(untitled)

I made this

Iliad and Odyssey trash unless you get a heavily annotated version with historical references. They were made for ancient Greeks, not modern Westerners.

>>5040 To be honest with you, I think it would be in your best interest to follow up Mortimer's How to Read with Sister Miriam Joseph's The Trivium. The skills Sister Mariam gives you in that book will be invaluable while reading the classics. Of course, that's just my opinion. How to Read a Book was a genuinely fantastic introduction to something they never really taught in school. >>5041 I actually enjoyed them in middle school, to be honest with you.

>>5042 Sorry, a slight follow up - I would recommend (for Marx) to read Das Kapital 1, then 2... and before reading the manifesto, one should likely read The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu. Also, you may want to recreate it in a better order... Kant's work, for example, specifically The Critiques are meant to be read together as one. I'm also finding it difficult to traverse this... I'm concerned you may have just arbitrarily put together a list of great books you've heard of, but never actually read. Could you explain why this specific order and these specific books, and their purposes?

>>5040 What's the point of making a recommended reading list that's filled with books everyone knows about and takes five years to complete?

Nice list, good range of views. I have many of these in my digital library, but left out extreme views like Adam Smith and Karl Marks. Keynes guy here. I think anyone interested in math and science should read Euclid and Archimedes. Not crazy about Platonic idealism, Aristotelian science, or Kantian philosophy. "a priori" is just a cop-out. Pyrhho ftw!

>>5045 lol, I mean "Marx", not "Marks".

>>5041 Most old books are absolute trash and their only value is that they are written in the past. fuarrrk Halo effect. Its ruining literature as much as anything else.

That's pretty cool lainon. I disagree with a lot of posters here, old books are valuable because they allow us to catch a glimpse on older societies, their customs and structures, and reading authors you don't agree with is healthy and actually helps you to counter or reach a clean understanding of their arguments. For example, I bet an extremely high percentage of anti-marxists have never read Marx before and their only source of info for their ideas are from analyses in websites inside their thought bubble. I'm not supporting Marxism, this is an example of what I mentioned on the previous sentence.

>>5046 >Karl Marx He is in there. see 108. >>5047 Is this brewing soykaf in /lit/ or is it /lit/posting? I disagree with you to the fullest extent. It is not the halo effect, there is merit in some of these books. For example, learning about rhetoric and grammar from an older time works great in conjunction to modern rhetoric and grammar. You can learn different applications and mindsets and grow as a human being - Which is the fundamental behind a lot of these books, such as meditations (Aurelius) and Don Quixote. Alternatively, you can complain that all the percieved good books are made by a bunch of dead white men while all the new books are pushed onto one small shelf.... But that's just dumb. >>5048 Yeah... I haven't met a single anti-natsoc who has actually read any natsoc material. I've only met one other "anti-marxist" that has read anything by Marx. This tends to go for most anti-[subject].... Oh well! >>5044 Five years? Maybe for a NEET. This is a journey. Being well read is a good thing.

>>5043 It's basically the reading chart found in the appendix of How To Read A Book in visual form

>>5040 >tfw no Louis Ferdinand Destouches dit Céline.

>>5049 >He is in there. see 108. He clearly meant that he left it out of his digital library.

Where's Heidegger and Hegel? It seems weird to leave out the former specially considering you put Sartre in there.

>>5040 I bet 50 thousand dollars the person who made this list has read less than a dozen of these books

>>5067 I bet my 10 cents I have read only Marx from this list xd

>>5065 Hegel is on the list number 88

This list really needs the context of the book where it's from. It's not a list of the greatest works in the west, but of challenging works where one can apply the lessons from the book. And it's not a reading list in the sense that you are supposed to go through all of them within a definite period of time, or that you should read them in order. The author proposes it as a life project and recommends that you start with whatever seems more engaging. Personally, I don't care about this list because I think there are more useful and more interesting books with which I can practice my reading skills. If I want to learn geometry I'm not going to pick up The Elements, but a contemporary textbook on geometry. If I want to understand how the west thought about maths for most of its history, then a surface level understanding of the book, how it's structured, and its historical context are a lot more important than reading the book cover to cover. As a layperson, I'm better off reading the works of academics who specialize on the subject, rather than diving into the primary sources and trying to come up with my own conclusions without the proper training and knowledge. And I think this applies to many other works in this list as well. If I want to learn the actual subject matter I would be better off reading a contemporary textbook. If I want to learn about the history of the subject then I'm better off reading the secondary literature written by the experts on the field. I make an exception where the books introduce arguments that are so complex that it's more efficient to read the primary source, like Kant. But there isn't much of a point to reading Plato's dialogue, where you have to sift through all the story fluff and outdated elements to get to the arguments that actually matter (which you can find explained in a better manner elsewhere).

It's cool, but you should add something related to pyrrhonism otherwise people will end up reading all of it and get weird ideas and get lost in the ideas in a "the idea rapes the person and monstrosity is born" kind of way.

>Yeah... I haven't met a single anti-natsoc who has actually read any natsoc material. I've only met one other "anti-marxist" that has read anything by Marx. This tends to go for most anti-[subject].... Oh well! I guess it just depends on who you talk to/who you give attention to. I've met multiple right leaning people that have at least taken a glance of the Communist Manifesto, and I've met also multiple (and, as a consequence of my own political bias, a lot more than the other group) left leaning people that have read Mein Kampf, Ayn Rand, Evola, etc. I think it's just a matter of perspective. Over on to the other criticism of the thread, I feel like I missed the part when it was obvious that this is mainly a philosophical literature thread. If this are books picked by their historical and cultural relevance, I find it a bit lacking

>>5107 I read parts of Mein Kampf. It wasn't just a bad book, it was also poorly written(possibly this is due to translation) it did not positively improve my impression of Adolf Hitler or the nazi party one bit.

>>5040 >no eastern church fathers like St John Chrysostom or St John of Damascus baka desu senpai

>>5040 >Not starting with the babylonians

>>5107 You have to be kidding mein kampf is extremely popular among liberals. I'd read it by the time I was in middle school. I tired to read rand before I had any clue who she was and it was boring. Also full of gratuitous bean flicking material. When I discovered who she was I wasn't surprised either.

Huh

>>5049 >Yeah... I haven't met a single anti-natsoc who has actually read any natsoc material. I have read Siege years ago and it was a big pile of propaganda, but considering I don't like the American liberal agenda I probably count as natsoc anyway

This infographic is useless Basically: >Read the entirety of western literary canon I guarantee this was a "look at my bigbrain" post on reddit. I also guarantee it received a ton of upboats

>>5040 Dostoevsky >Crime and Punishment >The Idiot >The Brothers Karamazov >not Demons >not Notes from Underground >not Humiliated and Insulted >Marx >Communist Manifesto >not The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon >Lenin >Solzhenitsyn >no Xenophon >no Petronius >no Borges >no Piaget >no Adorno >no Popper >no Lacan >>5090 That might work for science, but won't do for philosophy, history, or psychology. It's almost impossible to find a good introduction to philosophy or psychology that could truly help you to understand what the original author though and wrote. Plus you have the risk of getting a biased opinion; it's more common than what you think for divulgative authors to subtly try to push their own visions on unaware novice readers. >>5043 >>5107 The Communist Manifesto is probably the worst and most insignificant work of Marx.