/lit/ - Literature

>>19857748
start with the greeks

if you really are set to read all of them, just read chronologically, dumbass

>>19857748
So, you don't really know much about philosophy - I assume, since you don't seem to know much about these extremely important books of the discipline -, but you're set on understanding how to end it. Interesting.
I suggest you read them in chronological order. It's easy to discover that, just look at their publication dates. The smaller the year, the earlier they've come.

>>19857748
Kant
Hegel
Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Derrida
ignore the rest

>>19857748
Critique of Pure Reason
Phenomenology of Spirit
Being and Time
Philosophical Investigations
Of Grammatology
Process and Reality
Difference and Repetition
Being and Event

>>19857748
I'm rather new to philosophy, but what exactly does it mean that philosophy ends within the context of these books?

>>19857748
The only ones worth reading there are Kant and Heidegger. And they are only the beginning of philosophy.

>>19859173
Nothing. It's literally a joke, typically used in reference to the particularly difficult authors/books.

>>19857748
mezoptolemeans

>>19859173
It means that we cannot answer the fundamental questions no matter how hard we look into the problem. We haven't moved far since Plato and Aristotle days. All the books in that picture advocate for their own "interpretation" of reality. There is no "truth".
So many smartest thinkers tried their best, but all have reached an impenetrable ding an sich.
Philosophy only "arguments for" a particular position, it doesn't "prove" anything.
Some say that all true knowledge is only that which can be logically proved(Witty), some take more idealistic approach(Kant), all eventually comes down to fideism.
Either you choose to believe in an a priori principles like God, "Good", "Truth" and pursue them, or you choose tragedy and eventually kill yourself, or some other path, whatever is the shit you come up with. Wall of absurd cannot be breached by the mind that inherently searches for causality of things, and we still haven't moved a little in discovering the first cause.

>>19859529
wrong

>>19857748
first: Kant
then: Hegel/Heidegger/Deleuze
from Hegel and/or Heidegger: Badiou
from just Heidegger: Derrida

Whitehead and Wittgenstein are kinda separate from the post-kantian tradition of the rest, and are interesting to read against eachother:
Whitehead's systematic metaphysics vs Wittgenstein's anti-systematic anti-metaphysical thought

>>19860383
True but I think Wittgenstein would be the last considering he btfo’d everyone including himself

>>19857748
Fuck Badiou
Put Principia Mathematica

>>19857821
>>19857819
Well, that clears it up.