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.