I've studied the history of philosophy in some depth. Besides

As opposed to simply literary criticism, also genuine literature.

how did you do the study? give examples, books you read, lectures you attented etc

>>2595401
just reading books, routledge history of philosophy, cambridge companions etc as well as general browsing around stanford encyclopedia

>>2595417
>cambridge companions
How good are the for learning? I would say they are more designed for scholars and talk about the problems / gaps in scholarship than the general concept. But If you enjoyed reading them whom am I to disagree

Anyways back to your original question, History of Art is quite fun to learn and might be complimentary to everything you learn.
Theology is meh, I count it as philosophy, and do not consider it a separate subject. Some Christian philosophy is just theology and so on.
I see no reason to study mathematics, and other science stuff unless you are interested in them
Rhetoric is likewise a niche subject depending on the stuff you are interested. If you want to learn for example why Paul adressed such and such in his letters, yes rhetoric might be usefull. Philip Harland actually examined pauls letters with Dio of Prusa's rhetorical works and it was quite interesting but unless you want to focus on speeches and their styles I wouldn't study it.

Depends on your personal taste tbqh. One thing to remind yourself always is to pick and chose and not to specialize on one subject, it is better to learn medieval christian and maybe islamic philosophers also in general than to spend 6 months on summa theologica. Again just a personal opinion

>>2595462
Cambridge companions are useful to read before reading primary texts because you can get a good idea of the main concepts and arguments beforehand. Blackwell's companions are also very good, and there is another series called arguments of the philosophers which does roughly the same job as those too.

Besides the major textbooks, what are the best books and series for history of art?

>>2595462
also just to clarify, what I meant is the history of rhetoric, the history of mathematics, the history of theology and so on

I don't want to go into depth with them but of course ideas from those fields influenced philosophers and their general mindset and worldview

>>2595481
>>2595490
I don't know, they are good for scholars but I think they are over excessive for layman. I'm not implying anyone wihout a phd is a stupid retard, but I think companion and such works give far more information than they should.
And some chapters are not that good, One I remember was from cambridge companion to homer, later on I heard the scholar who wrote had to cut a lot of stuff due to 'chapter limits' so there's that.
I just find them excessive, I wouldn't start learning stuff from them, but each to his own, some people like it rough from the start

Did you checked out TTC (the teaching company) video lectures about the things you mentioned? From art history to history to philosophy they have quite a large series. The lectures are in undergraduate level but the guidebooks have notes and bibliographies that can guide one who want to learn further

>>2595504
Also podcast, I think you know the history of philosophy podcast by now, but also check out other podcasts that you can find through google or itunes etc

>>2595504
well the good thing about companions and handbooks is that you don't need to read from start to finish, so you can just focus on the main chapters of interest

you would probably prefer blackwell and routledge companions to specific areas of philosophy that you are interested in

they are all written in clear modern English too which is a big help if you are reading some continental philosopher

>>2595326

Study the scientific revolution