/lit/ - Literature

>>1556460

> Takes a year out of school

> Plans to read over two thousand years of philosophy

> Expects to learn anything, even if he manages it.

Ha. Finish your education first, kiddo. It'll at least give you a start...

I lol'd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Western_philosophers

>>1556472

thanks brp

Well, you're a moron, but you can probably kind of try and go Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle -> (insert people between aristotle and medieval philosophy here) -> Aquinas -> Berkeley -> Descartes -> Leibniz -> Spinoza -> Hume -> Kant -> Hegel -> Frege -> Kierkegaard -> Nietzsche -> Husserl -> Heidegger -> Sartre and well after that it's up to you, probably like Foucault and Derrida and stuff like that.

>>1556474
>no Montaigne or Schopenhauer
But then this is exactly why a chronological list is a dumb request OP.

>>1556468
Don't listen to this guy.

The most you'll get at school is some pompous asshole's interpretation of other people's philosophies.

You're doing right to read them on your own, and for free. You have my blessing and admiration.

>>1556478
I considered adding Montaigne (and also, like, Pascal and encyclopedists and stuff) but I kind of figured at some point you're going to end up missing a ton of stuff in any list like this

Like, I'm sure some analytical guy could get hella mad at me for including Heidegger and Sartre and not mentioning Quine or Wittgenstein (in fact, omitting Wittgenstein was probably a bigger omission than either Montaigne or Schopenhauer)

>>1556468

Listen to this guy.

>>1556474
>bitches dont know about Thales

OP should read this, then decide if youre interested. its got plenty of pictures to keep you happy

>>1556479
It turns out that talking to people who've read a lot of philosophers and thought about them - and talking intensely to them about philosophy - is really beneficial in terms of understanding philosophy and figuring out what you think. I realize that's a best case scenario in terms of an education in philosophy, but I think there's a danger in discounting the benefits of education and the importance of "doing philosophy" not "reading philosophy".

>>1556484
omitting Schopenhauer would be your ruin.

You're a fucking idiot. The year will end and you'll have got fuck all out of it. I can tell by how stupid your attitude is in approaching this that this is the case.

Start with Wittgenstein. Then you'll understand most earlier philosophy properly and understand the context of most 20th century philosophy.

>>1556484
Montaigne and Schopenhauer are way more influential, but partly by virtue of coming earlier. Anyway, my point is that OP should read as a journey, not as a tickbox.

>>1556505

i lol'd

what are you taking a year off from? high school? BA? MA? Or is it a gap year after high school?

Where are you getting your money from?

Don't study philosophy..study life and then write your own philosophy ffs.

Lookie here, boyo.

If you're actually making a serious request, I want you to step back and look at yourself for a moment. What you're planning to do here is drop your entire education to read something you don't know well enough to compile into a managable format on your own. It's a massive gamble, and I seriously think that the critical reasoning and discussion available in a classroom would do you a world of good.

Sounds to me like you're in love with the idea of philosphy right now, not actual philosophy.

>>1556515
Reasonable, I think Wittgenstein is more 'significant' but it's kind of a pointless debate anyway

The point is: both doing what OP is doing and trying to construct some kind of Master List of Western philosophers are futile.

>>1556525

Dangit, forgot mah trip...

If you're averaging 200-400 pages a day, you're probably not reading philosophy.

Even if you were to read, say, The Republic, Critique of Pure Reason, and Naming & Necessity (three works that are at least in the top five most important books in Western Philosophy) and you spent a year reading all three, you wouldn't, couldn't, fucking master those texts.

Unless you're a prodigy. But something tells me no.

>>1556543

Here's the top 5 in Western philosophy. Sorry, none of that bullshit is in it.


1/2. Function and Concept/Philosophical Investigations
3. On Sense and Reference
4. Concept and Object
5. On Certainty

>>1556556

Germans are just sooo sophisticated

>>1556556
GOD you analyticalfags are annoying. And it's not like I have any attachment to phenomenology - I don't have a horse in this race - but to literally say "The only important things in philosophy are the products of one specific school in the last 150 years and I can say this with absolutely certainty, sorry yall, Plato literally Does Not Matter, only Frege and Wittgenstein" seems to me enormously intellectually arrogant.

>>1556563
>>1556560

>>1556564
Post some more /b/ memes. They're great.

>>1556556


"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" (Process and Reality, p. 39, Free Press, 1979)

Yeah, I'm gonna go with a "no" on the list with two Frege's.

>>1556572

But seriously, it's not that I have anything against phenomenology or Greeks.

It's just that, strictly speaking, they aren't Western philosophy- they might be geographically, but in terms of coherence and logic of thought (none) I think they belong in Eastern philosophy rankings.

logic is a subset of rhetoric and you analytic fags exaggerate its importance..

>>1556577
fuck off with the plato bullshit

>>1556590

So you mean that logic is not a subset of rhetoric?

>>1556598
Logic is a means to satisfactory Rhetoric is what i mean. It is not, in fact, in anyway more valid than the other means.

>>1556581
>>1556581
gj, manages to be offensive and stupid on a number of different levels

>>1556577
>Whitehead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Wait a second, what the fuck happened here?

>>1556460
I have a feeling that you may have read "Nausea" and decided to come trolling.
Have fun being a paedophile who gets beaten up and nobody cares.

>>1556590

Logic is a subset of math, but without numbers.

>>1556622
>he can't into Frege
>>1556577
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

What the fuck happened here?

>>1556605

It is THE means to consistent and precise rhetoric. Any serious intellectual discussion must take logic into account.

>>1556563
>The only important things in philosophy are the products of one specific school in the last 15 years and I can say this with absolutely certainty, sorry yall, Plato literally Does Not Matter, only Frege and Wittgenstein

fixed it for you
it's not like you'd consult ancient indian astrology charts to find out about how neutron stars work
why should philosophy be any different?

>>1556632
>it's not like we ever use anything over 100 years old in Physics
lolololol

Age has little to do with anything.

>>1556632
>The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts.
>Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.
>A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations.
>The result of philosophy is not a number of “philosophical propositions”, but to make propositions clear.
>Philosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred.

>>1556647

You're supposed to skip those parts.

>>1556654

>>1556665

I'm sorry bro. But if that were true I wouldn't be allowed to make new theories, and that would be lame.

>>1556674
What are you working on at the moment?

>>1556675

Oh, you know. Stuff.

bump for umberto on page 11

why force it all down in one year OP? You may just burn yourself out

My suggestion would be to stick with school, go for something you can actually get a job with. Because honestly, if you are truly passionate about philosophy you will find plenty of time to read it

shoulda gone to st. john's college, homie

>>1556593

are you shitting me, onion ring? yeah, don't read about plato and understand absolutely nothing about the ideals that cultivated the eastern half of the world, literature included. it's important to know the differences between platonic and aristotelian thought, it's fundamental.

>>1556617
>mfw when someone made a reference to the Self-Taught Man and I recognized it

>>1557384
Technically the main character tried to come to the Self-Taught man's aid. So I suppose someone did care.

this is a bad idea. id suggest just reading a thick ass book about western philosophy. so many philosophers got so much shit wrong that you'd need serious context and help with each one. god knows, kant alone made a huge mistake for every thing he got right. his major work(i dont remember the name) made me rage almost non-stop. im still planning on naming my next dog kant, just so i can rub his nose in his own shit when he poops in the house.

>>1556474
What's with the complete lack of postmodernists? Sure, Foucault and Derrida are great, but what of Deleuze and any of the post-Lacanians? You really have to hand out some direction to struggle through that tangle of authors.

>>1557384
It was pretty much a direct reference. Hard to miss.

>>1556556

That is a list of the top five most influential works of the past two-hundred years. Western Philosophy is older than Christianity. Respect your elders.

>>1556556
>>1556556

Confirmed for pseudo-philosopher. Protip there is more to philosophy then 20th century analytic philosophy.

>>1557664

You're absolutely right. I'm sorry for being so gay.

>>1556563

>seems to me enormously intellectually arrogant.

My 13 year old cousin has read more in the history of philosophy then some of these analytic philosophers.

Actually I think the reason analytic philosophers are so dismissive of continental philosophy (non-analytic philosophers) in general is that they simply cannot deal with the history component of cont philosophy. They would rather delimit a narrow little slice of the philosophical pie and defend it to the death, instead of actually putting in some reading time and actually finding out what 'these' continental guys (heidegger, derrida, deleuze) had to say about philosophy. From what I can see its essentially an excuse for intellectual laziness on behalf of analytico-fags.

Its a nice little academic trick that analytic-fags play. Ignorance in regards to continental philosophy is essentially turned into a strength. That said, continental-fags occasionally play the same game:

"Oh you still read Russell? Reading analytic philosophy is vulgar, don't you know that the enlightenment gave us the holocaust".

There is blame on both sides but that being said I don't know that many continental philosophers who are dismissive of analytic philosophy, whereas I know a shit-ton of analytic philosophers who are extremely dismissive of continental philosophy. I didn't see continental philosophers joining together to block Lewis from receiving a honorary doctorate, but I did analytic-fags try that shit on Derrida.

I'm coming from an american perspective though. I don't know how it plays out in Britain.

>>1557686

>"Oh you still read Russell? Reading analytic philosophy is vulgar, don't you know that the enlightenment gave us the holocaust".

fucking this.. every fucking day.

rather than trying to impress upon everyone how fucking smart I am, I'll just leave this here:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/depts/philosophy/people/academic/adamsonp/hoppodcast.html


comprehensive as fuck, and won't consume a whole year of your life.

>>1557593

Dude, you just don't get it, do you? Unless you're interested in history you don't read philosophers to learn the way you learn human anatomy, you read philosophers to bounce ideas off them and devise your own solutions to philosophical problems.

A handbook is better than nothing but with that attitude I suggest you should stick to hard sciences.

And the OP should concentrate on what he's reading instead of planning to do 200-400 pages a day which would be a waste of time. What's the goddamn point? I don't see how you could keep such a tempo and contemplate on what you just read properly, it'd all be just gibberish.

>>1557593
>his major work(i dont remember the name)
For this, 7/10

OP, you do realise that the perusal of all Western philosophers is, in practical terms, useless. Your 'perusal' would not really be a perusal and your contemplation would be disrupted by the sheer quantity you expect to consume; you will end up glutted with verbosity and verbiage. About the only improvement you will see is in your vocabulary.

Create a relatively short list of philosophers and follow the chronology. Start with Socrates and end with Kierkegaard -- you could even go even more contemporary and pick out someone like Albert Camus. Spice it up with some poetry for some bonus points.

Excellent overview: "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6D6gO6CGdU&feature=player_embedded

why spend a year when you could do it in 5 mins

>>1557362
bro notice i never said you should never read plato, but rather that saying the entirety of western philosophy is footnote to plato is ridiculous. and it is

>Hey /lit/ I'm taking a year off of school to turn myself into a terrible human being.

Seriously, no one will want to talk to you after you do this. Not even your parents.

>>1557686
>>1557675
>>1557664
>>1557657

hnnng, ya'll so mad.

It's not that complicated. What came before was worse. What came later is better, because it improved on what came before. So if you're making a Top 5 list of Western Philosophy, it's really not surprising that most of it is recent.

>>1558199
You are now aware that all progress is an illusion.

>>1558202

Frege made genuine progress in logic. Sorry, Aristotelians.

>>1558208
So he took some rhetoric and changed it. Big fucking deal.

>>1558212
>rhetoric

nope.png

>>1558215
>nope.png
yep.bmp

undergrads can't rhetoricality

>>1558223
>he still thinks he'll get into grad school!

go for it op thats pretty much the best thing one could possibly do.

btw dfw did this too (but i think he also read fiction instead of just pure phil).

I take back what I said about (all) self-help shit being poor philosophy. The main texts are actually pretty useless to the average person and I respect psychologists much more than philo majors. sounds like a waste of time OP.

>>1558257

look at this vulgar noob lol

>>1558259
name one thing a philo major has over anyone else, apart from being good at arguments.

What do you expect to gain from reading philosophy?
I mean why ,why would you want to spend a whole year reading other peoples views on politics and life?
Just go out and experience the world and write your own.

>>1558273

Insecure much?

The ideas of philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some dead philosopher.

>>1558283
>piss, piss, piss, dripping piss, out of my mouth
no for anyone on this board more life experience would be better than reading any of the milestone books. and actual non-fiction books concerning whatever experience your going to attempt or want to learn would be way more helpful.

really you fail at life if you spent time 'studying' philosophy but couldn't actually contribute anything notable yourself.

>>1558288

>!WvWWh.l.CE
>Your argument is invalid.

>>1558273
>>1558268
>>1557742

philistines itt. what do you noobs read in your free time? how to influence people and win friends? How to Stop Worrying and Start Living? How to Develop Self-Confidence And Influence People? The Leader In You: How to Win Friends, Influence People and Succeed in a Changing World? The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change? Getting Things Done. The Art of Stress-Free Productivity?

why don't you go experience something? Join the army or a cult or drift through mexico and south america on a 12 speed bike or something.

You can be a bookish cunt later.

>>1558299

>>1558299
>what do you noobs read in your free time? how to influence people and win friends? How to Stop Worrying and Start Living? How to Develop Self-Confidence And Influence People? The Leader In You: How to Win Friends, Influence People and Succeed in a Changing World? The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change? Getting Things Done. The Art of Stress-Free Productivity?

>fatgirlsittingonaseesawreading48lawsofpower.jpg

what do yall think of korzybski?

>>1558299
not being deluded into thinking philosophy is 'life-affirming/changing' doesnt mean you cant still read it for fun/impressing others...

ALL MY FUCKING HATE

>>1556460

Actually, OP, I did something similar to this when I took a year off before going to graduate school, and it was tremendously rewarding. I say similar because it wasn't really as ambitious as reading "the entirety" of Western philosophy, whatever that means precisely, as much as engaging at length with several philosophers in whom I was interested.

If you're still looking for serious suggestions, you should consider looking into Heidegger and Wittgenstein. The background reading necessary to fully appreciate Heidegger should provide you with a reasonable spread of readings. The two of them combined give you the origins (loosely speaking) of contemporary continental and analytic philosophy.

>>1558386
>The background reading necessary to fully appreciate Heidegger

Hey guys.

I'm reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Vol-Pre-Socratics-Plotinus/dp/0385468431/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

>>1558273

Why do this if someone wrote something that's true already? What's the point of running around in the world and figuring out something that was already figured out hundreds of years ago?

>>1559537
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter3.html

>>1559553
>dead emo dude

No thanks

>>1559581
>I don't understand Schopenhauer

LOL!!!!!!!!
It is so funny how so many people are advising this retard of an OP to stupidly cut down and read less in chronological order.

You can tell there are a lot of goddamn hipsters on here who have only read the few existentialist or ancient greek texgts their friends have recommended.

PHILOSOPHY IS NOT CHRONOLOGICALLY BASED, IT'S TOPICALLY CONSTRUCTED.

Choose a topic, kid, then pick a few philosophers and stay of target. That will cover a few years of your life at least.

>>1560441

You're right, influential ideas definitely fly backwards in time to ensure that other people who are discussing the same topic can consider them.

That stupid old idea of thesis - antithesis - synergy is so absurd! Everyone knows that counter-arguments are best if they are developed before the argument itself is formed.

>>1560441

And people who use this many: !!!!!!!! exclamation marks are always the right people to listen to during intelligent discourse.

My parents had a set of "The Great Books" that I thought was a set of encyclopedias until I was about 14. When I was 16 I read nearly all of them over the summer when I got cancer. It was about 120 books.

You shouldn't need to take a year off. You should only need a summer.

>>1559204
lol ya, nothing can be fully appreciated, duh

>>1560463
what books were they

>>1560466
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books

>>1560467
that's more than 120

>>1560467
also there are too many books written by scientists and economists. no one wants to read those

>>1560472
>>1560470

It sounds like you are not ready for this undertaking... on many levels.

"In the course of history ... new books have been written that have won their place in the list. Books once thought entitled to belong to it have been superseded; and this process of change will continue as long as men can think and write. It is the task of every generation to reassess the tradition in which it lives, to discard what it cannot use, and to bring into context with the distant and intermediate past the most recent contributions to the Great Conversation."

The list is always different, and my parents' set was from the 60's.

Perhaps you should save yourself the trouble and order a copy of Norman Melchert's

"The Great Conversation"

to save yourself the embarrassment.

stay in school, kids

seriously

>>1560474
It sounds like you have no idea what your'e talking about