How can i start with the existentialism? Do I need to start with

Star with the Algerians

what a existential post

*leaps*

>>9446769

>the existentialism

The Stranger - Camus
The Plague - Camus
No Exit - Sartre (hell is other people)
Nausea - Sartre

understand the absurd
understand existence precedes essence

optional: journey to the end of the night - Céline

understand dogma, belief, ideology
understand dasein being in itself

husserl, heidegger, sartre. check kierkegaard as well

just take it from there then look into being and matter, if needed go to the greeks. Cultivate independent thought

And go through this stuff on your own not just summaries and what other people think

>>9446794
*leaps into your path*

>>9446769
Start with the Stoics

>>9446800
I think Kierkegaard should be placed higher on your list anon. He is the most influential existentialist there is.

Religious nihilism is an interesting and overlapping school of thought that can help a lot of people struggling with some of the more crippling aspects of agnostic/athesitic existentialism.

I think perhaps the best and worse introduction to existentialism is "Existentialism is a Humanism" by Sartre. It's a clear analysis of the motifs of modern existentialism and such a heavy handed piece of intellectual dishonesty in post-war France that you should be see the greatest weakness of the movement: it's extreme and limiting subjectivity.

>>9447016
What do you think about this:
"Existentialism is a humanism" -> Kierkegaard -> Camus -> Sartre -> Husserl -> Heidegger
And where should Dosto and Nietzsche be?

File: kierkegaard1.jpg (450KB, 1661x2168px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1661x2168px

>>9447668
It depends on if you want to read essays or books. Existentialism is one of the few areas of philosophy where a lot of the advocates were arguably better writers, and would use novels and prose to encapsulate existential ideals like Kierkegaard's Seducer's Diary.

I would say - and this by no means definitive - start with Sartre but understand that inter-subjectivity is bullshit. If you want, read a few of his plays after, No Exit and Dirty Hands and The Flies are my favorites. Then you really should go into Kierkegaard. Sartre and Camus really reject his ideas of fideism (Camus calls it "philosophical suicide") but encorprate his ideas of psychology and angst heavily - "The Sickness Unto Death" would be the best introduction to those ideas, it's a beautiful book.

After Sartre and Kierkegaard, you should ask yourself what areas of their work you really enjoyed. If you like Kierkegaard's ideas of psychology then "Being and Nothingness" and Heidegger 's "Being and Time" would be the next area to focus on, with some Husserl too.

If you enjoyed Kierkegaard's ideas of the absurd and his concepts of despair and angst, and our own epistemological limitations in dealing with them as finite beings, then Camus (who is not really an existentialist) would be best - go for The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger. Camus and Sartre's realtionship is really well recorded in the very readable "The Boxer and The Goalkeeper" and in fact, I'd recommend looking at this before choosing between Sartre or Camus respectively.

If you found the more religious - and in my eyes quite poetic - segments of Kierkgaard moving, especially his ideas of self-created meanign being effectively "building castle's on nothing" read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Fear and Trembling, Either/Or and get into Dosto. There's a lot of interesting Buddhist and Hindu literature (of which a lot of these writers were scholars in) like the Upanishads and Nagarjuna.

I don't mean to present these areas as in much particular disagreement (the only real different areas of existentialism are religious and then Camus's ideas of absurdist) but just as a guide to what might strike your interests best. And, by no means am I particuarly well qualified to posture as if I'm giving you some exhaustive list. All I can say is that reading a lot of these books genuinely improved my life and I hope it does the same for you.

>>9446769
>Do I need to start with greeks

If you need to ask...

>>9447668
>>9447869
Avoid Satre

There's no real reason to read anything beyond Kierkegaard, if you really get into him, you'll have lots of things to read and a lot to consider. His work is monumental, but entertaining.

>>9448047
I think someone interested in Kierkegaard should at least try a little analytic philosophy before they end, effectively, with irony and fidiesm. Not that I'm an analytic, but you should be able to understand the methodology of those "system builders" he attacks if you plan on rejecting them.