/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4175902]

I'm attempting to read philosophy, but am finding that it's difficult to find a list of what order in which to approach these books. A common answer is to 'just read what you're interested in', but I'd like a more organized approach; I.E. For now, just a broad sort of 'most important books' type thing.

Clearly there are some books that have to follow others (Aristotle's Politics after his Nichomacean Ethics, and both of those only after Plato's Republic).

Any suggestions? Particularly for Stoicism and Existentialism.

[Anonymous No.4175929]

If you absolutely want an organized approach, then start by reading the pre-Socratics, then Plato and Aristotle. That should keep you busy for a year or two.

And yeah, the point isn't to just read them through. Every time you finish a work you should stop and think about. Write down what was said, what it might mean and other thoughts, like how what you just read might apply in the modern world. Also think about the development of thought, as you are taking a historical approach. It can give some insight as to what lead Plato to his model of ideas and Aristotle to his teleological thinking. Some Ancient Greek related history might be a good accompaniment to help you put things in perspective.

After that you should have a good idea of what problems interest you, helping you choose the next step.

[Anonymous No.4175940]

Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Aquinas, Spinoza, Hegel, Stirner, Wittgenstein, Whitehead

[Anonymous No.4175954]

>>4175902
For philosophy in general, just start with Plato. Seriously. I can't stress this enough. And then once you've had your fill of Aristotle, Lucretius, Aquinas, what-have-you, start on early modern philosophy with Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. And try reading Kant, if only the Groundwork and the Prolegomena.
Anyway,
>Particularly for Stoicism and Existentialism.
>Stoicism
Epictetus is the only one I've read. Don't care much for Stoicism, to be honest.
>Existentialism
Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling, The Concept of Anxiety), Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, The Gay Science), and Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus) are the easier ones. If you start getting into, say, Sartre, you're going to run up against phenomenology, which is awesome but hard. There you also want to read Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, and Merleau-Ponty.

[Anonymous No.4175957]

Okay, say you do this:

Pick Plato's Republic as the main book. Read through it once, taking notes.

Then read it again, while cross-checking with "Plato: A guide for the perplexed" and the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy and perhaps an article or two directly geared towards explicating The Republic. There is a whole literature out there on this.

Then see which texts that are mentioned as possible influences on The Republic.

Then do the same with these texts.

Then see which texts are mentioned as influenced in some way BY the Republic. And boy howdy are there a lot.

Do the same with these texts.

You might now argue "but really you're just telling me to read Plato's Republic". That would to some extent be correct. But when you've done that, you can return with a question like "I've read the Republic really well and some supporting literature, and now I wonder if I should go with Aristotle, make the jump to Augustine of Hippo or just go straight to Kant, or if I'm better off reading the Symposium and Gorgias first, or even boning up on some of the Pre-Socratics."

And you'll already be well on your way.

[Anonymous No.4175961]

You can use Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy as a reading guide.

[Anonymous No.4175966]

>>4175957
>Pick Plato's Republic as the main book.
Bad place to start with Plato, for what it's worth. I'd start with the Gorgias and the Phaedrus. But the Republic is required reading if only because it's one of the first works of philosophy to really tie together as many different subjects as it does—ethics, politics, the soul/metaphysics/epistemology, a bit of aesthetics...

>>4175961
I have big reservations about this one, if only because Russell's readings of some philosophers are absolutely abysmal and I'd hate to see somebody develop preconceptions from this book and then end up dismissing Aquinas, Hegel, Nietzsche, Plato, James, Dewey, Bergson... It's a long list.

[Anonymous No.4175986]

>>4175966

I agree The Republic isn't really the best place to start with Plato, but I'd still argue it's a great hub for a philosophy reading project.

Also, my main point really is that just reading the texts on their own, on your own, is way less rewarding than reading them within a context and checking up on how other people throughout the years have interpreted them.

[Anonymous No.4176106]

>>4175966
I'd even throw in Meno as an easier Plato book to start with.

[Anonymous No.4176606]

Existentialism? Gotta hit Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.4176613]

If you want to be a stoic read The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius OP. Godtier philosophy text of all godtier philosophy texts.

[Anonymous No.4176627]

>>4176613
Kierkegaard shits on everyone.

[Anonymous No.4176636]

OP, Why is your picture so wrong?

[Anonymous No.4176642]

>>4176636
because it's from a website called 'celebritytypes.com'

[Anonymous No.4176643]

For existentialism, read Kierkegaard to start. Specifically Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments.

Fear and Trembling is another good start, but the above is where it's really at.

[Anonymous No.4176649]

>>4176106

I second this, OP. The Meno is really great. Very accessible, and it's honestly a good read to introduce you into epistemology(from what I recall it isn't so much focused on actually identifying an epistemic system or anything, but it touches on why knowledge is valuable).

OP, the great thing about philosophy is that it so intertwined that you don't need to pick an objective starting point. Honestly, the only reason to do such a thing is to maybe understand the historical development of it. Lots of people have re-hashed and discussed and argued about the same material for a long time.

Also, if you do insist on reading philosophy in a certain order I would suggest trying to read a lot of epistemology first. It's really great because epistemology is something that underlies all of philosophy, and it will get you to start questioning the way in which you think you know things.

I would suggest personally to read the Meno, and if you want to go the historical route then continue to read the big 3(Aristotle, Plato, Socrates), but if you take my advice, read Sextus Empiricus on the five modes of skepticism. Then continue on to Descartes' Meditations, Berkeley's dialogue between Philonous and Hylas, and then David Hume's reply.

[Anonymous No.4176654]

>>4176649
> Berkeley's dialogue between Philonous and Hylas

I think A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge is a much better Berkeley recommendation. It's better written, more compact and more systematic.

[Anonymous No.4176679]

>>4176643

Good recs, but I'd start with Ecclesiastes first.

It's the best preface to start off with.
Sets the stage for further reading quite nicely.

>Godtier philosophy text of all godtier philosophy texts.

But anon, Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' exists, so this can't be true.

[Anonymous No.4176682]

>>4176643

Good recs, but I'd start with Ecclesiastes first.

It's the best preface to start off with.
Sets the stage for further reading quite nicely.

[Anonymous No.4176987]

>>4176643
>For existentialism, read Kierkegaard to start. Specifically Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments.
>Starting with the Concluding Unscientific Postscript
What are you doing
that's like recommending that somebody start on Heidegger with Contributions to Philosophy (On The Event).

[Anonymous No.4177001]

>>4176987
What would you suggest then?

[Anonymous No.4177010]

>>4177001
Not sure, to be honest. I know I've seen For Self-Examination recommended as a starting point, and I like that. I personally started with Either/Or, but came out having no clue what had happened. It's probably not a much better start than Concluding Unscientific Postscript. I'd probably recommend Fear and Trembling and The Sickness Unto Death, personally. And you should probably read Philosophical Fragments before reading the Concluding Scientific Postscript.

[Anonymous No.4177032]

There's a Coursera Philosophy 101 course starting in 2 days. AFAIK, they start with a structured approach to the Greeks

[Anonymous No.4177259]

>>4175961
That book is more like 'my shitty opinions and why I didn't bother to read what I dismiss' by some uppity mathematician.

[Anonymous No.4178310]

Definitely read "The Stranger"

[Anonymous No.4178523]

heideggerian antropology +religious taoism+Nietzschian aristocracism+Heraclitu's metaphysics is the best possible combination in my opinion
>tfw bioengineer
>tfw if someone gets to have access first to neuronal implants it wont be you humanistfags
>tfw my first action as a transhuman will be to hunt hipster intellectuals that didnt apply their ideas to change the human condition signifcantly and therefore wasted their time
>tfw you cant stop me, neuronal implants give me have the intelligence of 6 billion human beings
aaaah, my pipedreams; der steppenwolf had to think of suicide to sleep at night, I need to think of becoming a murderous omnipotent Jehova

[Anonymous No.4178536]

>>4178523
*heraclitus'

[Anonymous No.4178540]

>>4178523
>give me have the
what is wrong with me today?

[Anonymous No.4178577]

>>4178536
>>4178540
not really selling us the sizzle, are you?

[Anonymous No.4178718]

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.4178731]

Start with Hume
Seriously

[Anonymous No.4178741]

>>4178731
I have heard this from quite a few people on /lit/. Kant as well, OP.

[Anonymous No.4178755]

>>4178741
>Kant as well
What? that's terrible advice

[Anonymous No.4180628]

>>4178741
Kant is one of the driest writers in philosophical literature. I'd start with something easier to read.

[Anonymous No.4180672]

Maybe Myth of Sissy?

[Anonymous No.4180735]

I'm INFJ. It's the most rare of the Meyer Briggs IMBT personality types, I read on one of its related websites once.

The personality typology of meyer briggs isnt useless, but essentially flawed. They are cool, though. They do "describe" your personality type(NOT your personality. Some people arent aware they're seperate things)rather accurately to a point.

Any other INFJ's here? Is life just... not "good" for you, too?

[Anonymous No.4180901]

>>4180735
INFJ here...life goes between being wonderful and really really dissapointing

[Anonymous No.4180912]

>>4180735
>>4180901

[Anonymous No.4180931]

>>4180912
you feel it appropriate to represent INTJ peoples with a .gif of a mentally deranged insane individual?

hm.

[Anonymous No.4180940]

>MBTI bullshit
make it stop

[Anonymous No.4180959]

How about back to philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4180980]

>>4180931
really, that .gif isn't supposed to mock intj's specifically, just everyone who believes in Meyers Briggs brand of astrology, like you.

[Anonymous No.4181608]

>>4178523
>give me have the intelligence of 6 billion human beings

>yfw you're in a self induced coma as your consciousness is racked between billions of others and you become stuck in a perpetual identity crisis with no sense of time nor sensory input as you enter psychosis each time you don't recognize your body

[Anonymous No.4181707]

Just a quick question. Will I be able to understand Kierkegaard's Either/Or if the only philosophy ive read is greek?