Hello,
I am new to this forum, as well as philosophy.
Who would you guys recommend would be a good philosopher to start off with for someone who is just now taking an interest in philosophy? Thanks :-)
Printable View
Hello,
I am new to this forum, as well as philosophy.
Who would you guys recommend would be a good philosopher to start off with for someone who is just now taking an interest in philosophy? Thanks :-)
Philosophy and Social Hope - Richard Rorty
The Chinese philosopher Mengzi. Read his 'Fish and Bearpaw' passage and think carefully about it.
Well, that really depends...There are so many schools of philosophy out there and such a diverse selection of philosophers. Which school are you interested in?
Personally, my favorite philosopher is Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't know that he's generally a good place to start, though.
Maybe Aristotle and Plato? But then agian, Aristotle can be very dry, and you are bound to reencounter their ideas again and again in philosophy, whether you have read them or not.
I too started out with Nietzsche, but probably isn't the best place to start. Might I suggest Desartes or Hume? One of the most basic ideas of philosophy is that dichotemy between empiricism and rationalism.
I started with Nietzsche like almost everyone here, but i think i'd be a good idea to head down to the basics and the first early philosophers (and not just the greeks).
You could try Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' and also his 'The Problems of Philosophy'
Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? by Harold Bloom
Of course we can recommend so many philosophers there is no dearth of philosophers and their works and what is really scarce is wisdom.
Lately I am into J Krishnamurti. I like him for his simplicity and non-arrogance.
He was a man of immense humility. I am never tired of reading him and he is a fountainhead of inspiration, and he never lied as the rest of spiritualists and philosophers speak of things they too are no convinced of.
He did not follow any particular religions or philosophies, and he always questioned and indeed that was his style to question everything and he was of the opinion that the answer lies in the question.
Read him and share your ideas.
I'd second the nomination of Bertrand Russell. Whether you read his History of Western Philosophy or his other works he is very accessible.
Accessible doesn't necessarily mean that it's very good. As Bryan Magee points out in his better introduction to philosophy ("Confessions..."), Russell cobbled this together quickly out of some adult education material. Russell is certainly worth reading, but I'd recommend "My Philosophical Development".Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
So, everyone started with Nietzsche, but no one thinks that Nietzsche's good to start with. Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
It's hard to argue with an anthology or something like that, most individual philosophers have books that might end up pretty difficult to understand without some background. So Russell's History might be a good one, though I haven't read it.
That being said, reading Plato (the Socrates stuff) might work OK. It doesn't require too much familiarity with any background terminology or debate (though there might be a few crucial Greek words to contemplate), and it is generally in the form of a conversation involving non-philosophers (or poorly skilled ones) being "taken to school" by Socrates.
I have a degree in Philosophy, for what it's worth, and like others, I think that it will depend on your aims.
Know that there are many different philosophical traditions, such that they don't seem to be the same thing at all. Nietzsche will appeal more to a younger, angst-ridden audience and isn't a hardcore rational thought guy.
So here are some areas of philosophy:
-Ancient philosophy. Yes, it all comes from this, but on the other hand, ancient philosophers have some unique concerns. If it is western philosophy that you are interested in reading, I recommend that you start with Plato, of course. The earlier dialogues are accessible (i.e., Ion, Euthyphro), the later ones are much more dense and hardcore, less fun but more substantial.
-Modern Philosophy: Descartes' Meditations are a perfect start. Great stuff, and it walks you through the way in which much philosophical thinking can get its start. Highly recommended.
-Continental Philosophy: After Kant, philosophy sort of "splits" into "analytic" and "continental" camps. Nietzsche is considered a continental.
-Analytic. Russell's Problems of Philosophy is a good start here. Also, Roger Scruton's Modern Philosophy. These books will introduce you to the sort of problems philosophers spend their time working on...philosophy is a field which works to solve particular problems; it isn't "literature."
As for Eastern stuff, I don't know about that. If you are interested in that tradition, I can't comment b/c I am unfamiliar with it. But be aware that it is as different tradition, and reading Buddhist texts isn't going to help so much with western epistemology; they aren't in a conversation with each other.
Harold Bloom mentions several philosophical works in his "Western Canon" and suggests that they *are* literature. Why can't a work of philosophy be literature as well? Surely there is no reason why a work of philosophy can't be well written and have aesthetic value? Of course. most aren't well written :), but some are. Plato seems to be the most admired guy who fits into both camps. It's certainly worth reading his complete dialogues, only a few are really tough going.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Check out this link:
http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/lof...p/t101717.html
Series of interviews in which Bryan Magee talks to other philosophers.
Well, I didn't exactly say that no philosophical text can be a work of literature. My point is that philosophy is a field on inquiry, just like psychology or physics, but which studies its own particular things. Sure, many philosophical texts are great works of literature, like most of Plato, or Cicero, or Descartes' Meditations. Many of Plato's works actually have a narrative; there are characters and places and so on. But if you approach them only as literature then your experience will be entirely different than if you wish to read them philosophically. In fact, if you are only going to read them as literature, then it won't matter where you start, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
But if you want to understand philosophy as philosophy, you need to set aside the idea of evaluating texts on aesthetic criteria, and not approach it as you would a novel for other literature.
This is not my definition of literature, and I don't think it's the definition offered by many literary critics. Combining the views some of my favourites (Hariold Bloom, IA Richards, John Carey, Arnold Bennett...) I consider that the greatest literature should produce the greatest pleasure (which might involve some 'worthwhile' pain.)Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
I don't think you can approach a text 'as literature' or 'as philosophy', you can only approach it 'as yourself'.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
I disagree. Ultimately, for me, any text must lead to pleasure. Of course the way to pleasure is very different in reading Treasure Island or Kant's critiques. The former is a pure pleasure of being carried along on a great adventure, and meeting some innocent & not-so innocent characters. There is liitle pain (most of it in working out or looking up details of ship structure...)Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
In Kant there is a world of pain because he is so difficult & boring to read, and the pleasure only comes (if at all!) from confirming some view that you already knew from a far more readable secondary account. In the end, having studied his first critique to the bitter end, I don't think the extreme pain was worth the slight pleasure (the kind of pleasure you get when you drop the 30 kilo backpack...)
Maybe it's my limitations, of course, maybe I'm not up to reading Kant. But the arbiters of literary taste, the arbiters of which texts actually produce the greatest pleasure, tend not to rate Kant highly.
You can disagree all you want but you really are wrong, sorry. Philosophy isn't a matter of taste. It is a field of inquiry, not unlike physics. You can't rate an article published in a physics journal in the same way you would a poem; the two are completely different beasts. In the same way, if you are reading Philosophy only for "pleasure" then you're missing the point. You need to engage the text, evaluate and understand the arguments being made and so on. The goals and methods of writing Philosophy vs. writing a novel are nothing alike.
This whole "arbiters of taste" thing doesn't even make sense.
May I recommend Thomas Nagel's 100-or-so-page little gem "What does it all mean? - A very short introduction to Philosophy"? I think it's a great summary of several major philosophical pursuits (theory of knowledge, the problem of other minds, linguistics, free will, ethics) and a wonderful starting point for anyone interested in the study.
After such an appetizer, one could choose from a variety of main courses depending on what feels more relevant (or just more interesting) to them.
If morality is your thing, Regan's Matters of Life and Death comes to mind when trying to think of a deep text dealing with real issues that is also a page turner.
And if you're sometimes wondering about perception, belief and motives, Alan Millar's Understanding People: Normativity and Rationalizing Explanation is elegantly written and thorough. Alan's also a great guy, but that's beside the point :)
Much as I love reading Descartes, Plato, Aristotle and Russell, I wouldn't start someone off with the classics. I worry that it will mislead them to think that Philosophy is old-fashioned and irrelevant; instead, after they've ingested a couple of modern texts such as the ones I mentioned above and they've started challenging stuff, I would give them Forbes' Modern Logic for Christmas, and then invite them to play "spot the bull****" in the manifesto of their favourite political party.
Best regards to all,
Chris
There are many of these very short introductions to philosophy available, from several philosophers. I haven't read Nagel's, it might be alright, but I've found much of his more technical works very unfulfilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
Who? Never heard of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
I think it's best to start with the most highly recommended philosophers in both the literary & philosophical canons. Then you will get to read the best philosophers, according to the best philosophers, and the most readable philosophers, according to experts on literature.
Bryan Magee's "Confessions" will tell you who is in the philosophical canon, and Harold Bloom's "The Western Canon" and "Genius" will tell you who is in the literary canon.
This, basically, means starting with Plato! Athough Bloom will tell you Homer is more profound, and even Magee says that writers like Tolstoy 'go deeper'.
Most modern philosophy texts I've encountered would never make it anywhere near the literary canon, and will probably never be in the philosophical canon. They are generally incredibly badly written - nit picking, concentrate on inessentials, produced by non-entities, written to a trendy agenda... Magee's "Confessions..." has a lot to say about this.
Great link!Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
Magee in his "Confessions..." not only summarises the whole of Western philosophy but gives a highly amusing overview of his life in the media world. This really highlighted for him how small minded most modern philosophers are. When these programmes were being made, the talk in the philosophy common rooms was all about who would get on to the telly. They would become very unhappy if they didn't make it, and one of thei colleagues did. Like a bunch of X-factor wannabes.
Mal, you haven't heard of those people because you aren't really engaging philosophy as philosophy. You're stuck on Bloom and others and this idea of the "Western canon," which simply doesn't apply to philosophy. Are there any groundbreaking Physics books in the canon? Probably not. Any books in Bloom's canon are just ones which are so influential or important that he thinks everyone should read them. They have a reach beyond their intended audience.
Honestly, I haven't been visiting these forums long, and I'm already tired of your repetitive parroting of Bloom.
I've heard of all of Doc's suggestions, and his recommendation of Nagel is a good one. Nagel is a pretty accessible modern philosopher who has written many very important papers, such as "What is it like to be a bat?"
Thank you so much for the answers :-) Very appreciated.
I am not sure which type of philosophy to get into at first either. Unfortunately I am one of those people that never really was into this stuff growing up and was too busy being immature and having fun. Now I feel more mellowed out and am really wanting to read and learn.
How do you know how I'm engaging it?Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
Bloom doesn't have one physics book on his list. Another reason I like him :) I haven't encountered a physics writer with much aesthetic merit, so again he gets it right. I have two physics degrees and never had a 'ground breaking' physics book recommended as a main course textbook! Having dipped into Newton's Principia and other 'ground breaking' works I can see why. I read that Newton actually made it harder to read so his enemies wouldn't read it. I can believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
I've read that. I didn't think it was 'all that' on either philosophical or literary scales. I've also tackled his main work, but found it be not 'all that' at length, so gave up after about fifty pages. Bloom doesn't even bother to mention Nagel, another feather in his cap! Bloom's friend Richard Rorty is worth reading - perhaps the best modern philosopher I've read. Or is he an anti-philosopher?Quote:
Originally Posted by LukeS.
Are you interested in eastern philosophy or western philosophy or both? Anyway I say a good place to start is socrates/plato: Euthyphro or Meno. You will find these online if you type them in.
And Descartes Meditations are also good.
After that I think John Stuart Mill on librety is great.
My personal advice is stay away from arguments on Freewill until your furthe into your philosophical career so to speak. I got WAY to caught up on that and it was hard for me to think about anything else.
Because you are recommending and praising philosophy books on the basis of aesthetic merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Mill is very readable. I'd recommend you read his 'Autobiography' first. It has a great account of how he used poetry to cure his addiction to philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chabonist
You might say that about any of the 'Big Philosophical Problems'. Why bother yourself with these questions when they have no solution? Is it fun to go around in a permanent state of perplexity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chabonist
To avoid frustration and burn out, dilute philosophical reading with large amounts of literature.
What I cannot understand is why literature is the right solvent. Why not bowling, or even batik? Or do you suggest that literature is a form of "Philosophy LITE", an art form that tickles the brain but only so far as to produce a babyish chuckle and no farther?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It's not a trick question, and I would hugely appreciate a response; I'm trying to understand why you insist on comparing and contrasting philosophy and literature as if they somehow have shared objectives (which I claim they have not).
If you fancy bowling, why not. Some literature (Wodehouse?) might not aspire to much more than babyish chuckles. But I'm not suggesting Shakespeare is Philosophy Lite! The bard certainly produces chuckles, but he also goes deeper into the human condition than those usually labelled 'pure heavy philosophers' - then again, he is lighter reading than Kant, so in a (good) sense he is philosophy lite.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
I think philosophy and literature have shared objectives, but it depends on your definition of philosophy. I think philosophy is, or should be, about enabling you to live a wiser and happier life. Just reading Shakespeare is a wise thing to do, that is, it is something that is likely to make you happier and wiser. Sounds like good philosophy to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHeart
Here's a great beginners guide http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Differ.../dp/0226143295 ;)
I started out reading The Works of Plato, it was a good introduction. I felt that this is what made me pro-metaphysics.
Rather than trying to use philosophy so generally as something you want to learn, try to single out a topic that you want to be more aware of. Passion for a topic will allow the subject to be more accessible than another.
And I don't agree with you mal considering your notion that philosophy should be regarded aesthetically. Philosophical literature, in my opinion and I believe general consensus, should be regarded as scholarly works that should be carefully examined and engaged.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Keats
In point of fact truth is something else and philosophy is a quite another thing. Do both go together? Of course they do. But philosophies at times keep on layering and layering truth and simple things become more complicated with philosophies. Yet we cannot do without philosophies in today’s world. I have too many questions about the world and most of my questions get answered thru philosophies. But there are certain questions that cannot be answered or philosophies simply seem hogwash. I can ask a question like the existence of God, the meaning of life and the universe. We seek to answer ourselves partly through religions, partly thru mythologies and of course partly thru science and philosophies. Many of my questions find answers through philosophies and logics rather than science and as such I love philosophies despite the fact that it is very intricate
Desolation; You like Nietzsche. What do you think about his idea about ubermench?
Really good place to start. Both excellent books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
(And hello, fellow Plymouthian!)
J Krishnamurti is a philosopher to start off with. I have read most of his books and all are very insightful and as a matter of fact reading him is very enlightening.
You should definitely start with Hegel. He might be very hard to read but his dialectic is nothing short of spectacular, especially the synthesis of being and nothingness. This guys is the father of existentialism and, therefore, the father of Sartre.
If philosophy is nothing more than whimsical romanticism of life then Nietzsche is sadistic and subjective, while Hegel is more objective and practical.
Hegel? Sounds cool. I'm going to read some of his works later next month. I'm also a novice/ or rather a scrub to the world of philosophy. Thanks fam for the recs
My first "major" work of philosophy was Plato's Republic. I completely fell in love with it, and philosophy. :)