Good philosopher to start off with?

[Michael T]

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".

Check out this link:

http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/lof...p/t101717.html

Series of interviews in which Bryan Magee talks to other philosophers.

[LukeS.]

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.

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.

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.

[mal4mac]

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...

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.)

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.

I don't think you can approach a text 'as literature' or 'as philosophy', you can only approach it 'as yourself'.

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.

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...)

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.

[LukeS.]

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.

[DocHeart]

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

[mal4mac]

May I recommend Thomas Nagel's 100-or-so-page little gem "What does it all mean? - A very short introduction to Philosophy"?

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.

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

Who? Never heard of them.

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.

Check out this link:

http://ipb.quicksilverscreen.com/lof...p/t101717.html

Series of interviews in which Bryan Magee talks to other philosophers.

Great link!

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.

[LukeS.]

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?"

[Seamus619]

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.

[mal4mac]

Mal, you haven't heard of those people because you aren't really engaging philosophy as philosophy.

How do you know how I'm engaging it?

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?

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.

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?"

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?

[Chabonist]

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.

[LukeS.]

How do you know how I'm engaging it?

Because you are recommending and praising philosophy books on the basis of aesthetic merit.

[mal4mac]

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.

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.

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.

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?

To avoid frustration and burn out, dilute philosophical reading with large amounts of literature.

[DocHeart]

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?

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).

[mal4mac]

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?

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.

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).

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.

[DanielBenoit]

Here's a great beginners guide http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Differ.../dp/0226143295