Massive Philosophy Flowchart

[Anonymous No.19635337]

Is there some kind of map, flowchart, etc., of philosophical positions and how they relate to each other? That would be pretty nifty to have, to the extent that it can be diagrammed.

[Anonymous No.19635347]

[Anonymous No.19635355]

[Anonymous No.19635365]

[Anonymous No.19635377]

>>19635337
https://superscholar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/History-of-Philosophy.jpg

But keep in mind it depends on your historicism. Arthur Hermann makes a "everyone is either a platonist or aristotelian" historicism and Ben Shapiro makes an epistemological historicism (you're either "right" or reason, or not).

The current historicisms are sociological in influence and biographical.

[Anonymous No.19635386]

>>19635337
>>19635377
>The current historicisms are sociological in influence and biographical.
Because of this they miss out on a lot of explanatory power and have a lot of holes (e.g. why does taoism, heraclitus abd hegelianism have similar structures? Not even a question because they don't culturally interact always).

[Anonymous No.19635435]

>>19635377
It would be nice if there was more of a diagrams about philosophical positions than thinkers. At some point, it would be nice to see what the philosophical "landscape" looks like, divorced from thinkers in general. Eventually, I would care more about what is true (or at least possibly true) than who said what.

[Anonymous No.19635446]

>>19635347
>>19635355
>>19635365
Meds. Now

[Anonymous No.19635481]

>>19635435
Well maybe this will help. It doesn't formally structure it but it gives you an overview of several ways to structure it.
>>/lit/thread/S18352030#p18352165
>>/lit/thread/S18352030#p18352290
https://archived.moe/his/thread/12505780/#12506233
>>/lit/thread/S19500771#p19500901

[Anonymous No.19635849]

>>19635481
That was pretty interesting and definitely in the direction of what I want, ty for sharing

[Anonymous No.19635929]

https://www.denizcemonduygu.com/philo/browse/

[Anonymous No.19635955]

What’s a good reading list to get a decent, amateur grasp of philosophy? Dr Sadler recommends pic rel

[Anonymous No.19636049]

>>19635386
It is totally possible to come up with similar ideas without that lending those ideas any credibility.

[Anonymous No.19636054]

>>19635435
A pretty intense undertaking that would be. Probably a thesis in of itself.

[Anonymous No.19636070]

>>19636054
I figured that some autists would have already tried doing that and made an okay attempt.

[Anonymous No.19636083]

>>19636054
Found one pretty interesting example already. But unfortunately it's limited to primarily analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19636119]

>>19635347
>>19635355
>>19635365
>>19635446
Sauce:
http://immortality-roadmap.com/

[Anonymous No.19636133]

>>19636083
analytic phil is last man anglo-bugposting

[Anonymous No.19636154]

>>19636083
And I suppose not necessarily that useful other than a broad overview as it doesn't elaborate on what the actual distinctions are.

[Anonymous No.19636172]

>>19636049
That's my point which is why current histories of philosophy have holes

[Anonymous No.19636193]

>>19635386
>e.g. why does taoism, heraclitus abd hegelianism
and Platonism, Thomism, psychoanalysis, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.19636219]

>>19636193
Yeah some are better than others. The sociological and biographical historicisms are trash tho.

[Anonymous No.19636235]

>>19636219
>The sociological and biographical historicisms are trash tho
I can agree with biographical, but what don't you like about a sociological account of philosophy? To me the idea that philosophy emerges out of the demands of a particular society and becomes shaped by that societies worldview is not that extreme a point to make.