From the sticky: " Philosophical discussion can go on either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on Veeky Forums should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer."
This is a list of "specific philosophical works", so is a perfect topic for Veeky Forums.
Isaac Barnes
Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics
Jayden Jones
Historical background chart
Jaxon Lopez
it's not a guide when there isn't a comprehensive order to follow
Jacob Gray
Philosophy has no particular "order" to it. There may be a few prerequisites here and there, but most good philosophy is self-contained.
Adam Sanchez
needs a guide famalam
Asher Roberts
so don't name it a guide, a guide already prescribes a subjetive order. it's a chart
Owen Diaz
Well, what are you interested in, in particular?
Nolan Gonzalez
It's a "guide" in the sense that it points out which books are considered central and worth reading. A music "guide" doesn't dictate the order in which you must listen to albums. You can pretty much read the books in whatever order strikes your fancy.
Cooper Lee
dunno i don't know much philo
can pure mathematics be esoteric?
Liam Edwards
Well, Godel was a Platonist and a bit of a mystic in his later years (and/or batshit insane, in the Philip K Dick style). Cantor, the inventor of set theory, also had some strange ideas.
A good intro to Philosophy of Mathematics for the lay reader is "Thinking about Mathematics" by Stewart Shapiro:
Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy' is a short and very accessible introduction to philosophy in general. A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic' is the definitive statement of early-stage analytic philosophy, logical positivism. Both are perfectly accessible for the lay man. From there, you can peruse an anthology of articles, or a historical survey. Then you'll be ready to jump in anywhere, basically.
Not him but I would add a prefix to all your guides: "Get a Maths degree first"
Brayden Reyes
That's outside my expertise, I'm afraid. I've read Geach, Anscombe, and Alasdair MacIntyre, but not on matters relating to Thomism. They're good philosophers, regardless.
Dylan Lopez
Best analytical philosophies of mind that echoes or complements Buddhist philosophies?
James Collins
That reminds me - I was going to do a fifth chart just for Logic and Foundations of Mathematics, but didn't get around to it. It does help to have some undergraduate exposure to quantitative reasoning and hard science - the exact amount needed varies by sub-discipline.
Eli Parker
Godel's collected works, or volume 3 at least. Some of the books on the philosophy of Bell's theorem, and Chomsky's Syntactic Structures to start. It would be nice if we could create something like this, perhaps structured chronologically, that eventually encompasses the entirety of the analytic tradition because this is a really good start
>Godel's collected works, or volume 3 at least. Yeah, that would have gone in the 'Logic and Foundations of Mathematics' chart. I tried to stick to works that aren't purely technical, even in the philosophy of science/math list. The Logic chart would include classic textbooks like these: logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/Appendix.pdf
>Some of the books on the philosophy of Bell's theorem, Well, the philosophy of science chart includes: - J.S. Bell's "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", - Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order', - Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience', - Maudlin's 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity' - Wallace's 'The Emergent Multiverse'
I think I got Bell's theorem covered pretty well, no?
>and Chomsky's Syntactic Structures Yeah, the line between philosophy of language and full-on linguistics can get a little blurry. You could fill a whole chart just with formal semantics.
>It would be nice if we could create something like this, perhaps structured chronologically, that eventually encompasses the entirety of the analytic tradition because this is a really good start
There was a lot I didn't include, as I wanted to keep it to what could fit on a few images. This is more of quick overview just to indicate what people actually read in philosophy departments.
Ryder Butler
Thank God. We needed one of these.
Ayden Rivera
yeah, quantum mechanics is well represented here, though I would add Cushing and McMullin's 'Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem' if only because it contains a wide ranging and very good overview of the various philosophical problems Bell raises. Much better than Maudlin I'd say
Sebastian Adams
...
Connor Jackson
This is the cover Veeky Forums's guide to analytics deserves.
Luis Ross
Can someone please make one for continental philosophy?
Zachary Hill
Luka jes tu?
Xavier Gonzalez
Thank you very much. I will start reading After Virtue after Feser's Aristotle on Method and Metaphisics
Ian Baker
No, continental philosophy is shit.
David Collins
What exactly does continental have? Hegel, other germans and french fags?
Easton Cox
nothing because continental philosophy doesn't exists, and neither the ones accused to practice it recognize themselves a such. It just really means: "not analytic philosphy".
Ayden Adams
Thanks OP and everybody else who contributed!
As much as I enjoy maymays, it's really nice to see Veeky Forums being useful from time to time.
Nathan Hall
The label "Continental" began as a euphemism for "bad philosophy". It has nothing to do with geography. It's just not polite to call someone "a low-quality pseudo-philosopher who is read only by retards", so the appellation "Continental" was born.
Josiah King
so >It just really means: "not analytic philosphy".
Eli Foster
I forgot to mention that this is solely my own opinion
Grayson Moore
Thank you. It took me several hours to put it together. I thought I'd share on a topic I had a bit of knowledge about (for a change).
Ayden Anderson
>Against the Method >Feyerabend >Analytic
Caleb Perez
give me a link to downloads of moral social political, and metaphysics epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind
Aaron Brooks
This is the first good thread with an erudited OP Veeky Forums has seen in awhile.
Owen Lopez
Feyerabend tries to directly engage Popper and his falsifying method, so yes, he's branded as an analytic. Also, did the OP forget about Kuhn or did I just miss him?
Jack Perez
>did the OP forget about Kuhn or did I just miss him? Second row, third column.
Zachary Powell
Kuhn and Feyerabend are postmodernists. I though that brand them directly as continental (even if they are philosophers of science). For me it's okay to consider them analytics! I actually appreciate the contributions they made to the understanding of scientific knowledge and its generation, but actual scientifics usually hate them and are considered as hacks or just filthy humanists. Of course that people don't understand shit.
Adam Price
Well, Kuhn is part of the canon in analytic philosophy of science. Even the most hard-nosed philosopher of physics will have read him, and will have an opinion one way or the other on his work. In that sense, he occupies a position similar to Rawls in political philosophy.
Stylistically, I have no issue calling either Kuhn or Feyerabend "analytic philosophers". Some of the content of what they say may be a bit off-the-wall, but it is perfectly clear what they are saying. There is no deliberate obscurantism. Whether or not their work actually offers any useful insights or perspectives is a separate question.
Christopher Walker
Thanks my man, really appreciate this.
Just wondering, where is the best place to get Frege's Sense and Reference? The philosophical writings of gottlb frege?
Also you might want to have switched out the Tractatus for Major Works. It includes the Tractatus but also contains the blue and brown books and on certainty.
Wyatt Flores
Yes, and "Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege" is freely available in full here:
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."
Jayden Bell
>Dennett
>No Hacking >No Dupré
Owen Perez
Hacking is in there, user. Fourth row, first column.
Carson Foster
Anyone got a recommendation on what to tackle first for the moral, social and political chart?
Jace Cox
this is the only one you need desu
Michael Rodriguez
Ah my bad. Disregard my former post, I suck cock
Luke Anderson
why no analytical starter kit?
John Morris
For consequentialist ethics, rationality and personal identity: Derek Parfit - 'Reasons and Persons' (1984)
For virtue ethics: Philippa Foot - 'Virtues and Vices' (1979)
For irrealism in meta-ethics: J. L. Mackie - 'Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong' (1977)
For skepticism about ethical theories: Bernard Williams - 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' (1985)
For subjectivity vs objectivity: Thomas Nagel - 'The View from Nowhere' (1986)
For political philosophy: John Rawls - 'A Theory of Justice' (1971)
For legal philosophy: H.L.A. Hart - 'The Concept of Law' (1961)
For applied ethics: Peter Singer - 'Practical Ethics' (1979)
Christopher Diaz
Is there something similar for continental philosphy?
Chase Powell
Continental philosophy is gay
Jeremiah Miller
please see
Logan Turner
you really are fucked in the head and you literally flipped everything upside down. well done retard.
it takes like two minutes to confirm that the term 'analytic' came about by just meaning 'not continental', or even more inditing 'not philosophy' (as practiced by the whole of human race up until this point). yes analytics are assberger that they had to separate themselves from the entirety of human thought. analytic philosophy is literally protestant garbage.
Juan Edwards
0/10.
Jonathan Ward
>for you
Nathaniel Campbell
>they had to separate themselves from the entirety of human thought
>The [analytic] linguistic conception of philosophy was rightly seen as novel in the history of philosophy. For this reason analytic philosophy is reputed to have originated in a philosophical revolution on the grand scale—not merely in a revolt against British Idealism, but against traditional philosophy on the whole. [1]
it took me 20 seconds to confirm this it's an exercise for the reader to confirm that analytic philosophy is protestant garbage
There are also many textbooks on "Critical Thinking" but I'm not familiar with them. The study of logic and philosophy will inculcate critical thinking skills by osmosis.
Joshua Ramirez
>Cantor, the inventor of set theory >mfw
>There is no deliberate obscurantism That's only small consolation. Kuhn must stand up on his substance, and most any serious physical scientist will tell you he's sorely lacking. wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/kuhn-o28.html
Pure mathematics. I'm not kidding. Nothing can really beat it as far as training up heavy abstraction, objectivity and a serious eye to rigorous argument, especially dispelling informal fallacies and mistakes like linguistic juggling (which may be far from obvious) that certain philosophical frameworks implicitly rely upon and train one to accept as valid. Competent proof reading and writing at the advanced undergraduate level is a crystallized nugget of objective formal argument through the ages and you find yourself intuitively applying overarching concepts and argumentation strategies to philosophical and literary contexts. Abbot's analysis book is a good introduction to proof, as is Rosenlicht's (which is less well-motivated, but like ten bucks.)
Owen Wright
>Cantor, the inventor of set theory >mfw
Who do you think invented it, then? The study of sets was not formalized into a theory until the 1870s.
"Mathematical topics typically emerge and evolve through interactions among many researchers. Set theory, however, was founded by a single paper in 1874 by Georg Cantor: 'On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers'. [Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory]
Carter Rivera
Schoppy's 'The Art of Being Right' is priceless.
Ian Roberts
Not the guy you are replying to, but: I don't like how that historian phrased it. Cantor, by publishing his paper proved that the cardinality of R is larger than that of N. Thus, for the first time in history, distinguishing uncountable sets and countable ones. This is just one theorem, and a single theorem does not encompass all of the theory, since "theory" means something entirely different. It can be said that Cantor was the father of what later became to be known as naive set theory ("naive" here implies a time years after Cantor published his proof: it has to do with the comprehension principle and Russell's paradox), not that he founded all of the theory (naive or axiomatic) "by a single paper in 1874".
Read Kanamori's paper if you want a more detailed and scholarly history of the subject.