So im planning on starting with the greeks

So im planning on starting with the greeks,
Is this a good chart? also what do the line colours mean? any other strategies or charts welcome

I would do away with all books except for Aristotle and Plato. Get Hesiod and the rest of the Greeks from the LOEB library. They do great translations and have the Greek on the other side. Really great. You can read Sophocles and Aristophanes. Aristotle is dry af but Plato is amazing, I would start with him, and consider the audio books of it as it is, after all, a dialogue.

hello, even though it my be a little controversial around here, I would recommend starting with Ovid's Metamorphoses, as it's fairly easy to read and gives you a pretty nice, general oversight of Greco-Roman myths. after that, read the Homeric epics. I would also recommend reading at least a few plays. mainly the ones by Sophocles and Euripides.
this will give you a solid basis for continuing with philosophers like Plato and Aristotles.

and give me some reasons why this is better than the chart?

because of course there are many people on Veeky Forums with different opinions on this but i almost never see any arguments for their particular strategy

I'm well maybe you could explain what you're exactly trying to get out of starting with the greeks? there really isn't a 'right way'. but I prefer Ovid over Edith Hamilton's book because it's more fun to read. read whatever you're interested in, find your own path.

im trying to establish a good base for philosophy, i want to know it thoroughly basically to excel at it when ill go to uni.
also i want it to be easy there so i can do a second bachelor in physics.

So basically a way to know philosophy so well that i almost did a full philosophy study.

>So basically a way to know philosophy so well that i almost did a full philosophy study.
You will have to know mythology as well, as it's oft referenced in the canon. Just read chart related man, it's pretty interesting and you'll regret skipping stuff.

Start with Homer's Illiad and then continue with Odyssey. Plato is only worth reading if you're interested in Socrates or if you want to get into philosophy. Mythology by Edith Hamilton is an horrible place to start if you want to read Homer since half of the book is explaining the plot of Homer's poems. Since Wikipedia exists and you can just Google a name of a God or a deity I would skip reading it altogether.

Start with Homer, great intro, then do whatever the fuck you want from there.

this list is all you need OP.
>read something on greek mythology, like edith hamilton or whatever
>homer
>hesiod
>read the 1~3 essential playwrights by each one of these: aeschylus, sophocles, euripides, aristophanes, if you like playwrights, read them all
>herodotus' history and thucydides' history of the peloponnesian war
>if you enjoy 'math', you can try euclid, archimedes, apollonius and/or nichomachus
>read some book or articles on presocratics and sophists
>plato
>aristotle

aside from the 'math' part, everything is on bloom's western canon list, if you doubt me

read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy

why do you want to 'start with the greeks'?

what are you looking to get out of this?

answering those questions will answer your question.

>Plato is better than Aristotle

>pot-boiler full of Russell's left-wing biases

Yellow = Literature and Mythology
Green = History
Blue = Philosophy
Orange = Supplemental (optional) Material

Thanks, user.

I just feel that way personally. Plato is more accessible and Aristotle more or less rehashes Plato, but in a scholarly fashion as opposed to Plato's poetry. The dialogues are something amazing, how they take man from Man as physical to Man as Divine. There is just so much there to think upon and learn from. Plato made my life better; Aristotle was a good course of study, but Plato spoke directly to my soul. To be fair, I've spent far more time with Plato, and I owe Aristotle some time. What do you enjoy about Aristotle over Plato? I'd love to know, not even tryna -argue-. I respect both men and their philosophical works.

Isn't Odyssey and Illiad difficult readings? If so, I don't think they're good starters.

They are required reading in High School, user. They are great starters, highly interesting and quite frankly a lot of fun.

thats like saying the new testament is a starter for christians. Illiad/Odyssey are the most important books, hardly 'starters'

Yeah, I agree with you, I chose my words poorly.

I mean, of course they're always required not only as starters, but so they're okay to read, implying I don't have any philosophy/mythology background?

Oh yes, user. Read them, and savor their tasty delights.

No you didn't.
They are starters, and they are piss easy.

>literature before the 20th century
>difficult

pynchovian smile bush has there when he learns of 9-11.

...

This chart is actually pretty good. Feel free to skip all the secondary texts besides Hamilton. Honestly you are probably fine skipping the pre-Socratics too. By the way, I'm not saying not to read this stuff, just that you shouldn't feel obligated to. For Herodotus and Thucydides, get the Landmark editions, rather than the Penguin editions suggested in this chart (they contain lots of maps and pictures and supplemental notes, makes it a much more engaging experience). Also, you definitely don't need to read the complete works of Plato and Aristotle. For Plato, I'd read the Trial & Death sequence, Symposium & Republic at minimum. For Aristotle, just read what you want based on what topics you're interested in (Poetics for literary criticism, Nicomachean Ethics for philosophy of ethics, etc.) No sense slogging through Metaphysics, for example, if you're not particularly interested in philosophy. I know I'll get flamed for this post because Veeky Forums is filled with autists who insist that everyone read the entire western canon. You are free to be as selective as you want. Have fun.

Plato is good as literature. Aristotle is dry and tedious to read. Plato is also much more influential (though they are both extremely influential).

>im planning on starting with the greeks
and so another pseud is born

Piss off, you filthy louse. OP is on the right track.

(pic related) good luck have fun

I've heard that version is vastly inferior to the one OP posted.

>Skipping from Plato straight into the Metaphysics.

Epic.

Nah they're easy, especially if you get an easy translation. I read Fagles' Iliad in 2 days as a beginner reader.

...

Also that edition of metaphysics:

>is not the full text
>is unnecessarily expensive for a beginner
>is largely useful for the notes which will be borderline unintelligible for someone with no prior experience with Aristotle, just like the Metaphysics itself will be unintelligible for someone who hasn't read the Organon and Physics

The only reason I didn't get the Landmark Thucydides was that I heard the translation their version uses isn't that good. For that reason alone I got the Hackett Lattimore edition which is well respected.

Aren't the landmark editions put together/translated by some random history buff (as in not a professor or scholar) who just decided that's what he wanted to start doing with his time?

The maps and photos are cool (not my thing but whatever) but I was especially wary of the translations; I went with the same Thucydides as you.

I'm trying to learn Latin to read this chart. I've heard that translating Virgil and dense historians like Tacitus destroys much of the linguistic power of their writing although sometimes I find it hard to justify devoting so much time to learning Latin when I can just read a good translation.

That's what I've heard but I don't think he does the translations (I may be mistaken). I believe the Herodotus translation is respected but it was the Thucydides one that I heard wasn't that good.

it would probably serve you better in the long run to learn a living language, not one with only a handful of authors worth reading

Fuckiung finally, thanks bro

why don't you just get a philosophy text used in high school/university and then read it along with the original works?
that's generally how people study philosophy

Happy birthday user.

>Alexander Pope
For a first time reader I would recommend Fitzgerald.
Pope might be good, but I doubt I would've liked Homer as much if I read Pope First.

>Book 2
>list of like 50 ships
why

Is Penguin Books a confident publishing house?

So people in Greece could go "I'm from there!"
It's like they had their own personal hero in the story.

What Odyssey translation should I get? I heard Lattimore's is clunky.

Fagles, or if you're patrician, Pope.

Are the Romans really the logical next step after the Greeks?

I've done some research into this and it seems to be that Fagles is the most accessible with easiest language, but he does not retain as much of the poetry. Lattimore is slightly more difficult, but more attention and care is paid to the poetic nuances. Pope's translation is itself a work of genius, but if you're reading for the first time there's probably no point in starting with him. Butler turns the story into prose.

Yep that's pretty much it. Fagles does have a pretty good introduction by Knox, which tips the scale for me. Pope should be worked up to.

I think Lattimore's is the best. The closest poetically and in terms of flow to the original. 'Tis also the one my professor recommends.

Don't overlook Fitzgerald, his translation is dope. Easy, but poetic and powerful.

I've read both, and the Kenny history is much better.

I wanted to remember the colour coordination so I made this real quick.

Yeah but that chart sucks. Ovid and Virgil are both great but then you also have Apuleius, Horace, Juvenal, Lucretius, Catullus (Catullus 101) and Lucan.

For history, the chart has Tacitus (arguably one of the greatest historians, but are missing Agricola and Gemania and Histories), Josephus I wouldn't say is necessary, Sallust is missing who is one of the greatest Roman historians, Plutarch is missing and his accounts greatly influenced Shakespeare, Pliny the Elder is missing, Polybius is also missing.

The chart should also have a Latin study section for grammar (Cambridge, Wheelock etc) and reading development (Lingua Latin per se Illustrata).

Then it is generally missing philosophy and theology: the Vulgate, St. Augustine, more of Cicero, Epictetus, Boethius etc.

Nox erat et placidum carpebant fessa soporem

corpora per terras, silvaeque et saeva quierant

aequora, cum medio volvuntur sidera lapsu,

cum tacet omnis ager, pecudes pictaeque volucres,

quaeque lacus late liquidos quaeque aspera dumis

rura tenent, somno positae sub nocte silenti.

Keep in mind that in the Greek mind the distinction between myth and history isn't that clearcut.

>Since Wikipedia exists and you can just Google a name of a God or a deity I would skip reading it altogether.
This.

Was he /argive/?