Is this a good progression?

huh?

didn't feel like making my own thread since it's such a small question. Anyone have a good reading list for an introduction to metaphysics?

I'll bring up the rear.

No less than 5 years on Plato

bump to ask this too

Huh? Huh??

Err, lemme try for a second.
Heraclitus Complete Fragments, Parmenides's poem thingy,Phaedo, the Republic, Timaeus, Categories, Physics, Metaphyisics, de Anima, de Rerum Natura, On the Gods, Enneads, Confessions (just google 'the part about time in the confessions'), City of God, Bonaventure's works, the Incoherence of the Philosophers, Averroes, Summa Theologica, I have absolutely no knowledge about Ockham for reals but check him out, Meditations, Leviathan, Berkeley's Treatise, Leibniz's whole thing, Critique of Pure Reason, Wissenschaftslehre, Schelling's Naturphilosophie, Science of Logic.

How the fuck dare you forget Seneca

Hume>Kant>Frege>Russell>Wittgenstein>Carnap>Sellars>Quine>Kripke>Putnam>Rorty>McDowell>Brandom

Just in case you ever want to start reading real philosophy

or if you ever need something to put you to sleep

Aquinas is pretty much useless as it is just an interpretation of Aristotle in conformity with christianity.

You forgot Spinoza, and Hume.

And yes you need both Nietzsche and Heidegger.

No, Hegel sucks. Schoppy is "/philosophy" tier

Nobody reads Frege. His system of formalization was such a mess that no one even uses it now.

But anyway don't waste time on russell Carnap, sellars, kripke, and Mcdowell.

Not sure if Brandom is worth it either. Maybe Davidson is better.

Or maybe not even them. Most anglo philosophers now are naive realists with no preparation in the history of philosophy who do meta-analysis for the sciences.

...

Yet another shitty reading list thread.

>Nobody reads Frege.
thanks for letting me know I shoudn't finish your post

>Chad neomystic vs virgin pessimist

Lol he was even barely published in his life, and he is more important for his failures and his influence than for his own writings.

Really if you want to study formal logic you might be better off with a manual like Lemmon or Mandelson's introduction to logic.

Don't read Kant without at least reading Leibniz's Discourse on Metaphysics and Monadology

Thanks but I already know a good deal of mathematical logic. Also thanks for exposing yourself as a vapid shit. Who cares if anyone cared about him while he was alive?

>implying mysticism doesn't affirm pessimism

>Hegel sucks
Hi schoppy

lol found the modernist

This but unironically.

At least 10 years of aristotle before intoing Heinigger

The problem of Western philosophy is that it always builds upon previous ideas. You will notice that any philosophical work is always influenced by that which was before it. This slavery to linear progress has resulted in a singular idea being broken down into infinity with no resolution, what we have is only ever-increasing divisions of minute subcategories within the same idea. In Western philosophy there were really only four originals. The Greeks, Judeo-Christian theology, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. Everything else is straw.

>Kant not original

Yeah you can skip Augustine and Aquinas if you are trying only for the minimum possible set. Locke and Spinoza are more important.

After Hegel;
Marx > Schopenhauer > Nietzsche > Heidegger > Sartre > Merleau-Ponty > Gadamer > Derrida > Foucault > Deleuze > Badiou > Meillassoux

And now you are up to the present.

THIS but unironically

You can skip Aquinas, but not Augustine.
Add
>Epicurus
>Cicero
>Boethius
>Plotinus
>Anselm of Canterbury
>Giovanni Pico
>Machiavelli
>Erasmus
>Montaigne
>Leibniz
>John Milton
>Spinoza
>Diderot
>Giambattista Vico
>Rousseau
>Thomas Paine
>Salomon Maimon
>Fichte
>Schelling
>Nietzsche
>Kierkegaard
>Madhava Acharya
>William James
20th century is mostly memes

If you know a lot on mathematical logic then you would know that he has mostly a historical value now.

His theory of reference which was interesting with his distinction between sense and reference, has been mostly subverted by people like Quine.

He advanced logic beyond Aristotle by inventing quantification on properties, but his idea on how to formally write logic was so complicated that everyone just dropped it.

His idea of an ideography, taken from leibnitz, and his logicism, while interesting are impossible because of the incompleteness theorem.

If anything I think that yo are the vapid one, who thinks that reading Frege and tolerating the dryness of these boring writing in some way says something about your character.

hey can someone actually just give all the required reading before getting into Hegel

Move out of the way.

Plato>Aristotle>Augustine>Aquinas>Kierkegaard>Tolstoy>Nietzsche>Heidegger>Saussere>Freud>Wittgenstein>Derrida>Lacan>Foucault>Baudrillard>Agamben

this

esp leibniz, fichte, schelling you have to have read

Need more greeks

>aquinas
>kant
my dude

>Derrida
>Lacan
>Freud
>Tolstoy
end yourself now

If you're talking """continental""" philosophy, leave out the Hegel—seriously just don't fucking bother—jump to Heidegger, and from there read Foucault and the existentialists. At that point you're well equipped to handle most of anything after the 70's. Insert some less common choices if you want to flesh out your background, like Montesquieu or Michel de Montaigne.

But don't read Hegel. He was a lunatic who actively refused to write clearly enough to be understood. His work is a blank canvas onto which you can project anything, but the philosophical elites have decided what the "correct" interpretation is, and you'll be shat on for interpreting him wrong. By and large, Heideggerian interpretation seems to be the backbone of Hegelian studies, but there's more than one way to skin a philosopher. Many articles on him quite obviously were written by people who've never read the source texts—they're just mouthing what others in the seminar had to say about it—and then blabber violently in defense of themselves when they get called on their BS.

Also, I would encourage you and anyone else to read whoever comes up on Wikipedia, or plato.stanford.edu, as critics of the author you're interested in. Way, way too often people get high on some author's farts and refuse to even entertain their critics. In particular, I've found that Sartre's fans are remarkably ungraceful when it comes to criticism of Sartre's works. But that's just my personal experience.

What was everyone's experience making their way through philosophy? I'm just starting out now and everytime I think I have a reading order I see threads like this which change it all up. I feel as if having a rough plan is best. Adding to it along the way as you become more knowledgeable, or start to develop interest in certain fields. But I really don't know.

Well, you should definitely read

Hume -> Kant -> Frege -> Russell -> Wittgenstein (early) -> Carnap

Then go Quine -> Kripke -> Putnam -> [standard analytic philosophy]

And THEN, if you want to, go Sellars -> Rorty -> McDowell & Brandom.

I say this simply because Rorty and McDowell and Brandom are also responding to the (non-Pittsburgh) tradition descending from Quine above.

People don't read Begriffshrift, except for Frege scholars. However, "On Sense and Reference," "The Thought," "Foundations of Arithmetic" and "Concept and Function" are read by every single graduate student in every Anglophone philosophy department there is today. Frege is actually a genius and had deep, far-reaching insights.

Russell, Carnap and Kripke are all historically fundamental, and also have many fascinating arguments (that you don't have to agree with, but you should think through).

It seems to me you don't really know what you're talking about at all.

no because it ends in kant and hegel, wtf.
begin with wittgenstein, end with wittgenstein, disregard his old age fagtron disagreement with his prime self.
there, I saved you some time.

This thread stinks of underweight 19 year olds

dumb plato / poopoogore / kant / hegel / poopoohauer fan

...

Just refer to this, hehehe

where's molyneux?

Start with the Greeks is no meme. It is the only way to do it right

...

You forgot Jordan Peterson

maybe read Scotus after you finish Aquinas

>Plato [Five Dialogues, Republic, Symposium, Phaedrus, and Timaeus. Timaeus is really weird, but it used to be all we had of Plato.]
>Aristotle [Nic. Ethics, Metaphysics]
>Plotinus [Enneads]
>Augustine [Confessions]
Here comes the time-skip, because I don't really think the metaphysics of Roman stoicism is worth studying — you may find it interesting, however.
>Descartes [Meditations]
>Locke [Essay concerning Human Understanding, but especially Books I and II]
>Leibniz [Discourse on Metaphysics, Hackett ed.]
>Berkeley [Treatise, Three Dialogues]
>Kant [Prolegomena, Critique of Pure Reason]
>Hegel [Phenomenology of the Human Spirit]
That should keep you busy for a couple years, after which you'll have a sense of which philosophies were onto something, which ones you disagree with, etc. Make sure to buy virgin copies and mark that shit up with a pencil. Take notes in a separate notebook when you feel you can say something original about the text or interpret it lucidly — don't take mere summations.

>Aquinas is pretty much useless as it is just an interpretation of Aristotle in conformity with christianity.
What a stale, inaccurate, and unearned meme. I bet you haven't even read why Aquinas thinks fat people generate less semen than skellybois.

Huh, this chart is actually a pretty good guide to reading philosophy.

Aristotle > Kant > Marx> Nietszche> Kuhn

Plato>Aristotle>Plotinus*>Augustine>Aquinas>Descartes>Hume>Kant>Hegel

*(new branch)->Porphyry>Iamblichus>Pseudo-Dionysius

Otherwise yea it looks good OP.

Books you enjoy > books you enjoy > books you enjoy > books you enjoy... ad infinitum

This is the only good progression.

This is a misleading post.

It's true that reading his actual logic is mostly of historical value. It's a fucked-up baroque formalism.

The distinction between sense and reference remains fundamental in philosophy of mind. Such a distinction is all but mandatory in the face of Frege's puzzle.

It's true that Frege, in that paper, apparently proposes a formal compositional semantics of natural language using sense and reference. Some of that approach has become absolutely entrenched in the linguistic semantics of today (intensions are, after all, very much like senses.) Some his semantic analysis has been subverted. His analysis of names as having a descriptive sense was, of course, basically undermined entirely by Kripke. And of course, Quine raised a very famous challenge to (inter alia) his attempt to use senses to solve a puzzle about belief ascriptions (e.g. "x believes y.") That's not subverting the distinction, however. Perhaps you mean that Quine's attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction undermines the distinction, but actually that's unclear. (For instance, Frege sometimes speaks of senses as meanings given to linguistic expressions in a /regimented/ natural language, in Quine's sense of regimented. If so, it's quite unclear how 'Two Dogmas' is supposed to undermine it).

His advance over Aristotle was not JUST inventing quantification over properties, it was inventing the syntax and semantics for multiply first-order quantified formulas. This is what the foundations of mathematics requires. Moreover, his analysis of quantifiers (overshadowed for a long time by Tarski's) has become /the/ standard analysis in formal semantics (via generalized quantifier theory).

The incompleteness theorem perhaps dashes logicism as Frege originally considered it, but neo-logicism is an active research program that cannot be understood without understanding its roots in Frege.

Moreover, "Foundations of Arithmetic" contains innumerable interesting insights and arguments about the metaphysics of number and the epistemology of math.

A New History of Western Philosophy (Kenny) has dedicated sections for Metaphysics.

Uhm, why didn't you include any African American and female philosophers?

i really can't speak to anything after frege, but i can certainly testify with that reading "the frege reader" i found countless insights that really altered my readings of kant. a lot of the critique of judgement (which frege obviously didn't care about) becomes more comprehensible when read through value/function frame than kant's syllogistic logic. the accusation that frege is dry also rings false. he isn't writing about masters and slaves, but he is usually lucid and insightful.

Why would you want to read all that shit after Plato and Aristotle? No, real philosophy is looking for the oldest knowledge

>No ShoeMaker
>No Lewis
>No Armstrong

Why havent you taken the realism pill M8?

That being said, anaylsts are the only ones who make sense anymore

BECAUSE HISTORY HAS BEEN DOMINATED AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE DOMINATED BY CISGENDERED WHITE MALES

Marx > Schopenhauer > Nietzsche > Heidegger > Stop Here

Only attempt if you wish to do nothing productive.
Sartre > Merleau-Ponty > Gadamer > Derrida > Foucault > Deleuze > Badiou > Meillassoux

No. Start with the Neanderthals.

Ponty is fun if you're hardcore into phenomenology and really hate descartes.

mmm more like
plato>aistoteles>kant
sorry to disapint you kid

yes—but then aristotle and kant again, then husserl, heidegger, then again back to kant, then saussure, then you can read post-structuralism. after that go back to heidegger, and after poking around the speculative realists you'll be pretty much caught up on continental today.

Leibniz>Voltaire>Hegel>Marx>Nietszche>Schopenhauer>Camus>Cioran>Weininger