Hello /his/. I have been interested in philosophy for a long

>>1931683
>What are the absolute must-reads of philosophy and religious texts?
Why not start with a philosophy textbook and after that you decide what to read about more in depth?

>>1931778
I thought you could give me some recommendations for a newbie.

>>1931826
>I thought you could give me some recommendations for a newbie.
I'm preparing to get ass-blasted but the philosophy books that I've read so far, hardly impressed me. In other words: I think they are a waste of time.

However, within philosophy there are important concepts and ideas. Go to plato.stanford.edu and read that stuff. Read a textbook. See what you want learn about more.

Even popular scientific books and textbooks from other sciences will treat philosophers and their ideas.

And I think that some people read philosophical books for subjective reasons instead of learning something. Someone like Kant might hardly be pure ideology, but I would say someone like Nietzsche is.

So suggesting you to read Nietzsche, of which I like certain ideas, would make little sense to recommend.

But as you might notice I am not exactly a philosopher kind of person, and most likely really piss students of philosophy and philosophers off. Just consider that the philosophy book I did enjoyed was from a non-philosopher: Nassim Taleb.

He connects philosophical concepts and ideas with science such as the science of complex systems and thus it makes more sense to me.

So really, you need to start reading about it in general, and look at what you want to learn more about or which you want to delve deeper.

>>1931826
Doesn't mean I did like a few books originally written by philosophers. But I won't tell you.

One that I will tell is "Aztec philosophy", but it has less to do with Aztec philosophy itself (though they had a few good ideas which Western philosophy got wrong until science corrected stuff) and more about learning another culture.

Also a piece of advice: in my experience the books that I got recommended by people often turned out the books I stopped reading.

Necessary reads: the greeks
Unnecessary reads: everything else

I'm serious, all major philosophical questions were pondered in hellenistic era, everything else is tetriary masturbation on specifics that was mostly rendered moot by science.

This is what they will tell you, especially at /lit/:
>Necessary reads: the greeks
Whatever it is true or not should be up to you OP, so like I said read summaries or textbooks, and then you decide whatever something is necessary to read futher in or to read the original work. Think of it as skepticism.

I hold the view that the Greeks aren't necessary at all. What IS helpful however, is knowing that a lot of ideas and concepts come from the Greeks, and which ones. Christianity has borrowed concepts and ideas from the Greeks. So has Western philosophy (after Christianity). I think Islam too, but I have read to little about Islamic thought to make a fair judgement.

All I know is that it was through Islam that some Greek philosopher got reintroduced into Western thought. But this is not without controversy. Some state that it was not so much Islam, but rather Byzantine.

Anyway I am being repetitive here, but really you need to make your own judgements about what to read and not rely too much on others.

If you had some more specific answers I could be more helpful. Last, you could also consider asking at - trigger warning - askPhilosophy over at Reddit. But if you do that, you should really be more specific.

Wouldn't be suprised that you'll get "Start with the Greeks" there as well. It is pretty much the dogma.

One last thing: I would like to point out that the Greeks, from whom a lot of ideas indeed come from, also had several things wrong and that these misconceptions are still common in our culture. It bother me really, and is part of my reason for the contrarian stance to "reading the Greeks".
Because, whenever I see /lit/ praising the classics, I can't help but think that they probably read the classics alone, thus without looking whatever these are still valid. They lack other perspectives.

Taleb by the way, is also fond of the classics, but at least with Taleb I am reassured that he does read contemporary works, whatever science or philosophy, to elavate (not sure if that is the word I am seeking) them.

It it definitely worthwhile to read classics, but one can't really judge them that well without knowing what we now know. I hold the view that one has to integrate them into current thought or, if it is necessary, dismiss them. That is why I find Taleb so satisfying.

Taleb does exactly that, he integrates philosophy in a broader framework that includes findings from the sciences. It makes philosophy alive and relevant.

>>1931683
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_(Copleston)

read these. then focus on the philosophers you find interesting.

Read Stirner lmao