Posted this in /adv/, got told to come here
>want to get more into reading
>expand horizons, learn new shit
>all that jazz
>always had an interest in philosophy (western or eastern, doesn't matter)
>don't know where to get started
Anyone got any recommendations for someone new to this stuff? What are some must reads when it comes to philosophy?
Pic Unrelated
>>7434311
Why didn't you look at the sticky?
>>7434311
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
That's mostly Western philosophy. I can't help you with Eastern, but here's Islamic:
muslimphilosophy.com
You can find most of these books online with libgen and the IRC
>>7434318
New to this board, sorry
>>7434311
Siddartha is a good starting place.
>>7434320
Do i need to read mythology, iliad/odyssey and other novels as suggested in sticky to get into philosophical books?
>>7434582
Yes. They serve a major backbone to the Western canon in general and are referenced in philosophical texts often
>>7434591
ok thanks, i'm reading seneca right now (letters from a stoic) when i stumbled upon this guide, would you say i complete the book in my hands then read mythology>iliad>odyssey>histories and then go back to the philosophical books?
>>7434311
Maybe a brief history of philosophy manual could help, so you can choose which philosophical school you prefer
>>7434603
bump
>>7434719
Sure. Stoic works aren't as complex or lengthy
I don't think you should jump in with a primary philosophical work, get some history of philosophy 101 and then work your way starting the authors whose ideas appeal to you the most.
Yeah sure, if you want a more thoughtful comprehensive, or simply more accurate perspective on philosophy there staring with the classical mythos and greek paideia is sort of necessary but keep in mind that philosophy kinda stemmed from a sort of rejection of "traditional greek culture".
I personally would recommend you two books that neither fundamental or "canon" but can shed some light on the philosophical praxis, or even better on the philosopher's praxis.
So check out:
Arendt - The Life of the Mind
Hadot - Spiritual Exercises and Ancient Philosophy
>>7434603
Unless you seeking for a sort of handbook on how to conduct your life from a stoic perspective, you'll get bored pretty quickly. It's very light on theory, so much that Seneca never refrains from using some epicurean teachings (pretty much the "rivals" of his school of thought) Although the imagery used in it gets pretty powerful at times, I must say.
>>7434311
OP i recommend you read Hitler's works, he's even in your picture....ironically
>>7434719
You should read Thucydides as well, he's got a good philosophical bent and it's fucking awesome (if a little slow)
>>7434311
OP read a History of Western philosophy by Bertrand Russell. He goes both into history and into philosophy, perfect for a first introduction to the world of cultured autistic snobs like the gentlemen we aspire to be.
Start with the memes
>>7436518
mein kampf is trash
don't even read it for the memes
>>7436518
Is Nazism a religion now where you have to preach and proselytize it wherever you go to save the unwashed laity?
>>7436526
> Implying Thucydides is a philosopher
If you want to learn about philosophy you won't need to start reading Greek literature or anything of the like. You can start with some Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Moore, Ramsey and others.
>>7438443
Bullshit.
>>7438570
What's the point of going back to the greeks?
Is it to start light on philosophy (ie ideas gets more complex chronologically) or just pick up an archaic form of ideas?
>>7438801
bump
>>7438801
>>7434311
Immanuel Kant's Crtique of Pure Reason.
I wouldn't reccomend reading it unless you really like to think.
For example: Thesis
Causality according to the laws of nature, is not the only causality operating to originate the phenomena of the world. A causality of freedom is also necessary to account fully for these phenomena.
>>7439110
Proof
Let it be supposed, that there is no other kind of causality than that according to the laws of nature. Consequently, everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule. But this previous condition must itself be something that has happened (that has arisen in time, as it did not exist before), for, if it has always been in existence, its consequence or effect would not thus originate for the first time, but would likewise have always existed. The causality, therefore, of a cause, whereby something happens, is itself a thing that has happened. Now this again presupposes, in conformity with the law of nature, a previous condition and its causality, and this another anterior to the former, and so on. If, then, everything happens solely in accordance with the laws of nature, there cannot be any real first beginning of things, but only a subaltern or comparative beginning. There cannot, therefore, be a completeness of series on the side of the causes which originate the one from the other. But the law of nature is that nothing can happen without a sufficient a priori determined cause. The proposition therefore -- if all causality is possible only in accordance with the laws of nature -- is, when stated in this unlimited and general manner, self-contradictory. It follows that this cannot be the only kind of causality.
From what has been said, it follows that a causality must be admitted, by means of which something happens, without its cause being determined according to necessary laws by some other cause preceding. That is to say, there must exist an absolute spontaneity of cause, which of itself originates a series of phenomena which proceeds according to natural laws -- consequently transcendental freedom, without which even in the course of nature the succession of phenomena on the side of causes is never complete.
>>7439081
Should be طعم instead of اغراء in the picture since the latter means temptation
