any glaring omissions? anyone that can be cut? guidance on who comes after kierkegaard? after aristotle, which 1-2 books/writings are critical for each?
>white men
Presocratics
Plato
Aristotle
St. Augustine
St. Thomas Aquinas
Descartes
Spinoza
Leibniz
Locke
Berkeley
Hume
Hobbes
Machiavelli
Rousseau
Montesquieu
Voltaire
J.S. Mill
Kant
Fichte
Schelling
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Nietzsche
Kierkegaard
>skipping Epicurus, Cicero, Lucretius, Pseudo-Dionysus the Areopagite, Plotinus, Porphyry
Tbqh tho kid you could skip most. For a basic foundation, read a bit of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, and Kant (or read Schopenhauer, he teaches Kant decently)
>>8269705
yeah i had epicurus/lucretius and epictetus/aurelius, but really trying to winnow this down. you're saying bare bones could look like this?
>plato
>aristotle
>descartes
>hume
>kant/schopenhauer
Sorta, it's not bad
If I were you, I'd read Machiavelli before the other Early Moderns (because self-contained), add Bacon before Descartes, move Hobbes to before Descartes, move Hume to just after Descartes, and I would consider moving Berkeley AFTER Hume because it's easier to read representationalists before an Idealist and then the phenomenalist Kant. Maybe add Thomas Reid before Kant. Also Mill's epistemology goes after the Idealists, not before.
You're going to be reading a lot of stuff in a vacuum, the way you're going, which will make it difficult. Kant does depart from Hume, but he also departs from a lot of other stuff that he just assumes is implicit in dealing with empiricist thought, e.g. Similar problem for Aquinas. You can either read a lot more authors to flesh things out, or just make sure you read a lot of secondary literature that contextualises each author.
Also the development of Western thought is a lot less linear in general, so you might be surprised at the necessity or temptation for detours.
>>8269705
Of those, I think only Plotinus is really seriously necessary, and to be honest no one fucking reads Plotinus, because the Enneads are a nightmare. They just read descriptions of his main ideas
Seems about right
Augustine: City of God, Confessions
Aquinas: Summa Theologica
Descartes: Meditations & On Method
Spinoza: Ethics
Leibniz: dunno, something with Monads
Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Two Treatises of Government
Berkeley: dunno
Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, A Treatise of Human Nature
Hobbes: Leviathan
Machiavelli: The Prince & The Discourses
Rousseau: The Social Contract, Emilé
Montesquie: On The Spirit of The Laws
Voltaire: Dunno
J.S. Mill: Utilitarianism, On Liberty
Kant: Prolegomena, Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Judgement, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
Fichte: dunno
Schelling: dunno
Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit, Philosophy of Right
Schopenhauer: World as Will and Representation
Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling, Either/Or
After Soren K:
Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein definetely. Many many more really. What are you interested in?
>>8269718
any idea the order that comes after?
>>8269696
I would put Machiavelli before Hobbes and both of them before Locke but that's not entirely necessary
Here's a better one for you:
Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus, Augustine, Plotinus, Boethius, Anselm, Moses Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Levi Gersonides, William of Ockham, René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, G.W.F Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Soren Kierkegaard, John Stuart Mill, Friedreich Nietzsche, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Bertrand Russell, Edmund Husserl, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ludwig Wittgenstein, then finally J. L. Austin.
>>8269721
thanks anon. any of the people i can get away with just reading their SEP entry? im v interested in epistemology, but i also want to see what's out there.
>>8269766
If you are mostly interested in epistemology, you could choose to skip some of the more politically & ethically oriented philosophers in this list like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau & Montesquieu, also Mill. Also, I have personally never read Fichte or Schelling. Don't know if this is a big mistake on my part.
chronologically skimming through philosophers like they're video game bosses is a good way to get memed.
you won't have the cultural context in which to truly understand them.
>>8269882
so is the only way to do it to get a phd?
>>8269882
How many people were introduced the history of philosophy reading it without any gaps whatsoever, also reading up on every aspect of their contexts?
Now THAT's a freaking meme. I reckon no one. It would really last more than a single lifetime.
>>8269895
I mean, if you just want to make an autistic list of "BOOKS I'VE READ" then it's fine.
If you want to be all things to all men then yeah you'll need at least a phd or ten
>>8269895
Ph.d's also started out taking intro to philosophy classes, reading central works of selected philosophers.
>>8269820
word - not really interested in political/ethical philosophy at all.
On a related note: what publisher is best for philosophy? I want something that publishes broadly so I can always go to the same source, has good translations, and is of relatively high quality so it will stand up to multiple readings/note taking (so no Penguin Classics).
Is Hackett good?
>>8270249
Loeb
>>8270285
Only publishes Greek and Latin works.
>>8270301
I'm pretty sure there are English translations as well.
>>8270302
That's not what I meant. They only publish Greek and Latin philosophers.
>>8270305
Oh, yes. Maybe Oxford or SUNY then. But I don't think there's one big publisher that can be used as a single source.
Read what resonates with you. You can get a summary of everything else through Wikipedia.
Knowledge isn't an RPG with levels you need to pass and bosses to fight. Although that would be a fun concept. What would Heidegger's battle theme be?
>>8270344
yeah, i get it. just feel like i've been putt-ing around the SEP/wikipedia for a while, reading shit here and there - it's been interesting but scattered and now i'm looking for something a little more directed; maybe it doesn't exist.
>>8269696
>No Stirner
You'll want him if you want to meme.
>>8270503
I threw out half of my books after reading Taleb. If you haven't read him yet, you should. Start with Antifragile. Phenomenal book.
>>8269716
That'd be fine.
The idea you need to read every philosopher in the canon completely is a meme.
I remember when I first got into philosophy years ago, I picked up a collection of Plato's works -- expected it to take a month to read then I'd move onto Aristotle; ended up spending a year on Plato.
>>8269696
>no Popper
>>8270521
Taleb is great. Fooled by Randomness would be a great start as well.
>>8269696
I don't see Stirner there, is this a typo?
>>8269696
throw in EPICurus and EPICtetus mane, cant just ignore the hellenics. also, id read kierkegaard right after hegel.
for kierkegaard, read stages on life's way, fear and trembling, philosophical crumbs (+ con. unsc. postscript if you're interested), sickness unto death.
for presocratics, read mickirahan's book on them
for epictetus, read the oxford public.
for epicurus, not much choice
for machiavelli, strongly advise you to read the hackett version of the prince (should get hackett for most philosophy)
for aristotle, read aristotle: selections by irwin
for schopenhauer, read welt als wille und vorstellung
for nietzsche, start with the gay science
>>8270521
>>8270591
will check out. the other part of this is that i have completed a draft of my writing, it's gotten good feedback, and i should be getting back to work. some of this deep dive into epistemology (though it's related to my work) may just be productive procrastination, but procrastination nonetheless. that would help to explain the ocd-tier obsession with ticking boxes that will take a long time to tick.
i have no interest in reading things to read things, but before i just start on the stuff i like, i feel like i need a better idea of what's out there so that i can make more educated determinations about what i should and should not read.
All these philosophers on your list are interesting because they've influenced Western thought so heavily the last 2000 yrs, but there's a reason they're taught more in history of philosophy classes than actual philosophy classes. Many get degrees in the field from top schools without reading even a quarter of these texts. Most of these philosophers' actual theories have been abandoned by contemporary philosophers and are terrible guides to how to live, act, or run a state. Also, unless you're super familiar with a history of Western thought, read in order and with heavy reference to historical context or you'll get absolutely nothing out of any of these authors.
Better would be to do something like Plato's Republic, maybe Kant/Rousseau, and then something contemporary like Peter Singer's idea of expanding circle. That's a reasonable reading load and a good mix of core philosophical history with contemporary, applicable practice.
>>8269705
Thanks for this. I've been wanting to get my feet wet with philosophy for some time now but I'm unwilling to commit to a list as long as OP's.
Any others you would add for someone with a particular interest in the law/legal theory and philosophy?
>>8270724
Reading the linked philosophers alone, even just their canonical works & ideas, is like a year's project if you're just doing it part-time. I'd recommend just starting with those and branching out, letting yourself explore intellectually in a freewheeling rather than preplanned manner. Plus, the more you expand your list the more daunting and the higher chance you never get through any of them or even start. Just go buy The Republic, spend 2 weeks reading it carefully, and go from there.
>>8270735
That is the only one I've already read.
>>8270752
Try http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm
Changed my life
>>8269721
Gonna want Hobbes' and Mill's epistemology as well
>>8270672
who are some big ones that you'd say have been more or less dismissed and are being taught only for historical value?
Can Kierkegaard be read without Hegel and co?
I've read Plato, and I've read a history of philosophy (and have access to summaries of most philosophers)
>>8269730
No one like my list? I thought it was good. ;(
>>8270804
It's because you skipped Lucretius
>>8270735
will reading the republic give me a good sense of 'forms'?
>>8270824
Don't listen to anyone who tells you not to read Plato in full, especially if they say just to read The Republic. It's like reading one random chapter of Dostoevsky.
The theory of the forms is distributed over several dialogues and it's not entirely clear what its relationship is with Plato's thought or personal feeling. The Seventh Letter and Aristotle both seem to indicate Plato was a form-ist, but within the dialogues it initially appears in a cursory or partly developed form (lol), and Plato critiques it both within the dialogue and within subsequent dialogues, leaving some critiques hanging. Even in an assumed Final Draft version taken from his late dialogues, it's a lot more ambiguous than a simple metaphysical system. No one quite perfectly agrees on where Plato stood on it, or how it works.
>>8270855
'forms' strike me as crucial to understanding subsequent developments in epistemology and linguistics - is this correct?
>>8270824
Read:
Euthyphro
Theaetetus
Sophist
Republic
Timaeus
>>8269696
>discus
fucking plen
>>8270855
hahahahahaha....just no.
>>8270882
It's the birth of Western Idealism, very central to epistemology and metaphysics, and eventually linguistics through epistemological semiotics. It's not just an abstract metaphysical theory - it's a theory about how the mind knows objects at all.
You need to understand it to understand the medieval problem of universals, nominalism vs. realism, but also just the modern epistemological systems and crises which grew out of that milieu in general.
Good list overall, but you're really going to struggle adapting to the particular demands of each thinker. Just because we call all these people 'philosophers' doesn't mean that Locke is going to resemble Kierkegaard.
>>8270526
I just got the plato complete works, the 1800 pages are super thin and it resembles a bible, so I'm just going to treat it like that and keep it by my bedside for the next year while I read the stoics, epicureans, and presocratics
>>8270672
>Peter Singer
I wouldn't recommend him as a good intro to contemporary moral philosophy just as I wouldn't tell someone to read Ayn Rand to get a grasp on moral thought.
He's extreme enough in his views that he could be considered a nut, something a bit less preachy would be more in order for a beginner.
>>8271128
who would you recommend for modern non-moral, non-political philosophers? does adam phillips pull any weight?
>>8271158
How to Be a Conservative - Robert Scruton
>>8271158
>modern non-moral, non-political philosophers
>>8270793
I mean, how much serious weight are forms even given? They're interesting conceptually and metaphorically, but not really an insight into how reality functions.
Augustine is fascinating because so much of contemporary Christianity began with him, but that doesn't mean he provides a good 'map' for the world.
Rousseau's ideas about noble savages are fascinating historically, again, but laughable if treated as a serious argument.
All these men, brilliant thinkers, but you can only get so far with major empirical/epistemological gaps and errors. eg Rousseau's anthropologically ludicrous ideas on African tribes, or his scientifically preposterous ideas on what distinguishes humans from animals.
Kant is interesting on aesthetics, but the twentieth century did a major update across the board on the roll which society plays in socializing taste.
Can you even have a serious Locke vs. Hobbes debate about human nature without acknowledging the massive scientific advances in knowledge we've gained since them?
>>8271769
role* I'm a retard
>>8271771
You are a retard, but not for that typo. Literally every single sentence you wrote is false or half-true. Where did you study philosophy, wikipedia?
>>8271782
lol dude, it's ok, boy done wrong again, what u gonna do? add some knowledge if the dude is wrong
>>8271782
lol, actually I'm writing a thesis for a top 5 school on aesthetics and lit theory. nice try though :-)
>>8271828
You're a disgrace.
>>8271769
Further advances in empirical knowledge gives us better guiding lines when reading past philosophers, there is no reason to latch on to factually incorrect statements just because of someone's distinguished name. We have the luxury of seeing from a perspective of added illumination, and we get to pick and choose what we take from classical knowledge. I think using a combination and balance of influence from classical philosophy and modern science for my own views is the way to go. There are many things they thought of that we could not conjure today, and there are many things we have discovered that they could not imagine then.
>>8271868
Oh I agree, this is the point I'm trying to make. None of these authors should be forgotten/abandoned, they're all brilliant and useful. That doesn't make them /right/ in their assertions, many of which we know to be demonstrably false through modern science.
>>8270591
the black swan is also great book.
>>8270249
Routledge
>>8271868
>>8271874
The unfortunate consequence of this is that sometimes "correct" philosophers are not always "influential philosophers, and vice versa, even today.
Can you really say that a philosopher was a "brilliant thinker" if, in the end, they were influential, yet were wrong about almost everything at the time? And what is brilliant thought worth, if it's wrong? You could say, "the philosopher's argument structure was valid, although he made false assumptions about x, y and z. Well, what is the value of that? Hasn't argument structure already been defined so precisely by later philosophers that it hurts? Granted, it may help you solve some problem in that crystalized "Eureka!" moment beat to death by popular crime/hospital dramas, but that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Especially when you could be spending your time reading something that's still held as true today.
>>8269696
do yourself a favor and ready Montaigne -- perhaps the first "modern" thinker.
