Jasaf3

Yeah I know I put him on top as Tier I. von Hartmann, like Nietzsche, was synthesizing Schopenhauer with German Idealism in light of Max Stirner, though he was more forthright about it. (whereas he then had a substantial influence on at least the concept of the unconscious in psychoanalysis)

It has influence on authors such as Deleuze and Zizek

Thank you everyone for your responses! I'm more interested in Whitehead's Process and Reality. Although Whitehead worked on Principia Mathematica, he wasn't an analytical philosopher. Thank you for the Quine Suggestion. Sigmund Freud was substantially influenced by Eduard von Hartmann, who in turn was substantially influenced by Max Stirner. Freud, although not primarily a philosopher, can then in this light be viewed as the contemporary continuation of German Idealism, and the rest of the psychoanalytic tradition as well as Freud. I came up with this reading list. I'm trying to map what parts of philosophy interest me, so that I have a semi-comprehensive map of all such authors. I've been on a mathematics track since 12 y/o or so. I was initially interested in programming, but then gradually shifted my interest to mathematics, and then to psychology and Shakespeare, then went back to mathematics in the form of statistics(in part to explain). But then I gradually realized that what I was doing, beyond Shakespeare, was somewhat bland and naïve. I did place well in competitions, but it's as if it were shallow, as if something was missing. I didn't want to be a machine automaton and the more creative I got the more I got punished for it. So I decided to do away will all that was holding me back and to fully study for purely subjective aesthetic enrichment. What I mean by aesthetic might differ from the average person, and perhaps even from the etymology. By aesthetic I mean the particular sort of aesthetic present in conceptual ideas. Right now I pursue philosophy. I'm deciding whether or not to pursue pure mathematics on top. I fear I don't have the patience to get to a point where creativity is rewarded, if there even is such a point, such that I can return to entertaining my aesthetic sensibilities. I find it quite unlikely algorithmic crunching and the recitation of lists of theorem proofs, definitions, and theorems by heart is what would constitute entertaining of aesthetic sensibilities, and even though I'd heard that this slowly stops being the case, I'm not sufficiently convinced. And even if I would wish to do the proofs and maybe even the theorems on my own, the competitiveness and the time constraints wouldn't allow it and I'd need to learn long lists of definitions regardless. That's at least how the pure maths program looks in my country. Overall, I'm more interested in metaphysics, which have been quite strongly pushed out by the analytic tradition. Though a large part of it might as well be my own ignorance. I did put a few contemporary philosophers, however. But a magnitude or two of people have ever lived than are alive today.

I'd like to preface this with the fact that I will be studying philosophy in parallel at university, this reading list might be a grandiose pipe dream, and that I expect with quite strong plausibility that I'll get through only a fraction of this list, hence the tier-system. Additionally, I'm already financially secure. Yes, I'm somewhat of a shallow pseudointellectual and my reasoning behind why these philosophers isn't particularly deep, as well as not being bothered with attaining actual truth or rigorous, because I love and like the diverse qualia reading philosophy provides for me, so whether such qualia is fallacious, "fake", or a false illusion or not is not my concern, it's a purely a subjective aesthetic endeavor in especially speculative intellectual thoughts. I also do not expect to penetrate especially deeply in any of these philosophers, not that I will even get beyond a fraction of the list. It is merely an attempt to map the possible intellectual affordances of the philosophical corpus. Please, also, feel free to attack and argue against the rankings I've provided myself. To repeat, they rank my own subjective priority-list of who to dedicate most time on, value most, read first, and so forth. I will be particularly stubborn if you invoke the analytical tradition or would wish me to eliminate any philosopher. However, if my limited reason shall sufficiently be convinced, I may consider appeals to especially the latter. My reading list, tier-ranked by importance to me: I. Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Stirner II. Leibniz, Descartes, Husserl, Whitehead, Deleuze, Vuillemin III. Merleau-Ponty, Debord, Baudrillard IV. Berkeley, Leibniz, von Hartmann, Aristotle V. Plato, Plotinus, Aviccena, Averroes, Bergson VI. Quine, William James, Pierce, Locke, Spinoza, Ravaisson-Mollien VII. Brandom, Dennett, Zosimos of Panopolis VIII. Freud, Jung, Lacan, Žižek IX. Nick Land, Hume, UG Krishnamurti, Kitaro Nishida, Hajime Tanabe, Santayana X. René Guenon, Hermes Trismegistus, Iamblichus, Poryphyry, Proclus, Boethius, al-Buni, Sohrevardi XI. Subrawardi, Mulla Sadra, Ficino, Pico, Agrippa XII. (on) Isaac Luria, Paracelsus, John Dee XIII. Bruno, al-Hakim, Umayl, Lazzarelli, Ricoeur, Marion, Michel Henry, Gikatilla, Nishitani, Ingarden XIV. J. J. Valberg, Caspar Hare, Puntel, Laruelle, Zalta XV. Vyasa, Gaudapadacharya, Shankacharya, Suresvaracharya XVI. Ge Hong, Lie Yukou, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna, Dogen, Kukai, Chinul Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa XVII. Satchidanandendra Saraswati, Ramana Maharshi XVIII. Barry Smith, Althusser, Conrad-Martius, Przywara, Twardowski, Meinong, Stout, von Zimmermann, Wundt, Höfler, Malet Armstrong, Barcan Marcus XIX. Cavallies, Brunchschvicg, Lavelle, de Biran, Lautmann, René Thom, Hadot, Granger, Hypollite, Diodorus Cronus