
List of important publications in philosophy - ekm2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_philosophy
======
eseehausen
It is amusing to see them try to shoehorn "Continental" works into "Analytic"
categories. The idea, for instance, that _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_ is a
text about ethics in the same vein as _After Virtue_ borders on the absurd.

------
brudgers
No mention of Peter Singer?

Agree or disagree with his views, _Animal Liberation_ is an important
philosophical work due to its impact on contemporary culture.

~~~
steveklabnik
Wikipedia's philosophy sections are... okay.

------
rmk2
This doesn't have any member of the Frankfurt School...

Bonus points for also having no Derrida, Althusser, Fichte, Bergson or Simmel.
(Apart from others, like Schleiermacher, Schlegel etc.)

------
Rangi42
This list seems to exemplify Alfred Whitehead's statement that "the safest
general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of
a series of footnotes to Plato." (With many of those footnotes by Aristotle.)

~~~
paganel
> is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

It depends, really. As a Democritus fanboy I always take "offense" when
hearing similar remarks, and I usually try (and fail) to make my point by
offering a witty remark which might sound like Hobbes or Epicurus might have
said it.

On a more serious note, this list is really bogus when it comes to "ancient
Philosophy" because it ignores all the pre-Socratics. Ok, maybe some Sophists
were not the most trust-worthy bunch of them all, but you cannot really omit
Heraclitus or Democritus himself.

~~~
seliopou
I completely agree on the pre-Socratic point. Where's my man Parmenides? But
in fairness, many pre-Socratic works are so fragmentary that it's difficult to
even consider them works, nevermind philosophical works. Thus they typically
fall under the purview of Classics departments. It's unfortunate that they're
not taught more broadly and in a context that's more appropriate to their
subject, but Classicists are probably the best equipped to handle these
authors, given how time has present them to us.

~~~
aquaroris
I'm not entirely sure about this, but don't most of what we know about pre-
Socratic philosophers come from secondary texts reporting on these
philosophers' views? If so, then it will be difficult to consider these texts
that have informed us about these authors as philosophical texts themselves.

~~~
Bluestrike2
For the most part, yes. Some fragments survived, but the majority of what we
know about the pre-Socratics has been filtered through later doxographical
works. While it certainly isn't optimal, together there's certainly enough of
an understanding of the majority of the pre-Socratics to discuss them in a
philosophical context without relegating them to Classics departments.
Particularly given their relation to later thinkers. If you're interested,
this article is an interesting place to start:

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-
ancient/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxography-ancient/)

------
bhaumik
Once you pick out something, head over the Standford's Philosophy department
to read more:
[http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html](http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html)

~~~
clarkm
Plato is an amazing resource.

Its articles strike the perfect balance between intellectual rigour and
general accessibility. It combines the traditional encyclopedic format with
the authorship of academic experts. And if that wasn't enticing enough, the
articles are published for free and list the author's contact information at
the bottom.

------
triplesec
You're all right: this is a terrible article where a main descriptor is by
definition subjective (important: to whom, for what, and for what reasons?).
But why is it hacker news?

While we're at it, yes it needs a continental section, among many other
improvements. This is a problem with tree taxonomy in fields of ideas. Anyone
really feel like they really care about fixing this? Is that why someone
posted it here?

------
detcader
The irony: a page about philosophy displaying unabashed human subjectivity.
Feminist philosophy has one entry, wonder why

~~~
jessriedel
You think there is a second article on feminist philosophy that is more
notable than the average article on this short list?

~~~
alex-g
"A Vindication of the Rights of Women" by Mary Wollstonecraft is already
listed under "modern philosophy", as is "The Subjection of Women" by Mill, and
Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" is under "bioethics".

I would think that such works as "A Cyborg Manifesto" by Donna Haraway,
"Anarchism" by Emma Goldman, or "Gyn/Ecology" by Mary Daly are at least as
worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings" or Russell's "The
Problems of Philosophy".

~~~
jessriedel
> ...are at least as worthy of being listed here as "The Book of Five Rings"
> or Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy".

I said "average article" precisely because I didn't want people to just cherry
pick a weak entry here and there. Any list of the top 100 whatever will be
open to dispute. Saying "I think X was unfairly excluded because it's clearly
more important than entry 97" is not good evidence of bias.

"A defense of abortion" is moral philosophy. If you classify it as feminism,
the term is overly broad (and, of course, only weakens the case for bias).

------
rockyleal
The "Eastern Philosophy" section is a bad joke.

