I want to read existentialism authors like Nietzsche, Camus and

>>8783787
Proto-existentialists like Kafka, Dostoyevsky, and Kierkegaard.

You should be familiar with some Greek philosophy. Aristotle's metaphysics and the like

>>8783787
Being and nothingness is a response to heidegger

>>8783787
start with the greeks

>>8783787
You don't need Hegel to read (some of) Kierkegaard, but maybe know a little something about Christianity. Greek tragedy, Heraclitus and Plato will suffice for Nietzsche. From there you can read the frogs (although I'd recommend you just bite the bullet and read Heidegger). With him (as with all of them) the more philosophical background the better, but you can probably get by with a general grasp of German idealism, phenomenology, and the Greeks.

>>8783798
I have a collection of Dostoievski and Kafka books, I really appreciate them both. I read some articles about Kierkgaard and didn't like the Christian response for the philosophical questions.

>>8783818
Do I really need to get into Plato's and other greek authors? During my school days they teached about ot

Ignore people mentioning Heidegger.

Heidegger is unreadable and you'll get no clarity or satisfaction from trying to understand him. (Not baiting, seriously, just an honest person's perspective) He may have inspired good philosophy but his books will take you ages and you'll be no better off for having struggled with them

>>8783829
Then you're not ready for Kierkegaard

>>8783829
>didn't like the Christian response for the philosophical questions.
the atheist/agnostic existentialist responses are, frankly, weak. The road of existentialism splits between theism and atheism, but theism is certainly the more scenic route.

Was Sartre basically saying to do everything spontaneously?

>>8783886
That's a good or bad thing?

I am a spiritist and even the answer to suicide questions from my religion displeases me a lot, the world certainly doesn't need religion to justify something that philosophy already does very well.
Obs: Try to separate the concepts of religion and philosophy in this context, I am speaking about the divergences and the part of philosophy that doesn't depend on region.

If I'm not prepared for Kierkgaard because of another reason, please explain to me.

>>8783911
What gave you that idea

>>8783911
How did you interpret this way?

>>8783913
I wouldn't say that it's a good thing, Kierkegaard is notably anti-establishment in terms of religion and his ideas are worth exploring.
>Try to separate the concepts of religion and philosophy in this context, I am speaking about the divergences and the part of philosophy that doesn't depend on region
I'd highly recommend reading the Gospels to inform yourself in the religion/spirituality divide that you seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of. They're short and actually pretty necessary for philosophical study

Take the recommendations of the other anons as you please, anon. The meme start with the greeks should not be taken from granted. These writers were always talking with their contemporaries and their predecessors. It comes in layers.

That being said, it doesn't mean you can't jump right into any of those authors. There is no law, no rule, no anything. Just be aware of it. I've read plenty of authors without their background, some links are tighter (like reading Lacan without knowing Freud, or Deleuze without Spinoza, etc), but some not so much. You'll have some understanding of it, including thinking you don't understand it. It's quite interesting to also work in reverse. Read Nietzsche and do not understand something, then read Kant on some other time, remember what Nietzsche said, go back to him with different eyes and so on. This movement is great.

A question is why do you want to read them. One thing is to get into that movement I talked about, another is to try to understand them entirely. First because that is impossible, there is no end to how you read a text. Second because it's not linear, there are several ways to understand it and even disagree with it. Third because when people talk about them, they will also be talking from this place that acknowledges the history of what is being said and so it is important for you to know it as well.

tl;dr start where you want, but don't stop there and don't go saying you got it figured out just cause you think you do

>>8783916
>>8783921
Because it otherwise wouldn't be authentic freedom. Would it? That's what I took from reading him. All choices must be spontaneous to be authentic.

>>8783951
Ok, thank you anon

>>8783847
He is not unreadable just go slow you cuck
Agree with everything else

Camus is literally highschool-tier literature nowadays. You can read it without any prior knowledge of absurdism / existentialism and still understand it very well