Where should I begin?

[Hunger Artist]

I would like nothing more than to venture into philosophy, however it is difficult knowing where to begin Pre-Socratic, The age of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, or the Existential ideals of society from the 19th century onward? So many ideals, where would you recommend I begin?

[cyberbob]

you could go to the library and go to the philosophy section and look at some of the books and check out the one that looks the best. that's what i do.

[cafolini]

Begin with what you have to say about the world you live in today. Don't confuse the history of philosophy with your philosophy.

[Katie Scarlett]

Begin at the beginning. Each philosopher has been influenced by what came before. Good luck!

[mal4mac]

Begin with the problems you have. What are you *really* bothered about? Are you comfortable in your atheism but worried about death? Or about how to live everyday life? If so, perhaps read Epicurus, the Stoics - maybe start with Pierre Hadot "What is Ancient Philosophy"? Are you troubled by 'the God delusion'. If so, start with Dawkins.

If you *really* just want a good overview of *everything* then try Kenny "A New History of Western Philosophy". I've just finished reading this. I felt I needed to 'fill in some blanks', between philosophers I have read.

The problem with this 'completist' approach, was, I found, that I ended up ploughing through lots of stuff I wasn't that interested in... like Plato's Theory of Forms, Stoic logic and the 'finer points' of Medieval Theology. It got better when I allowed myself to skip :)

[dark desire]

Do not go too far in the past. The language there will kill you. In fact the language of philosophy will always be difficult.

I started with Existentialism and I found it to be a good starting point. Existentialism although a singular name, encompasses a variety of views of the world. Central to all existential philosophers is the question - what is the meaning of human existence - and life in the absence of an answer to this question. If you can read and understand bits of philosophy, the introduction to Existentialism on the wikipedia is good.

If you want a relatively simple holistic start, Sophie's World can be a good starting point although I did not find the book sophisticated or deep enough.

Whatever you pick, make sure of two things - force yourself to complete whatever you start reading and constantly keep developing your own perspective about all things.

Good luck! Have fun!

[Des Essientes]

Begin with Thales but spend most of your intitial investigation on Parmenides. Philosophy really starts with the latter.

[Jack of Hearts]

Begin with Thales but spend most of your intitial investigation on Parmenides. Philosophy really starts with the latter.

lol And when you find anything outside of the doxograph that Thales actually wrote, do let us know.

Clearly it makes sense to start with a monist and then quickly move onto a philosopher who said change is an illusion. On the bright side, at least we have extant fragments of his work, as opposed to a few sentences here and there mentioned in reference by other people.

If you're interested in having a conversation in Western philosophy you can do so by reading its foundations. That means Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, a small sampling of empiricists/rationalists before 1750, Hume and Kant. That's quite a hefty load as it is, and if you read very much beyond that you're officially in scholarship.







J

[Silas Thorne]

Remember philosophy isn't only Western philosophy. Think broadly and consider various perspectives.

[Des Essientes]

Hey Jack, Parmenides is the first Western thinker to clearly set out the parameters of the metaphysics of Being and that is why I recommended the threadstarter start with him. If you want to confuse him with his follower Zeno, who perverted his doctrine to disallow the possibility of change, then you are free to do so. Everyone is free to be a fool and start their post with "lol" like a childish idiot.

[Jack of Hearts]

You're right. Wouldn't want to be ungracious, would we?

Let's get the OP started. Here are the extant fragments of Parmenides' work (debated) (http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm). Go nuts.







J

[IntravenousJava]

I would not presume to discredit any of the fine suggestions offered here, but I would offer this additional perspective. Although it probably does matter whom you read and in what order, what matters more is your approach to the reading of any philosophy. You will gain so much more from participation in the Great Dialogue of philosophers through the ages if you make a concerted effort to limit your expectations and preconceived notions at the outset (easier said than done, I know).

Try on each new philosopher or school of thought as you would a summer coat, then discard it or add it to your wardrobe according to how it ultimately fits. Expect to find few if any satisfying answers and more questions than you may have begun with. The true joy of philosophy consists more in its process than in its products (which are few). You may even find, and I hope you do, that you have something of your own to contribute in the end.

Good luck!

[mal4mac]

Do not go too far in the past. The language there will kill you. In fact the language of philosophy will always be difficult.

I started with Existentialism ...

In general, I don't think old writers are more difficult Seneca is very easy to read, and Plato fairly easy. They show that the language of philosophy need not always be difficult. Heidegger is far more likely to kill you! Then again, Aristotle is very hard, and Pierre Hadot is very easy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Rather than reading one author's overview of philosophy like Jack of Hearts suggests (not that that would be a bad route to take), you should also consider an anthology like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Philosophy-Anthology-Blackwell-Anthologies/dp/1405124784/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=126LT853LIKOX&coliid=I11HUQJ5GF7CIE

I just ordered a used copy, myself. If I'm going to delve into philosophy, I'd rather read the philosophers themselves rather than one person's take on them.

[Jack of Hearts]

Rather than reading one author's overview of philosophy like Jack of Hearts suggests (not that that would be a bad route to take), you should also consider an anthology like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Philosophy-Anthology-Blackwell-Anthologies/dp/1405124784/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=126LT853LIKOX&coliid=I11HUQJ5GF7CIE

I just ordered a used copy, myself. If I'm going to delve into philosophy, I'd rather read the philosophers themselves rather than one person's take on them.

There's some sort of miscommunication here. This reader never suggested that anyone should read an 'overview of philosophy' and finds that idea highly repulsive. In fact, he suggested the OP read the philosophers themselves. This is a nitpicky response, but this reader is intellectually cautious in this regard, call it a quirk.

Maybe you were confused because this reader mentioned the doxographical tradition. Some philosophers' work we don't have- we have fragments, citations and references from other historical figures and we piece together what we can in retrospect.

Definitely read the philosophers themselves and then ask questions/find answers if you're going to do this at all.







J

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sorry about that, Jack. That was mal4mac who mentioned the Kenny book. My mistake.

[Jack of Hearts]

All good. Hopefully you didn't find that annoying/nitpicky. Personal quirk.






J

[mal4mac]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree. The profession has found better ways to explain Newton's ideas. Some works (Plato, Nietzsche...) might be looked upon as art objects, like great novels, that should be read for their aesthetic impact. But can you make that argument for most philosophical works? Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

[MarilynMonroe]

LOL @ mal4mac - ignorant pig. A lazy, incurious, philistine mind. Thank god intelligent people aren't like you - insufferably certain. You belong here. lol

[/dev/null]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree.

My academic background is in physics and no one expects students to do only what they are told to do.


Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

Bloom not including something in his cannon doesn't mean it isn't a classic. That something isn't a classic doesn't mean it isn't a must read, let alone worth reading. That something isn't good literature doesn't mean it isn't good philosophical essays. There's plenty of reason for reading any of the named philosophers.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree. The profession has found better ways to explain Newton's ideas. Some works (Plato, Nietzsche...) might be looked upon as art objects, like great novels, that should be read for their aesthetic impact. But can you make that argument for most philosophical works? Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

Well, aside from actually experiencing them as they were intended by the original author, as you already suggested, I guess my other main reason is that I don't necessarily trust just one person to tell me how they interpreted a person's thoughts, especially when it comes to something as ambiguous as philosophy. I don't know what agenda they might have. I'd rather read and make up my own mind.

[Theunderground]

Early Buber and especially Levinas.