Is this a good background in philosophy? Plato Maquiavelo Descartes

You read almost exactly what everyone's been reading. That could be good or bad. A philosopher would know the answer and I am not a philosopher nor intelligent.

>>9418599
>background

No. Read more ancients.

>twentieth century

Heidegger

>reading fucking Stirner over hundreds of worthier philosophers
You got meme'd famperoni

>>9418599
I would add Levinas, Derrida, Frege, Gödel, Quine, Nagel, Sartre, Ryle, Rawls, Plantinga. Just to add from the past 150 yrs. But you should read the scholastics and ancients if you want a comprehensive view of what any of the early modern philosophers are addressing.

what would we do without the daily list-of-old-dead-smart-guys thread

>>9418599
you missed Aristotle

>>9418599

what do you mean 'background,' this depends on what you want to read. for someone just wanting an intro to philosophy descartes and hume are good places to start

or are you looking for some arbitrary sense of being "read"

>>9418634
Godel is not a philosopher and Plantinga is not worthy of this list. Stop evangelizing.

>one philosopher before the renaissance

File: 1492732475607.gif (1MB, 160x192px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 160x192px

>all these modern philosophers
Stop being a pretentious faggot, OP. Read Plato and Aristotle repeatedly for 5+ years, and then you can think about reading more ancient philosophy.

File: thefatinthehat.gif (50KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 300x400px

>sure I'll skip the stoics and scholastics, my superior atheist mind is above such delusions

>>9418640
no, he didn't

>>9418616
>>9418661

Which ones do you recommend?

>>9418840
All of relevant stoic literature could read in one cozy evening

You're reading Philosophers but you aren't studying them, so what's the point?

>>9418625
This anon gets it.
OP fell for the meme.

Plato Aristotle Seneca Aurelio Hipona Maquiavelo Descartes Hume Kant Nietzsche Kierkegaard Wittgenstein Burke Voltaire Mill Russell Rand

Better?

>>9419026
Add the presocratics, at least St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas from Christian philosophy, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, Benjamin, Adorno, Marcuse, Gadamer and the French postmodernist and/or the psychoanalists if you're into that, and you're good to go!

>>9419415
And remove Ayn Rand, no one really takes her seriously for a reason.

God damn I hate 4chan. You're all such elitist fucking pseudos
>lol look at this brainlet he totally read all the wrong philosophers
>watch me namedrop all these philosophers I watched youtube videos on and am totally an expert on
>guys aren't I cool? Guys check out my special snowflake philosopher tastes, what do you think? Guys notice me please

File: bcbffff.jpg (36KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 499x499px

>>9419460
>OP makes a thread asking for suggestions
>suggestions follow
>REEEEEEEE REEEEEEEEEEE REEEEEEEEEEEEE [high pitched autismo screech]

>>9419460
And just to add to this, OP that is a pretty well-rounded intro to philosophy. As much as /lit/ would have you believe, there is no "canon", just read philosophy to explore ideas you're interested in and develop your own thoughts and lifestyle.

>>9418599
>Stirner
>Russell
>Rand
Don't waste your time with these guys.

Voltaire wasn't even a philosopher.

Just go Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
You can skip the Christians
Then Descartes, Rousseau, Hume, Hobbes
Kant, Hegel, Marx
Everyone else just skip or maybe watch a 10 minute YouTube video or something

>>9419769
I agree man, OP definitely should start reading Socrates.

>>9418616
>implying ancients have value

:^)

>>9418645
>Godel is not a philosopher

Yes he was.

>Plantinga is not worthy of this list.

???

>>9418599
What is a background in philosophy? Are you applying for a job as a philosopher? Is someone asking for a resume?

It seems to me like you're supposed to read the books, get confused, focus on the ideas, read more books etc.

>>9418634
>Derrida
>Sartre
Disgusting.

>>9418634
Disregard this post.

>>9418599
>Plato
Yes.

>Maquiavelo [sic]
Yes.

>Descartes
Yes.

>Hume
No.

>Kant
Yes.

>Stirner
No lol

>Nietzsche
Later.

>Kierkegaard
No

>Wittgenstein
No.

>Burke
Yes.

>Voltaire
Not really.

>Mill
No lol

>Russell
No haha

>Rand
Ayn?

>>9419769
>you can skip the Christians
>Then Descartes, Rousseau
Are you just pretending or is it for real

>Hume, Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, Marx

>Everyone else just skip or maybe watch a 10 minute YouTube video or something

So this is how a liberal conceives history, especially that of philosophy. Alright.

>>9419933
Plato Aristotle Machiavelli Descartes Kant Burke

Nietzsche

What other philosophers do you recommend?

>Hume
>No.

Why not?

>Rand
>Ayn?

Yes.

>>9419933
>t. anon who has never read Stirner

>>9420301
jesus christ

>>9420301
>>Hume
>>No.
>Why not?
different guy but hes the original autistic anglo

Although most of medieval philosophy consisted of sucking Aristotle's dick, there is some merit to a few philosophers, such as Duns Scotus.

"Philosopher"

>>9420313
Anyone who thinks Stirner is essential for a basic background in philosophy probably lacks one themselves.

>>9420409
He's not necessary for a basic background, but for a "good" (which I take to mean comprehensive) background, he should be read.

>>9420414
Even then I'm not so sure. Plenty of Phil. grads with a generalist/history of phil. concentration never read Stirner. I'd sooner tell someone to read, say, Rawls, Anscombe, Adorno, Marcuse, Arendt, and other non-essential 20th century philosophers before Stirner, but hey, I'm willing to admit I could be mistaken on that point.

>>9420467
Stirner derides professional philosophers explicitly: his book is an energetic thwarting of institutionalized philosophy, among other things. You won't find a single philosophy professor who recommends Stirner to his/her students. This is precisely why he should be read.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>9419933
>Autism
Yes

Just ignore this tard.

>>9418645
Gödel's writings are important in philosophy. Plantinga is a philosopher who might be interesting to anyone interested in modern religious philosophy.

>>9418599
Now read Wittgenstein and realise that you wasted all that time.

>>9422017
*read Wittgenstein again

File: image.jpg (65KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 604x604px

>>9418599
>no Spinoza
>no Hume or Locke
>no Hegel
>no Marx/Engels
>no Aristotle
>no continentals after Nietzsche
>bothering with Stirner, Machiavelli or Rand
Jesus.

>>9418661
The Scholastics are barely worth bothering with beyond historical and theological purposes. However if you're a christposter or gnostic memelord I'd say go ahead.

>>9419415
>Leibniz
Skip him.

>>9418599
>no Bataille

>>9419774
>not recommending him to read Thales
Get a load of this guy

>>9419933
>>>/r/eddit

>>9418599
>no Hegel

>>9418625
>he doesnt understand stirner

The amount of redditors in this thread complaining that their favorite false god isn't listed over some other false god is pretty hysterical, I've gotta say.

Okay OP, here's probably what you ought to do, if you're just going to do a basic outline.

>Greeks
Heroclitus (very fast read)
Plato (you can probably find a list of essential dialogs; don't start with Republic you fuck)
Aristotle
Stoics (also pretty quick)

You can read the Romans if you'd like, but it's mostly just commentary iirc.

Next are the Scholastics. Most people read Augustine and Aquinas. Personally, I think scholasticism is extremely gay desu, but some people find it interesting, especially if they're Catholic. Try Ockham and Scotus if you like them. Gnostic shit is also extremely weird and fascinating.

>Renaissance
Montaigne
Pascal
I personally wouldn't fucking bother with Machiavelli, he's a meme

>Enlightenment
Descartes
Hobbes
Locke
Hume
Berkeley
Spinoza
Rousseau
Kant

>Americans
Emerson
Thoreau
James
Peirce

>Romantics
Coleridge

>German Memelords
Fichte
Schelling
Hegel (probably going to need help with him)

>German Memelords Part II: Electric Boogaloo
Marx/Engels
Skip Stirner, seriously

>Captain Ressentiment
Schopenhauer

>Existentialists and other edgelords
Nietzsche (READ IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, skip Will to Power, it's fraudulent interpolated trash)
Heidegger (strap in for this asshole)
Sartre/Camus (they suck but worth the read)
Kierkegaard if you wish

>Psychoanalytics
Freud
Jung
Winnicott
Klein
Erik Erikson
I SWEAR TO CHRIST DO NOT WASTE YOUR FUCKING TIME ON LACAN

>Frenchfags
Foucault
Barthes
Derrida (I know)
Debord
Baudrillard
Marcuse
Don't waste your time with Butler

I don't know much about analytical nerds other than Wittgenstein and Berkeley memes. As far as I can tell up until recently it was all numbers autism.

There are other literary books of the time periods worth reading as well, but I'd consult the canon for stuff up until WWII.

>>9418599
give or take 2-3 names that's what I knew upon graduating high school.
I then did a philosophy major for a while where I was writing dissertations that btfo'd the rest of my promotion, in a good school, too.

I eventually got bored and switched to maths.

>>9418613

> I am not a philosopher nor intelligent

never stopped anyone on this board before

Which Freud book?

>>9422700
All of them ideally. But if you have to skip do Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Society and Its Discontents.