Hey guys how should I start with Philosophy? What should I read first and why?

Can you send me a link to some info about the pre socratic philosophers? I thought their works hadn't survived.

Just buy this book

Just read Nietszche thats all you need

Start with these four dialogues by Plato:
>Euthyphro
>Apology
>Crito
>Phaedo

They're fairly easy reads and are about Socrates' trial and his last days.

I think I'll go with that one.

same user here: after doing that, continue with Socrates via Plato by reading
>Symposium
>Meno
>Republic
>Laws

Then continue with based Aristotle
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Politics
>Organon
>Rhetoric
>Metaphysics

>reading Nietzsche without reference to the Greeks

"""no"""

this is oddly and unnecessarily specific and frankly too much. it takes time and work to engage with philosophy; it isn't something you just barrel your way through chronologically.

It depends what you want to be able to do, OP. If you want a good sense for the intellectual history of philosophy, a chronological survey will do, and for that, instead of taking some user's list, look up St. John's college's curriculum and pick out the philosophy bits. Don't feel obligated to read all or nearly all of a philosopher you don't like.

If you want to be good at philosophy, your path should probably be quite different.

In either case, keep in mind that intellectual prowess isn't this nebulous, personal thing. It's testable, and people get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for it. Philosophy courses are taught by people with PhD's, most of whom are better at philosophy and at learning than you will every be.
take classes or emulate them if you want to get good. if you don't care about getting good, read what you like and what interests you.

Start with the Greeks.

Take the brown pill my dude.

You don't need the greeks,absolute waste of time(except for schopenhauer(plato) and (Aristotle)GWF Hegel)

G R R E K S
R
E
E
K
S

All you need is Quine, Sellars, and Wittgenstein

I thought the brown pill was invented by Sir Reginald Brownpill in 1999.

Anthony Kenny - New History of Western Philosophy

Read it for context and introduction to the discipline, then go and read some Greeks or 17th century rationalists.

Start with the Greeks

>not "Sein un Zeit"
SHIET
H
I
E
T

>Actually reading Newton's Principia
>Actually read Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica
Are people actually this retarded? Why would you literally waste months and months of you life reading that shit, when you could just read a modern textbook on calculus or set theory and learn all the same shit in 10% of the time and with modern notation? Also why not study shit like abstract algebra and topology while you're at it?

What does brown-pilled mean and how does it differ from every other pill? (100 words or less)

This. You can read the presocratics later.

You can also jump straight into the middle period Plato (Symposium, Phaedrus, and Republic) once you've gotten through these, and then you're good for Aristotle.

Which are some good philosophers that don't require knowledge of Plato and Aristotle?

what do you mean by "brown pill"

presocratics ;)

This is actually pretty solid advice (even thought I wouldn't recommend philosophy to anyone anymore - it's good mental exercise tho).

>Edith Hamilton – Mythology
>Hesiod – Theogony
>Homer – The Iliad
>Homer – The Odissey
>Plato – Apology
>Plato – Euthyphro
>Plato – Crito
>Plato – The Symposium
>Plato - Phaedo
>Plato – The Republic
>Plato – Parmenides
>Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics
>Aristotle – Poetics
>Aristotle – Physics
>Aristotle – On the Soul
>Aristotle – Metaphysics
>Aristotle - Rhetoric

reading that now :)

OP this is what was recommended to me and what I've tried to follow:

>Edith Hamilton's Mythology
>The Iliad
>The Odyssey
Both above the Fagles translation
>The plays of Sophocles
>Herodotus
>Thucydides
>The First Philosophers
>Plato (Complete works)
>Aristotle (Complete works)

From what I've read, I would argue that Mythology, Iliad/Odyssey, and the First Philosophers are required before reading Plato. The others are neat but it's easy to get dragged down in them, especially Histories by Herodotus. As I mentioned I'm only on the First Philosophers so I haven't had to worry about which works by Plato to read and in what order.

The Iliad and the Odyssey are both worthy to read outside of the context of providing a backdrop to studying Greek philosophy, and I'll probably read them again with the Fitzgerald or Lattimore translation.

Anyone that doesn't recommend at least the Iliad and the Odyssey need to gtfo of Veeky Forums and in all honesty should kill themselves.

>reading Schopenhauer before Hegel
>recommending Goethe but not Faust
G r o s s

don't start from there op, start with the greeks

I haven't read Homer, but I found that understanding of Homer wasn't essential to understand the Plato I've read.

Start with hume, nigger.

>Are people actually this retarded?
no, the person who made this chart almost certainly read almost none of the books listed

start with suicide

All good suggestions in this thread but don't neglect eastern philosophy, with which you should start with the Upanishads

I started Plato with the Republic and nothing else, however I believe I comprehend it well as I read it. What will I miss if I continue reading (i'm about halfway through) and move on to Aristotle?

Start with the Greeks.

1. go to gen.lib.rus.ec/
2. search for The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics
3. download
4 read
(pic related)

You have no business asking why.

True

I've only seen suggestions to start Aristotle with Nchomachean Ethics (->Politics->), but you have it towards the end?

The true lineage is Random greeks (optional) -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Aquinas -> Maritain.
After that you can read whatever you want, but nothing will quite measure up, it will be a painful and lonely existence.

metaphysics is first philosophy. his logic undergirds his metaphysics. Start with the Organon

Is this just a western philosophy circle jerk thread?
>muh greeks
>muh socratic logic

eastern philosophy is good too...
see: The Upanishads
see: Tao Te Ching
see: Marx's Communist Manifesto (good look into jewish trickery)

Fuck these other guys, learn your Valid Argument Forms first and foremost. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, and the rest.

After that, learn your Symbolic Logic
courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/MAIN/IHome-5.htm
These guys do a pretty decent, concise job.

You should read these first because it'll let you critically analyze anything you come across, including all these book recommendations.

Aquinas being mandatory... gtfo pleb!

Reading any philosophical texts without having a basic grasp of history of philosophy is a waste of time. Before start reading Greeks or Plato, go with Copleston or Russell's history of philosophy. And don't listen the continental babbies' bullshit about Russell.

I've just started my first year studying philosophy at uni, we started with Descartes, Locke, and Hume. But maybe Veeky Forums knows better.

you ever show me that smiley face again and you're gonna get a hard fucking backhand to face, you hear me bitch?

>copleston
yes
>russel
no

lol @ telling a guy interested in philosophy to start with the Odysee or some bland intro to philosophy. If you think this is how education works shoot yourself.

then tell us oh wise faggot or fuck off back under your rock

Russell gives a solid grasp about western history alongside with a history of philosophy. I've read through his book and there is literally nothing wrong about it. Is this Russell hate is just a Veeky Forums meme or there's something that I don't know about?

I'm more successful than you at this subject, by far.

So delete your post and ask again more nicely and I will consider it.

>Is this Russell hate is just a Veeky Forums meme or there's something that I don't know about?
He was an unaccomplished philosopher, emphasis on philosopher. That is definitely not just a lit meme.

What's a meme is the hate for his british smugness. Normal philosophers just ignore him.

nah, if you aren't going to spread whatever knowledge you may or may not have then you can go fuck off back under your rock

"le don't start with russel" is a meme on Veeky Forums but that book is widely considered biased by experts.

Pearls before swine, no surprise here.

then give me back my pearls, swine.

Fuck starting with the Greeks unless that's your thing or the curriculum demands it.

I'm a philosophy pro and I started with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and had the time of my life. Sure I didn't understand 50% of the references but it was insightful to me at the time ok?! I felt enlightened and like I gained so much new understanding and insight! Dopamine through the roof!

FUCK THIS ESTABLISHMENT SPEAK ALREADY! Yes the Unis do it, that's because starting with Sokrates = best bang for your buck from an objective and pedagogic point of view. That doesn't mean it's optimal for the individual in terms of pursuing YOUR actual OWN interests inside philosophy. If you think the world sucks, ffs don't feel obliged to read ARISTOTLE; READ YOUR SCHOPENHAUER and whatever else makes your GINA TINGLE ALREADY FFS

It would be silly to start straight forward reading Philosophers, you won't understand the terms, the intellectual background and the context, and won't have a general vision of what's going on, you might end up with bits of knowledge, and that doesn't help.

What I'd recommend you is to start with Copplestone's History of Philosophy, there's 9 volumes and each one is quite long, around 800 pages. Take notes.
Then after finishing a volume I would read the original authors. Why you should do this? It would be silly to read , for example, Nietzche without Heraclitus, and most part of Heraclitus is kept as quotations in other books, and you don't want to "investigate", you want to learn, that is why you should start with Copplestone and not with the originals.

As you advance, you might need a Philosophy Dictionary, as soon as you reach XVIII-XIX Century, you're gonna NEED it.

You also have the Stanford Wiki of Philosophy, which is a very good source, but always keep it as a secondary source to support your reads.

Logic, Mathematics and Geometry might be needed at some point too. I don't know about Math and Geometry, and I asume you know the basics from Primary and Secondary School (idk about how you do it in the US), but for Logic I'll recommend you these, which were a few of the ones the professors recommended me when I was at Uni:

Hodges (1977). Logic: An introduction to elementary logic.
Barwise - Etchemendy (1999). Language, Proof and Logic.

With "I don't know about Math and Geometry" I meant that I don't know about any source.

cringe

That's dumb.

I would first start with Anthony Kenny's New History of Western Philosophy,it's about 900 pages but offers a great explanation to beginners in philosophy and has a brilliant prose. After that,then it's your own choice on whom to study,according to your interests from reading the HoP.

Make sure to also use genesis library,wiki source and other brilliant online sources for the philosophical works.

This is what I did, but I was specifically interested in political philosophy. Then went on to read The Prince and Rousseau

Plato and Aristotle. Can learn about them while you read their stuff.

Read bits of what is being recommended to you... And just read what you want.

When you feel like you're enjoying it but are missing out on a lot of references or ideas or just general concepts THEN go ahead and look into history and starting with the greats and whatever. Then you can follow the shit being suggested here if you want.

I mean look at this
>start with
>9 volumes
>each 800 pages long
>take notes

You seem very experienced in this, do you have any tips?( im okay with reading a lot)

buy the Classics of Philosophy by Louis P. Pojman --> start with the Greeks up until the Pre-Socratics --> read the section in Classics of Philosophy about the Pre-Socratics --> Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page of Plato --> read Plato's Euthypro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Theaetetus, Statesman, Philebus, Phaedrus, Symposium, Charmides, Laches, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno, Ion, Republic, Timaeus, Laws, and 7th letter whole (preferably by reading Hackett editions of individual or small collections of dialogues rather than their Complete Works of Plato; and read them whole) --> read Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Aristotle --> read Selections of Aristotle done by Hackett Press --> read Aristotle's Categories, Posterior Analytics, Physics, On the Soul, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, Poltics, Rhetoric, Organon, Topics, and Prior Analytics, whole --> read Cambridge's Companion to Aristotle --> Read all the sections after Plato and Aristotle in the Classics of Philosophy just to get an anthropological gist of what people are saying about all other philosophers, then dive into their work as whole after you are done, however you like.

Also, go on Coursera (right now), make an account (it's free) and download the lectures to the Pre-Socratics and Plato (which started last week) and Aristotle and his successors (which started today). You can do the classes if you want to, but download the lectures if you don't want to and watch them when you have the time in the future.

If you think reading Philosophy is like reading novels you're mistaken and should stop posting in this thread.

I don't know about tips, it depends on each person, but just a heads up: Philosophers are not super-humans (Aristotle contradicts himself on slavery for example, maybe because Politics was an amalgam of his lectures at the Liceum gathered by his students). Read the notes of the books (they might contain explanations, sources and meanings), they are relevant. And maybe, if you REALLY want to get into it, learn Ancient Greek. Here:

LIDDELL, H. J. - SCOTT, R., Greek-English Lexicon. Abridged edition, Oxford 1987.
GOODWIN, W. W., A Greek Grammar, Nueva York 19652

It's not hard and it will also help you to learn other languages based on cases and declinsons, like Latin, (modern) German, etc.

If you get it wrong, the gates of hell will open up and swallow your whole family including your pet dog. I didn't read my pre-socratics before reading Plato and now I'm being anally raped by Diogenes while he plucks my pubes over and over again.

Please respond :(

Which Diogenes? Since Laertius is nothing but a biographer, I asume it's Diogenes of Sinope, yet no books are kept of him. What book is it?

Plato's political Philosophy doesn't with the Republic, some bits are kept in (ordered in chronological) Statesman and Laws. I don't remember which one, but it was boring as fuck. Basically because he gets silly detailing the size of the Polis.

Anyway, it is recommended to read a biography on Plato, to put some context on the evolution of his political philosophy, which is related to a student of him being the leader of Syracuse.

I ask the same, but knowing that I'm not an autistic NEET, just want to understand philosophy as a whole starting from the beginning: don't want to read door-stoppers.

Start with the Orientals! :^)

>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Confucius
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Tao_Te_Ching
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War_(Sun)
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Mozi
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chuang_Tzŭ_(Giles)
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Taoist_teachings_from_the_book_of_Lieh_Tzŭ

>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Adi_Shankara
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthashastra
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Aitareya_Upanishad_(Müller_translation)#Aitareya_Upanishad
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Vedas
>en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dhammapada_(Muller)

Then you can read Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Eminent Philosophers,then move on to Plato

Yes, it isn't necessary in any way to understand general philosophy, but it is a good context of that time and it is a great piece of literature

Serious question here, I have always had problems with long term memorization, especially once i stop studying a subject.

Should i worry with philosophy that if i took it serious, read it every day and what not that i'd eventually forget a lot of stuff i learnt? Or does philosophy change how you think entirely if done right.

haha no

I don't think so, from Plato and on forwards with almost every philosopher of repute it's a lot about method and practice.