I want to get into philosophy but I have no background whatsoever. What should I read to get a comprehensive insight into philosophy? Which authors can I read (and understand) without needing knowledge of previous philosophers?
I've seen lists on Veeky Forums before but they were all very extensive. Maybe keep it to 10 books for now.
>pic related
Is he worth reading and actually approachable for someone without prior knowledge?
I'm sorry if this has already been asked a gazillion times...
start
Start with the Greeks.
Scrolled through the whole image and exhaled aggressively when I reached Zizek.
>I've seen lists on Veeky Forums before but they were all very extensive. Maybe keep it to 10 books for now.
Bertrand Russells History Of Western Philosophy. Bit of a meme but a decent intro
Aristotle is quite difficult and needs a thorough understanding of Plato.
I'd recommend starting with Descartes' Meditations and Discourse, as well as Plato's Socrates death dialogues: Apology, Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo.
Sophie's World, it's a total meme, but it's a nice comprehensive starting point for normies.
The "start with the greeks" meme is not actually a meme. Philosophy is known as the great conversation for a reason. You'll want to avoid the classic mistake of jumping right in to Hegel and Nietzsche and proceed chronologically instead in order to get the most out it. It's very difficult to condense even a starting list for philosophy and limit it to 10 books.
The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists (Oxford World's Classics)
Plato - Euthyphro, Apology, Critias, Phaedo, Theaetetus, Sophist, Symposium, Phaedrus, Philebus, Gorgias, Republic, Timaeus
Aristotle (yes he's dense but worth reading. knowledge of Plato is useful) - Categories, De Interpretatione, Posterior Analytics, Topics, Sophistical Refutations, Physics, Metaphysics, De Anima, Nichomachean Ethics, Politics, Poetics
that's where you start. After that it opens up and you can skip around if you so choose
Hackett's Readings from Ancient Greek Philosophy (4th Ed)
Just skip over the Greeks, they're meaningless and their philosopher is relegated only to historic disciplines and interests.
Whoever took time to fucking draw this all is a saint.
Only Nichomachean Ethics, Metaphysics, De Anima, and Poetics are worth reading by Aristotle.
...
>their philosopher
>one
Fuck you fuck you fuck you, you stupid fuck.
their philosophy*
I want you to read Plato's Republic and tell me what the point of it is besides circular reasoning and bad presumptions.
categorically(lol) false. Categories is required reading in understanding the logical underpinning of Aristotle's thought and required to understand the Metaphysics. Not to mention the enormous influence it had on the scholastics and Kant. The rest of the Organon prepares you for the denser works you mention. Physics is an examination of the philosophical principles of nature and explores a different subject matter than that of modern physics, don't let the name fool you. Politics follows directly from Nichomachean Ethics
What's your qualms with Aristotle's metaphysics or ethics?
Can you succinctly explain either?
The metaphysics also influenced most Christian philosophy for centuries, so there's that.
Aristotle's function argument for ethics is an abuse of language.
You don't like that he suggests a telos for human function? Abuse of language?
It's just a bad premise to presume things exist for a purpose. It's an abuse of language because while speech is fantastic at piecing together the world, it is a limited tool. We make sense of the world through cause and effect but does that describe the world at it truly is?
But this critique could be further extended to any philosophy that presumed *any* axiom. Just because Aristotle assumes things are geared to a purpose doesn't make him incorrect. Rather, he provides, in his mind, substantial and sufficient observational evidence that supports his conceptual analysis. Plenty of philosophers presume starting points of reasoning. Aristotle's presumption that things have a purpose does not invalidate his entire ethical philosophy.
In fact, ethics, of all the subjects, requires some sort of presumption. Otherwise it slips into relativism or nihilism, for what is intrinsically valuable is speculation and cannot be validated by observed experience.
The best point to start is Russel's "A History of Western Philosophy". Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
And avoid Plato like the plague.
Any history of philosophy will do, I'd recommend the Kenny's brief history or Will Durant's, Kenny is concise and Durant is fun and insightful. Then branch out in whatever the fuck interests you.
Start with le meme, my good philososir. May the fourth be with you. Harry Potter.
>no Marcus Aurelius
He's of little importance
In what sense? Meditations is worth the read.