I managed to make it through the entire works of Plato, but Aristotle is driving me crazy. I need something good to read after I suffer through some of his works. I was thinking David Hume. Anyone got a good list or a few recommendations?
I managed to make it through the entire works of Plato, but Aristotle is driving me crazy. I need something good to read after I suffer through some of his works. I was thinking David Hume. Anyone got a good list or a few recommendations?
Try the novels of the existentalists (Nausea by Sartre, one of the Camus works)
Nietzsche and E.M. Cioran are both good stylists. Try "Human, All Too Human" or "Generalogy of Morals" for Nietzsche, and "On the Heights of Despair" by the latter
Bertrand Russell is well known for clear prose, but avoid the "History of Western Philosophy" as it is biased.
Schopenhauer is also quite enjoyable to read; his latter, less dense work (now packaged in a condensed form as Penguin Classics' "Essays and Aphorisms") or his major work "The World as Will and Representation" are both good starting points.
Well, the first half of 'History of Western Philosophy' is great, and I really recommend that. The second half is where the bias comes in, and some strange choices are made (Byron? Really, Russell? Byron?). It's worth getting, but as soon as you get into modern philosophy take everything with about a fist of salt.
'So - this is where we stand. Win all, lose all,
we have come to this: the crisis of our lives'
I second this advice, but you might want to start out with introductions to these philosophers - try Bryan Magee's "Schopenhauer" and Kaufmann's "Nietzsche". It's worth getting the complete essays of Schopenhauer, so ignore the penguin and get the two volumes "Parerga and Paralipomena" from Oxford University Press. Try Anthony Kenny's "A New History of Western Philosophy" and/or Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher" to get an overview of the main figures & books in Western Philosophy. (Both discuss Russell's dated, biased, rushed work and may help you decide if you want to read it or not.)Originally Posted by Oedipus
Thanks for the recommendations guys. I will put them all on my to-read list.
Is Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes a decent read or is it too technical or boring?
I gave up on Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, maybe his Essay on Human Understanding would be less technical & boring!
I found the Stoics and Epicureans a lot more readable than Aristotle. I'd recommend: Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epicurus.
Descartes Meditations was easy enough, if a bit dry.
Pascals Pense's were a great disappointment ( a very few were great, but I found them mostly tedious...)
Montaigne was wonderful (Screech translation of complete essays is worth reading.)
J.S. Mill's Autobiography was superb.
I can recommend two more recent books:
Peter Singer - Practical Ethics
Daniel Dennett - Consciousness Explained
I've read parts of Leviathan and they were pretty good but I wouldn't fancy reading the whole thing. Unless you are really into 17th century intellectual history I think it will be a lot of hard work.
I haven't read the Treatise, but I believe a lot of people found it heavygoing. The Enquiry into Human Understanding is basically a condensed rewrite for a general audience. I can't rate it highly enough. I think Hume is one of the great prose stylists of philosophy and the Enquiry is one of my favourite books. It deals with some quite difficult and incredibly important ideas, but Hume always does his best to make it a pleasant experience to follow along with his thinking. It's quite a shock when you realise that this humble and personable character is cheerfully destroying the entire history of metaphysics and theology.I gave up on Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, maybe his Essay on Human Understanding would be less technical & boring!
His Dialogues on Natural Religion is another good one. Don't be fooled into thinking it is just a proto-Dawkins polemic. Hume is a true sceptic and I actually felt less sure of my atheism after having read it.
Hume`s Essays are quite good if you can get hold of a copy.
I recommend the Philosophy and Popular Culture series. I learned more about Plato from a Greek philosopher writing about Soccer than I ever did in class. Pick the aspect of culture you like best and there's probably an entry on it. The books are collections of 15 to 20 essays, relating the popular culture theme to some philosophical viewpoint. There's usually about 4 that are useless, 10 or so that don't hurt you to read, a few more that are actually good, and if you're lucky 2 or maybe even 3 that are brilliant. Where else would you learn Superman is a hero because he has transcended Maslow's Pyramid of Needs?
Philosophy is readable if it is interesting. It is interesting if it helps clarify issues that one finds puzzling. So, you need questions, puzzles, prior to reading philosophy.
My puzzles include whether materialism is any longer possible after quantum physics and to what extent is consciousness the fundamental aspect of reality. So, I read philosophy that helps clarify those issues.
If you have similar questions, I would recommend the chapter on panpsychism in Thomas Nagel's "Mortal Questions".
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
An infuriating thing about philosophy, though, is that you are left with no answers about such fundamental questions, at the end of the day. I've been looking into the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (again!) and some leading physicists think the wave function is physically real (i.e., material) and others think it is not. Flip a coin! The question of consciousness being a fundamental part of reality is another area where there is no agreement. I find it gets rather boring trying to keep up with the latest ideas on such issues - which leads to a meta-philosophical question - should one read philosophy at all? I get much more pleasure from Wodehouse or Dickens, and similar authors, than philosophers. I think one turns to philosophy if one is itching for an answer to a question, but scratching that itch seldom stops the itch! The itch, and the desire for answers, (hopefully) just go away after a while.
The problem is that we are here, breathing, conscious and I, at least, from time to time would like to know what people have already thought about the questions that I have. There is no need to start from scratch. But my attention span is limited as well.
Regarding Copenhagen, and the many other interpretations of quantum physics, they all seem to be ways to avoid consciousness in the measurement problem. The reason Copenhagen is most popular is that it simply ignores the problem and lets physicists get on doing physics. Bohm's interpretation would seem to be one that implies a physically real wave as you mentioned. The point is there needs to be something more going on here, but it probably can't be at the quantum level. That is, there is more determining us than quantum physics.
I started reading Stephen Priests's "Theories of the Mind" yesterday. I normally don't feel any need to finish a philosophy book. I read until I think I understand the basic idea and then move on. I'm hoping to find a summary of the various ways people have discussed the relation between the mind and the body.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I think the goal of philosophy is to help understand by clarifing the problems we have. Science adds empirical evidence which can help falsify some philosophical perspectives and tentatively support others leading to a more sophisticated philosophy.
Stephen Priest's text, "Theories of the Mind", seems very readable. Although I don't agree with his own theory of the mind, I like the fact that it is an empirical theory which can be falsified by scientific evidence.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Plato
Montaigne
Nietzsche
Highly readable, enjoyable, and stimulating.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote