Philosophy

Der Einzige und sein Eigentum

start with the greeks

The Ego and Its Own by Johann Kaspar Schmidt

>>8744023
THIS. FUCK.

>>8744030
what are some Greek core? Republic? Plato's Dialogues? What else?

>>8744011
Literally most of it. Unless you want to be a pleb and a pseud, in which case you'll fit right in.

>>8744037
>Plato's Dialogues?
Yes, start here.

>>8744037
>The Republic
>Plato's Dialogues
You know that The Republic is a subset of Plato's dialogues right?

>>8744042
Don't listen to this guy. Asides from the fact that philosophy is so broad it is impossible to have any real depth of knowledge in more than very specific areas, Lit puts far to much emphasis on primary reading. Asides from contemporary works you mostly read secondary sources because older works of philosophy tend to be long: make a lot of points, not terrible concise, are written in an older, and less cultivated philosophical understanding. The example that always comes back to me is a Locke scholar I have met who has not read Concerning Human Understanding from cover to cover. This does not hold true for all philosophy and there really are books that ought to be read as primary sources but you will learn faster and better with modern secondary sources. Take Hume. He writes some fat books, but usually you will only be interested in a single aspect or idea of it (unless you want to know what Hume thought about something rather than wanting to know if something is true). So a good secondary source will isolate that idea, subject it to modern advances in philosophy and all in a very short amount of time and space.

If your question was more like 'I'm new to Philosophy, where do I start?' then it's hard to go wrong with either some good history book that goes over different thinkers or different schools of thought from the ancient world to the modern (or perhaps just the modern). Most philosophy is dialectic and thus requires a knowledge of this stuff anyway, and it can give you an idea about what figures or ideas you like.

Plato. Aristotle. Nietzsche. Kierkegaard. This guy nobody here would know but wrote something like eastern philosophy even though he's European. Kant. Probably something more too, but can't remember.

That's what I've read, probably some day will reread.

I'm interested in spirituality, I don't like the rationalist nor empiricists, though I agree that I could learn a thing or two from them; reality, worldview. I don't like plain logic, I don't like plain critical thinking nor plain analytics. Is that too cringy for you to bare seeing?

So what should I read now? Perhaps Hegel's the phenomenology of spirit? What's that book about though?

I'm obviously young and not good at English.

>>8744455

>This guy nobody here would know but wrote something like eastern philosophy even though he's European

>Implying we don't fawn over Schopenhauer literally every day

>>8744011
the greeks
my diary desu

>>8744115
>The example that always comes back to me is a Locke scholar I have met who has not read Concerning Human Understanding from cover to cover.

Sounds like a pretty shitty scholar.

A lot of your post is on point, but Jesus Christ.

>>8744011
I would recommend staring with History of Philosophy by Fredrick Copleston and as you go through them reading the books you find interesting.
This without any other works will be a long project as it is 9 volumes long, but it's the most comprehensive start you can get outside of actually going to college.

File: Philosophers.jpg (2MB, 900x6474px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x6474px

Don't listen to anyone in this thread.

Begin by looking at this image, then look at the related subject matter, preferably starting from Descartes if you want to get up to date with what's been going in modern philosophy or the Greeks if you want to just learn philosophy in general.

After Descartes move to Hume, then so on down the line...

HUME
U
M
E

>>8744462
it's Vydūnas.

>>8744541
that infographic reeks of reddit

>>8744011
There is literally no such thing as a "must-read" philosophy book.