My current goal is to understand Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, and Nietzsche. However, I want to understand where they are coming from. What Greeks should I read? What other works between them and the 19th century do they reference most? I don't want to have to spend a decade building up to this but what five to ten books would give me the best shot of getting something meaningful out of the Existentialist bunch?
>>7515971
For Kierkegaard, Plato and Ockham will be helpful.
Read Plato. Almost all of him, in fact. Read him, then Aristotle's Metaphysics, then Anselms Proslogion plus the sections in Aquinas' Summa Theologica on time, nature, and mans essence in general.
Then read Descartes Meditiations, Leibniz's Monadology, Hume's Treatise (just the first book will do), Kant's CPR, and then Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.
Then, while you read Kierkegaard, be sure to always read the Uplifting Discourse meant to be paired with with whatever work you're reading.
He intended these discourses to be part of an ongoing dialectic between him and his pseudonymous personae. Speaking of dialectic, if you read NOTHING else of the above, read Plato.
Kierkegaard - Muh Faith helps with my confidence problems.
Sartre - Existence precedes Essence, that is, we can alter ourselves to great extents.
Camus - Artists are allowed to engage the despair and even encourage it if done positively, for the pursuit of audience pussy.
Nietzsche - Sure embrace the fact of nihilism, but don't be a slave to it, the glory of being a great man is all there is, promote every man becoming great and you are alright by me.
They reference nothing other than the decline of christian morality. You really want to understand existentialism just become homeless and become hated by everyone.
>>7515995
Pay attention to anything about Socrates. Kierkegaard identified with him a lot.
>>7516031
There's more to all these philosophers than the soundbites you've quoted. Particularly Kierkergaard and Camus.
Camus is a pretty basic and humble philosopher but his philosophy is a bit more refined. He's very much expanding on Kierk's idea of the Absurd, that there are illogical or hipocritical elements that are inherent to life (for Kierk, this was used to justify the leap of fiath [or really the Knight of Faith's leap] through an effective abandonment of conventional logic and a move from the Ethical to the Religious sphere of life {Socrate's skepticism is quite key here, for Kierkergaard, "truth is subjectivity" and we cannot really know anything at all, so such a movement is really not much of a loss}]). Back to Camus, his main thesis is this: life is objectively meaningless, but I continually feel meaning. The lack of resolution to this, is his Absurd - and why so often Absurd artists present preposterous situations: firstly as a mirror the the ridicule of modern life taken through the absurdist lens, but also, to simulate our own reaction and repulsion to the seeming meaninglessness they try to portray. Camus is actually a very optimistic philosopher in this sense, and his main aim is to discourage people from suicide, which, is seen by him, as the endpoint of all true nihilists. He often speaks about the warmth of the sun, the feel of sand or the curve of a womans bosom as reasons to keep living, to "imagine Sisyphus happy" - importantly, and central to his rebellious philosophy, to revolt against the glum deduction of nihilism and invent our own meaning, so in a roundabout way, rather similar to Sartre.
Interstingly, Camus called Kierk's approach "philosophical suicide" and Kierk, appreciating the rise of nihilistic/secular moralities, called his approach "demonaic madness" - effectively "building fortresses on nothing".
Sorry for the essay, you caught me lightly stoned. I really should've answered the OP.
>>7515971
Pretty much >>7516005 with aMAJORaddition
First of all, you'll definitely need a decent grasp of Plato. After that you can make a pretty big jump. Descartes' Meditations is a good starting point, after which I'd make sure I had a handle on Spinoza, what he was doing and why it's important. Same goes for Leibniz.
Then you can get up in the 18th century stuff with Hume and Kant and you're ready to hit the good stuff.
In the 19th century, obviously understanding what Hegel is doing is important but you should really focus far more heavily onbasedSchopenhauer. He's going to be the key to all this.
>>7517736
OK, nice.
>Plato
>Descartes
>Spinoza
>Leibniz
>Hume
>Kant
>Hegel
>Schopenhauer
>Wittgenstein
in that order? Their 'main'/'most popular' works for all of them, except for Plato - read all?
>>7517745
Chronological
OP here. Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. It actually feels like I'm on a site that doesn't actively despise me.
>inb4 people every reply is just >kill yourself op
I'm about to go to the library to pick up some books on Plato to start my journey. Is there any editions/order/pre-reading /lit/ recommends?
>>7517745
>>7517758
Just for clarity I'd read Schop straight after Kant because it follows on very closely, whereas Hegel veers off in a totally different direction.
If you want to understand Hegel you need to at least know the basics of what the German Idealists were doing after Kant: Jacobi, definitely Fichte, Schelling would also help. For your Nietzsches and Sartres there's no real need to get too deep into Hegel; that's a whole different rabbit hole.
>>7517781
Ok, that'll do but would you recommend to read all of their work just like you recommended all of Plato?
Just a general question whilst this thread is still kicking: as someone who just wants to get into philosophy a little on the side, is Plato the place to start? I find the numerous recommended chronologies and sequences daunting and, besides, they cater to people who wish to devote a lot of a time to studying philosophy. I just want to get a grip of the basic ideas. I've got a copy of The Republic lying around somewhere - should I just start there?
>>7517815
I'm sure you can just pick it up and read. Stop getting b8'd by autistic people shitting in piss jars and wearing cumrags.
>>7517793
Depends how many years you have. That right there is a shit ton of reading and primary texts take a lot of interpreting.
To be honest, your main primary reading should be the Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, and Kierkegaard. Don't be afraid of secondary lit. Things like Cambridge companions are great for getting an idea of what's going on. Especially look for chapters on 'Sartre and Kant' or 'Nietzsche and Schopenhauer' or whatever.
So with Kant, for example, all you really need in detail is part of the first critique and a reasonable understanding of what's going on in the rest of his system.
>>7517842
>Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, and Kierkegaard
for Wittgenstein, that's wildly different list from the other list that was posted.
I mainly want to get to him and read him because I've had to read about him here and there, related to my actual study of law where he comes to play with accuracy of language and whatnot.
>>7517846
Got mixed up with OP. Point still stands, though: focus primary reading on Wittgenstein and at least start off with secondary lit on the influences. The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein would also be a good intro.
>>7517880
Yeah thanks, I try to look for it, Hopefully they sell it in Adlibris bookstore that's the one I use.
>>7517815
If you want a simple overview of philosophy without putting in a lot of time and effort, check out Sophie's World.
It's basically a short run-down of the history of Western philosophy written for teens.
What could be called YA literature that isn't irredeemably shitty.
Do you recommend Cambridge Comp. to Plato?
>>7517540
I would prefer an essay to the usual shitposts
>>7517937
Thanks
>>7517815
While Plato's predecessors are extremely interesting, they aren't terribly important to the history of philosophy - with, I would say, two exceptions: Parmenides and Pythagoras, both of whom seem to have influenced Plato. On the first, Plato actually devotes an entire dialogue, and his writings about the hazy nature of the natural world seem to have informed Plato's skepticism of mundane reality; references to the second (or to mysticism in general) are scattered throughout Plato's writings, and might be the basis for his belief in a higher, super-sensible world.
When beginning to read Plato, I'd recommend that you start with the dialogues surrounding Socrates' death.
>>7518092
Hey anon, what do you think about Cambridge comp. to Plato?
>>7518096
I've not read it, but I can't see how it would do a person harm.
>>7517475
this is horseshit. Bet you just heard someone say it
>>7518506
He's socrates 2.0 buddy
His entire theme is a rejection of knowledge and certainty, a reaction to the objectivist claims of Hegel.
The guy would even often include Socrates in his journals as a character, or in writing drafts. Check the stanford for that part.
>>7516031
What a faggot post
>>7517540
I've actually just finished the Myth of Sisyphus. I enjoyed how your post kinda brought in all of his books though, as the essays didn't catch the feeling of the Absurd nearly as well as his fiction, but instead explained them. Also I feel refined is a good word to describe his philosophy, but sometimes a more coarse take like Nietzche's or more open for interpretation like Kafka is more beneficial for actually identifying with existential philosophy.
>>7517842
Honestly, I agree. I love existential philosophy and it all started with picking up an old copy of Doestoevsky's The Idiot one day.
dont die on me
>>7518758
I remember hearing the exact same thing except with Plato. Plato was the guy who told an oracle to withdraw her statement that he was wise, was he not?
>>7517775
I started with Symposium.
>>7520319
That was Socrates I'm afraid. But the story was reported by Plato.
https://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/socrates-and-the-oracle-of-delphi/
