/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16935425]

okay, not trolling this time... what philosophers/ schools of philosophical thought are essential and which are most worthwhile to the individual?
also, what is missing from this chart?

[Anonymous No.16935706]

>>16935425
In my opinion, this is a difficult question. Unlike science, philosophy mostly revolves around normative claims, not hard evidence. So, whatever philosophy suits you.

[Anonymous No.16935941]

>>16935706
thanks. I have a few I'm excited about like kirkengaard, spinoza, marx, schopenhauer, and stirner.. but there is so much stuff that comes before them I don't just want to read the meme authors

[Anonymous No.16936027]

This chart is basically fine. There are a load more contemporary philosophers you could put, but who knows who’s going to be important in the future. I can’t blame them for not wanting to get into it.

That said, there are at least one or two philosophers on each of the ‘myriad types’ section I think would be safe to add. These would be consensus picks:

Political Phil: Rawls, Nozick

Religion Phil: Platinga

Epistemology: Timothy Williamson

Metaphysics: Wilfrid Sellars, Kripke

Ethics: Derek Partfit, Peter Singer

Science: Popper, Kuhn

On the continent side, I’d argue that Serres and Badiou have risen to the level of notability. Also Gadamer and Levinas should be connected to Heidegger. Adorno and Hannah Arendt as well.

[Anonymous No.16936755]

>>16936027
thanks, I'll save this comment for reference

[Anonymous No.16936955]

>>16935425
Nothing is essential
It seems like a lot of people who are new to philosophy think it is a lot more thematically monolithic than it is. Philosophy of language, epistemology, ontology, mind, political phil, ethics, phenomenology, etc are all present more or less in all philosophy movements, and most people study along those lines, rather than in terms of a philosophers influence across the discipline as a whole. For example hume is incredibly influential, but someone who studies political philosophy doesn't have much of a reason to read him. Nagle's bat paper is even more influential in philosophy of mind, but moral philosophers don't give a shit.
If you want to understand philosophy in the way that people who are good at it understand it, you need to pick out topics you are interested in and study them.
If you want to study history of philosophy in general, on the other hand, the essential thinkers are probably plato, aristotle, hume, kant, hegel, nietzsche, and wittgenstein.
However if you read all of those guys you won't be in a good position to debate literally any topic in contemporary philosophy because they are only distantly related to the positions and strategy common to current publications.
>t. Bachelors in philosophy in 2 weeks
>>16936027
I have no idea why people consider Nozick influential, please enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.16936974]

>>16936027
Hey thank you for including Levinas.
>>16936955
I forgot to add descartes to the list. Obviously you can add a lot more but that is I think as pared down as you can reasonably get.

[Anonymous No.16936975]

>>16935425
This chart is a shitpost. A reddit tier shitpost. Perfect for autodidact pseuds.

[Anonymous No.16936996]

>>16935425
Why does it say Post-Structuralism ended in 2009?

[Anonymous No.16937266]

>>16936955
thank you. I will feel better jumping around the chronology then, with some effort paid to influences before hand. much appreciated

[Anonymous No.16937277]

>>16936975
it's all i could find. this is your chance to change history by making a better one

[Anonymous No.16937910]

>>16937266
Cheers
>>16936996
Possibly because Derrida, and Baudrillard died around then?

[Anonymous No.16937926]

>>16937277
People did that a while ago. Everyone here just claimed that it was stupid and bad. Funnily enough, most of them recommended the chart in the OP instead.
Pic related was their attempt.

[Anonymous No.16937947]

>>16935425
>Spinoza
>rationalist

[Anonymous No.16937960]

take the oriental pill

[Anonymous No.16938010]

>>16935425
American pragmatism sounds based. All lit ever talks about is commie bullshit

[Anonymous No.16938187]

>>16937926
Habermas, brandom, alain-miller, barthes, butler, and the entire philosophy of mind section are all glaring omissions, but it's better than the other ine
>>16938010
Read the w. James paul carus lecture, it's super easy and decently comprehensive as an introduction.

[Anonymous No.16938701]

>>16936027
amazing bait. bravo

[Anonymous No.16938781]

>>16937926
saved, this looks very intellectual

>>16937947
i just like the name spinoza

>>16938701
hey


wait a minute

[Anonymous No.16939816]

>>16936955
People consider Nozick influential mostly because he’s *influential*. Anarchy, State, and Utopia has been cited ~24,000 times since it was published, making it easily one of the most discussed books in political philosophy.

Obviously John Rawls blows this out of the water, but the only other analytical writer who comes close to Nozick is Ronald Dworkin, and strictly speaking he’s working in the philosophy of law. Nobody else in Anglo political philosophy is even in the ball park.

I don’t like Nozick, and I’m not a libertarian, but it’s impossible to deny his influence as a thinker.

[Anonymous No.16940455]

>>16939816
I'm OP but can you give me your top 10 philosophers to be read by laymen

[Anonymous No.16940501]

>>16937960
They're just aphorists and not scientists. I've read Chinese philosophy and honestly it's just pre-presocratic ideas extended ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.16940751]

>>16939816
That's interesting. I do not find his ideas particularly compelling and I didn't realize people outside of undergrad curriculum designers felt similarly. Maybe most of his citations or from kektastic neolib econ/poli sci authors?
>>16940455
Hume
Plato
Aristotle
Foucault
Nietzsche
Descartes
Nagle
Rawls
Habermas
Althusser
>>16940501
Have you read classical chinese philosophy exclusively? Cause that is appropriate given the time they were "published".