/lit/ - Literature

Forgot the fucking link

http://pastebin.com/vvvG9EuF

>>7744733
have you read the oft overlooked Jene Vulpe? brilliant existentialist.

Trial and Death of Socrates already includes Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo and maybe others. Check your edition. Also, I recommend adding some Epictetus and Epicurus to the list.

>>7744733
You should read Homer and Hesiod, they are referenced frequently throughout Plato's dialogues.

>>7744739
Thanks. I'll look that up.
>>7744745
Thanks for pointing that out. You can tell i havent extensively researched each of these quite yet.

I'm intetested in Epicurus but iirc I read none of his work remains in tact or something

>>7744748
First time hearing of Hesiod.

I've read the Iliad & Oddessey if that counts for Homer

>>7744733
>politics
No Evola or Spengler? You're not planning on becoming a liberal cuck, are you?

>>7744733
lurk more, pleb

>>7744748
If OP wants the bare essentials then he doesn't need Homer. The references are explained pretty thoroughly.

>>7744764
The lack of anything related to Marx or Engels is not unintentional.

I'll check those out

>>7744733
The Myth of Sisyphus, The Rebel
by Camus

Save yourself some time with Rand and just read Anthem

>>7744774
Agreed

>Dawkins
>no contemporary philosophy
There is literally no credible contemporary thought on here. Worth looking into your at all interested.

Also, you have the Vedas there. The Upanisads, the Abhidharma, and Nagarjuna's writings are probably the most important philosophical works of ancient India.

>>7744814
Correct me if i'm wrong but the upanishads are in the vedas, they are the kast verse of each 'veda'

>>7744814
>tfw Anon wants Richard Dawkins on this list

>>7744814
The Selfish Gene is quite decent as a scientific work. Also, The Extended Phenotype which is somewhat a sequel. I didn't think The God Delusion was very good though.

> only 1 book by Wittgenstein
> 2 books by Dawkins

On the Nature of Things - Lucretius

>ayn rand is on there

>>7745266
>being liberal

>>7744764
Evola is a weirdo who just kind of adds religion and spirituality back to Nietzsche, which felt dirty when I read it.

Spengler is a great read though.

Someone just post the 11 part philosophy chart.

Daily reminder that all socio-politico-economical problems are really problems of logic, computing, and mathematics. If you don't have the skills to model the world, your comprehension of philosophy will most likely be poor.

Tl;dr: get a BSc in Maths first and only then touch philosophy. Plato was a quasi-mathematician, Aristotle was a logician, Wittgenstein was an engineer, Frege and Russell and Godel and von Neumann were logicians and mathematicians, Carnap was a logician, etc.

>>7745413

Russell was shit, it's too bad he's named among the greats these days.

>>7744733
it's a good enough starter list, easily readable in a year or so - but if you read the right ones you'll see why the others are not worth the effort to understand them perfectly. I recommend a history of philosophy book as a supplementary understanding of the "thoughts of the times"... Copleston and Russell are good enough for intros.

You could really do with some more plays and fiction to pepper in and lighten your mood, Aristophanes, Candide, No Exit, and finish with Shakespeare--he counts as psychological philosophy.

>>7745367
This would honestly help out in regards to a lot of subjects and topics within philosophy

>>7745367
This one?

>>7745126
>>7745126
Yeah, what the fuck OP?

Otherwise though, pretty good list.

Read all of that and you can be quite proud, your good reads list will look sik as fuk.

I lean analytic though, I must say, Plato and Aristotle is a little overkill.

Cicero is more or less used to give an account of other philosophers, I wouldn't even consider putting him on my list.

Here's quote from the second paragraph of the Prolegomena (that's Kant):

For some learned people, philosophy is just the history of
philosophy (ancient and modern); these preliminaries aren’t
written for them. They must wait their turn. When those
who work to draw ·truth· from the well of reason itself have
done their work, then the historians can give the world the
news about their results. ·But they won’t regard it as news,
because· nothing can be said now that the historians won’t
think has been said already! And it is safe to predict that
they’ll think the same about anything said in the future;
human understanding has busied itself for centuries with
countless topics in many ways, so it is to be expected that
every new idea will resemble something that has been said
in the past.

>>7745490
>finish with Shakespeare--he counts as psychological philosophy.

Not sure if this guy was trolling but do not say this in public.

You will be straight up laughed at.

>>7745504
Does that look like it has 11 different parts?
Does it have philosophy books on it?
No? Then that appears to not be the chart.
Freaking shaking my head family, shaking my head.

>>7744733
No Fromm? Great intersection of psychology and philosophy.

What are the acceptable translations of plato

>>7745475
How's junior high?

Russell discovered Russell's paradox; a paradox which he derived from Frege's, now replaced, axiom of comprehension; pioneered ramified type theory that influenced later type theories that ended up being foundational for computer science. He gave us On Denoting, which is a classic in philosophy of language, and the ideas of which ended up being used by the mathematics community, too. If not for Russell's Principia we wouldn't have Hilbert's programme, Godel's (in)completeness theorems, and so on. He has written extensively about philosophy of maths, philosophy of mind (neutral monism), epistemology, metaphysics, and just about anything else.

Sadly, though, most remember him for "Why I am not a Christian" and his Nobel prize intro-to-philosophy book. Unfortunately, you're one of them.

Put in some Hilaire Belloc and Hayek.

>>7745516
He has Faust and Candide on his philosophical text list, I'm sure he would love hamlet's existential "to be or not to be" shtick.

Are analytics even allowed to laugh in public without proving how it is funny first?

>>7745523
Want to know this too.

>>7744733
>http://pastebin.com/vvvG9EuF
Get Husserl's cartesian meditations on there, drop retard rand and dick dorkins.

>>7745367
>>7745496
>>7745504
>>7745518
Shame that no one has been able to find the charts that serve as a good guide to Philosophy and the various sub fields within the subject.

How about xenophon?

>>7744733
Please cut out weirdos like Freud, Jung and "muh symbols must correspond to the unknown divinity" Evola (or read Introduction to Magic rather than his sperg tripytch if u really want to get a better pic about what the UR group stopd for)

Follow this

https://maartens.home.xs4all.nl/philosophy/Dictionary/books/books%20-%20general.htm

>>7746171
>analytic philosophy
>scientific realism

>>7745829
Agreed. Maybe the charts threads will somehow be of help. I honestly thought all these armchair philosophers would have the 11 charts saved.

>>7745523
>>7745629
Depends what you mean by 'acceptable'. Any that are in print are 'acceptable'.

If you want his complete works get his one: http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Complete-Works/dp/0872203492/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456523709&sr=1-1&keywords=plato+complete+works

>>7745413
op here

physics was one of my 2 majors in college and i'm working on finishing Godel, Escher, Bach at the moment.

Just because I start a thread about Philosophy doesnt mean I'm not interested in anything else.

>>7745490
>if you read the right ones you'll see why the others are not worth the effort to understand them perfectly.
I recognize this and this is why I made the thread, to get suggestions on which ones are worth it.

Let met add that there are some books that I have read, such as most of Shakespeares most popular works, Candide, Grendel, etc

Guess no one was able to find those 11 philosophy charts.

>>7744733
What do you just think no philosophy was done between Cicero and Descartes? You're missing like a thousand years.

>>7749664
T'was shit philosophy

>>7747218
Sorry but a physics background is not good enough to do philosophy. Physics lacks rigour (you and your ilk can start by not abusing maths notation) and although it does engage in modelling phenomena, it is more or less computational.

> i'm working on finishing Godel, Escher, Bach at the moment.
This is indicative of your major: reading popular expositions instead of going for an actual textbook. That's not something to be proud of.

>>7745504
where does one start with derrida??

11 philosophy charts or gtfo.

>>7749692
Look st pseudo-intellectual tween lol

Dont let your trench coat get caught in door when you leave mr edgelord

Here is what I would recommend personally, kinda like greatest hits with various filler:

The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley
Parmenides and Empedocles (I recommend the poetic translation by Stanley Lombardo)
The Fragments of Heraclitus (penguin is okay, art and thought is the nicest though)
The Golden Chain by Algis Uzdavinys
The Enchiridion of Epicetus
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
The Sayings of the Desert Fathers
The New Testament
The Septuagint
The Midrash
The Zohar
Sefer Yetzirah
The Quran
The Hadiths
The Nag Hamaddi Library
The Corpus Hermeticum
The Secret Teaching of All Ages
The Upanishads
The Baghavad Gita
The Dhamapada
What The Buddha Said: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Sutra
The Lotus Sutra
The Heart Sutra
The Diamond Sutra
The Madhayamaka
The Shobogenzo
The Summa of the Summa (Aquinas)
Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy
The Mirror of Simple Souls by Porete
The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast by Bruno
Discourse on Method and Meditations by Descartes
An Essay on Human Understanding by Locke
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by Hume
Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
Berkeley's (?) Dialogues of Hylas and Philonius
Hegel's Phenomenology
Schelling's Treatise on Nature
Schopenhauer's Essays and Aphorisms
Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Husserl's Cartesian Meditations
Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics
Walter Benjaminms Reflections
Wittgenstein's Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations
Derrida's Of Grammatology
Deleuze's Difference and Repetition
Eco's The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum
Borges's Ficciones and The Aleph
Cortazar's Hopscotch and Blow-Up and Other Stories

>>7745293
She's a liberal as well. What, don't tell me you didn't know.

>>7744733
>http://pastebin.com/vvvG9EuF
are these works by each person intended to be read in this order or are they just random/chronological?

i'm finishing the odyssey and idk where to go next

what do?

bump

Bumperoo

>tfw archieve is still dead

>>7746171
>And personally I think scientific realism and analytic philosophy are normally more sensible than other approaches to philosophy: Human civilization is founded on science (knowledge of reality) and science is found and tested by logical argumentation.

>>7747930
>>7751860
A little late, but here they are.

>>7758007

>>7758012

>>7758014

>>7758022
I seem to be missing parts 5 and 6.

>>7758034

>>7758036

>>7758039

>>7758042

>>7758045
No clue where parts 5 and 6 went. Here's a couple of bonus charts though.

>>7758051
And of course, start with the Greeks

>>7744733
>http://pastebin.com/vvvG9EuF
>Goethe is a philosopher, Faust and Wilhelm Meister are philosophical works
>Leibniz does not exist, neither do Heidegger and Whitehead
>OP would like to fuck his mother
>Rand and Dawkins have made a meaningful contribution to philosophy

bump

>>7758007
Thanks. Do you think you could find 5 and 6 on your computer or someplace else if you end up seeing this message?

>>7759668
this.

Have you started with the Greeks OP?

>>7744733
why has no one mentioned the ongoing lit philosophy project which would both be of use to a number of people in this thread, and could use the help of those with philosophical experience
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

>>7744750
He has some letters that are worth reading. Having The Nature of Things and his letters should be enough for a basic understanding of epicureanism