Which book on the pre-Socratics should I get? These are the ones

I really liked Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

>>7968581
First philosophers is a great intro with helpful annotations and a structure that quickly becomes comfortable, although I would recommend reading the fragments before Waterfield's commentary/synopsis so you can actually explore a little on your own before being spoon-fed.

Have you read much philosophy? If this is your first step then don't sweat these guys too much. You won't really be able to appreciate why their works are as significant as so many people say they are, so just get through them. Ideally you'll return to them later (at which point you may want to try a different edition) and see them in a new light.

>>7968604
I've taken a scattershot approach to philosophy, and I've now decided to go back and read stuff in chronological order (roughly).

>>7968581
Mckirahan
100%
The others (oxford/penguin/and two others I forgot the name of and can't look up since I'm on my phone atm) don't come close. A while back I downloaded them all and compared them, and McKirahan just shits on the rest in scope (for instance, Hesiod is included and compared with the standard presocratics), clarity (even has diagrams), quality of translation, and thoroughness of commentary. He compares contrasting views clearly and doesn't just advocate his own like waterfield for instance.

In addition, the presocratics reader by Hackett could be a nice supplement, as it's the same/similar translations of all the fragments with a little introduction per person.

>>7968694
Cool, thanks.

>>7968713
This.

It includes the texts in Latin, Ancient Greek, and English, along with commentary. It's a bit expensive, though.

I remember somebody posting something (link to a website iirc), that laid out a remarkably thorough outline of texts of Western philosophy (I think I remember both primary and secondary texts, but a heavy emphasis on the former). The only other helpful detail I think I remember is a variety of font colors used, particularly blue, red, and maybe green.
Anyone have any clue what I'm talking about? Haven't been able to track it down in the archives. I think I saw it something in the realm of 6-9 months ago.

Also:
>>7968694
You seem like you might actually know what you're talking about. Any thoughts on
>>7968713
?

>>7968694
This guy gets it. McKirahan (2nd ed.) is the best at that price range.

If money is no obstacle and you intend to specialize in Presocratics, then get this one: >>7968713

>>7968762
Not him, but Graham's book is an extensive compilation of fragments of all the Presocratics and some sophists, so it's pretty useful for a deep study. The commentaries are pretty tame and are kept at a separate section from the fragments so you can skip it if you want.

>>7968601
You tried, anon.

>>7968601
What is it about?

If it's just about muh army and shit then I don't care.

>>7968581
I like W.K.C Guthrie's History of Greek Philosophy first 2 volumes (+3rd if you want to read about Socrates and the sophists). It's pretty hard and long, but you need that if you want to understand the Presocratics

>>7971056
>160 euros for the hardback, per volume

jesus fucking christ, is it diamond-encrusted? Thank god for piracy.

>>7968581

You should also consider GS Kirk and JE Raven's The Presocratic Philosophers; or the second edition by Kirk, Raven, and M Schofield.

>>7971088
it's so that (some) professional philosophers don't have to work at mc d's

>>7968762

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

bumpo

>>7971455
I've never quite figured out why anyone thought academic philosophy was a good idea at all. All the really, truly influential philosophers for most of history were rambling hobos and dirt-poor scrubs who relied solely on the benefaction of others.

It seems to me that as philosophy has become more professional, it's become less worthwhile.

>>7972976
>truly influential philosophers for most of history were rambling hobos and dirt-poor scrubs who relied solely on the benefaction of others.
False.