/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16741471]

What philosophers can I skip in trying to get the essentials of the field? I know I can skip Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, 99% of Continental philosophers. Can I skip Plato? What about Leibniz, Locke, and Rousseau?

[Anonymous No.16741498]

Why are you even reading philosophy if you just want to skip everything? That is, why do you want to read philosophy when you clearly don't want to read philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16741508]

This is my plan right now. I'll take recommendations for more philosophers I should add to the list.

Read:
Descartes - Hume - Locke - Leibniz - Kant - Analytics
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau (politics)

Skip:
Plato, Spinoza, Aristotle, Berkeley, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, All medieval, Most continental

[Anonymous No.16741513]

>>16741498
I only want to read the stuff that's important and/or the stuff that's easy to read. I'll only read the hard to read stuff if it's essential to the canon and then I'll bring secondary sources.

[Anonymous No.16741675]

>>16741513
>the stuff that's important
Then you have to read pretty much every philosopher you plan on skipping. Dumbfuck a*gloid.

[Anonymous No.16741683]

>>16741471
Start with Plato's Gorgias. If you agree with him read his Theatetus and his Republic. After Plato read Aristotle's Nichomachaen Ethics. If you agree with him read his Rhetoric. Whether you agree or disagree, read his Metaphysics after. You don't have to read it all but it's a great step to understanding ways to perceive Metaphysics, or systems that map reality (like Physics, the modern subject instead of Aristotle's book, is a system that maps material causation).
After that, check two metaphysical heavyweights out in Parmenides and Heraclitus. From reading Plato and Aristotle you'll see how a Metaphysics can have a wide range of applications in fields like math, a creation narrative, how things exist, ethics etc. Parmenides and Heraclitus are metaphysical extremists but they come from a time before wide applications were expected. What they bring up can be answered by your metaphysics, which you already have before reading these writers.
After that I would recommend reading a nice history of philosophy that is a bit more biased towards your metaphysics so you can see their interpretation across other philosophers.
Alternatively you can read The Cave and the Light by Arthur Hermann for an even take on how universal their metaphysics is.
After that pick where you want to explore and refine your metaphysics. The next big metaphysical clash is between the Stoics and Epicureans. The largest clash would be the German Idealists where a lot of work was done trying to refute the rationalists and empiricists. Ultimately choose what draws you and after exploring that I would read another history of philosophy to tie it all together and fill in knowledge gaps then explore modern philosophy in either the Analytic or Continental philosophers to get more modern tools and terminology to put into your metaphysics.
After that you can explore any piece you missed or want to revisit or you can get into logic and try to develop or adopt a logic language that speaks to your metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16741691]

>>16741675
They aren't really important for a modern understanding. Hume - Locke - Kant is all you really need to get the important bits.

[Anonymous No.16741696]

>>16741471
How about you skip philosophy altogether? Retard.

[Anonymous No.16741797]

>>16741513
>I only want to read the stuff that's important
Hegel and Nietzsche it is then. Skip the rest.

[Anonymous No.16742298]

>I know I can skip Aristotle
Do you? Maybe your hubris would let you believe that, and all the power to you, but that won't stop me from calling you what you are: a faggot.

[Anonymous No.16742299]

>>16741508
>Plato

[Anonymous No.16742301]

>>16741691
Important for what, you fucking nonce? Reading a few philosophers to justify your political philosophy is retarded, and this is coming from someone who’s favorite book is For My Legionaries.

[Anonymous No.16742309]

>>16741471
>I want to get into this hobby that prioritizes independent thinking above all else. /lit/ please tell me exactly what to do, who to read and who not to read and also what conclusions I should make of the authors I do read

[Anonymous No.16742313]

>>16741471
You can’t skip Spinoza, Hegel, nietzsche or 90% of continental philosophers, Jesus Christ. Why would you retard?

[Anonymous No.16742337]

>>16742313
None of those are really gonna give me anything useful. If you have an interest go ahead but I'm just looking for the bare essentials so I'm not a complete retard and reading Spinoza and Nietzsche doesn't really add much like reading Hume and Kant would. Especially not for the amount of effort.

[Anonymous No.16742339]

hey how bout you just skip this life and neck yourself then

[Anonymous No.16742340]

>>16742301
I wanna read these guys so I have a basic enough understanding of philosophy that I could give an overview of the important bits. I don't wanna read one sentence past what is absolutely essential.

[Anonymous No.16742343]

>>16742309
t. Seething solipsist

[Anonymous No.16742348]

>>16742301
>>16742313
Also I've decided to skip Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. I decided reading old politics isn't worth it. It will be more efficient to just read a modern econ book than have the context of some old political philosophers

[Anonymous No.16742350]

>>16742340
That's not how philosophy works consequentualist go be a historian or scientist instead

[Anonymous No.16742373]

>>16742350
That is how it works though. There are some philosophers that only provide historical value and most of them only provide small amounts of context to the big names and important books. For example you don't have to read Leibniz to understand Kant you can just read his Prolegomena and cut out all the context you need. You don't have to read everything in a field.

[Anonymous No.16742382]

>>16742373
That's true you don't have to but you're trying to read philosophy without knowing how to read philosophy. You study metaphysics and w that you can't jump into kant just like you can't just jump into ethics without metaphysics or calculus without algebra. You can't properly critique it until you have the foundations of the subject. In philosophy, not history, the foundations aren't the chronological start but the primary metaphysical clashes.

[Anonymous No.16742394]

Heres how I know lit is populated by nerds, none of you have been baited before

[Anonymous No.16742398]

>>16742382
Hume + Locke = Kant. You study those three hard and use secondary sources for the parts you don't understand and you have 90% you need from that period which is all I'm looking for.

[Anonymous No.16742401]

>>16742394
It's not bait

[Anonymous No.16742527]

>>16742398
It's not a survey of ideas you moron. You can't critique kant if you just read those. Your metaphysical critiques can't step out of the enlightenment

[Anonymous No.16742546]

>>16742527
That's where the analytics come in

[Anonymous No.16742577]

>>16742546
They'll tell you to start w the greeks you moron.

[Anonymous No.16742590]

>>16742577
No they don't they usually summarize

[Anonymous No.16742631]

>>16741471
>>16741513
>>16741691
>>16742337
>>16742340
>>16742348
>>16742373
This has to be bait lmao

[Anonymous No.16742639]

>>16742590
The summary isn't supposed to be all you read. Reading about platonist math isn't going to make any sense if you've never read Plato.

[Anonymous No.16742640]

>>16742639
Analytics don't talk about Platonic math. Why would they?

[Anonymous No.16742647]

>>16742631
It's not

[Anonymous No.16742664]

>>16742640
Ig because they're not as smart as you bro

[Anonymous No.16742668]

just skip to wittgenstein and be done with it ffs

[Anonymous No.16742876]

>>16741683
Choose Your Own Story of Philosophy