[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.88 MB, 887x2048, stak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11904306 No.11904306 [Reply] [Original]

Is this a good chart to follow?

>> No.11904312

Do some research on the big names and read what interests you. If you can't understand it, find resources. Don't listen to what people here say or you'll be burnt out in a month.

>> No.11905441

>>11904306
It's tryhard and retarded.

>> No.11905470

>>11905441
So it was made by your whore of a mom?

>> No.11905476

start with anti-oedipus

>> No.11905481

>>11904306
Never follow charts.

>> No.11905629

>>11905481
What about graphs? Tables?

>> No.11905659

>Freud

>> No.11905771

>>11905629
As they pertain to reading: never

>> No.11905851
File: 200 KB, 821x1516, cult marx readin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11905851

>even trying to read Delueze, Badiou, Adorno, Debord without reading Marx
Makes literally no sense

>> No.11905855

>>11905771
Would it be better if the contents of the chart were in a bulleted list?

>> No.11905912

>>11904306
No. Read one or two textbooks about philosophy and after just read whatever the fuck you want to. You don't need to read the complete works of Plato and Aristotle to be able to read modern philosophy.

>> No.11905936

>>11905912
Strikes me as a pretty good idea. Reading Plato is fun times though. /lit/ loves history of philosophy.

>>11904306
That chart is particularly bad.

>> No.11905946

>>11905851
>CPR-->Greater Logic-->State and Revolution
???????????????????????????????

>> No.11905963

>>11904306
Substitute the Corpus Hermeticum for Epicurus' writings, Epictetus' Discourses, Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Skepticism, cut the Pseudegraphia and Apocrypha out to give way for St. Augustine's The City of God and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa contra Gentiles, place Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics, Monadology, Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas, and Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge between Spinoza and Hume, put Kant's two other critiques in, combine the two volumes of TWaW&R together and discard Stirner's Critiques to open up space for Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Logical Sciences and Philosophy of History.
I can't say I've gone much beyond Hegel, but I would probably add Marx in, even though I'm not sure what I would put in besides Theses on Feuerbach and Das Kapital.

>> No.11905989

>>11905476
>starting with Anti-Oedipus without ever having touched upon Oedipus Rex and Freud's Interpretation of Dreams
If we were to do so, we would be guiding ourselves only by popular misconceptions on the meaning of words.

>> No.11906028

>>11904306
It's too dense, but not dense enough to be coherent. Let me list some philsophers that need to be included for the later purpose
scotus
okkam
Lebniz
Marx
James
Whitehead
Russel
Merleau-Ponty
Quine
I could go on with contemporary philsophers, science, philsophy of science logic and math. Let alone non-Western philsophy.
If this is considered as a course to practically learn philsophy it needs alot of work Appart from excluding thinkers like striner, Marx, emmerson, Thoreau, freud, debord, krishanimurti, buadrillard and land. Deleuze should be difference and repetition and logic of sense instead of capitalism and schizophrenia, though c&s definitely is good enough to be considered for this purpose, especially ATP. All works not engaging with philsophy proper, being; metaphysics, epistomology, ethics, ontology. No need for theology theosophy, social theory, et cetera. Alot of the meat can be cut out with encyclopedias and overlapping work. A course in philsophical logic, and set/systems theory is necessary. Let alone science.
At best the chart is a halfway decent guide to name dropping on /lit/

>> No.11906119

>>11904306
No, you'd want to kill yourself pretty quick.

>> No.11906171

>>11905851
where the fuck is Stalin on this?

>> No.11906177

>>11904306
Seems dumb to approach philosophy linearly. I wouldn't want to have to slog through thousands of years of philosophy just to get to the interesting modern stuff.

Just read what interests you and wikipedia the rest.

>> No.11906255

>>11906028
The "philosophers" you mentioned should only be read in order to criticise the satanic effect they created on our society, only Leibniz there is worth anything.

>> No.11906285

Yet more evidence that /lit/ is a collective of discord poseurs and pseuds.

>> No.11906294

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic

Some lit fag made this doc for newfags. Give it a look

>> No.11906321

>>11904306
>the bible
Retarded chart.

>> No.11906342
File: 19 KB, 350x250, 1534359727323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11906342

>>11904306
>No Stoics
>No Aquinas
>No Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau
>No Marx, Mill, or Adam Smith

>> No.11906353

>>11904306
Horkheimer was the co-author of Dialectic of Enlightenment.

>> No.11906444

>>11904306
>christianity taking a whole row

Just stopped there. If you think this chart is any good, you are a brainlet npc pseud. Philosophy is the love of knowledge, not confirmation bias.

>> No.11906488

>>11904306
yeah, sure buddy, see ya in 10 years

>> No.11907883

>>11906028
Have you got any recommended reads from Duns Scotus?

>> No.11908487

>>11906177
>interesting modern stuff.
Philosophy gets more interesting the further you go back in time. Modernity was a mistake.

>> No.11908492

>>11906321
>>11906444
>thinks he can understand western philosophy without reading the most influential book in western history