Is it necessary for one to read philosophy chronologically?

Nothing is necessary.

>>7696686
*preferable

start with greeks, read what you want from there, but dont be dumb. read the pre-requisite shit if there is some.

File: rare_stirner.png (24KB, 450x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x500px

It is necessary to understand precedent arguments central to the inception of newer systems of ideology, whether in response to them or an expansion on its tenets. While chronological reading is the best way of doing this, a close reading of the history of philosophy is a good alternative and so are reliable introductions by lead intellectuals of said movements in philosophy. What one must say is that it is profitable but not entirely necessary, this is not to mean that you can simply do without it, this being entirely dependent on your use of philosophy.

Read Descartes so you can properly shit on him when you get to the good shit like A.N. Whitehead and Husserl.

File: mysides.png (314KB, 717x436px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 717x436px

>>7698233
>rare_stirner.png

>>7696685
If you're talking about a specific philosopher, no
If you're talking about in general, yes. You should start with the Greeks
But if you're reading Nietszche you don't need to read his early stuff

File: peirce tsundere.png (183KB, 297x504px)

183KB, 297x504px

>>7698591
>tfw the Pragmatists shred Descartes to pieces