/lit/ - Literature

Looks like a pretty good general list. Obviously at some point in your readings you'll get interested in a more specific area where recommendations would be more useful to you.

This is cool, we should make this list into an image and show it to people who are interested into getting into philosophy.

Although I don't think you have enough literary theorists on it.

Aristotle might be a bit hard for first timers to get the entirety and implications of what he is saying.

serch up the great books of the western world b encyclopeida birttanica, a lot philosophy books on there, some academic (like kant) some more personal (like montaigne)

>I'm reading Socrates

Don't be afraid to read criticism and contemporary philosophy. If you're enrolled at a university, you'll have access to their online journal catalogue. Use it to find discussions of the things you're reading and you'll find your comprehension goes up and you're more aware of the flaws in the texts.

Don't start with contemporary philosophy, though. Work your way up from the beginning, and you'll get a better sense for what people are referencing and what influenced them.

I like your list, but it is entirely too large. You may want to consider "selected readings" compilations or something like that so you don't get burned out or overwhelmed. This shit is fun, but it's dry and often requires a bit of rereading and digesting, at least for me. Don't read sparknotes. They take all the fun out of it.

If you're enrolled at a university, I think it'd be a bit more effective to contact a few of the professors personally, and ask for either copies of their syllabi or even recommendations.

I'd take a list generated from a few professors over appraise and recommendations from /lit/ any day.

Nobody has really answered any of my questions though...

Should I be reading in the order I listed ( in close to historical order) or should I mix and match a bunch more than I have been?

>no Rand

I am disappointed OP.

>>2071225

enjoy your ban

>>2071225
niggerbish

Heraclitus, Diogenes, Seneca.

>>2071254

I thought Diogenes works were all lost? or am I thinking of someone else?

I really like your candy sushi OP

You are missing Descartes

Also you should bump Camus and Sartre up to after the ancient greeks, because they are uber entry level.

Why would anyone want to read all those philosophers.

You philosophy nerds that post here make me sick Why don't you all just discuss regular books. THIS IS TOTALLY UNRELATED TO LITERATURE YOU ASSHOLES.

>>2071376

Dude, calm down you are acting psychotic again, leave /lit/ alone.

I'd Suggest to OP checking out Russell's Introduction to Occidental Philosophy first, that way you will be able to have quite a good overview of Philosophy in general.

>>2071400

Does this have an alternative title? I can't find anything about it anywhere.

>>2071417
Indeed it has.
A History of Western Philosophy.

Link to wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy

Don't use russells book like that one guy is saying, he has a bone to pick with most philosophers. He thinks Nietzsche is a fascist (when it is clear that his daughter who was a fascist threw in a bunch of nazi loving shit into his unpublished work after he died before she published it, and most historians have known this forever)

He is very biased.

>>2071465

So, my friend, do you think that in the whole history of philosophy there is a book that isn't impregnated with the idiosincracies of its author?
I hope not.

I have understood beforehand, that OP has enough knowledge to identify when a philosopher is being raid by emotion (as most of them do).

Epicurius, Zeno, Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, and Adam Smith.

>>2071487
Yeah those are some more big names. You could also try Cicero and Marcus Aurelius

Hello, doing my masters in philosophy.

Reading in historical order is always fun. Otherwise you might find it hard to understand some of the concepts that the people use later. It might sound stupid, but reading Hegel without knowing what Heraclitus said about the Logos is not the same as doing it with the background.

If you intend to do this, I would start with a book that gives you an overview of the concepts you will be facing. Either cambridge, oxford or routledge have some intro books to whatever area you want to study. I have only seen some but they seem decent enough. I'd pick one of those introductory book to, as an example, philosophy in ancient greece and read it before starting with the authors.

Also, if you want to start with greeks you can't really start with Plato. Pick a book that collects the works of the presocratics with a decent study and read it. I would recommend Berabe's one, but I'm a spanish speaker and I really have no idea of how good is the translation or even if there is one available.

After reading presocratics and understanding them, you can jump into orphism and maybe read Hesiod's Teogony and Jaeger's Paideia. Gadamer and Cornford have some amazing books about ancient greeks as well.

I'm doing some reading for my thesis right now and will be checking this thread from time to time, so if you have any other specific questions let me know. I'll be happy to answer to the best of my knowledge.

bump

>>2071139
Lukacs? The big chump of twentieth century Lit-theory?

Guattari? As a stand alone philosopher and not just a some psychoanalyst Deleuze picked up for credibility?

Merleau-Ponty and Popper in the same group?

But yeah, the internet encyclopedia has some great articles that will make quick work of a lot of this for you.

>>2072123

Thank you! I need more comments like this, I don't know anything about Literary Theory, or Popper,(YET!!!) and I just picked the ones I had heard of before.

Please give me more info about this! Would you really say that Guttarii is just a dumb random psychoanalyst not worth reading?

Also are there any other people who you feel are not very good philosophers I have on here? or any that I am missing?

Not OP, but I started reading some philosophy on my own, and I started reading Plato's Republic, and I have to ask, is Socrates always this annoying?

You can't read Socrates.

Read Kant before Schopenhauer.

>>2072194
I would consider leaving out Popper. He had some interesting things to say, but he was most famous for this long justification of democracy, right after the Second World War. I think it's pretty obvious to you what he would say there. His work on inductive logic is pretty questionable likewise.

Deleuze and Guattari likewise, I would consider omitting. They're very similar in praxis to Foucault; they just have slightly less relevant or practical ideas to bring to the table. Consider Anti-Oedipus if you want to see how fun post-structural hermeneutics can really be.

For lit theory, I would give the Russian formalist a little look; Eichenbaum and Jacobson are your go-to men here, along with this lecture series (for general lit theory) http://www.youtube[dot]com/watch?v=11_oVlwfv2M. Give the new criticists and maybe Gadamer a quick look, and then concentrate on structuralism.

>>2072268

>I would consider leaving out Popper. He had some interesting things to say, but he was most famous for this long justification of democracy, right after the Second World War. I think it's pretty obvious to you what he would say there. His work on inductive logic is pretty questionable likewise.

while I do agree that Popper's philosophy wasn't all that groundbreaking, I'd would still include him in the reading list of the OP. His work, to me, is an excellent explanation of how science works and what you need to look for when you're evaluating other people's concepts critcally.

I do agree that you shouldn't read everything, probably only the Open Society and Its Enemies is pretty insightful and the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

>no Nietzsche

>>2072284
As reference works, they're pretty nice. God knows approaching Quine you have to have your wits about you

>>2071505

what's your masters about?

What do you think of Saul Kripke?

Also, is funny that every time the Russel's History of Western Philosophy is mentioned here someone comes up with the biased argument. Yes, it's true... but you are just getting into the basics. I'm pretty sure if that book was written by a nobody, there will no oportunity to you all to bitch about that.

Also, OP you need the french posmodernists tier

Foucault
Derrida
Lacan

>>2072284
We've only used Popper in our lectures, as in a scientific context, so yeah still valuable to read. Within science, philosophy is only interesting as methods and theories, aiding scientific subjects.

His ideas are essential for modern science, one of the more influential people who formed the scientific method.
>unrelated post, sage

>>2072297
My research is mostly focused on the concept of will in the three prophetic religions through history. I wanted to do something different but I got stuck with that after my thesis. I already had most of the work done and it would have been stupid to scrape it and begin again.

I don't know a lot about Kripke if I'm honest. Most of the things I work on are religion and ethics, haven't touched logic for ages. I want to, but right now my life consists on research, classes and 4chan. No time to read anything else. Also, we don't really study a lot of american philosophers down here, maybe the positivists from last century, but other than that I have only heard of Kripke outside the classrooms. I can't make a judgement of him, I have seen too little.

>>2072297

Two of those three recs are already in the OP.

Are you purposely skipping over medieval philosophy OP? Because you don't have any of them listed.

>>2072328
Kripke's work focussed a lot on intensionality (the relationship between a concept and its name), a sort of reaction to the tenets of Quinean/Wittgensteinian ordinary language philosophy.

What about a Golden Islamic Age tier?

Averroes
Avicena
Ibn Arabi
Mulla Sadra

>>2072352
Islamic Philosophy is garbage.

>>2072579

Philosophy is totally useless anyway, at least most old philosophy is.

They are all trying to come up with theories of this and that, but they are all pretty much useless.

Marx, Hobbes, Mills, Sociology-Philosophers, and most Political Philosophers are good. As are the existentialists.

All others, while inventing a series of logic in a time when everyone was illogical and retarded, now are useless as logic is pretty much common sense for most people.

Most of the other shit they deal with is dumb made up questions that can't ever be answered and are totally pointless like, Epistemology, Aesthetics, ect..

Do yourself a favor OP and don't fucking bother.

>>2072903
>The existentialists are good.

lol

opinion invalidated

Yes let's get hung up on the 6% fasho

>>2072579
no
>>2072352
ibn arabi is the shit. islamicguy is that you?