/lit/ - Literature

Have you already studied Euclid's Elements? If not, don't even bother touching philosophy.

Early Greek Philosophy by Barnes
Plato (everything)
Aristotle
Euclid
Cicero
Epictetus
Alcinous (Handbook of Platonism)
Plotinus
Iamblichus (the mysteries)
Gregory of Nyssa
Augustine
Proclus (Elements)
Pseudo-Dionysius
Damascius' Problems and Solutions
Maximus the Confessor
Al Farabi
Avicenna
Anselm
Maimonides
Eckhart
Al-Ghazali
Aquinas
Nicholas of Cusa
Duns Scotus
Descartes
Hobbes
Malebranche
Spinoza booo
Leibniz yeeee
Berkeley
Giambattista Vico
Hume
Thomas Reid
Kant
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Peirce
Nietzsche
Husserl
Kierkegaard
William James
Bergson
Whitehead
Heidegger
Carl Schmitt
Merleau-Ponty
Quine
Deleuze
Agamben

>>14095592
>do you already know the subject? if not don't bother learning it
gatekeeping at its finest

>>14095543
Nick Land
Moldbug
Deleuze
Plant
Joyce

>>14096362
It's not gatekeeping. Plato said first you gotta study geometry, then philosophy, and FINALLY mysticism.
Schools around the world usually teach you bits of synthetic/analytic geometry around middle/high school level, but you gotta at least get through the 12 books of Euclid's Elements before touching Plato's Dialogues if you don't want to be a pseud.

>>14096362
he was actually trying to do you a favor, anon. what he said is true. euclid established the facts that later philosophers used and you would be simply taking on faith as true.

>>14095543
Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant

This is the chassis of western philosophy. Locke and Aristotle are also helpful for Kant.

The rest is a matter of taste. The cool thing about philosophy is that you're very quickly shown many potential avenues of study, everything you read leads you somewhere else, and you'll naturally end up where you ought to end up.

Which is Heraclitus.

>>14095662
outstanding list

>>14097458
it's really not hard to make a long list of philosophers

If the question is "what are the essential philosophers" shouldn't having LESS be the appropriate virtue?

>>14095543
Adi Shankara

>>14095543
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Kant are the top 5 philosophers in terms of importance period. You need to know them at the very least. But to know them, you need to know some background too. For Plato and Aristotle, you need to know the Presocratics. For Hume you need to know the other British empiricists (Locke and Berkeley). For Kant, you need to know the British empiricists and the continental rationalists (Spinoza, Leibniz) as well.

>>14097355
fuck plato

>>14097510
why is Hume important?

>>14097790
hume btfo's all of philosophy, Kant was the only one who could save

>>14095543
The ones that found The Good and show us how to live well.
Philosophy trio

>>14097790
He provided an extremely compelling epistemological argument that introduced extreme doubt in the way of the mere possibility of metaphysical truth and pure reason. Thus, prompted Kant to attempt to establish boundaries that metaphysics of the future ought to mind.

>>14097811
>>14097824
Kant failed imo. Hume's issue was that the rules of our own logic don't imply necessity but habit. Kant avoided this issue by focusing on these rules only pertaining to Reason which he contrasts with other things, but he never actually addressed it. There is no reason to privilege Kant's understanding of synthetic a priori, or even any a priori, over Hume's understanding of associative habituation. Kant never actually deals with that problem.

the 5 +2=7 is not actually a priori, it just has resulted every time in consistency, but Hume's entire point about experience was that consistency up to now is not necessity, that applies to our understanding of and application of math and all of Kant's other a priori stuff as well.

>>14095662
Guenon retroactively refuted all of these.

>>14097823
>tranny fedora nihilism
>The Good
lmao

>>14097846
One could argue that he mostly agreed with Plato, Plotinus, Eckhart, Iamblichus, Damascius, Al-Ghazali and Nicholas of Cusa

>>14097836
For an arithmetical truth to not be true would require a self contradiction, which if nothing else rests safely outside the bounds of what Hume is addressing there. You could suggest that the laws of nature will fail tomorrow and it's conceivable, even possible in the modal sense. But 5+2 can't equal 8, not because it contradicts experience, but because it's internally contradictory and incoherent.

Kant's insight is that there is SOMETHING universal and necessary in human experience.

Perhaps you could say that the very conditions of human experience are understood only through experience and their only authority is through consistency, but there's something tricky about that. If something has been absolute to every thought you've ever formed, are you really even able to question it, or are you just playing cognitive tricks on yourself?

In any case, I don't think Hume's theory actually permits self contradiction. But I could be wrong about that

>>14097872
>In any case, I don't think Hume's theory actually permits self contradiction.
I think it does if you look closely at it. Logical relations are not any different than any other form of association, it's simply an expectation that x an y will always be connected, because they have been up until now.

Self-contradiction is kind of the entire point of Humean skepticism, the possibility of it that is.

>>14097885
What I mean to argue is that something like "Consistency doesn't imply necessity" is just another thought formed from the transcendental logic.

My impression of Kant is that it was a way of making sense of the phenomenon of experience, with the mutual necessity of content and format. It is questionable how experience can even occur otherwise.

The authority of the argument rests in its seeming consistency with literally all experience - as in, no experience and no thought may occur that is not formatted in the logic.

Although your argument is echoed in William James - I can't remember where, but he does suggest that space and time could just be hypotheses that stood the test of time long enough to seem foundational. I suspect he wanted to artificially distance himself from Kant, but that's probably not a fair reading.

In any case, the permission of self contradiction is a threat to all reasoning, and may be turned on Hume's own argument. With self contradiction, you can deny any of Hume's conclusions arbitrarily. I have never, ever heard of an account of Hume that is actually sympathetic to self-contradiction. It's more that formal logic isn't meaningful to Hume. A deduction within formal logic is not so much deduction as it is analysis, there is nothing informative about it, it's just an elaborate self-reflective abstraction of experience.

>>14097854
Nietzsche defeats nihilism
Epicurus was The Good they were after

>>14097926
>In any case, the permission of self contradiction is a threat to all reasoning, and may be turned on Hume's own argument
That is I think the entire point, though Hume himself never articulated it. Kant blurred the problem by divorcing rational and empirical necessity when they seem like basically the same thing to me, they are all in the themselves 'content' or else they couldn't be spoken about at all, even those items which purport to be the rules of any possible content.

The only philosopher I know who takes that approach to Hume is Shestov, who couches it in Christian revelation. I'm not Christian so i'm not in his camp, but I do agree with his reading of Hume and his significance in the history of philosophy.

>>14097933
>Epicurus was The Good they were after
he was destroyed by Guenon, like so many others

"Attention has also frequently been drawn to certain features common to the decadence of the ‘classical’ world and to the present time; and, without wishing to push the parallel too far, it must be recognized that there are in reality striking resemblances. Purely ‘profane’ philosophy had gained ground: the appearance of skepticism on the one hand, and of Stoic and Epicurean moralism on the other, are sufficient to show to what point intellectuality had declined. At the same time, the ancient sacred doctrines, scarcely understood any longer by anyone, had degenerated through this lack of understanding into ‘paganism’ in the true sense of the word, that is to say they had become no more than ‘superstitions’, things which, having lost their profound meaning, survived for their own sake as merely outward manifestations."

- The Crisis of the Modern World

>>14097939
>That is I think the entire point, though Hume himself never articulated it.
He speaks to a problem with reasoning - that it's purely inductive. He is not out to refute reasoning, he is using reasoning.
Let me put it this way: If self contradiction were permitted, and if that somehow were not a threat to his own work, then it would provide incredible force to the argument. It would overturn all reasoning if something can both be and not be. If this were so, it is far more demanding of attention than the problem of induction. And yet he says nothing on it.

This is because self contradiction is not permissible, and it would undo his work. With the exception of this Christian man you refer to (I can't say anything against it of course, having not read or heard of it), I'd consider you to be in the minority if not alone in your reading of Hume.

>>14097960
Flat-headed degenerate doesn’t get it, of course