Philosophical literature

[Big Al]

I've been wanting to delve extensively into philosophy for a long time, and I was hoping that some members of this board might share with me what they consider to be the greatest examples of philosophical writings.

[Dark Muse]

I love the writings of Nietzsche

[PeterL]

Philosophical in what sense? Many writers imply something deeply philosophical without overtly discussing it, while others try to push some philosophy.

[jgweed]

I think the best way to approach philosophy is historically, because one philosopher is influenced by another, and often the writings of earlier works are presupposed by later philosophers. One could do worse than read the following:

Plato. The Apology (it all starts with Socrates) and then The Republic
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, and perhaps the first book of the Metaphysics.
Epictetus. The Manual

[Medieval philosophy. Augustine and Aquinas]

Hobbes. Leviathan
Descartes. Discourse on Method. Meditations
Locke. Two Treatises of Government. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Hume. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
Kant. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics (an introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason)
Hegel. Lectures on the Philosophy of History
Nietzsche. The Geneology of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil

Examples of the major modern schools of philosophy.
A.J.Ayer. Language, Truth and Logic
Whitehead. Science and the Modern World
Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations
Sartre. Existentialism is a Humanism.
Heidegger. What is Metaphysics?

For a not unbiased history of philosophy, which might be a good introduction, Bertrand Russell's is a good start.

One can find many collections centered on one particular topic, and these have their place, I suppose, but one usually only gets bits and pieces of the philosophers excerpted, and is placed in the position of Helen's suitors, having to settle for her handmaidens.

In some cases, I have omitted to mention a philosopher's major work because of the length and complexity of the writing that would require almost literally a lifetime of study (Heidegger's Being and Time, for example); these can be approached easily enough through commentaries and then if the interest is there, one can attempt the whole.

Everyone will have, no doubt, pet works and philosophers that they would include, and perhaps not without justice, but I think there would be general agreement on the importance of the philosophers mentioned, and any student majoring in Philosophy would have an acquaintance with them.
Regards,
John

[aBIGsheep]

Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless. Its all about giving up your material things for a nomadic life style. Living for the novelty of life.

[Big Al]

Philosophical in what sense? Many writers imply something deeply philosophical without overtly discussing it, while others try to push some philosophy.

I meant writings where the exploration of philosophical ideas is the primary goal of the work.

[capek]

Look into Voltaire, Cervantes, Camus, Sartre, Dostoevsky, Hesse for some good examples of what you're looking for.

[Guinivere]

I like philosophical novels such as Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner. This book, basically gives you an introduction to the most important philosophers, and you get to know them through the eyes of a child. It is a very special story, a travel through the history of philosophy so to speak.

[EricP]

If you're looking for a novel that deals primarily with philosophical ideas, I would recommend Denis Diderot's "Jacques the Fatalist", Voltaire's "Candide", and any of Sartre's novels (especially "Nausea").

[aabbcc]

From my experience, the best introductory textbook to philosophy, which does not deal with history of philosophy but rather specific philosophical issues debated and explained, and it teaches you the basics of formal logic as well, is Arno Anzenbacher's, hands down. It might be a bit more demanding than most other books on the matter, but it is well worth it.

Jostein Gaarder's novel Sophie's World is a sort of easy way out if you want to get acquainted with the basic historical 'flow' of the western philosophy. I read it as an auxiliary book when I was a child, 10 or 11, at the very beginning of my philosophy studies, and even then I thought it was fairly easy and fun. Nowadays, after eight years of continuous study, I would hardly recommend it, except maybe for teenagers who are new to the whole thing; but I generally think that one should not start off in philosophy with history of philosophy but, rather, specific ideas and their developement, and then pursue formal history of philosophy. Bertrand Russell, in that aspect, is a perfect compromise and one of the best histories of philosophy I have come across, and I would definitely recommend his work.

Regarding some actual philosophical works rather than works about philosophy, it all depends on your personal taste and interests. I do agree with whoever said that the works are best followed if taken in their historical context, which would mean starting from the scratch, Tales and the rest of the crew as far as Western philosophy is concerned (and I do not know much about other philosophy traditions); however, that kind of approach works only if it is your profession or very serious hobby, otherwise it is just tiring. The first "full" work I personally read (before that I was reading excerpts in chrestomatiae from various works, mainly guided by professor) was Plato's Apology, which, even though considered rather 'basic', is not of great significance regarding ideas, Republic is much more important in that context. I prefer Aristotle, though, but I got into him much, much later as I had immense difficulties trying to read Poetics right after Plato, so eventually I abandoned it and returned to it as a junior in high school, when I was much more 'prepared' for that, to say so. Roman philosophy was never really of great interest to me and all I read of it, I read purely for school for Latin.
Forget Hegel, Heidegger and other "legendary" ones of the kind, at least in the beginning. Not only they are awfully complex due to their style of writing, but they require a hell of a preknowledge in order for you to get a maximum off their works. Out of classical German idealism, Schelling is probably the most interesting and legible. (He has a rather legible work on mythology, you might wish to check that out.)

Sartre is, in the other hand, surprisingly legible; his essay - somebody mentioned it before - Existentialism is humanism was the first I read, but Being and nothingness is extremely interesting and legible too. Camus also, especially if you had previously read some of his literary works, such as The Stranger or The Plague.
Wittgenstein, particularly Tractatus, is immensely cool, but he requires good grounding in formal logic; if you are interested in some philosophy of the language from the easier standpoint, try Plato's Cratylus.
There is one less known Polish philosopher, Leszek Kolakowski, which I personally find to be great, funny and legible, especially if you take his works on religion. I would certainly recommend him if you have at least a vague interest in that.
For philosophy of art and generally aesthetics, Eco is a genius, and Croce is considered a classic; and there is actually quite good Arthur Danto's introduction to that issue.

Generally, as I said, it depends on your interests, those are some of the things I could think of off the top of my head, but you would need to be more precise in what you are interested in to get more precise answers. If you still do not know what you are interested in, then really the best would be to get Anzenbacher and Russell and see for yourself which topics and which philosophers provoke interest in you; and if you are into a whole serious and systematic approach, then just start from the beginnings. Good luck. :)

[jgweed]

From the two more or less "professional" replies to the question, there seems to be an amazing amount of agreement, as well as some difference in perspectives about approaching philosophy. And our undergraduate journeys were similar.
Certainly the so-called Sokratic dialogues (Plato's narration of the life, thought, and death of Sokrates), Sartrean existentialism, and the writings of Nietzsche have played a major part in the formation of my own perspective, as has Heidegger.
One could do far worse than jump "in media res" with beginning with the works of J-P Sartre, who is very approachable and, as literature is not shunned by existentialism (to the contrary), extremely interesting to read. Being and Nothingness I read last, and had some problems with it; I was fortunate enough to discuss these with its English translator, and eventually read it several times. I think Sartre's later (as opposed to his post-war demand for engagement) politico-philosophic stand as evidenced in the Critique of Dialectical Reason silly, as was his adulation of Castro--- but that is my view.
Cheers,
John

[blazeofglory]

You can sit on heaps of books and tire yourself completely. They become a burden to you.

If you want to unburden yourself read Krishnamurti.

[aabbcc]

From the two more or less "professional" replies to the question, there seems to be an amazing amount of agreement, as well as some difference in perspectives about approaching philosophy. And our undergraduate journeys were similar.
I realise I am going off-topic, but I have to make a disclaimer: my opinion (if you referred to me, and I believe you have) is not professional opinion, I have not studied philosophy in an academic context in university, though I take it as a great compliment if it occurred to you that I might have studied it. :)
I am just about to commence my undergraduate journey, as I will have entered university this fall (not philosophy, however, my choice is history of art and comparative literature).

I have simply studied philosophy for the past eight years, some of it in formal setting in school (I went to classical schools, so Latin, Greek and Philosophy were important components of my formal education), some of it in private lessons as I was a strange kid who took a bit greater-than-amateur interest in it, some further on my own and through attending some lessons in university and belonging to some debate circles. None of it, however, "qualifies" me to have a say equal to a say of somebody who majored in philosophy, like yourself. :)

[Big Al]

You can sit on heaps of books and tire yourself completely. They become a burden to you.

If you want to unburden yourself read Krishnamurti.

I don't think that you "get" me...

[Chester]

Yeah, I found that a strange comment for a literature forum. Books becoming burdens?


(Start with Plato.)

[Big Al]

"Republic," perhaps? A friend told me that it's the greatest book ever written.

[Chester]

Well I don't know about the greatest but I think one can make an argument that it's certainly one of the most important. Whitehead famously said that all of western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato. The allegory of the cave is something I think anybody's worldview at some point has to address in some way.

[J.D.]

Nicomachean Ethics had a great influence on how I actually live my life--the idea that one must consistently make good choices and seek the reasonable mean between extremes. Also--and it's theology, really--Augustine's Confessions.

[blackbird_9]

I enjoyed reading Augustine's Confessions. It's a nice mish-mash of some key Platonian and Aristotelian theories. Although some people might find his constant proclamations of ignorance and confusion annoying and disruptive to the rest of the work, I found them entertaining and even insightful to some of his perspectives.

[patrickbeverley]

If you feel like reading some more modern philosophy, Milan Kundera's books are good. I like Immortality. I also like Shea and Wilson's Illuminatus, but I might be accused of taking the piss for suggesting that one.

[DooRag]

Try reading Wittgenstein's "Investigations". Not only will it introduce you to more or less every philosophical method in western culture's history, but it will also show you the fallacies upon which those are built.

I am not saying that Wittgenstein was right about everything, but he was right about the fact that Plato, Aristotle, through Russell and his posse, wore extensively about words that in no way would be applied in the way they were using them.

I'm sorry that my last post read "wore extensively". Replace that with "wrote"...

I wouldn't start by reading Plato, but if you do, go into it remembering that that he was writing in an entirely different context, and that he was on a lot of psychedelic drugs when he was writing most of his works, especially his nonsense about forms and all that bull. The allegory of the cave is interesting, but at this point is a children's story. Trust me, its not going to change your life.

His political ideas were certainly revolutionary and, in a way, provided a framework for what followed, but if you are reading him for that, I would jump ahead to the 1700s and read some French political theorists. They had some good things to say. Unlike Plato, they didn't believe that if you weren't a philosopher or a solider you were a slave, and they also are writing in a context that you will be able to relate to.

Big Al, just read "The Investigations" if you want to really consider the practice of philosophy as a whole.

Wittgenstein was the first person to actually do this, and the last one to do it well.

[loe]

In philosophy I especially appreciate the works and thoughts of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Sartre.
Of course, If you want dive deep into philosophy, I agree with the others who are saying that it's better to start with Plato and Aristotle.
But If you are just looking for interesting thoughts and theories in my opinion you can start with the for you most interesting part. I think it's also possible to read "backwards" - I read Schopenhauer before Kant for example.

In literature that deals with philosophy I love Dostoyevsky and most of all: In Search of Lost Time by Proust!!! :)

Regards

[DooRag]

Avoid Kant and other metaphysical texts...they are nonsense and will just confuse you, before the men that wrote them were quite confused themselves.

[jgweed]

I am surprised that someone would consider Philosophical Investigations more clearly written than Kant's Critique. While both are, each in its different way, demanding of the reader, it seems to me that PI would present someone new to philosophical studies with far more interpretative problems than would Kant.
Moreover, I think it is a misreading of PI to conclude that all metaphysical texts are nonsense except PI (of course). It is Wittgenstein's argument that many philosophical disputations are the result of "wrong pictures" that the kind of linguistic analysis he practiced would help to clear up ("showing the fly the way out of the fly-bottle"), yet from what I have read, he was not as dismissive of metaphysics as such as some would suggest.

[DooRag]

He compared the metaphysician to a deeply ill mental patient, and himself to a therapist.

It seems fairly clear to me where he stood regarding the matter.

And the reason I recommend the "PI" is because he takes the reader, slowly and extremely carefully, through not only the various traditions of philosophy, but also addresses every possible response that could have resulted from said tradition.

Also, Wittgenstein was a much better writer than Kant, philosophy aside.

[Chester]

...especially his nonsense about forms and all that bull.
Hi DooRag. Just curious as to what makes Plato's forms necessarily "nonsense" and "bull."

[DooRag]

Well, Plato created that whole "essentialism" crew of philosophers, because the Platonic forms were to the first notion to suggest that things can be broken down into "essences", which, as someone who respects the powerful influences of human language and social tradition, believes is utterly impossible.

For example, not to harp on Wittenstein all day, if one were to try uncovering the essence of the concept "game", you would find that eventually the "essence" includes pretty much everything on earth.

For that reason, I refer to the Platonic forms as nonsense, because they encourage an impossible exercise.

Also, essentialists and metaphysicians have a dangerous habit of being extremely careless with language, which is what led to guys like Kant actually getting published and studied by millions of unfortunate people who spent hours discussing "reality" and "being" as though they are nouns that are used as simply as "chair" or "table", for example.

[Chester]

Plato's forms open up a dialogue into what exists absent human consciousness. Is love, for example, a construct of mind, or something that mind taps into. This can lead (and has lead) to some pretty significant philosophical ideas. I'm not aware that the issue's been resolved.

[DooRag]

Love is a linguistic concept. There's nothing else to it.

What exists absent human consciousness? The same things that exist with human consciousness. Humans being aware of something cannot create or destroy that it.

"LOVE" can literally refer to billions of concepts, feelings, supposed inner sensations, etc, depending on a potentially unlimited number of cultural factors . It is not something that you "tap into", but rather a word that you can use in the context of your community.

That is why Plato gets you into trouble. You are trying to generalize a concept that humans have invented, but which cannot be generalized. Rather, it can only be used once a society has agreed upon its meaning and uses. Our brains, and our consciousnesses, have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of the word love or how it can be used.

[Chester]

The "billions of concepts, feelings, supposed inner sensations, etc.", refer to love, not the other way round. That's the idea of a Platonic "form." The feelings point to something, something behind the feelings. The feelings are signifiers.

I'm really not seeing where this gets us into trouble. We're not trying to "generalize" a concept. Far from it, it fact. We're trying to experience something more of it, in every way we can, to better reveal it. That is, of course, if one feels love is a discoverable concept and not a manufactured one. You may think it manufactured, a "concept that humans have invented," but I would submit that better minds than ours have debated this very point for centuries. We're not going to solve it here.

The upshot of it all is that the point is of great philosophical import, and historically this seems rather obvious. I'm just not seeing the "nonsense" and "bull" of Plato that you assert.

[DooRag]

Sayings like "experience something more" and "better reveal" are the same nonsense and bull that you will find in most of Plato's writings.

Focus and pay attention to your words when you speak or write, and I'm sure you will find the vagueness of your expressions will lessen over time.

And, love does refer to billions of concepts. They do not refer to "love". Just think about for a second...

[Chester]

Yes, the vagueness has lessened considerably over time. This is exactly what has led me to my position. There is, to my mind, something very clear and precise behind what we experience.

What you are apparently not grasping is the fact that we are coming at the issue from diametrically opposed positions. And we are doing so because your argument (as well as my own) presupposes a certain viewpoint about concepts. Each of us considers his the more reasonable basis from which to move forward. This is the philosophical crux of the issue that has not been resolved in the long and storied history of philosophy from Plato on down. That you have at least considered Plato's forms demonstrates the fact that one needs, as I have mentioned somewhere above, to deal at some level, at some point, with Plato. His importance simply cannot be denied, whether one agrees with him or not. Calling it "nonsense" and "bull" doesn't make it go away.

[DooRag]

Well, it should go away, because it has polluted philosophy for far too long. I'm going to end this convo, because you have contradicted yourself about a dozen times already, and it is annoying me.

[Chester]

I can certainly understand how annoying it must be to tilt at contradictions that aren't there.

All the best,

J.

[DooRag]

You write as vaguely as anyone I have read, yet you seem to attempt to write about trying to uncover "clear" and "precise" whatever you want to call it, "behind what we experience" (another phrase that has absolutely no meaning to it).

That is the most glaring contradiction of them all.

I'm not sure how old you are, or if you are currently taking a philosophy class on Plato or something, but I would just suggest reading a little more before jumping to conclusions and trying to actually discuss these things.

Thanks,

DooRag

[jgweed]

I thought you were going to end your participation in this discussion.
John

[DooRag]

I was simply suggesting reading beyond Plato before discussing philosophy.

Have you gotten to the positivists, yet? They can better explain why the Platonic forms are a foolish exercise for the human mind to participate in.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments.

Such posts will be edited/deleted without any further notice.

[jgweed]

It may be that the importance of reading philosophers, whether Plato, or Kant, or Wittgenstein, is not to find the "right" answer to perennial questions, but to understand their answers as best one can and in a sympathetic way, to include their unique perspectives when considering and forming one's own, and to allow them to trigger thinking in new and unforeseen ways (as Kant would say, to awaken oneself from one's dogmatic slumber).

[Chester]

It may be that the importance of reading philosophers, whether Plato, or Kant, or Wittgenstein, is not to find the "right" answer to perennial questions, but to understand their answers as best one can and in a sympathetic way, to include their unique perspectives when considering and forming one's own, and to allow them to trigger thinking in new and unforeseen ways (as Kant would say, to awaken oneself from one's dogmatic slumber).
Yes. This is very well said.

[jgweed]

I came across, interestingly enough, the following:


In 1944 Wittgenstein wrote to Drury that he was "reading Plato's Theaetetus: "Plato in this dialogue is occupied with the same problems that I am writing about." A little later he sent me a copy of a translation of the Theaetetus ... I had to write back to him saying that I found it "cold". His reply was, "It was far from cold when it was written."" (Recollections p. 149; Wittgenstein refers to the Theaetetus in the Blue Book, which dates from 1933-1934.

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/theaetetus.html

[DooRag]

Wittgenstein absolutely despised those books that his student's put together and distributed around campus. From what I've read, he claims that they entirely misinterpreted every word that came out of his mouth.

That is why he wrote the Investigations in the first place. He didn't want to write them, but he felt that because those books were out there connected to his name he didn't have a choice.

[patrickbeverley]

I find marijuana helps when reading philosophy. It allows me to be open to ideas that I disagree with and interested in them, without being so easily influenced as to completely change my view of the world every time I read something new.

[Metadragon]

I've been wanting to delve extensively into philosophy for a long time, and I was hoping that some members of this board might share with me what they consider to be the greatest examples of philosophical writings.

Philip K Dick's short story 'Impostor' deals with the philosophical problem of personal identity. Great fun!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think the best way to approach philosophy is historically, because one philosopher is influenced by another, and often the writings of earlier works are presupposed by later philosophers. One could do worse than read the following:

Plato. The Apology (it all starts with Socrates) and then The Republic
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, and perhaps the first book of the Metaphysics.
Epictetus. The Manual

[Medieval philosophy. Augustine and Aquinas]

Hobbes. Leviathan
Descartes. Discourse on Method. Meditations
Locke. Two Treatises of Government. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Hume. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
Kant. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics (an introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason)
Hegel. Lectures on the Philosophy of History
Nietzsche. The Geneology of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil

Examples of the major modern schools of philosophy.
A.J.Ayer. Language, Truth and Logic
Whitehead. Science and the Modern World
Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations
Sartre. Existentialism is a Humanism.
Heidegger. What is Metaphysics?



Hey thanks for that list, it seems like a good grounding in philosophy. I am into my fourth year of my part-time degree in Literature and Media, but I want to study philosophy someday too. This seems like a logical way into it when I get the time.