I'm a self-taught philosophy student, I've followed the standard path of study that lead me to heidegger. Where do I go from there ? Can someone guide me throw the most valuable philosopher that came after?
I imagine I will have to study structuralism / post structuralism, Analitic philosophy and postmodernism but I have some difficulties to figure out the most important texts and philosopher.
Thank you in advance for your help.
>I'm a self-taught philosophy student
>I've had my share of wikipedia articles, I have debated through enough forums, and saved in my favourites a lot of deep articles, not to mention my vast collection of dusted pdfs
>I'm a self-taught philosophy student
stopped reading right there, fuck off pseud
If you've attended philosophy lectures, you'd see that self-teaching can be a hundred times better.
True enough I've had really good professors, but mostly totally meh ones who would have been better replaced by a standard secondary text.
It really depends on how you feel about positivism. If yes move on to languages theory/ bioethics / neuroscience; if no then Foucault/ Baudrillard/ Zizek
Just because you are a undisciplined brainlet that doesn't mean everyone is like that. I've studied both first-source material and second-source and I keep digital contact with a couple of philosophy student in my local university
>tfw the best philosophy professor you've ever had was an attractive Dominican nun
>took her classes on presocratics and Aquinas' philosophy
>properly demanding lectures, having to engage with the texts and secondary lit, debate your interpretations etc.
>mfw she sits next to you on the bus after classes
>spill spaghetti
you wouldn't cuck god...
if ur so disciplined why don't u get a phd u dumb fuck, kys
I'm studying computer science in university, I need a job. My family is poor.
Bump
how else do you go about learning something if you don't learn yourself? A professor can be useful beyond belief but you can only take a horse to water.
you sound like you never developed your potential and now being spiteful towards people anonymously is the only way you think you can deal with it. What happened? Test scores too low? someone humiliate you in a group that exposed you to being insufficiently intelligent? You know you're only as good as your actions allow you to be? Your thoughts may be amazing but unless you act them out in the world you're just going to stay bitter and lonely no matter how many people you can trick into spending time with you.
is that toby maguire
your request is pretty weird. don't waste your time with structuralism, postmodernism or worse, analytic crap. - what comes after Heidegger ? you decide. Back to Kant or back to the Greeks or you write an essay yourself.
Gadamer
Op here, I ve been told that at least Derrida is mandatory. Together with Wittgenstein
These are a couple of lines to start.
Blumenberg
Strauss/Kojeve->stanley Rosen->Robert pippin and Richard velkley.
Dewey/james/pierce ->Richard McKeon-> Richard rorty/Richard Bernstein-> Robert Brandom
Kojeve-> sartre/bataille/merlau-ponty/lacan->badiou/zizek
Carnap/neurath/shlick-> Quine
Thank you, you didn't mention the French philosophy from the 60 to now. Can I ask you why?
I mean Foucault, deleuze, Derrida ecc
yeah Derrida would be the only one after Heidegger, before going back to some convincing stuff.
I'd suggest Kierkegaard and Nietzche. It depends what you're interested in really though.
Nietzche shits on everyone with a level of eloquence I've never seen repeated in philosophy. Only masters of prose like Dostoevsky have topped him. Nietzche is tough to get into, with that said I'd suggest reading the Genealogy of Morals followed by Beyond Good and Evil. You could start with either; it's a toss-up. If you start with BGE read chapters 1,5, and 9 first. Then read the rest in order.
Kierkegaard is very Christian so that might turn you off, but if you can get past that start with "The Sickness unto Death." Although not Christian I truly enjoyed Kierkegaard's work.
I read less of that stuff and people mention it a ton already, that's all.
Thank you, I have already studied both. They are antecedent to heidegger.
I'd second these if you havn't read them already. I wrote my lists assuming you had.
I understand. Thank you again for the info.
Researcher/lecturer/professor/text book author pays you know, if you're interested in it enough why not study at degree level and higher?
>Thank you, I have already studied both. They are antecedent to heidegger.
What are your interests in philosophy? I'd suggest avoiding post-modernism as it's the philosophical equivalent of a bad joke told at a party, nobody laughs, and then it's repeated in a louder voice.
Nietzsche is much more enveloping than Heidegger however. Almost everything I read, I usually go back to Nietzsche on the subject.
Well, I had already started my course when I discovered my passion and I have a pretty strange family situation. I prefer to go on this way since I can manage to study both at the same time (computer science comes pretty easy to me). Also I am convinced that if you have something to say that have some value you can always find a way(send your work to some academical philosophers, post in online maybe, ecc)
I'm interested (and I have a kind of theory about this) in an apparatus that includes all philosophy branch. Something similar to Kant but on a existentialist line. Something that includes both eastern and western philosophy.
I love Nietzsche too but I prefer to read something more speculative in this moment.
Plenty of thinkers described as postmodernist are worth reading
I don't know. Its a sculpture from a guy that you can find on Instagram under the name @brunowalpoth
Baudrillard, Virilio, Deleuze, Focault and that’s it. Derrida is garbage, just read Wittgenstein
Ahh I get that. I became Interested in Philosophy and Economics after starting my Business degree. It became a pretty boring slog to finish, I just wanted to graduate so I could read whatever I wanted to again, instead of Business Journals.
I'm going to broaden the range outside of philosophers:
Robert Pirsig: Lilia an inquiry into morals
Jordan Peterson: Maps of Meaning
Erich Neuman: Origins and History of Consciousness
Anything by Carl Jung
Alan Watts has satisfactory if idiosyncratic introductions to the three significant eastern "ways of liberation" (Zen, Buhdism, Daoism.)
Like?
Foucault was readable but said nothing of interest. I agree with your conclusion of Derrida; I haven't read any of the others. I got put off by Derrida and Foucault finding the pragmatists infinitely more appealing. Maybe I'll give Wittgenstein a shot.
My point was more that it's an amorphous term that doesn't really say anything all that substantive, it's a bad unity.
I do agree that the people you list are worth reading. I disagree about Derrida, especially your explanation for why. You might as well say skip Wittgenstein, just read Davidson. I would also add Kojin Karatani, hiroki azuma, Bernard Stiegler, and Cornelius Castoriadis as well.
Yeah same. I can't wait to graduate.
Thank you for the names, I will check them out.