How to build a foundation in Philosophy?

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

start with the greeks

>>9998193
Don't bother reading Lacan, it's typical meaningless French poststructuralist garbage. Zizek is at his best in his economic analysis when he's not using Lacan.

>>9998196
Alright, holy shit, this blows everything I've found so far out of the water. I'm VERY compelled to read this instead of my friend's suggestions even though I want to respect her suggestions (especially since I asked her for them). So I'll read 2 books of each author she recommended then jump into this megadoc. Thanks!

>>9998193
A lot of Zizeks work is impossible to get through without some Hegelian and Lacanian background and other stuff is fluffy jokey pop culture jokes. Lacan is notoriously hard to read and better understood through other people. Nietzche is a bad place to start because you're just not good enough at philosophy quite yet and you will definitely misread him. If you want an actual foundation you should start with a few Platonic dialogues and a history of philosophy. Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy. I should also mention that you could probably watch a few of Zizek's movies and match your friends knowledge of him. I know that there are girls that are legitimately into philosophy (Simone de Beauvoir for fucks sake), but there are a lot more surface level Zizek fans that just like to laugh at a scatological Stalinist.

>>9998193
I'm a philosophy major and I'm not qualified for many things but I think I can help you with your question. First of all, this is just a quibble, but drop the idea of a foundation in philosophy. Next, understand that if there was a foundation for understanding philosophy, the philosophers listed are just about the furthest from the mainstream canon as you can get. This doesn't mean they're not important though. I'd recommend that you read what you find interesting. Philosophy can be really obscure and dry, especially when you're first starting, so it's important to make sure you'll read something you enjoy, engage in, and finish. I do recommend that you read Plato and as much of him as you can, and I would also say you'll get nowhere in philosophy without knowing a pretty good deal of Kant, but you're pretty far off from him right now. I'd also add that Wittgenstein and Foucault are interesting writers and anyone serious about philosophy should add them to their list. But I really hope that you read what you enjoy first and foremost, because quitting philosophy books time after time is no good., but you also have to suck it up sometimes too. Philosophy isn't really something fun, maybe only in recollection

>>9998205
Zizek is at his best as a reader of Lacan.

>>9998193
It's 'Lacanian'

Also
>and she
bait
>almost every philosopher 'based himself' on older ones, until Socrates
or dumb
>How can someone who SEEMS so crazy understand so much about philosophy
So you don't understand, yet seem sure that he knows a lot? Reread Meno.

If you aren't a baiting moron or just a moron, you need to understand Aristotle to get Lacan. 'Start with the Greeks' isn't a meme.

File: 1438233651351.png (76KB, 380x328px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 380x328px

i. modern philosophy up until the 1700s, descartes, locke, hobbes
ii. plato and aristotle
iii. early analytics, russell, moore, frege
iv. re-read modern philosophy up until 1700s, descartes, locke, hobbes, hume
v. read the german idealists, kant, fichte, schelling, & hegel
vi. re-read plato and aristotle
vii. then read the existentialists, kierkegaard, nietzsche, shestov
viii. read the pre-socratics
ix. re-re-read plato and aristotle
x. read medieval philosophy
xi. read the entirety of eastern philosophy
XII - ENDGAME - PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS. Aristotle and Plato

File: trashcan_of_horror.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x600px

>>9998193
>Zizek
>a bit 'extreme'
How boring do you have to be to think this?

File: q.jpg (22KB, 250x338px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x338px

>>9998193
>foundationalism

>>9998205
His economic analysis is absolute garbage, even Zizek has admitted it. He hates all of the stuff he has written on politics and economics.

>>10000401
source?

>>9998193
>start wirh Zizek
This would not make sense even if Zizek were to be the only philosopher that interested you in the slightest.
Nietzche's required readings are often overstated, still you should have a clue about the major philosophers he mentions, which are usually the most influential philosophers in history. Basically, you need a good grip on history of philosophy to read him, or, at the very least, and this is the most basic approach possible, you should have understood their SEP articles.

Do not trust your friend, I'm assuring you that she is a pleb who takes her philosophy from internet communities and youtube.

>>9998963
>v. read the german idealists, kant, fichte, schelling, & hegel
This step takes 15 years circa.

>>10000599
this. german idealism is a fucking JOURNEY (and it's worthless trying to understand existentialism or any continental post-idealist philosophy without them)

she fell for ideology meme