Someone can tell me some philosophy and psychology essential books?

crime and punishment
the brothers karamazov

>>7641671
Freud.
Being and Time.
Being and Nothingness.
Phenomenology of Spirit.
Phenomenology of Perception.
Ecrits.
Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals.
Tons more, read those first.

The greeks. Not joking.

>>7641685
>>7641701
Thank you
>>7641703
Tell me some your favorite

>>7641712
ignore this idiot >>7641685
might as well read camus for your philosophical and psychological needs...
go with hard fiction or go home

>>7641718
I don't understand this post.

>>7641712

Try reading plato's dialogues. They're essential.

Also check out thehistoryofphilosophy.net podcast.

Sadly I can't help you much with psychology.

>>7641718
>>7641736
Thank you guys!

>>7641734
meant non-fiction. If a person wants to get into phil. or psychology fiction is not the place to look to. And def. not what any well read person would consider "essential". Nothing wrong with those works (well...) but not stuff to read if you want actual insight into those fields.

>>7641703
If you go this path avoid the stoics. Start with aristotle and plato then move onto this stuff >>7641701 or start with those. I'm one of the few on this board that don't sing the Greek's praises.

>>7641778
>f you go this path avoid the stoics. Start with aristotle and plato then move onto this stuff >>7641701 or start with those. I'm one of the few on this board that don't sing the Greek's praises.
ok!!

It is generally not recommended to jump into phil without reading some basic introductions first but me for example I got into philosophy through Deleuze and the density of his thought seems unpenetrable at times

I had to read secondary texts and put in hours of research on the side but it all worked out in the end and just ignited my passion for phil even more
Just need to really dig what the philosopher of your choice offers to his readers

You might find these interesting: John McDowell's Mind and World, Fouccault's Discipline and Punish and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations

>>7641836
>me for example I got into philosophy through Deleuze and the density of his thought seems unpenetrable at times
>I had to read secondary texts and put in hours of research on the side but it all worked out in the end and just ignited my passion for phil even more

Do you have any recommendations for texts for getting into Deleuze?

>>7641860

Nope sorry I never purchased any secondary lit on Deleuze, instead I jumped right into the text and did research when I had to

The first thing I read by him was Rhizomes which itself is a part of Mille Plateux, a book you shouldn't bother with until you're confident enough with how Delueze's (and Guattari's) mind work. That segment is short and sets the tone for everything he has done before and after Rhizomes. It is basically proposes a new way of reading books and traversing labyrinths of information.

I also read Cinema 1 and 2 but that's not required reading like I said go for anything that you catches your attention Deleuze has a large and thematicaly varied body of work. Difference and Repetition and Anti-Oedipus are arguably his most famous texts

Just have an online dictionary ready at hand because he uses a stem-riddled vocabulary and often recontextualizes those words how he sees fit
Have a pen at your side and take notes all the time, write down your own thoughts and questions

I read a book on legendary publisher Peter Gente, who popularized Fouccault and Deleuze in Germany, he and his circle of friends had studied Anti-Oedipus in their freetime for 5 years. They met up almost daily in cafees and their flats, read it in silence or discussesd it for hours. What I want to say is that Deleuze is an ocean and it is on you how deep you're willing to go

>>7641671
start with the greeks

Pinel's Biopsychology. Well written and interesting, covers a broad range of subjects. Then move onto whatever approach/topic interests you the most

Also, Freud is never essential reading. His ideas aren't based in reality, and while he is a worthy contributor to psychology and has historical significance, you won't get anything sound out of his books. So don't waste your time.

>>7641671
what kind?

>>7644320
That is bullshit. Freud is still a very insightful read and I feel like today's psychology STILL has some things to learn from his approach to psychology, it's a shame he's outdated.
Having said that, for psychology I recommend "The Social Animal" by Elliot Aronson, I would consider this very essential for Social Psychology at least.

>>7644320
>infallible scientific method untainted by biases and institutional conformity :^)
If you're going for all-encompassing "life, the universe, and everything" stuff, then I think individual experienced thinkers shooting from their hips is the best you're going to get.

Freud wasn't right about everything, but he wasn't wrong about everything, either.

Intellectual maturity comes when you can weigh ideas instead of thinkers.