He was raised in a protestant family. I suppose people back then advised others who struggled with depression to just pray to God and follow what's written in the Bible.

Thank you everyone.

I read his Epistulae Morales. It's quite good, though sometimes felt like Seneca got lost in some parts or it's just shallow then it gets pretty deep. I also read Heraclitus and Epictetus.

I like Nietzsche's Gay Science, I haven't read his other works yet. His aphorism on intellectual conscience captivated me the most. I really like Plato as well. I think about reading Schopenhauer, Kant and Kirkegaard because they are somewhat psychological.

I felt that with literature ever since I learned reading and lately with Seneca and Nietzsche.

I'm interested in the existence of God, in morality, identity, why do we exist, what is reality, what is evil, why is there evil on the world, why do we deceive ourselves and are we moral beings or should we construct our own morality.

To remember better for the texts.

True. But for movies, we usually don't take notes, it's more of a sensory pleasure than learning.

I really enjoy reading Nietzsche because of his psychological insights and his style. I read some of Descartes and Hume and I learn from their observations, they also had great psychological comments, insights. However, time to time I forget stuff, especially after months and a year/years. How can I remember them more? Do you sometimes go back and repeat what you used to read?

But it is said that to really understand Nietzsche, one should at least read Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer. Then for Kant, Hume should be read and some others. So when I got interested I read who influenced whom.

What is the opinion on the Peterson-Žižek debate here?

Wikipedia - Reception of the Peterson–Žižek debate

Another thing is, the language his followers/fans use. He DESTROYS people. Gives them the ULTIMATE advice. SCHOOLED by Peterson. Meanwhile, on the other side, Peterson is a nazi, white supremacist, racist, sexist, evil, bitter professor. What's in between? Because both sides are heated with such strong emotions like they are preparing for war.

It's the old us-versus-them attitude. People get caught in feelings before weighing all pros and cons, before really thinking things through.

I think Nietzsche explains this perfectly:

I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. … I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and live accordingly, without having first given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward.

I understood but I meant in regards to Peterson and his daughter's argument on depression and meat-only diet which came to mind by your comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/10/my-carnivore-diet-jordan-peterson-beef

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2018/12/i-followed-jordan-petersons-all-beef-diet-and-it-ruined-my-life.html

I mean, it works for them, that's okay but it might not work for others, let alone everyone. Many have moral issues about eating animals so if vegans ate animals they would get depressed. I just don't like this oversimplified argument that something works for someone and that indicates it should work for everyone. Especially Peterson criticizes those simple reasonings yet meat is the CURE now.

While meat-only diet works for them, I don't think it's a great idea to propagate it and portray it as the solution for depression and disease (?), very simplistic.

I mentioned incels because they seem represent a kind of pseudo-intellectualism and some of them seem to "follow" Peterson.

Of course the word "female" itself is not derogatory, without context. But in the context they use it, seems to be disparaging and patronizing.

Thank you. I read that Kant's Prolegomena is easier to read than his Critique of Pure Reason. Also, I'm more interested in metaphysics and in texts that are somewhat related to psychology and ask "why"-s than in rigorous methodical texts.

Wow! Really? What a troll.

It's interesting you said "self-help authors". I want to be a clinical psychologist and I wouldn't like to be seen as a self-help author. I mean, there are so many self-help authors for sure but how come a clinical psychologist is viewed as a person without training? It's also interesting how he uses Nietzsche and by him, it got more popular. By reading some of his fans I feel like pseudo-intellectualism is on the rise.

That's really mindblowing. I have only read 5 dialogues by Plato but I plan to read more Platonic dialogues after reading Epictetus. Haven't read the Republic though. From what I read on forums, feels like Plato is very underemphasized in the everyday thought also in other academic fields.

Yeah so for a student from another field than philosophy, I suppose it's fine to read philosophy in translations.

Aside from philosophy graduates and professors, why should one learn three different languages for the sake of philosophy? No offense but cannot philosophy be comprehended by reading translations? What is the general notion of this?

Out of curiosity, which language(s) should be learned to read philosophical texts? I could read Hume and other English philosophers at least but it's true that I'm more interested in the Germans and their language seems like a pretty hard to tackle.

So to read and understand Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger and other German philosophers, I should learn to speak German? English is not my native language. I read translations always except when the author wrote in English because I can read in English, but definitely not in German nor French. Do you have any suggestion on this matter?

I'm absolutely motivated by that, I can get really focused while reading philosophy. It fascinates me and I enjoy learning.

Thanks for the help. I got Socrates to Sartre by Samuel Enoch Stumpf which covers Kant and the rest above. That might come in handy. Also, I heard David W. Hamlyn's History of Western Philosophy is great as well but I don't know it yet.

If you have any suggestions, I'd be grateful to hear it. I got Montaigne and Pascal at home and I see Descartes' magnum opus is not lengthy at all so I might read it as well. I plan to read Kant's easier works first such as the Prolegomena, hope that could make him more accessible to me.

So until Heidegger, no other writer needed than those I listed? I'm familiar with Plato, Heraclitus and Seneca but probably among these only Plato needed. I'm not really interested in Aristotle and Descartes so that's why I skip them. I suppose reading a summary about them could prove to be enough in my case.

But as you and others suggested, they reacted to one another. So there is a continuation, one is inspired by the other before him. For this reason, I have been searching and trying to make a list of writers which of course, represent my interests and taste as well. After reading more comments and history of philosophy, I think this list might be good for me: Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kirkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir and Camus. To me, the thing is that my philosophy readings need to be somewhat psychological since that's what I'm interested in and enjoy reading. Also, I want to understand them and learn, so I wish to start with the philosophers that had a profound influence on the 19th and 20th-century existentialists.

Thanks all. Plato and Seneca really got me into philosophy while Dostoevsky and existential psychology made me want to learn about existentialism. I think I will start with Kant then continue with Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger.

So which works of them would you recommend? Sorry, I'm just really confused. I'm a psychology student, I read Dostoevsky and Kafka. Their works made me curious of existentialism. I want to educate myself in philosophy and I'm wondering from where to start and what to read exactly.

Is it a good idea to start Nietzsche by reading Beyond Good and Evil or what should be the first book I read by him?