. Philosophy!

I learnt that quite some philosophers gone mad at later part of their life especially those oppose idea of god existence

I always thought it was "pro-mee-thee-us" not "pro-myth-ee-us".

I look at the world logically, efficient, and straightforward, or at least I try to. I run off the idea of taking the simplest route to the mind; from my philosophy class (which was an absolute pain), I didn't change the way I thought about my mind at all, instead I was met with a bunch of religious-like ("I'm right but no one else" OR "noone else is right but me") views on the mind presented by brilliant, yet unintelligible people who talk like they are trying to impress their little posse of linguistic aristocrats (even my philosophy teacher admitted this). My personal view is that there is no spiritual (separation of mind and body) realm and that everything is entirely physical. I also don't believe in an afterlife, because there is no evidence or reason for the universe to want to expend extra energy on doing so. Besides, the mind exists all within the brain, an organ, so why would the body waste energy on have a separate entity (the soul)?

you sound like david lynch.

Clearly people don't have 99 insight

The z o o m s

sorry, but i do get this quote and frankly i find it quite easy to understand.. sorry

TOO INTENSE. Relax. You are a seeker. That is enough

Hi

Hi