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.
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.
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!
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.
Last edited by Dodo25; 05-08-2011 at 04:06 PM.
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...
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.
Dare to know
plato.stanford.edu. - Interesting! And a very good resource; Thank you.
I will look into those books also.
Have a nice day
The socratic dialogues are an excellent place to start. It's my opinion that they should be read to children.
I think if you make a signature, you should inspire some emotion in someone else. I also think it would be pretentious for me to think I could do that.
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.Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Cunninglinguist; 05-08-2011 at 09:03 PM.
Dare to know
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.
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.
No...not really.
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.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
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 (:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote