I read "The Republic" from Plato and would like to read more philosophy, what do I read now?
"The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell will catch you up with the main ideas of the Enlightenment (Empiricism, Foundationalism &c). "Principia Ethica" by Moore was the first book to study meta-ethics in particular. Read if you want a new perspective on the ideas of good and evil, and what it means for a concept to be well defined at all.
The Essential Plotinus (Hackett) or Uzdavinys' Plotinus selections
>>23623231Why do I have to read shitty summaries of philosophy? I just want to read the fucking philosopher
>>23623210Bronze Age Mindset. You are ready.
>>23623210The el ebil mods never lit this in the sticky https://leftychan.net/edu/src/1612207844643.pdf
>>23623274It's not a summary, it's an unambiguous presentation of Bertrand Russell's philosophy. It serves two purposes, as a summary and investigation into the major problems of the Enlightenment, and as a statement of his own answers.
Heidegger
>>23623210Nicomachean EthicsNaturally you could spend a lifetime on Plato (and on Aristotle) and eventually will realize you need to go back and catch up on the pre-Socratics but Nicomachean Ethics is the next cursory step.
>>23623498>It's not a summary>It serves two purposes, as a summaryI already knew you were retarded when you mentioned Russell but this pretty confirms it
>>23623542retard
Finished the republic too now i would like to read more about the form of good, do you know any secondary lit i could read that go over this topic?
>>23623210I hope you read HOMER - ILIAD and HOMER - ODYSSEY first.
>>23623210Continue with Plato. I'd recommend you buy the Hackett edition of the Five Dialogues, which contains Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, and Phaedo.
>>23623210Depends on what you are interested in OP. If you liked Plato go ahead and read some other dialogues, check out Plotinus etc. You could try Aristotle next too. If you like politics and ethics then you can check out Machiavelli or modern writers like Strauss, Foucault's ethics, Hadot or MacIntyre and Charles Taylor.>>23623450Surprisingly good guide. I don't get the section on Islamic philosophy. What's it doing there? Also missed out Ibn Arabi too.
sex gifs.
>>23623210>The RepublicIt's all downhill from here
The Genealogy of Morals
>>23623210Take a step back and read the presocratics or at least about them. Then read more plato. Then read Aristotle. Then you can read some of the hellenists like epicurus and the stoics and the skeptics. Then you can read some romans and neoplatonists if you want. Then you can read some medievals if you want. Then you read Descartes, spinoza, leibniz, john locke, berkeley, hume, and kant. Then just read whatever.
>>23623542You openly admitted that you had just read Republic and was "looking for more philosophy", implying that you hadn't read much else. Why do you already have opinions of philosophers you haven't read?
>>23623542>>23624149Also doubly retarded if you think there's no value in wide-ranging work that gives understanding of previous writings. No matter how much you read in any topic, you will always have gaps that need to be filled in. This type of work is useful because it allows you to approach other works without having to fully go over everyone who influenced them (which you will always necessarily do unless you're planning on starting with the babylonians). I can already tell you don't read, nigga.
>>23623231>he reads others opinions on philosophy instead of the source philosopher >>23623210Read Plato dialogues, some of Aristotle, and Descartes. That should be a good introduction.
>>23624830>Aristotle, and DescartesThere were dozens of philosophers that came between Aristotle and Descartes.
>>23623210https://righthegelian.com/reading-list/
>>23624919Yes, but Descartes is a good introduction to philosophy even if you haven't read Plato or Aristotle, while you need to have previous knowledge for all of those philosophers in between.
>>23624921right hegelians should have a mass brawl with left nietzscheans
