/lit/ - Literature

>>11998900
The Indians

Start again

>>11998900
The Chinese

>>11998900
Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham
Then Descartes

>>11998900
Romans. Start with Livy's histories. Then Tacitus, Caesar, Cassius Dio, Josephus, Augustus, Suetonius, etc.

>>11998900
Or you could jump to the Holy Bible and the Neoplatonists. But some knowledge of Roman history helps immensely there.

Nothing. Read them again until you are ready to write your own magnum opus

>>11998900
The Bible and Nag Hammadi

>>11998900
If you have to ask this you haven't read them properly. Try again. Take your bumps.

just start with kant

It's the Romans

the Africans.

selectively ignored by the white supremacists here on /lit/

>>11998900
if you're reading in order to 'be done' then you've missed half the point. what have you learned? what are you curious about? where do these threads go?

>>11999971
He was reading it because finishing each book gave him a slight dopamine rush because it feels like he's completing a task.
He just reads because it makes him feel smart.

I'm actually curious if OP will remember anything from the books in 1 year time.

The medieval philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine.

>>11998900
The Germans

>>11998900
Read Locke alongside Descartes when you get to him. But no mydickman shouldn't come straight after the Greeks.

>>11998900
>>11999971
>>11999993
>>11999142
>try to study philosophy seriously
>ask /lit/ how I should study
>they say I should start with the greeks
>okay, sure thing
>hit all of the main greek authors and go through the main ideas, not caring about the possibility of not understanding any of it and completely wasting time and resources
>okay, I think I did most of it now, what should I do next
>get called a pseud that completely wasted time and resources by /lit/ because I suggested where to go in the next step in their linear layout of studying philosophy
All of you except for OP are completely useless in actually helping someone properly understand philosophy and seriously need to be more self-aware in who you call pseuds. Pic related is a constructive tree of the main movements and ideas in philosophy, use it to get a rough idea of where to go next after you think you got enough of the greeks OP.

>>12000045
Why did you come to 4chan for sincere advice?

>>12000045
even a randomizer would come out with a better chart

>>12000045
The "chart" tells you what to do next. Idiot.

>>11999946
Recs please? I'm interested

I suggest you to read up on Roman, Medieval European, and Medieval Islamic history first of all.
It doesn't matter if it's through history books written by professionals, primary sources, or Wikipedia articles.
Then read the Bible and the Quran. These two are absolute essentials due to them being the sacred texts of the world's two largest religions.
Roman literature is quite rich and beautiful, like a slightly more refined version of Greek literature. The most important poets from this era are Virgil, Ovid, Lucretius, Horace, and Juvenal. My personal favorites are Virgil's Eclogues, Ovid's Metamorphoses and Amores.
Around this time is when some of the first novels started to pop up, like Daphnis and Chloe, Satyricon and the Golden Ass. There is no real connection between literature and philosophy, but some people have gone into both, like Seneca and Apuleius.
The biggest philosophical movements during Roman times were the Stoics and the Neo-Platonists, both of whom heavily influenced Christian theologians and philosophers.
The man who best represents Roman thought is Cicero. During the Middle Ages and the Early Modern era, he was praised for his polished writing style and the moral qualities of his works, often referred to by later writers as an authority on political philosophy, the art of rhetoric, and virtus.
Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius are some of the best-known representatives of Stoicism. Many people find Seneca to be the friendliest of the three, and regard Marcus Aurelius as a sort of father-like figure, but my personal favorite is Epictetus, who is much more willing to openly insult people (especially hedonists and weak-spirited people). Seneca and Epictetus are not too different in terms of their theology and ethics, but Marcus Aurelius is mostly distilled self-help advice, with very little focus on the gods or abstract philosophical enquiry.
The most representative work of Neo-Platonism is Plotinus' Enneads. The original work is over 1500 pages long, but you can find an abridged version which contains all of its important sections for free on Google Books. Due its influence on later mystics and philosophers, like St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus, Eriugena, Avicenna, and Hegel, it would be better than not to read it, especially since it clears up and expands on many of Plato's secret doctrines. Most of the other Academic Neo-Platonists, like Porphyry, Proclus, and Iamblichus did little but to repeat what he and Plato had said.
There's dozens of Christian philosophers from the early days of the Church and the Middle Ages. The ones who probably helped to solidify Roman Catholic Church doctrine the best are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Four other Medieval Christian thinkers who are of great significance to philosophy are Boethius, St. Anselm, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham.
I'd definitely recommend you to read St. Augustine's Confessions, The City of God, and Aquinas' Briefer Summa.
1/2

>>12000078
There's Ooga Booga, his son Ooga Booga Mooga, Bingo Bongo the greatest mind of the Congo, Tuttut ma Booti, X! X! Bang, Ngumbi Mfumbi and of course No Tonga mi Wonga.

>>12000218
based

>>11998900
You become celibate, stop watching anime, and proceed with neoplatonism and the early stoics, followed by so called medieval philosophy with the Early Church Fathers.

The reason why I'd suggest you to read the Briefer Summa (Compendium Theologiae) instead of Summa theologica is because the former cuts down on most of the counterarguments and refutations given in the Summa, while keeping Aquinas's actual arguments/doctrines.
There's lots of general introductions or compilations on Medieval philosophy out there, and out of those, one that seems pretty good and complete is Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy: Selected Readings Presenting Interactive Discourse Among the Major Figures, edited by Bosley and Tweedale. It costs $60, but you can get a used, but still decent enough copy for $15-30.
In the case of Islamic philosophy, there was some kind of fusion between Platonism and Aristotelianism early on (during the days of Al-Farabi and Avicenna), which attempted to prove the compatibility of faith and reason. When Al-Ghazali wrote his Incoherence of Philosophers, he claimed that philosophy could not be used to prove the existence of God, and that faith only would make a good Muslim. Averroes, a purist Aristotelian, took the opposite side of the debate in The Incoherence of the Incoherence.
Two philosophical novels that represent different sides of this debate are Philosophus Autodidactus and Theologus Autodidactus.

Dante's Divine Comedy should be read along with Beowulf and Le Chanson de Roland or some other Medieval chivalric romance (Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight El Poema del Mio Cid, Amadis de Gaula, etc.) to roughly get a feel for the moral/psychological state of Medieval Europe. The reason why the West has ended up the way it has is because even though all of Europe was dominated by Christianity for over a thousand years, the national character of the Italians, the Spanish, the Germans, the English, etc. etc. never actually disappeared. Even in their level of devotion, they always maintained a certain degree of difference.
The light-hearted character of Chaucer's tales is somewhat connected to that same kind of moderate, slightly reserved, yet friendly English way of being that allowed for there to be people like John Locke, Isaac Newton, the American Founding Fathers brought up on England's soil. Even Hume's radical empiricism might've not been received as well had he been living in France or Germany. On the other hand, the passionate, highly emotional, expressive, and dramatic German people that have raised poets like Schiller and Goethe, musicians like Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Wagner, and thinkers like Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger, was already present even as far back as the pagan era. The Nibelungenlied holds the same kind of exhuberant emotions that would centuries later provoke the rise of the great German nation, and that unfortunately gave birth to National Socialism.
Descartes, Bacon, and Locke owe very little to Aquinas or Duns Scotus, but Leibniz and other later thinkers (Hegel, Heidegger) took a great deal of influence from Scholastic philosphy and Platonism.

>>12000330
Note: this is pt 2/2, the continuation of >>12000099

>>11998900
Whatever interests you

>>11998900
RESUME WITH THE ROMANS

>>12000529
The Romans never conquered anything northeast of the Elbe. They never tried to invade Scythia or the Baltics. They also had hundreds of years to build their empire up, and never tried to persecute any non-ethnic Latins just because of their race, but rather because they (for example, the Celtic Britons and the Israelite Jews) posed a genuine threat to the stability of the Roman Empire. The burning of Carthage was excused, unlike the death camps in Poland.