How necessary is Aristotle? He's drier than Kant desu
No philosophers are really "necessary." If you're reading philosophers for "necessary" I got some bad news for ya.
Aristotle's writings are just a bunch of lecture notes slapped together by his successors.
>>7852140
They're necessary to understand the foundations of Western civilization beyond "Jebus did it and made us hapy XD"
>>7852140
Not him but in his place I would mean, to understand general philosophy, to read more recent works and don't feel confused, to not think I've had some great understanding when people centuries ago already thought it.
That's the kind of "necessary" I'd mean.
Those are the two essential philosophers desu.
The West was Scholastic/Aristotelian and then the Enlightenment came and we were Kantian.
I suppose you could see our current age as post-Enlightenment and Nietzschean.
But yes, Aristotle is absolutely necessary
>>7852154
Specifically what works would you say?
>>7852154
>skipping the moderns
>>7852155
The obvious ones are Physics, Metaphysic and Politics
I know there's some dispute as to whether Eudemian Ethics or Nicomachean Ethics is more important
In all honesty though just get some good secondary literature/explanations
>>7852155
not that guy, but I'll try to answer
these are Aristotle's five most "important" works
>Politics
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Physics
>Metaphysics
>On the Soul
Aristotle has a Richard McKeon-edited one-volume collection which has most of his stuff in it.
>>7852158
>Implying Kant wasn't a modern
>Implying Descartes is on the level of Kant or Aristotle
>>7852193
But I think it's still proper to categorize the history of philosophy into those periods. Descartes and associates marked a total change in methodology.
>>7852130
>drier than kant
huehue
He's about as necessary as Plato
