I've seen the infographs, but they always list a hundred books with no help where to start. I've always found subjects like metaphysics, subjectivity/perspectivity, existentialism etc. interesting. I've heard a lot of conjecture but I'd like to man up and read the important works myself.
Where should I start? Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle? Which works? Name 5 books you'd recommend for a beginner as a starting point to philosophical research, pretty please and thank you.
Other urls found in this thread:
docs.google.com
historyofphilosophy.net
youtube.com
docs.google.com
gen.lib.rus.ec
twitter.com
Read the sticky and SWTG, dumb faggot.
docs.google.com
it seems very overwhelming but u can do it user!!!!!!!!!!!!! perhaps u shouldstart with one of them history of western philosophy books, the bryan magee one is pretty good.
History of philosophy podcasts are a nice way to introduce yourself
historyofphilosophy.net
SWTG - move through major thinkers chronologically. Then go back and study what you feel is most important to read after you've done so.
Try to do the biggest thinkers from the Greeks all the way to the existentialists and Wittgenstein. Brief overview of all. Then go back and focus more narrowly.
Start and end with Diogenes
Nietzsche's genealogy of morality
First section of The Leviathan
JS Mill on utilitarianism/free speech
Kant Groundworks on metaphysics of morality
Plato: One of the shorter socratic dialogues
would be ideal and very babby
youtube.com
Try this out. It's pretty dry. You can pirate (or library) the text collections he's using and they are pretty useful, as well.
He's a Christian and a traditional philosopher, scholastically trained, so he has a huge focus on the classical way of doing metaphysics and ethics as first philosophy. This is a bad thing in a certain sense, because it's likely that you won't have much interest in the HUGE amount of time he devotes to medieval philosophy, or even (maybe) to some of the ways he handles the Greeks. But overall, he'll give you a very classical picture of Greek philosophy, which is vital as a base, and then you can skip to around Descartes.
Descartes is the beginning of modern philosophy. Scholastic philosophy melts away when modern thinkers begin asking the question of foundations. Descartes is the ur-foundationalist, trying to found "first philosophy" on a completely certain basis of reason. From there, you can read Locke, Hume, if you want - try the website earlymoderntexts - and read a lot ABOUT Kant. Read lots about Kant before reading Kant.
At that point you have the launching points necessary to sort of know where you want to go. You'll know the metaphysical and ethical bases of ancient philosophy to the point that you can explore more aspects of it, if that interests you. You'll know enough about the modern crises of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics that you will be able to see their "threads" leading from thinkers like Kant/Hume/Descartes on through Hegel into Heidegger etc.
It will take you a long time until you can comfortable read anything complex. Don't try to master anything. Go into it expecting that you're going to have to retread the same ground a dozen times, not with the sense that you have to memorise everything. That frees you from that obligation.
A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russel.
An exceptional book by an exceptional author. You can easily find your way around western thought after reading it.
>Brief overview of all.
Are you saying I should read the abridged editions or some other "interpretations"? Because I've tried to avoid those in general (when reading about history or societal theories) and figured it's the same with philosophy, read the real thing and not some 3rd party's version of it. Do you consider the original works to be too cryptic to be worth the hassle?
Thanks
Whoops
Also what is SWTG? I don't see it explained in the sticky wiki or google.
Thanks, I already started Kant's Groundwork on... last week. It's some version with editor's notes though.
start with the greeks bro xD
haha
sure got him:)
>read the real thing and not some 3rd party's version of it. Do you consider the original works to be too cryptic to be worth the hassle?
It's a good sentiment, and worth it if you're really bright and you have an inhuman amount of discipline. But understanding philosophy means understanding context. When I look back to when I was at the point you are now, and I try to think, "Could I have just read Kant really, really carefully on my own?", I just laugh. Thinking of how I read Nietzsche especially is cringe inducing, not because I became a pretentious Nietzsche fan but because so much of the real meaning and subtlety and historical importance of what he was saying was lost on me completely. It was like a five year old chewing a kobe beef steak made by the best chef in the world. I'm sure it "tasted good," but I wasn't getting the full experience.
The problem with philosophy is that it's inherently intertextual. Not only are certain word meanings going to be irreducible to the text you're reading, for example, requiring that you go read other stuff first, more often it won't even be clear that this is the case - that is, you'll be missing the real meaning without realising it.
Worse, and much more frustrating, is how difficult it can be to pin down basic questions when you don't even know where to start researching them, and you're not sure whether they're supposed to be implicit in the text. For example, I could not a great answer as to whether Kant is conventionally held to be a structural realist (or otherwise some kind of "modest" realist) with regard to the noumenon, for like three years. I kept asking everyone I knew, philosophy professors too, and they all dithered because they didn't know either but didn't want to admit it. Only recently have I run into post-Kantians and neo-Kantians casually saying that they read Kant as a structural realist, showing that this is at least POSSIBLE, which settled a lot of internal confusion I had as to whether I was retarded.
Even more recently, I had the same questions about Husserl's feelings about the noumenal, and not only could I not get a straight fucking answer out of anybody, there are major published works by venerable contemporary philosophers claiming he was a Berkleyan idealist, which is just insane and untrue. Similarly, I read an entire crazy difficult book on Hegel recently, one of the biggest in the whole field, and the guy NOT ONE FUCKING TIME said unambiguously what he thought Hegel's stance was toward the noumenal. The guy was rejecting Hegel as an absolute idealist, loudly rejecting Hegel as a metaphysician, but he wouldn't goddamn point to one passage in Hegel where Hegel plausibly mentions the outside world (the noumenal), and he never said his own feelings on it either.
Imagine trying to do this when you have no resources to be able to do it on your own, and you have way fewer contextual clues to even know where to start. That's the most frustrating thing.
I'd rather read than watch, but thanks for the general advice I'll keep that in mind.
I guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to read something comprehensive like this before the individual works, that's how I started with history as well. Is this "the book" for that purpose? Goodreads users seem to think so.
>Is this "the book" for that purpose?
Yes.
And the author is also the father of all modern philosophy. The so called Analytic philosophy.
Which makes philosophy modular like science. There is no longer a need for every philosopher to come up with a entire system by themselves. Due to that we no longer have "great philosophers", what in turn makes people think philosophy is dead.
That makes sense, especially the part about being intertextual. Reading general history I might miss the significance of an event if I don't know the context, but at least I understand the words used and concepts referenced. Have you read this book by Russell? Seems like it would work as a brief introduction to most important works.
Don't read this.
The Story of Philosophy - Will Durant
Why? I already purchased it.
>read history of philosophy series
>learn attic greek
>start with the greeks
Here's an unorthodox and lazy view but often reading the big works is quite overrated. I've studied Critique of Pure Reason methodically and while I was overwhelmed by the author's scope and depth, there wasn't actually anything I hadn't read before in Kant introductions and commentaries. So it only served as an intellectual exercise and as personal feel-good.
Then again books like On Certainty would be mundane to wrap up. As the method comprises of a set of ostensive or conspicuous remarks.
If you tackle the big 'uns straight away, make sure the edition has good footnotes and some of the jargon explained. I think generic (not Russell) introductions are fine since they inspire curiosity. I would never have, for example, tackled Parmenides without reading a lame summary first.
i saw you read into history and i was wondering if you had any infographs or book recs on that
conventional wisdom defies expectation this time, in that it is actually wise:
Euthyphro -> Apology -> Crito -> Phaedo
if you want a bit of a head-trip: Meno's paradox (and not Socrates' restatement of it, I mean Meno's original three questions)
the Republic is a fantastic read, but be aware that Socrates is not necessarily advocating for the political philosophy of Kallipolis (the city wherein most of the early discussion is grounded)
i love Aquinas and modern analytical thomism, but i don't think that aristotle was very revolutionary—save for his formalizing logic and other exceptions, the meat of what he claimed was already chewed in plato's lesser dialogues.
if you're tired of plato, or don't like the greeks because they're gay, read kierkegaard's "either/or"... but not all of it.
>Part I: Preface, Diapsalmata, Rotation of Crops, Seducer's Diary
>Part II: actually, read all of Part II
two of the 20th-century's most acclaimed philosophers plagiarized heavily from kierkegaard, known autist. between plato and him, it's a damn good start.
before i forget, read descartes' "discourse" and "meditations" after plato, before kierkegaard. they're both extremely short, engaging reads—yet all of modern western philosophy is indebted to those two works.
The big overarching books I started with weren't in English. If you're interested in a particular subject I might be able to help with a recommendation. I don't think I have any charts, but there's an infograph collection thread in the catalogue.
>two of the 20th-century's most acclaimed philosophers plagiarized heavily from kierkegaard
Heidegger and who?
Oh, and by the way, "The Tragic in Ancient Drama Reflected in the Tragic of Modern Drama" from Either/Or part 1 is fairly important if you want to understand Kierkegaard as a cultural critic, and serves as an excellent prologue to reading "Two Ages", one of the most prophetic philosophical texts of all time and the one that convinced me that Kierkegaard was a bona fide genius.
Oh yeah, once you start reading Kierkegaard, you'll realize that pretty much all of DFW's oeuvre is regurgitated Kierkegaard without as much philosophical depth.
>Written by a marxist
Fucking disgusting
Start. With. The. Greeks. SWTG. If you bothered to look at the wiki you would've seen pic related along with Resume with the Romans. I suppose after you read all that you'd be more comfortable with literature and philosophy and branch out on your own accord. Just, whatever you do, don't read marxist shit until you've had a solid foundation. Last thing we need are more of those idiots shitting the place up. This extends to other philosophical schools, you need a solid foundation so you don't reach idiotic conclusions and end up acting like a 13 year old edgy kid who saw a youtube video of nietzsche.
Thanks, that looks like a good infograph. Guess I'm a retard for not making the connection. No risk of me becoming marxist though, I've read too much about the principles of free market and cultural anthropology etc. to be swayed by some philosophical pondering.
docs.google.com
Here, bookmark this and enjoy.
This is Resume with the Romans. Go look through the wiki again, maybe you'll find something that piques your interest. Mainly the non-fiction part.
Fucking hell that textbook to start with is more than 50 bucks. I've read History of Rome by Michael Grant and I thought it was a decent overview but it was also from the 70s.
>kierkegaard as a cultural critic
yes! of his many roles, that's one of my favorites. you see the attack in "two ages" presaged by his remarks on danish christianity and hegelianism in "either/or," but not brought to such a penetrating conclusion. however, i thought OP might be best served with the more introductory philosophy outlined in B's response to A:
>Are you not aware that there comes a midnight hour when everyone must unmask; do you believe that life will always allow itself to be trifled with; do you believe that one can sneak away just before midnight in order to avoid it? Or are you not dismayed by it?
pic related
Really makes philosophy seem fucking pointless. If everyone's in a vacuum not understanding each other and not actually solving or learning anything (and these questions obviously do not have "real" answers in the first place)... what's the point? Why not study history (which has a few riddles but is mostly a successful endeavour)?
Why does everything need to have "a point"? It's about the journey, user.
You contradicted yourself instantly. If it's about the journey then journey is "the point". You can't say there's no point to something while defending it.
Anyway, it doesn't even really seem like a journey. Seems like you start nowhere and end up nowhere while passing through nothing. Sounds like playing chess by yourself for 30 years without knowing the rules of chess or enjoying it or making any moves. The journey seems like pure opportunity cost. At least if you binge-watched basketball games all day you'd still be miserable, but you'd have something to talk about with other humans without any misunderstanding. What kind of "journey" is trying to figure out what category of knowledge dead people subscribed to when literally nobody knows, and you know for a fact they didn't have answers to anything and had no ability to communicate it themselves? What kind of journey is that?
I didn't read your post.
>I am a Marxist and an atheist, my main interests in philosophy are Poststructuralism, Structuralism, Critical Theory
SOPHIE'S WORLD
SOPHIE'S WORLD
SOPHIE'S WORLD
THIS BOOK WAS MADE FOR YOU
author even starts with the sophists
Looks interesting, thanks. Would you recommend English or Svenska if I can't understand Norwegian (enough)?
Use an IRC client like hexchat then join undernet then bookz or alternatively use gen.lib.rus.ec
I'm on MaM but I absolutely hate reading .pdf's
Is this the power of philosophy?
english translation is good
You are getting the wrong impression of what those infographs are meant to communicate to you.
You think it's
>Hello user, here are some suggestions!
When in reality it's
>Hey user, I'm insecure as fuck and deeply hate myself, all I take pride in is being an """intellectual""" (Because I have no other personal merit of any kind.), and so I made this chart of shit I've personally read so I could get a momentary ego boost! Please, pretend as if I'm smart and suck my cock!
The fact of the matter is that maybe only like 10% of the people around here even know what the fuck they're talking about instead of playing pretend with the help of copious wikipedia use, and of that 10% roughly half of them are more interested in jerking themselves off then actually giving you helpful information.
You should decide what you personally care about and work from there. Pick a book you think is interesting, and as the text references other theories and literature, write down the salient titles and get to them in the order you find most interesting. You'll quickly realize that, far from not knowing what to read, you'll have far too much and feel swamped. This is desirable if you have a positive attitude; rather than looking at it as a wall, look at it as endless entertainment. There's also no particular order you're meant to read them in, you'll be missing some context as to why exactly the nuances of the author's thinking took shape the way they did if you're not familiar with the literature they were at the time, but at the end of the day a decent writer is going to help you understand most of it, and if you're just starting out, that's all that's needed.
Definitely do not rely on Veeky Forums to tell you how to learn and think, because you'll just end up as a sounding board for some faggot that wants some egotist high. Veeky Forums is much better used for discussing what you've already read instead of trying to suck in discussion about topics you don't understand from other people who have contempt for you.
No you didn't read the infographs, you thought to yourself that it would be cool to know some philosophy, that's what you need now, and opened the thread.
>a book marketed towards literal children
Do NOT read this oversimplified bullshit OP
>Where should I start?
Always start with Dennet. The double D won't let you down since he ended continental philosophy for good.
>You'll quickly realize that, far from not knowing what to read, you'll have far too much and feel swamped. This is desirable if you have a positive attitude; rather than looking at it as a wall, look at it as endless entertainment.
That is true and I feel that way about other forms of literature. I was simply feeling lost on where to even begin largely due to the intertextual nature etc. explained above. But I have a pretty clear idea how to go forward now. Once I get the ball rolling I doubt I'll have issues finding something to read like you said.
And principles of the free market are not philosophical pondering?
Fair enough, you can consider it an ethical question. I didn't and still don't focus on that aspect, I'm more interested in the mechanics.