Good philosophical books for a beginner

[Shevek]

Content wise I agree.

Practically, I could never start with anything Neitzsche. You just want to get a few ideas down and meanwhile the text mocks you, says the opposite of what it means, rants and raves in certain parts, and leaves you feeling like you're too dumb to understand these very words, and dumber for wanting to.

Neitzche takes building up to.

I agree with this, and I'd avoid continental philosophy altogether until acquiring a good understanding of the basics. There is no single way to explore Western philosophy, but I have been much more successful starting out with easier texts then moving onto harder ones. Plato is the best to start with. Aristotle, however, can be very difficult unless you happen to be familiar with the ancient Greek language. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli are very accessible. I found David Hume to be absolutely amazing when I first read him, even though he's a bit more challenging. If you're going to attempt Kant, which I recommend at some point because he is in my opinion the most important Western philosopher after Plato, read his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics before anything else by him.

This is a great resource and it's easy to get lost in: http://plato.stanford.edu/

[Tor-Hershman]

The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

Excellent, FM, but for a beginner (I got this @ age thirteen)
IMO Bertrand Russell's "A History Of Western Philosophy."

[namenlose]

I usually recommend Montaigne's Essays as a good starting point, since the experience it conveys is expressed with a wonderful sense of imediatism and wit, being in my opinion a great book to entice one's interest in the universe of philosophy. To begin to explore the western philosophical tradition, my first suggestions would also be Plato and Aristotle.

[shadowplay]

you should definitely try 'consolation of philosophy' by alain de botton. it was what got me into philosophy, he talks about interesting topics and introduces you to a few great philosophers you can look further into.

[Spinoza]

Start with Plato, Aristotle, or the Stoics. A great introduction to philosophy is the Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. I would also STRONGLY suggest reading DESCARTES' Meditations and his Principles of Philosophy.

Of Plato, try starting with the Euthyphro, the Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo, Gorgias. Of Aristotle, definitely read the Nicomachean Ethics. Of the Stoics, read the Enchiridion of Epictetus and also his Discourses. Also, read anything by Seneca and the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

Avoid Nietzsche until you have been reading philosophy for quite some time. Understanding Nietzsche's books presupposes a firm knowledge of the history of philosophy, as does reading many other texts, i.e., my own and also those by Mr. Leibniz.

[Spinoza]

you should definitely try 'consolation of philosophy' by alain de botton. it was what got me into philosophy, he talks about interesting topics and introduces you to a few great philosophers you can look further into.

I second this. It's an excellent book for beginners. I would also suggest the book of the same title, though written by Boethius!

[cacian]

I agree with this, and I'd avoid continental philosophy altogether until acquiring a good understanding of the basics. There is no single way to explore Western philosophy, but I have been much more successful starting out with easier texts then moving onto harder ones. Plato is the best to start with. Aristotle, however, can be very difficult unless you happen to be familiar with the ancient Greek language. Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli are very accessible. I found David Hume to be absolutely amazing when I first read him, even though he's a bit more challenging. If you're going to attempt Kant, which I recommend at some point because he is in my opinion the most important Western philosopher after Plato, read his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics before anything else by him.

This is a great resource and it's easy to get lost in: http://plato.stanford.edu/

Interesting link there Shevek.
One question I have always wanted to ask is this:
What does philosophy sets out to achieve first and foremost? and what do I achieve from it?
I picked on ancient skepticism as a topic:

The ancient skeptics argue that, if we cannot confidently claim knowledge, we should hold back from any kind of truth-claim. That is, we should hold back from belief, not just from knowledge-claims. As a consequence, the ancient skeptics face puzzles about thought, belief, language, and action. How far can one abstain from belief, and still lead a life that is recognizably the life of a rational animal?

This about knowledge being claimed and one being refered to as a rational animal.
The issue with animals is that they are already knowledgable about their environment otherwise they could not be animals. They are born in an outside harsh environment which makees their instinct/rational very different of that of a human. Their environment is their survival.
Animals dp need not to go the moon to ascertain knowledge they have already their wilderness to ascertain in order to survive.
Without wilderness animal instinct is no longer. Domesticated animlas lose their instinct and become reliant on humans who themselves are not reliant enough, they are irrational and unpredictable, because they have no sense of who they are.
A human however must look inot theimselves and others around them first to make sense of their lives. Their rationality is different from that of an animal in the sense that a human needs to look into themselves to understand who they are to be able to sustain a decent life. Humans are inward thinking.
An animal is outward thinking because it needs to look into its environment in order to survive.

[mal4mac]

Why not start with "The Postmodern Condition" by Jean-François Lyotard? He suggests that modernity has blown all 'grand narratives' or metanarratives out of the water. If you agree with his assesment then it will save you a lot of tedious reading!

Among the metanarratives are reductionism and teleological notions of human history such as those of the Enlightenment and Marxism. Lyotard suggests there is a plurality of small narratives that compete with each other, replacing the totalitarianism of grand narratives. There is no certainty of ideas.

If you accept this then there is no best place to start reading, and you will get lots of different advice depending on the "small narrative" or "worn out metanarrative" position of the poster. I wouldn't follow any of them, and this includes me. Why should you trust us?

(I haven't actually read Lyotard, but Wikipedia has a good summary)

[AuntShecky]

I agree with the posters who believe Neitzsche might be too heavy for beginners.

I would start with a general overview, on the order of books by Will and Ariel Durant, which I think I read, or at least sampled, when I was a callow kid in secondary school, several Presidential administrations ago.

Speaking of high schoolers, an entertaining choice for younguns is the book mentioned by a couple of previous posters, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder (double "a" in the surname, like that of Maggie Gyllenhaal and her hubby, Peter Sarsgaard.) The style of that book is on a "young adult" level, sort of a parody of Alice in Wonderland, so it's fun to read, even for an auntie fast approaching dotage.

If you want to approach the subject more or less chronologically, with early Greek philosophers without getting bogged down with the pre-Socratics, I guess I'd recommend The Symposium. One of my favorite books isThe Death of Socrates by I.F. Stone (eminently readable short book which clarifies much of Socratic thought. Or if you want to start with more modern thinkers (and then work backwards)--and if you like approaching the subject of philosophy in a more accessible way--i.e. without becoming intimidated, you could try reading Henri Bergson. And if you think philosophy shouldn't confine itself to lofty towers but include blue-collar workers and longshoremen, how about Eric Hoffer?

[Libro]

Content wise I agree.

Practically, I could never start with anything Neitzsche. You just want to get a few ideas down and meanwhile the text mocks you, says the opposite of what it means, rants and raves in certain parts, and leaves you feeling like you're too dumb to understand these very words, and dumber for wanting to.

Neitzche takes building up to.

For the uninitiated, Osbourne's Philosophy for Beginners is an excellent introduction - not threatning and quite entertaining - yes philosophy can be as such - I have used this little gem in philosophy clubs in high school and when I need a refresher it is just the tonic.

[Libro]

Sophie's World is a wonderful Myst-likebook that engages all (young or old) with its' mystery and beauty. I do agree with your assesment that the Pre-Socratics are a mind bog (sic) but when studying philosophy in earnest you have to take this group into consideration - there is no getting around this fact. Beginners can go to some interesting Internet sites to gain insight into the 'fragments' of these thinkers - while there are some that just defy description (Heraclitus for one) Pythagorus is essential.

[Libro]

I agree Charles - Nietzsche is the quiteseential modern - precursor to existentialism and beyond (good and evil) - he scares many I think but this is part of his charm (if he indeed has any)

[Libro]

Wondering why you disparage coming to philosophy through literary theory - granted it is a lingusitic watershed and those Farnkfurt School types more or less destroyed the very fabric of philosophy with incessent arguments about textual analysis )meaningless drival basically) but noetheless people like Walter Benjamin and Theodore Adorno posit great values for philosophical credibility. I just wonder what irks you about theory in this instance?

[Marcus1]

A lot of philosophers make my head hurt, but Kierkegaard makes my heart ache. For that he has my highest recommendations.