I wanna get into philosophy, and listed what would qualify as essential philosophers:>Plato>Aristotle>Descartes>Hume>Kant>Schopenhauer>Hegel>Marx>Wittgenstein>Foucault>Deleuzedo I need anything else?
Get a textbook.
>>24937320Can we get some advanced readers for once? These threads are getting tiresome.
>>24937320Foucault and Deleuze are both inspired by Nietzsche. Most contemprary continental philosophers probably read him.
>>24937320Very small and pointless list. Marx is useless.
>>24937320There are a lot more who are essential reading if you really want to get into it. For example I think reading John Locke after Descartes and before Hume and Kant is essential if not very beneficial. But don't worry too much about thinking up a grand list. Just pick one or two you want to read first and you'll discover more the more you read of it. Both Plato and Descartes are excellent places to start off depending on whether you want to start with the ancients or the moderns. For Plato maybe read 'the Last Days of Socrates' by Penguin, which is an excellent introduction to his thought, or 'Five Dialogues' by Hackett. For Descartes, reading 'Discourse on Method', or his 'Meditations' in any edition is a great way to get into modern philosophy.
>>24937349>Marx is uselessopinion discarded
>>24937320Toss that list and just read the pre-socratics and a selection of ancient chinese works. If it has to be a list of fragments/books, then:HeraclitusParmenidesMelissusXunziHanfeiziZhuangziCongrats, you're now head and shoulders above the common /lit/ crowd. If you read these then youll be able to figure out where to go next. I also strongly recommend that you read certain historians, specifically you should read herodotus, thucydides, xenophon (hellenica, anabasis, agesilaus), and in the east I would recommend the zuozhuan chunqiu, wuyue chunqiu, and also zhanguoce and the 匡 chapters of the guanzi. Actually the zhanguoce reminds me that in addition to historians you should read up on the orators, definitely look at isocrates work for example.Anyway, you'll know where to go from there. You're going to want to be familiar with the sophists and hellenistic era thinkers, and mingjia thinkers. Good luck and dont fall for the "muh plato and aristotle" meme, and definitely dont read anyone with a German name.
>>24937320Very small and pointless list. Hume is useless
>>24937320Liberalism really did work pretty good at indoctrinating people into the belief that no interesting thought happened between Aristotle and Descartes, huh? Plus, there is their whole rereading of Plato and Aristotle as consistent with modernity. Since this cannot be done for Plotinus, Proclus, the Patristics, Scholastics, or Islamics they just studiously ignore them. Even the push for "diversity" wasn't enough to get Islamic philosophy and it's "Neoplatonism" in the door.Definitely don't look there, it could be hazardous.
>>24937349Marx isn't useless. Reading Marx has been indispensible for destroying Marxists, simply because the overwhelming majority of people who say "read Marx" have never actually read him, and it is very easy to catch them on a false statement or to make their LLM of choice hallucinate with a specially worded quotation (after which you can trash them). Even outside of pointless internet debates, it is good to know the foundational thought of modern leftism even if you disagree, and a lot of what Marx says is quite poignant and interesting even from a rightist perspective.This is actually a problem you will see with leftists who have clearly never read a "right wing" author repeating some strawman they saw on reddit and "refuting" it. You don't really lose anything except time, but if you actually care about the history of Western philosophy, exchanging time to know what Marx actually wrote is a good deal.
like hack:you can skip all the Greeks and just read, "the human condition" this will give you everything relevant you need to know and their thought relevant in modern times. For Schopenhauer, you can just read Alan Watts, The Book and get a clearer, more profound version of Schopenhauer and in <200 pages
>>24937320Depends how essential you want to get, you could toss in Spinoza (especially if you want to read Deleuze), Leibniz, Frege, Whitehead, Nietzsche, Bergson, Heidegger, Husserl.Notice that you don't have any philosophers between Aristotle and Descartes, so maybe Epicurus/Lucretius, Stoics, Augustine, Boethius, Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, Aquinas, Duns Scotus.And as someone already commented: get a textbook, something like Anthony Kenny's "A New History of Western Philosophy" or Peter Adamson's ongoing podcast/book series "A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps", it's pretty good and he goes over a lot of overlooked figures, but he is yet to cover all of history of philosophy.
>>24937320after reading the greeks, descartes, hume and kant you should learn the difference between analytical and continental philosophy and choose which to study morebertrand russell, wittgenstein and g.e moore are some popular analytical thinkers
>>24937493dont bother reading hegel though.
Do bother reading Hegel, he's a fascinating and misunderstood figure.
>>24937320scrap a listits going to take years to get to the endprobably best to go by topic and try to understand the essential positions in each topic. you will read a lot of these people in the main branches, and it helps understand better than going author by author, imo.
>>24937328>/lit/>readers
>>24937320>Diogenes>Crates>Socrates> Epictetus>Chrysippus>Raymond Lully>Georg von Welling
>>24937446You don't need anything more to debunk all appeals to socialism than the following truth : value is a property of individuals not of things ; it is a man who evaluates, and value is found to be unique in everyone because each evaluates according to his own principles and circumstances. So now you can just scream CATEGORY ERROR, VALUE IS OF MAN, when someone argues that "A Society, a group, an association, will simply decide what is of value (by somehow finding the value of things inherent to them) and decide what is to be produced for everyone else"All groups and societies should be viewed as alien and treated like nature, you assess your power to take from it, trade with it, extract friends from it. Any group when it arises diminishes the men who compose it, and every time a comment like "this group has value" takes form, it is simply the group commenting about itself, trying to grow as an organism. Groups are dumb, talking about classes, nations, a people other than a cute alien foe, is nothing but a wish to die
>>24937320>I wanna get into philosophy>wojak opPure cancerI'm starting to understand socrates more and more. If some zoomer came up to me and started talking like that I would immediately start trolling him. OP, philosophy is not for you.
>>24937320>Plato>Aristotle(you can get away with secondary material)>Read about the Presocratics and Hellenistics>Read about the Muslims and the Scholastics in that order>Only then read about early modern rationalism and empiricism>Kant>Read secondary material on Hegel>Marx>Nietzsche>Freud>Maybe Bergson too(since he's fun)Only then do you reach D&G, or you could start with them and work backwards like an idiot(me)But really Wittgenstein is far more interesting as a proverbial mountain peak. You can get away with reading texts on the analytics rather than their actual works. You read early and later Wittgenstein, then go back to the Muslims and realize Ibn Taymiyya basically said the same thing about philosophy 700 years ago
