Does it matter a great deal whether or not I read philosophy chronologically?
>>8094084
nothing matters a great deal
"chronologically"
How can chronological things be real if ideas aren't real?
>>8094084
>implying time is linear
>>8094084
Read it reverse chronologically
>>8094084
Yes, because it is utterly moronic to read philosophy chronologically.
>>8094084
Read it from longest to shortest
>>8094084
Not really as long as you have a good memory. I started with Plato, read some Aristotle, Heraclitus, then Machiavelli, skipped to Nietzsche, did a bunch of the Greeks, then Kant, then Spinoza and am currently reading Schopenhauer. I think I'm probably done with philosophy after Der Welt since I haven't really had any questions left unanswered since Heraclitus who I'm convinced had things figured out. The rest has just been interest reading to see what other people think, Nietzsche was the best at doing that and I felt he made a fine if a bit lengthy of an appendix to Heraclitus, turning the weeping philosopher's sentiment on its head using fundamentally similar assumptions about reality.
Oh I've also read some Singer and other meme philosophers for classes but I don't take any philosophy produced after 1900 seriously.
>>8094354
>I don't take any philosophy produced after 1900 seriously
>>8094354
For a current philosopher read william desmond.
Thank me later. Watch out though he can be as difficult to read as Hegel and Kant.
>>8094354
If you like Heraclitus maybe you'll like Heidegger
I've never read Heidegger so I wouldn't know
