/lit/ - Literature

>>18804773
Plato - Aristotle - Badiou - Meillassoux
If you fall for other philosopher you are midwit

>>18804784
I am a mid-wit though.Nieztche, Guenon, Hegal, Aquinas, etc, etc, etc are none of these important?

My advice: get over it. That's how it will always be and you will never read every single philosopher ever.

>>18804802
you may be right but i dont like it.I just want to be reasonably educated on what I believe to be a very important subject.

>>18804813
Your thread game me an idea,I think you might like it.What I am going to do is:
(1)Read the Greeks
(2)Write down my natural inclinations in philosophy(things that I would want to learn in detail),eg.Metaphysics,Problem of evil,Logic Ethics etc.What I naturally find myself thinking about most.
(3)Print out a glossary(or refer to SEP) of all philosophical concepts and terms esp.those related to my own interests and mark them for priority.
(4)Look up their definitions without looking at different conceptions that different philosophers had of them.
(5)Have a personal notebook where I philosophise about a specific concept out of that list on my own and write everything that my brain gives me,most that it is capable of.
(6)Read philosophers that have dealt in the same concept to find blindspots,or take in alternative position or simply to defend my position.
Atleast this is what I would do to deal with the breadth of philosophy.
Alternatively you can chose a single philosopher and go full schizo mode.

>>18805097
Lol I actually like this anon interesting idea, I feel like this would make me go insane though just like the finding a coherent philosophical history

>>18804773
There's no reason to go any further than the Greeks unless you want to waste your time. Every western philosophy just builds off them and just regurgitates their ideas in just different words. Philosophy is a joke past them.

>>18804773
The fact that ppl gets intimidated when told "start with the Greeks" is because they think philosophy has been a continuous effort in history, when in reality it's composed of quite sparse peaks with very long periods of stagnation.
Once you assimilated the Greeks of the 3rd century BC you have already 50% of philosophy and 90% of the prerequisites to understand other works.

>>18804784
Holy. Fucking. BAAAAASED

>>18805097
SEP is useless on libertarianism. Its editors obviously don't particularly care about domain conflicts, and instead support one domain knowledge over another domain knowledge, with obvious weaponised discourses.

Which is to say SEP might be useful, but treat it as a potentially hostile encyclopaedia, not as authoritative. Compare to wikipedia which is not beholden directly to the US ideological state complex.

As an alternative to 2) identify a real problem you face and trace the attitudes to it. Arendt typifies this approach, Marx transcends it as the problematic rides him like a dog sled to hell.

>>18805275
If you don't understand Zizek, you neither understand your own liberation, or how to fuck women inconsequentially while making Yugoslavian recruit jokes.

>>18805303
>If you understand my commie you're not liberated
Being inoculated to commie non-sense is liberation

Are Iliad and Odyssey mandatory to read before Plato?

>>18805263
I understand that it isn't necessary, but I believe that many great people of history have been inspired by philosophy and I'm just looking for some sort of wisdom I guess...

>>18805265
This is why I started with the Greeks and I'm clearly not educated enough on the history of philosophy I just see a lot of names thrown around and some interesting discussions that I would love to be a part of without being a complete brain-lit plus I really like to learn.

This is why doing philosophy at university is important for getting into it, because you will be interacting with teaching and research staff that are doing actuall groundbreaking philosophy and it gives you a sense of what the current arguments and dilemmas in philosophy are.

>>18805349
Also not expecting to digest the entire western philosophical canon just enough to at least feel an above average grasp on the subject

>>18805316
I'm sorry you can't root chicks mate. Maybe you should try some Hegel and bottoming.

>>18805360
Imagine being this retard

>>18805391
Here is Hegelianism pre-inversion, look at how it babadeebadeebeepdidow instead of properly concieving of the relations between men in their reproduction of material life being determinant.

>>18805433
Pseud. Everything you just said I could hear coming out of crazy frog or a schizophrenic hobo

>>18805239
A little madness is necessary in search of truth.If you can't handle the headache that pursuit of knowledge entails,then all that you should read is Stoic philosophy.

>>18805457
Nice 1 punchy

>>18804784
Absolutely based

>>18805324
No,but some certain presocratics.

>>18805461
I drives my anon. which is why I made the thread! I want answers I just need a jumping off point. I want to learn about philosophy history the occult, magick, religion, the world all of it. I want answers to something, anything

>>18804773
Try surfing wikipedia for interesting topics, find a book on the topic, read it, try to understand, use it to find other books/authors, repeat. Its not a race and you will never find a "comprehensive" reading list. As long as you are interested in what you are reading, you will keep learning and progressing

>>18804773
>be zoomer
>introduced to philosophy by 4-10 min. YT videos

>>18805482
Then I'll advice you to read jung.Also see pic rel.I can post more charts if you want.Good luck.One advice though.Stay away from lit if you want to seriously learn from these books.lit is all about btfo'ing and refuting,so effortposting is the only way you can filter normies and get decent discussions.

>>18805666
Also start with a simple intro to philosophy book.Most famous one is by Russell(not recommended),Durant(good),copleston(great),Magee(for a very simple and picturesque intro to philosophy).Consider Robin Waterfeld for presocratics.Also you seem like an ESL so also focus on your English comprehension as you go about reading these books(if you read them in English).

>>18804773
>/lit/ says start with the greeks
>every university starts with descartes
why?

>philosopher references other philosophers work in the future

As if it weren't so damn hard enough already...

>>18805666
>>18805711
Thank you anon

>>18804773
Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, enlightenment, eternal salvation. That's all you need to know.

Proceed to the Romans

>>18805806
what of the romans?

>>18804773
My easy impeccable guide:
Pre-Socratics (article on wiki) -> Plato (Republic and a couple of short dialogues) -> Aristotle (Analytica, Physics, Ethics) -> Lucretius (Nature of Things) -> Marcus Aurelius (Meditations) -> Thomas Aquinas (article on wiki) -> Descartes (Discourse on the Method)) -> Hume (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) -> Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) -> Hegel (article on wiki) -> Schopenhauer (anything optionally, just for fun) -> Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil -> Article on wiki about modern logic, Gödel incompleteness theorem, Cantor's diagonal argument
Keep in mind all philosophers are generally retards and you can skip to the last step

>>18805841
Thanks anon. Are these all the "essentials'?

>>18804773
Philosophy is a filtering mechanism by nature. Read Plato. Still doesn't stop pseuds getting in but it stems the flow a lot, and they can be easily refuted once you detect them.

If you want a linear recommendation:

1. The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee
2. Mythology by Edith Hamilton (Get the illustrated as it looks nice)
3. The Illiad translated by Fagles
4. The Odyssey translated by Fagles
5. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories (Amazon doesnt have it - dont pay more than £40. If you cant find it get the Penguin edition)
6. The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the Sophists
7. Complete Works of Plato (John M Cooper)
8. Complete Works of Aristotle vol 1. & vol 2. revised oxford

>>18805841
This is the guide to midwittery and Dunning-Krüger-tier knowledge of philosophy.

>>18805299
SEP is just a collection of scholarly articles reshaped into a wiki entry with a concordance stapled on. Not an encyclopedia proper. Like anything else, check sources & research the authors.

>>18805433
"Hegelianism" just gooblygook non-sense, and you're a pseudo using your shame intellect to boost your already low esteem. The dietician just wants to make it hard for people call them an idiot, but anyone who understands sophistry will mock it and move on.

>>18805847
>Are these all the "essentials'
Yeah if you think of western philosophy (the only one that deserves to be mentioned). I skipped a lot of good authors but those are "essential".

>>18805861
>guide to midwittery
Yes. This is guide to philosophy.

>>18805870
Once again I really appreciate it anon. Yes I'm primarily focused on the western stuff.

>>18805851
Thanks anon, but already had the generally accepted path to reading the Greeks

>>18805876
it's the guide to a midwit's understanding of philosophy. You have Aquinas listed as "read wiki" and you included Aristotle's Physics rather than Metaphysics.

>>18805890
Then do that path, because this >>18805841 is absolutely retarded

>>18805891
Do you understand, Mr. Pseud, the meaning of Easy, Short and Essential guide? Of course it's basic introduction (Jeez why should I even explain it).

Then, go to the Jews. Then, go back to the Akkadians and Sumerians.

>>18805903
It's an "essential guide" but you haven't even listed the essentials, my friend. In fact, it looks like you're actively trying to sabotage people's understanding of philosophy with those recommendations.

>>18804773
you need an education nigga

>>18804773
Just start somewhere and keep going. Seriously everyone just starts somewhere and keeps going and they all end up fine. You have decades of life left to figure it all out.

Listen to the 'History of Philosophy without any Gaps' podcast

>>18805923
>listed the essentials
I did. Okay, I'm just curious: who is more "essential" than these? And don't say all works of Plato, all works of Aristotle etc.

>>18805899
I'm honestly not sure about which path hence why I find this all confusing with all the disagreements haha.

>>18805928
I have one just a very "intellectual" one, butt I'm trying to give myself one hoping philosophy is a decent place to start.

Not a single philosopher in history had read everyone that came before him. Just develop an initial philosophy of your own first, refine it by constantly writing down views that go against it, refine it by experiencing and reflecting on that experience. After a while, start with the Greeks, and see how what they say compares to what you've developed. If you wait until you've read "enough" philosophers you'll end up like most philosophy graduates: an encyclopedic knowledge of who thought what about what without ever developing something of their own.

>>18806076
Basically don't be a cuck and develop your own views instead of just absorbing others'. You might never develop something unique that no one ever thought before, but the mere process of trying to do so will give you originality and intellectual confidence and authority.