New to Philosophy

[gurudefence]

Greetings from the UK,

Just a quick question; I've decided to take on a new reading area and decided to go for Philosophy.

Is there anything you would recommend for a first time subject reader?

Have a nice day,

Andy.

[exodus238]

YES. Don't read Richard Dawkins. Even if you agree with many of the things he says, the way he puts them makes you want to punch him. So, for a beginner, you should stay clear of him.
Although I do not believe in God, I am a huge fan of John Lennox. Everything he says completely makes sense and is really easy to read. I'm reading his book called 'God's Undertaker'. Basically, he is a religious evolutionist. (Believes in religion and science simultaneously.)
Some stuff by Hick is also good, though quite difficult to read.
Hope that helps! :)

[Dodo25]

Start with Richard Dawkins. (I'm serious actually, it's not a bad place to start. A sound knowledge of evolution is essential to any area of philosophy. If you know very little about it, start with 'The Blind Watchmaker'. If you already know the basics, read 'The Selfish Gene'.)

Apart from that, what areas are you interested in anyway? If you could write down some questions that have always fascinated you, I can list you books that will answer them.

As examples, I'll list some question that have fascinated me: Is there one 'right' ethical system and if yes, how does it work? Why is matter conscious? Do we have free will? What's the best way to rule a country? Should we change human nature for the better, if yes, what is 'better'? Is there any truth in religion? Is it possible that religion is useful even if it's wrong? Is there a boundary to knowledge, meaning are there things we won't ever be able to know?

Also, there's a children's book called 'Sophie's World', it provides a very basic introduction to philosophy in an interesting way, so it doesn't scare away people 'new to philosophy'. This might help you figure out what you're interested in.

[gurudefence]

Thank you for your comments.

I am unsure about everything, which means I question everything!

I have read the Art of War and enjoyed it greatly! However, because my definition of Philosophy is rather clouded I am unsure what questions I have actually relate to philosophy and not politics for example, although I guess the two are related.

Well, I like reading about sport, war, human rights, however, I work in finance so that area is a no no.

P.S. Sophie's World looks interesting. I'll look into it...

[Cunninglinguist]

Seriously, don't start with Richard Dawkins. He's about as unreasonable as the people he criticizes, or so he tells us; and has stirred up a lot of unnecessary controversy over what should be non-issues. He's a voice that attempts to validate and direct a lot of unchanneled anger within certain echelons of the zeitgeist. In short, Dawkins is not a legit philosopher, he's more like a polemicist...And, for that matter, neither is Sam Harris (though his stuff isn't as loaded as Dawkins', thank god..joke intended) and I would be wary to even include Dennitt in the category of good philosophers (who has, and I don't mean to offend you, Dodo, not solved any 'free will' problem since he pretty much a) stole his ideas from Hume and other logicians and b) the answer to any reasonable person is fairly obvious). Simply put, stick to the canon. All philosophy starts with the canon and to not start with the canon would be like trying to jump into calculus before taking algebra.

At any rate, jumping into philosophy, it is probably best for one to start with secondary resources so one can get a feel for the landscape without spending too much time doing so. You might want to look at plato.stanford.edu. Also, Simon Blackburn's Being Good is a capital survey of moral philosophy. Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is pretty good, though has its biases. Especially the first, but any of those three should be enough to get the ball rolling. Hope that helps.

[gurudefence]

plato.stanford.edu. - Interesting! And a very good resource; Thank you.

I will look into those books also.

Have a nice day :)

[Oniw17]

The socratic dialogues are an excellent place to start. It's my opinion that they should be read to children.

[Dodo25]

Seriously, don't start with Richard Dawkins. He's about as unreasonable as the people he criticizes, or so he tells us; and has stirred up a lot of unnecessary controversy over what should be non-issues. He's a voice that attempts to validate and direct a lot of unchanneled anger within certain echelons of the zeitgeist. In short, Dawkins is not a legit philosopher, he's more like a polemicist...And, for that matter, neither is Sam Harris (though his stuff isn't as loaded as Dawkins', thank god..joke intended)

Did you read my post closely? I didn't recommend 'The God Delusion' (God no!), not that it's a bad book but it's not that good either. Have you read Dawkins on evolution? It's a totally different experience. Only positive passion, no anger or anything like that. He's a brilliant explainer, and 'The Selfish Gene' is the book that has most changed the way I look at things. It's kinda sad actually how everyone talks about 'God Delusion' while ignoring his work on explaining evolutionary biology to the public.



and I would be wary to even include Dennitt in the category of good philosophers (who has, and I don't mean to offend you, Dodo, not solved any 'free will' problem since he pretty much a) stole his ideas from Hume and other logicians and b) the answer to any reasonable person is fairly obvious). Simply put, stick to the canon. All philosophy starts with the canon and to not start with the canon would be like trying to jump into calculus before taking algebra.

Dennett went further than Hume and justified the reasoning evolutionarily, but you're right, his insight into free will isn't the most startling conclusion. What IS quite startling and amazing is his insight on consciousness (cf. 'Consciousness Explained'). Even if you disagree with functionalism, Dennett has defined a huge aspect of Philosophy of Mind. Additionally, things like 'the intentional stance', or his use of meme theory and Darwinian reasoning are excellent examples of goal-oriented, scientifically literate philosophy.



At any rate, jumping into philosophy, it is probably best for one to start with secondary resources so one can get a feel for the landscape without spending too much time doing so. You might want to look at plato.stanford.edu. Also, Simon Blackburn's Being Good is a capital survey of moral philosophy. Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is pretty good, though has its biases. Especially the first, but any of those three should be enough to get the ball rolling. Hope that helps.

Well yeah, I see that point, but the thing is that one could spend a lifetime reading the 'canon'. And since philosophy before 1859 mostly consisted of exploring caves with hands tied behind the back and no light, it doesn't really make sense to waste too much time with it. But yeah, it doesn't hurt to be familiar with the historical developments, and once in a while these ancient people did actually have some great insights (: I recommend Russell's book too.

[Cunninglinguist]

On the mind-body problem, I think what Dennett says is interesting, but it ultimately means nothing when you consider it under the shadow of Kant, for example (who wrote prior to 1859). Mind-body dualism - that is, phenomena and material are predicated as two separate substances - is a metaphysically plausible position, and so is monism, i.e. either physicalism or phenominalism (even if the distinction between the two is purely semantic). And even if phenomena and material are mutually dependent on each other for their existences, it is still possible that they exist as different substances. It is just an intuitive assumption, given what modern science, especially quantum and theoretical physics, is tells us, that monism is "correct." But, likewise, duality was an intuitive assumption for Descartes to make during his time. Indeed, our mind tends to make hasty conclusions, ultimately unprovable propositions, because they do not challenge our assumptions about the universe nor require us to make any new ones. But what Kant (and, to a lesser extent, Hume) shows us, however, is that to make either metaphysical claim is stepping outside the boundaries and capacities of human reason since, given what we know and what we can know, both stances remain quite possible. It is, for example, like trying to prove that there are not gremlins inside your watch that, incidentally, magically transform into gears and such when you open it up. The case for the gremlins existence is possible, as is the case for their nonexistence. Of course, one is more intuitive than the other, but intuition does not amount to proof.

Dennett does not heed Kant, for whatever reason, and a number of other canonical philosophers, which is my problem with him and incidentally with a good portion of modern philosophy. The occupation of philosophy has usually been about as productive as the occupation of fumbling around in a dark cave, and in my experience modern philosophy is no exception. Most of us are no more enlightened, or somehow more intelligent than the philosophers of old. We have more books, sure, and more resources, sure, but few who captivate the public's eye seem to be reading those anyways, especially now with the number of amateurs who have access to wikipedia and who end up concerning themselves with, frankly, rather stupid issues and endorsing rather crass philosophers. These people think that they can move forward without reading Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hume, etc. but evidently don't even understand what constitutes a logical deduction.

[Freudian Monkey]

Is Richard Dawkins nowadays our primary source of philosophical understanding? I wasn't aware of that. I thought him to be more like a darwinian populist.

[Dodo25]

Is Richard Dawkins nowadays our primary source of philosophical understanding? I wasn't aware of that. I thought him to be more like a darwinian populist.

Where do we come from? Why are there people? What distinguishes us from (other) animals? What is human nature? Why is it the way it is? What is consciousness? Where does morality come from?

All these questions heavily rely on evolution. And Dawkins happens to be the person who best explains it (Gould is good too, but on some issus he's a bit confused himself). So unless people want to be stuck in the traditional past before 1859, a sound knowledge of evolution is the way to go if you wan't answers to the big questions.

[Theunderground]

Hume and wittgenstein are very interesting. But ultimately all roads belong to Nietzsche.
I recommend to start with 'beyond good and evil' by F.W.N.

[Pierre Menard]

Start with Richard Dawkins. (I'm serious actually, it's not a bad place to start. A sound knowledge of evolution is essential to any area of philosophy. If you know very little about it, start with 'The Blind Watchmaker'. If you already know the basics, read 'The Selfish Gene'.)




No...not really.

[blazeofglory]

I am a great fan of Bertrand Russel. He is indeed a great philosopher and I find most of his philosophical essays highly appealing. I have in fact started with his books. Of course he has prejudices, how does not have? He suffers limitations, in fact all do. But for many reasons I find him unbeatable. He has a distinct and clear voice; he has a precise message. He used simple English and mostly avoided difficult words. He is interesting considering his unsophisticated and flowing writings. He was a prolific writer and a very sharp critic of some eminent witters.
This is my recommendations only. I wonder how some of the posters have narrow mindsets. They proscribed Dawkins. That is their folly. Why should the\y become critical of this writer. Just because he does not fit in their frames does not mean that he is of inferior quality.

[Dodo25]

No...not really.

I guess it depends on your interpretation of 'philosophy'. If you think evidenceless metaphysical mumbo jumbo counts as philosophy, then yeah, you don't need scientific literacy for that (:

[Sano]

I think that a way one could study philosophy is very similar to the way one usually broadens their musical horizon - usually they start with something they like, then search for another similar bands/composers, and if they like them, start listening to their other music, and so on. Start with something you like (or maybe with something simple, like the Meditations on the First Philosophy by Descartes), and then start reading philosophers from which the author draws upon, later philosophers that agree with him, and/or philosophers which criticised the book. If you like any of those, read their other works, then repeat the process ad infinitum. :)


I guess it depends on your interpretation of 'philosophy'. If you think evidenceless metaphysical mumbo jumbo counts as philosophy, then yeah, you don't need scientific literacy for that (:

Hey, "evidenceless metaphysical mumbo jumbo" makes up half of philosophy, and even saying that metaphysics is mumbo jumpo is to make a metaphysical assertion, so... :P

Also, since when is scientific literacy necessary to read Kierkegaard or Sartre or, going back in time, the Socratic dialogues? Philosophy isn't science.

P.S.: Although I do view science as a very specific kind of doing philosophy. Most people are very surprised when I say that.

[Dodo25]

Good point about music.



Also, since when is scientific literacy necessary to read Kierkegaard or Sartre or, going back in time, the Socratic dialogues? Philosophy isn't science..

But that's not the important question. The important question is SHOULD we even read these people if they aren't even aware of certain scientific results?

As for Plato, the answer is yes, altough his lack of knowledge makes him tedious to read on many topics. As for Kierkegaard or Sartre, oh well, do we really need them? Time is precious. (:



P.S.: Although I do view science as a very specific kind of doing philosophy. Most people are very surprised when I say that.

Indeed, science is a branch of philosophy. The ancient Greeks had no distinction for natural science and philosophy.

[Sano]

But that's not the important question. The important question is SHOULD we even read these people if they aren't even aware of certain scientific results?

As for Plato, the answer is yes, altough his lack of knowledge makes him tedious to read on many topics. As for Kierkegaard or Sartre, oh well, do we really need them? Time is precious. (:

It depends, I think. If one feels that history is important, then the history of philoophy might also be. After all, the most studied philosophers nowadays are the ones considered to be the leading thinkers of their time; what they say often tells us something about our past as a whole. Also, one day I heard a philosophy teacher say that a philosopher is like a DJ because he often "remixes" already known ideas and styles in order to create something new. If that's true, then learning the most we can about past philosophers may broaden our views in order to be more creative.

As for time being precious, do we actually even need to read philosophy? After all, there are a lot of people which live very well without reading it. Also, I also think they (Kierkegaard and Sartre) are very important in that they both lived in times where the world as we know it was beginning to take shape, and they both dealt with how someone in such a weird, cold world could live. Thus I cannot say that they aren't important or irrelevant.

[Nietzsche]

Depends on what type of philosophy you are into.


If ethical dilemmas interest you, find the "Ethics" book from the "Teach Yourself" series.

If you want existentialism, check out Nietzsche ( atheist ), Kierkegaard (Christian), or Camu (he doesn't label himself existentalist though)


If the God debates interest you, check out Richard Dawkins... Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Philosophy is great. EDIT: For the theist side, studying St. Thomas Aquinas's arguments are a must. Also Carl Sagan's The Varieties of Scientific Experience are great if you want a non-confrontational discussion about religion from an agnostic, though the book isn't just about the god debates. Theist, Strong Atheist, or Weak Atheist/Agnostic, whatever, its a good read.

Look for the "pop culture and philosophy books" and see if any interest you. That was my intro to philosophy really.

I wouldn't start with the source texts of anything by an author I don't specifically mention though. Generally a book about an author or set of ideas is best to start out with. PM if you have any specific questions.

[country doctor]

the doc's suggestion? begin w/ plato...after a thorough digestion process, move on to nietzsche...

you can thank the doc later...

ROAR!

[mal4mac]

... do we actually even need to read philosophy? After all, there are a lot of people which live very well without reading it.

I think you only need to read philosophy if you are bothered by a problem with which philosophy might help. For instance, if you are a Christian beginning to doubt his beliefs Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" might be good reads. The latter confirmed me in my atheism when I was about 12, and I've been happy with my atheism ever since. Dawkins bolstered by lack of belief, and he's a bracing read. Now I don't feel a great need to read much else on the topic.

If you feel that life lacks meaning because you'll be dead in short order then "Confessions of a Philosopher" by Brian Magee is a good place to start. I don't, so I found Magee went on too much about this for me - but it's also a good general introduction to philosophy, so give it a go if you want an overview of *all* philosophy (not just moral philosophy...)

If you don't have any outstanding problems, then read for pleasure. Why do anything else? Some (very few) philosophers are fun to read (Nietzsche, Russell, ...), and I guess they provide a 'higher pleasure' than watching repeats of Fawlty Towers. But Dickens and Tolstoy, for me, provide more 'higher pleasure' than any philosopher, while competing with Fawlty Towers in the 'simple pleasure' stakes.

[Sano]

I think you only need to read philosophy if you are bothered by a problem with which philosophy might help. For instance, if you are a Christian beginning to doubt his beliefs Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" might be good reads. The latter confirmed me in my atheism when I was about 12, and I've been happy with my atheism ever since. Dawkins bolstered by lack of belief, and he's a bracing read. Now I don't feel a great need to read much else on the topic.

I don't think I agree with that. If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of. And there are quite a number of arguments for the existence of god, both old and new. Also, even being an agnostic myself, I find the notion that atheism (or agnosticism) involves "having no beliefs" very strange. Sure, you don't believe in one thing - god - but then if you think that the statement "god is real" is false, and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you'd have a whole lot of beliefs about astronomy, geology, biology, etc. How? Let me explain. Everywhere around the world, all of this was first explained by religion - then came science, and had to work very hard to establish new paradigms. It wouldn't make much sense to be an atheist in the modern sense of the world in, let's say, 1300AD - if you didn't believe in god, back then, you couldn't even explain why stars moved in the night sky. Well, of course things are different today - but, at least if you are a "Dawkinsonian" atheist, you'd still would have to express a belief that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world (and why, you'd even have to believe in "truth", and that itself is very problematic).


If you don't have any outstanding problems, then read for pleasure. Why do anything else? Some (very few) philosophers are fun to read (Nietzsche, Russell, ...), and I guess they provide a 'higher pleasure' than watching repeats of Fawlty Towers. But Dickens and Tolstoy, for me, provide more 'higher pleasure' than any philosopher, while competing with Fawlty Towers in the 'simple pleasure' stakes.

Well, I also find Descartes to be a rather good read, specially he doesn't use a lot of difficult terms like later philosophers. Also, the line between literature and philosophy is very hard to define, since more often than not there's a good amount of philosophy in most good books, and there are a lot of philosophers who wrote about literature or even simple wrote literature (like Sartre).

[Dodo25]

I don't think I agree with that. If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of. And there are quite a number of arguments for the existence of god, both old and new. Also, even being an agnostic myself, I find the notion that atheism (or agnosticism) involves "having no beliefs" very strange. Sure, you don't believe in one thing - god - but then if you think that the statement "god is real" is false, and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you'd have a whole lot of beliefs about astronomy, geology, biology, etc. How? Let me explain. Everywhere around the world, all of this was first explained by religion - then came science, and had to work very hard to establish new paradigms. It wouldn't make much sense to be an atheist in the modern sense of the world in, let's say, 1300AD - if you didn't believe in god, back then, you couldn't even explain why stars moved in the night sky. Well, of course things are different today - but, at least if you are a "Dawkinsonian" atheist, you'd still would have to express a belief that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world (and why, you'd even have to believe in "truth", and that itself is very problematic).

Not really the topic here, but anyway:

The case is crystal clear, no argument for god is even remotely convincing (so far, I'm willing to listen if anyone comes up with something new). And atheism really doesn't involve any beliefs, it's simply the absence of a belief in god. And as a side note, labeling yourself 'agnostic' doesn't really make sense, because a) mosts atheists are 'agnostic atheists', meaning they don't claim to have absolute knowledge, and b) by saying you're an agnostic, you make it sound like you think the possibility whether god exists is about 50%, so you're not even confident enough to take a position. Unless that actually is your view, in which case I'm of course wondering whether you think the possibility of Narnia being in someone's wardrobe is about 50% too for you, and if not, what difference there is between god and Narnia, if both aren't supported by evidence.

One doesn't need to be able to explain things god used to explain in order to not believe. Before Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species', Hume pointed out that 'God' isn't an explanation. Even children ask the question 'who created god', clearly noticing the problem. I'll never understand how people can be satisfied with god as an explanation.

And Plato noticed thousands of years ago that god isn't needed for morality either. If 'good' is what god says is good, then he might as well have said that torturing children is good. If god has other criteria for telling what is 'good', then so do we.

Darwin made it possible to be an 'intellectually fulfilled' atheist, but even before, believing in god just didn't make sense. It's better to admit 'I DONT KNOW' instead of just ascribing everything you don't know to something that is even more difficult to explain than the thing you were wondering about in the first place.

'Belief' in the scientific method? Yes. 'Faith' in the scientific method? Hell no. Belief can be based on evidence, faith isn't. The scientific record has an outstanding track record. Logic and rationality is needed for even having a discussion, so not accepting them would disqualify you anyway. And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is.

Since we're off topic, that's all I'm saying here, if you want a more detailed discussion I suggest you open a new thread and start with some good arguments.

[mal4mac]

I don't think I agree with that. If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of.
I went to a fairly trditional UK school with morning assembly and compulsory RE lessons, i had enogh arguments for!

In any case, Russell and Dawkins are both very good at stating the "for" argument before destroying it.

You can't read all books for and against, so when would you stop?

I stop when I lose interest, which, in this case, is when I don't have a problem. God is not a problem for me, I don't belive in him,and I'm happy with that. So instead of reading *another* boring book of religious philosophy I read Dickens or listen to Mozart ... life is better that way ... for me...



Well, I also find Descartes to be a rather good read, specially he doesn't use a lot of difficult terms like later philosophers. Also, the line between literature and philosophy is very hard to define, since more often than not there's a good amount of philosophy in most good books, and there are a lot of philosophers who wrote about literature or even simple wrote literature (like Sartre).

I've read Descartes, he's one of the easier ones to read (certainly!), but I much prefer reading Dickens, or Hardy, or Zola..., or a hundred other novelists.

I think Descartes' argument for God is daft and don't really care that much about the mind-body problem or Cartesian philosophy of physics (any more). His writing style certainly isn't enough to have me wanting to read more of him. Montaigne is far superior - I would re-read him...

Sartre's nausea is a good read, but Being & Nothingness is something I gave up on very quickly... I might read other novels by Sartre.

[ralfyman]

Maybe Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

[Cunninglinguist]

Not really the topic here, but anyway:

The case is crystal clear, no argument for god is even remotely convincing (so far, I'm willing to listen if anyone comes up with something new). And atheism really doesn't involve any beliefs, it's simply the absence of a belief in god. And as a side note, labeling yourself 'agnostic' doesn't really make sense, because a) mosts atheists are 'agnostic atheists', meaning they don't claim to have absolute knowledge, and b) by saying you're an agnostic, you make it sound like you think the possibility whether god exists is about 50%, so you're not even confident enough to take a position. Unless that actually is your view, in which case I'm of course wondering whether you think the possibility of Narnia being in someone's wardrobe is about 50% too for you, and if not, what difference there is between god and Narnia, if both aren't supported by evidence.

One doesn't need to be able to explain things god used to explain in order to not believe. Before Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species', Hume pointed out that 'God' isn't an explanation. Even children ask the question 'who created god', clearly noticing the problem. I'll never understand how people can be satisfied with god as an explanation.

And Plato noticed thousands of years ago that god isn't needed for morality either. If 'good' is what god says is good, then he might as well have said that torturing children is good. If god has other criteria for telling what is 'good', then so do we.

Darwin made it possible to be an 'intellectually fulfilled' atheist, but even before, believing in god just didn't make sense. It's better to admit 'I DONT KNOW' instead of just ascribing everything you don't know to something that is even more difficult to explain than the thing you were wondering about in the first place.

'Belief' in the scientific method? Yes. 'Faith' in the scientific method? Hell no. Belief can be based on evidence, faith isn't. The scientific record has an outstanding track record. Logic and rationality is needed for even having a discussion, so not accepting them would disqualify you anyway. And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is.

Since we're off topic, that's all I'm saying here, if you want a more detailed discussion I suggest you open a new thread and start with some good arguments.

I'm sorry, but there are quite a few things wrong with this post. For one you seem to be equivocating on the definition of "agnostic." You assume (in one place) that it can be boiled down to a belief in probability, likewise can atheism, and hence the concept of "agnostic atheist" would make no sense, since they would be mutually exclusive belief systems. Moreover, the whole idea of boiling it down to beliefs in probability is pathetically Dawkinsion and misleading. Most agnostics would not pretend they know the probability at all ... the fact that Dawkins thinks they do demonstrates how ignorant he really is ... and that he maintains this idea belies any claim of an "agnostic atheist" since, saying that you think there is, say, a 99% chance that god doesn't exist makes a quite positive and theoretical claim about the nature of God, and dismisses God on those accounts, instead of practical ones.

Science is wracked by the same absurdities as religion. The religious will maintain that God always was and will be. Some scientists will maintain the exact same thing about the nature of energy. Tell me how the claim latter make has more merit than the former? But in any case, who created energy? Who created time and space? Why does time travel forward? If there are a billion possible realities why this one? In the end, it is usually reconciled as a fundamental absurdity ... or the children are usually with a good licking.

Also, where is the evidence that your evidence is significant, and where is the evidence for that evidence? At some point your "belief" is reduced to "faith" in a certain (set of) article(s) of evidence. Moreover, the theist doesn't unequivocally dismiss logic or rationality ... Aquinas couldn't make his arguments otherwise. Science and the emphasis on evidence are not the necessary (logical) consequences of logicality. Logic is simply the negative form of the truth; in other words, if something follows the logical form we can accept its conclusion as following from its premises. But since there can never be a test for positive truth (for if there were, we'd have to subject it to itself, which would render its validity based on a circular, and thus untrustable, argument) we can never with any apodictic certainty know if our premises are true. But what makes men 'assume' science or religion is that these belief systems tend to make them happier.

And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is. ... where is the "truth" and argument in this? This sounds more like a dogma. For the reason above expounded, the range of things which have universal validity is fairly small. It applies to math, some logical principles, the existence of space and time, and perhaps some other rules (such as cause and effect) ... though some of these things are only "true" in so far as we need to presume them before we can proceed in our some of our inferential affairs, while sensibility itself does not necessitate them. A good example of this is cause and effect, where our capacity to experience does not exclude the metaphysical doctrine of preestablished harmony; however, we must deny the belief if we are to proceed in many of our (scientific) inferential affairs. This type of "truth" is contrasted with, for example, space and time, which must exist in order for experience to occur.

[Dodo25]

Cunninglinguist, I responded to your post in the following thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1035275#post1035275

Anyone interested is welcome to follow and join there.

[Ubercritter]

A lot of the users above seem to be trying to sell you a system of philosophy rather than just recommending general introductions so you can understand what philosophy is; Evangelists are to be found everywhere.

If you want a general introduction the best one that has been suggested so far is Bertrand Russell's “A History of Western philosophy” which is an expansive and well-written book (Russell is known for his concise and enjoyable writing style), though, it is heavily bias and seems to only deal with a few philosophical problems; it is expansive in the amount of philosophers but lacking in its amount of philosophical themes.

Instead, I would recommend “Philosophy: The Basics” by Nigel Warburton and it's companion piece “Philosophy: Basic Readings” which has a lot of good essays by well established philosophers and other academics. Oh, and try Russels “Problems of Philosophy”

I hope I have been helpful.

[Panglossian]

I would recommend The Waste Books by Georg Lichtenberg. His insightful aphorisms were admired by many great thinkers such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Feud, Wittgenstein, Tolstoy. Not serious philosophy by any means, but lots of wisdom and clever humour.

[YesNo]

Instead, I would recommend “Philosophy: The Basics” by Nigel Warburton and it's companion piece “Philosophy: Basic Readings” which has a lot of good essays by well established philosophers and other academics.
I was able to find Philosophy Bites by Nigel Warburton and David Edmonds in the library and it led me to their web site where you can listen to about 150 interviews of philosophers on various topics. This might be as good a place to start as any.

http://philosophybites.com/past_programmes.html

[mal4mac]

If you want a general introduction the best one that has been suggested so far is Bertrand Russell's “A History of Western philosophy” which is an expansive and well-written book (Russell is known for his concise and enjoyable writing style), though, it is heavily bias and seems to only deal with a few philosophical problems; it is expansive in the amount of philosophers but lacking in its amount of philosophical themes.


I disagree that Russell's “A History of Western philosophy” is the best suggestion so far. It was one of the first general introductions I read, and it was quite a fun read, but it has a lot wrong with it.

It's account of every philosopher is inadequate , flip and superficial. It *is* often funny, but do you want "it's funny" to be he main reason for reading an introduction to philosophy?

If you do read it you should also read Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher". Magee criticises HWP extensively. According to Magee, Russell's chapter on Schopenhauer is consistent with his never reading Schopenhauer's work. Magee has written the definitive work on Schopenhauer, so he should know!

You might argue that Magee has a bias towards transcendental idealism, although he is scrupulous in trying to provide a balanced view, so read Russell as well - though I recommend starting with "My Philosophical Development", a much more considered and interesting work that reviews his whole output.

Magee knew Russell personally and provides convincing accounts of Russell's views on his own work - Russell considered HWP a casual work, a potboiler quickly assembled for a 'lowest common denominator' adult education class at a time when he was struggling to a make a living.

[Ubercritter]

i'm not sure what you are trying to tell me here:

"I disagree that Russell's “A History of Western philosophy” is the best suggestion so far"

but you don't give me an alternative ALREADY Suggested, you just add one that you think is better.

"It's account of every philosopher is inadequate , flip and superficial. It *is* often funny, but do you want "it's funny" to be he main reason for reading an introduction to philosophy?"

i thought my criticism of it might be sufficient to show that i realize it's shortcmoings...maybe not. i would not have mentioned it at all had it not been mentioned already.


Instead of brushing of this work as a complete failure ( it has had it's fair share of detractors)it has some good in it, he tries to add social and historical elements as contexts which makes you understand things that would be somewhat vague if not in context, like plato's politics and the influence of arabic culture on western ideas - this is always overlooked in historys of western philosophy, even though if not for arabic culture we would not have the resources on aristotle that we do have etc...

I have never read the work you suggest or even heard of it, i will try it out. it sounds interesting.

"You might argue that Magee has a bias towards transcendental idealism"

if bias ever stopped me from reading a philosopher, i would never have read anything.


"Russell considered HWP a casual work, a potboiler quickly assembled for a 'lowest common denominator' adult education class at a time when he was struggling to a make a living."

Authors are never the best judges of their own work, if i could ever write that just as a 'potboiler' i would be quite pleased.

[mal4mac]

i'm not sure what you are trying to tell me here:

"I disagree that Russell's “A History of Western philosophy” is the best suggestion so far"

but you don't give me an alternative ALREADY Suggested, you just add one that you think is better.

I thought I had already suggested Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher"... might have been another thread :)

Magee's work is well worth reading, and not just as an introduction to philosophy. He was "Mr Philosophy" at the BBC before it dumbed down, and had his fingers in many pies - he was also a novelist, MP, and Oxford Academic.

Magee states that Russell didn't think HWP was his best work, so it's really Magee who spells out why both of them think it's a potboiler! He goes on to to consider all of Russell's works and recommends the better ones - I've read several of them and I think Magee's recommendations are spot on.

[prickly_pete]

Instead of just picking up a big name like Plato or Nietzsche right off the bat I'd go for a more introductory text that tries to encompass alot of general ideas to an inexperienced reader. I'm speaking here from my own experience at having started off with Plato and Aristotle and wondering just what the heck was going on the whole time. Reading philosophy is pretty pointless unless you have an idea of where the text is going. No point in even beginning philosophy until you have a general idea of, for instance, the difference between a 'metaphysical' claim and an 'epistomological' claim. Difference between a 'moral' claim and an 'ethical' claim. I don't know what route the other members of this board took, but no point in even picking up someone like Nietzsche without a basic understanding.

I would recommend you read a few Socratic dialogues and The Republic to start. Just read them as best you can - don't have to tear your hair out if you feel like its too much- and see what you come up with. Then get the "Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to The Republic" and read it in plain English. This would be a good starting point. Or, you could just skip the ancients and go straight to Descartes (There is a Routledge guidebook for the meditations as well) instead as he's really the starting point for modern philosophy. But he is answering Plato and Aristotle so those two would be a helpful background - though not essential I wouldn't think - to tackling Descartes.

[Panglossian]

Of course, the best thing to do is not get involved with philosophy and the philosophers in the first place. It's a labyrinth of language you will never escape from. Better to just think for yourself. And there's no right way to think. Free yourself now. Meditate instead. Explore nature. Breath fresh air. Contemplate the life of crow. Ponder what it's like to be a hedgehog! You'll learn more from silence than any philosophical jibber-jabber. Philosophy: the never-ending circle of what if.

[Ubercritter]

And there's no right way to think

Doesn't this suffer from the liars paradox?

There are effective ways of thinking.


Philosophy: the never-ending circle of what if.

Philosophy does not ask "what if?" it asks why and how. "What if?" is the job of Poets, Novelists and Politicians.

[Dodo25]

'The Republic' is certainly an important philosophical book. But I wouldn't adivse that people start there, it's tediously written and may well extinguish any developing interest in philosophy.

So yeah, better start with 'Critique of Pure Reason' by Kant, or 'Being and Time' by Heidegger. (I'm joking, DON'T!)

[YesNo]

I was introduced to Plato only recently when reading Raymond Moody's Life After Life.

At the end of Book 10 of the Republic there is a story of the soldier Er who had a near-death experience which I still find fascinating not only for the way Plato used this story to emphasize his ethics and theory of reincarnation, but also that such experiences were known to people who lived thousands of years ago.

So the way I would approach philosophy is to find an idea of interest and read what philosophers had to say about it.

[prickly_pete]

Unless you're interested in the history of ideas specifically I don't see why you'd even have to bother with Plato or Kant or Nietzsche or any of these people. What you're trying to do is join in the debate and be able to identify good reasoning from bad reasoning. Whether you can quote Nietzsche at some sweater party on the upper west side really isn't that important. Besides, the "liberal education" these kids claim to be getting in high school and college isn't very liberal or educated so you could probably just make up some quote anyways.

[mal4mac]

Unless you're interested in the history of ideas specifically I don't see why you'd even have to bother with Plato or Kant or Nietzsche or any of these people. What you're trying to do is join in the debate and be able to identify good reasoning from bad reasoning. Whether you can quote Nietzsche at some sweater party on the upper west side really isn't that important. Besides, the "liberal education" these kids claim to be getting in high school and college isn't very liberal or educated so you could probably just make up some quote anyways.

Many of the works of Plato and Nietzsche are part of the literary canon, so if you are looking for a good read you might consider reading them. Many philosophers (e.g., Kant) tend to get excluded form the literary canon, because, although containing great ideas, reading them is like chewing sawdust.

So certainly give Plato and Nietzsche a try - see what's in the library - but I wouldn't treat them with any greater respect than other authors - if you find them too painful to read, after trying them for few dozen pages, then give up... if you are reading them mainly to try and have a literary experience.

Personally, I wouldn't attempt these authors (again!) unless I was suffering from a problem that only these philosophers might be able to help me with with.

If you are just "interested in the history of ideas" there are dozens of overviews that are a much easier read. The great philosophers are for those suffering from great philosophical problems. If you are persistently tortured by the idea that the perceived world is not real then studying Kant or Plato is recommended.

Me, I just want a good read. But give me Dickens or Tolstoy before Plato or Nietzsche.

[prickly_pete]

Yeah, I suppose it depends on what you really want to get out of philosophy. The Platonic dialogues are mildly entertaining, but I don't think the new student of philosophy will get much out of them. It is dialectic after all and if you want to jump into the contemporary debates you need to know that just talking about things isn't going to get you very far. Plus I can't imagine how Plato is going to be much help if it isn't contextualized for the new reader. To the new reader The Republic is going to sound like just a lot of hot air about imaginary cities. And indeed thats exactly what alot of it amounts to...but that's not all it amounts to.