/lit/ - Literature

Much better.
I kind of prefer Anthony Kenny's collection, but this one is great too.

>>6109397
Only the first 2-3 volumes. The rest is shit and you woudn't understant 19th century German philosophy with it.

>>6109416
What would you recommend for understanding 19th century German philosophy then?

>>6109436
Any textbook that philosophy students in your country have to read would do. You can read them on your own afterwards.

op that shit is biased as fuck, i don't know how anyone can recommend or take that shit seriously, i lost all respect for russell after that, he's just some mediocre hack the british government and/or academy promoted to make it looks like english philosophy isn't retarded

Russell is terribly biased

1.On /lit/ you're getting pretentious 12 year olds telling you they have read EVERYTHING. Find a specialized board about philosophy.
2.I've never read Sophie's world.
3.Russell is wrong on everything that I know anything about, as a German. He oftentimes evidently read one single essay or one chapter from a book and then proceeds to tell you his dismissing anglo chauvinist opinion about idiot hegel or stuck up nit nietzsche. Still it's important to understand where all the /r/atheists and libertarians on the American internets are getting their lurid opinions about all the various philosophers from.
4.He likes beating dead horses and stating the obvious in an "amusing" way as if he was some fucking Oscar Wilde.
5.There are many books on the "history of the Western Philosophy". One very important book is that of Hegel. In the beginning he's waxing lyrically about why this history of Western Philosophy concept is so dreadfully important. And since this shit is so insane you won't necessarily agree; and then you will laugh about the implicit assumptions f.e. Bert Rüssel is doing while writing his own take on that very thing (while telling you how very smart and very rational he is in contrast to all of those Hegels). Hegel has spelled the whole thing out.
Another WIP dude is Diogenes Laërtius; it's a 3rd century AD Greek guy writing describing the 'philosophers' from pre-socratics beginnings to his times.
[to be continued. there are 3 more philo-hist authors i can opine about; if somebody is interested say so, please. in the meantime i will have a tea.]

>>6109450
Op here. Yes, I am very interested. I read people hating on Russel but not providing me any alternatives. I don't have the time to read all the individual works.

I've read lots of textbooks but most of them tackle one or two subjects and tell you what some philosphers wrote about said subject.

I'd like to read some sort of overview of all these philosophers and when I have made a list of who I find interesting I'll be prepared to make time to read their individual works. So please do go on Anon.

>>6109397
I like Bertrand Russell,^^ but I recomand Emile Brehier The History of Philosophy. :)

>>6109468
recommend*

>>6109416
He will, but understanding it doesn't entail agreeing with it.
>>6109441
People in the first world don't learn continental shit.

>>6109444
Yeah, but you can see easily when he is. Doesn't make the book better, but you can easily ignore it.

>>6109467
I mean my high school textbook was a great piece and it got me into philosophy, maybe you should start with the standard one in your country.

Hey OP, check out The History of PhilosophY Julian Marias. Another great one is Will Durant's Story of Philosophy.

Sophie's World was trash.

>>6109509
Will do!

Still curious about what Germanon is going to post, if he's going to post anything.

>>6109522
hegel-
-3 tomes;
first is "eastern philosophy" which he doesn't know anyting about and the pre-socratics.
2nd tome plato, socrates and ancient philosophy;
3rd tome is medieval and modern philosophy; arabic philosophy is touched upon as it's described by Maimonides.
first important modern history of philosophy book. others are remixed hegel.

Giovanni Reale, Dario Antiseri
- popular modern academic history of philosophy. didn't read.

historyofphilosophy.net
- lovely podcast. iirc they've only reached the middle ages so far

Ivan Timofeyevich Frolov
- solid Soviet scholar; if you want to have your history with Karl Marx as a pinnacle and an emphasis on the social historical background for the different philosophers.

Karl Jaspers-
- coined the notion of an axial age (indian, chinese and greek philosophize).

Ludwig von Bertalanffy-
- writes a history of thought where point 1 is the axial age and point 2 is him. everything inbetween are idiots who can safely be ignored.

>>6109397
Is there an analogue for eastern philosophy ?

>>6109579
The two Volume set "History Of Chinese Philosophy" by Fung Yu-Lang

Russell is shit. Avoid at all costs. He was a talentless sperg.

>>6109436
Terry Pinkard's book German Philosophy 1760-1860 is excellent and goes up to Schopenhauer. Don't know what to recommend that goes up to Nietzsche.

Terrible, terrible choice if that's your first meeting with philosophy. Sophie's World is honestly better for what it is, a highschool-level intro.
Try pic related for a single-volume intro, it's the best I've seen.
Copleston is great as a comprehensive series, especially since he devotes much attention to medievals who are regularly overlooked by plebs.

>>6109397
It's pretty good up until Rousseau.

The problem with Russell is that he's writing in the middle of World War 2 and so pushes a very tendentious historical agenda (basically blaming continental philosophy for Nazism). But he's very good on pre-modern philosophy.

>>6109579
No such thing as "eastern philosophy". The Princeton Sourcebooks on Indian and Chinese philosophy are what you're looking for.

>>6109887
forgot pic

If you want to know what an autistic cockmuncher Russell was, just listen to this clip of him getting ripped apart by Copleston on the cosmological argument. Russell is the one who says nothing of value but 'nuh uh' and has the voice of a sperg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

I've read so many good reviews about Russel's book goodreads[\spoiler] but I'll be sure to check out all these suggestions. Thanks a lot friends!

>>6109986
Well that went wrong...

But yeah thanks.

>>6109397
I strongly suggest you reading Bertrand's works before diving deeper into philosophy.

Bertrand's analytical style take all the metaphysical mumble crap out of philosophy and condensed into logic and science.

Bertrand pretty much caught the essence of what modern philosophy should be.

I used Bertrand's works as a frame work. If I read some reference in his book or writing I don't understand. I go find the original and read the original and back to Bertrand to see if the references make more sense.

It's a great way to organically grow your understanding of philosophy guided by a very rational and logical master.

>>6109450
yet another example of a fritz with no sense of humour.

>>6109444

>Plato is fucking retarded
>Plato is fucking retarded
>Plato is fucking retarded

>>6110036
>shits all over plato
>believes in the literal existence of universals

>>6110021
>logical master
He couldn't even grasp Godel's theorems.

For your idol, you should aim higher than that.

>>6109896
This. Reading it now. I enjoyed Russell's and this feels like an updated version.

>>6110099
Bertrand Russel is Plato's tsundere. He is fascinated by his approach to education and his idealism, but, at the same time, Plato was fine with war and believed in God.

>>6110021
>falling for analytics who don't understand philosophical history

>>6112085
History of Philosophy is irrelevant if you want to spawn an advance in the contemporary Analytic Philosophy.

You can read your Platos, Descartes, and Kants on the side.

>>6109397
Don't trust anyone who shits on Plato

>>6112106
>Plato and Descartes on the side of anything when speaking of Western philosophy

No.

Russell was shit tier.

He dismisses entire philosophers in one or two paragraphs.

His criticism of Marx is literally that Marxism is a political philosophy. He seemed to think that every philosophy should have some grand theme to it. He's a retard. He also spent hundreds of pages proving that 1 + 1 = 2 when that fact is just a tautology with a relabeling added.

>>6112583
>His criticism of Marx is literally that Marxism is a political philosophy
That's a completely legitimate criticism coming from a real philosopher.

>>6112197

>d&e post

what year is it

>>6112583
His criticism of Marx is literally 'lol dis philosophy of human action dun take into account da cozmoz'. It's fucking retarded, as is pretty much everything Russell says after Hume in that book.

>>6112609
I'm not a Marxist. I think Marx is the most overrated thinker ever. I'm just saying that Russell's critique is shit tier. It basically amounts to saying every philosophy should encompass every facet of existence. Which, in addition to being retarded, is hypocrtical; Russell's own philosophy was not universal at all.

>>6112639
I never got that reading from Russell. His dismissal of Marx, along with a great deal of other thinkers, was terse and unqualified but he never suggested it was because they weren't holistic philosophical programs.

>>6112620
it's always 2011 in our hearts, anon

>>6112833

now I want to cry

Russell literally said he "disbelieved everything the Hegelians believed"

dat methodology

>>6112962
Too bad russell literally quit logic because Wittgenstein owned him

Russell is a retard that people hardly read anymore except for his uninformed pop philosophy junk

>>6112982
Yeah, I'm pointing out that it's a shitty methodology and he was horribly biased cause he hated his teachers.

People seem to like his writing style. Never done anything for me.

Also, how stupid does somebody have to be to actually believe in set-theoretic foundationalism...

>>6110036
Wait does he? I might have to read this then.

>>6113019
It's from "My Philosophical Development" p. 48

>>6112962
Hegel as a whole is easily dismissable though, it's one of the few things you can deliberately generalize about, like people who are into gender studies.

>>6113036

are you saying gendered identity is somehow a universal, untouchable construct that exists outside of social performance and language?

>>6113036
Gender studies is a primitive shape of consciousness which must be sublated by determinate negation

>>6113055
>are you saying gendered identity is somehow a universal, untouchable construct that exists outside of social performance and language?
Care to point out where in my post this was written?

>>6113066

>people into gender studies can be deliberately generalized about

what else were you trying to say with this, apart from calling out the utility of gender studies as a legitimate look at social ordering and human behavior?

>>6113061

>primitive
dropped

>>6113061
Hehe, good one! How about,

The nominative matriculation inherent in gender studies presupposes a sub-alteration which needs but transformative syncopation--the kind approached at through allegorical states of over-alternative process.

>>6113080
It's a purely self-indulgent, self-obsessive type of idendity tautology based purely on semantic variation with idiotic implications towards empirical data and social analysis. Could you point out the merit of anything to come out from such doctrine? Do you identify as a "non-binary gender" creature?

>>6113101
In fact I'm going to sleep, don't bother.

>>6113101
>self-indulgent, self-obsessive type of idendity tautology based purely on semantic variation with idiotic implications towards empirical data and social analysis
Needlessly pleonastic. The words you're searching for are 'pure ideology'.

>>6113091
Is it just me, or is it getting a bit continental in here?

"It's getting continental in here, so discard all your standards of truth"

>>6113114
Basically yes, no need for purple prose.

>>6113080
They aren't that at all, he is right to call them out. Gender as a social construct doesn't mean a fucking thing, because it refers to a word, a word that was not precisely defined before they attacked it. A useful question is 'what are the innate psychological differences in men and women due to brain structure and the inevitable differences in experience that occur due to different physical traits?'. They barely if ever talk about this, instead they focus on some retarded sociological look at how people have used the words man and women, masculine and feminine, in different cultures.

>>6113101

>all of gender studies is a self-referential system of tautologies

which tautologies have you gleaned from gender studies?

Gender binaries are socially constructed, I don't find myself lacking in security to the degree that I need a semiotic placeholder to categorize whether or not the performative, gendered aspect of my behavior is seen in a specific way by others.

>empirical data

oh, you're just young. carry on

>>6113123

maybe you should take a good look at your personal feelings on 'utility' before trying to comment on socially prescribed categories

>>6113126
>treating a request for empirical data as juvenile
This is just about all we need to say about the proponents of gender studies.

>>6113126
What is biological sexual dimorphism?

>>6113126
>semiotic placeholder

who can deny the power of semiotics when they look so good...

Bertrand Russell. Women and Logicians loved him, continentals despise him.

Stay mad you irrational hacks.

>>6113137

a biological discourse

>>6113134

if this is how far along you are in your reading, I would suggest returning when you've graduated high school

>>6112982
Wittgenstein was an incompetent logician. I think you mean Godel.

>>6113149
>a biological discourse
Ah, good show! Up until this very moment I was unaware I was under the auspices of a ruseman. Good to see there are some who still practice the oldest form of jest.

>>6113156

great response. are you implying a biological discourse is not a biological discourse?

>>6113161
There's nothing 'discursive' about empirical scientific data. Unless you're some sort of post-structuralist, new left, gender studies type. In that case you probably didn't even complete your high schools maths and sciences.

>>6113168
Somebody needs to reread Kuhn

>>6110099
If I recall correctly, he wrote this in his post universals stage.

>>6109397

Frederick Copleston

>>6113173
Somebody needs to comes to terms with basic biochemistry, and also read a bit about comparative mammalian anatomy and evolutionary structures.

>>6113185
Remind me how mammalian anatomy tells us whether or not empirical data are discursive?

>>6113184

>>6113188

pure nonsense

>>6113188
You were initially arguing that sexual dimorphism was discursive. Now you've gone and shat yourself.
I'm out, I can't follow your logic.

>>6113195
Not the same person, actually. I'm with you that much of gender studies is ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to deny that science is discursive.

>>6113198
Sorry I'm a scientist and logician, not a post-structuralist. You can keep your fancy rhetoric and bald frenchmen.

>>6113201
Right... Kuhn the post-structuralist frenchman. Not Harvard prof in history of science.

>>6113205

>still thinks Kuhn is relevant

>>6113220
Yeah, a bit outdated to be fair. But I haven't come across any convincing rebuttals of his main lines of argument. Suggestions?

>>6113230

>>6113242
Feyerabend and Popper are crazy, Lakatos is legit, I never liked Toulmin but maybe I haven't read enough. Thanks.

>>6113249

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Method-Scientific-Lakatos-Feyerabend-Correspondence/dp/0226467759/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423377584&sr=1-1&keywords=for+and+against+method

>>6113255
Their correspondence only reinforces my view that Feyerabend is crazy.

But to revise what I think: Kuhn is basically right, but Lakatos's emphasis on objectivity rather than Kuhn's irrational psychological breakthroughs is a good point.

>>6112999
His teachers - or generally speaking the generation of philosophers before him (Green, Bosanquet, Bradley, McTaggart etc) - were far better than him too, despite not having Asperger's like he did.

>>6113036
>cannot into Hegel's Philosophy of Right

I pity you anon.

Cultural baggage of genders are kinda retarded but rejecting the binary is even more retarded.
We should be able to say what men are biologically like and what women are biologically like, and any chromosal configuration in between, just statistics. Transsexuals are funny to me because they literally enforce gender stereotypes. I don't feel like a man, let's wear dresses and practice sounding like a faggot in front of a mirror!