Heidegger

Otome Saotome from Shimoneta.

It's a fun show about a Situationist inspired guerilla gang fighting against Orwellian anti-degeneracy laws.

Read Being and Time

honestly this.

Heidegger is a good boy, a strong philosopher, but his anti-cosmopolitanism is a way of escaping the Other, escaping international criticism.

Bullshit. Being and Time was a relatively easy read for me, PoS was impossible to grasp.

Absolutely not true.

Understanding Heidegger is dependent on keeping up with his terminology. Hegel, on the other hand, writes so poorly that individual sentence meaning is often extremely ambiguous.

It's been a while since I read anything from Heidegger, what I'm about to write could be complete bullshit:

From what I remember *Sein* was something like 'existenceness', ie. the quality that makes something *an* existence. Most importantly, this was not a part of *all the other qualities* that made up the existence. I'm very likely actually using wrong words to describe what he meant because this is probably the kind of mistake all of philosophy, according to him, committed, which is the ontological distinction. He believed you could not empirically (ontic) recognize Sein. And everyone thinking of Sein as like an ontic quality, is exactly the mistake that everyone committed. Humans were unique in their ability of introspection, being able to discover their own Sein, which no other existence can. The human "version" of Sein is Dasein. Dasein was more or less about how humans are beings that are 'concerned' about the world (concerned as in "self-aware") and engaged in it. So the way we could understand Sein (Being), was to look at our own type of Being, which is Dasein.

I agree that Hegel is much more incomprehensible than Heidegger btw. Fuck him, Schopenhauer was right.

Its the soul of Nazbol. Just add soil.

t. Lacan

Anti-semitism was fashionable those days and Heidegger was a very arrogant man

The being of those beings who stand open for the openness of Being in which they stand by standing it

Hegel is relatively comprehensible outside Phenomenology, but Phenomenology is so confusing because he's trying to describe a process that isn't even supposed to be internally consistent due to the movement of consciousness both within and beyond its current stage in the subjective dialectic.

The Science Of Logic is a necessary read before Phenomenology Of The Spirit, but Phenomenology Of The Spirit is by far the better book between the two of them because it actually fleshes out his ideas in terms of the real world instead of as some abstract logic.

Seriously where do I get started with philosophy? I want to be able to understand these threads. I know nothing about anybody. Never got a college education.

Start with Plato. You could read all of his works, but the most essential are probably the Apology, Symposium, the Republic, Phaedo, and Parmenides. I personally recommend Theaetetus, Laws and Protagoras as well, but they aren't as necessary.

and where do I go from there? how do I know which ways to expand?

Historically is usually best. Aristotle, Neoplatonism (mainly Proclus and Plotinus), Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. This is an abbreviated list that ends at the 20th century, contains only names, and has omissions you may at least want to sample (e.g. much of medieval scholastic philosophy), but it's only an example of one approach. You'd have a better philosophical grounding than probably the majority of people on this board (and the vast majority of people in general) if you finished even part of it, though.

this is just the list I was looking for, thanks.

Kind of, yeah. A lot of Heidegger's ideas are like a depoliticized version of Luckacs' theories on reification.

plato.stanford.edu and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are great resources, pro tip is look for best editions and translations in bibliography sections to grab off libgen as a lot of the public domain shit around on the internet is from older shittier translations.

Stop.

Well, which topics would you like to learn about? Modern philosophy started with Descartes, who adhered to a form of idealism and from whose philosophy early empiricists like Hume and other idealists like Spinoza (Spinoza's Ethics is a must-read). The biggest split in philosophy has been the analytical-continental. It arose with the work of David Hume (A Treatise Of Human Nature) and Immanuel Kant's response to it (A Critique Of Pure Reason), which attempted to synthesize it with rationalism. If you start with Hume and continue with Kant through Hegel (read The Science Of Logic and then The Phenomenology Of The Spirit), you'll have a good start. Spinoza overshadows both Kant and Hegel as far as idealism goes IMO, as he avoids Cartesian binary dualities, being a philosopher of the One like Plotinus, and has influenced every philosopher worth their salt.
If you want to understand modern Marxism, you're going to want to read Marx and the 3 H's - Hegel, Heidegger, and Husserl. From there, Freud, Lacan, and Zizek are readable.

Plotinus is an essential read. Most of those are actually rather irrelevant. I've never read Locke, Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Hobbes, Rosseau, or Schopenhauer, and I still know a lot about philosophy.
Read Stirner instead. Though they are actually fairly unrelated and I've come to suspect Nietzsche less and less of plagiarism, they serve a similar function in the history of philosophy. The most important part of both is that they challenge German Idealism and enable philosophy to move beyond its binary oppositions between subject and object. Although he's stylistically worse and draws on Hegel (which makes him more difficult to understand), Stirner is by far the more consistent and radical thinker of the two. Plus, you get Holla Forums meme points for actually reading him. Anyone have the Wolfi Landstreicher translation on hand? I only have the old version (still titled "The Ego And Its Own").

Was going to say that.

Meant to be more specific by saying "rationalism"

...

Also in the spirit of the thread Hegel's lectures tend to be much more accessible, such as on the History of Philosophy (and on the philosophy of world history). His overly pompous style tends to be grating but he is still one of the GOAT's so suck it up. Just find a good recent translation, read the translator's notes as well to be thorough or you will be lost from works using alternative formulations. Also as is much of "later" Heidegger, he wrote some beautiful studies on the Greeks for example (along with some of his best Jewish students, just ignore the eternal kvetching even if you still take it seriously in 2017.)

Haha. And the rest. wtf? Why are you dealing out advice?
Nietzsche is just an amazing read, survives translation extremely well and is one of history's finest trolls, and you can pick up anywhere. Worrying about their relative "function" in the scheme of things is silly. I'd agree with dropping Schopenhauer from the canon though.
Here's you're problem, you're reading through your shitty pomo lense and need to go back and do your homework. That list of omissions you consider acceptable is truly atrocious.

Nothing's wrong with Plato (as a propaedeutic, if nothing else). He is used and referenced continuously by virtually every later philosopher of note. Some knowledge of Plato is needed in particular for Aristotle and the Christian/scholastic philosophers.

I think most are for a general philosophical knowledge. I should have added Spinoza, though; that omission was careless on my part. I also forgot to add some sort of overview on the Presocratics, as Parmenides and especially Heraclitus are both important for later philosophy. Kierkegaard could've also been added for another development of Hegel separate from Marx's (and Stirner's) development.

You probably can. I just thought it'd help with situating Nietzsche as a philosopher, and he's also a Kantian who responds to Hegel directly (unlike Nietzsche who only responds at best indirectly, to David Friedrich Strauss's Hegelianism).

Thanks. I was also looking for this and I'm glad you shared it.

Definitely need Leibniz in there and I'd add Berkeley as well. It's good to actually read THE unironic Pure Idealist.

Oh, and read Epicurus! He's actually a better start than Aristotle or Plato and was one of the first materialists (after Democritus). He was also one of the very first empiricists. He's one of the most important ones for me personally.

I firmly disagree with Plato as a starting point because he's already more theology than philosophy like Hegel and Badiou, what Deleuze and Guattari criticized as "state philosophy" and "arborescent". You should read him, but he shouldn't be the starting point. This is a common mistake.
He's very important to read as well. He might actually be the best place to start because he's the origin of process philosophy, monism, dualities, etc. He's a lot like Hegel tbqh.

Just because Galileo was extremely important in kicking off modern physics doesn't mean that you study physics by reading everything he wrote. A lot of Descartes's stuff can be read through other writers and/or summaries from various sites (SEP and IEP have been great for me, like you mentioned). Moreover, I'm very up-to-date on modern science, especially in computational matters. I've seen what advances are in the works. The binary age is drawing to a close. The future is analog neural computation. Philosophy must reflect this.
I've read far more than most of Holla Forums.
I agree, but I still prefer Stirner.
What makes you say that? For someone like me who isn't a liberal arts major and is strapped for time, it has been extremely useful to first work out the relations between philosophers, periodize them, and then read the best-known ones of each area and branch out from there. If I had went with a linear path, I might still be stuck in the 18th century! I'm a fast reader, but I'm not that fast!
It's not as if I haven't read anything. Moreover, I take some influence from postmodernists but can't take everything they say seriously (as a STEM major, sometimes it's just flat-out nonsense or misunderstanding). I certainly wouldn't call myself a postmodernist.
Alright, well which things am I missing? I could spend a lifetime getting through every philosopher and just reading them before making any judgements of my own without fear of needlessly rediscovering well-known soil in place of exploration.