Philosophers I have read at least a portion of: x = read a whole bookNietzsche xxxxKierkegaard xCamus xSartreCioran xMarcelBenetar xKaczynski xLiggoti xPlato xxxWeil Spengler xMainlanderSchopenhaur xHumeKantLandEvola xxThe works I got filtered by: Being and Nothingness and also Critique of Pure Reason. The other books I didn't finish mainly because of boredom, though I will probably go back and reread them
>>25299684It will just someday click. I’ve been reading philosophy for the last 6-7 years and only last year I experienced the feeling, that I now have the tools together to really understand most philosophical texts. It was while I was trying to read being and time again (at the first attempt I got filtered into oblivion). I read a few pages and I realised that I do understand every sentence and paragraph. It was really amazing. Now reading philosophy isn’t a chore anymore (although I stop reading when i get the gist of the work, if it is not a fantastic read). Now it’s fun.
Fewer pessimist/meme philosophers
>>25299684As far as I understand you read three Platonic dialogue and then jumped ahead to read selections (not a single complete work) from Hume and Kant. This isn't even close to a foundation for post-Kantian philosophy
>>25299684find an author in dialogue with kant and then go read relevant sections. like him or not, i think kants important as a structured thinker
>>25299851What would you recommend?
The axial philosophers are Aristotle and Kant; these are the ones who inaugurated radical shifts in how we understand ourselves and the world moreso than anyone else. You just have to know at least one of them well if you want to into western philosophy; they ARE difficult and it’s because what they are doing is so heavy but there is a simple technique that allows even a drunken pseud like me to engage with them: read the works over and over until they make sense. That’s it, that’s the secret. Now go forth and read the Critique of Pure Reason.
>>25299684read the summa theologiae if you want to know about philosophy
>>25299830this p much
>>25299950Start with the greeks
>>25299992those are also my favorites
>>25299684Philosophy requires flexibility of thoughtsReading philosophy can help with that. But to achieve such a balance of confidence and humbleness is not something many can muster, so they fail. If youre reading to feel less like a novice, you will never become a master
try reading less and doing more
>>25299684Start with the Greeks. >>25301438And this.
Imagine reading all these authors and still feeling bad about anything ever again. Why the fuck to read if not to feel good? so you can check boxes off fucking lists? you will never be anything but exactly what you know you are
>>25299684The non-meme answer is you need to give it at least 20 years of intensive reading and researching. Which is easiest (because of available resources), but not guaranteed (because it's in your hands), if those 20 years are spent going through an undergrad and graduate philosophy program and culminating in finishing a PhD dissertation in philosophy at a competitive program, if not next teaching philosophy as well.You will feel like a novice relative to anyone who's got those 20+ years of experience because you are a novice. Some 60-70 year old brilliant researcher mind with 40+ years of experience will always know more than you, but at least around your 40s you start to be respected enough and treated as an equal proper among these giants.Don't compare yourself to 20 year olds of the past. They were working with easier standards. But in 2026 and future times, the standards get more and more severe because there's always more and more philosophy to read and also make.
