What are the 10 biggest philosophers I need to read in order to know everything?
Or maybe you guys could give me a list of every philosopher who has ever lived in chronological order, that would be fine too.
What are the 10 biggest philosophers I need to read in order to know everything?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_philosophers
You should start with Heidegger then read every philosopher that you feel you've missed out reading just Heidegger. And you'll also need to understand Buddhism, Vedanta, and modern memes like transhumanism, rainbow homosexualry, the new weather religion (climate change), etc.
Is heidegger platonist or epicurean?
Heidegger is his own thing. Probably closer to Aristotle and Kant than anyone else, but trying to assimilate him to them is a serious mistake.
Plato
Nietzsche
Just read Plato and Confucius, everything else is a footnote to those two.
Plato and Laozi IMO.
Confucius has been more influential than Laozi in the East.
I don't care. You don't need Confucius if you have Plato. What intellectual resources does Confucius provide you that isn't already given by Plato? Only Laozi offers something new.
Mainländer
Ratzinger
Guenon
Zapffe
Cioran
Gödel
Popper
Feyerabend
Comte
Christoph Meiners
what Gödel did besides logic?
What is that is troubling you, anon?
just dont read any western philosophy before husserl and you'll be good
>in order to know everything
Philosophers make references to tons of stuff around them. Plato made references to Greek mythology, poetry, tragedy, politics in his time, mathematics, ancient religious cults, geometry, and the way people in his time lived because he assumed people who read his works would understand them too. Aristotle wrote about the natural world and the world of man, presupposing a certain degree of experience with the world. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in response to Roman Catholic Church dogma in his times, the works of Aristotle and his followers, the works of Plato's commentarists, and other important theologians in the Middle Ages who wrote with many references to the Bible, as the interpreted them in their respective socio-cultural contexts. David Hume wrote in response to both major Empricist philosophers, Rationalist philosophers, ancient Skeptics, Stoics, early scientific theories about mechanics and probability, with an argumentative style reflecting the writing style common in the British Augustan era, a seemingly polite but at the same time critical and unashamed one.
The fact of the matter is that reading philosophy books will not help you understand the world, but instead, understanding the world in its distinctive historical facets is what will help you understand each philosophical work as one person's way of coming up with answers to questions related to the world and what can be said to be in it, grounded in their hyperspecific socio-cultural context.
1. PLATO
2. ARISTOTLE
3. PLOTINUS
4. AUGUSTINE
5. AQUINAS
6. HOBBES
7. BERKELEY
8. LEIBNIZ
9. KANT
10. HEGEL
After these, you're ready for the Church Father.
Wittgenstein
In no particular order:
Hermes Trismegistus
Plotinus
Plato
Aristotle
Syrianus
Neville Goddard
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy
John the Scot Eriugena
Swami Nikhilananda (The Upanishads)
Meister Eckhart
Julius Evola
Walter Russell
I can give you a list of several books from these and more authors if you are interested.
There are only two philosophers on this list. The rest of them are schizos and quacks.
Speak sense to a fool and he calls it foolishness.
>plato
>epictetus
>seneca
that's it. that's all you need
You can read all of philosophy and still know absolutely nothing. Because its all a big nothing anyway. Last remnant of a time when the society was still mostly agrigarian and people thought the world was static and everything that could be known is known
t. filtered fellow
Platon
Aristotle
Thomas Aquin
Descartes
Hume
Kant
Hegel
Heidegger
Deleuze
Badiou
What kind of gay bullshit list is this? No Leibniz? No Frege? No Wittgenstein? No J.L. Austin? No Ryle?
Did you actually study philosophy, or do you just pick up on a few big names by looking at IQfy threads and staring at some spines at the philosophy/social criticism/sociology section at your local bookstore?
Where is your list? I have a feeling it will be even worse than his, lmao.
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Leibniz
Hume
Kant
Frege
Wittgenstein
Austin
Ryle
There you got no more than 10 philosophers, all of them highly influential and representative of important movements and ways of thinking in philosophy. I included J. L. Austin for exemplifying the ordinary language analysis trend in analytic philosophy from the mid 20th century onwards, and I included Gilbert Ryle as a slight nod towards non-dualist philosophy of mind, which is also present in the works of phenomenologists like Heidegger and their likes, but is much more plainly exposed through Ryle's writing style.
I wish I could have included some Stoicism or mild empiricism, but I must make do with having Aristotle as the great representative of all empricist, hylomorphist thinking and of all virtue ethics.
I could have, of course, cheated by bringing in Diogenes Laertius' Lives, but then again, I could just as easily have named one book on the history of philosophy and great philosophical questions to summarize every single current of thought I am not too deeply interested in. If we believe the old adage that all of philosophy is but a series of footnotes to the works of Plato, we could have simply named Plato and then worked on naming individual dialogues instead of other great philosophers for the sake of getting a primitive view of the state of different forms of thought present in philosophy in classical Athens.
We could have simply said that Plato's Parmenides "solved" philosophy because everything that can be said about the One is contained therein.
Replace Hume with Locke
Locke is undoubtedly extremely important in political philosophy and philosophy of modern education, but in epistemology, he's just a step above Aristotle on the way to Hume. He got utterly refuted by Leibniz when Leibniz proved that Locke's tabula rasa wouldn't be able to pick up anything because it wouldn't even have a stylus that it could have stuff written on it with.
Brainlet take. You can't take off the epistemic priority of experience and expect for there to be any form of criteria for how truths should be discerned from falsehoods unless all truths are both a priori and analytic, but then again, analytic truths are only known as such by definition, and definitions are only true by agreement, so if experience itself cannot be used to settle truths or define them, but only to be clarified by "a priori" principles, then nothing that can be said or defined is true, since nothing could be defined or agreed on except by the means of speech shared between people through the senses.
>and definitions are only true by agreement
brainlet take
I judged you wrong, anon. That's nice!
I would swap Wittgenstein for Heidegger. Early Wittgenstein is just fancy Frege and later Wittgenstein is just Heidegger doing language minus phenomenology.
For one, he said 10. It should also be obvious that it's a list of continental philosophers.
What is the difference between continental philosophy and analytical philosophy and where exactly is the line drawn?
It deals with different questions/problems on a different scope. In the end it's a different view on the objective or the purpose of philosophy. That they usually use different methods follows from that.
I went to a religious university in South America full of professors who earned their PhDs in Continental European universities and still got to take some Philosophy of Language and Philosophy of Science classes featuring texts written by American and British philosophers. The analytic-continental divide is a bullshit meme IQfytards promote because of their STEMphobia.
The complete works of Plato
The complete works of Aristotle
The complete works of Epicurus
The complete works of Sextus Empiricus
The complete works of Cicero
The complete works of Plotinus
The complete works of Proclus
The complete works of Iamblichus
The complete works of Dionysius the Areopagite
The complete works of Origen
The complete works of Augustine
The complete works of John Scotus Eriugena
The complete works of Averroes
The complete works of Avicenna
The complete works of Al-Ghazali
The complete works of Albertus Magnus
The complete works of Duns Scotus
The complete works of William Ockham
The complete works of Thomas Aquinas
The complete works of Erasmus
The complete works of Giordano Bruno
The complete works of Ramon Llull
The complete works of Marsilio Ficino
The complete works of Leibniz
The complete works of Spinoza
The complete works of Descartes
The complete works of Christian Wolff
The complete works of Locke
The complete works of Hume
The complete works of Hobbes
The complete works of Kant
The complete works of Fichte
The complete works of Schelling
The complete works of Schopenhauer
The complete works of Hegel
The complete works of Heidegger
The complete works of Nietzsche
The complete works of Marx
The complete works of Stirner
The complete works of idk that's all i got
Actually I can name a lot more but those are the only one worth reading
Also read Bakunin and Kropotkin after you’re finished with Marx
Too much leftism, you would have to add Giovanni Gentile to balance it out
You need to know your enemies anon. I love Evola as much as the next guy but you need to understand what the lefties believe.
Yea but bakunin/kropotkin are anarcho gays who talk a lot of shit about marxists so it evens out.
I’d say to read Lenin after Marx too because you know why. Hell why not throw in any rand and mises as well. Then jung
To add onto this, read it in this order
>Marx
>Bakunin
Because they knew each other irl and had arguments
>Lenin
>Kropotkin
Because kropotkin lived in Russia during the revolution and criticized it
Also read Proudhon and Adam Smith before reading Marx as they set the foundations for all of it.
start and end with the greeks
>There has been a tendency to think that everything Xenophon says must be true, because he had not the wits to think of anything else.
You get some banter with your philosophy. It's as comfy a read as you will ever get, and it covers just about everyone up to the 1940s in the West, written by a preeminent 20th century philosopher himself.
Goddamn some of the humor in that book is seriously funny. It's a good overview too. Really cool that bertrand goes pretty deep in the presocratic stuff too and how geography and agriculture influenced thinking.
Yeah, I took some philosophy in college and they didn't touch on much of that.
It's also great because he translates everything into fairly comprehensible English (most of the time), and gives his own takes on it, so you get 2 viewpoints often, which can either help clarify or further confuse, depending.
I don't know if I trust every take of his, though. Trying to summarize literally all of Western philosophy makes it likely he didn't fully appreciate every point within. Some of his reactions just seem off, as in if it appears that obviously wrong you probably just didn't consider it properly, but I haven't read the original works in so long I'd be at a loss as to how he's off exactly.
Still a lot more accessible and almost page-turny than the typical dry as dust textbooks or individual treatises that are often inscrutable to modern ears. I never thought I'd get to the end, but it actually went quickly for being pure philosophy.
Russell is moronic read anything else like Copleston
1-10 Jesus Christ. Everything before and after is a waste of time.
Stupid frogposter.
To get my worldview, Schopenhauer's ethics with Leibniz's metaphysics
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Hume
Kant
Fichte
Schelling
Hegel
Lacan
Zizek
none, they are ALL morons
See the History of Philosophy without any gaps podcast
https://historyofphilosophy.net/all-episodes
Sounds interesting
Seneca said you shouldn't read too many authors it will cloud your mind. Read some big names, if you like what they say read more of their work before you move on
Oh you like philosophy?
Name all the philosophers.
you can do it in less than 10, if you want philosophers necessary for final personal certainty and happiness, rather than a systematic knowledge about what various people have thought in the history of philosophy
1. plato
2. aristotle
3. plotinus
4. buddha (pali suttas)
everything in medieval western philosophy is just playing on the first three. modern philosophy, apart from a few like spinoza and kierkegaard are mostly useless for personal wisdom. buddha is the height of far eastern wisdom
>buddha
>far eastern
moron
I want the second one
10 is impossible then, if you want western phil only, this should be decent up until 20th century
0. pre-socratics (come back to after reading a bunch of these)
1. plato
2. aristotle
3. epicurus
4. epictetus
5. plotinus
6. iamblichus (and also proclus if you dare at this point)
7. augustine
8. aquinas
9. at least a cursory look at boethius, anselm, ockham, and duns scotus, ibn sina, ibn rushd, though many here are bored by medieval philosophy because of the scholasticism and theological bent (scotus and ibn rushd especially are very important for development into modern philosophy in both the direction of empiricism/nominalism and rationalism)
10. pseudo-dionysius is the major mystic and christian neoplatonist you need to know from the medieval era
11. nicholas of cusa is the most important for renaissance era as a transition between medieval and modern
12. descartes, spinoza, leibniz (early modern rationalists)
13. locke (cursory look), berkeley, hume (early modern empiricists)
14. i do not know much about poltiical philosophy but the early political philosophers like locke and spinoza's political works, rousseau, burke, de maistre etc. would go here
15. kant, fichte, schelling, hegel minimum for german idealism
16. if you are more interested in this period, the german romantics like schiller, novalis, holderlin, schlegel brothers go here. also the other responses to kant that are not the other major german idealists i.e. hamann, jacobi, herder, maimon
17. schopenhauer, kierkgegaard, nietzsche (early existentialists inspired by schellings late positive philosophy)
there are about 50000000 modern philosophers after this but this is really the minimum for having a basis of understanding the history of western philosophy
Thanks for the effort post
>all that Medieval stuff that is heavily derivative of Plato and Aristotle but no pragmatism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, or philosophy of language
>de Maistre and Burke but no Hobbes for political philosophy and no mention of either Malthus or Adam Smith
>no mention of either Newtonian mechanics or Bayesian probability and their philosophical implications in Hume and Kant's work
>no mention whatsoever of the origins of psychology, cultural anthropology, and sociology in post-Kantian critical idealism and its branches
>no mention of 20th century transitions away from Kantianism through Structuralism and critical theory towards post-Structuralism
Marx is the only philosopher to ever inspire people to do shit after putting the book down, so probably just him.
You don't need 10; start and stop with Heraclitus.
After that you can move on with your life beyond philosophy.
Stupid frogposter.
Plato
Descartes
Kant
Schelling
Hegel
Marx
Heidegger
Spengler
Evola