every philosophical work seems to require a great amount of prior knowledge, when I go to learn about ideas referenced by authors I find that I have to understand another prior author or concept and so on and so on. is there a specific list best to progress through when wanting to read all the eminent philosophers?
Begginer philosophy chart/guide
Blake Johnson
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.google.com
twitter.com
Andrew Flores
bump
Chase Hall
start
with
the
greeks
Mason Long
Camden Harris
What the fuck is that doing with an X to prefigure it? And there's no fucking operator symbol either! I should coom instead of reading this
Josiah Price
*without an
Dominic Bailey
Here's the philosophy chart by concepts:
Beginner
The universe makes sense and we can understand everything by the means of observation and rigorous logical deduction
Medium
The universe makes sense, but observation isn't as reliable as we've been led to believe.
All we know about are ideas.
Advanced
Nothing makes sense. The universe is dead. We live by shit, and die by shit. There's no we or you. I claim I know stuff, but it's all in a futile attempt to delude myself.
That's the equivalent of all of philosophy up until post-grad level.
Now go live your life.
Nathan Walker
>All that shit just to say that "Reals > Feels, even though we don't know reals"
Noah Edwards
stop being retarded. Just because the guy is a marxist doesn't mean the entire thing is invalid.
The guide is very well made with plenty of explanations and comments, as well as recommendations of specific editions/translations.
I dislike leftists probably as much as you but I dislike retards even more.
Owen Cruz
Luke Lewis
>Gross
Stop writing like a preteen girl.
Kevin Ward
start with the sumerians
Lincoln Allen
Lincoln Thomas
lol you sure are a tard. your list is by a transgendered communist tripfag from the early days of Yea Forums. there's nothing you can do about this, your reading recommendations are going to have to come from leftists because the /pol/tards just watch youtube instead of reading. since most of the old posters are gone this board's culture has deteriorated into self-avowed right-wingers solemnly passing down reading charts made years prior by turbo-leftists like they're relics from before the apocalypse.
Easton Robinson
I know that this board is big on reading primary texts, but, as you mention, every author references many other authors. The first philosophical work I attempted to read was Being and Nothingness and even with commentaries that was too much for me (that is individual though, I envy one friend of mine in particular who just naturally understands almost every philosopher, he went through the 3 Hs in a matter of weeks). My recommendation is to start by reading Frederick Copleston’s history of philosophy. It’s an enormous work (more than 5000 pages) but it’s, in my opinion, absolutely worth it. I’m rereading it at the moment, and it is fantastic how he manages to convey complex ideas without overly simplifying them (Anthony Kenny) or including too much bias (Bertrand Russell, who, as brilliant as he was on his field, had little understanding of many philosophers outside of it, the German idealists, for instance). It’s a little bit outdated by now , eg Copleston states that Plato’s dialogue Parmenides was an actual recounter of a meeting between Parmenides and Socrates, which we now know never took place, but, at least in the fields I am familiar with, these issues are fairly minimal. If you struggle through the 9 volumes you should get the best primer on philosophy anybody could ask for. If you also want to read primary works straight away, Plato, David Hume, Bergson, Schopenhauer and Foucault (except The Order of Things), are all good and relatively easy starting points. I think you could read the sep/iep pages for all of these and then just dive straight into them. Philosophy can be incredibly rewarding, so you have much to look forward to, just don’t give up (which you are going to want to do a lot of times).
Ryan Edwards
Honestly, I could post a list a mile long and it still wouldn't be complete. But I think this'd offer a good starting point. I've never read any of these I'll admit.
>Laozi 601 bc - Tao Te Ching
>Various 580 bc - The First Phiosophers
>Confusius 551 bc - Analects
>Buddah 500 bc - Dhammapada
>Plato 429 bc - Works
>Aristotle 384 bc - Works
>Epicurus 341 bc - Essentials
>Seneca 4 bc - Letters From A Stoic
>Plutarch 46 ad - Lives, Moralia
>Epictetus 50 ad - Discourses
>Aruelius 121 ad - Meditations
>Plotinus 204 ad - Enneads
>Augustis 354 ad - Confessions, City Of God
>Proclus 412 ad - Elements Of Theology
>Thomas Aquinas 1225 - Summa Theologica
>Montaigne 1533 - Essays
>Hobbes 1588 - Leviathan
>Descartes 1596 - Philosophical Writings
>Pascal 1623 - Pensees
>Locke 1632 - Two Treatises On Government
>Spinoza 1632 - Ethics
>Leibniz 1646 - Philosophical Essays
>Hume 1711 - Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
>Kant 1724 - Works
>Fitche 1762 - Vocation of Man
>Hegel 1770 - Works
>Schelling 1775 - Dont know
>Schoppenhaur 1788 - Works
>Mill 1806 - Utilitarianism, On Libery
>Stirner 1806 - The Ego And It's Own
>Kierkegaard 1813 - Either Or
>Nietzsche 1844 - Works
>Whitehead 1861 - Process And Reality
>Russell 1872 - Problems Of Philosophy
>Guenon 1886 - Introduction To The Study Of Hindu Doctrines
>Pessoa 1888 - The Book Of Disquiet
>Wittgenstein 1889 - Philosophical Investigations
>Heidegger 1889 - Being And Time
Aaron Jackson
good post, thanks fren
Kayden King
City of God, Summa Theologica, Hegel, Process And Reality, and Being And Time.
Good for PhD degree I think
Isaiah Roberts
Based shape poster.
Bentley Green
Thank you, Ive heard so many accolades for Copleston here that im dead set on getting a physical copy to put on the shelves with my encyclopedia.
Also, oddly enough, I found descarte pretty easy to get into without much prior knowledge besides high school level basics of Socrates and Aristotle and some self reflection. Kant was pretty impenetrable to me initially at least.
Thomas Bailey
I've recently started reading Kenny's work - what would you say it is lacking compared to Copleston's, apart from breadth of course? (Kenny's is 1/5th the size)