/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3135847]

Isn't there a philosophy flow chart that gets posted around here ever so often?
I know all the big names, I just don't know what order to read everyone in.
I'd like to read them somewhat "in order" so I could see the ideas develop from person to person through time.

[Anonymous No.3135879]

bumparooni

[Anonymous No.3135884]

Come back when you have finished Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.3135899]

>>3135884
yes sir

[Anonymous No.3135946]

>>3135884
ok I'm back

[Anonymous No.3135951]

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/
Listen to this instead.

[Anonymous No.3135958]

>>3135884
Recommend books by Socrates pls thanks

[Anonymous No.3135970]

>>3135884
>splitting Plato and Socrates

[Anonymous No.3136040]

http://www.mindmeister.com/23290325/western-philosophy

no eastern philosophers in there though.

[Anonymous No.3136083]

>>3136040
No one here cares about Eastern Philosophy. You can go back to your shitty visual novels.

[Anonymous No.3136086]

>>3136083
>implying you're the voice of /lit/

[Anonymous No.3136095]

>>3136040
Nobody cares about eastern philosophy, its anecdotal or aphoristic.

>>3136086
>implying his views aren't representative of most people on this board

[Anonymous No.3136097]

>>3136083
>No one here cares about Eastern Philosophy. You can go back to your shitty visual novels.
the epitome of ignorance

[Anonymous No.3136099]

>>3136095
>implying you're not samefag

[Anonymous No.3136101]

>>3136095
>Nobody cares about eastern philosophy, its anecdotal or aphoristic.

you =/= everybody

be quiet now child

[Anonymous No.3136105]

>>3136095
>Nobody cares about eastern philosophy, its anecdotal or aphoristic.

Eastern philosophy is vastly superior to western philosophy. It regards everything as one single spectrum, whereas the western tenancy is to fractal everything into numerous categories and subcategories resulting in an isolated study that's blind to the whole, and inevitably breeds the type of nihilistic, relativistic empiricists that plague this board. Western philosophy is also a crude, plagiarised version of superior eastern thought that doesn't even see it's flawed approach:

-Hume's bundle theory = Buddhist anatta.
-Kant's theory of knowledge = Buddhist perception theory.
-Schopenhaur's will = buddhist desire/
-Derrida's deconstructionism = buddhist madhyamaka's
-Godel = buddhist indra's net
-Hegel = buddhist emptiness

[Anonymous No.3136108]

>>3136105

[Vlad the Implyier No.3136114]

>>3136105
>the western tenancy

Sound's like Rowling's next novel.

[Anonymous No.3136116]

>>3136105
do you have any book recommendations to eastern philosophers?

[Anonymous No.3136125]

>>3136105
>Implying there is any reason to doubt empiricism
>Implying everyone here is relativistic
>Implying listing a few similarities makes eastern philosophy superior, even though they are, by your declaration, the same

well done

[Anonymous No.3136134]

>>3136040

[Anonymous No.3136142]

>>3136108
>le funny clap gif

[Anonymous No.3136149]

>>3136083

Seconded.

[Anonymous No.3136152]

>>3136040
i guess we need an equivalent to that one about eastern thought.

[Anonymous No.3136162]

>>3136149
>Seconded
>compelling one-word argument

clearly 2deep4u.

[Anonymous No.3136328]

[Anonymous No.3136338]

>>3136328
>Rand

[Anonymous No.3136346]

>>3136338
Please leave, child.

[Anonymous No.3136351]

>>3136346
Ok bro ;_;

[Anonymous No.3136389]

>>3136338
>Al'thor

[Anonymous No.3136400]

>>3136346
You do realise, that only Americans recognize Objectivism as an actual philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3136423]

>>3136346
Do you know where the fuck you are?

[Anonymous No.3136434]

>>3136400
Italian objectivist reporting in.

[Anonymous No.3136456]

>>3136423
>Do you know where the fuck you are?
On a board populated by self-obsessed teenagers who subscribe to the universal lack of morality, place subjective values first, and adhere to pretty much everything Rand stated, yet reject objectivism because they follow the herd mentality when it comes to literature. They have no problem accepting Nietzsche's aristocratic ubermench, who despises the religious and uneducated, but haven't got the sense to realise that Rands man of reason is the same person.

Yes, I know full well where the fuck I am: A place where Ulysses is idolised by kids who have never read it, where concepts, ideas, and relative aesthetics have to be approved by board consensus before they are adopted, a place where objectivists don't even realise that they are, in fact, objectivists.

[Anonymous No.3136461]

>>3136456
>implying you grasp the ubermensch theory
>implying most of the people here couldn't be described as anarcho-primitivists
>implying you're not just visiting from /pol/

[Anonymous No.3136466]

>>3136461
- Yes
- Only until pressed on their opinions, or forced to confront the implications.
- No

[Anonymous No.3136469]

>>3136456
butthurt much?

pic related.

[Anonymous No.3136472]

>>3136469
>tfw you need to post webcomics to express yourself.

[Anonymous No.3136493]

>>3136472
>implying satiric visual treats for the mind aren't superior expressions to 2dimentional and flat verbal regurgitations

[Anonymous No.3136494]

I'm interested in this chart, if it exists
kind of like this >>3136040 but in chronological order and if possible with each thinker's most important works

[Anonymous No.3136495]

>>3136105
dont you ever leave this board

[Anonymous No.3136501]

>>3136494
>but in chronological order
google "chronological order of western philosophy"
>if possible with each thinker's most important works
google "X most important works", replace X with a philosopher

don't you have arms?

[Anonymous No.3136507]

>>3136495
Do you?

[Anonymous No.3136508]

>>3136501
I don't have arms :(

[Anonymous No.3136509]

>>3136501
more importantly, check the sticky, it has everything you asked for.

[Anonymous No.3136516]

>>3136508
>not being American
>not having the right to Bear arms

[Anonymous No.3136519]

>>3136507
dont know

[Anonymous No.3136524]

>>3136507
answer to

>>3136116
>>3136116
>>3136116

[Anonymous No.3136579]

>>3136493
>implying comics aren't, in the the literal sense, 2-dimensional
>also, "2dimentional"
lel