How are they connected? You initially said they were "greatest hits", which doesn't actually grant a narrative, then that they were in order to make the students think. Ideally they're the same, but they hardly connect to each other, e.g. Plato synthesizing heraclitus and parmenides and hume figuring as an aristotelian figure to kant (who operated as a plato to hume and Wolff). The similar statuses of Plato and confucius are unexamined even though they had essentially similar positions and arguments even to the class system and testing system. I just think a "greatest hits" involves a bit more unpacking (or I would replace phaedo with gorgias since that's a better lead-in to republic).
A good start on how classical Greek philosophy is connected to modern thinking is with Book One of Carl Popper's "The Open Society and It's Enemies". Book Two connects up modern German philosophers with the rise of authoritarian communism. You don't have to agree with Popper's beliefs (which I don't) to gain a better understanding of the subjects (Plato, Hegel, Marx) he covers in the two books of this work.
Popper’s book is more of a sustained argument than a primary source, so it didn’t make the cut for this particular exercise. But you’re right that anyone who cares about the political aftershocks of Plato, Hegel, or Marx should wrestle with it, even (especially) if they end up rejecting half of Popper’s conclusions. Appreciate the nudge.
One can still learn something from someone they don't agree with. I should have also added Hesiod's Theogony so one can get a better idea of the Classical Greek concept of the Fall of Man. Helps to better understand Popper's writing on Hericlitus, his influence on Plato, and today's western concept of The End of History.
Good feedback. Thanks. “Greatest hits” was never meant to deliver a connected narrative or a grand thesis. It was a deliberately cheeky label for texts that remain exceptionally powerful. I tried to leave the connections visible but unstated. Part of the fun of philosophy is discovering the connections without them being handed over in a finished diagram. It may still be too sparse, fair enough; mileage varies. I will absolutely grant you Gorgias.
I’ve always found lists like this curious. Why do they always include Greek pagans but not Greek Christians? No st Maximus, St Dionysius, St Gregory of Palamas, St John of Damascus. Also the idea of reading City of God in one week is kinda ridiculous even if you made it your full time job.
Thank you for your feedback. I've tried to outline the historical trunk that produced modern philosophy departments: the texts and debates that Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Russell, Heidegger, and Rawls all explicitly saw themselves answering. The Byzantine giants (Maximus, Dionysius, John Damascene, Palamas) are titans, but they do not lie on that direct causal path. Until the late 20th century, almost no one in the mainstream philosophical tradition (East or West) cited them as philosophical authorities. They shaped dogma, but not the questions that analytic or continental philosophy still argue about today. I was trying to trace the Western Canon and why it exists in the first place.
As for the City of God, agreed. One week is ridiculous. But there are 52 weeks in a year, and this list has 35 works. There's plenty of time to get it all in!
Fair enough although I don’t think the post was clear on that. But I think you’ll be surprised how influential eastern fathers were in the west especially before the high medieval ages. Scotus Erigunea for instance. Also St. John of Damascus was a pretty big deal that there’s western stories that try to claim he’s the source for street cred.
Did you make it your goal to include as many abject heretics and outright satanists in your list as possible? If so, well done you. Augustine and Aquinas probably aren't so happy though.
“Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the Giver.” ~ John Calvin
Nice job pulling this list together and giving folks a starting point. It’s always easier to critique a solution than to create one. This seems well thought out and considered. Thank you.
To say Ancient philosophy started circa 2,500 years ago is accurate. Humans just as intelligent as Plato and Socrates have existed for at least 150,000 years, likely longer. It would be more accurate to say the first written record of this thinking survives from….
As someone who might actually use this list as a guide …does edition matter? In the case of Plato Republic: A Penguin Classic is as good as a Fingerprint Classic as a Hackett as Allan Bloom translated as Oxford World and as Cambridge …. ?
The "vinyl only" conceit is doing real work here. It forces the choice of depth over exhaustiveness in exactly the right way. Most attempts to map philosophy either drown readers in 500-page introductions or flatten everything into digestible tweets. By anchoring to essential texts rather than trying to cover every school, you've created something actually usable. The footnotes about pragmatism and medieval philosophy feel like they're written for readers who will follow up on them, which is rare in explanatory writing.
Comprehensive. But I suggest if one has no prior knowledge on philosophy, they better start with a history of philosophy (Copleston, or even Nigel Warburton) and then proceed to read major works that resonates with their interests and paths.
Also, If you're interested in a brief, but comprehensive and chronologically accurate essay on evolution of human ethics in ancient philosophy through the rise and fall of empires, I invite you to check my first Substack post. Have a blessed day.
This is lovely, I just sent this to my friend who has been interested in getting into philosophy
I recommended to him that he should use this as a starting point and spend as much time in each era as he wants. If he likes some of the medieval or ancient philosophy, spend more time with those philosophers and move on when you’re ready
How are they connected? You initially said they were "greatest hits", which doesn't actually grant a narrative, then that they were in order to make the students think. Ideally they're the same, but they hardly connect to each other, e.g. Plato synthesizing heraclitus and parmenides and hume figuring as an aristotelian figure to kant (who operated as a plato to hume and Wolff). The similar statuses of Plato and confucius are unexamined even though they had essentially similar positions and arguments even to the class system and testing system. I just think a "greatest hits" involves a bit more unpacking (or I would replace phaedo with gorgias since that's a better lead-in to republic).
A good start on how classical Greek philosophy is connected to modern thinking is with Book One of Carl Popper's "The Open Society and It's Enemies". Book Two connects up modern German philosophers with the rise of authoritarian communism. You don't have to agree with Popper's beliefs (which I don't) to gain a better understanding of the subjects (Plato, Hegel, Marx) he covers in the two books of this work.
I mean between each other, but that sounds interesting even if popper is excessively deprecated by this point.
Popper’s book is more of a sustained argument than a primary source, so it didn’t make the cut for this particular exercise. But you’re right that anyone who cares about the political aftershocks of Plato, Hegel, or Marx should wrestle with it, even (especially) if they end up rejecting half of Popper’s conclusions. Appreciate the nudge.
One can still learn something from someone they don't agree with. I should have also added Hesiod's Theogony so one can get a better idea of the Classical Greek concept of the Fall of Man. Helps to better understand Popper's writing on Hericlitus, his influence on Plato, and today's western concept of The End of History.
Yes! Good comment, thank you.
Hesiod is an absolute necessity, I agree. In fact, it's the first book I have my students read in my philosophy class each semester.
Good feedback. Thanks. “Greatest hits” was never meant to deliver a connected narrative or a grand thesis. It was a deliberately cheeky label for texts that remain exceptionally powerful. I tried to leave the connections visible but unstated. Part of the fun of philosophy is discovering the connections without them being handed over in a finished diagram. It may still be too sparse, fair enough; mileage varies. I will absolutely grant you Gorgias.
I'd really like history of philosophy to go forward a bit. It's always great man theory stuff
Very helpful, thank you!
I’ve always found lists like this curious. Why do they always include Greek pagans but not Greek Christians? No st Maximus, St Dionysius, St Gregory of Palamas, St John of Damascus. Also the idea of reading City of God in one week is kinda ridiculous even if you made it your full time job.
Thank you for your feedback. I've tried to outline the historical trunk that produced modern philosophy departments: the texts and debates that Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Russell, Heidegger, and Rawls all explicitly saw themselves answering. The Byzantine giants (Maximus, Dionysius, John Damascene, Palamas) are titans, but they do not lie on that direct causal path. Until the late 20th century, almost no one in the mainstream philosophical tradition (East or West) cited them as philosophical authorities. They shaped dogma, but not the questions that analytic or continental philosophy still argue about today. I was trying to trace the Western Canon and why it exists in the first place.
As for the City of God, agreed. One week is ridiculous. But there are 52 weeks in a year, and this list has 35 works. There's plenty of time to get it all in!
Fair enough although I don’t think the post was clear on that. But I think you’ll be surprised how influential eastern fathers were in the west especially before the high medieval ages. Scotus Erigunea for instance. Also St. John of Damascus was a pretty big deal that there’s western stories that try to claim he’s the source for street cred.
Can’t have Medieval without Boethius! (But yeah, basically impossible to reduce to five.)
This article comes at the perfect time, deeply resonating with my ongoing quest to bridge conceptual gaps in complex historical thougt.
Did you make it your goal to include as many abject heretics and outright satanists in your list as possible? If so, well done you. Augustine and Aquinas probably aren't so happy though.
“Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the Giver.” ~ John Calvin
Nice job pulling this list together and giving folks a starting point. It’s always easier to critique a solution than to create one. This seems well thought out and considered. Thank you.
To say Ancient philosophy started circa 2,500 years ago is accurate. Humans just as intelligent as Plato and Socrates have existed for at least 150,000 years, likely longer. It would be more accurate to say the first written record of this thinking survives from….
After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
As someone who might actually use this list as a guide …does edition matter? In the case of Plato Republic: A Penguin Classic is as good as a Fingerprint Classic as a Hackett as Allan Bloom translated as Oxford World and as Cambridge …. ?
Excellent question. I prefer Bloom not only for his superb translation but also for the helpful notes and essays.
Thanks for this. If you have any thoughts/guidelines on choosing editions going forward that would be appreciated.
In my undergraduate seminar we used Reeve’s translation, which I quite liked, but you really can’t go wrong with either one.
The "vinyl only" conceit is doing real work here. It forces the choice of depth over exhaustiveness in exactly the right way. Most attempts to map philosophy either drown readers in 500-page introductions or flatten everything into digestible tweets. By anchoring to essential texts rather than trying to cover every school, you've created something actually usable. The footnotes about pragmatism and medieval philosophy feel like they're written for readers who will follow up on them, which is rare in explanatory writing.
Omg thank you!!
This is great. Thanks.
Comprehensive. But I suggest if one has no prior knowledge on philosophy, they better start with a history of philosophy (Copleston, or even Nigel Warburton) and then proceed to read major works that resonates with their interests and paths.
Also, If you're interested in a brief, but comprehensive and chronologically accurate essay on evolution of human ethics in ancient philosophy through the rise and fall of empires, I invite you to check my first Substack post. Have a blessed day.
Agreed, I’ve recommended history of philosophy books to others. It’s good to have context for the many names and works
This is lovely, I just sent this to my friend who has been interested in getting into philosophy
I recommended to him that he should use this as a starting point and spend as much time in each era as he wants. If he likes some of the medieval or ancient philosophy, spend more time with those philosophers and move on when you’re ready