>>7708930
If you want to have any hope of understanding anything in OP, you had better have a very solid understanding of Plato and Aristotle, at least the cliffnotes version of the Miletians and Heraclitus, a basic grasp of Christian theology, and a decent understanding of the core rationalists and empiricists, their arguments and why there is a split. This leads you into Kant, who leads to Hegel, both of whom you must understand to have a hope of understanding Heidegger (you also kind of need Nietzsche for him, and probably a basic grasp of German).

Of those works, only Stirner and Nietzsche are capable of truly standing alone, though Nietzsche in particular is made a hundred times richer by understanding all that preceded him. Stirner actually works pretty well as a solitary philosopher though, which makes sense given his philosophy.

>>7708945
Thanks a lot. I did an A-Level on philosophy and we covered a lot of Aristotle, Plato, Hume, with a bit of Kant (to criticize ontological and cosmological arguments), but never really read a lot of the Greeks (but I did read Hume). In terms of what to read first, do you have any suggestions that could help my understanding?

>>7708930
> very solid understanding of Plato and Aristotle
This post, but the above point isn't as necessary as you'd think and this one >decent understanding of the core rationalists and empiricists
is under emphasized. Kant credited Hume with waking him up philosophically.

Is Cartesian Meditations a good/easy intro to Husserl and is the only prereq for it Descartes' Meditations?

>>7708982
I've heard Husserl is best read through secondary sources. I've never read him though so take that with a grain of salt.

>>7708930
Pensées from Pascal too, not a stand alone either though as he has many references from French philosophers. Also the Zarathustra isn't really what you should read first of Nietzsche but rather Beyond good and evil.

>>7708930
For Phenomenology? I think you need Husserl and his students, which includes Heideigger yes, but also the french existentialists, especially Sarte. Personally I would recommend doing secondary lit and summary of Husserl and his students then reading the primary text, or doing it simultaneously.

>>7709004
Anything specifically you'd recommend?

>>7709031
Start with the SEP article on phenomenology, Husserl, and the French Existentialist (in order of importance Sarte=Merlau-Ponty>Beauvior>>>Camus) then read their suggested reading and some of the bibliography. You could get some secondary lit through googling and bookzz, but most of the texts could be found at a top 50 US college library. If you don't have access to that, either purchase a subscription to a journal or grab the primary texts -you will probably prefer the latter, since philosophy journals go at >$20 a pop and >$100 for a subscription. You're list in the OP sounds good for a starting point (though if you want to be cheap cut Striner and Nietzsche), though I don't that much about phenomenology outside of how it relates to the existentialist. A quick check on amazon reveals some Cambridge intros to Phenemology, and Cambridge always gives the goods, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to start with them.

If you just want the absolute, no fluff, cheapest, primary texts of phenomenology:
Ideas - Husserl
Being and Nothingess - Sarte
Being and Time - Heideigger
Phenomenology of Perception - Maurice

>>7708930

Descartes, Aristotle, and someone else I'm forgetting in that area.

Do you need much knowledge of phenomenonology to read Heidegger's works on Heraclitus?

>>7709172
Thanks man, I'll bare this in mind a lot, very helpful.

>>7708951
check the sticky, I think there's a 'start with the Greeks' chart in there somewhere

>>7709184
You never need any knowledge of previous works to read things, only to understand them.

Honestly, sometimes I backwards read philosophy, read the work you want to read, mark off any point you don't understand then go hunting for the material you need to understand it. Then return to the passage. and figure it out. You can either go past the points you don't understand to examine as many as possible without closing the book, or stop each time you don't understand something.

This is definitely a slower way of reading, but it's how I sometimes teach my students with shorter attention spans to do it since ironically it 'gameifies' it, giving the student a clear reading objective. Your ability to do this does vary based on the author a bit, but I used this technique quite a bit in my independent study of the rationalists.

While we're on the topic of Hegel, is it worth it to read Science of Logic either in its entirety or at all? I don't know if I can sit through 500 pages of talking about logic,

>>7708951
As someone who also did a level philosophy obviously that shit only gives you super dumbed down cursory knowledge. So it's worth reading Plato Aristotle etc again. Seriously though just read what is interesting to you. You will retroactively understand stuff you have read once you get to prior philosophers of you are bright enough

>>7708945
Is there any particular books you would recommoned to read before Stirner though if one wished to have a greater understanding and appreciation of his work?

>>7709261
I think that for a neophyte on philosophy the PoS can still be a rewarding read, but the Logic is reserved for advanced students only, Hegel pretty much only takes the previous ontologies and notions of infinite of Spinoza, Kant and Heraclitus and advance them further onto levels of speculative philosophy that's well beyond you if you don't have this background already.

>>7709332
Stirner should be read alongside his contemporaries imo, Marx and Bakunin in particular. If you want a pure predecessor, Stirner's work is in some ways a response to Hegel as much as it is a response to Marx. It's also useful to understand a little bit about the revolutions of the 1840s.

But seriously, you don't need too terribly much to understand what he's saying. He's much less obtuse than the other Germans imo.

>>7709416
As far as works dealing with logic goes, I've read Aristotle's Organon and am currently on Transcendental Logic in Critique of Pure Reason. I don't know if that's enough to understand it or not. Are there at least some select sections I can read that will give me an elementary understanding of Hegel's logic?

>>7709544
Yes, but into Hegel's logic you can also subsume a lot of concepts of the ancients: Parmenides Being, Heraclitus' Becoming, Zeno's spurios (or empirical infinity), Democritus' One and the Void, &c. It's VERY useful, if you want to tackle his Logic, to read his Lectures on the History of Philosophy.

>>7709544
Either way, you're on the right track Anon.


>>7709588
*spurious (or empirical) infinity

>>7709517
Thank you, are there any specific works by Bruno Bauer or Feuerbach that would help understand his references and line of though?

Are there any fictional stories from that time that were referenced or reflected by him in his work?

ok

>>7708930
I would suggest to read Schopenhauer's Will and Representation before you go on to Nietzsche.

But more importantly, before going head first in Zarathustra, I'd highly recommend you read The Gay Science and Beyond Good and Evil.

Mainly because he lays the groundwork for concepts he will talk about in Zarathustra. These concepts come back in Zarathustra more in aphorisms which will be a lot harder to misinterpret if you've already acquainted yourself with these concepts.

>>7708930
I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra having only read Republic, The Politics, Social Contract, Leviathan, The Prince and Two Discources (Locke) and understood it just fine, though I think I missed the importance of the theory in relation to wider philosophy of the time.

To me, if you want to understand Nietzsche, read Hegel, Schopenhauer and Feuerbach, especially Feuerbach since Nietzsche kind of builds off of his anthropotheism theory.

You need a basic understanding of Rationalism and Empiricism before reading Critique of Pure Reason. I would a recommend reading a few original texts by Descartes, Hume, Plato and an analysis if you want a true understanding of what Kant is doing, although he does cover it in detail in the prefaces. However, you really just need the broad understanding of these traditions and any introductory book or textbook will do for now. Kant himself had only read a single book by Hume, as translations were not available, before writing the critique. The big ideas in Critique of Pure Reason are not as difficult as people claim as long as you take good notes while you read.
Also, I would skip Phenomenology of Spirit and start with Reason in History.

>>7709332
the cultural changes up to 1850 though and after Hegel.
That is to say the moral and social ideas of people post the Christian dogma - I don't mean you must read Hegel himself

>>7708930
Yes, all of important philosophy untill that point.

>>7708930
for Nietzsche at least read gay science beforehand

>>7708930
>Nietzsche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra
prerequisites thinkers for this alone number about 20. You might as well start at the start, the greeks.

If you must ignore this advice, read Stirner first, he writes like a typical angry professor but the ideas are fairly unique, if you like any part of him move on to Nietzsche, you must read Zarathustra last although it is his best, read Twilight, Gay Science, BGaE before Z.