Alright, I've created a list of every Philosophical work I could think off that people should read, anything you think I've missed?
>>385767
Mein Kampf
>>385767
Everything outside the western tradition.
Which is fine, because you've got to keep some coherency and order, but it's not "every philosophical work that people should read.''
>>385767
Eurocentricism: the post
>>385767
Also, you're political philosophy just fucking stops at Paine.
Leaving out Marx from the western cannon is pretty unforgivable.
You should throw John Duns Scotus into the 'Optional Medieval' section. His major work is his commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
Pretty cool OP. Wouldn't the wisdom books of the bible or ST. Paul's writings or the sayings/parables of Jesus in the gospels be worth throwing in? I mean, if you're gonna include Augustine and Aquinas then it'd only make sense
Working on an update now
You didn't list enough of them. One aspect of philosophy is an infinite curiosity for new and different perspectives.
Basically, there's no such thing as a final set of works people should read.The number and kind of works is ever expanding, and someone interested in philosophy should welcome that
>>386046
I would throw him in the mandatory list personally. He is as important as everyone else in there.
I would throw some Abelard into the optional.
Also, check out Suarez ( he is best placed right in between the Medieval period and the Early Modern rationalists as he is essentially the missing link between the two)
>>386042
It's almost like most of us are English-speaking Westerners, who ever would have thought we would primarily read philosophy related to our civilization?
>>386042
>Eurocentric
>On an English speaking anime image board
Well, I never!
>>386284
The Sumerians, Persians, Chinese, Egyptians and the peoples from the Indus valley certainly wouldn't, and they invented civilization
>>386297
>invented civilization
kek
Jung's work is pretty philosophical, it's from within the context of psychology however.
Trying to create a comprehensive list is retarded though. You missed a ton of the Greeks.
>>386297
I guess those pesky Mayans, Aztecs and Incans crossed an entire ocean to steal civilization from the poor, oppressed Persian and Chinese empires
>>386044
heh, he spelled it like cannon.
clever.
da Western canon is destructive doe.
>>386042
Ikr
Do not even bother with someone like this.
Chinese and Indian philo are deeply underappreciated on this board.
>>386306
Like who?
>>386327
While they are underrated, OP has done a valuable service by not just compiling a list of the western canon, but showing how they interrellate. The lack of this is what tends to keep people out of eastern thought.
They pick up the Analects or something, they read through it with no context, and they say: "Wow, that's the best you've got? It's shit." And throw out the entirety of eastern philosophy that way. I've seen professors do this.
So rather then whining about it, why not correct it? I don't know enough to put together an integrated chronology of Asian philosophy like OP. There's gaps of century in my knowledge. My picture of Taoism jumps from Lao Tze to Yan Fu.
I suppose stage one is the Vedic Age.
>>386328
The Milesian school for starters. They also had fragmentary work. Pretty much all of the pre-socrates other than Heraclitus.
Although at this point you really have to ask what the point of the list is? Is it to be comprehensive or just list everything that anyone would want to look at? I'm interested in the Milesians but that's a highly specialized area for instance.
Also at the 1900s and above century the list is going to going to be very large.
>>386338
>So rather then whining about it, why not correct it?
because they can't. They'd rather have someone else do it then take the credit
>>386341
So far, it seems to work best as a list that guides you in following the "conversation" of western thought. It could use some work, but so far it seems pretty good at setting up, the greeks as a background that fed into all these other schools of thought, with later importance taking precedence.
>>385767
Its a good starting point, but you're missing literally all Near Eastern, Indian and East Asian philosophy.
Arthashastra is a good one. Its from the cheif advisor to the first Mauryan emperor (around the time of the Diadochi)
>>385767
Why isn't Schopenhauer in German Idealism?
Also I don't see why Locke and Hume's political treatises go in Empiricism, and why "French Revolution" is a distinct category.
I would also scratch the term 'Lebensphilosophie' in favor of something like existentialism (and again would move Schopenhauer to GI).
Lastly, make a Phenomenology category and move Heidegger there along with Husserl and maybe Merleu-Ponty.
>>386044
This.
Political thought deserves a list of its own. It's a different story entirely.
>>386297
>Chinese
>Invent
>Civilization
What now?
>>385767
This isn't a post of philosophy but on philosophical history.
>>390163
So it covers History and Humanities?
>>390165
It covers some pre-contemporary philosophers but that's it. The list of analytical philosophers are just bizarre. If you're interested in philosophy, you're better off buying a college-level introduction book on philosophical history or philosophy in general and go from there.
>>390143
>Analytic Philosophy
>Heidegger
>>390171
>college-level introduction
That's bullshit desu, the only work you need for Philosophy is from Philosophers themselves, outside works trying to explain it are purely a second though
>>390143
>>390181
>no continental other than heidegger
>no post-marxism
>no foucault
>no derrida
>literally all white males
expand your horizons braj
>>390208
>none of the people in pic related
come onn
>>390216
Feel free to add them senpai
>>385767
>no Pragmatists
>>390209
if youre going to post that why not expand the list with someone who wasnt just provably wrong
Epictetus' Discourses are better than his Handbook or Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.
I would probably add Popper.
>>386306
>Jung's work is pretty philosophical, it's from within the context of psychology however.
By Jung, do you mean Carl Jung? Why?
>>390266
Or at least wasn't literally who to modern philosophy.
>>390266
>ambiguity
>provably wrong
>>390285
>dis white male tho
wat is an existential feminism
>>390143
Maimonides doesn't really fit in with the "Rationalists" he is from the 12th century. And as I said before, get Scotus in there with Aquinas and Ockham.
As far as Islamic thinkers go you need Avicenna, Averroes and Al Ghazali, and that is the bare minimum
>>390292
only if you're positivist scum
>>390292
ethics of ambiguity by de beauvoir is good existentialism, but I see you haven't read anything since logical positivism was founded
>>390216
These are not philosophers.
>>390356
>>390382
Those are not philosophers though. They may have written some philosophy, but they are recognized more importantly in other fields.
>>390216
pseudo philosophy is not allowed on /his/ anon
20th century: Russell, Wittgenstein, David Lewis, Kripke, Popper, Kuhn
The rest is rest. Lacan, Deleuze, and all the others are crap.
>>385767
Tbh Singer is pretty shit but I'd say he's important to current philosophy.
>>390292
So Focault is crap yet you bother putting Heiddiger there?
>>390460
You're literary dismissing the whole field of political philosophy, philosophy of the mind and contemporary epistemology.
Someone just reading what you posted won't know anything about philosophy except philosophical history.
>>390480
I'm not OP.
>>390499
you are wrong anyways
>>390499
>>390460
>implying you're not a brain in a vat
>>390460
>>390516
>DUDE, DISCOURSE LMAO
>PANOPTICONS BRO
>I SWEAR IM A PHILOSOPHER NOT A SOCIOLOGIST
>>390601
>>385767
You forgot basically all of the Analytic School, so that would be Frege, Russell, Ayer, Quine, etc
A classic
Adamaverit puer puellam.
Possent confiteri deus ex machina cum donatur a puellae phone numerus. Ecquis umquam alienis code statim convocat et quod habet talem invenire contundito in illum.
Sed postero die, cum priore die confessionibus narrat puellae tantum spectat oratio cum flentibus. Post quaestionem invenit quod puella dicebat se non amavit puellam. In facto, non in hoc mundo sunt. Alternis universo par est puellae, quae sui diligens MC AU ipse qui eam quoque ignaro feliciter tollere.
Multum dare percusserit eam consequuntur hijinks duos exhibito sibi vicissim, ornare ut intime secreta alterius indigeant armis vincere cor ipsos cetera. Dum haec propriis alienos amores, fabulas sequitur amare incipiunt interroga pro se rationem amoris.
>>385767
Scotus
How could you leave out Duns Scotus?
>>390655
Ayy I covered him in my high school theology course for like one week.
>>390655
What works do you recommend?
>>390676
I can't recommend anything because all I know about him are his most influential ideas and that he was important to the history of Medieval philosophy (then promptly forgotten until the 20th century). I know that he's most famous for his commentaries on the Organon, his "Collationes," and his argument for the existence of God.
Heres another small update
Max Steiner
Foucault
Baudrillard
Lyotard
>>391035
still no sartre?
I prefer heidegger but you should probably include being and nothingness or antisemite and the jew
>>391093
infinitely better than op's
saved
>>391093
>mentions Averroism
>no Averroes
>>390750
Actually Duns Scotus was a pretty big influence on Leibniz, and his school of thought was still popular in the early 17th century.
>>390676
The Lectures on the Sentences, Reportatio, and Ordinatio all cover more or less the same material. With the Ordinatio possibly being the final version. His commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle is a really good one. For something that isn't 1200+ pages you could go for De Primo Principio, which is his 70 page proof of God's existence. Allot of his most important ideas, Haecceity, the formal distinction, the possibility of self motion, his theory of human freedom, the univocity of being, etc- all show up in his main works in different theological question. So for example, Scotus will be doing a question on Angels and go into pure metaphysics for 4/5ths of the chapter and then come back at the end and use it to answer the theological question. So allot of the really interesting philosophical stuff is buried.
>>391035
Why add Christian "thinkers" but not the writings of the apostles themselves?
>>391775
Which writings are you referring to?
>>391797
Paul's epistles perhaps, or the gospels. At the very least, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament
>>391825
So you mean the Bible? That's an unspoken book In its importance I think
>>391775
They're hardly philosophy, are they?
>>385767
based on a common misunderstanding of Derrida's work-- one he addresses repeatedly.
For example, in "Toward an Ethics of Discussion", he writes:
"[L]et it be said in passing how surprised I have often been, how amused or discouraged, depending on my humor, by the user or abuse of the following argument: Since the deconstructionist (which is to say, isn't it, the skeptical-relativist-nihilist!) is supposed to not believe in truth, stability, or the unity of meaning, in intention or "meaning-to-say," how can he demand of us now that we read him with pertinence, precision, rigor? How can he demand that his own text be interpreted correctly? How can he accuse anyone else of having misunderstood, simplified, deformed it, etc.? In other words, how can he discuss, and discuss the reading of what he writes? The answer is simple enough: This definition of the deconstructionist is false (that's right: false, not true) and feeble; it supposes a bad (that's right: bad, not good) and feeble reading of numerous texts, first of all mine, which therefore must finally be read or reread. Then perhaps it wil be understood that the value of truth (and all those values associated with it) is never contested or destroyed in my writings, but only reinscribed in more powerful, larger, more stratified contexts. And that within interpretive contexts (that is, within relations of force that are always differential-- for example, socio-political-institutional--but even beyond those determinations) that are relatively stable, sometimes apparently almost unshakeable, it should be possible to invoke rules of competence, criteria of discussion and of consensus, good faith, lucidity, rigor, criticism, and pedagogy."
>>391906
Or, in this extract from an interview:
Q: It might be argued that deconstruction inevitably leads to pluralist interpretation and ultimately to the view that any interpretation is as good as any other. Do you believe this and how do you select some interpretations as being better than others?
JD: I am not a pluralist and I would never say that every interpretation is equal but I do not select. The interpretations select themselves. I am a Nietzschean in that sense. You know that Nietzsche insisted on the fact that the principle of differentiation was in itself selective. The eternal return of the same was not repetition, it was a selection of more powerful forces. So I would not say that some interpretations are truer than others. I would say that some are more powerful than others. The hierarchy is between forces and not between true and false. There are interpretations which account for more meaning and this is the criterion.
Q: You would reject, then, the view that meaning is any response whatever to a sign? That meaning is determined by the person who reads the sign?
JD: Yes, of course. Meaning is determined by a system of forces which is not personal. It does not depend on the subjective identity but on the field of different forces, the conflict of forces, which produce interpretations.
Q: You would, therefore, reject the theory of authorial intention as determinate of meaning?
>>391908
JD: Yes. I would not say that there is no interest in referring to the intentional purpose. There are authors, there are intentionalities, there are conscious purposes. We must analyse them, take them seriously. But the effects of what we caul author's intentions are dependent on something which is not the individual intention, which is not intentional.
Q:There is a pragmatic aspect to this question of intentionality. It has been suggested that it is only in the field of literary theory that reader-based theories of interpretation are taken seriously, that all other fields of discourse accept author-based intention. Reader-based theories of interpretation tend, therefore, according to this view to partition off literary speculation from the rest of experience and thus to trivialise literary speculation. What are your views on this?
JD: I do not accept this opposition between reader-based and author-based meaning. It comes from a misunderstanding of deconstruction, one which sees deconstruction as free interpretation based only on the fantasies of the reader. No one is free to read as he or she wants. The reader does not interpret freely, taking into account only his own reading, excluding the author, the historical period in which the text appeared and so on.
Q: So you would not consider yourself an anti-historicist?
JD: Not at all. I think that one cannot read without trying to reconstruct the historical context but history is not the last word, the final key, of reading. Without being anti-historicist, I am suspicious of the traditional concepts of history, the Hegelian and Marxist concepts.
Objectivism?
I wouldn't bother reading any of that shit
what philosophy is about is ideas. just read an overview book or some shit
too often philosophy is equated the history of philosophical published books and their authors
what matters is ideas, that's what philosophy is about.
just go to the library get an intro to
>metaphysics/ontology
>ethics
>aesthetics if you care
>a few 'meaning of life books', or atheist style books if you care about religion
>epistimology
>philosophy of science
>philosophy of politics
>philosophy of language
that's all you need. don't bother reading all of socrates/plato bullshit or kants autism, it's all a retarded waste of time unless you want to seem smart of cultured
here's how I would advice people, say a 17 year old. he should read an
>intro to philosophy
>a few meaning of life books,
>some evolutionary books
>some shit on ethics
>understand idealism/direct realism/ other phiosophy of perception
>read a book which explains wittgenstein
and from there you'll have found an ares which interests you, and just pursue that. stop trying to be a scholar or academic. these people will never make a difference if they spend their entire lives thinking about how x author would respond to y author. it's such a waste of time. don't bother with university philosophy it's a scam
and most importantly, DEBATE
>>391860
They're the foundation for the philosophy of the "Christian thinkers"
>>390143
Islamic philosophy was the heir to Greek & Roman, and Christian philosophy is built on top of the contributions made by Islamic thinkers.
See attached.
>>392027
>Aquinas
What about Augustine?
>>392018
Yea but not philosophical works in themselves.
>>392033
Augustine couldn't read Greek.
>>392041
Yes, but I would say he was more influential to other Christian thinkers
>>392018
>>392033
>>392041
Augestine and Aquinas contributed very little outside of the realm of their own religion. I can't really think of any secular thinkers that care about these guys.
For philosophy the absolute most important Christian thinker is Kierkegaard. The second is Dostoevsky. These guys went on to have massive influence in philosophy. They didn't just argue about 'sin' or 'salvation' concepts that are completely meaningless outside of the realm of Christianity.
The same could be said of a lot of the Islamic thinkers. Avicenna is considered the greatest scholastic of all time, not just Islamic but across all 3 Abraham faiths as he is the only that influenced all 3. But what did he do for philosophy? Almost nothing and if the greatest scholastic ever couldn't leave a mark what chance does everyone else have?
>>385767
>wasting time reading Aristotetle
>reading fucking AQUINAS
>fucking Rousseau
>ALL THAT FUCKING KANT
>all that fucking KIERKEGAARD
Ayy lmao
>>392161
>Augestine and Aquinas contributed very little outside of the realm of their own religion. I can't really think of any secular thinkers that care about these guys.
Aquinas
Phillipa Foot
G.E.M Anscombe
Peter Geach
Alaidair MacIntyre
Jacques Maritain ( Who had a hand in writing the Universal Declaration of Rights for the UN)
Leibniz
Descartes
Christian Wolff
Augustine
Heideggar
Descartes
Wittgenstein
Avicenna influenced Spinoza.
Avicenna's medical works were also pretty important to the Renaissance and Early Modern physicians.
Scotus influenced
Heideggar
Deleuze
Descartes
Leibniz
C.S Pierce
>They didn't just argue about 'sin' or 'salvation' concepts that are completely meaningless outside of the realm of Christianity.
You should probably read up on the Scholastics. Countless considerations on all the important topics in Philosophy, causation, individuality, modality, the problem of universals, free will, epistemology, virtue ethics, the nature of time, the relation of the will to the intellect, etc were all covered by the Scholastics and are quite applicable to a non-theological context. Many concepts like, Scotus' Haecceity, are still standard fair in academic philosophy to this day.
>>392161
>outside of the realm of their own religion
>implying Western philosophy is "outside" Christianity
nigga
>>392300
It is. It wasn't, but today, it is.
>>392291
The extent that they influenced Leibniz and Descartes was largely within the confides of religious thinking.
The other people you mentioned minus Heidegger and Witty are pretty minor.
As for Heidegger his primary Christian influence was Kierkegaard. I don't think Wittgenstein actually borrowed more than 1 idea from Augustine, he admired the man but didn't make much use of his ideas.
It would be kind of a stretch to say Avicenna influenced Spinoza. Spinoza borrowed the Scholastic method but his influences were things like Xenophanes. Spinoza actually makes the point in history where Scholasticism becomes irrelevant. He pretty much undid the entire legacy of the scholastic, refuting every core idea they had and rendering all their old terminology and language void. Philosophy from Spinoza onward would pretty much drop every core idea of the scholastic.
Aquinas, Augestine, Avicenna, and Scotus were period philosophers. They were only relevant within their own time and only have fringe uses outside of their own religion.
>>392347
>The extent that they influenced Leibniz and Descartes was largely within the confides of religious thinking.
Thats just not true though. Leibniz wrote his bachelors thesis on three different scholastic views on individuation. When discussing the mind/body problem he often mentioned that they would have to go back the Schoolmen in a qualified sense because he and contemporaries were dead in the water.
" What this form of statement ignores is that Leibniz was a scholastic: a scholastic endeavering, like Descartes before him, to revolutionize scholasticism."(13)
" It will cause us no great surprise that Leibniz should have quickly felt that the Formal Principle of Aristotle and of the Scholastic Philosophy must be by hook or or by crook reintroduced- not as the detested substantial form, but under a name by which it might hope to smell more sweet, entelency."(18)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VUMgHq9lE2UC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Leibniz+and+scholasticism&source=bl&ots=mLmGdu6cIi&sig=oE6aadeFUfLgA5VAnUwwn7Qw_zI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNmcDkwdPJAhUH3WMKHZF4CkQQ6AEIIzAC#v=onepage&q=Leibniz%20and%20scholasticism&f=false
Descartes adopted the objective vs formal reality distinction from Scotus. He adopted the concept of the formal distinction as an intermediary between a real distinction and a mental distinction from Scotus. He took his idea of eminent causation straight from Aquinas. And he took his cogito ergo sum straight from Augustine, almost as a literal plagiarism.
There are whole books written about how much Descartes took from the Scholastics. His teachers were the 17th century Scholastics after all.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=adxa2TnF5VMC&pg=PA39&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
I think that we should listen to the Leibniz and Descartes scholars on this one.
1/2
>>392418
>Spinoza actually makes the point in history where Scholasticism becomes irrelevant. He pretty much undid the entire legacy of the scholastic, refuting every core idea they had and rendering all their old terminology and language void. Philosophy from Spinoza onward would pretty much drop every core idea of the scholastic.
Until the 20th century when we finally got a handle on how to do logic properly again and people started getting into Scholasticism again.
Heacceity is a concept of Scotus' and to this day it is still used as a concept in analytic philosophy.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Haecceity
Abelard and Ockham pioneered nominalism. Which was discussed by Armstrong, Quine, Bradley, Lewis, and Lowe.
The De Dicto/De Re distinction is also important in modern logic and it was pioneered by Abelard.
https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=de+dicto+de+re
Aquinas`ethics are very important with thinkers like Foot and MacIntyre, who are very prominent in contemporary academia.
G.E.M Anscombe was also a Thomist and is generally considered the best female philosopher of the 20th century. And at the very least is an essential part of the cannon, even if people disagree with her.
C.S. Pierce also invented a whole school of Philosophy, Pragmatism, and wrote about how much better the Scholastics were than Cartesian philosophy, and upheld Scotu`realism on universals.
You mat not be interested in these philosophers. But they are important in the history of philosophy and contemporary academia. Scholastic ideas are still very much with us and are important to contemporary philosophical discourse.
>>392440
Another little bit I just found while doing some research.
I have implied that free willings are but a subset of willings, at least as a conceptual matter. But not every philosopher accepts this. René Descartes, for example, identifies the faculty of will with freedom of choice, “the ability to do or not do something” (Meditation IV), and even goes so far as to declare that “the will is by its nature so free that it can never be constrained” (Passions of the Soul, I, art. 41). In taking this strong polar position on the nature of will, Descartes is reflecting a tradition running through certain late Scholastics (most prominently, Suarez) back to John Duns Scotus.``
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
