Outside of Nietzsche, Hume, Hegel and Kant, do you need to bother with anyone else?
>nietzsche instead of plato and aristotle
>literally random gibberish without their context
lel
>>7413791
Hobbes and Smith maybe, you know, our Democratic/Capitalist system is based on them.
>>7413800
>Democrat/Capitalist
>Good
>>7413799
>literally random gibberish without their context
So do you mean Plato or Aristotle with that?
>>7413805
>15y old edgy basement anarchist detected
Lrn2economics, bruh, you´re just embarassing yourself.
>>7413810
Meritocratic/Fascist run by a Philosopher King is best senpai
Quine for sure.
>Not reading super obfuscatory french continentals for the sole sake of being a 4chan pseud instead of a Reddit pseud.
>>7413791
Aristotle. Because he evades Hume's is/ought distinction, has a better ethical system than Kant, and none of Nietzsche's arguments critique virtue ethics in any way.
>>7413853
Also, Aristotle is a better historicist than Hegel.
>Hegel
/lit/ really is all memes
who's the best philosopher today, excluding Zizek?
>>7413791
>Nietzsche
I still can not understand why is he even worth mentioning when compared to others.
>>7413873
Edgy teens like him because they think hes just DUDE GODS DEAD LMAO
>>7413876
and tier two plebs think he's not good because teenagers get a kick out of his aphorisms, and don't understand his position in history
>>7413876
Well, I guess so, it was what attracted me to him when I was younger.
And I'm not saying that he is irrelevant, but putting him in a list with Kant or Hegel is just stupid.
>>7413896
I don't think you understand N.
Nietzsche whole philosophy is that god isn't real, but that doesn't mean that life is meaningless and you should make your own reason in life
>>7413791
H E G E L
E
G
E
L
(and Seneca you pleb)
>>7413865
Russel Brandt and John Green
pic related is all you need
/thread
Beyond Good and Evil> Everything else
>>7414021
Shit graphics though.
>>7413865
plantinga
>>7413910
Nope, read his books
>>7414024
>entirely confused having just finished Beyond Good and Evil
>rack my brain in an attempt to think if Nietzsche ever spoke about graphics
>check my edition wasn't missing diagrams
>eventually resort to googling "Beyond Good and Evil graphics" and remember it's a game
>>7413865
macintyre
You need all the Hellenistic lads and Maxime Forehead
>>7413914
OP mentioned Hegel.
The only things you actually need are the greeks, the bible and the church fathers. Everything else is effeminate sophistry, fun for a laugh but not necessary.
>>7414063
Oh I sort of glazed past it
>>7413998
alice cooper?
Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hume, Descartes, Locke, Plato, Aristotle
Who else do I need to add to my collection
Since this is the current phil thread active here I might as well ask: what is the best path I can follow in terms of metaphysics?
>tfw you are Zarathustras shadow
I only have The Philosophy of the Right and The Phemenology of Mind from Hegel, what else should I read?
READ WITTGENSTEIN YOU DISGUSTING PLEBS
>>7413889
this. there is more to nietzsche than god is dead
>>7414065
hahahahahahaha
>>7414069
kierkegaard, frege, wittgenstein. Some people dislike Kierkegaard on the basis that he's *too christian*, but that's just a surface level reading of kierkegaard. Frege and Wittgenstein are great for analytic philosophy, which some people disregard, however it's still I believe a very wide open field, and is worth at least looking into.
>>7414069
Heidegger, Wittgenstein.
Then it depends on your interests.
For instance, for aesthetics, you may want to add Adorno, Burke or Plotinus. Or Mill, Arendt, Rawls... for political philosophy
>>7414604
If you are an advanced student of philosophy, the Science of Logic. If you still a beginner, the Lectures on History of Philosophy.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
>>7414632
>frege
wew
>>7414664
>Post Nineteenth century
Nice meme
>Descartes is one of the most influential philosophers of all time
>Is only remembered for a stupid dick joke
Feels bad
>>7413810
You sound like the kind of person who says they like physics but doesn't even know basic kinematics. Stop spouting shit you know nothing about.
>>7414069
Add Berkeley, Merleau-Ponty and later Wittgenstein
>Atheist
>Read Kant
>Christian now
>>7414797
>Berkeley
Name one good writing of his
Thomas Metzinger
as much as you can get your hands on probably
>>7414826
yeah, basically
>>7413791
Baudrillard
Alex Kierkegaard, he's the final boss of philosophy
What IS philosophy to you people? A damn game?
>>7413911
a lot of the time its Christians who are really butthurt about the "god is dead" (while completely misunderstanding it and knowing nothing else, of course) and/or his strong stance against Christianity as a whole (I guess a good reason to be butthurt).
>>7414952
Too bad all these men are dead, who will replace them?
>>7414055
My nigger.
>>7414682
That's a bit of an odd choice. Not that I don't like M-P, but most would recommend Husserl (or Heidegger sometimes) if you wanted a representative for phenomenology in the history of philosophy.
>>7415296
Not that guy but Husserl was an originator but not a particularly complete expression of phenomenology. I mean to be honest he just reworked Kant. I know you can say that about lots of philosophers but the parallels between Kant's Critique's and Husserl's theory are really stark. I'd say the better option is Heidegger, his work is much more developed than Husserl's.
>>7413791
Kant makes me want to throw up. Also Albert Camus so you don't turn into a pseudo-intellectual.
I like Heidegger, Dogen, Spinoza, and Kropotkin
>>7415537
>Also Albert Camus so you don't turn into a pseudo-intellectual.
>Albert Camus
>so you don't turn into a pseudo-intellectual.
Is this a joke?
Montaigne is all u rly need
>>7415543
Only if you laugh
>>7415265
Is there any actual word on icy?
>>7413791
Stop memeing and pretending that Nietzsche is necessary. And you do know there are other eras of philosophy other than the modern era, right?
what reason is there to read non-hellenestic philsophers
You should read at least one of the great Christian philosophers. My pick is Augustine. He casts a very, very long shadow over the West, and to this day even atheists are compelled to respond to him, though they may not realize it's him they're responding to.
>>7413807
"their" is used as a plural and possessive in this example, where context Nietzsche needs the definitive philosophical background of Plato AND Aristotle to have a groundwork.
Any comprehensive list of necessary philosophers that doesn't include both Plato and Aristotle is probable a bad one.
AND ON A COMPLETELY SEPARATE NOTE
I would recommend adding the Bible, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Marcus Aurelius and Soren Kierkegaard.
>>7415987
Ayy, my brother in bread
>>7413791
Well, you don't necessarily 'need' to read any of those. Especially with armageddon on the way.
>>7415987
Kierkegaard also has a reasonably good answer to Nietszche neccesitation of the exertion of one's will in The Sickness Unto Death, which basically predicts his philosophy and anti-religion standpoint only as a psychological sickness of one is is fundamentally opposed to the current organization of the Universe and cannot cope with their place in it.
Two questions arise. Can the person change the organization of the universe to be more towards their liking? and more importantly, should they? In Nietzche's perfect world, the strong could reshape their lives. But this is only their lives. Not their place in it. and not all can do this. The black mark of their hate against the system would only then be worsened by their failure to rebel against it.
Kierkegaard has a simple answer to how this vicious circle ends. Forgiveness. One must forgive one's own failure, the placement of oneself in being and time, and the begin anew, without anger or will, to be through the will that already exists. Not subject to the will of another across the room, but the greater will of time itself. Or God. To the other question, should you? try to change the organization of the universe fundamentally to try to fit your wants. This is only necessary if your wants are different than the wants of the greater universe and the flow of being and time. That being said,
maybe.
>>7416044
We get it, you hated being forced to go to church. Get over it.
>>7413791
If all you care about is contemporary continental philosophy, I would say these four works are the most important:
Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel
Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
Being and Time by Heidegger
But in order to actually fully understand them in the context of the tradition (and in the case of Heidegger, "post-tradition"), I would recommend these (at the bare minimum):
Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle's Metaphysics
All of this is just the bare minimum. You should really read all of Plato, all of Aristotle (except his shit on animals because who gives a fuck?), a lot of early Christian thinkers, the Bible, perhaps Moses Maimonides, Descarte's Meditations and Discourse on Method, Spinoza's Ethics, Leibniz's Theodicy, also read my cock
>>7413791
yes, live the dhamma
>>7416127
What early Christian thinkers?
>Locke
/lit/ really is all memes isn't it
>>7416637
He probably means like Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, the Church Fathers, the Desert Fathers
>not reading Plotinus who essentially *finished* philosophy
>>7413810
Kill yourself.
>>7416127
>Sartre
>Schopenhauer
k'
>>7416682
Philosophy isn't finished until they can prove the existence of god
>inb4 Descartes
>>7416061
holy fucking shit
>>7414773
>Descartes
http://www.rodneyohebsion.com/descartes-parody.htm
>>7416686
Do people actually take Descartes arguments for the existence of God seriously? I thought they were BTFO by Kant.
>>7418230
>Hegel isn't important
Which philosopher's dad had the best fighting ability?
>>7418288
What?
>>7418259
Not only that, Descartes essentially restates Anselm's ontological proof, which was BTFO by none other than Thomas Aquinas.
>>7418288
John Stuart Mill
Kierkegaard.
He finished philosophy.
>>7419149
I'll believe it when he finishes writing his damn books!
>>7414835
Do you mean that you don't recognise the importance of Principles?
Only philosophers you need to read:
Aristotle
Kant
Hegel
Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Good philosophy is literally everyone BUT them
>>7420450
>>7415537
jesus christ
>>7416044
Look, you can think religion is the opiate of the masses or whatever all you want, but whether or not that's true you can't understand philosophy, including modern philosophy, if you don't understand Plato and Aristotle. Even if you disagree with them you still need to understand them. If you're honestly refusing to read Plato and Aristotle because they're too Christian (???) and "what are you my mom? I don't have to go to church if I don't want!" then just give up, you will never make any real progress in philosophy.
>anything but Hegel
You don't get him, right?
>>7413800
I-is this bait?
A political thinker who espoused the philosophical right of kings to rule is a 'democrat'.
An economist who wants rabid state intervention in the economy is a 'capitalist'. GG try harder m8ty.
>>7421782
Heck, try understanding Ayn Rand without at-least having background knowledge of Aristotle and his thought.
