Introduction to philosophy by eminent philosophers

[Anonymous No.19075109]

What are some essential texts about the nature and function of philosophy that are not straight up history of philosophy?

So far I've got:

Continental
Man Alone With Himslef, Nietzsche
What is Called Thinking?, Heidegger
Discourse on the Method, Descartes
The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus
The Order of Things, the Tunisian diddler

Analytic
An Outline of Philosophy, Russell
What Does it Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?, Kant

[Anonymous No.19075123]

>>19075109
Analysis and Metaphysics by Peter Strawson

[Anonymous No.19075125]

>>19075109
Phaedo tells you the purpose of philosophy. Don't read the work of sophists.

[Anonymous No.19075138]

>>19075109
You literally have to work chronologically, the Greeks influenced all subsequent philosophy, you cannot understand Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, etc, without a solid grasp of Plato and Aristotle at least, skip the pragmatic philosophies (stoicism, Epicureanism) and theology and you won’t loose much btw

[Anonymous No.19075146]

>>19075109

[Anonymous No.19075273]

>>19075123
Added. Thanks, Anon

>>19075125
>>19075138
I'm slowly working my way up to Plato and I took a History of Philosophy 101 course years ago. I'd like to read something more "relevant" on the side while I work chronologically. I know I'll probably end up reading these again once I get to them but that's ok.

[Anonymous No.19075415]

>>19075273
Plato is pretty easy to understand. If you want some ‘warm up’ dialogues read Euthyphro and Protagoras

[Anonymous No.19076292]

>>19075415
late Plato is harder than Kant or Hegel. Don't @ me

[Anonymous No.19076532]

>>19075415
I am interspersing philosophy with history and anthropology. Shit takes time.

[Anonymous No.19076716]

An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, John Hospers.
Philosophical Terminology, Theodore Adorno.
A little section in Principia talking about some principles or rules to guide reasoning in philosophical practice, Newton.
Antimanuel de philosophie. Leçons socratiques et alternatives, Michel Onfray.
What Does it All Mean?, Thomas Nagel.
Way to Wisdom, Karl Jaspers.
Maybe The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.

[Anonymous No.19076837]

>>19075109
Kant also has introduction to Logic which was compiled by someone else from his notes and is more about logic than philosophy in general but it does contain his brief history of philosophy and a great section about how to philosophize so I would include it.

[Anonymous No.19076945]

Is there one book I can read to get a solid overview of ancient greek philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19077042]

>>19075109
You should go full analytic, read Sider's Writing the book of the world, and adopt metaphysical structures but also adopt ontological relationships and ontological dimensions. It covers every philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19077511]

>>19075109
Somewhat related: Gödel's lectures on introductory logic at Notre Dame.

[Anonymous No.19077629]

>>19076716
I'm currently rereading Onfray’s antimanual, I never thought I’d see him mentioned here. I will surely be getting a couple of these and strongly considering others, thanks!

>>19076837
I'll try to find out more about this. Any idea under which title or in which book or collection can I find it?

>>19077042
This sounds badass, but too advanced and specific for me as for now. I’ll be taking into consideration Logic for Philosophy and Riddles for Existence though.

>>19077511
I’ll definitely look into this. It seems essential for logic.

[Anonymous No.19079230]

>>19076716
>What Does it All Mean?, Thomas Nagel.
Anyone read it? Is it good?

[Anonymous No.19079534]

>>19079230
From what I’ve heard and judging by the reviews I’d avoid it.

[Anonymous No.19080282]

>>19079534
You'll have to be more explicit than that. How can you say your heard something and not say it. And you say "judging by the reviews", i may as well assume you are only considering the good reviews in your resolution to avoid the book.

[Anonymous No.19080520]

>>19080282
I’ve been making this list for a while now. When I asked one of the teachers I had about it he told me that it was too broad, without a focus on history of philosophy and that the first few classes we had covered most of what it included. Years later I saw it on a friend’s goodreads profile and I asked him about it; his opinion was mostly the same, a good light read but not particularly useful.

[Anonymous No.19081040]

>>19080520
>without a focus on history of philosophy
OP said
>What are some [..] that are not straight up history of philosophy?