/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15747689]

Is this a good book?

If one was to read only 10 philosophers, who are the most important 10?

[Anonymous No.15747724]

1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Plotinus
4. Hobbes
5. Descartes
6. Spinoza
7. Hume
8. Kant
9. Hegel
10. Marx

[Anonymous No.15747762]

It’s alright, Russel is a hack but I read this first starting out and it’s good for familiarizing yourself with all the names. Sort of on the border between an modern straightforward history and a postmodern history that has to start every chapter with some little thing about women’s place in society or how the ideas were actually stolen from Arabs or orientals, there’s some of that but it’s minimal.

[Anonymous No.15747774]

>>15747762
>how the ideas were actually stolen from Arabs or orientals
If this triggers you, you need to expand your worldview

[Anonymous No.15747795]

>>15747774
It doesn’t, I don’t care who the ideas came from liberals just make a big show of it which is annoying

[Anonymous No.15747815]

>>15747795
>which is annoying
It wouldn't annoy you if you weren't a privileged white male

[Anonymous No.15747822]

>>15747774
lol you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.15747826]

>>15747762
>Russel is a hack
Except he helped make communicating this way possible.

[Anonymous No.15747830]

>>15747826
??????????

[Anonymous No.15747831]

>>15747762
>has to start every chapter with some little thing about women’s place in society or how the ideas were actually stolen from Arabs or orientals, there’s some of that but it’s minimal.
You've never actually read the book, have you?

[Anonymous No.15747834]

>>15747774
t. Hasn’t read the book or any popular history written since 1950

[Anonymous No.15747835]

>>15747830
Take your trolling back to /b/, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15747844]

>>15747689
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
Augustine
Isidore of Seville
Anselm
Bonaventure
Duns Scotus
Aquinas
Dante

Aquinas solved philosophy. Disregard anyone who mentions descartes, Marx etc. Inb4:
>dante

[Anonymous No.15747861]

>>15747835
Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15747867]

>>15747844
Nice retard flag

[Anonymous No.15747879]

>>15747861
Very self-descriptive post, bud.

[Anonymous No.15748245]

>>15747762
>It’s alright
No, it's outright shit, it's at best "extremely problematic". You'd do better with Durant if you desperately want an old timey History of Philosophy book you fucking fedora.

[Anonymous No.15748255]

>>15747815
I'm a gay black woman

[Anonymous No.15748257]

It’s good history, liberals are too stupid to be biased towards anything but their own liberal values, and too stupid to present these biases other than transparently

[Anonymous No.15748262]

Audible Kek from the Hegel part. It's like, 5 pages long of utter retardation; yet in the end it only made me like based Hegel more.

[Anonymous No.15748269]

>>15747689
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Hobbes
3. Descartes
4. Spinoza
5. Leibniz
6. Kant
7. Hegel
8. Marx
9. Camus
10. Heidegger

[Anonymous No.15748289]

>>15748262
Wait, he compared Greeks, who kneel to the statue of Zeus, to dogs?

[Anonymous No.15748291]

>>15747689
Zoroaster
Homer
Heraclitus
Manu
Hobbes
Sorel
Nietzsche
Marinetti
Schmitt
Heidegger

[Anonymous No.15748303]

>>15748291
Most of those aren't even philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15748305]

>>15748291
holi basado

[Anonymous No.15748324]

>>15748303
all of them enumerated a particular weltanshauung. Just because you're too much of a brainlet to derive values from anything that doesn't say "you should think X" doesn't mean it lacks a clear set of values. Who on that list did not philosophize?

[Anonymous No.15748348]

>>15747689
Not sure on top 10, but the following are undoubtedly the top 15:

Aristotle
Plato
Immanuel Kant
David Hume
René Descartes
John Locke
Thomas Aquinas
Gottfried Leibniz
Gottlob Frege
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Thomas Hobbes
Karl Marx
John Stuart Mill
Baruch Spinoza
Augustine

[Anonymous No.15748362]

>>15747689
this one is better

[Anonymous No.15748387]

>>15747689
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Aquinas
4. Descartes
5. Hume
6. Kant

read these to begin with

[Anonymous No.15748392]

>>15748257
This. wtf

[Anonymous No.15748401]

>>15747689
It's ok. I preferred Durant's effort at a history of philosophy.

Top 10 is hard. Even if you are dedicated and can quickly get through some of the very dry work that is central tothe development of thought, it'll still take you years to get through all the primary sources. Plus, there are plenty of great works that combine view from different great philosophers on a single subject (just mind body philosophy, or just ethics for example) that might be fruitful. There are also the Eastern philosophers. Eastern philosophy tends to be less theoretical and more practical. It can be hard to get through, and understand the cultural nuances that divide different concepts. For instance, Hindu thought has dualism, but it's between experiencer and all things experienced, including subjective experience. Western thought from Plato on tended towards more mind/body dualism.

In terms of what is enjoyable to read and makes a major impact on your life I'd say:

Plato
Nietzsche
Hegel
Lao Tzu
Jung
Dostoevsky

I also think neuroscience is essential to understanding a lot of these older authors. We've learned more about cognition and conciousness in the past thirty years than the last 300.

The Blank Slate is a good summary of how evolution and neuroscience shape social behaviors. I don't know a good single volume overview on conciousness though.

[Anonymous No.15748415]

>>15747689
>Is this a good book?
I enjoyed it. It's a lot of history and background setting, which helps contextualise the actual philosophy.

Apparently he got a few things wrong but I can't remember.

[Anonymous No.15748418]

>>15748324
Philosophy entails making arguments by the means of reason. Homer used aesthetics rather than rationality so he was not a philosopher but an artist.

[Anonymous No.15748426]

>>15748387
This but skip Aquinas

[Anonymous No.15748433]

>>15747724
A good understanding of these 10 requires about 10 years of work

[Anonymous No.15748449]

>>15747689
Lao Tzu
Socrates
Gautama Buddha
Jesus
Diogenes
Eckhart
Spinoza
Nietzsche
Kierkegaard
Weininger

[Anonymous No.15748461]

No. Really bad. The man is a mediocre mathematician and a dogshit philosopher. If he weren't an elite no one would know his name.

[Anonymous No.15748464]

>>15748461
Bang on.

[Anonymous No.15748489]

>>15748418
>rationalist gatekeeping
Stupidest thing I've ever heard. Socrates addresses Homer's underlying philosophy throughout his body of work because its readily apparent. The exposition he uses to communicate his philosophy is irrelevant to the fact that there is a philosophy there. Everyone on my list made very important value claims about the world they lived in, whining "W-W-WELL THEY D-D-DIDNT WRITE THE WAY I LIKE" is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15748536]

>>15748489
>>rationalist gatekeeping
There's no gatekeeping... Just supporting a connection between a label and its meaning. Every person has a philosophy, and every artist may approach philosopical issues, but that doesn't mean you can reasonably except that we should call all people philsophers. Seethe more that words have meanings.

[Anonymous No.15748599]

>>15748289
no, you should try getting better at reading, it'll make posting on this board easier

[Anonymous No.15748612]

>>15747689
basically the reddit guide to western philosophy

[Anonymous No.15748651]

>>15748461
How did he become and remain an elite?

[Anonymous No.15748707]

>>15748461
Pseud alert.

[Anonymous No.15748714]

>>15748612
Just an FYI: it's considered bad form to compliment reddit like that.

[Anonymous No.15748732]

>>15748426
>Skip Aquinas, the architect of modern just war theory and one of the first philosophers to use a semi-modern methodology
Brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.15748745]

>>15748732
War is incompatible with Christianity, little buddy.

[Anonymous No.15748759]

>>15748732
>the architect of being gay
No thanks homo

[Anonymous No.15748822]

>>15748599
How is it wrong? He said that for a number of reasons, we can't feel ourselves into the nature of a negro, no more than we can feel ourselves into the nature of a dog, or a Greek, that kneels before the statue of Zeus. Only by means of thought can their nature be understood, for man cannot feel which is not akin to his own feelings. Thus, he compared the nature of a negro to that of a dog, or an ancient Greek.

[Anonymous No.15748841]

>>15748262
Hegel's works themselves are an ocean of retardation. Spending more than 2 seconds on Hegel means you got conned.

[Anonymous No.15748848]

>>15748651
Being born.

[Anonymous No.15748882]

>>15748401
>Eastern philosophy
philosophy with dogmas is a contradiction in terms brainlet

[Anonymous No.15748933]

>>15747762
>Russel is a hack
You've gota be kidding me.

[Anonymous No.15749035]

>>15748933
Go back

[Anonymous No.15749252]

Platon*
Aristoteles*
Ibn-sina
Aquino
Descartes
Hume
Kant *
Hegel*
Husserl
Heidegger*
Wittgenstein

(* Top 5)

[Anonymous No.15749350]

>>15748933
I don't at all agree that he's a hack but he wasn't really a top shelf thinker, imo, If he had been writing about these things fifty years earlier it would have been different, but then I don't think he could have. Moreover if he wasn't born into such privilege I think it's unlikely he would have gotten as far.

He was an excellent communicator and facilitator, really a special person in that way, but Principia Mathematica must be regarded as one of the great failures of philosophy and despite the hagiography about him he didn't actually contribute much more than a name to Analytic philosophy, insofar as what is still talked about today.

BUT to call him a hack is ridiculous. Even to compare him to a genuine popular educator like Sagan, with no real academic body of work, is wrong. But I think ultimately if it wasn't for his talent at writing and speaking he wouldn't be known today.

[Anonymous No.15749357]

>>15749350
And for a guy with fingers in so many different academic pies, I think it's remarkable how few of his ideas are still regarded in any way.

[Anonymous No.15749464]

>>15749252
Why Heidegger in top 5?

[Anonymous No.15749500]

>>15747689

It's JUST okay and the closer he gets to contemporary phil the worse it gets. I'd say most of the information is technically accurate. If you want a good history of philosophy check out Copleston instead.

Only 10? Okay here's my list:

Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
Aquinas
Descartes
Spinoza
Hobbes / Bacon
Hume
Kant
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.15749502]

>>15749357
Not the person you’re replying to but yes.

Also, you don’t even have to go that far to explain why Russell’s history of phil is flawed or not the best comprehensive book on the subject. Russell’s book tells us more about...Russell, not really the history of phil.

Anthony Kenny has a really good history of phil. If you want to not be a pussy, read Copleston.

[Anonymous No.15749533]

>>15749464
Not that guy, but Being and Time is a great account of what it means to be a human being and helps you realize how a lot of our attitudes of what really is the case are actually not at all natural but theoretically contrived and constructed by modernity and scientific thinking, which is actually a secondary mode of access to things from our basic everyday phenomenological experience of the world.

His works analyzing and breaking down the history of western philosophy, while they oftentimes are more concerned with Heidegger's own original philosophical projects rather than just simply introducing those figures, are some of the best and most important treatments of the topics he covers.

Also, Heidegger is the necessary entry point for any understanding of continental philosophy from the 20th century onwards whatever. The only philosopher about whom more has been written is Aristotle, and for good reason. A must if you want to be up to date on contemporary philosophical debates.

[Anonymous No.15749601]

Weird how many rankings ITT put Hobbes in top10 but /lit/ never discusses him

[Anonymous No.15749698]

>>15748461
>mediocre mathematician

[Anonymous No.15750000]

>>15749533
What are the prereq for readding Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.15750025]

>>15750000
Roger Scruton stated that: "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it".

Nice quads

[Anonymous No.15750029]

>>15748433
That's very optimistic.

[Anonymous No.15750108]

>>15748348
A good list. Thanks for including Wittgenstein. It's good judgement and was missing in other lists. I'd include Hegel since you included Marx -- who indeed was a most excellent philosopher -- for the entirety of Marx' philosophical work between '43 and das Kapital, as I understand it, is a reflection on Hegel's two main works.

[Anonymous No.15750146]

>>15750000

I'd say you should at bare minimum know your Plato, and Aristotle (to get an appreciation for what ontology is all about), and Descartes (he spends a lot of time criticizing Descartes in particular).

Other than that there's a lot of stuff that would be helpful (he borrows a lot of his existential analysis from Kierkegaard, for instance--a cursory second hand knowledge of Husserl and Jaspers might also be of use). Being and Time is attempting to work out the question of Being more or less going back to the very beginning though by examining the Being that raises the question of Being--us. Insofar as that is the case you can still get something out of it jumping straight in even if you haven't mastered the entire history of Western philosophy. It is a very difficult text though, and you're going to have to deal with a lot of Heideggerian neologisms and untranslated Greek and Latin.

Don't listen to this anon
>>15750025

Analytic philosophers are blockheads. Yes, Being and Time is a very difficult text, and Heidegger does maybe use some unhelpfully plentiful neologisms. But he does more or less clearly define what he means by these when he introduces them (existentiell vs existential, ontic vs ontological, etc.) Just try to do a slow careful reading and you should be fine. Don't feel embarrassed about trying to go to a secondary resource to get a basic gestalt of an argument you aren't following either. It's okay to not get everything the first time--frankly it would be extraordinarily impressive if you did.

That's about all I have to suggest. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.15750527]

>>15747689
Say I was only interested in epistemology and philosophy of mind (and not ethics, politics, metaphysics etc.) and I wanted to go through every original classic chronologically. Is there a resource that ties the Great Conversation together like that, via "keywords"?

[Anonymous No.15750540]

Sartre deserves being on the list, honestly.

[Anonymous No.15750608]

>>15747774
There's no such thing as original or novel ideas.

[Anonymous No.15750615]

>>15749350
>Principia Mathematica
>failure
Lmao, no.

>>15749035
To a time before computers? That's what you're pining for.

[Anonymous No.15750643]

>>15747835
>/b/
>2020
Go back. I don't care if your shitty subs got nuked, just go back.

[Anonymous No.15750652]

>>15750615
>Lmao, no.
It was such a failure that Russell had recurring nightmares and nearly killed himself over it.

[Anonymous No.15750666]

>>15750643
Hey dude, they were probably here "since habbo" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean (going on habbo wasn't a single event) but that's a phrase I'm seeing a lot of recently

[Anonymous No.15750667]

>>15750652
It's the foundation for all subsequent developments in mathematical logic, including the famous results of Godel and Tarski.

[Anonymous No.15750675]

>>15750643
YOU
WOULDN'T
BE
HERE
WITHOUT
RUSSELL
YOU
MONG

[Anonymous No.15750688]

>>15750667
Sure dude.

[Anonymous No.15750695]

>>15748933
I have always thought that it is not so much his writings and works are the problem, rather than that he embodies everything that is wrong with modern intellectual: a vain, immoral, secular, light-headed, womanizing know-it-all that has a fucking opinion on everything. "History of Western Philosophy" is what he thinks about these guys first and foremost, and only then it's an actual history of philosophy work.

However, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it when I was in high school. Russel seems like a fun writer.

[Anonymous No.15750699]

>>15750688
You don't have an argument, because you never studied logic or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15750702]

>>15747835
Unable to explain your point there, anon?

[Anonymous No.15750706]

>>15750699
I've studied and have extensive knowledge in both, check mate.

[Anonymous No.15750710]

>>15750702
Except he helped make communicating this way possible. Nice self-own, pseud.

[Anonymous No.15750717]

>>15750706
If you had, you would have known that what I said in that post is 100% true.

[Anonymous No.15750735]

>>15749502
>Copleston
There is no single definitive history, you're better off reading histories of smaller chunks, because no one is an expert on everything. Copleston is great for Aristotle and Aquinas, being the devoted tomist that he is, but his last tome on analytical philosophy is just utter shit. Giovanni Reale's history of ancient philosophy is fantastic.

[Anonymous No.15750796]

>>15750717
I know it isn't, but I can guess at why you might mistakenly believe such a blasphemous thing.

[Anonymous No.15750806]

>>15750706
Godels incompleteness theorem is literally a direct response to the principia brain surgeon

[Anonymous No.15750809]

>>15750796
You've never studied logic, obviously.

[Anonymous No.15750867]

>>15750806
It is not, but I can understand why a dunderhead might think that. There are several intermediaries between Godel and the Principia if you take it that Wittgenstein was even responding to the Principia.

>>15750809
So extreme anon.

[Anonymous No.15750941]

>>15747689
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Descartes
4. Locke
5. Hume
6. Kant
7. Mill
8. Frege
9. Wittgenstein
10. Carnap & Quine (going to count these as 1 because they're best read together)

Including Carnap and Quine because they really set the stage for the way philosophy is done today. You should read more than 10 philosophers, though. Everyone who waints to claim some philosophical sophistication should be familiar with at least some of Locke, Berkeley, Hobbes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Sidgwick, Rawls, Nietzche, and Marx.

>>15747844
Ridiculous post

[Anonymous No.15750970]

>>15750867
Godel literally used the system of Principia to prove his results, you moron.

>Wittgenstein
Lmao. Now it is clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15750971]

>>15750941
>Sidgwick
Which Sidgwick?

[Anonymous No.15751010]

>>15750971
THE Sidgwick.

[Anonymous No.15751098]

>>15750970
>Godel literally used the system of Principia to prove his results, you moron.
>The development of mathematics in the direction of greater exactness has—as is well known—led to large tracts of it becoming formalized, so that proofs can be carried out according to a few mechanical rules. The most comprehensive formal systems yet set up are, on the one hand, the system of Principia Mathematica (PM) and, on the other, the axiom system for set theory of Zermelo-Fraenkel (later extended by J. v. Neumann).

>These two systems are so extensive that all methods of proof used in mathematics today have been formalized in them, i.e. reduced to a few axioms and rules of inference. It may therefore be surmised that these axioms and rules of inference are also sufficient to decide all mathematical questions which can in any way at all be expressed formally in the systems concerned. It is shown below that this is not the case, and that in both the systems mentioned there are in fact relatively simple problems in the theory of ordinary whole numbers which [174] cannot be decided from the axioms. This situation is not due in some way to the special nature of the systems set up, but holds for a very extensive class of formal systems, including, in particular, all those arising from the addition of a finite number of axioms to the two systems mentioned, provided that thereby no false propositions of the kind described in footnote become provable

Let us remind ourselves of the point of contention:
>>15750806
>Godels incompleteness theorem is literally a direct response to the principia brain surgeon
But in fact it is a response to "formalized mathematics" in general, it just happened that the Principia inspired a particular style of formalized mathematics. Godel isn't going "RUSSELL BTFO" dude.

It's also not accurate to say Godel used the Principia's system, Godel's system is actually a little more strict than what R & W came up with.

[Anonymous No.15751106]

>>15751010
I always get confused between Sidgwick and Sedgwick, fuck.

[Anonymous No.15751656]

>>15750146
Is it harder than CoPR?

[Anonymous No.15751679]

>>15750941
Pathetic amerimutt detected

[Anonymous No.15751684]

>>15748255
trans disabled modern black sex slave
check your privilege

[Anonymous No.15751739]

>>15747689
>Is this a good book?
The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell is better.
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-Basic-Writings-of-Bertrand-Russell.pdf

[Anonymous No.15751762]

>>15750146
Heidegger wrote literal gibberish and tried to pass it off as philosophy. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.15751790]

>>15751739
The frustrating thing about this book (and every Russell anthology to my knowledge) is that it doesn't contain his most important paper -- "On Denoting". That's basically the only paper of his that philosophers still read and discuss, and for some reason it's excluded from all the major essay collections.

[Anonymous No.15752053]

>>15747844
Good post, but those aren't really philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15752261]

>>15748433
what could be more important than philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15752402]

>>15752261
Not being a pseud like you first of all. Philosophy is just entertainment

[Anonymous No.15752616]

>>15751679
I'm not American, but I do study philosophy at a top 3 philosophy program in America, yeah.

Enjoy chasing your own tail reading whatever obscurantist bullshit you enjoy.

[Anonymous No.15752647]

>>15752402
Is this true or just something offered for entertainment?

[Anonymous No.15752661]

>>15752616
>but I do study philosophy at a top 3 philosophy program in America, yeah
Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.15752743]

>>15750941
from my point of view your post is ridiculous. especially when you follow up with >>15752616

ahahaha. imagine never being taught by a real philosopher outside of the academia. i feel sorry for you

[Anonymous No.15752755]

>mediocre mathematician
>no other retarded mathematician could prove 1+1=2 before him

[Anonymous No.15752787]

>he pays up to 40k usd yearly to master the reading of philosophical texts thinking he will have a grasp of philosophy, or acquire "some philosophical sophistication"

[Anonymous No.15752951]

>>15752787
struck a chord there

[Anonymous No.15753145]

>>15750666
nice satanic trips

>>15749500
i agree.

[Anonymous No.15754623]

>>15748387
>>15748426
>>15747724
these but skip everyone besides Hume and Kant.

[Anonymous No.15754662]

>>15752787
Who are you quoting? You don't seem to have a grasp on how any of this works.

[Anonymous No.15754696]

>>15752787
this. people who make it their occupation to primarily study philosophy in the year of our lord 2020 are pseuds. Every good philosopher in modernity applied themselves to other fields and made themselves respectable and well known in those fields, and they all said the same thing: philosophy alone isn't worth anything unless you use it to inform your practical pursuits. to pursue philosophy for the sake of philosophy is peak pseudery. you can understand philosophy without dedicating so much of your life to it you major in it. its not that hard. then again neither is programming but at least a computer science degree will make you much, much more employable while a philosophy degree will make you just as employable as a NEET who taught himself python a few years after he dropped out.

[Anonymous No.15754705]

>>15754696
Imagine being this embarrassingly clueless.

[Anonymous No.15754722]

>>15747689
1. Ludwig Wittgenstein
2. Maurice Merleau-Ponty
3. Jacques Derrida
4. Martin Heidegger
5. Willard Van Orman Quine
6. Immanuel Kant
7. Lao Tzu
8. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
9. Edmund Husserl
10. John Dewey

[Anonymous No.15754753]

>>15754705

[Anonymous No.15754965]

>>15751762
Heidegger is within philosophy unparalleled in clarity. His writings are remarkably intuitive given the subject matter. He is however also entirely untranslateable, which has given him an unfair reputation within the english-speaking world. There is no point reading Heidegger in translation. Translation acts on words and phrases, but much of Heidegger acts witin words, and can thus not be translated as words.

Ask any serious scholar in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden etc—where the consensus isn't constructed from translation, and they will undoubtedly praise the clarity of his writings.

>>15750025
He sounds like a complete idiot.

>>15750000
If I'm being optimistic: Platon, Descartes, Kant.

[Anonymous No.15755236]

Spengler
Nietzsche
Pierce
Stirner
Klages
Emerson/Thoreau

[Anonymous No.15755250]

>>15754965
>Heidegger is within philosophy unparalleled in clarity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.15755335]

>>15754696
We have reached peak burgerpunk. Philosophy is only to inform a mutt of a closest way to a burger, according to the mutt anyway.

[Anonymous No.15755336]

>>15754722
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15755345]

>>15755250
If you had read him you would know.

[Anonymous No.15755587]

>>15750688
He's right genius.

[Anonymous No.15755934]

>>15747844
isidore and dante?

[Anonymous No.15755951]

>>15748401
Jung and Dostoevsky were not philosophers

[Anonymous No.15755960]

>>15748651
he was born into an aristocratic family

[Anonymous No.15756033]

>>15748426
I don't think you should skip Aquinas, he had a remarkably broad and deep philosophy, and people should understand a bit about the context of philosophy in Europe before the moderns.

[Anonymous No.15756356]

>>15747689
Aristotle
Marx
Stirner
Rand
Peterson

These 5 are enough

[Anonymous No.15756411]

>>15756356
Why are you on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.15756456]

>>15756356
oh my god neck yourself you fucking pleb

[Anonymous No.15756461]

>>15756456
>>15756356
apologies senpai your bait was too powerful for me desu

[Anonymous No.15756918]

>>15747689
1. Pre-Socratics
2. Plato
3. Aristotle
4. Descartes
5. Hume
6. Kant
7. Hegel
8. Schopenhauer
9. Nietzsche
10. Heidegger

Don't bother responding as I know this is the objectively correct list and you can't prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15756945]

>>15756918
Pre-Socratics is not one philosopher anon

[Anonymous No.15756957]

>>15756945
I know but their known works and writings is short enough to be condensed into one book.

[Anonymous No.15757148]

>>15748387
/thread

[Anonymous No.15757380]

>>15747795
>>15747815

Ah, someone is being set up for the classic "Kafak Trap"! Don't fall for it, anon...

[Anonymous No.15757554]

>>15747689
read it and find out