/lit/ - Literature

>>18906672
10 hours a day for 150 years

>>18906672
>he fell for the greeks meme
laughingcontemporaryphilosophers.tiff

Read pojman's collection if you want to read the history of philosophy

>>18906672
Read Copleston History of Philosophy

>>18906785
fpbp

fuck the greeks read darwin

Depends how much you skip.
If you literally read every philosopher on this list, it would take many years and you'd get little out of it.
If you made a list of the 20 most important philosophers and read them, while filling in the rest with secondary reading, you could probably get through all of it in a year or two with dedication.

>>18906672
>No Romanticists

>>18907865
>If you made a list of the 20 most important philosophers and read them, while filling in the rest with secondary reading, you could probably get through all of it in a year or two with dedication.
Hmmmmm OK let me try.
I've already got the presocratics (including the sophists) covered. So if I made a list, I'd have, based on my interest....
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Plotinus
>Empiricus
>Augustine
>Abelard
>Machiavelli
>Hobbes
>Descartes
>Spinoza
>Locke
>Hume
>Kant
>Fichte
>Hegel
>Nietzsche
>Husserl
>Heidegger
>Sartre

Not 20, but I think this is what I need in terms of catching up before tackling contemporary philosophy. I'm not gonna tackle analytic philosophy, what with it being deeply rooted in mathematics (which I intend to study), and I'm also leaving out the postmodernists to read at my own discretion later.

>>18908031
you won't even read half of their wiki pages pseud

>>18908043
You're right, I will not read their wiki pages, I will read their books. Made plenty of progress on my journey already, I read the Illiad and the Odyssey, and two books on the collected fragments of pretty much all of the presocratic philosophers. I got a long way to go, but slowly but surely, I'm gonna make it.

>>18908031
I'd add Aquinas, Leibniz, and Locke
Nietzsche and Marx (if you consider them philosophy)
And maybe some introductory Buddhism and Tao just for the sake of it

>>18908052
I have locke and nietzsche on there, but sure, might as well throw leibniz and aquinas in as well.
I'm leaving out Marx, Engels, and all of their critics since that's more philosophy of economics, which I'm interested in, but I'll leave it for later.
Funny you should mention, I'm very much interested in Chinese, Indian, as well as Arabic philosophies/faiths, but I'm currently focusing on western philosophy, so as to not spread myself too thin.

>>18908064
Oops missed them on your list
You're probably safe to leave out Marx so long as you have a working understanding of his ideas

Why don't you just read who you like? Pick someone and work backward through their influences. Then you come up with your own stuff. You haven't exited philosophy if you don't write your own.

>>18908031
>Machiavelli
Not necessary

>>18908078
I don't, really, so I'm gonna have to read him eventually all the same. I bet philosophers will become easier to read in general the more I build up my foundations anyway, so I'm not worried.

>>18908087
>Pick someone and work backward through their influences
I kinda already did that, and now I want more out of philosophy proper. I read Baudrillard, Camus, and a bit of Sartre, then I tried to work my way backwards through Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, Heidegger, and...yeah. Didn't go so well, so now I wanna do it right.

>>18908088
Machiavelli is essential in political philosophy.