/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3324101]

I started reading Plato's Republic; it is the first step in my return to philosophy. I would like to, basically, read chronologically up to today, the most important volumes humanity has written.

ITT: you list ten classic works of philosophy that you consider the canon.

If you can't, you can still list ten works of philosophy you think are excellent and recommendable.

Let's see what this survey delivers.

[Anonymous No.3324103]

The second book in my list, for what it's worth, is Aristotle's Mephysics, good choice?

[Anonymous No.3324123]

>>3324103
Bah I don't know man. It really depends. I mean reading books without a plan won't leave you a lot. Especially if they are highly technical like Aristotle's metaphysics. You are just wasting your time. Rather read a history of philosophy or listen to this podcast:

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

Then after you read a history just pick the works that you found interesting.

Again most works of philosophy cannot be understood by the modern reader without a lot of background.

[Anonymous No.3324125]

meditations on first philosophy is essential

[Anonymous No.3324136]

>>3324123
>Again most works of philosophy cannot be understood by the modern reader without a lot of background.

I'm having zero problems with Plato so far, and it's 2,400 years old. There are footnotes, and I've studied philo during high school, so I have some background. Also took a year of philo.

[Anonymous No.3324138]

>>3324125

By whom?

[Anonymous No.3324150]

>>3324138
seriously?

[Anonymous No.3324162]

>Yfw Plato ("wide back") is a actually a nickname given to him by his wrestling coach.

[Anonymous No.3324163]

>>3324101

If I were to pick ten of what I'd consider important historically but not necessarily my favorites here are my first instincts in order by date:

1. Plato - The Symposium
2. Aristotle - Metaphysics
3. Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
4. Descartes - Meditations
5. Kant - 1st Critique
6. Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit
7. Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil
8. Wittgenstein - Tractatus
9. Heidegger - Being and Time
10. Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations

There's a substantial amount of other readings that will be necessary to understand a lot of these but I think these are probably the big ones and there are a lot that are "important" past the 50's but I think it will take time to see which emerge as truly influential.

[Anonymous No.3324164]

>>3324150

If it's by Descartes, I read him in French, so the title may be different. I don't like Descartes as a thinker - he was mediocre.

[Anonymous No.3324165]

>>3324136
>I'm having zero problems with Plato

then you're not reading it right lol

[Anonymous No.3324166]

>>3324162

Real name Socrates? Amirite?

[Anonymous No.3324168]

>>3324163

Worthy anon there.

What about Wittgenstein? Can I read his Tractatus book or is it hardcore epistemology that questions the very sanity of anyone who dares approach it?

[Anonymous No.3324171]

>>3324165

Or maybe I am less ignorant than you.

>studied Greek philosophy at uni for a year
>studied philosophy during high school too
>know some about Greek society
>have seen 300

[Anonymous No.3324172]

>>3324164

That's a bad way to look at it. Even though I disagree with Descartes about a shit ton of things, he's a genius of the highest degree.

[Anonymous No.3324175]

these arent the books you should start with, but they are books you ought to read at some point later on.

leibniz - essais de theodicee
leinbniz - monadologie (i would also recommend reading russell on leibniz)
hume - an enquiry concerning human understanding
frege - begriffsschrift
russell - principia mathematica
wittgenstein - tractatus logico-philosophicus
wittgenstein - philosophische untersuchungen
carnap - scheinprobleme in der philosophie
carnap - der logische aufbau der welt
quine - two problems of empiricism
kripke - naming and necessity
tarski - the semantical concept of truth and the foundations of semantics

[Anonymous No.3324177]

>>3324168

You should read secondary sources on the Tractatus first because it's written in a way that makes no sense. It's a much more mysterious book than I think a lot are willing to admit because on face value it actually seems incredibly conservative.

[Anonymous No.3324180]

>>3324172

Pascal, his contemporary, was the real genius. I'm sorry but Descartes is the guy behind justifying vivisection and much of his thinking is devoid of introspection, restrospection, and general distance of the intellectual sort. He takes things at face value and go crazy.

>French has the best grammar to think in

Seriously? How fucking stupid does someone have to be to think this crap?

[Anonymous No.3324181]

>>3324175

I'm the one who came up with the other list and I'd say that, OP, you should equally consider this because it emphasizes thoughts more important to the analytic tradition whereas mine expresses my own bias toward "Continental" thought.

[Anonymous No.3324183]

>>3324136

I don't know man, if you like it good for you. But experts have troubles with plato.

I mean people are even in disagreement if the republic is meant to be taken seriously or it's an ironic work showing how stupid is a certain kind of political philosophy (this is what leo strauss thinks).

But again if you like it:

Read

Aristotle - Organon or Nichomachean ethics.
Agustine - City of God
Hobbes - Leviathan
Descartes - Meditations
Locke - Treatise on Government
Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Rousseau - Discourse on Inequality (or the social contract)
Pascal - Pensee
Sade - Philosophy in the Boudoir
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason and Judgment (yes both)
Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit
Kierkegaard - Enten/Eller
Nietzsche - Genealogy of Morals
Husserl - Cartesian Meditations
Heidegger - Being and Time
Wittgenstein - Philosophical Researches
Quine - Word and Object
Foucault - The Order of Things
Davidson - Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation
Derrida - On Grammatology

[Anonymous No.3324187]

>>3324180

Pascal was a genius too. So, what exactly do you mean by "devoid of introspection, restrospection, and general distance of the intellectual sort'? Because to me it seems like his works typify this much more so than a lot of other philosophers and I'd actually use that as a criticism against him.

[Anonymous No.3324190]

>>3324175
"two DOGMAS of empiricism", man im tired haha

[Anonymous No.3324191]

>>3324183

That's more than ten

[Anonymous No.3324193]

>>3324183

>Foucault
>Derrida

Wait, are these still considered by anyone for being anything other than jokes?

[Anonymous No.3324195]

>>3324193

Yes. Many many people although I doubt either, especially Derrida, want to be taken too seriously.

[Anonymous No.3324197]

>>3324191
>"i want to start thinking about the world, how it works and what i can know about it, but not too much. ten books should be enough."
please...

[Anonymous No.3324202]

>>3324163

This is a decent list. I would have included Kuhn and Popper myself.

However, unless the OP has had post-grad experience in philosophy, there's simply no way (s)he would understand even a fraction of these texts. I don't give a fuck how smart someone thinks they - you ain't going to read Hegel on the bus one morning and understand it.
It cannot be understated how nuanced and technical most western philosophy is - it almost always requires considerable background reading, explanations and dissections. I read most of the above before I commenced a philosophy degree - once lectures began I was staggered by how pitiful my comprehension at been when reading unguided.

Plato, Aristotle and Descartes are reasonably accessible though, so if OP is insistent on this path, start with them.

/lit/ rarely mentions them, but I recommend OP reads introductions or summaries of the above authors first. The Oxford VSI series are consistently on point.

[Anonymous No.3324203]

>>3324197

OP said ten, that's why I made mine ten. Of course there are other important things...

[Anonymous No.3324210]

>>3324202

aaah how could I forget Kuhn? Yes, I agree with you. People are too proud to read secondary sources and go right into the primary source and come out with nothing. Secondary sources are essential.

[Anonymous No.3324219]

wish I could converse in this thread longer but imma go see Django!

[Anonymous No.3324220]

>>3324197

Asking you the ten most important books according to you, to see if a pattern emerges.

You guys don't understand the importance of a canon, do you? If the academy could focus a bit, and get such lists, we'd have a far superior education because we could ensure that everyone has read the chosen classics.

[Anonymous No.3324225]

>>3324219

Put it in your thread-watcher, come back later.

I make my threads last for days.

[Anonymous No.3324227]

>>3324193
Yeah, why not.
Whether you like it or not they are going to go in the history of philosophy books.

They have their problems, but so do all philosophers.

I believe that anyone that claims that they cannot be taken seriously, can't be taken seriously because is not being honest intellectually.

In fact it pained me that Quine was one of the ones that signed the letter saying that Derrida is a trickster. It showed a lot of the limits of his thought.

>>3324195
Derrida wants to be taken very seriously. The fact that he uses often humor does not mean he is not serious.

And you know he is actually pretty deep and intelligent and well read.

[Anonymous No.3324231]

>>3324191
Just pick ten.

[Anonymous No.3324235]

>>3324220
not to sound like an elitist, intellectualist fucker (which i am, i have to admit), but having kids read these books in highschool would be but mere hypocrisy. pseudoeducation, nothing more, nothing less.

[Anonymous No.3324251]

Republic - Plato
Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle
Summa Theologiae - Aquinas
Meditations - Descartes
Ethics - Spinoza
Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Locke
Principles of Human Knowledge - Berkeley
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - Hume
Candide - Voltaire
Social Contract - Rousseau
Critique of Pure Reason - Kant
Phenomenology of Spirit - Hegel
World as Will and Representation - Schopenhauer
Capital - Marx
Utilitarianism - Mill
Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche
Being and Time - Heidegger
Philosophical Investigations - Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.3324258]

>>3324227

Can you introduce me to Derrida in a few sentences?

[Anonymous No.3324255]

>>3324227
>Whether you like it or not they are going to go in the history of philosophy books

already on their way out, actually.

[Anonymous No.3324260]

>>3324123
Great site, thank you kind sir.

[Anonymous No.3324261]

>>3324235

You can teach them the stuff without making them read the books. You could make adults read the stuff, though.

[Anonymous No.3324267]

>>3324258
there is nothing outside of text.
metanarratives determine the meaning of terms we use, no term has a meaning if separated from its context, it rather acheives a meaning only through this context. through deconstruction, we can identify these dependencies of terms on oneanother and disprove the existence of many dichotomies.
+pretentious language

[Anonymous No.3324272]

>>3324267

That doesn't sound very interesting. Sounds like mental masturbation of the worst kind.

[Anonymous No.3324276]

>>3324272
That's because it is.

[Anonymous No.3324289]

>>3324272
the ideas are too shallow for the pretentious language they are being presented in. its obscurantism, if he had written clearly and as simple as possible, everyone would understand what hes saying immediately, how boring. this is what quine said, any psudointellectual will fear nothing as much as he fears clarity and simplicity. i do not, however beleive derrida was a pseudointellectualist, i just dislike his style of writing. also im not even the guy you asked to explain derrida to you.

[Anonymous No.3324308]

>>3324255

I don't agree with that. I think we are in a period of backlash that is happening only in the US where people are mindlessly embracing futurism and positivism for a serious of contingent societal reasons.

In the future I believe that we will have again a more balanced reading of them. Again because in the past analytic philosophy had sympathetic readings (Cavell for example) talking for example about similarities between Wittgenstein or Davidson with Derrida.

Certainly they are going to be remembered more than Fodor or Nagel or Searle.

[Anonymous No.3324319]

>>3324251
Finally someone that lists the Summa as one of the ten important ones. It is a feast for critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.3324328]

>>3324171
>have seen 300
i chuckled

[Anonymous No.3324329]

>>3324308

I already forgot who Derrida was and what he did.

>>3324319

Summa is on my list already. I'm a ferocious reader of theology and Christian writings.

>inb4 raging

[Anonymous No.3324334]

>>3324272
Why do you think that?
It's actually very important to philosophy.

Philosophy is mostly the reading of books and the concept there defined, so this considerations are essential.

For example when we talk about "being" where do we get the meaning? What is the meter by which we decided if the meaning is accurate. Do we do it by looking at our "common sense" do we look at a a history of the term? Which history? Only wester philosophy or maybe easter too or theology?

This are important questions, and how you answer them changes a lot the results of your doing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3324348]

>>3324334

I agree, it's important, but everything you'll ever want to know about that is dealt with in linguistics.

Pic related. Relevance, motherfucker, do you read it?

[Anonymous No.3324353]

>>3324289
But this is an aesthetic preference.
I mean I find Quine's writing incredibly boring, and that of his friends is even worse.

Derrida liked Bataille, Genet and Mallarme` and his style of writing is influenced by them. Quine didn't and wanted his style to look as much as possible as that of scientists, Russell and the like and could never see beyond his naturalism.

I feel that for people that stress so much about rigor, that's a pretty shallow reason to assess a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3324359]

>>3324329
Well you are one person, what you think of Derrida hardly matters.
But again, is this the attitude of people that can criticize anyone for "lack of rigor"?

[Anonymous No.3324366]

>>3324353
its not aesthetic, its fundamental.
quines works arent meant to be entertaining, they are meant to be as rigorous and clear as possible.
and do you know why?
its because they are supposed to be easy to prove wrong if they contain errors. quine was able to disprove carnap because and only because of this style of writing, and this ideal of clarity, rigor and precision. if carnap had written like derrida, this would have been impossible.

[Anonymous No.3324368]

>>3324359
>what you think of Derrida hardly matters.

>implying the opinion of the few don't matter depending on who they are

Any opinion matters as much as anyone else's. I'm a spokesperson for all those who think the French went full retard at some point. We matter. Mostly for this crucial reason:

We all fucked your mother.

[Anonymous No.3324377]

>>3324101
Are you me? I also just recently started reading this. How are you finding it?
At first, it was a little bit boring, since it was just Socrates counter-arguing the piss out of a bunch of retards. Shit got real when Glaucon presented his points on justice and injustice.

[Anonymous No.3324385]

>>3324377

Nice! Shit gets even better when they band together to create the ideal city. They get fascistic on Homer's ass and think it'd be better if some parts were cut according to their social theories.

It gets better and better. I like it a bunch so far. It's cool to read stuff from 2,400 years ago and not feel all alienated. Think about all the people, throughout the ages, who read this too. It does me a lil' something.

[Anonymous No.3324389]

>>3324348
Yeah I read it, but I didn't find it much interesting.

Yeah it's an ok account of how our everyday communication works but it's hardly exhaustive and does not really deal with philosophy which is a very peculiar situation.

Also I found that often it has the problems that afflict a lot of works from analytic philosophy:

1) It makes a lot of unwarranted assumption. Naturally you always have to make them, but they are barely knowledgeable of that. They just go "It's obvious that things are like that!" Well it's not obvious.

2) Often they confuse how things are and how they should be. They make too much of our communicative success and they consider it as proof of existence of the optimal communicative situation. Things are much murkier in reality.

But bottom line, just because we have Sperber does not mean that we should not read for example Wittgentsein if they talk a lot of similar things.

They are smart people and the problem they bring forward are not at all solved.
And it's exactly because our analysis of language gives us a very discomforting image, it's the reason why so many philosophers are turning towards neurosciences and biology and "experimental philosophy". Not because those problems are solved, but because they want a more comforting image of the world, they want the image of a world that takes us by the hand and brings straight from our opinions to truth.

[Anonymous No.3324396]

>>3324389

I once took a class on epistemology, and I seriously considered defenestration because of it, right there and then.

[Anonymous No.3324433]

>>3324396
What is your problem with epistemology?

[Anonymous No.3324436]

>>3324389
can you provide real examples for the two accusitoins of yours? as they stand, they can be raised against any philosopher. cut the bullshit and say where you find problems. start with 1.
im interested what lead you to these.

[Anonymous No.3324440]

>>3324366
And yet it hardly works like that.

I mean even in french philosophy people disproved a lot of other people. Althusser and most of structuralists got their ass kicked. And there is some serious criticism going around in regard of Derrida and Foucault from continental philosopher that seriously undermine some of their work.

But going back to analytic philosophy I think that the clarity and the "you can disprove it" are merely ideological, a kinda of playing at being little scientist to impress people, no different of how Sokal accused some postructuralists of using the garb of science to give themselves authority.

Rorty himself was pointing out how analytic philosophy instead of going in the direction of building upon itself as sciences do, was instead fracturing in microrealities and was constantly shaken by one fashion or the other.
In the late 90s everyone was for example interested again in modal and fuzzy logics. In the early 2000s people liked Brandom so they were starting reading hegel. Now everyone is jumping on the experimental philosophy.

But of this disproving I see very little of. Of course you criticize other people's arguments and you try to see what they are missing but you do that with every philosophy, you can do it with Plato as with Derrida or Lacan. But we are far off the image "Ok this guy was disproven we can move on". Because it rarely happens, and it does not happen more often than it happens in any other philosophical culture.

I was reading for example Miller's An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics, and the arguments were neither more solid, nor better argued than any other philosophical work in any school.

What I mean is, sorry for making it so long, that I don't think that the clarity of style of analytic philosophy brings any particular advantage. I think it's a promotional stunt that was very successful in a country were anti-intellectualism is and was rampant. (cont.)

[Anonymous No.3324447]

>>3324440
(cont.) I believe that it is on the other hand damaging because it discards a lot of very good works and forces people to either write on a certain way or not be heard, when a lot of times style and content are not so separable.
I believe that everyone would be better if instead of doing this petty wars we would just agree that philosophy is not a science, but should be a discipline were intelligent people share intelligent opinions.

[Anonymous No.3324450]

>>3324433

The teacher I had seemed insane; he was from Paris and did the trip specifically for my university, so it was a 4-hour class, in a room designed for 15 students, and we were 60.

Most of what he went on about seemed pure lunacy.

[Anonymous No.3324452]

>>3324436
I'm sorry I can't.

I studied the book back in 2004 and I don't have it with me right now since I have long moved out from the college where I did my undergrad work.

I may read it again though if you think I've been missing something.

But you are right: they can be made against any philosopher. That's why we read many philosopher and we don't say "well that's boring, plato dealt already with truth, no need to read kant or tarski now"

[Anonymous No.3324454]

>>3324450
Who was the teacher?

[Anonymous No.3324456]

>>3324450
What exactly was lunacy? Was he extremely skeptic? I still can't see the problem here unless you state what was that made you dislike it, aside from the obvious discomfort.

[Anonymous No.3324469]

>>3324452
oh i was not talking about that book, i have no problems admitting its lack of depth compared to the works of wittgenstein. you said this is common with analytic philosophy and i think thats just wrong. unwarranted assumptions and moralistic fallacies. those were your two points and i want to know where you find those in 20th century analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3324476]

>>3324440
where did you get this view of current academia?
it would be a shame if youve just read this shit somewhere and embraced it because it grants you a feeling of superiority. maybe you should read the philosophy youre condemning.

[Anonymous No.3324480]

>>3324454

That was over ten years ago, I don't remember.

[Anonymous No.3324483]

>>3324476
and yes, im sorry to say, this really is what your posts have lead me to suspect.

[Anonymous No.3324487]

>>3324456

He spoke so fast I couldn't understand much of what he was on about.

I wish I could remember concrete examples, but I can't.

He discussed stuff like saying "This is true," and did some regression ad infinitum, but I forget how or why.

[Anonymous No.3324511]

>>3324180
>Vico, his contemporary, was the real genius.

Fixed that for you, pleb.

[Anonymous No.3324515]

>>3324469
Ah ok, sorry I misunderstood you.

Now don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for a lot of analytic philosophy, so I'm addressing mostly things that I find annoying about it.

I believe that for example in metaethics there are a lot of cases like that.

For example take most theories of moral realism. Their argumentation for it is that since we have moral intuitions we have to have moral objects. Which is a little bit silly. And in fact when they are pressed about it they admit that they are describing just how "we think about our moral judgments" but again who is this we? And is it really this simple?

And a lot of time I believe that reading a little bit more of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Hegel and a little less Darwin, Mill and Aristotle would do the whole enterprise a lot of good.

[Anonymous No.3324516]

Beauvoir - The Second Sex
Marx - Das Kapital
Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Bakunin - God and the State
Striner - The Ego and it's Own
Goldman - Anarchism and Other Essays
Sun Tzu - Art of War
Siddhartha Guatama - Dhammapada
Sartre - Being and Nothingness
Camus - Myth of Sisyphus

[Anonymous No.3324522]

>>3324516
Oh sweet jesus thats a bad list

[Anonymous No.3324526]

>>3324516
You are everything that's wrong with this board.

[Anonymous No.3324533]

>>3324516
>Beauvoir
>nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.3324537]

>>3324251

That's a pretty solid list (better than the other one posted because political philosophy is actually represented in this one), but I would recommend adding to it A Theory of Justice by Rawls.

If it hasn't become considered a classic yet, it certainly will be soon.

>>3324522
>>3324526

It's not that bad, it just focuses heavily on anarchist political philosophy, existentialism and feminism. Those are definitely the classical texts of these ideologies which are ubiquitous today.

[Anonymous No.3324539]

>>3324476
But I did read it. I studied both in europe and in the us.
I started as a philosopher of mathematics and then I moved away from the whole thing because I was getting kinda of disappointed.

[Anonymous No.3324541]

>>3324537
>It's not that bad, it just focuses heavily on anarchist political philosophy, existentialism and feminism.

You're contradicting yourself.

[Anonymous No.3324546]

>>3324539
>philosopher of maths

Are you saying that you got a PhD in Maths, any job you want, 300k starting?

[Anonymous No.3324549]

>>3324541

You're entitled to your opinion, but I would appreciate if you didn't shove it so energetically in my face. Let's try and be a /lit/tle mature.

[Anonymous No.3324552]

>>3324546

No, I mean I stopped studying analytic philosophy. I studied continental philosophy. I started my master in Europe, I dropped it and I got an MBA.

Now I'm a consultant.

[Anonymous No.3324557]

>>3324516

>second sex

Ahahaha, good one.

>Nietzsche

Entry level young adult literature, sure.

>art of war

>Sartre

I read that, it was shit.

>Camus

Do you happen to be a surrender monkey?

[Anonymous No.3324585]

>>3324539
i am very sorry, i was biased because this is 4chan. after rereading your posts as critique from the inside i can agree to many things, just understand im so used to this childish analytic-continental thing thats going on between teenagers it just instantly made me agressive haha. i can relate to your dissapointment, although for me it is mostly dissapointment in people rather than in the original vienna circle idels, in which i still like to beleive. may i ask where in europe you studied?
also, i agree completely on metaethics, but again its the people who poison it, not the method. they pretty much misuse the cover of logic and analytic philosophy for postulating their premodern value system. what are your thoughts on metaethics? not the people or the filed, just your stance.

[Anonymous No.3324641]

>>3324585
I agree it's mostly about the people. The problem is that a lot of the people founding the discipline where not saints in themselves.

Heidegger as you know wasn't extremely rigorous. And Carnap himself was being childish in his criticism of Heidegger.

I believe that if Neurath and Cassirer would have been more influential the situation of philosophy could have been generally better.

[Anonymous No.3324646]

>>3324585
Ps. I studied in ENS in Paris. And there were other problems there.
So much politicking, ass kissing and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.3324660]

is stirnermania still running wild on here

[Anonymous No.3324663]

>>3324646
i still want to talk metaethics. im mostly interested in expressivism as its so attractive and has so much explanatory potential. even if we are forced to give it up for error theory, i beleive there are many important things to learn from expressivism, even if they are of a more psychological nature. do you consider cuneo valid? or geach?

[Anonymous No.3324733]

>>3324663
I actually don't know Cuneo.

Geach I know him for the Geach-Frege problem which I think is interesting in seeing one of the problems of emotivism.

My idea is still rough and, I admit, I'm still studying trying to understand where I stand.

I believe that ethical judgments work in two ways:
1) They are a teleological judgment. They declare what you believe is the goal of life (which may be more or less universal depending on you) and structures a form of life.
2) Judges the compatibility of certain actions with your form of life.

So for example if your goal is to have a family and feed it you would value hard work, property and temperance.

If your goal is to be a Bohemian artist you would actually value intemperance and otium.

I believe that ethical judgments are performative, that is they construct a field of values from which they tend to judge the world.

Kant of the critique of judgments, Kierkegaard, Hegel and the later wittgenstein are my referents in this, but I'm still having a hard time and being frustrated at how I could possibly posit this in terms understandable for the analytic meta-ethics.

Maybe it's just bs, so I'm also curious of what you think.

[Anonymous No.3324747]

>>3324557
You're quite the pretentious cunt aren't you?

[Anonymous No.3324748]

>>3324663
>>3324733

These two, I sense love.

[Anonymous No.3324749]

>>3324747

How so? I mean, does anyone seriously think much of Nietzsche after the age of 15?

[Anonymous No.3324752]

>>3324749
Nah, he is just one of the most important philosophers we ever had.

[Anonymous No.3324772]

>>3324733

im not sure if i can agree on all ethical judgements being about the meaning of life, as they are seldomly arranged in a way that would fit this image of one big ideal detemining all of our normative beliefs. what i do agree on, is that existential notions are in their nature normative. this basically means existential philosophy is to be solved through metaethics. (the theoretical part of it, that is.
i would consider myself an error theorist, let me elaborate on my reasons for preferring error theory over expressivism, irrealism i simply presume as a common ground.
although normative propositions may be motivated by emotions entirely and as such expressions should not be considered propositions at all, as sentences, they still make a claim about the nature of reality and are truth-apt (although never true).
this isnt quasirealsim, as its still cognitivist. i just think expressivism belongs in descriptive ethics and psychology. when someone says "one ought to do this" they intend to make a claim about reality.

[Anonymous No.3324776]

>>3324752

But is he? Nothing he says hasn't been said by every teenager since 1789, on a daily basis. Nietzsche never had a system or even a method; he just wrote short texts which were interesting as footnotes to bigger, more important texts.

His antichristianity was fairly edgy but in all honesty very immature and shallow - certainly unworthy of any philosophical endeavour - and his ubermensch stuff is vastly retarded in nature. His Zarathustra was the fevered work of a long-standing virgin and it was mostly generic poetry without inherent value. It's even considered to be his worst book by many academics,

I understand the edginess of the moustached author is appealing to young people with recent pubic hairs, but for a grown man to confess an adoration of him, just not, you have to be more demanding.

Nietzsche's ubermensch was everything he wasn't himself: it is the wetdream of the impotent, the fantasy of the lazy, the admission of weakness of the strong that never was.

Nietzsche was a sorry piece of shit of a human being. And you are upset.

[Anonymous No.3324787]

Plato - seriously, read all of his work if you get the chance
Aristotle - Metaphysics, Ethics, Organon (primordial of Logic)
Plotinus - Enneads
Aurelius - Meditations
Aquinas - Summa
Descartes - Meditations, Discourse on Method
Berkeley - Treatise of Human Nature
Spinoza - Ethics
Leibniz - Monadology, Discourse on Metaphysics
Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Kant - all of it
Fichte - Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy
Hegel - Science of Logic, followed by the Phenomenology of Spirit; 'can throw in his illuminative Introductory Lessons on Aesthetics too
Schopenhauer - The World as Will and Representation, Essays
Kierkegaard - Either/Or
Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morals
Heidegger - Being and Time
Wittgenstein - The Tractatus, Philosophical Investigations
Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery, The Open Society and Its Enemies

[Anonymous No.3324792]

>>3324787

Sounds like the most solid list ITT, guys.

Thanks anon, you're a gentleman and a scholar, and I mean it.

[Anonymous No.3325306]

Keep posting, motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.3325329]

I'm extremely young, so
>take it easy

I recently watched a documentary on Nietzsche, called Friedrich Nietzsche: Human, all too Human, and he really fascinated me. Why does /lit/ really despise him, and condemn people for reading him? I understand that he should be read in the right context, and no one should exclusively read his philosophies, but it seems there is a general contempt on this board for him.

[Anonymous No.3325360]

>>3324101
Where can one find good secondary sources? I can't really afford to pick up philosophy courses since I'm majoring in Chinese and International Econ, but I avidly read in spare time (what seldom of it I have). So where can I find good sources to accompany my readings?

[Anonymous No.3325383]

>>3325329
It is exactly what you said. We don't really hate on Nietzsche overall. The simple fact is, that he is nothing special. There are other great philsophers who have been at least as influencial as Nietzsche.
What is annoying everyone are all the people who have no clue about philosophy and only have read Zarathustra, but mention it as their favorite philosophical work and Nietzsche as there favorite philsopher, while not even knowing who Plato is.

[Anonymous No.3325409]

>>3325329
It's mainly because people on /lit associate him with the teenage edgy fandom he has unfortunately and unwantingly sired. Nietzsche is particularly tricky in that he seems more straightforward and easier to understand than most philosophers (see for instance his compatriots Kant or Hegel) while he often relies on suggestion and double meaning more than he builds an consistent and organized argument on a particular point. That's why edgy teenagers love him: he sounds revolutionary and controversial, he sounds to them like the rockstar of occidental philosophy. Long story short, he is at odds with the very philosophical tradition that produced him, and it is probably more cautious to make sense of his writings while considering his relations to this tradition.

[Anonymous No.3325493]

I'm a math major right now, but I really want to start studying philosophy on my own. I've started with the Greeks and the Pre-Socratic philosophers, but I'm wondering if I could really just do this on my own? Are being in a class really that important when it comes to learning philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3325499]

>>3324163

This.

[Anonymous No.3325567]

>>3325360

The book has lists of secondary works you can consult to study it in depths. Any library will have secondary sources on this classic.

Maybe see of Norton has a critical edition on it. Norton's critical editions always have the essential criticism for classics WITH the classics.

[Anonymous No.3325576]

>>3325329

I shat on Nietzsche; he is mostly liked on /lit/. The reason I attack him is that his edgy views are often more like taunts and effects than actual philosophy.

I don't despise him THAT much though. Rest assured.

[demiurge No.3325578]

>>3325493
reposting the usual phil help copypasta:

>Start with the greeks, then go with existentialism. You will hate the greeks. After, read structuralism and post structuralism, you will hte existentialism. Read the history of metaphysic to understand Derrida, see how Plato is awesome. Go back to the greeks, and consider everything else as shit. Read Platon, Aristotle, Plotinius to Medieval Philosophy. See that Medieval is shit, go read Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz. Read Hume and say : "aw man, such a party breaker" then read Kant to see that Modern philosophy before Kant is shit. Read Kant, Hegel and German Idealisme. Marxism. Think you should know a bit more about analytic (anglo-saxon) philosophy, take class, see that's shit, never do it again ever. Take a phenomelogy class to piss off scientist philosophy. Read Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, etc. to Heidegger. See that Heidegger is right, and phenomenology, scientist, and the rest of philosophy is shit exept maybe Plato and Aristotle and MAYBE Kant. Discover you only like philo about existence, go back with existantialism, but leave Sartre (he suck). Read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoievsky, Beckett, Camus. Read all Camus, exept myth of syssiphus (suck). Go to the pre-socratics, like them. Understand that the cultural and context is important after reading Gadamer and Hermeneutic. Reread marx, critical theory, structuralism and post-structuralism. See that Hegel is one of the most important philosopher of philosophy. Go back to Kant, love Kant. Understand the need of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. Read philosophy history. When you know all this, read Blanchot, Bataille (awesomme Bataille) and all of critique de la littérature. And finaly, never go back to analytic ever... NEVER

[Anonymous No.3325580]

>>3325409

>implying Zarathustra was unrelated to Nazi thinking
>it totally was
>scholars been trying to wash the swastika off Fred for decades

[Anonymous No.3325585]

>>3325493

Don't bother. More often than not, the only thing philosophy is good for is causing depression.

Please trust me on this. I really wish I would have never started reading philosophical works.

[Anonymous No.3325586]

>>3325493
>if I could really just do this on my own?

I graduated in English and I took philo too. I gave up after a year because the classes were fucking shit. I decided to study it on my own.

It's far, far superior.

[demiurge No.3325599]

>>3325329
no one hates fri-fri, the problem lies in his 'fanbase' so to speak, that is, maladjusted teenagers naively misinterpreting his texts, nazis, and people who are drawn in because of the 'easy' aphoristic style. he's a perfectly good philosopher. get some good commentary and a firm grounding on greek shit and you're set.

[Anonymous No.3325614]

>>3325580
>implying I was implying
>implying I was implying what I actually wasn't implying
>implyings my post was about implying what your post implied I was implying
>implying I'm a nazi
>implying is for Jews and fags anyway

[Anonymous No.3325643]

Skip the boring Greek/Medieval shit.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume
Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics by Immanuel Kant
Novum Organum by Francis Bacon
Elements of the Philosophy of Right by G.W.F. Hegel
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill
Discourse on the Arts and Sciences by Jean Jacques Rousseau
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Creative Mind by Henri Bergson
The True and the Evident by Franz Brentano
Course in General Linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure

[Anonymous No.3325653]

>>3325643
>Skip the boring Greek

[Anonymous No.3325712]

>>3325653
Doesn't work that well when "plebeian" is Latin, not Greek...

[Anonymous No.3325741]

The consolation of philosophy by Boethius is a stellar work. Its also a penguin if you're looking for a cheaper option.

[Anonymous No.3325742]

>>3325712
the greeks spoke latin. noob

[Anonymous No.3325754]

>>3325742
Plato didn't.

[Anonymous No.3325765]

>>3325742

What? I'm sure some Greeks did, but many Romans in the Classical Period spoke Greek. Caesar never would have said 'Et tu, Brute' - he would have used the Greek equivalent.

[Anonymous No.3325772]

is approaching philosophy chronologically recommended? i was thinking of going in with an approach similar to a fat mexican kid going after a pinata blindfolded; swinging my big stick with reckless abandon, hoping I land a good hit that disembowels that great papier mache deity of war huitzilopochtli and am rewarded for my efforts with the sweet innards the of that mythical hummingbird: paleta tama roca, panchos and pica gomas, pulparindo, tamarindo rolls, and the sweet caramelized milk of the goat, cajeta!

[Charles Dingus !!N4jGcT6O5vY No.3325848]

No "Two Dogmas Of Empiricism"? You can honestly read this paper during an episode of the Simpsons. It was voted the most influential journal paper of the 20th century. It brought about a radical shift in epistemology.

[Anonymous No.3325884]

My current list of philosophy books I've finished completely goes;
1. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
2. An Enquiry Concerning the Concerning Human Understanding
3. Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic
4. Existentialism and Human Emotions

Apart from that I've read most or a good portion of the following, and/or have a good deal of knowledge of:
Being and Nothingness
Philosophical Investigations
Sex and Character
A bit about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Schopenhauer, Kant, Russell
Plato's Cave
Aristotelian Logic
I'm sure I'm missing stuff; it's been a few years since I started. Call me a pleb but I can't say I've read ten works that I consider to be essential in the canon. Only so much time in the day, poor as fuck, wake up, work, eat, sleep etc. Hard to be a philosopher without a formal education.

[Anonymous No.3326109]

Just posting this cuz i love it

[Anonymous No.3326112]

Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism (Outlines of Skepticism)

[Anonymous No.3326279]

>not reading ALL the philosophy

[Anonymous No.3326976]

>>3326109
>Thoreau's neckbeard and hut
>Kierkegaard rocking that Elvis look
>Nietzsche dressed as Superman
>Heidegger wearing a nazi band

Amazing.

[Anonymous No.3327175]

>>3325741

Penguin books aren't cheap in my country. They're considered high class in terms of edition, which they are.

[Anonymous No.3327181]

>>3325772
>is approaching philosophy chronologically recommended?

Yes, that's how it is. You can't read philosophy from the future, neither could any of the people who wrote these books.

[Anonymous No.3327187]

>>3326109

Fukken saved.

[Anonymous No.3327190]

>>3326112

OP here, I've actually read that as part of a class on Montaigne. Shit's fucking epic. I wish Pyrrho had more recognition; he seems as important as Socrates, and the skeptics are more in line with current idealogy than Platonism.

Why isn't Sextus more famous?

[Anonymous No.3327192]

>>3326279

>the philosophy
>the

Fuck off, French piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.3327193]

>>3325643
you've got some nice picks there, except Mill, but after skipping 'the boring' Greek/Medieval shit, have you considered killing yourself?

[Anonymous No.3327206]

>>3327193

That was an uncessary sage you fucking cunt.

[Anonymous No.3327213]

>>3327193

OP here, I disagree with skipping Greeks and Medevial thinkers, but I believe that opinion should be heard, not saged, so behave yourself and stop doubting your opinion.

[Anonymous No.3327233]

>>3325643
>Skip the boring Greek

[Anonymous No.3327234]

>>3324103

>mephysics

>meh

Oh God, I must have been tired.

[Anonymous No.3327423]

Ditch Plato and read Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.3327427]

>>3327423

Isn't he Roman?

[Anonymous No.3327802]

>>3327423
I love you anon.

By the way: which translation of the Enneads do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.3328724]

>>3324772
The single idea was to simplify. It's not a simple idea, it's what is usually intended for a weltanschauung, a world view. Which in itself it's a sort of fantasy that emerges, this is my geology, from an aggregate of desires, affections and appetites.

I believe that metaethics has two facets:

1) Telling how we should make moral judgments, or should talk about them. And on this I'm sympathetic with error theory. There are no moral facts and no moral truths so when you talk about them you fall into error.

2) How we make moral judgments. And here I believe it's a mix bag. We use every instrument. We check our emotional response, we confront our little table of duties, we calculate what is more convenient for everyone and what's more convenient for us and who we love and then we filter everything through our idea of fairness (which is kinda like the ideal condition of reciprocity of Habermas' comunicative reason, derived from Kant's idea of treating moral agents as ends, and as such as mirror images of us).

That's why, because of this multitude of inputs, I believe two things:

1) It's impossible to think ethics without understanding the desire that is hidden in it.
2) The moral has its dimension in the tragic. It's a conflict of instances (this is Hegel and his reading of the Antigone) not a streamlined process. I believe understanding it's conflicting nature, its being aporetic (that is leaving the subject without resources) is essential to produce a good description of it.

You are a moral agent not when you tell the truth (or all of our actions would be moral, even take a crap in the morning) nor when you lie when you have no obligation of telling the truth (if a stranger asks me if I have $100 I'm justified in my lying), but when two principles conflict.

For example: should I lie to the police and let my friend get away with the crime, or should I tell the truth and let him get caught?

This conflict, between two instances, is where morality is.

[Anonymous No.3330032]

Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous No.3330747]

>>3330032

There's a contradiction in Rand that nobody was ever able to deal with: she assumes everyone is selfish by nature and that we ought to be; but then, she opposes certain decisions, such as the Vietnam War, assuming that helping Vietnam will not help Americans and that it is therefore an unselfish act and shouldn't be done.

1. I doubt this was was engaged selflessly
2. fighting communism was never disinterested

Wouldn't you say that Ayn Rand makes pseudo-philosophy out of kindergarten human condition?

[Anonymous No.3330756]

>>3327802
don't listen to him. read both of them.

also get not only The Enneads, but The Philosophy of Plotinus by W. R. Inge as secondary literature

[Anonymous No.3330765]

>>3330747
Her 'selfishness' is not grounded on the idea that 'selfishness is inherent in the human condition' but 'one should follow ones own reason instead of being biased by a code of morality enforced by consensus.'

Her main argument against the Vietnam war was one of the states involvement; the state using tax money to fight a war that isn't economically beneficial.

Rand was a contrary libertarian. She wanted to provide the 'antidote' to Marxism. Marx created an economic system and founded it on spurious axioms, she did the same with hyper-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3330768]

>>3324787

Meditations by Aurelius had the biggest effect on me. One of my favorite books

[Anonymous No.3330772]

>>3330768

Would it have the same effect on a non-believer?

[Anonymous No.3330782]

>>3330765

The antidode to Communism was already found: Fascism, and countless Fascists have died to weaken Communism. Without Hitler and his Fascists, we'd all be red today.

[Anonymous No.3330783]

>>3330768

I got this coming in Loeb edition!>>3330772

[Anonymous No.3330784]

>>3330772

Believer in stoicism?

[Anonymous No.3330787]

>>3330772
>non-believer

Are you seriously that stupid or just playing an innocent, ignorant little pup? What are you a non-believer of? Christian God? There is so much more to God than Christianity; for Aurelius it was pantheism; If you're going through your first, baby existentialist crisis, introduce yourself to the history of philosophy before spitting your degenerative drivel of pseudo-nihilism all-over. Read it yourself, and see, if you can relate to his thoughts or not.

[Anonymous No.3330793]

>>3330787
You idiot. He's worried about being able to see gaping flaws in theories that rely on an appeal to theism.

[Anonymous No.3330796]

>>3330787

Relax, he merely asked a question. He didn't spew edgy atheism out from every orifice in his body. We should be thankful for that.

Sorry, non-believing anon. Aurelius was basically doing a summary of stoicism, so you should be OK with "beliefs".

[Anonymous No.3330797]

>>3330787

Isn't pantheism effectively the same thing as non-theism?

[Anonymous No.3330799]

>>3330793
>to see gaping flaws in theories that rely on an appeal to theism.

Please show some.

[Anonymous No.3330804]

>>3330799

Many Christian thinkers fall prey to that sort of thing, Pascal being one

[Anonymous No.3330806]

>>3330797

Yes. If God is "everything", then you might as well assume He doesn't exist, because:

universe = God

then there's no difference, and thus no God, since what we experience sensually is what we call the universe.

The God of Christianity is both immanent and transcendent; that is, He is everything, but He is also more, exists within space and time, but also beyond.

[Anonymous No.3330807]

>>3330804
>Pascal being one
Kants entire stance on ethics being another.

[Anonymous No.3330810]

>>3330804

You didn't show me an exact instance of what you claim.

Pascal's main reason for Christianity was that he was witnessed to several miracles.

[Anonymous No.3330817]

>>3330810

>Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
>There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.
>Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.
>In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.
>There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous.
>All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling.
>He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God's providence to lead him aright.

[Anonymous No.3330822]

>>3324150
Seriously. Very seriously, Markus somebody. Seriously .

[Anonymous No.3330824]

>>3330817
>>Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

Gross misrepresentation of Pascal's Wager. All he said was that, excluding all other religions, if you're stuck between Christianity and atheism, the only logical thing to do is to choose Christianity. Admittedly, this isn't very glorious, nor can it bring real faith, nor did Pascal think much of this beyond stating the obvious.

>There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man

I feel that. I think everyone who digs a little inside will find some gap they could call that way.

These are pretty good quotes, actually. You're just mad because they require some spirituality.

[Anonymous No.3330825]

>>3330822
>Seriously. Very seriously, Markus somebody. Seriously .
Seriously? Seriously. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.3330830]

>>3330824

This kind of thinking is the exact kind of thing I'm trying to avoid by asking the question I did.

I have no interest in faith or any mode of thinking that relies on said for cogency

[Anonymous No.3330833]

Not another fucking God debate! You edgy atheists and you God-defenders, stop it right the fuck now.

I will delete my thread if you don't focus back on topic. For fuck's sake: every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.3330837]

>>3330768

my god I have started a shitstorm

>>3330772
Im a non-believer and I loved it. most of his thoughts resonated with me

[Anonymous No.3330838]

>>3330833

Discussing the nature of faith as a tool for thinking is not the same thinking as arguing the question of the existence of god. Relax.

[Anonymous No.3330842]

>>3330838

I won't relax, I know exactly where this is going. I have seen it happen a million times.

[Anonymous No.3330845]

>>3330833
Save it and delete it, as it is maxed out (with recommendations) already.

[Anonymous No.3330847]

>>3330842

It doesn't have to go anywhere nasty. I don't think there are any edgy atheists in this thread.

[Anonymous No.3330850]

>>3330847
Not yet there aren't, but give it time.

[Anonymous No.3330851]

>>3330845

If anyone else wants to save the thread as a PDF: here it is:

http://pdfmyurl.com/

[Anonymous No.3330878]

>>3330847
>edgy atheists.

I wish you militant agnostics would stop saying that. Your need to feel superior is nauseating.

[Anonymous No.3330886]

Oh, shit. You were right, OP. Time to delete the fucker.

[Anonymous No.3330895]

>>3330878

Atheism is demonstrably inferior to theistic agnosticism.

This is baby stuff.

[Anonymous No.3330914]

>>3330895
Atheism is the belief (not proof) that there is no God. We can arrive at this conclusion through Bayesianism probability. Agnosticism is relativistic fence-sitting, and useless against the global theology epidemic.

The agnostic champion, Neil Degrasse Tyson, gives a shoulder shrug to the atrocities caused by religion. The noble atheist champions like Hitchens and Dawkins wielded a mighty sword, and delivered a much needed blow to the ignorant American midwest.

[Anonymous No.3330918]

>>3324183
The point of the republic is that it's an allegory for the just man, the state in it represents the well ordered soul. I don't buy that cynical jewish interpretation at all.

[Anonymous No.3330920]

>>3330914

This is easily the funniest thing I've read all week.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.3330922]

>Neil Degrasse Tyson
>Hitchens
>Dawkins

Delete it. Delete it now, OP. Hurry.

[Anonymous No.3330923]

[Anonymous No.3330929]

>>3330922

This. Please.

[Anonymous No.3330932]

>>3330922
>Still opposing atheism
>71AD(After Dawkins)

[Anonymous No.3330933]

>>3330932

[Anonymous No.3330961]

>>3330914

[Anonymous No.3330968]

OP was right: this thread has degenerated fast into an unhallowed orgy of blasphemies and nonsense, pseudo-science and edginess.

[Anonymous No.3331002]

>>3330968
That's what usually happens on a board populated by pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, teenage, nihilistic agnostics.

[Anonymous No.3331006]

>>3331002

Ask yourself the question:

why can't I hold all these buzzwords?

[Anonymous No.3331007]

>>3331002

Indeed. We should make a board for adults exclusively.

[Anonymous No.3331011]

>>3331006

You're one edgy teen!

[Anonymous No.3331026]

>>3331011

Keep 'em coming.

[Anonymous No.3331041]

>>3331026

[Anonymous No.3332249]

>>3324776
>his antichristianity

>implying übermensch is a person or state of being, and not an action of how to perceive the world.

Are you american? I heard you can't read Nietzsche because you focus entirely on the 'death of god', and not the consequences of it.

Kierkegaard as well. I read both of them as existentialists, Nietzsche attempts to create his own meaning, Kierkegaard finds it in the absurdness of God entering the world through Jesus.

Sorry if i can't articulate my self, but surely someone can back me up here. Nietzsche is not about antichristianity. It might be a part of his thinking though.

[Anonymous No.3332415]

>>3332249

>Nietzsche wasn't antichristian
>wrote a whole book shitting on Christians

You sure know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.3332506]

>>3332415
He likes Jesus, he doesn't like christianity, but even so saying that his anti-christianity is shallow shows that >>3324776 is a pretty shallow person.

[Anonymous No.3332549]

>>3332506

He didn't like Jesus. He thought he was Jesus.

Nietzsche is an overrated piece of ass.

[Anonymous No.3332560]

>>3332549
You're just jealous of his moustache.

[Anonymous No.3332578]

>>3332249
he admired Jesus' rhetorical ability as shown in Thus Spoke Zarathustra but he felt that religion was no longer strong enough to support people

[Anonymous No.3332594]

>>3332560

I am

>>3332578

So what's required, a new religion based on Nietzsche's writings? It exists, it's a farce, and it attracts teenagers, as expected.

>Laveyan Satanism

[Anonymous No.3332598]

>>3332594
>a new religion based on Nietzsche's writings?
Count me in.

[Anonymous No.3332603]

>>3332594
>So what's required, a new religion based on Nietzsche's writings? It exists, it's a farce, and it attracts teenagers, as expected.

No, I think he hoped we could stand alone without religion.

[Anonymous No.3332640]

-Plato - Republic or Phaedo
-Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics, Metaphysics, or Politics
-Descartes - Meditations
-Hume - Inquiry concerning human understanding
-Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
-Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil
-Russell - Problems of Philosophy (best book for an overall picture of philosophy that I could EVER recommend)
-Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico Philosophicus
-Camus - Sisyphus

That is about all you REALLY need. IMO, you can get a TL;DR of philosophy by reading Bertrand Russell's "Problems of Philosophy" and "A History of Western Philosophy".

[Anonymous No.3332654]

>>3326109

fucking loled so hard, especially at the Heidegger , Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer ones

[Anonymous No.3332678]

>>3332640
I hope you die irl

[Anonymous No.3332699]

>>3324101
Make sure you cover:
1Classical Greeks and Romans
2 The medieval philosophies who tried to mix the philosophy with their revealed religions
3 The moderns

May I also be bold in recommending that you read from the East and not just the Occident?

[Anonymous No.3334170]

>>3332506
You did not read what i wrote. I responded to a post proclaiming that Nietzsche is useless because all he do is show off his anti-christianism.

He is anti-christian, i did not say he weren't, but you don't read Nietzsche because of it. You read Nietzsche because he was one of the first to attempt to put his own meaning into an empty world. Sorry if i made it unclear, or if i'm not as eloquent as other posters here, but i just meant that Nietzsche is much more than an edgy kid. The post i replied to assumed that >his antichristianity was fairly edgy but in all honesty very immature and shallow

It just seems like a troll post, because a lot of scholars have written about Nietzsche, and we still read him. If you think his ideas are too 'edgy' (please lets stop using this word), then you might not be suited to read philosophy. It's like saying you can't read Kierkegaard because of his leap of faith.

The poster i replied to in the first place also took übermensch literal, as in a person or race, when it's the way he thought men could take control in an empty world

>>3332594
>a new religion based on Nietzsche's writings

Have you guys even read Nietzsche?

I would like to discuss this in a better place than in a dead thread, because it seems like theres a lot of misunderstanding here.
There are a number of things we need to beware of, such as thinking as the universe as either a living being or machine, thinking there are laws of nature when there are only necessities, thinking that death is opposed to life when the living is simply a rare type of what is dead, replacing the fiction of God with a cult of matter, and so on.

Nietzsche still matters because people still get him wrong, or else, when they read him, they think 'this is simple, theres no inherent meaning in the world' and throw him away.

[Anonymous No.3334182]

>>3332678
be nice, even when ironic

[Anonymous No.3334262]

>>3332699
That gif is so strange.

[Anonymous No.3334463]

>>3324101
Not sure about a list, but I'd include "Problems of philosophy" by Bertand Rusel. Republic is excellent for political philosophy, something to do with aquinas as he was influential, kant is necessary (get it? logical) and then probably something like fear and trembeling

[Anonymous No.3334494]

>>3332640
>Russell - Problems of Philosophy
haha, good one bro

>Camus - Sisyphus
hahahahahahah

[demiurge No.3334519]

>>3334494
agreed those kinda suck shit

also

>going from kant to nietzsche

are you high

[Anonymous No.3334525]

>>3334519

Why do you think The Myth of Sisyphus sucks shit?

[Anonymous No.3334528]

>>3324163
i like your list, though i would change "Tractatus" with the Sartre: Existentialism

[Anonymous No.3334959]

>>3334170
>than in a dead thread,

Your mom's a dead thread.

[Anonymous No.3334964]

>>3334528

>implying Sartre is worth anything

[Anonymous No.3334996]

>>3334528
Sartre is pure crap, don't bother