To start reading phylosophical books?

[lifeisart]

Hello everybody. (I should say that im not native speaker, so please be understanding if i dont write clearly or make any mistakes) .

I think of reading a book. But I'm not sure if i can understand phylosophy. For example, im curious about Nietzsche. I think phylosophy may change the way i lead a life.

How should i start reading phylosophy books? What websites are the best to see explanations about the books? Sparknotes, or anything else? (Which one is good for phylosophy books?)

And last question, what book do you suggest me to read?

Thank you soooo much.

[YesNo]

I generally look for a book in the "A Very Short Introduction" series published by Oxford University Press. They happen to be at my local library and they are short (about 120 pages). If I like an author, I might read something else they wrote. I don't like all the authors I have read, but even reading someone I ultimately disagree with, I feel I have got the best arguments from an opposing viewpoint. That is useful information.

Why read philosophy? The main reason is not to have to reinvent the wheel. The second main reason is to get one's mind nudged out of the obvious and taken for granted reality that is not likely true.

Where should one start? Start with the questions that bother you enough to spend time reading 120 pages on the topic. If your questions are similar to mine you might enjoy Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation".

[lifeisart]

I generally look for a book in the "A Very Short Introduction" series published by Oxford University Press. They happen to be at my local library and they are short (about 120 pages). If I like an author, I might read something else they wrote. I don't like all the authors I have read, but even reading someone I ultimately disagree with, I feel I have got the best arguments from an opposing viewpoint. That is useful information.

Why read philosophy? The main reason is not to have to reinvent the wheel. The second main reason is to get one's mind nudged out of the obvious and taken for granted reality that is not likely true.

Where should one start? Start with the questions that bother you enough to spend time reading 120 pages on the topic. If your questions are similar to mine you might enjoy Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation".

Thank you very much YesNo. I dont live in the UK or USA, so i might not find this book. Admittedly, nothing bothers me about thoughts. but i dont know about morality and its borders and what actually makes those moralities. I can read a book about this one because im very interested in.

[YesNo]

What are your problems about morality? Sometimes just stating the questions helps one better look for answers.

[lifeisart]

For example, honesty. Shall we always be honest?

I tell truth all the time (Of course, there are very very rare lies in my life). But I sometimes think that I should tell the truth and hurt the person.
For example, if you're in a family meeting, and the food is disgusting. I say ''yes, that's a nice food''. I even force myself to eat it.

Or;
Is democracy good when a country is full of stupid people? Is it moral to make monarchy?
Also, I want to know the nature of humans. And I want to know the nature of love.
Is it moral to marry someone just for money? Why is morality important?


Actually i wanna know about morality, becaue i see some people who dont care about morality. There are some set of cultural rules and those are maybe counted in morality.
For example, i have some points that society dont like, but i do them. And i sometimes see people that doesnt behave moral.

Actually all i wanna know is people themselves. I sometimes trust them and i lose things lol. And im a bit obsessed person. It's like ''everything must be perfect or im gonna rip your face off'' person. And i do my best to be perfect and honest, but when other person doesnt apply to them i get angry.

[lifeisart]

And I'm so obsessed that If someone ask me a question, and i cannot find a proper answer, i spend all my time to find an answer to it.
I dont like question tags in my head. For example my first topic. She asked me ''Why do you look for reviews about the books? everybody gets different things in a book''.
And it took my time, but i finally find that forum thanks to her .

And when i get in an argument, i try to be winner for all the time. I know it's stupid but i wanna know all things. When it's morality, it's very very relative but i have to find some standards for it. Because when i see someone throwing a chocolate pack in the street, i feel it's wrong. But if i say this, they'll probably say ''who makes the morality? Are you vice squad? Morality is relative''.

That's just an example, but i think my saying is clear now. It's difficult to prove someone is wrong.

[YesNo]

As far as eating food I don't like goes, I don't force myself to eat it. I go one step further and try to like it and refrain from making a judgement. As long as the food is healthy eating it is a simple way to break out of the habits I have. It is a gift that I will not reject unless I perceive it as harmful. You might ask yourself: Is the food "disgusting" or has one become so habituated to eating a certain kind of food that one has lost a sort of flexibility? There is no need to label or judge everything that one is confronted with. The only reason for such labeling is to help improve upon it.

Regarding the chocolate wrapper, if you see someone throw it in the street you could pick it up and put it in a garbage container. Someone will have to pick it up. I don't usually run into that situation, but I do encounter drivers who are rude (at least from my perspective). It is an opportunity for me to practice controlling my anger. The moral issue here is not to get angry. It is not easy, but other people give us plenty of opportunities to practice patience.

Looking for "standards" for morality can lead one to various dead ends. There is nothing wrong with these dead ends. As Emerson wrote every wall is a door. When I run into these dead end walls, they block my original expectation of finding what I thought was worth looking for. Then they open a door to something better to start looking for. The search for a moral "standard" is a way to find some "objective authority" to prove, usually to someone else, that they are bad. That is not a very kind thing to do to someone else.

Proving someone else is wrong is difficult partially because it is not worth doing. What is worth doing is listening to a different viewpoint and then allowing one's own viewpoint to become more conscious and perhaps change. I act and I believe without being aware of why I am acting or what I am believing. A lot of it is unconscious. Talking to someone, even arguing, is a way to make all of that more conscious. Other people are magic mirrors who don't have to but who occasionally talk to me. They are not objects to manipulate. They are sources of insight.

[lifeisart]

Those were just examples. I mean, i like different point of views unless they disturb me personally. People can go naked in the street or have sex. That's okay for me because i can look at another place for not to see them. But if someone grow a chocolate wrapper in the street, that's not okay, that harms environment. Or if someone eats aloud, i cannot eat. So they should stop what they're doing.

I normally try to be very very understanding and listen to their ideas. But there are some cases i cannot stand. Being nice is important to me and i become nice other people. But when they get rude and without morality. that makes the problem.

let's think like this; This is totally an example, no realities. You now help me find an answer for my question and help me. If i tell ''this is gross, your thoughts are gross'', this will be my lack of morality. But you cannot justify yourself because there is no standard like everybody has to be respectful. So if i dont get help i would probably say ''Thanks for your contribution to my answer'' just as i'll tell this to a person who really helps.
So we need morality. And it must have some standards i believe.

[YesNo]

There is a point at which one has to protect oneself. Let's assume we have not reached that level.

Now consider the cases that disturb you, but which are not threatening you personally. What do you do? I think there are two major directions you could take.

(1) You could blame them. This would require having some moral standard on which to judge them as needing blame. Neither you nor they benefit from this.

(2) You could improve your own position relative to their positions. This would involve changing your own understanding by taking the opportunity their presence provides to come up with better arguments, if you are in an argument. It could involve taking an opportunity to practice more patience. At least you benefit from this.

I don't think everything is relative. Looking for a moral justification has value since it helps guide your own life, but one can never complete that justification since that would objectify our subjectivity. If one could complete that justification then it should also be possible to take our consciousness and map it into a text or a computer, however, I don't believe in artificial intelligence.

[lifeisart]

Also there are some things that my society doesnt accept but i accept. Our people for example are against kissing in the street. I'm not against this.

So morality changes and i have to find astandard for it. Or they teach their children religious things from the beginning of their children's life.I think that's not moral, they raise children that are biased. When i interrupt this, they're like ''it's none of your business'', i think a standart should be set about it. And teaching any religion to children should be legally banned. Otherwise, they'll be brainwashed people and do many bad things on behalf of religion.

In some countries, marrying a children is totally legal! And their justification is ''they're not children after 12''. that's not acceptible to me! (Thanks religion!)

Or some ignorant people says ''Europe is not good, they're christian (because they're muslims themselves)'' and they use European medicines, American cars. (Thanks religion!)

Or i read a book. one tells me sarcastically ''why do you read comments about the book?'', it actually means ''you dont understand the books and look at the comments to understand''. That's totally normal to me not to udnerstand abook, but they think im stupid person and that's why i dont understand those books.

I could give you many more examples i guess but i think the core message has been gotten.

Because i dont have a solution to this, i behave immoral when someone behaves me immoral. But the thing is 2 wrongs doesnt make 1 right.

[YesNo]

Well, for what it's worth, I don't kiss people in the street either.

Regarding teaching children about religion, our species is naturally religious. Children have a basic religious disposition prior to any cultural influence. What has to be taught is atheism. If you are interested I could provide you with sources for those opinions.

I have no opinion on arranged marriages. I suspect they work out, but I have no data on this.

Regarding Europe not being good, this is a moral judgement being made. I realize you are not making this judgement, but you do seem to have a sarcastic perspective against "religion". That may itself be immoral by some standards. So you will have to pick and choose the standards you accept to fit your current lifestyle. If that is the case how objective are the standards you select?

I don't understand many books and, assuming I am interested, will look at comments for better understanding. So I do what you do about looking for comments on a book.

Here's a moral question: Is it moral to behave immorally because someone else behaves immorally? I think you've answered it by saying "2 wrongs doesnt make 1 right".

[lifeisart]

I dont kiss people in the street, either. but i find this normal.

Our species is not religious i believe. There are many people who raise children without religion.

It's not aranged marriage i guess. I dont know about it but some religion says it's normal to let a child marry someone.

I'm actually not sarcastic, but i just try to find a standard for it. I respect religions unless they harm. I think we dont need to talk about harms of religions. They causes wars and kills people.

Yes, it's totally normal not to understand a book.

This question makes things difficult. I believe it's moral to behave immoral when someone doesnt. Because yes 2 wrongs dont make a right but i cannot replace any other idea with behaving immoral.

And i think objective raising is raising a children without any belief. They shouldnt teach atheism, either.

[YesNo]

I disagree about our species not being religious, but perhaps we mean something different by being religious. It doesn't mean for me being a member of any specific religion. The specific religions are cultural ways to enhance our species spiritual tendency. This underlying spiritual tendency should be expected since there are many different religious traditions. Something underlies this that is not cultural.

The problem with looking for a moral standard is that it seems to be looking for a way to justify blaming other people beyond what the legal system might blame them for. The problem is that one can always do such things. One can always rationalize one's own position against other people. Those other people may not agree with the rationalization and may come up with their own rationalizations to counter it.

[lifeisart]

I think yes people look for power and they attribute that thing a god. But there is not even one single evidence that shows god exists. And they raise their children religiously.

Actually yes i want to blame some people with logical reasons. Laws only care about serious things. but we come across with many crooks in daily life. You're very kind person i think. And thats why we can talk like this.

Once i remember a memory;
There was a post. The post says ''Mother turns into surrogate mother and carry her child's child.'' I commented ''That's normal, they probably have a problem with the ovum o r something''. And one of the guys told me ''son of a *****''. This is not a joke! He really said this to me. Maybe i can sue him because he talked to me bad.

Or another memory;
I ate all chocolates at home. It's cheap, it's just chocolates. and my brother told me ''That does it, you should leave some chocolate to us''. And they hardly ever eat chocolate. It was not because they care about me ignoring them, it was because it costed him. But when it comes to money, i remember i helped him for saving money. I helped him to fix the car by giving him some money. And i never told him ''that does it! you shouldnt ask me for money to fix your car''.

Or another memory;
I'm a pick person for eating. I went to my brothers for visit. His wife intentionally cooked things that i hate (She knows what i hate). and told me ''you can also cook yourself if you dont like it''. Luckily, i brough some food with me, because i knew what they were gonna do. And they come visit me. I didnt cook them any food and told them ''let's go out and you pay for it''. HE DID! And im happy about it.

Those are not appropriate to me.

[YesNo]

Your memories sound like something you can learn to live with. I especially liked the one where your sister-in-law intentionally cooked the things you hate to eat.

Regarding "there is not even one single evidence that shows god exists", there are people who think there is not even one single evidence that shows unconscious matter exists.

That brings up the question: What is really out there? Some don't think there are gods (or some sort of real consciousness). Those would be materialists. Some don't think there is unconscious matter at all. Those would be idealists. Some think there is some consciousness (gods) and some unconsciousness (mindless stuff). They would be dualists. I like to think of myself as an "idealistic panentheist". Here is something about panentheism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism