Interest in Philosophy

[FoghornBellows]

I have an interest in philosophy. Unfortunately, I do not have the money to major in it. I'd like to learn as much about philosophy as possible. I do not know where to begin. I understand I need a context and most likely need to begin with the ancient philosophers. If anyone would steer me in the right direction, I'd be obliged.
- Matt

[Scheherazade]

If anyone would steer me in the right direction, I'd be obliged.
- MattI think the right direction to be steered in is "away" from the Philosophy major.

:p

[DanielBenoit]

Pleased to accommodate you :D

It doesn't really matter where you start. I started with Nietzsche but struggled. That said, you're going to have to struggle with philosophy one way or another. First, the obvious answer of where presicely where to start is in Plato and Aristotle, but their ideas are to incredibly influencial that they are repeated endlessly throughout the history of philosophy. If I remember correctly someone said that all of Western philosophy was merely a dicotemy between the Platonists and the Aristiteleans (yeah I'm not spelling that right, but I'm tired), true to an extent that may be, philosophy does find its way to expand beyond these two giants.

But then again, if you want to gain a passion for philosophy, there are some philosophers that will more likely make you contagoius to it, rather than mesmerized. Frankly in my opinion, Aristotle is one of these writers; he is dry and is unattractive to the begining reader. Plato is the way to go with his charasmatic Socrates at the center of his dialouges.

If you want to start out beyond classical Greek philosophy, then two great places to ease you into the writing style but in a fun way would be with the political starists Voltaire and Jonathan Swift. If you want to get serious right off the bat, I would reccomend Descartes or Pascal (frankley, Pascal is more enjoyable and passionate), from then you encounter dichotomous philosophers such as Hume and Kant, all of them saying "no YOU'RE wrong, I'M right".

If you want to start on existential subjects (as it seems most modern readers do), Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are the best way you can go. Both are of the most passionate writers of their time and take an anti-systematic approach to philosophy. I suppose most Christain theists go to Kierkegaard, while atheists go to Nietzsche, but both of these great men transcend these dualities.

I wouldn't reccomend you going into continental/contemporary philosophy just yet, not at least until you get through Heidigger (which is much later). So you need not worry much about that ;)


EDIT: Btw, I noticed on your profile information that your favorite book is The Stranger. If you enjoyed that, then I would highly reccomend The Myth of Sysiphus; a total embodiment of the ideas Camus presented in The Stranger.

[The Comedian]

I think the right direction to be steered in is "away" from the Philosophy major.

:p

I'll second Scher on this one -- (Full disclosure: I minored in philosophy). When I asked my favorite philosophy professor if I should major in the subject, this is what he said:

"Do you know what a philosophy major gets you"?

"What?" I asked.

"Unemployment benefits" he said.

Now, this is not to say the philosophy is uninteresting or not worthwhile -- it just doesn't pay well.

Daniel gave you a lot of good suggestions for getting started. I know that I fell in love with philosophy from reading Plato. He's one of the authors that I return to again and again and again for both the beauty of his ideas and his prose.

[FoghornBellows]

Thank you for your reply. I am going to begin with Plato and Aristotle. I currently have a heap of books to read, but I will begin soon. I've got them all lined up: "Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories", "The Interpretation of Dreams", "The Origin of Species", and "DNA: The Secret of Life."
These should take me about a month or two to get through. Right after that, I'll dive into some Plato. Do you have a book in particular that you suggest I begin with?

[Dinkleberry2010]

I recommend that you start with the Pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Thales, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Diogenes and Protagoras.

[DanielBenoit]

I recommend that you start with the Pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Thales, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Diogenes and Protagoras.

Though I prefer the pre-Socratics over both Plato and Aristotle, their fragmentated works are not the best place for a layman to start.


Thank you for your reply. I am going to begin with Plato and Aristotle. I currently have a heap of books to read, but I will begin soon. I've got them all lined up: "Franz Kafka: The Complete Stories", "The Interpretation of Dreams", "The Origin of Species", and "DNA: The Secret of Life."
These should take me about a month or two to get through. Right after that, I'll dive into some Plato. Do you have a book in particular that you suggest I begin with?

Everybody is going to say The Republic, but I think the four which consist of the trial of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo) are a better introductarary choice, they are short and sweet, as well as informative as to the character of Socrates, and not to mention, moving.

[Dori]

If you have any money to spare, buy some courses from The Teaching Company (teach12.com). Essentially, they're courses you can download or buy on DVD designed for the "adult learner". Look around and see what they have to offer.

I especially recommend Philosophy of Mind (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4278).

[loki456]

haha daniel hit the nail on the head... i started reading plato, fell in love (with philosophy not a dead man) and then started on aristotle. aristotle is quite dry, can be hard to understand at times, but overall a must I think. I started with the phaed, crito and apology and then read the republic as an intro to plato followed on by the organon by aristotle (not really called the organon by aristotle, but its just his six lectures given at the lyceum on forming a statement - very interesting stuff) although I don't recommend doing that... i recommend you read more of plato, cause your eyes will fall out and your head and you will find yourself gravitating towards a hammer to bash your skull in, if you start off on aristotle too early.
I don't know why but after I read plato and aristotle, I went on to, Locke, Hume, Berkley and Kant (in that order - they seem to follow on, made sense to me at the time) then I went back to pre-socratic philosophy.
my major interest was ethics, considering I'm a doctor, made sense. I didn't major in philosophy I just started reading. I did probably 6mnths in my med course regarding philosophy, and did some pythag, galen and a few others....

btw thanks daniel, i'll read up on those two guys in the comming months regarding existensial works.

[cubclosky]

I accept with information:the four which consist of the trial of Socrates are a better introductarary choice, they are short and sweet, as well as informative as to the character of Socrates, and not to mention.
_______________________
Courtier conseil financement immobilier achat | (http://financementimmobilier.org/)Demande credit simulation plan de financement immobilier | (http://financementimmobilier.org/)Calcul pret projet financement immobilier travaux (http://financementimmobilier.org/)

[ShoutGrace]

I agree with the given suggestions of starting with the Greek tradition, Socratics first, Plato before Aristotle. Few find Aristotle aesthetically pleasing, at least on the surface. You have to love his wisdom and order, his mind. (As an aside, I've also heard the theory that what we have of Aristotle is actually something like Cliffs Notes, summaries taken by his students at the Lyceum, adding to the dryness.)

I agree also with the recommendation given by Dori regarding "The Teaching Company." I have the "50 Great Ideas in Philosophy" course, and it is really quite exhilarating. The lectures are not difficult to listen to, the professor is knowledgeable and experienced, and the material covers a vast tract of time and ideas. There is hardly any time to dive into any one subject in 50 lectures, but it gives you an idea of where you'd want to go exploring. There are certain lectures from that course that I've listened to 30 or 40 times (undoubtedly wasting my time) because they are so enjoyable.

In this vein I also wouldn't discount reading books about philosophy. I find myself unable to resist approaching something from many different angles in the first instance, and in the case of philosophy, there are good histories of philosophy, biographies of great philosophers, and so forth. Getting a book such as "Thinking and Writing about Philosophy" (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Writing-about-Philosophy-Bedau/dp/0312396538), or other introductory philosophy books, isn't a bad idea in my opinion.

Just be certain throughout your readings to keep an open mind, and debate the writer consistently. Some will be harder to resist than others :).

[blazeofglory]

I think that the search will remain incomplete if one does not turn to the east for understanding life. The Vedas, the Upanishads are reservoirs of knowledge and enlightenment and they are matchless ancient texts and that blazes your path to illumination in life. Those who taken a dip in the ocean of the Vedas know this truth.

[mal4mac]

Starting with the Greeks seems to be a good idea.

For Aristotle, most people seem to recommend starting with the Nicomachean Ethics. I found Roger Crisp's translation the most readable, and Irwin was a useful backup -- it has a useful glossary. Another useful backup was Ross:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

There is some good secondary material on the NE. I like Kraut most. His book is great, but his internet material is almost as good:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

I also struggled with the Organon, and I gave up on "The Physics".

Try Julian Barnes "Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction" to get an overview. This is part of a reasonably priced series from Oxford University Press, and all the writers are top notch experts on the philosopher or topic they are writing about. You could do worse than reading through this series and letting these experts guide you to original works.

I also greatly enjoyed Hadot's "What is Ancient Philosophy?"

[?NIETZSCHE'XIST]

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm#LinguisticsandPhilosophy

ofcourse they are non-credited courses but nonetheless they are great introductions to philosophy.

The Problems of Philosophy course is a great place to start.

Definitely start w/ the Pre-Socratics, then I would suggest Socrates and Plato's Republic ( Allegory of the Cave, Philosopher King, Ring of Gyges, 3 Waves )

Anselm's Ontological Argument is essential.

Descartes' Meditations

Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment

NIETZSCHE...Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his masterpiece!

after you start to absorb the above mentioned, philosophy will begin to communicate its own objectives within your core...at least it did with me!
at that point you will know exactly where to venture next.

hopefully I was able to help
JMW

[mal4mac]

NIETZSCHE...Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his masterpiece!


I disagree. Even if it is, it's certainly not the one to start with! Try "Basic Writings of Nietzsche" (Modern Library Classics) by Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann. This contains his most instantly approachable works. The hardback version is nice, and not too expensive.

[?NIETZSCHE'XIST]

Instantly approachable work...?

Too many Nietzsche readers seek an 'Instant Approach' and w/ Nietzsche this is not possible. His maxims and aphorisms are instantly insightful but if you seek a comprehensive understanding of Nietzsche TSZ is his last will and testament.

In a Letter To Carl von Gersdorff on June 28th 1883 Nietzsche wrote,

"...my Zarathustra...behind all the plain and strange words stand my deepest seriousness and my whole philosophy."

Also, Walter Kauffman is definitely not the preferred translator. He takes great liberty when interpreting Nietzsche, esp. in his extra efforts to make Nietzsche politically correct!


JMW

[mal4mac]

I've read a few books on Nietzsche and they all recommend Walter Kaufmann as one of the best translators. Harold Bloom says that Zarathustra is unreadable, although he recommends several of his other works. I think Bloom is almost right, "almost" because I did read Zarathustra. But I had already gained some understanding of Nietzsche from Kaufmann's excellent biography and other works. Zarathustra was written just after some of his more readable mature works, and does contain much of his best philosophy, but in a highly condensed, highly aphoristic style that should not be attempted without lots of preparation.

[sixsmith]

I think you can do worse than starting with a general primer. Something like Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' or his history of Western Philosophy. In fact, I'd highly recommend something more general to begin with. A little guidance and context goes a long way.

[blazeofglory]

At times what I think philosophy gratuitously muddlews our faculties of imagination; that we are capable of thinking up and imagine new things is marred by philosophy. What most philosophers do is word their ideas flamboyantly using weighty and incomprehensible dictions and people at times get simply lost searching for context or understanding allusion or inference. Truth is simple and what all philosophers do use maximum numbers of morphs and in the process the essential is secreted. To say something simple they take too much aide of language, style, and their sophistic learning. They have schools of thoughts where their conceited ideas are taught and the simple and gullible get indoctrinated into their patterns of thoughts. Their ideas or philosophies create more confusions than the time you have come to them.

[?NIETZSCHE'XIST]

In a Letter To Peter Gast on April 6th, 1883 Nietzsche wrote:

"It disgusts me to think of Zarathustra going into the world as a piece of literary entertainment; who will be serious enough for it!"

I read TSZ for the first time about 15 yrs ago and though I never finished it then I returned to it again and again. TSZ is definitely not a Nietzsche primer but, Part 1 {the Prologue and the first 22 discourses} can serve that purpose.

In Kaufmann much of Nietzsche's philosophical meaning is lost in favor of his own biblical preferences. No question Kaufmann's historical/biographical insight is w/o comparison...'Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' is a remarkable read. Nietzsche is an accumulative philosopher. Again, there is NO 'instant approach' to Nietzsche. Since Kaufmann there has been much more Nietzsche material available to the translator/reader. To undertake a 'serious' study of TSZ one must return to it again and again over a duration of time. Not only to TSZ but to the numerous Letters and Notes Nietzsche made himself discussing the complexities of his Whole Philosophy.

JMW