Phillsophy

for each, read the SEP article, their 1-2 major works if possible, a reference book and then their 1-2 major works if not, any podcasts, any videos, any referential audiobooks, etc. make sure you at least grasp what the thrust of their thought is that is understood by the thinkers who build on them—the gist is to start weaving the net; getting a loose grasp on all of philosophical thought before going thorough and re-reading, tightening where needed before casting it over eastern thought, then repeating again. this is except for plato, aristotle and the bible, which should be read in their entirety on the first run-through. after you're finished in a couple years, repeat the names in CAPS more thoroughly first. during your readings, make sure to follow along with literature from the time period surrounding the thinker's thought, particularly authors that are name dropped frequently (greeks, dante, shakespeare, etc.) history of science stuff should be looked at too, to the extent there are appropriate sources.
>pythagoras
>heraclitus
>parmenides
>protagoras
>PLATO
>ARISTOTLE
>epicurus
>cicero
>seneca
>JESUS
>epictetus
>PLOTINUS
>augustine
>boethius
>avicenna
>anselm
>averroes
>maimonides
>AQUINAS
>machiavelli
>bacon
>hobbes
>descartes
>SPINOZA
>locke
>leibniz
>berkeley
>voltaire
>HUME
>rousseau
>KANT
>HEGEL
>schopenhauer
>emerson
>stirner
>darwin
>kierkegaard
>marx
>spencer
>JAMES
>thoreau
>NIETZSCHE
>frege
>FREUD
>saussure
>dewey
>HUSSERL
>whitehead
>santayana
>russell
>jung
>buber
>einstein
>HEIDEGGER
>WITTGENSTEIN
>carnap
>evola
>hayek
>fromm
>gadamer
>LACAN
>heisenberg
>popper
>adorno
>sartre
>arendt
>goodman, godel, quine
>beauvoir
>merleau-ponty
>levi-strauss
>camus
>barthes
>danto
>DELEUZE
>foucault
>chomsky
>pirsig
>baudrillard
>derrida
>bourdieu
>rorty
>searle
>kripke
>dennett
>singer
>zizek on lacan

this will improve your reading comprehension dramatically, and make the enjoyment of canonical literature that much more enjoyable, i promise.

pseud

i dont mind being a pseud or anything, just trying to help people out there who might see it all as overwhelming—take it for what it's worth

Do I really need the damn Greeks just to look into a philosopher.

I've been reading secondary literature on various philosophers for some time now and am incredibly bored of philosophy in general. I am going to devote myself to poetry instead.

you dont need to do anything

who are you reading that is boring

Secondary literature on Plato, the Bible, Epicurus, Aquinas, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche etc.

I used to find it interesting but I think I find it difficult to grasp what they mean exactly and that can leave me bored for some time.

Stirner should be bold, Locke should be bold, and you should have some Heidegger and Buddha (both in bold).

yeah i wouldve made stirner bold, but thought it was too much of a personal preference. not sure i agree on locke. heidegger is bold, and i sort of left out eastern thought as a separate exercise, but yeah buddha should be on there

itll always be there to go back to bud

Everyone following the Greeks is critiquing them directly or indirectly; so yes, they're incredibly important.

Is this decent for working my way towards Kant with almost no background?

I'm obviously going to read Hume, Locke, Barkey, and Rousseau etc after these, but its too expensive in one haul. I have read Plato's best dialogues by the way.

...

why dont you just rip stuff off libgen? hume especially should be done beforehand

I don't understand why Locke and Descartes aren't bold but Hume and Kant are. Are you going for maximum but efficient "thinking" training or something? Also you need some more conservative thinkers and while I can stomach some of the continental choices, Einstein, Heisenberg, and Pirsig should NOT be on your list. There's a lacking of philosophy of science people too who are mind-blowing like Feyerabend.

I stumbled into studying philosophy. I did not start with the greeks, and I got along fine. But now that I've put more time into them I realize how important they were. The Bible and the classics (don't be afraid to read into Indo-Aryan texts from antiquity) are essentially the foundation for understanding everything.

>PLOTINUS
>augustine

Are you fucking serious?

Did you just completely skip Fichte and Schelling? Feuerbach and Malebranche are certainly more "name dropped" than Maimonides or Santayana yet they're not there? Why are non-philosophers like Einstein and Darwin there but not Weber? What the fuck? Agustin and Descartes not in bold? So many wrong things I can't even list them all.
Unironically kill yourself mate.

You should also technically read Wolff and Baumgarten if you want the full, non-pleb Kant experience.

you sound like a faggot desu

It's a good attempt but it's not complete at all, and additions like Pirsig and the non-philosopher scientists are just fucking retarded.

Just re-read op; the bold is not for importance of thinkers it looks like, though it may seem like it. Seems more like the ones to 're-visit' immediately after. I sort of agree, that there's no need to re-read Descartes. No idea why Santayana and Pirsig made the cut; Santayana is terrible, at least Pirsig is sort of fun.

Heisenberg has a decent book on metaphysical implications. Understanding relativity is important also. Don't get Pirsig. No list like this will ever be complete.

the idea isn't to be complete, it's just to get an idea of the architectural arc of the subject—to feel comfortable diving into specifics. pirsig is just a random book that is a pop book, i don't know.

the idea isn't to have an academic understanding of philosophy. reading the above names would make you well-aware of fichte and schelling, who, if they interested you, you'd go back to.

i think augustine is a better and more important philosopher. i dont think youd read confessions a second time. plotinus is extremely hard to understand first-go, and getting a grip on him gives access to occult, alchemical, etc. shit, which otherwise these people wouldnt really give much color to.

>reading the above names would make you well-aware of fichte and schelling
Well then you should also remove most people before Hegel since he quotes them all. Brilliant.

Just get all the philosophy texts edited by poijman

i think you know what i mean m8

What a load of shit.

If your not well-educated in philosophy don't give advice about it you foolish pseud.

go on...

Does anyone have an actually compelling theory of mind?

You can just read cliff notes/Plato wikipage for philosophers. Much faster than reading their books. And usually more accurate.

hmmm