What are some good philosophy texts for someone who wants a broad view of popular and/or important philosophies? Not looking to specifically bias myself in any direction -- I just want some texts to absorb so I can better understand philosophy as a whole. Preferably original texts by philosophers and not pre-chewed content
>>23923588Give up, you don't have what it takes to learn philosophy on your own
>>23923591I will stare into the sun until a book falls into my hand then, thanks
>>23923591Got a purist over here
>>23923595You're welcome
>>23923588oxford prof bryan magee, he has/had YT videos as well
>>23923588You start with this old, old blind dude named Homer and work your way up to modern times gradually through Plato and then Aristotle. Hope that helped.
>>23923591Philosoplebs shouldn't act elitist given the fact that they are too low IQ for science and math.
>>23923606you sound esl
>>23923604Sorry for asking to be spoonfed but is there any zoomer-tier infographic/flow chart that is essentially "read this, then that because that is based on this" that will essentially allow me to follow down whatever path I find interesting?
>>23923611I don’t even understand the question. Read Homer and then complete works of Plato and Aristotle then medieval works and then Descartes and then you can continue to the schizo rambling that is post-Hegelian stuff
>>23923588>>23923611read the sticky retard
>>23923609ESL and proud. I have no respect for your language. English inhibits philosophical thinking. That's why all Anglo "philosophy" is soulless and without intellectual depth.
>>23923621Cool I sure hope this represents philosophy beyond 1000 AD as well thanks anon
>>23923629>anongo back to whatever subreddit u came from
>>23923634Ironic
>>23923625
>>23923629You are far too stupid for that chart. I can immediately tell. Stick to Jordan Peterson videos or whatever.
>>23923636yea, because you're a newfag redditor retard who doesn't realize the answer to your faggot retard question is literally in the sticky of this board
kek philocels are really this easy to rile up, huh? just the idea of a clueless person walking in and asking what to read makes them so furious
>>23923645
>>23923638What's wrong with Jordan Peterson?
>>23923638>last suggested book covers ideas before 1000>you are too stupid for the chart because you are asking for more modern philosophy and I gave you a chart that contains none of it and also does not give any guidance on where to go nextno wonder people think "philosophers" are so insuferrable
>>23923650you are literally too fucking stupid to read the sticky kek90 iq tops
>>23923650If you want modern stuff you have to start with the ancients and work your way up which you have neither the intellect nor the patience for.http://www.theworldsclassics.org/p/the-great-books-of-western-world-gbww.html?m=1Ideally, read at least the RED section listed here in chronological order.
>>23923653kek kek u r so stupid to not read the sticky which has top book posts and guides to older philosophy and a disjoint reading guide that does not exclusively cover philosophyyou sound like a stem drop out that coped by reading "philosophy for dummies" and pretending that philosophy is the world and that everything else is just a cringe human illusion
>>23923664do NOT redeem SAAR! do NOT!
>>23923664Modern stuff is literally founded on the ancients. Why do you think Heidegger spoke about Parmenides? You think you’re too smart to start with antiquity but it is the opposite
>>23923662the point being that the last page of plato doesn't read "for more learning, check out aristotle"but thanks for providing actual guidance
>>23923672my point isn't that i don't want to ready antiquity (i do), it's that reading plato does not inherently lead you to aristotle (okay bad example actually, but you get my point)
>>23923588Philosocucks will hate me for this but I'm gonna save you a lot of time. Philosophy isn't worth reading. It's a major waste of your precious time. Philosophy is a naive, primitive way of thinking that has been made obsolete by science more than 200 years ago. And it was already dead before. Never in its 2000 years of history did philosophy ever establish any objective results, any final solutions to its questions or any meaningful advice. The only reason why pseuds read philosophy is for the enjoyment of pseudointellectualism itself. Only pathetic incels with a huge demand for copium do this. If you want actual knowledge, objective answers and fun intellectual endeavors, go read STEM books instead.
ESL Jeet thread
>>23923699Bharat invented philosophy. Don't be racist against us or you're not a real philosopher.
>>23923588It seems not a single person understood your request. A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is a popular choice and a safe bet. And yes, you do have to deal with Russell's biases towards logical Positivism, but no matter whose book you're reading, you're going to deal with biases. Critical reading is all about knowing how to recognize and work with those biases. Hope this helps.
>>23923736Russell is shit tier.
>>23923743What would be your recommendation instead?
>>23923737philosochads... i thought we were all buff warriors... where did we go wrong?
>>23923588Start here. It's the most relevant place to start for people living today.
>>23923759intredasting
>>23923743Surely vexation kills the fool, and jealousy slays the simple.
study classical logic, then skip to the late 19th century
>>23923625why are you typing in it
>>23923601This. Watch his interviews on YT but also his book The Story of Philosophy is a great introduction.
>>23923588Elea
>>23923588Copleston's A History of Philosophy is the gold standard. He's a Jesuit, so that means he had 15 years of education after college as well as no wife or kids and only spent his time studying. He is quite good.
>>23923736>>23924026Ended up going with Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy, wish me luck, anons
Any academic history of Western, Aristotelian/Scholastic Philosophy (and after you hit Aquinas you get a pretty unshakeable throughline to the Moderns).Just beware of Plato and Plato derivatives, his work is probably the most universally misunderstood and misleading of all philosophy in the modern day and the insistence that his is the bedrock of Western philosophy, rather than Aristotle, is revisionism.
>>23923768Classical logic was developed during and after the 19th century, no need to skip.This is terrible advice though. No point focusing on Boomer philosophy like Wittgenstein when all his followers are dying out either.
It's better to understand one or two great philosophers really well than to have a superficial understanding of the whole canon.
>>23925331Is it? I'd rather have a superficial awareness of certain philosophies so I understand which rabbit holes to go down than to understand that the world is a cylinder situated on infinite earth
>>23925287>The insistence that his is the bedrock of Western philosophy, rather than Aristotle, is revisionism.This. The Plato that really influences western (and eastern) thought is a Plato read through the lens of Aristotle. Plato's very important and all but Aristotle is even more important and a lot of modern philosophy is either reacting against or reinterpreting Aristotle.
>>23925339Careful reading of any one of these guys is always infinitely more interesting than what you're going to get by skipping around or reading secondary sources. I'm not saying you shouldn't do a bit of research to decide what to dive into in the first place, I'm just saying you need to make that deep dive sooner than later. And I'm definitely not talking about the presocratics, you can't do a 'deep dive' into fragments and the reason they didn't survive is because they were inferior.
>>23925339>>23923588Philosophical knowledge isn't partial, it's categorical. If your goal is to generate a novel way of being retarded about a philosophical idea, you'll succeed. You're going to get such basic things so completely wrong that you will be quite literally be engaging in something else.
>>23923591It's ogre
