What is some readable philosophy?

[dratsab]

I managed to make it through the entire works of Plato, but Aristotle is driving me crazy. I need something good to read after I suffer through some of his works. I was thinking David Hume. Anyone got a good list or a few recommendations?

[Oedipus]

Try the novels of the existentalists (Nausea by Sartre, one of the Camus works)

Nietzsche and E.M. Cioran are both good stylists. Try "Human, All Too Human" or "Generalogy of Morals" for Nietzsche, and "On the Heights of Despair" by the latter

Bertrand Russell is well known for clear prose, but avoid the "History of Western Philosophy" as it is biased.

Schopenhauer is also quite enjoyable to read; his latter, less dense work (now packaged in a condensed form as Penguin Classics' "Essays and Aphorisms") or his major work "The World as Will and Representation" are both good starting points.

[Poetaster]

Well, the first half of 'History of Western Philosophy' is great, and I really recommend that. The second half is where the bias comes in, and some strange choices are made (Byron? Really, Russell? Byron?). It's worth getting, but as soon as you get into modern philosophy take everything with about a fist of salt.

[mal4mac]

Try the novels of the existentalists (Nausea by Sartre, one of the Camus works)

Nietzsche and E.M. Cioran are both good stylists. Try "Human, All Too Human" or "Generalogy of Morals" for Nietzsche, and "On the Heights of Despair" by the latter

Bertrand Russell is well known for clear prose, but avoid the "History of Western Philosophy" as it is biased.

Schopenhauer is also quite enjoyable to read; his latter, less dense work (now packaged in a condensed form as Penguin Classics' "Essays and Aphorisms") or his major work "The World as Will and Representation" are both good starting points.

I second this advice, but you might want to start out with introductions to these philosophers - try Bryan Magee's "Schopenhauer" and Kaufmann's "Nietzsche". It's worth getting the complete essays of Schopenhauer, so ignore the penguin and get the two volumes "Parerga and Paralipomena" from Oxford University Press. Try Anthony Kenny's "A New History of Western Philosophy" and/or Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher" to get an overview of the main figures & books in Western Philosophy. (Both discuss Russell's dated, biased, rushed work and may help you decide if you want to read it or not.)

[dratsab]

Thanks for the recommendations guys. I will put them all on my to-read list.

[dratsab]

Is Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes a decent read or is it too technical or boring?

[mal4mac]

I gave up on Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, maybe his Essay on Human Understanding would be less technical & boring!

I found the Stoics and Epicureans a lot more readable than Aristotle. I'd recommend: Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epicurus.

Descartes Meditations was easy enough, if a bit dry.

Pascals Pense's were a great disappointment ( a very few were great, but I found them mostly tedious...)

Montaigne was wonderful (Screech translation of complete essays is worth reading.)

J.S. Mill's Autobiography was superb.

[ladderandbucket]

I can recommend two more recent books:

Peter Singer - Practical Ethics
Daniel Dennett - Consciousness Explained


Is Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes a decent read or is it too technical or boring?

I've read parts of Leviathan and they were pretty good but I wouldn't fancy reading the whole thing. Unless you are really into 17th century intellectual history I think it will be a lot of hard work.


I gave up on Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, maybe his Essay on Human Understanding would be less technical & boring!

I haven't read the Treatise, but I believe a lot of people found it heavygoing. The Enquiry into Human Understanding is basically a condensed rewrite for a general audience. I can't rate it highly enough. I think Hume is one of the great prose stylists of philosophy and the Enquiry is one of my favourite books. It deals with some quite difficult and incredibly important ideas, but Hume always does his best to make it a pleasant experience to follow along with his thinking. It's quite a shock when you realise that this humble and personable character is cheerfully destroying the entire history of metaphysics and theology.
His Dialogues on Natural Religion is another good one. Don't be fooled into thinking it is just a proto-Dawkins polemic. Hume is a true sceptic and I actually felt less sure of my atheism after having read it.

[millwallbill]

I managed to make it through the entire works of Plato, but Aristotle is driving me crazy. I need something good to read after I suffer through some of his works. I was thinking David Hume. Anyone got a good list or a few recommendations?
Hume`s Essays are quite good if you can get hold of a copy.

[Urban Sundog]

I recommend the Philosophy and Popular Culture series. I learned more about Plato from a Greek philosopher writing about Soccer than I ever did in class. Pick the aspect of culture you like best and there's probably an entry on it. The books are collections of 15 to 20 essays, relating the popular culture theme to some philosophical viewpoint. There's usually about 4 that are useless, 10 or so that don't hurt you to read, a few more that are actually good, and if you're lucky 2 or maybe even 3 that are brilliant. Where else would you learn Superman is a hero because he has transcended Maslow's Pyramid of Needs?

[YesNo]

Philosophy is readable if it is interesting. It is interesting if it helps clarify issues that one finds puzzling. So, you need questions, puzzles, prior to reading philosophy.

My puzzles include whether materialism is any longer possible after quantum physics and to what extent is consciousness the fundamental aspect of reality. So, I read philosophy that helps clarify those issues.

If you have similar questions, I would recommend the chapter on panpsychism in Thomas Nagel's "Mortal Questions".

[mal4mac]

My puzzles include whether materialism is any longer possible after quantum physics and to what extent is consciousness the fundamental aspect of reality. So, I read philosophy that helps clarify those issues.



An infuriating thing about philosophy, though, is that you are left with no answers about such fundamental questions, at the end of the day. I've been looking into the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (again!) and some leading physicists think the wave function is physically real (i.e., material) and others think it is not. Flip a coin! The question of consciousness being a fundamental part of reality is another area where there is no agreement. I find it gets rather boring trying to keep up with the latest ideas on such issues - which leads to a meta-philosophical question - should one read philosophy at all? I get much more pleasure from Wodehouse or Dickens, and similar authors, than philosophers. I think one turns to philosophy if one is itching for an answer to a question, but scratching that itch seldom stops the itch! The itch, and the desire for answers, (hopefully) just go away after a while.

[YesNo]

An infuriating thing about philosophy, though, is that you are left with no answers about such fundamental questions, at the end of the day. I've been looking into the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (again!) and some leading physicists think the wave function is physically real (i.e., material) and others think it is not. Flip a coin! The question of consciousness being a fundamental part of reality is another area where there is no agreement. I find it gets rather boring trying to keep up with the latest ideas on such issues - which leads to a meta-philosophical question - should one read philosophy at all? I get much more pleasure from Wodehouse or Dickens, and similar authors, than philosophers. I think one turns to philosophy if one is itching for an answer to a question, but scratching that itch seldom stops the itch! The itch, and the desire for answers, (hopefully) just go away after a while.

The problem is that we are here, breathing, conscious and I, at least, from time to time would like to know what people have already thought about the questions that I have. There is no need to start from scratch. But my attention span is limited as well.

Regarding Copenhagen, and the many other interpretations of quantum physics, they all seem to be ways to avoid consciousness in the measurement problem. The reason Copenhagen is most popular is that it simply ignores the problem and lets physicists get on doing physics. Bohm's interpretation would seem to be one that implies a physically real wave as you mentioned. The point is there needs to be something more going on here, but it probably can't be at the quantum level. That is, there is more determining us than quantum physics.

I started reading Stephen Priests's "Theories of the Mind" yesterday. I normally don't feel any need to finish a philosophy book. I read until I think I understand the basic idea and then move on. I'm hoping to find a summary of the various ways people have discussed the relation between the mind and the body.

[YesNo]

I think the goal of philosophy is to help understand by clarifing the problems we have. Science adds empirical evidence which can help falsify some philosophical perspectives and tentatively support others leading to a more sophisticated philosophy.

Stephen Priest's text, "Theories of the Mind", seems very readable. Although I don't agree with his own theory of the mind, I like the fact that it is an empirical theory which can be falsified by scientific evidence.

[Vota]

Plato
Montaigne
Nietzsche

Highly readable, enjoyable, and stimulating.

[Libro]

I managed to make it through the entire works of Plato, but Aristotle is driving me crazy. I need something good to read after I suffer through some of his works. I was thinking David Hume. Anyone got a good list or a few recommendations?

Aristotle for many years was my nemesis simply because he was contraPlato. You have to remember that most of Aristotle' works are 'lecture notes' and were not actually written by him thus the dryness of the man - yet Aquinas would aspire to create the whole of Catholicism through these writings - the Poetics and the Rhetoric are two good places to start (and perhaps end) with Aristotle but the Politics is also worthwile - if you started with the Categories you will surely lose your mind as the logic of Aristotle is dense and all-encompassing to a fault. I think Spinoza is a great 'read' and avoid Hegel and Kant for the time being - also look for some good philosophical commnetaries and Copleston's brilliant History is certainly worth investigating. Many primary sources are unpenetrable initially so you need a good guide to get you over the metaphysical humps as it were...there are great sites online that will lead you to coursework and books and essays that will yield up useful and informative delights of the Queen of the Sciences.

[amygdala]

Since nobody has mentioned it yet I'd like to recommend Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will. A wonderful piece on the philosophy of mind, with great clarity.

[mal4mac]

Gauss referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences". Philosophy is more the court jester :)

[FrankMarcopolos]

Anthem by Ayn Rand is a quick, fun read, albeit a fictional work.

[russellb]

Not Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' which I'm reading at the moment but his 'Philosophy of History' which I'm also reading is far more accessible

[Michael T]

Whilst not perfect, and somewhat dated, I would still heartily recommend Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy to anyone new to Philosophy. Also, Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy is a must.

[Michael T]

Reading and doing philosophy won't give you many answers. However, it will allow you to develop a strong grounding in your own arguments, and an acute ability to see through the myriad of weak arguments and propositions that you come across as you make your way through life. Not such a bad thing really! In truth, if you've read and comprehended the works of Plato, then you are probably halfway there already!

[Pike Bishop]

The most beautiful philosophical texts I have read are:

The Sickness Unto Death by Kierkegaard
I and Thou by Martin Buber
The Gift of Death by Jacques Derrida
The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky
The Moviegoer by Walker Percy
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem
Poetry, Language, and Thought by Martin Heidegger
The Pleasure of the Text by Roland Barthes.

[Levinas]

You would be surprised how readable Schopenhauer is. Try Vol 1 of The World as Will and Representation.

[YesNo]

Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum's "Causation: A Very Short Introduction" is worth reading not simply because it is short, but because it is so clear.

And you might find yourself realizing that what you believed about causation has a cultural ground. It can most likely be traced back to David Hume and it is likely not the best explanation that is currently available. At least that is what happened to me.

[Trevor Gower]

It's often said that Plato and Nietzsche are the two best writers out of the major philosophers. Although Kaufmann is the overall standard in the translation of the latter, I've been extremely impressed with how well Ludovicci's work rolls of the tongue when said aloud.

Emerson's essays, if considered as philosophical works, should easily rank among the best-written of all time. They are also far more accessible than Nietzsche, whom they helped inspire. If you are considering Nietzsche, but aren't yet familiar with him, I'd recommend reading Self-Reliance, Power, Fate, Nature, and Intellect out of the essays, and probably the Harvard Divinity Address as well. Along with that, I'd suggest two of Oscar Wilde's essays, The Art of Lying and The Critic as Artist, which are likewise accessible, stylish, and a great introduction to a viewpoint similar to Nietzsche's notions of lying, masks, and the aesthetic.

If you favor a slightly more Eastern approach, Lao Tzu's Tao te Ching is a great classic. I found Alan Watt's to be an excellent and straightforward introduction, as a sort of philosophical crash course in comparative theology. After these, European existentialists like Heidegger and Buber become more readable.

[Trevor Gower]

Try the novels of the existentalists (Nausea by Sartre, one of the Camus works)

Nietzsche and E.M. Cioran are both good stylists. Try "Human, All Too Human" or "Generalogy of Morals" for Nietzsche, and "On the Heights of Despair" by the latter


For the last two days I've been trying to recall a specific quote, but couldn't quite put together enough to find it again and the name kept slipping my mind - Emil Cioran:

"Thinking should be like musical meditation. Has any philosopher pursued a thought to its limits the way Bach or Beethoven develop and exhaust a musical theme? Even after having read the most profound thinkers, one still feels the need to begin anew. Only music gives definitive answers."

[YesNo]

For the last two days I've been trying to recall a specific quote, but couldn't quite put together enough to find it again and the name kept slipping my mind - Emil Cioran:

"Thinking should be like musical meditation. Has any philosopher pursued a thought to its limits the way Bach or Beethoven develop and exhaust a musical theme? Even after having read the most profound thinkers, one still feels the need to begin anew. Only music gives definitive answers."

What Cioran wrote doesn't make any sense. What "definitive" answers does music give? What does that even mean?

[Trevor Gower]

What Cioran wrote doesn't make any sense. What "definitive" answers does music give? What does that even mean?

You know the feeling when a great piece of music is settling to its close? How complete it can be? Contrast that sensation to finishing a great philosophical passage. The first three sentences focus on this, and are the part that I admire most.

In both cases one feels enlivened and enriched, but there is a feeling of...hunger or searching for more after coming upon a revelation in philosophy, "the need to begin anew" as Cioran puts it. I don't think this is wholly undesirable, in fact, but it is interesting to note. This is, for me, particularly true in the cases of attempts to write out systems of philosophy focusing on causality, no doubt due to language restrictions which prevent us from ever quite reaching the bottom.

I believe that this is something that can be overcome with writing style, if only obliquely. Description, as indicated by Wittgenstein, or the sudden inspiration of poetry is a way of getting at things that causality can't, which also explains a lot of the style of Zen teaching. Aphorisms and poetry with a philosophical bent sometimes achieves that feeling of wholeness, but usually at the expense of either the completeness or accuracy which a whole system of philosophy aims for.

Of course, it's unfair to contrast a fugue with philosophy, even a five part fugue is infinitely simpler than a complete and coherent philosophical system would be. The "definitive answers" bit is also something that I reject. People can talk of turning to music or to nature for answers, but if pressed as to what they mean by it, they almost always end up incoherent. Nonetheless, trying to play out a philosophical thought through poetry and aphorism, assembled systematically like parts of a fugue, strikes me very well, though nobody has managed to do it yet with their own original content.

EDIT: I should add, in hindsight, that I do understand what they mean by "finding answers" in something like music. It derives from the Romantic tradition of knowledge and truth in self-experience, particularly in inspired moments, which can occur, for an individual, when relating to music or, in Wordsworth's case, nature. It's inaccurate to say this is superior to philosophy, in that the latter is dealing with questions framed in language and aren't totally, perhaps not even roughly, comparable. Such questions, and their answers, occur only through the minds of people. The Buddhist and Taoist traditions are better at explicitly handling this differentiation with non-language.

[YesNo]

I agree that music and meditation can be satisfying, perhaps more so than philosophy. If the music is good, I wouldn't mind hearing it again and Buddhists repeat their meditations. In both of these activities one "feels the need to begin anew" as well. The satisfaction comes from the acts themselves, like walking through a park or breathing.

Music doesn't pose questions it pretends to answer or even clarify the meanings of. It hasn't reached the level of language where meanings are associated with sounds. However, that one can have pleasurable sounds without words is quite amazing. Try to imagine an artificial intelligent machine really experiencing enjoyment from listening to music. I can't imagine it.

[Trevor Gower]

The question of desire for repetition also struck me. I would say that repetition is not the same as beginning anew, at least in the sense that Cioran meant. There is a certain sense of completeness, to the end of a great piece of music, the feeling that it could be no other way. We don't try to force the piece to go on playing in new ways in our head - except perhaps if you have real musical talent.

By contrast, many great thoughts in philosophy kick off, with excitement and enthusiasm, a rush to test the idea, play it out in new ways, see how we could rephrase it, put it up against other great thoughts, and on and on. This, I believe, is what Cioran means, and it is also where I believe that style can step in. After reading something that is perfectly phrased, particularly poetry, I experience a great contentment that matches even music. While much good poetry often leads me to that same rush, a great piece can have a feeling of completeness, wholeness. I may re-read the piece immediately, but I don't try to begin something anew off of it. It stands as it is, to be experienced.

I agree entirely with everything you wrote about music. Except that there does seem to be certain mood associations with certain notes, such as a sensation of dread associated with low notes. There must be something physiological to the matter, if some of the things I've read about are true, but that still is not a meaning, much less a question. Anything like a question is put together in the mind. To quote one of the Zen patriarchs, "It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves."

[YesNo]

I think we agree about everything except our different assessments of Cioran. I'll have to see if I can find something by him. Do you have any recommendations?

[Trevor Gower]

I agree that we agree on pretty much all points so far, with the one exception. I'm not even too certain as to my opinion of Cioran yet.

So far I've kept my reading of him to collected aphorisms and quotes, rather than whole works; I am prejudiced against Paris intellectuals, their pessimism, insularity, and frequent pretentiousness. Doubtless I'll open up more over time, as I find a better use and place for them, but I only take small doses meanwhile for a healthier digestion. Post-war existentialism generally provides interesting psychological insights and good turns of phrase but the whole tone, emphasized by the style of writing, is entirely too pessimistic, self-defeating.

Cioran's most discussed works are On the Heights of Despair, A Short History of Decay, The Temptation to Exist, and The Problem with Being Born. The first on the list is also his first work and the second, which I may start with, broke him into the Paris scene and is considered particularly stylized.

[Blanchot]

I agree with most people when they suggest Nietzsche and Plato because they are straight forward. I'd also say Hume and Machiavelli.