Alright everybody, I have finally created a comprehensive list of every Philosophical work you should ever read, so we no longer need a retarded guide.
What do you think?
>>7444393
>All that Hegel
No thanks
Also fuck off with the greeks
>>7444415
Hegel is important you retard
And really theres barely any Greek on there
>>7444393
Nice, this strikes the core of western philosophy, very good.
>includes political philosophy
>leaves out marx
you had one job.
>>7444457
I'm open to suggestion, this was what I considered the absolute essential
May I ask you, did you actually read each of these titles? I see a couple of holes in there. What is the reason behind the inclusion of Voltaire's “Candide”? It's arguably relevant since it's more of a fiction than a philosophically intented work, and its main interest is to parody and mock up existing currents rather than elaborating a new one. Why are you including Homer's “Iliad” and “Odyssey”? I don't see the benefit in this subject. Why isn't Karl Marx in your chart? I would rather introduce Georg Hegel in a separate category, along other helegianists, then draw up Soren Kierkegaard and existentialism, Karl Marx and marxism and Friedrich Nietzsche in three connected ones, which would be a more wiser choice considering their respective roots and historical developments. I would add French theorists, Karl Barth, Paul Ricœur and Jacques Ellul, more early Middle Ages Arab philosophers in your “optional Middle Ages” category and maybe add Michel de Montaigne.
>>7444393
This is only Western philosophy and there's no Marxist philosophy or Stirner. And no Russell or Frege or really so many important modern philosophers.
>>7444393
I enjoy that you left out Camus and his kek friend Sartre.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard anticipated their philosophy better than they were able to conceive it.
So what about Post-structuralists. Do semiotics make the cut?
>>7444476
This was taken from the other guide /lit/ has and turned into a picture. The argument that Candide is fiction I wouldn't call true, its more Satire, and The Prince is heavily satirical as Machiavelli was a staunch republican yet that stays unnoticed by you. Iliad and Odyssey heavily influenced Greek writers, Plato called him the first teacher. I haven't read Marx so I didn't put him in there. As for the other people you mentioned I haven't read them either. As as for Arabs none of /lit/ is really knowledge on them, I'd like to hear more about them though.
>>7444499
I study Islam. This is a great site for those interested in Islamic philosophy
muslimphilosophy.com
>>7444510
>Islamic "philosophy"
Not interested in killing Kaffirs
>>7444393
Why no Sartre or Camus? Too good for them?
D C D E N N E T T
& Hofstadter. Y'know, the guys that unravelled consciousness. WittgensteinHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAIt's like you don't even know you don't know you don't know.
Alright, writing up a new one. throw names and titles at me and I'll check them out
Why would anyone "Start with the greeks" when Campbell, Frazer and Nietzsche completely BTFO their entire culture.
All real greek philosophy has already been summarised by Russel and so on. Spend some time reading well written texts like Diary of a Seducer.
>>7444490
What's so bad about Camus & Sartre?
>>7444517
If you don't have anything worthwhile to say, then why do you open your mouth? Go to the bathroom instead so it comes out of the right end.
>>7444562
What is "right" when you really think about it?
have you considered not making goodies on things you haven't read and can only namedrop and actually, you know, reading?
this chart is trash because the OP is just regurgitating names he's heard and memes he's had thrown at him, with no organic understanding or internalization of context. it has the semblance of respectability, but not much beyond that.
fuck off.
>>7444562
>Go to the bathroom instead so it comes out of the right end.
topkek. the sandnigger's can keep up with the banter
>>7444571
Whatever I can justify to myself ya spook.
>>7444571
I mean defecate out your anus rather than on here. :p
>>7444575
it's basically just that google doc in capsle form
>>7444499
Medieval philosophy is unfortunately often described as the Church intellectual domination or looked down on as the sign of the darkest and saddest history of thoughts period, yet a hundred years of reflexions, innovations and high-end works silently sleep between the end of the Antiquity and the Renaissance. A long aristotelian tradition survived in Syria and Iraq where Nestorian and Jacobite Christians translated him before he met Islamic philosophy. The first one I would like to see in this chart is Abū al-Fārābī, which most renowned works “kitāb iḥṣā' al-'ulūm” and “Risâlafî ma'âni al-'aql” gave a new insight on logic, epistemology and a solid contribution on the history of sciences. He also wrote a comment on a part of Aristotle's contribution to logic now lost. He was also a virtuose and a well-known polyglot.
The second one, also the second most famous Islamic philosopher and polymath is Abū Ibn-Sīnā, known here as “Avicenna”, was introduced in medieval Europe actually before Aristotle, and he probably was the one to initiate the European philosophical production. His massive, major contribution, “Kitab al-Shifa'”, translated as “The Book of Healing” is made of four parts, respectively on logic, natural philosophy, mathematics and metaphysics, and is surely one of the greatest and most influential work in philosophy history. I would like to see Abū al-Ghazālī's contribution, as he is one of the only true Islamic scholar to have influenced the West. He wrote on Islamic doctrine in “Maqāṣid al-falāsifah” and on the contradictory points between Avicenna and Islam in “Tahāfut al-Falāsifa'”, both worthwhile, the later being better known and translated earlier in Latin. The last one who earned his place here is, of course, Abū Ibn-Rušd, Averroes, which commentaries on Plato and Aristotle, divided in short (jami), middle (talkhis) and long (tafsir) ones, are both a unique and original work, besides launching a new way of writing (a long time before the sum). I think it sums up the main contribution of Islam to early medieval literature.
Regarding Voltaire's “Candide”, its philosophical—and once again, very arguable—range is still coincidental and had little influence nor relevance on the whole history—unlike the one “The Prince” had—and, if you still include it, there's no reason to not introduce other obvious works of literature with potential value, like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's “Citadel” or “Wind, Sand and Stars” or even François Rabelais' “Gargantua” and “Pentagruel”. I think it wouldn't make much sense here. “Iliad” and “Odyssey” surely influenced a lot but still have little to no relevance per se, I would avoid them. Karl Marx can't be ignored, on the other hand.
>>7444536
>>7444560
Albert Camus has no place here but Jean-Paul Sartre might be included, yes. A catagory should definitely be dedicated to existentialism.
>>7444647
Are you the same north american student who took a class in Arab philosophy?
Ibn Rushd is also important not because of his influence on the Muslim world, since he had relatively little, but because of his huge influence on medieval European philosophy. He wrote the rebuttal to al-Ghazali Tahafut at-Tahafut.
Philosophus Autodidactus and Theologus Autodidactus are also important and very fun. :)
Mulla Sadra is also a major important philosopher for modern Islamic philosophy. The site I linked above should help much with generalities and specificities.
>>7444647
Philosophy is about thought. The Iliad and Odyssey are very deep stories with lots of different intertwining themes that requires a lot of thought, and creates a lot of though.
>>7444465
For "absolute essential" you can do away with things like "the complete works" of Spinoza as well as the ridiculous amounts of Nietzsche and Hegel. A few well-chosen works will be more than sufficient if what we're aiming for is the "absolute essential". That level of immersion in a philosopher is something most philosophy students would be happy to have.
It's also a little silly to have "The Philosophical Writings" of Descartes when those are just a modern compilation of his work. Why not list the important stuff? Principles and Meditations? I don't really see that anything beyond that is "essential". The "Philosophical Writings" of Descartes even includes his correspondences, for goodness's sake. That does not fit under the label of "absolute[ly] essential".
All in all good guide but overshoots the mark for "essential" by a _lot_.
>>7444647
Do you have any English version of those texts you mentioned? My usually sources don't have anything
>>7444702
I meant that what I had was so far hit the essential mark, but the goal was everything you could ever need really
>>7444678
No, I'm not. I noted Abū Ibn-Rušd because he is the very foundation of scolastic Aristotelianism, and in the same intention I didn't speak about other notorious thinkers who's influence isn't relevant enough in the West. I could have mentioned Solomon Ibn Gabirol, now that I think about it. Jewish influence is significantly smaller than Arab one but there's still a couple of translators worth mentioning.
>>7444693
Still arguably relevant and surely not essential. As aforementioned, if we allow fictions who incidentally have a small philosophical value, we can drop a load of names and titles and it isn't a philosophy chart anymore.
>>7444702
Right, there's too much of each philosopher, here.
>>7444705
No, I either went through it in French or Latin. There must be a decent English translation, though.
>>7444678
might help you.
stupid
I can't tell you've never studied philosophy
it's not like reading fiction. it takes an extraordinary amount of time to understand any one of those thinkers' main texts, let alone read their entire works
>>7444727
I graduated in classical study in Paris-Sorbonne. My main interest is 17th French poetry but I still had to study the medieval philosophical canon.
>>7444705
For Ibn Sina for example
http://muslimphilosophy.com/sina/index.html
I noticed that some of the specific texts he referenced are uploaded in Arabic though... :/
Which ones specifically do you need, I can check archive.org
>>7444710
>hit the essential mark
>the goal was everything you could ever need
Pick one.
>>7444745
Its a spectrum, at the start you have the bare bones essential, and at the end you have everything you need. This is meant to be a work in progress.
>>7444739
That's awesome to see someone like you on this site. I study mainly texts in Shi'ism: legal, theological, philosophical, historical, etc. Regardless, I've done studies on my own and as part of my academic career on Islam in general and its philosophers.
>>7444705
At least there's this for Ibn Sina in English: http://muslimphilosophy.com/books/inati1.pdf
>>7444748
I think you need to ask yourself what you want to achieve. Is it an “essential chart”, a guide for young readers, an extensive canon? As far as I can see, it suits nobody and has no clear goal.
>>7444752
Thanks! It's rare to see Islamic scholars as well. People almost never speak about classical literature, the only guy who does it is this weird tripfag that keeps holding Boileau as the pinacle of literature.
http://book4you.org/book/2187635/533be0
Here is Ibn Sina's Kitab Al-Shifaʾ/Book of Healing
>>7444762
I haven't seen him yet haha. I've been coming here recently because I'm on break and bored
>>7444647
/lit/ is a shithole I keep coming back to because occasionally this happens. I am excited to read The Incoherence of Philosophers, good sir.
>>7444803
Also read Ibn Rushd's reply. It's terrible but Christian philosophers praised it and it influenced them greatly.
>>7444810
And the two autodidactuses I referenced because they influenced literature greatly in Arab and European world as well as philosophy
>>7444457
If someone should be left out its Marx, how the fuck to people still take that individuals contributions seriously today with what we know about his life and times
I quickly talked about Jewish influence—I noted Solomon Ibn-Gabriol because he wrote in Arabic, which was the subject—but we should definitely speak about Isaac Israeli as well. He merged neoplatonicism within the scriptures' creationist context in “Kitab al-Ḥudud wal-Russum” which has been extensively read in its Latin translation “Liber de definitionibus” by Christian theologians in the 13th century and of which the idea of truth as an adequation of both the thing and the thought has been held as the doctrine for centuries under the Latin idiom “adaequatio rei et intellectus”. It's definitely worthwhile, at least for its original combination of emanation and freedom within the neoplatonicist frame.
>>7444818
Karl Marx widely influenced thousands of philosophers and surely is one of the most well-known thinker in history. It doesn't matter if you don't like him or whether he has been backed the hell out, not learning about him or leaving him out of a so-called essential chart is pure ignorance.
>>7444855
You should also mention Maimonides too
>>7444857
Well, I'm afraid it's becoming a “early European medievial philosophy” chart.
Can we get the 11 or so guides with images that covered philosophy? Those were a lot easier on the eyes and provided a number of topical areas that serve better than this guide currently does.
>>7444867
haha
If you really want to get at all the philosophers who influenced a particular civilization you're interested in, you'll be so overwhelmed. I personally think it's better to just read an overview, get names in your head, then just start instead of make a chart or list. Wasting time allocating cursory info on these brilliant thinkers does nothing.
>>7444884
Well, I never learnt or chose my reading through a chart of this kind, I had a teacher then a professor with his own annotated bibliography, and now I simply read about it in dedicated publications but I can understand what motivates the original poster. The idea of having a finite, refined guide to have an overall view of a specific discipline is quite appealing, especially to a new reader, and I think there's room to make a really, good one. However, this will need a lot of work and not random drops of famous names and titles with no coherence or justifications. I'm sure a couple of people here didn't even know Aristotle and Plato's thoughts made their way to Bagdad and Damascus before coming back to Europe.
>>7444905
Yes, that's true. This is why I think it's just better to read an intro text that discusses the history of philosophy and then you can read intro texts focusing on a particular civilization/period before engaging with primary works.
>Epicurus
>On the Nature of Things
>>7444966
>On the Nature of Things
Yeah, my bad, should just be On Nature
>forgets to add modern continentals
Are you trying to piss me off, comrade?
>>7444973
That only survives in fragments. I assume you meant 'De Rerum Natura - Lucretius'.
For Epicurus there is 'The Essential Epicurus'
>>7444979
I don't think it is essential to know them.
>>7444393
There is alot missing, and I don't agree at all with your seventh stage. Modern philosophy is importent and brenched, you can't put Witty right after Heidegger, and you shouldn't put them on the same block anyway. Generally, I think a division into schools of thought could be more efficient and reflective of modern and contemporary philosophy.
Despite everything it's still, by far, the best thing we have for getting into philosophy. (The page put together quite some time ago is arguably "better", but it's scary and all messy). Good job OP.
We should list up each titles considered as “essential” along with a short description and why it has been chosen and then, we could draw up relations between them and sort it up.
>no David Benatar
shit list
>>7444393
This list is almost entirely epistemological and metaphysical. I guess that's fine for an academic setting, but you're ignoring far too much early work (greek/roman) on ethics and aesthetics.
>>7444393
How do you read Witty without any of the other analytics? Without any background in philosophical logic you may as well be groping in the dark.
>>7444442
hegel does not understand empiricism, stoicism, buddhism and calls himself the new aristotle.
Probably missed this guy.
Could one not simply read 'A History of Western Philosophy' to get a jist of philosophy?
>>7444499
>the Prince is satire
And you expect me to take you seriously now you fucking moron? Machiavelli being a republican does not make the Prince a satire. Read a fucking critical apparatus retard.
>>7446039
Also the guide wasn't that hard to navigate, and is full of ISBN recommendations. That's what made it so good.
>>7445991
"History of Western Philosophy" is dreadfully inaccurate and moralising. It is not worth reading.
OP
tell me the list of books that will explain all those books to me. I don't have time to read and figure it all out seriously.
>>7444393
Lists like these are why I don't follow philosophy anymore. The only points of reading classic works of philosophy are to either gain context for modern positions or to understand what people believed during certain time periods. This list should be totally inverted with the modern section being enormous and the other sections each containing only the essentials. No other field treats the history of its thought with as much importance as philosophy does, which is very revealing.
>>7444393
Pretty good, but hardly definitive.
Apparently Modern Philosophy ended in the 1940s.
/lit/itzens are always making massive lists of books they'll never read
>>7445976
This. And you forgot Ayn Rand too.
>machiavelli
>aurelius
>voltaire
>works of love
>tractatus
>aeschylus
mehhhhhhhhh
>cicero
>>7446084
Oh dear, thank you for the warning. I'll still have a read, but really, I'm not all that deeply interested in philosophy and want a genuine introduction to it.
Any alternative suggestions?
>it stops in the early 20th century
come on OP. Does anyone who makes these lists know anything about contemporary philosophy? There are huge philosophical figures in the mid to late 20th century (we haven't been in the 21st long enough to say anything for sure but there are some interesting trends already sprouting up) that are just completely disregarded.
>>7446218
Why people think ignoring modern philosophy is acceptable is beyond me. Maybe the fear of SJWs means they can't read an author who might have read Marx.
A list of books about science without any books from the 20th Century would be simply useless
>>7446195
Copleston's history is excellent.
>>7444559
>All real greek philosophy has already been summarized by Russell
Actually got me mad. Good job.
>>7446249
People who don't consider contemporary philosophy to be essential to the history of thought are just incorrect though.
>>7444393
Modern is terribly, terribly incomplete... at the absolute least the analytic side should begin with russell, include quine, and go to kripke, and the continental side should include saussure, barthes, foucault, derrida, deleuze, lacan... and even that still leaves you with a mediocre gloss.
>>7446731
If you want to keep that link thing going on, some Islamic thinkers heavily influenced Christian thinkers. Once again muslimphilosophy.com is the best place to get major names and works.
>>7446731
when will the list be complete i want to actually save the picture
>>7446731
Shouldnt seneca be on there? whats his most important work?
Keep them coming, OP, I'm with you. You are doing a fine job.
>>7446731
>Heidegger
>Analytic
what
>>7444476
Candide is a phenomenological reply to Leibniz's claim that we live in the best of all worlds delivered as satire. It's definitely not a stand alone work of philosophy but it functions well as a companion piece to the two Leibniz works listed
>>7444499
>not knowledgeable on Arab philosophers
>claims guide is comprehensive
The Ash'arites had a pseudo atomic conception of space time and theologically rooted multiverse theory in the 9th century
The spiritual successor to these people was Al-Ghazali, who did everything Descarte did in 15 pages in his Deliverance from Error (a copy of which was supposedly found in Descartes library), his theory of causation is essentially Hume 500 years before Hume and he btfo Rationalism in a way that wouldn't be matched until Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Any guide that doesn't include him at the very least, and there are many more who deserve to be considered "essential" (Al-Farabi, Ibn-Sina, Ibn'Rusd to name a few), doesn't get to be called comprehensive.
>>7444510
Thanks again for the link last night anon, don't know shit about modern Islamic philosophy but I'm on my way
>>7447943
Fixed that senpai
>>7447874
When everybody is agrees it is
>>7447988
>no Ibn Rushd
>neither of the two autodidactuses
>no Ibn Arabi
>no Mulla Sadra
>no al-Farabi
>>7448006
And you can find them on libgen and muslimphilosophy, right? :s I mean I did.
>>7448006
>Averroes clearly on there
>no Ibn'Rushd
No anon, you are the plebI do agree those should all be on there though, you'd almost need another chart to see the chain of influence
>>7447988
Nice work. Seneca the Younger would be a nice addition, as well as maybe some Asian philosophers? Gautama, Confucius, Laozi. Also, I think some more ethics philosophers should be in there too.
>>7447983
Oh no problem. Hope it's going well. :)
Maybe we can discuss sometime on here. I need to do more reading myself as well.
>>7448006
Like I said (and probably most people on /lit/) know anything about Islamic philosophy. Feel free to add them yourself.
>>7448018
Damn. Some English names I'm not used to. I just thought it was another "Avicenna"
>>7448028
Don't know anything* same goes for Asian Philosophers in general
>>7448028
I'll try my hand at something. Don't sweat it. :)
>>7444393
My scrupulous analysis.
>no Hesiod
>'On the Nature of things' is Lucretius, not Epicurus. Essential but also list something of Epicurus'
>no Thales
>no Diogenes
the omission of Diogenes caused me to stop looking at your chart. I commend your efforts for this but it needs a lot of work.
Also rather than list 'complete works' which precludes interest I would suggest listing a jumping off point or two for getting into said philosopher
>>7447988
>no Chinese philosophers
At the very least throw Confucius in with the Political Philosophers
Mencius, Hui Shi, Laozi, Mozi, and Zhuangzi are all essential as well, and these are all pre-200BCadmittedly where my knowledge ends, probably why I'm not trying to make a comprehensive list
>>7448028
This entire thread is people getting pissed at your ignorance of anything influential that isn't Western philosophy, all while still claiming it's comprehensive
I'm pretty sure /lit/ gives a shitThat being said good job on the first update, we'll all get through this together chart-anon
>>7444393
It's good OP, but incomplete.
You missed Sextus Empiricus and Seneca.
You missed the Transcendentalist: Emerson and Therou; and the classical Pragmatists: Perice, James, Dewey.
You missed the pre-Wittgensteinians: Frege and Russell.
Then you have the reset of the 20th century to do, where we get the analytic-continental split.
For Continental: Husserl (pre-Heidegger), Merleau-Ponty's "Phenomenology of Perception", De Beauvoir "The Second Sex", fuck Sartre, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida.
Analytic: Austin, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Sellars, Kripke, Putnam, Rorty.
More's utopia?
>>7448071
I gave it a shot
>>7448087
Also OP you should do it like this. Should give inspiration too.
I also think you have too much of each thinker. Just do their "main" works.
Instead of just one chart, wouldn't it be better if people who are more specialized in a certain period/civilization make a chart of those philosophers? We could consolidate it later.
>>7444393
It is curious as to why you have 'complete works' listed for some but, in a rather ugly fashion have listed 19 different treatises of Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.
Also curious as to why you left out the existentialists. And the spiritual philosophers, I don't see how Zhu or Lao Tzu is any less philosophical than the shit Plato recorded. Where's Foucault? Jung? Debord?
>>7448095
I like you anon
You take a whole thread of shit and manage to make it productive.
Keep updating like this, fix a few of the titles and roll with the punches
Godspeed
>>7448099
I wrote complete works if I found a decent translation of a book containing their complete works
>>7448110
Yeah, I agree.
I'd say list their names under a heading denoting their "school" or "movement"
I don't see why OP needs to include Eastern thinkers. This is the history of Western philosophy. There's very little overlap between the two.
>>7444499
>Iliad and Odyssey heavily influenced Greek writers
in light of your concerns it seems full arbitrary of you to include Homer but not Hesiod or Hippocrates
>>7448144
I can upload the Muslim works on the top of my head right now. Which website should I do it on? Dropbox?
This list is ridiculous and by following it you wouldn't become a philosopher. You'd just be able to namedrop some shit in order to appear 'cultured' and 'intellectually superior' to plebs.
Fuck you, OP. You're a dumbfuck if you truly believe that learning philosophy is about going through some major philosophers of the past. Really, fuck you.
>no mathematics
>no logic
>no philosophy of science
>no physics
>no 20th century philosophy besides Heidegger and Witty
>>7444559
>Why would anyone "Start with the greeks" when Campbell, Frazer and Nietzsche completely BTFO their entire culture.
Just because Nietzsche had arguments against them doesn't mean you need to agree with him; reading both will give you leverage to formulate your own opinion. After all, you're in pursuit of knowledge other than that spouted by dead white men of antiquity, no?
>>7444647
>Albert Camus has no place here
Absurd.
>but Jean-Paul Sartre might be included
WTF are you talking about, why one and not the other? The essays of Camus are better than anything of Sartre
>>7448170
I think pretty much covers everything
>>7448156
>>no physics
yeah my functional analysis classes were really helpful when studying wittgenstein
>no philosophy of science
>implying epistemology isn't basically this without less stem circlejerk
>no logic
>he hasn't read the organon and prior analytics
fucking pleb
>mathematics
fun but unrelated.
what you're describing isn't a man versed in philosophy, that is a man who can understand the context for current discussions in philosophy, but some long obsoleted idea of a renaissance man that is just not viable anymore due to the breadth of all the fields you would need.
>You're a dumbfuck if you truly believe that learning philosophy is about going through some major philosophers of the past.
>thinking you'll ever have a meaningful thought on philosophy by disregarding the important thinkers of the past
have fun trying to reinvent the wheel and ending up with a shitty octagon you pleb.
>>7448170
I can't believe how good this is and yet doesn't include Critical Theory, e.g. Benjamin, Adorno, Zizek.
>>7448115
>I wrote complete works if I found a decent translation of a book containing their complete works
Listen up: the point of a chart is to make an aesthetically pleasing access point with which to facilitate interest or aid in a subject. Or just be aesthetically pleasing. It looks ugly the way it is and your logic seems batty to me
>>7448203
I think that's supposed to be in Modern Political Philosophy
>No Peirce
>No Analytics past babies first Atomist
>Basically nothing past 1940
Oh boy.
>>7448144
>I'll add those now
But I wasn't suggesting you add them, because there's about 500 more 'important' Greek poet-historians. I was actually suggesting that it's nonsensical to include Homer on your list of philosophers. Someone for the love of god tell me what I was saying was straitforward
>>7448170
OP BTFO
>>7448224
That one's still not complete though even for just Western philosophy.
>>7448212
It's completely different to political philosophy though. It's in the tradition of Hegel and (the philosophical side of) Marx.
>>7444393
Where are the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain philosophers?
>>7448098
Shouldn't we do this?
>>7444393
As a philosophy graduate student I haven't read half of those book, at least not completely.
I think the list is useful, but not very practical. Nobody when studying philosophy goes through every work every important philosopher has written, unless they have a particular interest on that philosopher, or on some work of his (for example, people who study aesthetic have a basic knowledge of kant's system set on the first critique, and read in deep the third critique).
Philosophy as a whole is impossible to study, at least for most people. Focusing on a particular branch after having a panoramic view of the whole (reading mostly fragments and secondary material) is probably the wisest thing to do.
Read a few works in deep rather than a lot superficially.
This said, you need some presocratic philosophers (I like Kirk-Raven), some Newton (physics and philosophy) before some of Kant's books, definitely Hutcheson before Kant's third Critique, Husserl before Heidegger, some Frege and Russell before Wittgenstein, and so on...
Reading jumping from one branch of philosophy to another is a very ineffective way to read philosophy.
>>7448165
If you enroll in a philosophy degree in France and ask to your professor to read Albert Camus—which is by the way a low-tier book taught in high school the way “Brave New World” or “1984” are—you'll be laugh at. In addition to have little literary merit, it has definitively no philosophical value and, to be honest, I suspect its populary in English-speaking countries chiefly comes from the fact it's one the easier book to read as a non-native speaker. Jean-Paul Sartre, however, is still considered a philosopher—unlike Albert Camus who is a writer—whatever the quality of his contribution. His name is worth mentioning because he is popular and may be the most notorious existentialist philosopher, even if I can't figure out why. You will note the chart posted by
>>7448170
includes Jean-Paul Sartre and makes no mention of Albert Camus.
>>7444393
no marx? are you kidding me?
>>7448263
>give me free shit please!
-Marx
>>7448263
Honestly ive read all of his shit and he's more of a political theorist than a philosopher.
God this whole idea is almost as fucking dumb as OP
Why not think for yourself instead of following some dogmatic canon? Oh wait I forgot, it's /lit/.
>>7448277
>I'M GONNA BE SO SMART JUST WAIT TIL I FINISH MY DRAGONLANCE BOOKS XD CANT WAIT TO POST IT REDDIT
>>7448280
I ask why one should follow a list of books by some random person on an imageboard instead of exploring according to one's own intellectual development and some idiot replies with a shitposting meme about how reddit sucks. OK.
>>7448288
It's a guide, m8. It can be helpful for some. Take it or leave it.
Also, you are stupid as fuck ;)
>>7448099
>don't see how Zhu or Lao Tzu is any less philosophical than the shit Plato recorded.
end yourself
>>7448268
If you're the genuine original poster, I'm highly disappointed you didn't take in account our numerous comments. Besides having forgotten early medieval scholars and not included half of the works they wrote, you incorrectly made up an “Islamic philosophy” category, completely leaving out the other faiths and ignoring the strong multicultural environment who allowed this flourishing, disregarding elementary facts like Bagdad sheltered Christian and Jewish scholars of important like Hunavn, Yuhanna ibn Haylan or Yaḥyá ibn 'Adī who translated into Arabic the Greek sources, the two later being peers of Abū al-Fārābī. Moreover, you still created nonsensical categories with no purpose which don't have historical or segmental justifications and still didn't take out the excessive amount of titles each philosopher has in your chart. It looks more confused and pointless that before.
>>7448299
What is the help in a list of texts that might as well be essentially arbitrary? On what grounds or authority is it compiled? What is its use?
OP might as well have gone on wikipedia and copy-pasted some books by famous philosophers. In fact, that's probably what he did, because I seriously doubt he's read even 1/10th of the works in the image.
The whole concept of an authoritative philosophical canon is absurd.
Sapere aude.
>>7448313
Well, why don't you leave the thread instead?
Anyway, like I implied above, 80% of /lit/ (being generous) consists of 19 year olds who have learned to skim wikipedia, maybe have read a couple of classics, but overall no idea what they're talking about and think they are far smarter than they really are. As if this place is where to go for a
>comprehensive list of every P[sic]hilosophical work you should ever read
As opposed to...I dunno...a university syllabus compiled by professionals?
>>7448328
>Well, why don't you leave the thread instead?
Because there is some utility I hope in making clear how fraudulent an idea this thread is, to help posters who lack critical thinking skills from being taken in.
>>7448332
>80% of /lit/ (being generous) consists of 19 year olds who have learned to skim wikipedia, maybe have read a couple of classics, but overall no idea what they're talking about and think they are far smarter than they really are
Aren't you projecting?
>>7448344
How is this fraudulent to help the others making decent and coherent reading choices and explain them the reason they should go through it, as well as the further titles they could go for if they happen to appreciate it?
>>7448313
Then what do you suggest to someone who is interested in studying philosophy on his own?
>>7448233
You tell me.
>>7448354
>How is this fraudulent to help the others making decent and coherent reading choices and explain them the reason they should go through it, as well as the further titles they could go for if they happen to appreciate it?
Because you're a dumb kid on the internet pretending that you've read (let alone understood) e.g. the complete works of Meister Eckhart, or Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript and imagine that you can recommend them as philosophical works in their own right above others and can even "explain [to others] the reason they should go through it".
>>7448357
Fuck me, it's not exactly difficult. Read around on the internet, wikipedia, whatever, find some philosophers whose thought sounds interesting and buy and read a book by them.
But of course this is 4chan, so we need an image macro telling others to read 15000 pages of medieval scholasticism in a showcase of absurd intellectual vanity.
>>7448379
I'm
>>7444476
>>7444647
>>7444739
>>7444855
>>7448312
I extensively read on Eckhart von Hochheim as well as the other Rhenan mystics, yes. I've written multiple times on medieval logics, on the supposition, the modi supponendi and the obligatio tradition. As I graduated in classical studies, of course, I read the medieval corpus in original language. Did you? The only kid I see here is you, bragging about his knowledge despite having brought no contribution, wasting our time as well as your and desesperately trying to appear bright. You're a failure and I still laugh of your awkward recommendation to read on Wikipedia and search philosophers on Google. You're obviously uncultured and more likely stupid, that's the only explanation I can think of. You don't have a tenth of the knowledge some have demonstrated in this thread.
>>7448420
Not him. Do you have a list of the medieval philosophy scholars and texts you studied that you could paste here? Thanks.
>>7448438
Yes, I do. Give me a minute.
>>7448420
I wasn't replying to you. If you have an academic understanding of Eckhart, cool. That really has no bearing on the desirability of a "this is all the philosophical works one should ever read despite even myself not having read them" image macro compiled by another poster on 4chan.
Wikipedia is a much better source than 4chan on philosophy. That should be obvious.
>>7448357
Read a bit of everything, then specialize, I've read the Greeks, Romans, Idealism, Existentialism, Empiricism, etc, but I stick now to Rationalism and Kant
>>7448454
I think people should use plato.stanford.edu instead of wiki for basic information
>>7446100
>The only points of reading classic works of philosophy are to either gain context for modern positions or to understand what people believed during certain time periods.
Where do I even begin with you.
>>7448454
Excuse my rudeness, then. I don't think Wikipedia is a worthwhile source, it contains numerous errors and is sometimes—often?—written by people with no serious knowledge, which unique difference with 4chan is the punctuation. Also, because an article frequently have more than a hundred of contributors, it has lost its style, its progress is meaningless and consists of a disconnected points. I'd rather read a published article where the author(s) followed a strict, logical line of reasoning. Wikipedia is a terrible website to learn. On the other hand, 4chan has been proven a couple fo times a worthwhile source but, as I said, this chart is mediocre and the original poster didn't follow our suggestions and commentaries.
>>7448465
Yes, or the IEP.
The point is that these resources are open-ended, rather than a linear, dogmatic canon, and are peer-reviewed instead of a list of namedrops compiled by an individual without proper qualification.
>>7448473
Wikipedia isn't good to study a philosopher. I never claimed that. I also used it as an example. The point I made was that wikipedia can help you find philosophers and give a flavour of them that interests you in further study.
/lit/ is worthwhile on the rare occasion when some anon who knows what they're talking about appears in a thread and starts replying. 99% of the rest of the board is wading through memes and shitposts by kids who pretend to have read stuff.
>>7448444
Alright. Thank you very much. This is awesome.
>>7448504
On gloss (glosae et glosulae):
“Glosae super Platonem”, by William of Conches
“Glossulae”, by Peter Abelard
“Summa in Priscianum”, by Petrus Helias
“De anima”, by Ioannes Blundus (strong influence of Abū Ibn-Sīnā)
Selected commentarium by Albertus Magnus (strong influence of Abū Ibn-Sīnā, too)
Modist philosophy (questioning of commentaries, expositio per modum quaestionis):
“De modis significandi”, by Boetius of Dacia
“De modis significandi”, by Martin of Dacia
On disputationes et obligationes:
“Libri Quattuor Sententiarum”, by Pierre Lombard (not about disputationes but held under quaestio in further works)
then
“Sentences”, by Peter of Poitiers
Disputationes of Simon of Tournai, in “Les 'disputationes' de Simon de Tournai”, by Joseph Warichez
Relevant passages of “Quoniam homines”, by Alain de Lille
Form the sums:
Thomas Aquinas
“Summulae logicales”, by Peter of Spain
Plus selected passages of
“Introductiones in logicam”, by William of Sherwood
“Summa logicae”, by Lambert of Auxerre
Those were the texts we had to study, I can retrieve the complete bibliography but it will take significantly longer.
>>7448548
You said above you also studied Farabi and Averroes and Avicenna. Is that in the complete bibliography?
>>7448560
Oh, you were referring to them? They're not considered as European medieval philosophers, they're part of the Greek, Arab, Jewish and Eastern Christian corpora used before going into medieval literature. If that's what you're interested in, give me another minute, it's a separated course.
>stages one
>>7448565
Well I'm interested in sort of everyone (Greek, Arab, Jew, Christian, etc.). If you could dump all the names, I'd appreciate it so much.
>>7444393
>Greeks
>No Cynic school
Trashed.
>>7448190
>thinking anyone in logic nowadays gives two fucks about doctrine of syllogism
Yes, you're stupid.
>>7448569
bump
If you could only do one, then I'd like Arab/Persian philosophy.
>>7448190
>long obsoleted idea of a renaissance man that is just not viable anymore due to the breadth of all the fields you would need
That's what people thought at the time thought.
It's still possible, but I don't think is a matter of 'I want to be a renaissance man', anyone with such capacity is probably highly intelligent by nature - skilled enough that couldn't be achieved by training alone.
Why just 'On Nature' by Epicurus? He has other works and letters.
You may aswell have Lucretius as well.
> No Philosophical Letters by Voltaire
>>7444647
>No Ibn Khaldun.
aydewkat urselfes
>>7450102
The entire al-Muqaddimah is great. I'm glad more people are recognizing Ibn Khaldun here! :D
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
>>7445972
>hegel was wrong about some things
>fuck reading that guy he has nothing to say.
10/10 there, friendo
Hey guys, could someone list me a few of the most important entry level existential texts to read up on?
Total philosophy pleb here, is it safe to start with existentialism or will there be too much of a gap in my knowledge, and if so, what should i read instead?
Anyone have an ethics in philosophy book chart / recommendations?
>>7448565
Are you here tonight?
>>7452176
bump
>>7444803
>/lit/ is a shithole
Its the only board i visit but i recently vistied /biz/ and /his/.
God save our glorius /lit/, sure here is a lot of shitposting and meme spamming but this place is a utopia in comparison with the /pol/ occupated shitholes.
