Recommend Philosophy to a Youngin'

[Zeruiah]

Hi,

I have a great interest in philosophy, but my high school doesn't offer any thorough philosophical classes (except Theory of Knowledge, but it isn't what I want to learn and I have a feeling that it will be superficial and basic). Thus, the only philosophy I can get is what is on the internet or what I can understand from a philosophy book at my school library. So far from soaking in the drips of philosophy I've found, the philosophers I like the most are Nietzsche, Plato, René Guénon, and Schopenhauer.

My concern for learning the theories and teachings of these philosophers is the fact that I have no guide for my selection of books (which will be primary sources--I hate reading what someone else thinks about what someone else thinks) and I have no reliable help to answer any questions that may burn my skull while reading said books. I have thought of simply taking whatever I can get, but some philosophers--Nietzsche and Plato especially--write obscure claims in the assertions of their books; this obscurity is so thick and cryptic for me that it almost feels as though it was created for the purpose of obfuscating the meaning of the work.

You can help me by:

1) Suggesting easily digestible works by authors on my list or authors similar to my list

and/or

2) Suggesting a reliable guide on the internet for reading philosophy without a class and instructor.

Thank you very much.

[Etienne]

You would probably enjoy Spinoza, Kierkegaard and Leibniz.

But most authors will be pretty hard to read, if you're just going to read the books like a novel, you're as well not to read anything, but you need to really study a few works (or even parts of works). I suggest that you get a good overview of some fundamental authors and then go by problematics, and writing about it is probably the best way. But then studying philosophy by oneself is a rather hard thing to do, teachers or colleagues are very useful as philosophy is best studied in a dialectic form.

I personally already tried to start a discussion about Ockham, no one showed interest, if you want to study some works as a kind of forum philosophy club, the idea has potential.

[Prole]

Reading philosophy on your own is really difficult. In fact I had to buy a "How to read..." style book to accompany a book by Foucault I was reading just to make sense of it! I'm not sure if this link would be of any help to you since you're specific about which thinkers you want to read up on, but MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/index.htm)have tons of course materials and there are torrents with audio files of entire lectures out there. Be warned though, I've definately found trying to figure works out completely on my own a head melting experience.

Etienne: A philosophy book club sounds great! I'd be up for it. :)

[NikolaiI]

My best advice is don't neglect Eastern philosophy. Use them in each hand. Emerson wrote in his essay Plato; or, the philosopher, that Plato did this and it was why he was so great. Above all don't discredit your own ideas. They are valuable, and no writer is so great a new perspective doesn't add to his depth. I think Nietzsche is good. Emerson is a good one to come later (did you know Nietzsche loved Emerson?). "The Over-Soul" I found enlightening, although Emerson didn't take all the ideas to their fullest potential. Though, how could he?

[blazeofglory]

Philosophy is something, unlike other disciplines, that deals with life and its meaning. Indeed science to deals life and biology with the physical part of life and beyond that it does not go, and it defines life in material terms.

Few are satisfied with this definition of life. Indeed we look deeper and deeper realms of life. Indeed it is to spirituality we need to turn ultimatley wherein you can find life and its meaning in differene terms.

I suggest you do not read just conventional philosophies. Vedic Philosophy, Buddhism and the Tao Path are some of the ways I suggest.

Read conventional philosophies as well, but do not be simply confined to them .

[Morten]

Javiar Marías' History of Philosophy is a good place to start. As is Blackburn's Think which talks a lot about Descartes' cogito ergo sum, the most important idea of modern western philosophy. Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism is an easy but very fruitful read, and

[Zeruiah]

Alright so you guys suggest spiritual/eastern philosophy as well. That seems interesting to me.

Is it a good idea to use a side book as help for understanding some of the more confusing elements of philosophy? Would it also be helpful to have a survey book that sums of important philosophers of each era and geographical location?

EDIT: I also find Hindutva very interesting. What do you suggest I do to learn about it?

[Eric Cioe]

I'm a third year philosophy major at a top ten university, and I intend to study philosophy in graduate school, and teach philosophy after that. I started out just like you - I had an interest in philosophy in high school, but my school offered no classes. Actually, that Theory of Knowledge class at your high school is pretty much the sort of stuff I work on now.

To read philosophy:
1. Read slowly
2. Concentrate

My aesthetics and philosophy of literature professor says that he prefers students who come to college as first years without having had any high school philosophy courses, because the first semester of college will have to be spent fixing all of the problems that started in that class. As someone said above, if you are going to read philosophy as if it were a novel, you might as well not even bother. You shouldn't be answering questions like: who is your favorite philosopher. You should be considering the arguments for the conclusions, and not the conclusions alone.

That said, I think there is a lot of value in having at least a grasp on what a lot of philosophers had to say. It would be hopeless to try and do this through primary sources. You can't possibly read all of Plato, all of Aristotle, all of Hume, all of Kant ...

Early on, it's probably worthwhile to get a secondary source overview of the history of philosophy. The best one I know is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. He shortchanges people like Kant and especially Nietzsche. It pretty much ends in 1900, leaving out people like Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and I think Frege. But for all of its shortcomings, it has a lot of advantages. It starts with the presocratics, where many others will start with Plato. Russell is an actual philosopher, so he does a pretty good job of reconstructing arguments. He does a good job of setting up the historical and political contexts in which a given philosopher writes.

People like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard are tough to deal with. The problem is, they write in a way that makes you think you understand what they are saying, but there is so much more that you miss. It's pretty common to see high school aged people liking those guys. What's not to like? Nietzsche is a great writer, so is Kierkegaard. That makes them seem more accessible than they really are. I think it's great that you're interested in this stuff, but just don't ever get too confident that you can speak for these guys. Even after studying Kierkegaard a ton in college, I recognize that there are things in his books that I just flat out don't understand.

So, there are three things I can recommend to you:
1. Pick up ol' Bert's History of Western Philosophy, then read it slowly and concentrate. Because it is so long, I suggest you take a break after each third of the book. The first third is Ancient Philosophy, the second third is Catholic Philosophy (I forget the title, but it's something like that), and the third third is Modern Philosophy. I took about a month off between each third, and read something else for a while.
2. Pick a dialogue of Plato's that you like - I think Phaedo is best for this exercise - read it slowly, concentrate, and then reconstruct the arguments. The Phaedo is nice because you can do this with the argument from recollection of the forms. It's pretty cool how he does it. Write down the premises, and the conclusions that he gets from them. Ask yourself at each step: does this follow?
3. Ask questions to others who know a little about philosophy. Talking about philosophy is great, no matter if the other person knows a little or a lot. I'm somewhere in the middle. You can ask me any questions you have, and I'll do what I can to answer them. Heck, if you ask me about the right author, I might even be able to give you the right answer.

Best of luck.

[mayneverhave]

Yeah, Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a highly entertaining and beneficial read to get a good overview of the multitude of philosophical movements in history.

As for specifics: try reading some stuff by Albert Camus. His work is intensely philosophical, but also achieves on the level of literature (as in, reading him isn't a tedious chore).

[johann cruyff]

Okay,this may be a totally trivial suggestion,but you also might be interested in picking up a copy of Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder.It can be useful as an easy introduction to philosophy,since it gives a rather simple,and yet interesting overview.

As I've said,slightly trivial,but you may find it interesting.

[AwayAloneAlast]

I will add my name to the list of those recommending Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Russell was a pretty eminent philosopher in his own right, and an excellent writer (unlike most philosophers). It doesn't have much in way of depth, but it provides nice overviews of the majour philosophers, and covers a lotttt of ground.

Also, check out Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy. It was written in the '20s, so it only goes until then, but it has very expansive overviews of the philosophers it covers. This was how I first learned about many of my favourites.

As a fellow devout Schopenhauer fan (nobody caught the human experience more than he did, save Shakespeare!), I recommend a few guys to you:
-David Hume--the best British philosopher, and an unparalleled genius. Slightly difficult to read, a calibre below Nietzsche and Schopenhauer on the writing skillz level, but not too bad.

-George Santayana--a Spanish/American philosopher who is almost unknown, but really really good, very influenced by Schop; he is also one of the best writers in philosophy, along with Nietzsche and S.

-Spinoza--what a beautiful system, and what a beautiful man! Very difficult read, though; I recommend secondary sources until you're ready to tackle Ethica

-Immanuel Kant--VERY difficult, possibly the second most difficult to read outside of the impossible Hegel. Brilliant system, though, and the most influential philosopher since Aristotle.

I'd also recommend you check out some literature that ties into philosophy. The Russians, especially, come to mind. Read "Notes from Underground" by Fyodor Dostoevsky (its only about 100 pgs) and see what you think--Nietzsche proclaimed it as "crying truth from the blood!" and I agree wholeheartedly. If you like it, read more Dostoevsky, and read some Tolstoy!

[Zeruiah]

Thank you for the tips, everyone.

I am especially thankful for tips on how to read philosophy. I will admit that I am guilty of trying to read it as though it were fiction. From now on, I will coerce through philosophy like a bulldozer and collect all the information I can at a slower pace.

As for History of Western Philosophy, there aren't any copies in my local library system, so I will need to order it and wait a few weeks.

Thanks again.

[Etienne]

-Immanuel Kant--VERY difficult, possibly the second most difficult to read outside of the impossible Hegel. Brilliant system, though, and the most influential philosopher since Aristotle.

You mean Aristotle (try the Metaphysic :lol: ) and the medieval philosophers in general are not harder than Kant? Kant is actually easy to read in the sense that he wrote well and is rather clear, however the matter is not so simple, and it is very dense, which is what makes it hard.

[Dori]

I like Descartes, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer among the philosophers that I've read from. I love Descartes's writing.

[Zeruiah]

Does anyone know of a credible site devoted to philosophy?

[Eric Cioe]

Does anyone know of a credible site devoted to philosophy?

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The articles on here are done by philosophers. It isn't finished yet, but it grows a lot pretty quickly.

[AwayAloneAlast]

You mean Aristotle (try the Metaphysic :lol: ) and the medieval philosophers in general are not harder than Kant? Kant is actually easy to read in the sense that he wrote well and is rather clear, however the matter is not so simple, and it is very dense, which is what makes it hard.

Haha probably true. I've never found Kant as difficult as people make him out to be, but for a beginner he's definitely a bit much. NOBODY tops Hegel for incomprehensibility, though. :)

[Eric Cioe]

Haha probably true. I've never found Kant as difficult as people make him out to be, but for a beginner he's definitely a bit much. NOBODY tops Hegel for incomprehensibility, though. :)

If you find Kant so simple, explain to me why it is necessary that the categories apply to intuition? Also, do you think his argument that math is synthetic works, and if not, why? And explain why for Kant, Fichte and Schiller were wrong to think that the phenomena / noumena distinction should evaporate?

The simple fact is that Kant is hard. I've studied the Critique of Pure Reason for the last year and a half, and it's still really difficult. I've taken two classes on the Critique with one of the world's foremost experts on Kant and German Idealism, and Kant is still really difficult. He's one of those guys that can lull you into thinking you understand what is going on, but when someone asks you to explain it to them, you find that you don't know what the **** you're talking about. That's why there is so much secondary literature on Kant, and why the views are so widely divergent on him, because it isn't easy stuff.

If you find it easy, you are probably missing something. That's the problem with studying something on your own, that no one is around to call you on it when your interpretation doesn't make sense. This is why if you really want to do philosophy and not just talk about doing philosophy, you should read one of Plato's dialogues and draw out the argument. Plato makes it easy because he presents it as a conversation, where there are others to point out counterarguments, even though they are mostly incompetent.

[Etienne]

Indeed Eric, Kant is easier in terms of form only. You can read something of the Critique, and think you understand it, and then when it comes to explaining it (which is the real test to see if one has understood something correctly) then you realize you need to re-read a couple of time the same passages to understand correctly.

In terms of content, for example Aristotle is more simple, he is hard because of the form, it is more often interpretation than simple reading, as they are fragments from unpublished texts (often student notes from his teachings) taken from different commentators whose writings have survived. The interpretation of Aristotle is not complete, there are passages or notiont that are interpreted differently from different "theories", and there are even passages translated differently following what the translators believes he meant by a certain passage. Including some famous passages.

Example: Nichomachean Ethics (and this is one of his most intelligible texts)
-I will give my translations from the French text I have
7.3. Definition of virtue
In consequence, virtue is a decisional state which consists in an average, fixed relatively to ourselves. It is it's formal definition and it's how a sagacious would define it.

In consequence, virtue is a decisional state which consists in an average, fixed relatively to ourselves, as would be defined (the average) by the sagacious.

*Note my translation use sagacious, but other terms are used too.

There is quite a difference between both. I believe the second one to make much more sense (it is also the "classical" translation, the first is more of an innovation by the translator), the translators has his reasons which he explains in the text however, I can't say I agree too much with him.

[Trekker114]

Here is an online dictionary of philosophy that you may find useful: http://www.philosophypages.com/ (The "study guide" has good tips on reading philosophy).

Edit: I'm not sure what you've read so far, but Plato's Republic and Descartes Meditations are essential starting points, and they aren't too difficult. After that, I would recommend something by Hume.

[Kafka's Crow]

Will Durant The Story of Philosophy
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Touchstone-Books-Paperback/dp/B000C4SQ28/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206903124&sr=8-6
Betrand Russell The History of Western Philosophy
http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415325056/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206903247&sr=1-2
Roland Turner Thinkers of the Twentieth Century
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/8919005/used/Thinkers%20of%20the%2020th%20Century
Madan Sarup An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism
http://www.amazon.com/Introductory-Guide-Post-Structuralism-Postmodernism/dp/0820315311/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206903648&sr=1-1

When you have read these books, move on to philosophers starting from Plato and Aristotle and moving on to St Augustine, the Enlightenment Philosophers, Nietzsche and to the 20th Century philosophy (and psychology, anthropology, linguistics, semiotics...!). I know I have left out many important figures but you have to know the basics before you could concentrate on more detailed studies and the intertexual 'mess' called the 20th century thought.

[antiprefix]

Kahil Gibra.

[Kafka's Crow]

Kahil Gibra.

Do you mean Khalil Gibran? My Dad loved his books but I never liked Gibran.

[Chester]

"All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato." --Alfred North Whitehead

[antiprefix]

Do you mean Khalil Gibran? My Dad loved his books but I never liked Gibran.

Yea, I was referring the Prophet. It surprises me you dislike him, he's very accessible.

[Etienne]

Yea, I was referring the Prophet. It surprises me you dislike him, he's very accessible.

After suggesting American novels in the (already complete) France book club, now you suggest poetry to someone who asks about philosophy? :lol:

[djy78usa]

This may sound silly, but have you tried reading any of the '(Insert Pop-Culture Reference Here) and Philosophy' type books. I was thumbing through a copy of South Park and Philosophy recently, and found it very easy to read. Some 'philosophy elitists' might turn their noses up at such a suggestion, but if you are looking to make pilosophy more accessible, it might be worth a shot. There are quite a few titles to choose from if you're not into South Park.

[islandclimber]

I find Nietsczhe to be the most accessible and easiest to read philosopher... as well as being one of the more controversial and interesting philosophers... he writes in a more literary style... as well I love a lot Eastern Philosophy... Especially Buddhist philosophy... it is wholly integrated with spirituality which makes it quite interesting..

[islandclimber]

After suggesting American novels in the (already complete) France book club, now you suggest poetry to someone who asks about philosophy? :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Eric Cioe]

I find Nietsczhe to be the most accessible and easiest to read philosopher... as well as being one of the more controversial and interesting philosophers... he writes in a more literary style... as well I love a lot Eastern Philosophy... Especially Buddhist philosophy... it is wholly integrated with spirituality which makes it quite interesting..

Nietzsche, like Socrates, lulls the reader into a sense of false understanding. It's like that conversation in the drawing room at the end of Heart of Darkness, where Marlow is answering truthfully all of the questions that Kurtz's intended has to ask, but she takes them to mean a different thing. "He was an extraordinary man." "Yes, he sure was." She means he was exemplary, but Marlow means he was a monster.

Nietzsche does the same thing. He seems easy to read because he wrote in a non-technical way, but teasing out his arguments is difficult.

[jgweed]

As Nietzsche himself warned in Ecce Homo, anyone venturing to read him must do so with a great deal of skill and effort. And I would suggest that his thought is thoroughly Western in nature and subject matter.

One might, I think, read the following philosophers with profit:

Descartes. (Meditations, Discourse on Method) made the break from scholasticsim by writing for a learned and non-priestly audience, and his philosophy has been extremely influential.

J.S.Mill. His two essays, On Liberty and Utilitarianism remain important; his autobiography is still interesting.

John Locke. Remembered as a political theorist of the highest order, his epistemology has been influential especially in British Empiricism. His important works are Two Treatises of Government and Essay Concerning Human Understanding

Ortega Y Gasset. His lectures translated as What is Philosophy? provide a introduction to both existentialism and phenomenology from is own perspective.

All of these works happily illustrate that philosophy need not be unliterary, and all but the last are generally available on the internet.

Regards,
John