It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that everything

>>9829926

It has a good reputation. I'm not aware of a history of philosophy that people recommend more.

You should also make sure to check out some eastern philosophy as well though both for the reason that it will provide a contrast that might help you better understand western philosophy, and also because eastern philosophy had been influential upon western ever since the Greeks.

File: a-new-history-of-western-philosophy-9780199656493.jpg (547KB, 1000x1556px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1000x1556px

>>9829926
Anthony Kenny is better.

>>9829940
Bertrand Russell has a terrible reputation. His atheist and analytic bias dribbles through much of the medieval and the modern sections. If you don't find those philosophical schools appealing, then good for you, but at least give them the proper charity first.

OP, I would recommend:

1) Western Philosophy: An Anthology - John Cottingham to get started on how to think philosophically. It has chronologically-ordered excerpts from major philosophical works, organized by topic. Lots here to get you started.

2) Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy. Pretty good until about the 1900s. Also shorter than comparable works. If you want a much longer approach, try Copleston, which more or less is the same quality but with the same flaws in the modern era as Kenny.

3) Cambridge History of Philosophy series. This is much longer anthology of several historians of philosophy per section, making it a superb and detailed introduction to each period. Great to supplement with Kenny. I would only make one suggestion and replace the "Hellenistic Philosophy" Cambridge set with another historian's work, A History of Ancient Philosophy (4 Vol) by Giovanni Reale if you want thoroughness.

>>9829926
>>Is pic related a good fit?

Too many people have read it which is a shame.

>>9829926
Geneaology of Morals is exactly about what you've described. Read the SEP article for everything Nietzsche related, and check the philosophers he references (the Greeks, Descartes, Montaigne Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer).

>>9829926
It's pretty good.

>>9829960
https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-texts-in-the-history-of-philosophy/442C59C23EB3B507A65A4FF31897E11F

67 books, where do I go from here?

Anthony Gottlieb's is dope (the dream of reason); extremely readable. Haven't read Russell's.

So the internet is a meeting of minds. Egos and psychologies interacting with one another for better or for worse. Synchronizing with one another? Coming together or further splitting apart into a fractalizing diversification whereby the individual channels their energies and thoughts into a precise niche or "thought prison", whereby no other individual will ever truly be able to completely understand another?

Where are the original ideas? Are we all just parroting things we've absorbed from external sources?

This is just a meeting of our brains expressions confined to the English language.

"Seek, and ye shall find".
"Those who can't do, teach"
"You must give to receive"
"Philosophy is reserved for the privileged wealthy, whom may or may not be shirking the moral obligation to uplift those of lesser circumstance through GOOD WORKS"
"Actions speak louder than words, but speech is an action"

My brothers and sisters. If a psychologist (a professional) diagnoses you as schizophrenic or psychotic, I beseech you to not become a leech and to instead produce. Fight for your independence. Do not accept the label of disability. You are able, and need only be willing. Figure it out.

I love you. Peace be with you. You are free. God bless you.

>>9830066
Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (replace with Giovanni Reale's 4 volume series for better coverage of ancient philosophy)
Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity (2 vols.)
Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy (2 vols.)
Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy
Cambridge History of Seventeenth Century Philosophy (2 vols.)
Cambridge History of Eighteenth Century Philosophy (2 vols.)
Cambridge History of Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century
Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945

Nothing wrong with scholarship my man.

>>9829926
As these guys have said (>>9829945, >>9829960), the best ones are Kenny and Copleston, as well as Durant's "Story of Philosophy."

>>9830058
Coming from a person who practically worships Nietzsche, I wouldn't ever recommend someone start out on him. It's too easy for newcomers and layman to become too stuck on a Nietzschean mode (e.g. anti-realist about everything, examining the person behind the work/thought, life solely as power/expression), which I don't believe is a healthy way to get into philosophy, even if I believe personally think N. was right about everything.

>>9830130
>worshipping Nietzsche
Let's become disciples of winners.

>>9830110
Thanks. Any suggestions for modern/contemporary works?

File: 919mvu2ffVL.jpg (723KB, 1400x2100px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1400x2100px

Sophie's World is definitely worth checking out.

>>9829926
Start with the Greeks

thank you all for your suggestions

>>9829960
>atheist and analytic
>bad

What?

>>9830962
Reddit is that way, sir.

>>9830962
He's too euphoric to even begin thinking about giving certain philosophies the principle of charity and letting the reader decide for themselves. Russell was a stupid cunt.

File: 1496949930035.jpg (188KB, 1536x1536px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1536x1536px

>>9830962

>>9830962
search the vienna circle and logical positivism. if you think modern thought should be pigeonholed to these realms, you would love 19th and 20th century analytic thought. /lit/ seems to meme the continentals, and thats what the above poster was referring to.

>>9830962
"To declare oneself an atheist is among the most fedora of proclamations, for it presupposes that human perception is the limit of knowledge."

File: Durant_The_Story_of_Philosophy.jpg (20KB, 200x318px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x318px

opinions on pic related?

>>9831116
I share the opinion of others in the thread that said it's good.

>>9830962
It's a meme, /lit/ is """christian""". They are just baiting so they can post the fedora meme.

>>9830994
>giving certain philosophies the principle of charity
You mean he's not teaching your specific religion? You don't want him to look at philosophy from a Muslims perspective, not from a Jewish perspective or from any other religion.
There are plenty of Christian writers and philosophers, if you want to read about the christian religion read one of their books. If you want to get a neutral, general idea of philosophy you should read from an atheists perspective. I'm sure you would all agree that you are Christians because you decided to be one, not just because it's the religion you were born into and your default way of looking at life

File: 1443299541282.jpg (37KB, 537x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 537x360px

>>9831287
>Atheist perspective
>Neutral
Wew lad

>>9831296
>god exists by default and Christianity is right because that's just how it is and not because I decided, from a neutral point of view, that it's right
Wew lad

Don't reply to the Reddit shill.

>>9831305
He never said any of that. Maybe neither Christianity or Atheism are neutral? Shocking!

>>9831314
Well, feel free to explain to me how Atheism is not the neutral point of view?
You assume nothing at first, then if you are a Christian, you would read the bible and come to the conclusion that god exists because of what is written in the bible and what the priests would tell you.
If no one had taught you about Christianity, how could you be christian. If no one "taught" you about Atheism you could still be an Atheist. It's the default way of looking at things and only because you have reason to believe otherwise you would decide to be christian.
truth is, the vast majority if Christians never decided to be christian. They were born protestant, catholic or orthodox and that is what they believe in

File: b35.jpg (18KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 353x334px

>>9830962

>>9831346
Because atheism is a belief that no supernatural entities exist.
It isn't a default position. You aren't born an atheist or any other ideology or religion. You lack belief in the exact number of stars or the exact number of slaves in 18th century America. Stop trying to act as if you are somehow neutral. Copleston wrote, as a Jesuit, a far more objective history then Russell.

Russell's is very eh

Read Copleston's, Kenny's, or Magee's

>>9831346
>>9831580
Y'all spooked to hell, default is paganism.

>>9831346
Are you taking the broad definition of atheism as the lack of belief, or the more narrow that it is an assertion denying the existence of one or more deities? It's a rather important thing to state since the definition is pretty murky in this context.

>>9829926
The thing is mate, if you don't study them, you will never understand the references made, for those who reference them, have studied them. Take an itunes U course, or one of the MIT open courses on hume, kant, hegel, marx, maybe Nietz, and then whoever you want from the 20th century. They are the "all-stars" and are still referenced often. I'd say Kant is probably the most important, for he is referenced in nearly every field of philosophy.

>>9831346
There's no such thing as a neutral point of view. In fact the very statement is self-contradictory.

>>9831287
Russell is certainly "teaching" my specific religion, atheism, alright. But I already knew about that. I wanted to learn about what Christian monks thought about the world and he ruined that opportunity for me by masquerading as an expert while butchering the subject. Copleston can still look at Hume et al. as a Thomist without ruining his image. Why can't Russell do the same? Fuck off.

>>9830147
Um, not really anything that I can recommend in good faith. It's hard to recommend anything good past the 1900s because it's too recent to have reached a solid consensus from multiple perspectives. You're probably going to need to find a specialist in phenomenology, a specialist in analytic philosophy, a specialist in pragmatism (The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand might be good here), a specialist in critical theory, a specialist in existentialism, etc.

>>9829945
This is true, and you can find the PDFs to each volume of his work simply by googling that volume title followed by his name. Pretty nice.

>>9829926
Will Durant's Story of Philosophy is considered a classic

>>9832116
This. Russell is extremely unfair and biased against Aquinas, for one. Also against Nietzsche, though for completely different reasons.

That was the first book on philosophy I read - while Russell is an excellent prose stylist, he's simply wrong on an awful lot. That's only partly his biases (the book ends with a Whiggish celebration of 'logical atomism', which is something of a footnote today), but also an artefact of his time. For instance, he gets Aristotle's Golden Mean entirely wrong, assuming it means a literal average between possible extremes of behaviour. Any history of philosophy will be a massive simplification of its subjects, but best to read one which is at least simplifying them with the benefit of modern scholarship.