New to Philosophy

[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.