[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 84 KB, 475x600, Young Apprentice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4958682 No.4958682[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Western_philosophers

From this following list of philosphers, which ones are the most relevant to study to understand the succession or philosophy to it's present day

>> No.4958693

Depends which area of philosophy you want to understand the succession of.

>> No.4958701

>>4958693
I'm not really familiar with philosophy in general, does this mean i have to read absolutely all of those to understand each and every school that would enlighten me to the succession of philosophy till today?

>> No.4958704

>>4958682
Plato
Aristotle
Machiavelli (if you feel like it),
Descartes, Spinoza and Leibiniz
Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Rousseau
Kant and Hegel
Schopenhauer, Stirner, Marx
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein

These are the bare bones if you want to follow a succinct course of western thought. Of course, you're greatly encouraged to branch out along the way.

>> No.4958713

>>4958704
So if i ignore the rest it woulnd't damage my attempt to understand the general flow of western philosophy? I just don't want to miss something which will pile up as the evolution of philosophy goes

>> No.4958788

bump

>> No.4958821
File: 59 KB, 490x398, 428250-124652445438914-Michael-Clark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4958821

Vico

The rest is just intellectual leisure

>> No.4958936

>>4958821
>The rest is just intellectual leisure

good one.

>> No.4958945

>>4958704
Thanks man I'm gonna copypaste this on a .txt file. What books should I read from each of them?

>> No.4959015

>>4958704
bumping for this

Can some other anons agree with this list?

>> No.4959026

Don't forget the presocratics. Early Greek Philosophy by Jonathan Barnes (basic), The Presocratic Philosophers by Kirk and Raven (less basic).

Hellenistic schools. Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics (aka Pyrrhonists, Outlines of Pyrrhonism/Skepticism by Sextus Empiricus).

Neoplatonists have a strong influence on the subsequent western tradition, often covertly.

Francis Bacon.

These are some commonly overlooked but important sources.

>> No.4959039

Was it part of your plan that philosophy looks ready to die?

>> No.4959068

>Joxe Azurmendi
Ever heard of him? I'm basque and I hadn't

>> No.4959071

Presocratics > Plato > Aristotle > Hellenistic > Early Christianity > Scholasticism > Rationalism > Empiricism > Kant

>> No.4959165

>>4959015
stirner is a joke, otherwise seems fine

>> No.4959170

>>4958704
throw Russell in their too

>> No.4959180
File: 39 KB, 200x414, BhagavanVishnu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4959180

>>4958945
>>4958704
>>4958682

This and Siddartha gautama with selected discourses of Bhuddism

Schopenhauer will be pleased

>> No.4959223

>>4958704
Stirner, Marx
Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche
Husserl, Heidegger
Wittgenstein, Russell ...

>> No.4959285

>>4958936

in a sense was quite serious though

Poor Vico. so ignored

>> No.4960604

This is all you need to learn philosophy.

http://www.henryflynt.org/

>> No.4960713

>>4959180
If you want to understand eastern philosophy the discourses of the Buddha aren't really that good seeing as they're kinda religious as opposed to purely philosophical (not to mention, they're not actually written by him anyway but hundreds of years after his death).

I would suggest the diamond and heart sutra instead. From there I would move on to Dogen and Nagaruna.

Some understanding of Hinduism will also considerably enrich one's appreciation of Buddhism.

>> No.4960838

>>4958821
commodius as fuck

>> No.4960883

why don't you just read it all yourself and then try to work out who is relevant? you'll have a lot more insight into philosophy

>> No.4961048

>>4960604
This is pretty good if you're not overly intelligent. No wonder he doesn't interact with academics.

>> No.4961069

>>4961048
This comment is pretty good if you're not overly intelligent. No wonder he has to post on 4chan.

>> No.4961097

Do you agree with Flynt?

>> No.4961110

>>4961048
>implying he's not too intelligent for the academics so he just makes badass electro-billy funk music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthOPHnIKns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V_5KlVFfUY

>> No.4961121

>>4961110
woops, forgot violin strobe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqUtxnCI_F8

>> No.4961185

Everytimes someone ask how to get into philosophy, people manage to tell him that he must read everything from pre-socratics to modern time.

This seems a little overkill.

A book should be recommanded which is both rigorous and wide in strokes, with the understanding that it's probably biaised (better if explicitely so) and that, upon completion of this first reading, further study of particular philosopher would be advised if the reader was so inclined.

I bet OP doesn't speak french, but in the off chance, I'm currently reading this and it's great:
http://books.google(dot)ca/books?id=jSr61CZ8kpkC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

>> No.4962190
File: 415 KB, 2800x2100, 1401673973128.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4962190

>>4958682
this

>> No.4962200

>>4958704
>no Augustine or Kierkegaard
I understand skipping Aquinas, but this is too much.

>> No.4962204

>all these people saying Nietzsche

If you really want to read a load of childish nonsense there's better places to go.

>> No.4962209

>>4958704
>>4958821
>>4959026
>>4959068
>>4959071
>>4959165
>>4959223
>>4959285
>>4962204

So i figure there really isn't an objective list with the most cold hard philosophies huh

>> No.4962261
File: 153 KB, 282x419, 1399613452802.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4962261

>>4958682
>Western philosophers
Is someone implying that there is such a thing as non-Western philosophers?

>> No.4962286

>>4962190
>Hobbes
No Pascal

>Spencer
No Husserl

>Hayek
No Adorno

fucking anglo-centrism

>> No.4962300

>>4962190
oh my goodness they're all so cute. is there a book that conveys their message in this cute sort of quality?

>> No.4962322

>>4962261
>Sun Tzu
>Confucious

>> No.4962377

>>4962322
Can't get any more summerfag than this.

>> No.4962391

>>4962377
oh, sorry
>jackie chan

>> No.4962396

You must make your own judgements and choose your own path, there is no correct school of thought.

But a life dedicated to mathematics, literature and love is a good life

>> No.4962638

Learning philosophy is literally a life-long journey. It's not an undertaking in which you'll reach an "ah-ha", realizing that you're "finished." Start somewhere and then just go from there.

>> No.4963028

>>4962396
So everything is subjective and i can pick whatever philosophy i want..because all of them are true?

Sorry, this is really confusing for me to understand

>> No.4963259

>>4962190
Whenever I see this I wonder if ever is going to be updated with a (former) /lit/izen?

Who knows, at least one of us idiots might just make it big someday.

>> No.4964349

>>4962190
It's pretty obvious that these are in chronological order. So why Beauvoir and Sartre set in like 1850?

>> No.4964353

>>4964349
I take that back, more like 1900

>> No.4965607

>>4958704
No Sartre....

>> No.4965611

>>4960838
Am I the only one here who genuinely enjoyed Finnegan's Wake?

>> No.4965622

>>4962286
Adorno was a hack who could only think in binaries.

>> No.4965642

>>4958682
Read Oxford companion to philosophy and Blackwell's anthology of philosophy side by side.

>> No.4965692

Yo OP, check me out alright, check me out.

Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Marx, Kierkegaard, Mill, William James, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Freud, Lacan, Sartre, Popper, Quine, Foucault, Rawls.

>> No.4965712

>>4965692
>Nietzsche and Marx
Trashed. Nietzsche did nothing to advance any field and Marx had no clue about social classes.

>> No.4965718

>>4965712
>Baiting this hard

OP wants to study significant philosophers. If you don't actually think they're significant, you're retarded. But then again, this is bait.

>> No.4965719

>>4962322
Nice sounding adages != philosophy. What did those two ever accomplish in any fields of thought?

>> No.4965726
File: 61 KB, 673x501, 1390757408984.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965726

>>4965718
>continentals
>real philosophy

>> No.4965729

>>4965718
Not very significant in serious thought, especially Nietzsche who wrote nothing of any real value. He was a glorified Sunday columnist. Marx is just for what not to think, as he was wrong about everything.

>> No.4965763

>>4962261
>Is someone implying that there is such a thing as non-Western philosophers?

What are your definitions of "Western" and "philosopher"?

>> No.4965780

>>4965763
>western
Western European
>philosopher
a person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.

>> No.4965797
File: 544 KB, 1750x2500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965797

>>4965729
>posting shit

>> No.4965804

>>4965797
Nice rebuttal, kid.

>> No.4965805

>>4965780
>especially as an academic discipline
that's an academic, not a philosopher

>> No.4965821
File: 77 KB, 416x431, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4965821

>>4965805
>the two are mutually exclusive