I want to get into basic philosophy

DO NOT GET THIS.

Russell gets more philosophers wrong than he does right. His understanding of Nietzsche/etc is absolutely fucking terrible.

...

Sophie's World, the Arial parts
Durant's History
seconded. read Russell once you understand his biases and shortcomings.

This.

Get Anthony Kenny's History instead. It's just as accessible but he's actually accurate.

Ok, here's your first readings:

Plato' Euthyphro, Apology and Crito.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

Epictetus' Manual.

These are the very easy ones. Feel free to deepen every theme you like. With philosophy it works this way.

If you want a manual, go with the history of philosophy by Anthony Kenny, but remember that if you don't read the original texts you are not going to get anything right. Manuals are more to give you a perspective, rather than teaching you stuff.

Bye

Yeah but he's justified in 'getting them wrong' because he is one of the 'great' philosophers himself. That's what they all (seriously) do about other philosophers they don't agree with.
That's why, OP, it is very stupid to say shit like I have "no background or previous knowledge in philosophy", or ask how to get into "basic philosophy". What's a basic philosophy? A clear writing philosopher? I simplistic idea? The basics of philosophy? What are you referring to?
As I've said before, you need to do close-reading of actual people doing philosophy, to get the taste of it, to become familiar enough WITH philosophy in order for there to be benefit from reading other people's opinions on it. Otherwise you will be wasting a lot of your time, rather than learning philosophy. Read Plato if that's what it takes, read the entire Republic - not too long -, which deals with anything but Justice, and will get you familiar with a lot of arguments throughout the history of philosophy. But do a close reading of whatever PHILOSOPHY, you're reading. Introductory text books are more often than not for high school, where you are given the superficial feeling of having learnt rather than learn.

Don't read it, Russell is an absolute hack. You may as well go get vaccinated and catch the autism than waste your time with the exact same ends.

>what is an intro to philosophy even
user, i get that you have good intentions with your brainfarts, but there is a reason why most any course worth its salt will start with the history of philosophy, and it's not just because it pisses off the stoners they might have signed up for a university course with all the rigour of breadth first that implies.

Russel's

History of western philosophy

It is easy to read and reasonable thorough

Some people say its bad because he is very critical of some "feelz" based philosophers.

Russel himself is the founder of the current tradition of analytic philosophy, which is a very rigorous "realz" based form.

I also recommend the liberal arts podcast for a history of the greeks. Heritagepodcast.com

Then you must also read the greeks, but do that after reading AHOWP

>analytics actually believe this
Fuck off back to your cave.
Reality is an ideology attached to existence; what the hell do you think that ideology is driven by?

Russell is a crybaby. Analytic philosophy isn't a tradition as much as it is a fart in the air like the 'Enlightenment' was.

I get that you have good intentions of meaningful contribution with your straw-man, but I never said
>what is an intro to philosophy even
Intro to philosophy courses can be organised thematically or historically, and I do actually prefer the historical approach.
I was suggesting that "basic philosophy" is not self-explanatory, unlike "intro to philosophy".
Also, OP, you can just google "philosophy" and whatever other key word "ancient" "medieval" "20th century", whatever, and "syllabus" and you'll actually get a list of readings with possible suggestions of chapters that won't force you into reading the whole book. Fantastic practice of kidding pupils into thinking they are now well-read.

wait this board takes Harris seriously? not even reddit is that bad. i'm going back

>and I do actually prefer the historical approach.
No one cares what you prefer, you are a nonentity.

>>analytics actually believe this
m8 do you know want an analytic is and how its the continentals that write genealogies and historiography? no of fucking course not because you're as retarded as anyone else who brought up analytics ITT. do you think OP is going to read frege or husserl? do you really expect me to believe you could read nietzsche well when you can't history of philosophy and think Kant was a minor puff of wind? you must have been really lost when he kept calling schopenhauer christian, goddamn.
t. not going to a shitty american school where you learn philosophy like it's sports teams, thank you god

I'm not American.

You are really bad at this. Stop.

9 volumes of History of Philosophy by Fredrick Copleston

you really think that OP would have a foundation and understanding of basic philosophy from pursuing a thematic approach before a historical one? how? it's pretty clear from his OP he is asking for a 101 lecture, this idea that he wasn't asking for an intro seems to be because what you suggested (something more higgledypiggledy than even a thematic intro necessarily) was an absolute brainfart. even the people suggesting biased books which you are suggesting OP replace with googling are closer to the mark, because Russell would at least give a cohesive focus, rather than an idiosyncratic one which would inevitably develop from anything you've thus far proposed. basic understanding would assume more common ground with others of the discipline rather than that kind of approach desu, even if OP weren't clearly looking for the intro to phil experience in book form.

holy shit man, what shitty school anywhere else in the world taught you the analytic/continental divide? you've got to know that's some seriously geographically confined ideology, even non phil students know it's an american quirk.

I was never taught it because it doesn't exist. I am speaking of analytics because it is a 'group' like it's empiricist ancestor.

>it is a 'group' like it's empiricist ancestor.
back tracking this hard. you called me one, which is not just anachronistic by your new definition, but also seems to imply you think me a group. kek.

I assume you mean its* not it's btw, that was kind of hard to read

I called you one because you fit into the grouping.

m8 your english is shite too don't get on me for shitting out a sentence and forgetting an exception to the possessive.

There's a collection of lectures by Wes Cecil about philosophy on youtube. They're about an hour long and introduce various philosophers and their philosophies, which are explained in layman's terms. He also does an interesting sequence of lectures that focus on how you can apply philosophy in your daily life.
I recommend listening to at least one, as the guy is pleasant to listen to and informative too.

the meaning of whether analytics begat empiricism or empiricism begat analytics in your world view completely reverses if you meant what you wrote. stop being such a prissy pants that when you fuck up like that you cry about it.

nothing of what i said could be characterised as analytic. proposing that one learn the history of philosophy first is in fact the antithesis of an analytic viewpoint. you're a fucking idiot who likes calling people what you think are insults even though you have no understanding of the terms you're using. it's like a kid shouting "divorce" because he thinks it's a bad word like "shit".

you fucked up, and if you want me to stop pointing out how badly you fucked up, you're going to have to stop being such an idiot fuck up.

I didn't fuck up though.

starting with the Greeks is a meme

start with Heidegger its the only logical starting point

you can keep using analytic like that, but it'll only make the analytics stuck in the private language period like you, everyone else will just think you're wrong.

which one of his lectures on the greeks should i start with?

Heideggar's major work is hellenophilic.
Why would I care if you think I'm wrong.

yeah exactly

why waste time reading the greeks when you can just read Heidegger and get all that and more

Because Heideggar already does not translate well into English, one is handicapping themselves further by not familiarizing themselves with the origins of his jargon.

>Why would I care if you think I'm wrong.
It's not me per se. It's you that's going to have to go on knowing you did this and were this wrong and arrogant. If you grow from it, you might one day look back on it in one of those CamuS threads with equal cringe.

because good Heidegger is turn and post turn Heidegger

>calling an analytic out is 'arrogant'

>thinking I'm analytic still
kek. do you consider nietzsche to be analytic too? all the anons against russell to be analytic too? late heidegger readers to be analytic? kekekekekekeke
i'll ask the OED to add you in if you really want this. something like 4) its own converse
or it's if you prefer. common use after all

this

I never said that though, I said YOU are one.

>i'm the arbiter of analytics
what on earth made you think i was one when i clearly made reference to all those as reasons i would be unlikely to be one? i really do think you thought you learnt a new swearword and didn't care about its meaning. i look forward to next week when you are calling us all vorticists because you heard that somewhere and wanted to try it on. you really are the gift that keeps on giving.

What about any online video lectures?

Is there a website like khanacademy that offers lectures on philosophy?

yale and a lot of other colleges have lectures up. yale is probably the first series that'll come up on youtube

john green is right up your alley

This