/lit/ - Literature

>>18943104
Straight to the point, thank you friend

>>18943104
>>18943113
Except, this is more literature centered, no? I'm looking more for the strictly philosophical canon

>>18943095
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Western_philosophers?oldformat=true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_philosophy?oldformat=true

>>18943095
yes, the roadmap is: find the nearest trash can and pour all this western rationalism into it.


The major problem of the western canon is that it is mostly jewish, ie jewish or some fork of jewish thru Christianity and islam, and then with the atheists, it's just jewism-humanism, ie god is replaced by society and politics.

By the way the germans are crap at thinking. They all claim to go beyond jewism or humanism, but they remain trapped by this intellectualism coffin. here the rundown of their barf:
Nietzsche is a pure product of the secular humanism, like the subhumans Hegel, Kant, Heidegger, Adorno, Habermas, Arendt, Husserl, Popper, Strauss, Weisse, Carnap, Engels, marx,Feuerbach, Frege, Fitche, [all germans, weird huh? germans can't think, they suck at wars so they fell back on ''''''''''philosophy'''''' who travestied the greek philosophy which was lived, and they turned it into mental masturbation in sterile universities, in order to get a cushy life like a generic girl gets one from her orbiters]. Germans thinkers are vaginas who think they think.
. He is your typical atheist that you find on every street corner nowadays. Those people are torn apart by nihilism and delusion of grandeur where they view themselves as a benevolent despot leading humanity towards a higher life.
Nietzsche is:
-an atheist [there is no god]
-an anti-christian [like any marxist] [Dude dont think long term like the life-denier christians, only the here and now matters OKAY!!]
-a nihilist [there is no truth, only interpretation, FACT!!!]
-an hedonist [Only this life matters!!1 live in the present moment to coom like my dancing vitalist idol, the great dyonisus!! teehee]
-a narcissist [look how I analysed the totally non-judeo-christian-made concept of ''''''human nature''''' , Humanity is will to power!!! LE HECKIN INSIGHT]
-a jew glorifier ["The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe."]
-a postmodernist [values don't exist but reality doesn't matter bro!!! Just become le heckin uberman, sink further into delusion, create your own values and fight for them until you die!!]


yeah no wonder that self righteous NPCs want to identify with his diarrhea all the fucking time.

In this exact order, one book from each of them.

Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days
Pre-socratics
Epicurus
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Lucretius
Seneca
Epictetus
Descartes’ Discourses
Spinoza’s Ethics
Hume’s A Treatise on Human Nature
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason
Fichte’s Vocation of Man
Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation
Stirner’s The Ego and It’s Own
Nietzsche
Heidegger’s Being and Time
Sartre’s Being and Nothingness
Horkheimer’s Eclipse of Reason
Bataille’s The Accursed Share
Adorno’s Minima Moralia
Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization
Lacan’s Ecrits (a selection, not the entirety)
Derrida’s Of Grammatology
Deleuze and Giutari’s Anti-Oedipus
Baudrillard’s Simulacrum and Simulation
Badiou’s Being and Event
Zizek’s Sublime Object of Ideology

Happy reading

>>18943159
Your meds. Take them

>>18943159
i disagree but agree with certain parts good rant

>>18943095
Read the Greeks and maybe Chinese and Indian thought, then stop reading any more philosophy so it doesn't rot your mind. Everything afterward is brain cancer.

>>18943095
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

>>18943166
Serious question: Should Locke or Payne or Kierkegaard in there?

t. philosophy brainlet who will probably read this list

Read picrel.

>>18943095
Here is your roadmap, in order:
>Pre-Socratics
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Plotinus
>Proclus
>Empiricus
>Aurelius
>Augustine
>Abelard
>Aquinas
>Ockham
>Machiavelli
>Hobbes
>Descartes
>Spinoza
>Leibniz
>Locke
>Berkely
>Hume
>Kant
>Fichte
>Schelling
>Hegel
>Nietzsche
>Husserl
>Heidegger
>Sartre

>what do I read from these guys?
As much as you can. There are many complete collections of their respective works. Now go.

>>18944603
Recommended satre and not Camus? Terrible list just for that alone

>>18943159
Meds

>>18945449
Camus is a middling philosopher, he is not essential reading whatsoever, he was not even among the greats of his cohort .

>>18943095
plato, aristoteles, descartes, kant, schopenhauer, nietzsche
ignore all else

>>18943159
Okay jew

>>18944077
Fuck I forgot Kierkegard

>>18943159
Lmao

>>18943166
Terrible list
Missing Plotinus
Plutarch
Aquinas and Thomists
Every Scholastic
Leibniz
Locke
Schelling (PBUH) *important to read* (In 50 years Schelling will be regarded as more important than Hegel
Berkeley
Brentano
Husserl
Boehme
Guenon (PBUH)
Evola
Frege
Kierkegaard
Weininger

Also read all of Kant's critiques at least, and less french philosophy, its a meme, and not taken seriously

>>18943095
I just took the meme list /pol/ used to post before it was overrun with the boomerwaffen. Took a bunch of detours with Plato and Aristotle but after almost a year I've got like 50 pages left with Thucyclides and I'll finally escape the Greeks and move on the early Christian writers. Until I go back of course and start reading Xenophan and all the other stuff I missed.

>>18946178
Elaborate on Schelling's importance?

you'll figure this kind of thing out by yourself as you look around a bit, don't worry about learning the map beforehand

>>18943095
In order:
>Plato
>Kant
>Schopenhauer
Everything else is dogmatic garbage

greeks
romans
medieval
middle east
french
english
german
american

>Plato
>Aristotle
Everyone else is optional or worthless.

>>18943159
Take them.

>>18946492
He is relevant to almost every single philosophical question, from those of sociology (origin of myth and the difference in perception of the world between contemporary people and antique people) to those of morality (implication of freedom) and everything in between.
He was undoubtedly the most important german idealist, without Schelling there would be no Hegel, as Schelling formed the idea of the absolute.
Schelling has spoken on something relevant to anyone living: climate change, metaphysics, morality, free will, epistemology, and the esoteric.
Without Schelling there would be no Nieztsche, Heidegger, Marx, Kierkegaard, and some of the Frenchies.
He can be applied to psychology (as vulgar as psychology is and as misled psychologist are) with his ideas and conception of the conscious and unconscious.

Know however that Schelling gazed upon the water of Boehme, or the lapis niger, thus should be read as such.
He was the closest philosopher not directly within the tradition of hermetism, to reach conclusions the closest to that of Hermetism. The words he wrote are all worth reading, as he saw and understood, and possessed that which not many men do.

there are various levels of detail to this, but for a fairly comprehensive list, here is mine - the other ones posted so far are a little myopic for me

greeks:
plato
aristotle
epicurus

romans:
epictetus
seneca
marcus aurelius

neoplatonism:
plotinus
iamblichus
proclus

islamic phil important for western philosophy interlude:
avicenna
averroes

early and medieval christian philosophy:
augustine
aquinas
(other christian scholastics here if interested)
origen, clement, and gregory of nyssa go here (more obscure, but read if you are interested in christian phil)

christian philosophical mystics:
dionysius the areopagite
meister eckhart
eriugena

renaissance philosophy:
ficino
pico della mirandola
giardano bruno

early modern phil:
descartes
spinoza
leibniz
locke
berkeley
hume

early modern political phil:
hobbes
machiavelli
montesquieu
voltaire
burke
joseph de maistre

german idealism:
kant
fichte
schelling
hegel
schopenhauer

early existentialists:
kierkegaard
nietzsche

basis for 20th and 21st century phil:
bergson
husserl
marx
heidegger

then there is all the modern continental and analytic phil you can find for yourself

>>18947966
sorry, add rousseu to political phil and william james as basis for 20th century phil too

>>18947966
How did you learn all this stuff? Did you go to college to major in philosophy or did you teach yourself everything? It must take a great deal of time and insight to discern who is crucial and who is not to understand philosophy. I'm 23, do you think I can still learn philosophy by myself or it is something that can't feasibly be done without a formal college education?

Bump for interest

i was both an autodidact first and took philosophy at university - if you want a wider knowledge of the history of philosophy then lucky for you, autodidactism really is better, since a university course will always give a very selective look at the history of philosophy and will train you to look at philosophy in a very academic, detached, and modern way. you are also never too young to start - the list I give looks quite intimidating but you can immediately gain a lot from reading just a little pit of plato or augustine or nietzsche, and then it just keeps going..

as for the list itself, I am sure others could give a much more well-informed list - I mainly hoped to list out especially the major hits of the history of western philosophy that are usually underrepresented like the early christian writers or renaissance philosophers. some of those I wish I had known about when I started reading philosophy, but they tend to get rather sidelined in typical histories of philosophy

>>18948602
meant to quote >>18948349

>>18943095
throw it all out, start with darwin,.

>>18943095
This was made by this board but I’m not sure if it ever got finished

>>18943095
This is literally what you're looking for. I'm using it myself and it's pretty useful
>>18944031

You're talking nearly 2500 years of philosophy. That obviously comes with creative periods and darker periods, but it produces something too massive for any one individual to be universally informed in. There's a reason most undergrad programs don't have students read the whole of the western canon, and most PhD students study a specific school of thought (ancient, analytic, continental).
Thankfully the history of philosophy rarely favors youthful prodigies.
>>18948349
>do you think I can still learn philosophy by myself or it is something that can't feasibly be done without a formal college education?
In my opinion, you don't need a degree to understand philosophy, but simply reading a "best of" list isn't a substitute for education. I'd say I wouldn't understand philosophy much if I only read, and didn't go to university and was challenged. I was mentored, though, and a lot of undergrads won't find someone older and wiser to mentor them in life or in academics. Sometimes, reading a recent figure from the last few centuries is a kind of mentor, a thinker who can lead you on a trail backwards. I can think of a couple of thinkers on the internet who've helped me learn (just not those lame "crash course" types, more like vaguely schizo and detailed thinkers going over subjects and philosophers, like John David Ebert) University also teaches you just how much of an expert you're not.

Just by browsing /lit/, it's obvious the "universal autodidact" is a terrible archetype in practice, and such individuals make some of the worst philosophy threads. The best threads and discussion are made by those who know something and know it well. The kind of person that breathes his subject.
Almost everyone in western philosophy looks to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but otherwise you'll notice in the history of philosophy, philosophers work within their own periods and schools of thought. Hence, you'll notice the clusters of the Scholastic, the Kantian, the Hegelian, the Traditionalist, the Continental, the Analytic etc. And frankly, it's been this way since Antiquity, with major schools of thought like Stoicism and Epicureanism. Even in China this was the case, with Legalism and Confucianism.

>>18943159
Jewish hands wrote this

>>18943166
>one book from each of them
>Socrates
uh anon...