read back through the posts and you will see that I am the one who said it was overkill.

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

There is zero need to read philosophical texts in the original unless you are getting paid for it.

cannot philosophy be comprehended by reading translations? — deusidex

Western philosophy almost entirely consists of discussions on minor points made by Plato. To appreciate any of this one must first read Plato and Platonic commentary to help sort out philosophical history, issues, representations and misrepresentations.

Ancient Greek is an impossible read for nonspecialists, therefore we are wholly reliant on arguable translations and interpretation of arguable translation. There is plenty of first rate commentary available via the internet in English but even then philosophical keywords must be parenthesized from the original Greek and all possible meanings be sufficiently researched from dictionaries and footnotes of commentaries.

The process above is minimal to make any sense of the enormous amount of philosophical output we see today. For example, Plato exposed but did not sufficiently distinguish acquaintance, opinion, wisdom, knowledge, and partial versions of each. At which point can we make any sense when using words that refer to these concepts? Are these in motion or fixed, psychological or public, subjective or objective? What are we naming? In practice, a clear modern exposition of a sentence from the Meno or the Theaetetus has made many a professional carrier.

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.

@deusidex My recommendation regarding an English reader of Plato: firstly, “The Roots of Political Philosophy: Ten Forgotten Platonic Dialogues”, edited by Thomas L. Pangle. This compilation is an excellent representation of the Straussians, in which they not only give us some very good and literal translations, but also lay out their notions of translation and explain its rationale. Also included are commentaries, by each translator, on each dialogue.

Secondly, Allan Bloom’s translation of The Republic. I would guess there are extant translations of many of the other Dialogues by this school, but I am unaware of them.

Oh! If you read the Symposium, read the translation of Seth Benardete.

I want to read the following books:

Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
Either/Or by Kierkegaard
Being and Time by Heidegger

My question is, in which order should I read them? Should I read them from the beginning till the ending like fiction books or only parts? I have only read some dialogues by Plato. Would I understand these philosophers without reading anyone else? — deusidex

My advice: read them in alphabetical order. Makes referring to the content much easier that way.

Wow! Really? What a troll.

@magritte I disagree with you...

Wester philosophy doesn’t consist of discussions of MINOR points made by Plato, but rather MAJOR ones. For example, when he described the philosopher as a naked man taking cover behind a little wall to escape the slings and arrows directed toward him, the Enlighteners took this as a call to arms...to transform political life in order to protect the philosopher.

“Ancient Greek”, you say, “is an impossible read for nonspecialists”. By “nonspecialists” do you mean those who cannot read Ancient Greek? If so, agree. But anyone with a knack for languages can learn to read it in a year or so of constant study. As far as the uncertainty of the meanings of Greek words goes, this can only be cleared up by continuing on to read enough variety of the extant literature, Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, etc, so that, just as in your native language, you come to learn the various shades of meaning, and how they evolved over the centuries...

In doing this, you will, of course, become immersed in Ancient Greek culture, put yourself so-to-speak in Homer’s or Xenophon’s shoes. This is truly respecting another’s culture, when you study it so assiduously that you actually hope and expect to learn something about life from it. In contrast, the modern “respect for cultures” does not animate a soul to want to know anything about any particular one, to long to learn anything about past times or places...other than the saccharine moral that “we should all just get along”.

The World as Will and as Representation, you can read without any prerequisites, though it can be difficult to understand.

Either/Or, you can read without any prerequisites.

Critique of Pure Reason is a place to start for a general understanding of modern philosophy. There are a few, though.

If you're preparing to read Being and Time, I don't think that you have chosen the correct texts. He references a number of other philosophers in it, but I can't remember which. I'd bet that there's a way to find out, though.

If you're preparing to read Being and Nothingness, just read Being and Time. You only have to understand so much of Being and Time to understand Being and Nothingness.

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.

I'll just tell you not to learn anything about the history of Philosophy and to just get into Gilles Deleuze, but I'm not too sure that I would listen to myself.