/lit/ - Literature

It's a fine beginning, and if you don't like it you can abandon it and go right into Plato, or skip the Greeks entirely and start reading whatever you want. The idea that "if you don't know what came before, you won't understand what came after" is only half true, and I say that as someone who loves Greek philosophy. Any philosopher you pick up, you're already jumping into the deepend of the pool; and having read all pre-modern philosophy won't make it all that easy to read, say, Kant; and if you're really interested in Kant, you can get an adequate understanding of his predecessors from notes, at least enough to read him.

But if you really want to start with the Greeks, you need to read Aristotle. Where Plato wrote allusive, aporetic dialogues that are mostly straightforward and dialectical, Aristotle was doing scientific philosophy, which is dense and rigorous. (Plato did that too, he just didn't write it down). So it's a completely different experience, and he's not the first philosopher but he's the first philosopher whose writings are straight philosophy, and don't play any games with the reader. When it comes to understanding premodern thought in general, Plato is always a presence and usually a major one, but even the writings and habits of thought of Platonists were hugely influenced by Aristotle. Plato's dialogues can be like an instigation to philosophy; but Aristotle is actual philosophy, and reading Aristotle can help you see what Plato was really trying to say.

>>23423009
Yep! Plato after should be good too, though you should be careful in progressing from there to Aristotle, who is far harder. He is integral to understanding but if you feel your mind bounce of his writing it's fine to jump ahead to Descartes, or whatever (presuming you're happy to skip the Scholastics, which, imo is fine.)

we live in an aristotelian world, plato and socrates are pretty irrelevant.

kinda how confucianism is chinese society and culture, but they pay a homage in aesthetics to lao tsu because he comes before and his key message of the dao survives into the modern period. you could read early church fathers and study the origins of the east west split in christianity and then the protestant reformation. or you could skip all that and just read hume, locke, kant and nietzsche and call it a day.

no matter what you do you won't escape the shadow of moral philosophy, so might as well start with it, no human can catch up 2500 years of thinking in one lifetime, but you might grasp the current mood of our civilization, morals, ethics, rights that type of stuff.

>>23342458
Hegel's Ladder provides paragraph by paragraph summaries and commentary. You could grab that off Libgen. But the commentary itself is not super accessible and is in Hegelese, so you might want to just read the plain language paragraph translations.

Best high level intro would be Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present. It's not really about mysticism, but it has a very accessible and non-deflationary. Wallace's Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God is awesome in terms of remaining somewhat accessible while really getting into the guts of the Logic. It wouldn't even be a terrible starting point, although it is a bit more difficult. D.C. Schindler's book on German idealism would be a good addition here, but only the end is on Hegel. If you start with Wallace and Schindler you avoid the deflated Marxist Hegel who is very little like Hegel.

In terms of very accessible stuff on Hegel, there is Pinkhard's Hegel's Naturalism. It's fairly straightforward at the expense of being deflationary (meaning you don't get the whole Hegel but the less metaphysical, atheistic Hegel who has been sanitized for modern sensibilities).

The opening chapters of Dorrien's Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit are maybe the best intro I've found. You could even skip the chapters not on Kant and Hegel. It's high level, but very good. But I wouldn't keep reading after the Hegel chapter since the focus switches to Hegel's influence on theology (unless you're into that). I would put this up front, then read Wallace's Philosophical Mysticism (even though it's more of Plato than Hegel, it gets at key ideas in Hegel).

You could also read Taylor's Hegel, which is pretty accessible although not one of my favorite takes and also not super accessible when it comes to the Logic.

Houlgate's commentary on the Logic is great and very accessible vis-á-vis the early chapters, before the commentary starts. Worth grabbing just for the early parts IMO.

I would avoid Kojeve to start out. He's interesting as an "influential version of Hegel," but not on Hegel himself. I own Kalkavage but haven't gotten too far yet. If the political philosophy interests you, Honneth's Freedom's Right would be good, even just the first part framing Hegel on social freedom. Wood has a lot of good stuff on the political stuff, Neuhausen too.

PhS is a beautiful work but keep in mind that the Logic is the beating heart of Hegel and PhS isn't the fully mature Hegel of SoL and PR.

>>23347793
You can skip to Aristotle and know all of Plato’s arguments, definitions and refutations to his metaphyics, politics, and ethics.

>>23305106
READ PLATO
READ PARMENIDES’ On Nature
SKIP EVERYONE ELSE
READ JACQUES LACAN Seminar VII, VIII, and XI
RE-READ PLATO LIKE HE’S WRITING METAFICTION (knowing the dialogues were written for students to transcend)
RE-READ ON NATURE WITH A REAL AWARENESS OF WHAT ‘WHAT-IS’ DESIGNATES (XI.64)
BECOME TRANSCENDENTALLY ENLIGHTENED
Realize being transcendentally enlightened doesn't really mean much because you’re still human, and the slog of daily life is the dialectical obverse, that is, the necessary precondition to the process of eternal formal cultivation you’ve now mapped being possible at all. And more than that, that most people really have no interest in the truth, and feel really very alone, and know that you now have a religous responsibility to help others understand what life is all about, and be so overwhelming crushed by the weight of that responsibility vis a vis your social isolation from others and inability to disseminate any information to them without their already having read the above because of your crippling autism. Plus, with all the Lacan you’ve read you’ll soon understand the fact that you would need to structure the relevant information from those sources in such a way that absorbing it would be sufficiently unconsciously desirable enough to pass to consciousness and signify correctly, which would require finding a way to make that unbelievably dry and pretentious and complex information sufficiently entertaining when you’re actively contending with a mind shattering proliferation of empty entertaining information instantly accesible online anywhere. If you can figure out how to do this, you might soon discover actually sticking to it and doing the work is much much harder then wallowing and post on 4chan looking for folks with the prerequisite Drive to learn and help you not be the only one stuck with this knowledge and the responsibility it entails and hope against hope that someone takes your all too apparently schizoid monologue seriously rather than just deciding to play the hits and becoming yet another disaffected Aristotle spewing midwit all but guaranteed to have their soul instantly obliterated on death.

>>23298134
This read order is not rigid, but it's important to get it in roughly this order. For Plato's idealism, one will have to read things like Parmenides and Philebus before the Republic. It is possible to skip and still understand his philosophy overall.
>Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
Then,
>Alcibiades, Meno, Gorgias, Symposium, Phaedrus
Then,
>Protagoras, Euthydemus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Menexenus, Statesman
Then,
>The Republic and re-read Stateman if your memory is poor.
Then,
>Laws.
The Laws are essential for Plato, because Plato saw Politics as an extension of Philosophy, inseparable and equally important. Almost all of his works lead up to the Laws.
Besides, it's kind of insane that you suggested Laches, Charmides, and Lysis without also suggesting Parmenides and Philebus. Definite transgender individual.

>>23266384
Every conversation I’ve had with people unironically obsessed with Parmenides had been absolutely horrible, they don’t understand or care about logic or epistemology at all and think they can jump right into ontology. If they would read Kant or any modern philosopher and then actually spend some time thinking about epistemology they would realize that all this bullshit about being is actually solved by logic and epistemology and that metaphysics is merely objectified logic. These people will spend forever studying Aristotle, Plato and the pre-socratics and then skip to Heidegger without ever realizing why they never get anywhere. It’s insufferable and I imagine that what attracts them to Parmenides is probably some kind of twisted emanation of the culture war.

>>23138985
>which Greek Philosopher's book should I start with
Start from the beginning. It's important to understand the philosophical tradition since Plato and Aristotle respond to it a lot in their works. And I don't mean read all the pre-Socratics, but read an summaries if their thought. Read wiki articles listen to The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps. What you should read is Heraclitus though, his fragments are short and unfortunately few. Parmenides is great too, only one text by him is preserved. You'll get through that fast. Then read all of Plato's dialogues. Then Aristotle. If you're too low IQ or get bored easily you can skip to Nietzsche. Don't read Zizek. People do take him seriously but he's a phychoanalytical retard caught up in stupid u falsifiable bullshit theories that will confuse you, make you a pseud and a charlatan. And worst of all, a marxist.

>>23121225
>>23121237
>>23121250
>>23121333
>>23121353
I know this is a bit of a crank meme, but mathematically speaking, it seems that it is most likely that Plato was referring to the "mean and extreme ratio" (aka the Golden Ratio) when he was making the cuts. Granted, multiple cuts which make the sections of the line satisfy the instructions, as well as maintain commensurability of the line (if we're dealing with rational lengths), but there is only ONE ratio that preserves commensurability between the visible parts (A+B) and the noetic part (D) REGARDLESS of the lengths of the line. And that is the Golden Ratio. Granted, there are still problems with that solution, chiefly that there still wouldn't be a commensurability between the dianoetic part (C) and the noetic part with that solution. But perhaps that was the point. Irrational, or perhaps with the Greek spin, a-logos (without an account). Does the Good need an account? Or is it Good simply because it is Good, the principle beyond being?

The metaphysical implications being communicated here are still beyond my grasp, and I still am not sure how to make this related to the Statesman's due measure, but I think there is a worthwhile argument being communicated here and worth exploring.

Regarding commensurability, you can find the logic in the below paper (not a crank paper, gives a lot of reasons for and against, goes into the math in pretty in-depth detail, yet remains unconvinced). Skip to Section 5: Epistemological Argument.
>https://www.yuribalashov.com/Papers/divided_line.pdf

>>23114432
Start with Descartes' Meditations. It's quite short and self-contained. It's also the basis for the rest of Modern Philosophy.

After that you can read encyclopedia (Standford, etc.) articles on Locke and Leibniz. Both have interesting ideas but Leibniz lacks a magnum opus and Locke tends to get autistic and diffuse so it's better to read them in secondary sources.

Then there's Hume's 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' which is quite a fast read and to the point.

If you are serious about philosophy or self-cultivation your goal should be to read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' (but you'll need the above prerequisites to understand it). This is highest masterpiece of philosophy.

Schopenhauer is also worth reading as he vulgarizes and elaborates on Kantian ideas. His essays are great too.

You might also want to return to the Ancients at some point and read a book or articles on the Presocratics (to understand how philosophy started, how early ideas evolved) and the most important parts of Aristotle like his Ethics, the first book of the Physics (where he summarizes and reinterprets his predecessors), some of his Metaphysics and summaries of the rest of his books (especially his Logic and Psychology). Aristotle's writing style is bad but his insights are very important so he shouldn't be ignored.

Hegel and contemporary philosophers are retarded so you can skip those.

Also I disagree with those who say that if you find Plato boring the rest of philosophy will also seem boring to you. Early modern philosophy starting with Descartes is very different in character and might be enjoyed even if you think that, say, Plato speculates too much at random and without proper basis. In fact much of its point is addressing such issues.

>>23050524
What are you looking for an "answer" to specifically? You don't have to read everything, there's not enough time to bother with that. For areas of least interest, for instance, you could rely on secondary literature or skip entirely.
Sometimes the author will tell you who to read—Schopenhauer tells the reader to be familiar with Plato and Kant.

>>23048741
Start with the Greeks, Iliad and Odyssey the Plays, Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Gorgias, Critias, Timaeus, Philebus, Parmenides, Republic, Statesman, Laws, then the Athenian Constitution, Ethics and Politics of Aristotle, then a little Xenophon and Hesiod, a little Ovid, then try reading all of Seneca, Cicero, Caesar, Tacitus, Pliny, etc, then you can hop in to St. Augustine's Confessions and City of God, Thomas More, then try reading Behemoth and Leviathan then you can skip to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (as long as you've read Principia Mathematica and solved all of the proofs yourself) then you just tackle Hegel's Philosophy of Right, A Song of Ice and Fire and then you can get into the beast that is The Prince.

>>23026482
Hmmm, OP...I'm not sure whether or not fatherlessness can truly be mitigated by books, but we'll try. I'm a Christian man, so I will recommend Christian works, but I will recommend ones which would benefit anyone from the point of view of what you are seeking. And remember, no man is fatherless who turns to Christ.

I. The Bible--most especially of all; do not skip the Old Testament (Tanakh). Try not to feel overwhelmed. Even if it takes you a year, get through it, and do so thoughtfully with an open mind (preferably prayerfully and thoughtfully).
II. In order of importance: Republic, Meno, and "The Death of Socrates" (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo); Plato
III. Six Battles Everyman Must Win; Bill Perkins
IV. Wild at Heart & Waking the Dead (Two Volumes); John Eldridge
V. Battlefield of the Mind; Joyce Meyer (Yes. Even though it was written by a woman.)
VI. Growing Up Spiritually; Kenneth G. Hagin
VII. The Golden Sayings; Epictetus
VIII. Rich Dad, Poor Dad; Robert T. Kiyosaki (This book is often maligned, but it really presents an important mentality, and I've not heard any book more frequently cited by self-made wealth holders.)
IX. The Richest Man in Babylon; Robert S. Clayson
X. Rhetoric; Aristotle
XI. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; Benjamin Franklin
XII. Understanding Stocks & Understanding Options (Two Volumes); Michael Sincere
XIII. Eros Defiled & Eros Redeemed (Two Volumes); John White

>Further Reading (These works will be varied. Some instructive, some masculine, some which will increase your own powers by digesting them.)
Call of the Wild & White Fang (Two Volumes); Jack London
The Federalist Papers; Hamilton, Madison, & Jay
Letter from a Birmingham City Jail; MLK Jr. (And the relevant letter to which he was responding--signed by five pastors and two rabbis.)
The Gettysburg Address; Abraham Lincoln
Various writings of the Founding Fathers which can be acquired from either Library of America, or Gutenbergorg. I recommend, at least, Washington, Adams Sr., Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Essays of E.B. White; E.B. White
Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans; Plutarch
>If stock and options appealed to you and you want to go deeper...
Trend Following; Michael Covel
Iron Condor; Zerener & Phillips
The Richest Man Who Ever Lived; Steven K. Scott
Get Rich With Options; Lee Lowell
Covered Calls & Leaps; Hooper & Zelewski
You Can Be A Stock Market Genius; Greenblatt (Although I've yet to implement the strategy discussed in this book--which is spinoff trades, it's a really entertaining read, and the knowledge can be kept and utilized when an opportunity shows itself.)

I think reading history is important to masculinity because it adds texture to our perceptions of noteworthy men and affairs from the past, but I've listed a lot already, so I won't list those. I could go on, in general, but I'll stop for now. I had the whole list numbered for your convenience, but the dumb filter thought it was spam. This site, nowadays...

>>22962207
start with the greeks is a meme. You cannot read in a linear fashion. You have to jump around and hone in here and there, and you have to go back over your previous reading from time to time. This is so you can get a sense of how your mind has developed between readings.

Anyways do not be obsessive about your learning. Don't stop to look up a mythology reference, skip right over it without apology. Over time you will start seeing certain names pop up and will begin to desire to investigate, or get the sense there is "something there."

(Lately I keep running into the Egyptian Isis in my reading, and so have finally taken up studying a bit of Egyptian mythology. )

Let your own interests and curiosity guide you. Self directed reading can absolutely change your life drammatically by giving you a sense of excitement and a richer mind with which to observe the events of your own life.

Read the books you really want to read, the ones you think might have the answers or offer the experiences you are questing for. Do not be afraid to read greats like Plato. Try your best to be open minded and to understand, there is no point trying to prove yourself right to every book you read.

>>22942555
Lo skip Plato, just head over to Aristotle's politics... Best way to learn Plato is through Aristotle, who debunks Plato's BS...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/oDy4uFTdWMfK/

>>22908093
>"school of thought"
Are you suggesting that a person should skip Plato and just read Plotinus? Here you see the issue.

>>22819828
The important part of stoicism is that cultivating internal goods of the soul is more important than anything external that happens to you. Luckily Plato already said that before and many said it after so you can just skip the Stoics if you want, although they have some interesting metaphysics if you wanna read that.

You should firstly ask yourself what you're aiming to get out of this experience.

I've done something similar, and 95% of them I regret taking the time out of my life to read.

There's a point to reading where it just becomes about crunching numbers, you don't want that to happen - that's not at all dissimilar to the booktok trends of reading 200 books in a year. A number isn't depth of understanding, so you should ask yourself, really, what you're hoping to get out of it

Do you want a historical perspective of philosophy?
A complete from the ground up development of your own philosophical thought?
or do you instead just want to be able to discern an understanding from certain modern philosophy books you find interesting?

All of these are valid, but "if one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."


Some notes on your list;

- Meditations can be entirely skipped. It's worthless even within the camp of Stoicism.

-Plato is one of the big philosophers, his entire corpus is fundamental and the Republic is better served as a later read when going through his work. That said, you do want a "basic curriculum", so my suggestion would be to just skip the entire list and do all of Plato followed by Aristotle.

On the note of reading an entire oeuvre, Nietzsche is also one of the big ones that really rewards an in-depth reading of his entire output. Likewise as the Republic nod with Plato, Zarathustra is one of the final works to read by Nietzsche. Don't get discouraged, and definitely don't get convinced by people who claim you can understand it with no previous readings. It's like a blossom that opens up with effort.

-Are you reading the Bible? if so, any other religious texts? Understanding where certain themes are coming from in your theological entries could be helpful. The same is absolutely true for Plato and the earlier Greek writings (Homer, Greek plays and the pre-Socratics)

I know I'm getting ahead of myself, and overtly complicating something that you want to be simple in the first place. In the end, there's no rules. You will be making mistakes as you go along, but that's how life goes. Good luck, and never read in sunlight.

How decent of an idea is going from
>Plato>Aristotle>Plotinus
>straight to Kant, and appropriate secondary material
and skipping the three rationalists and British empiricists? I just feel reading them would be a waste of time since Kant was their synthesis or something like that?
>Skip Spinoza and Hegel for the time being, as in I'll return to them sometime, then
>Kant>Marx>Nietzsche>Freud>Deleuze
Is it all right?

>>22745707
>How many of Friedrich Nietzsche's books are worth reading?
Starter pack:
Beyond Good and Evil -> Genealogy of Morals -> Twilight of the Idols -> Antichrist -> Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Optionally:
Dawn -> Gay Science -> Human, All Too Human (part 2. The Wanderer and His Shadow)

Skip the rest.


>Anything I should know before reading them?
Some basic introduction books to history of philosophy would help. So that you would recognize who the fuck some Plato is.

>>22720068
this
also: http://sonic.net/~rteeter/greatbks.html
>>22720075
>outdated systems of metaphysics
no such thing, yeah lets not read Plato and read Dennett instead.
But yes, skip the natural science

Ugh, seriously? You can't just skip the basics and jump into Plato. Like, hello, that's not how it works. Start with the early philosophers, duh.

>>22667298
In American classrooms there is a tendency to cover Platonism, a token Confucius, and then skip to politically relevant philosophers with a smattering of big names reduced to adjectives at best. In my own experience we leapt from Plato to Rosseau with no stops in between. He also was not, to my knowledge, a church favorite so he didn't get access to institutionalized fame that way. Mix that in with the general reductive nature of the passage of time and you get the state of Dante. I do think that some of his works might have been more popular at an earlier time, see Convivio, but they have been made obsolete in many regards except as period pieces.