What philosophy books should a person start with. Or what philosophers

Plato
Aristotle

Everything else is not mandatory and up to you.

Read A New History of Western Philosophy in four volumes by Sir Anthony Kenny. Then read the originals of the philosophers who interest you the most.

>>9356783
>reading a history of philosophy

Why not just read philosophy?

>>9356790
Too many books. Reading a history of philosophy lets you get an idea of every author, and then, familiarized with them, you can choose which originals to read.

>>9356768
How about metaphysics by Aristotle is that a good book of his to start with

File: 1443933276763.jpg (637KB, 1456x2000px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1456x2000px

>>9356763
Plato and Aristotle are as useless as the presocratics, so unless you're super into them, get a nice overview edition.

However, Epicurus was the rightest of all the ancients.

Start here:
https://historyofphilosophy.net/

>>9356826
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: definitely

>>9356868
>useless

>most influential and important thinkers of all time
>useless

>>9356868
Wow cunterfly, you really fucking shat all over now. You are impressively DUMB.

Plato
also just a reminder Socrates never existed

Start with the Greeks, then move along the timeline. Remember to become like /lit/ and read the history of philosophy, so you can replace your own thought by just quoting what others have said. Keep doing this all the way up into the 20th century, so you can name drop important philosophers into your conversation from all of history rather than engaging the philosophers themselves. Remember, reading is ultimately about getting laid.

File: Nedry laugh.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>9356874
>>9356900

>>9356768
FIRST POST BEST POST

>>9356903
Of course he did. Other people wrote about him. Plato is the fictitious character.
Socrates invented Plato and faked his own death. For real this time.

>>9356763
Plato
Augustine
Berkeley
Wiitgenstein

in that order

File: butterfly, the cunt.png (518KB, 500x775px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 500x775px

>>9356920

i heard heideggers good, though a bit hard for beginners, give him a try op

>>9356763
to start getting into philosophy you need to read widely versus reading gigantic and meticulous works that are genre defining (such as cpr, pos, pi, etc). I recommend you get an anthology which will have the most important passages from a wide variety of areas and time periods. Some people will come in here and recommend you only read history of philosophy and others will comment saying that reading a history of philosophy is weak. The answer is of course both. Philosophy means nothing without its historical context and the ideas derived from philosophical works are meaningless without seeing how the author gets to that point and with what methodology. I don't recommend buying a historical book by the volume but instead getting one book focused on a particular era that interests you. In addition to an anthology I recommend these works: anything by Plato, Discourse on the Method and Meditations by Descartes, both of Hume's major works, Prolegomena to any future metaphysics by Kant, Leibniz monadology + metaphysics, Locke's ECHU. Reply back if you're interested in Analytic philosophy of which I recommend "on what exists" by Quine and "on certainty" by Wittgenstein in any case.
>>9356826
This is a hard book if you're just starting out with philosophy. It's atctually not even a book but just a bunch of collected writings.

>>9356937
I would be interested in analytic philosophy

>>9356763
A skeptical reading of Nietzsche after having read the SEP articles for Plato and Aristotle.

>>9356937
I'm not OP, but about those anthologies you mentioned, can you recommend any that is good and was digitally released? I'd like to read such a work on my e-reader.

>>9356955
>>9356958
VeryBroad
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294986056

Great anthology of Post Kant philosophy (expensive, 2 volumes)
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294990309

Analytic Philosophy (I have this and I recommend it highly if you're interested in analytic philosophy)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/analytic-philosophy-a-p-martinich/1100213514?ean=2901444335704&pcta=u&st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core%20Shopping%20Textbooks_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP62423

A lot of analytic philosophy takes place in journals so you can actually find a ton of stuff in pdf format through google for free. Some stuff I recommend is the frege reader, Wittgensteins major works, Russell on denoting, Quines 2 dogmas + what exists. Theres a lot more stuff but this should be a sufficient introduction. Also dont hesitate to use SEP, its written by professionals

>>9356920
hoiy...

>>9356763
i study philosophy and i always think that people who ask these kind of questions don't reallyy want to study philosophy because they genuinely want to but rather for... something else, i'd say to show off or to have a tool to pose as an "intellectual" though i find it hard to understand why, as no one really cares

and it's obvious when someone is just tryin' hard

if you really had an interest for philosophy you wouldn't have to ask these kind of questions you'd just start reading from whatever catches your interest at first

>>9357228

Maybe they just heard a bunch of talk relating philosophies and purposes in life and want to read something to figure out how to fix their own life or give it purpose.

File: 12799050_1742679519299000_3223479448596029507_n.png (43KB, 254x285px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 254x285px

>>9356763
Pic related, you can finish with him as well.

>>9357234
naw i don't think that's the case
OP just wants to "acquire a better understanding of philosophy as to not feel he's lacking in some kind of important intellectual aspect, even though he's just missing the whole point of philosophy by looking at it like that

i'd quote kant that one doesn't learn philosophy, just to philosophize

but whatever... read heidegger, op. you won't understand a thing but at least you could begin to see how absurd it is to try and "study" philosophy like you'd study any other natural science

>>9357228
Shut the fuck up you fucking imbecile

>>9356826
No. Start with the dialogues.
>Plato Five Dialogues: Hackett Edition
Then you can either read more, or move to The Republic: Allan Bloom edition

>>9356763
What do you believe philosophy is good for? What do you want to get out of philosophy?

>>9357376
Asking OP to actually express themselves? Why would you kill the thread like that. They're basically admitting they're new to philosophical thinking, and not everyone knows how to take stock and figure out the basis of their own thoughts.

File: 2785c9df3505268a9952e7576e93ac31.jpg (32KB, 640x483px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x483px

>philosophy

JUST WORK IN A FACTORY, YOU DUMB CUNT

File: 1482564227674.gif (647KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 400x400px

Socrates (Plato)
Aristotle
Ayn Rand

that's it