>>24749908I am just going to say it. That chart is autistically hyper focused on the pre-Socratics and the pre Socratics alone. Seriously, you don't need to read that much about the fucking pre Socratics. The very last book, The First Philosophers by Waterfield, that's literally the only one that you need to read. The rest of it is just completely overboard. Now listen, Anon, if you want my personal recommendations for how to get into philosophy, here's what I would do. I, myself, tried to adhere to these stupid, autistically rigid lists, and ended up reading quite a lot of classic philosophy books, but you know what? In the end, I discovered that it's far better to just read books that you are honestly, earnestly interested in. So here's what I recommend doing. If you want to get an actual, solid introduction to philosophy, go through a list of all the various classical philosophy books, and write down ten that you find the most interesting, and the ones that you want to read most. Then, find the three chronologically earliest ones in that list, and start there. That is a far better method than adhering to any of these autistically, overly rigid lists of books. Friend.
>>24749936Thank you for saying it. I will heed your advice and not have autistic thoroughness run away with me.
>>24749936Are you telling me the chart about the presocratics is focused on the presocratics?
>>24750144am i wrong?
>>24749936fpbp. I wouldn't even stick to classical texts or worry about reading in chronological order. I read Nietzsche before Kierkegaard and Augustine, and the retroactive discoveries one makes are rather satisfying. In my case, I probably wouldn't have been interested in Christian thought if I hadn't read Nietzsche first, nor would Kierkegaard or Kant interest me if I hadn't read Camus and Sartre.
>>24749936What a shame though,that chart is so neatly done.
>>24749936The chart literally reads: "It is important that no one treat this as a necessary reading list; one need not read every book here before starting Plato, or Aristotle, this is hardly necessary and would prove more so a hindrance than an aid..."
>>24750219Doesn’t make it less autistic
>>24750219Then it is functionally useless.
>>24749908This is insane, read the OWC compilation and maybe extra reading on specific philosophers you're most interested in then move on to Plato and Aristotle
>Purchasing the same book over and over and over againLol, they all say the same thing, you're better off just picking up two of these, then Plato and Aristotle directly.
>>24749908no one has followed this chart including the person who made it >>24752039all of these charts are useless slop made by people who haven't actually read the books
OP, I have been looking for this as well. It’s one of the few charts I’ve seen made by someone who wasn’t just pasting his goodreads “want to read” bookshelf into Microsoft paint. Also, there is nothing “autistic” about this, it’s just a pictorial bibliography made with care. If you were in grad school studying the presocratics specifically, you would read at least all of these books along with the relevant literature in German and French. Like, go look at the Stanford encyclopedia for any individual presocratic philosopher with an entry, the bibliography is 10x this.
>>24752211Do you know how to use the image hash field to reverse search images in the archives? With 4plebs I just drag the image into the field and it does its thing, but it doesn't work for warosu for whatever reason.
>>24749908actually good list, but as the first anon said (>>24749936), autistically rigid, still I disagree about Waterfield, you only need Kirk & Raven and Guthrie, that's it. The Kirk book is specially interesting when he talks about Alcman and Pherecydes.If you want to then jump directly to Plato and Aristotle, Guthrie still holds, you can swap it for some of the Cambridge Handbooks or the Blackwell one and just read chapters of the books you are interested in. The blackwell for Plato, specially part 1 is interesting.
>>24749936idc im reading them all anyways
but i like the presocratics
>>24752501You should really work on fixing that
>>24752365I don’t I’m retarded. I made this exact thread in like March or so though. Good luck anon. If u find it please spam it later.
>>24752771W-what's wrong with the presocratics.
>>24753010They’re all wrong
>>24753027Ha! That's exactly what a socratic would say.
>>24753575I’m Platonic, queer
>>24749908Anybody got more of these infographics on philosophy?
>>24753804ehhh, check if they're in here https://lit.trainroll.xyz/wiki/Charts
>>24753813Ehhh…
>>24749936>you don't need to read that much about the fucking pre SocraticsDepends what your goal is like some philosopers correctly said the study of philosophy is preparation for death.The reality is that the philosopher doesn't matter. The result is the same which is that you're much more comfortable with dying tomorrow
>>24753714Plato was very gay
>>24749936Fall to them as you find your stomach serves you.No profit grows where is no pleasure ta'en.In brief, sir, study what you most affect..
>>24752039how is it functionally useless? it's a chart of books for the pre-socractics if someone wants to learn about pre-socractics. it serves its purpose.
>>24755744It’s a thirty book list with one book
