/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1056040]

where does one begin with philosophy? what are some good books and works to start with. i'd do this on my own, but i feel like i'll either end up with stuff that's base and, frankly, boring or something that's intriguing and feels relevant but is way over my head.

help?

[Anonymous No.1056042]

>>1056040
Derrida, man. Simple way to start.

[Anonymous No.1056045]

Introduction to ethic philosophy.

[sage No.1056046]

Sofies world is ok as entry level novel to get a basic idea before you start. After that any general book on the history of philosophy would probably be good, do not start reading the actual work of any philosopher before you have a general over view

[Anonymous No.1056048]

>>1056042

thank you! im also looking for books that will kind of cover evolutions of thought and history and such. know of anything?

[Anonymous No.1056050]

Magee's The Great Philosophers is always my suggestion for a good intro to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1056051]

>>1056050
Not OP, but added to wishlist, thank you Anon.

[Anonymous No.1056052]

Why the hell would you ward someone away from starting with Plato? All his stuff is simple as shit.

Read Republic & Apology/Crito/Phaedo.

[Anonymous No.1056054]

op is very grateful, keep em coming

[Anonymous No.1056068]

>>1056042
you vicious bastard

If you have some random curiosity you want filled just check out the stanford encyclopedia that's free online

http://www.philosophytalk.org/notesPastShows.htm is a radio show that covers topics in a pretty easy way.

Berkeley keeps some lecture courses online for undergrads.

Nature of mind http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2010-B-67124&semesterid=2010-B

society http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-D-67309&semesterid=2009-D

existentialism in film and literature
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-D-67124&semesterid=2009-D

ancient philosophy http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2008-D-67205&semesterid=2008-D

Heidegger http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978475

have a look around on the site for more

[Anonymous No.1056083]

>>1056068
hahhahahaha

I'm so glad somebody noticed, I was starting to feel guilty.

[Anonymous No.1056085]

The Presocratic Philosophers by Kirk & Raven is the best choice to see the begginings of philosophy, ie the philosophers that came before Plato.

It's superbly well written and very complete.

[Anonymous No.1056090]

>>1056083
can you just imagine going home with your fresh copy of of grammatology knowing nothing about philosophy and thinking what the fucking christ

Had to be said

[Anonymous No.1056092]

>>1056090

op here, i wish listed lol

[Anonymous No.1056094]

>>1056085
>The Presocratic Philosophers by Kirk & Raven is the best choice to see the begginings of philosophy, ie the philosophers that came before Plato.
>presocratic
>before plato

You sure about that bro?

[Anonymous No.1056097]

>>1056094
>You sure about that bro?

Yeah, I'm sure, bro. Unless you can point me towards Socrates' writings, I'm sticking with it. Problem?

[Anonymous No.1056098]

>>1056094
Uh, yeah. Plato wrote down the teachings of Socrates. Hence, presocratic.

[Anonymous No.1056099]

>>1056040
Just out of curiosity, why do you want to 'begin' with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.1056100]

>>1056085
ancient philosophy is absolutely useless.

[Anonymous No.1056105]

>>1056099
free time in a rather isolated location. like to learn.

[Anonymous No.1056119]

>>1056100
Ancient philosophy is very much relevant. All the great cunundrums and big questions were first made there. Only knowing your ancient philosophy can you really begin to understand modern.

You will find the influence of Heraclitus and Parmenides in most modern philosophers, not to mention Plato and Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.1056127]

>>1056090
I was feeling terrible after >>1056048
and nobody saying anything.
So I thought I would say something, but then you called me a vicious bastard and took care of it for me. :)

[Anonymous No.1056132]

Yep, Plato and Aristotle are worth learning first thoroughly. Might want to jump to Spinoza after spending a year or two on those two Greeks.

[Anonymous No.1056140]

>>1056127
i wouldn't feel too bad, i wouldn't have went out and gotten anything on blind faith haha

[Anonymous No.1056150]

>>1056140
Thanks. I don't normally troll, and I thought it would get picked up really fast. :)

When you get to him, though - wow. Derrida is <3

[Anonymous No.1056152]

Once you get a feel for philosophy I'd recommended Fredrick Copleston's A History of philosophy series.

It has chapters on nearly all of the historically important philosophers from the presocratics to the early 21st century philosophers. It provides a brief biography of each philosopher, then describes their philosophy and the philosopher's primary influences.

The entire series is more than a bit lengthy. Each volume runs 400+ pages and there are around 8 volumes.

[Anonymous No.1056154]

>>1056132
spinoza is a complete waste of time as well.

[Anonymous No.1056159]

>>1056119
influence really? maybe humans have just so many ways to go with a problem. always go with the most current arguments and information.

[Anonymous No.1056160]

>>1056100
Everything modern's a response to the ancient, it's very useful.

[Anonymous No.1056161]

>>1056154
>>1056159
>>1056100
Oh give it a rest already.

[Anonymous No.1056162]

>>1056154
pfeh

[Anonymous No.1056163]

>>1056150
>When you get to him, though - wow. Derrida is <3

Unless you've read Borges first, in which case you're going "lol plagiarism seems to work pretty well".

[Anonymous No.1056164]

>>1056152
wow, those seem like pretty good jumping off points. thanks!

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1056165]

>>1056160
and here comes a guy who understands EVERYTHING in modern philosophy

[Anonymous No.1056169]

>>1056100
ZOINKS! D:

>edit: My captcha is Plato lol, owned much?

[Anonymous No.1056183]

>>1056169
yea, someone as retarded as plato might actually believe you made some sort of point...?

[Anonymous No.1056186]

>>1056163
I see the relationship as similar to the one between Jung and Freud, actually. It's not really plagiarism.

[Anonymous No.1056188]

>>1056183

op here, you seem like the smartest dood who ever lived. who are your fav philosophers?

[Anonymous No.1056197]

>>1056188
putnam, sellars, quine to name a few.

[Anonymous No.1056226]

>>1056197

[Anonymous No.1056236]

>>1056226
well, kitty should know that if she wants to explore philosophical problems, putnam and sellars will help you more than reading greeks ever would.

learn to functionalism and construction of metaphysics, then maybe you can actually understand why greek guys only retard philosophy rather than contribute to it.

[Anonymous No.1056288]

>>1056226
poor form by the kitty, since sellars and putnam are very much famous.

[Anonymous No.1056331]

Where to begin, OP..

Consider this question. In 1903, the King of France was bald.

This question was popular in the 70s around Oxford university, although it is a more famous 'problem'. It was used as an introductory question to students entering into philosophy classes.

In 1903, however, there was no king. So the question is "Is the statement true, false, or not possible to answer".

Being 4chan, there would likely be lots of people saying it is stupid, or religiously backing one particular answer, and falling upon every fallacy possible whilst defending their stance.

What you should do is make a case for each answer. If you want to start thinking like a philosopher, start with problems and think. A philosophical text is much more meaningful and easy on the mind if you start correctly.

[Anonymous No.1056347]

>>1056331
appreciate the thought out response. thank you.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1056357]

i saw this add and found it cute.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1056362]

ad*

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/?view=usa&ci=9780195390360

[Anonymous No.1056382]

Actual philosophy student here: Why don't you start off with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.
Not terribly up to date and hopelessly analytical in its approach (which might be a good or a bad thing depending on where you stand), but a comprehensive, well written and never boring.

[Anonymous No.1056407]

>>1056382
>Actual philosophy student here: Why don't you start off with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

lol

You're either lying or you go to a really terrible community college. Russell's History of Philosophy is a badly written and ridiculously biased history of the philosophy that Russell approves of. Unless you're a Russell scholar or reading it for the lulz, stay far away.

[Anonymous No.1056414]

don't start with western philosophers. start with the beginnings which were in ancient india and china. read hindu stuff and the zhuangzi, daodejing.

[Anonymous No.1056421]

>>1056407

what would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.1056425]

>>1056407
This is true, OP. If you want to start with any Bertrand Russell (A bad idea for the get go..) then the only applicable book would be 'The Problems of Philosophy'.

You should be sticking to the empirical school though, seriously.

[Anonymous No.1056444]

>>1056407
I beg to differ. Of course the key word here is "history"; it doesn't give any in-depth analysis of contemporary philosophical debates (or those of the late 40's or whenever it was written), but it does very well in tracing the development of philosophical concepts through the ages and giving brief introductions to important historical thinkers (OK, he dismisses Nietzsche without seeming to have understood fuckall, but as long as you stick to the ancient, medieval or renaissance philosophers I think Russell has understood their work perfectly).
And yes, he is fairly open with what he likes and what he doesn't, which I for one appreciated, it is a much more honest approach than pretending one's inevitable personal biases does not factor into the writing.

[Anonymous No.1056470]

Actual philosophy student here. Don't start with the history of a subject if you don't even know whether you fucking like it or not.

Try a "What Does It All Mean???: Traditional Philosophical Problems For Retards" style book. If you like the cut of the subject's jib, read some history.

[DeepandEdgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1056472]

>>1056470
forgot my trip lol

[Anonymous No.1056485]

>>1056470
i find your response sufficiently deep and edgy. thank you.

[Anonymous No.1056489]

>>1056444
Even if the Nietzsche misreading was the only fault, you'd be missing out entirely on the last century of philosophy. No Wittgenstein or logpos, no Heidegger or Camus or Merleau-Ponty, no Quine, etc. That's a lot of good shit to miss out on.

[Anonymous No.1056506]

>>1056444
i agree. russell gives a clear exposition of the main toughts of the different schools. i don't know why he is so much despised.

[Anonymous No.1056516]

>>1056506
He either off-handedly dismisses or COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORES people for no other reason than that he doesn't like them. Nietzsche is an example of the former, Kierkegaard of the latter.

[Anonymous No.1056520]

>>1056506

Probably because when you've slogged through around 700 pages of history of western philosophy, as Russell demonstrates misunderstanding and contempt for anyone and everyone other than himself , you get to see Hegel and Nietzsche dismissed out of hand.

Well not out of hand but at a troll level.

Hegel=i don't get it=must be wrong
Nietzsche=Anti-semitic/Woman Hater

Add to that if you have a fair idea of the sunjects covered you leave with the horrible thought that someone might read this and accept it in good faith

[Anonymous No.1056523]

>>1056516
surely you can treat every minor philosopher in your review of the history of western philosophy...

[Anonymous No.1056524]

>>1056523

Excuse me but did you just imply that Kierkegaard is so minor that he does not deserve to be mentioned in a 900 pages long book on the history of philosophy? What the shit, dude?

[Anonymous No.1056529]

>>1056524
yes kierkegaard is minor, as is heidegger and merleau-ponty.

[Anonymous No.1056530]

>>1056524
Yeah, I think he did. It's not like Kierkegaard would've cared.

[Anonymous No.1056537]

>>1056523

To a point. But the fact is because of his bias he ignores key players in order to spend too much time on minor philosophers.

Locke gets 40 odd pages against Kants 14/marx gets 8 and Nietzche 9

[Anonymous No.1056542]

>>1056529

Bearing in mind that Kierkegaard gets less time than people who aren't philosophers; Byron-the poet

[Anonymous No.1056544]

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1056549]

existentialism isn't even philosophy

[Anonymous No.1056550]

>>1056040

Philosophy is kind of hard. Like by nature and then at least half of the philosophers write in very difficult and complex language. Philosophy isn't the kind of thing you get into for shits and giggles. It really isn't.

I would listen to some of the lecture series someone listed above. At the very least lecturers have to go out of their way to make themselves understood. Its like the job description. Philosophy books are written with the intention of examining various problems and making creative arguments that often draw on other philosophers you may not have read. Philosophers do not care that much if the average person will understand them. They are writing for their peers and assume a level of knowledge that is quite unusual.

[DeepandEdgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1056553]

>>1056544
Hey man, that's all good and well but DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN DASEIN

[Anonymous No.1056555]

>>1056544
my dear nazi friend, first of all you didn't "create" existentialism. also, please learn how to write proper german. much appreciated

[Anonymous No.1056561]

>>1056550

Its a love of knowledge thing, once you got the bug, you'll do whatever it takes to fill in the gaps. If it leaves you cold...its not for everyone. That said i'd personally say its more about how you get into it that matters. Like if you start with Derrida you won't be returning. Something like Plato's Last days of socrates would be a good starting point.

[Anonymous No.1056569]

>>1056544
you really shouldn't care what anyone on /lit/ thinks about Heidegger.

I recently picked up his The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics lectures. It has the only instance of Heidegger humor I'm aware of. He gives a few lectures on the nature and experience of boredom

captcha philosophie coustart

[Anonymous No.1056571]

>>1056553
i care to disagree: die welt ist alles was der fall ist

[Anonymous No.1056572]

>>1056553
>>1056555

This really. Dismissing Heidegger as 'small time' out of hand is Russell-esque level retard. But overstating his position is to miss the point equally. Again,

Dasein

[Anonymous No.1056584]

>>1056561
I like Plato but I think he's not really a good start

I think Descartes is because he's really quite easy to understand and he begins modern philosophy which is much closer to what people are familiar with

[Anonymous No.1056586]

>>1056571
forgot picture

[DeepandEdgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1056587]

>>1056571
>implying you shouldn't have passed over in silence

[Anonymous No.1056594]

>>1056550
>Like by nature and then at least half of the philosophers write in very difficult and complex language.

just because i type like a 12 year old girl doesnt mean i am one. i read, i have a dictionary.

>Philosophy isn't the kind of thing you get into for shits and giggles. It really isn't.

sounds pretty seriouz. why does one get into it?

>and making creative arguments that often draw on other philosophers you may not have read. Philosophers do not care that much if the average person will understand them.

almost all the books recommended/being discussed are about the history of philosophy

>They are writing for their peers and ASSUME A LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE THAT IS QUITE UNUSUAL.

c'mon

not to be a dick, i appreciate and understand your concern. thank you.

[Anonymous No.1056598]

>>1056586
what does ludwig have to do with this.

Anyone who has read Building Dwelling Thinking will notice similarities with On Certainty and investigations

[Anonymous No.1056608]

>>1056572
he also was a dilettante in ancient greek.

[Anonymous No.1056612]

>>1056598
see here http://tractatus-online.appspot.com/Tractatus/jonathan/D.html

[Anonymous No.1056618]

>>1056584

Yeah, Descartes was my introduction. And his style is very 'lets start as simply as we can'. Leads nicely into the ontological argument. But lets try to agree some actual philosopohy books for op;

Descartes: Discourse on Method/Meditations
Plato: Apology/Crito/Phaedo.
Michel de Montaigne:Essays
Marcus Aurelius: The Meditations
Thomas More: Utopia
A.J.Ayer: Language Truth and Logic

Not exhaustive and alots up for contention but its a start, Gives a nice flavour of ethics/metaphysics/Logic for newcomers

[Anonymous No.1056623]

>>1056618
i'd like to add
Hume:An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
to your list

[Anonymous No.1056626]

>>1056594
In order,

Its not about any particular word used its about how they are connected together.

usually you end up in philosophy because you picked it in college without really knowing what you are getting yourself into

History of philosophy isn't something I really think much of. Its interesting I guess but philosophy is more a set or arguments that relate to each other and working through their consequences. You can do an outline of that with a history but to do philosophy you actually have to go through them and that means reading the actual works of philosophers which is rewarding but kind of a lot of work. You don't really do it casually at first. You sit making notes, looking back frequently, try to see how it connects to other books, then you debate with people, you read the book again, make new notes, read it again and it goes on like that. Some people enjoy that. Some people hate it with a fiery vengeance.

Sorry but its true. The more modern it gets the more background you need. Its not like physics where you can dispense with anything historical that's outside the textbook

[Anonymous No.1056633]

>>1056618
>>1056623

Also

John Berger:Ways of Seeing

[Anonymous No.1056642]

>>1056626
>Sorry but its true. The more modern it gets the more >background you need. Its not like physics where >you can dispense with anything historical that's >outside the textbook

glad you noticed that. would you say that is because philosophy is just a cornucopia of opinions as opposed to physics which has reality as a "truthbearer"?

[Anonymous No.1056645]

>>1056618
No Critiques by Kant?

[DeepandEdgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1056648]

>>1056642
>he thinks projecting the structure of our thought into the the world is reality

[Anonymous No.1056655]

>>1056642
Its because philosophy doesn't dispense with its history.

Physics on the other hand does. They call them revolutions. You can check out Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

but based on that response I think you just have genuinely weak troll fu

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1056660]

>>1056642
i think it's because people are confused a lot.

[Anonymous No.1056664]

>>1056645
not that guy but would you really recommend Kant to someone who has never read a philosophy book, really?

[Anonymous No.1056669]

>>1056648
that's what Kant thaught me.

>>1056655
either you are trolling or you never have read Kuhn.

[Anonymous No.1056674]

>>1056669
your troll fu is getting weaker

[Anonymous No.1056686]

>>1056674
i see you are not interested in a respectful discussion.

[Anonymous No.1056695]

>>1056686
Oh clearly its my problem you ignorant little twat

[Anonymous No.1056711]

philosophys cool and all but at the end of the day i cant get pussy with it

[Anonymous No.1056726]

>>1056711
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

[Anonymous No.1056777]

>>1056618
>Michel de Montaigne:Essays
You're recommending a 3600 page collection to a newcomer?

Also why no The Republic?

[Anonymous No.1056782]

>>1056626

i asked for books on the history of philosophy as to begin upon the sequence you describe. i enjoy taking notes. i'd like to read these very introductory books (particularly the nine volume series someone mentioned) and use them as jumping points.

may i ask, as a philosophy major, what did you start out doing?

[Anonymous No.1056784]

>>1056623
Also Enquiry is way too abstract for a newcomer, c'mon!

[Anonymous No.1056794]

>>1056784

Can't agree with you there. Hume was a great writer, and he manages to make the concepts really clear. Anyone with a little background in the scientific method (that is, anyone who has gone to high school) should be able to get a lot out of it.

[Anonymous No.1056800]

>>1056782
Most undergrad courses start out with a bunch of different lecture courses running concurrently

I think we had logic, descartes, plato, hobbes v rousseau, ethics and a probelems in philosophy course which was a grab bag of things like free will, causality and so on

[Anonymous No.1056838]

bump because i like all the philosophy majors arguing with each other

[Anonymous No.1056882]

If you dismiss post-modernism or use the term in a degrading way, then post-modernism is 2deep4u

[Anonymous No.1057567]

Hey OP, I've heard really good things about a book called 'Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy' by Simon Blackburn. The guy in charge of philosophy at my old college recommended it to me as a "if you've read no philosophers intensely start here" intro book.

And that really is a good idea. With philosophy, as in literature, all things are in conversation with all others. Obviously you have to start somewhere, and that might as well be someone you are interested in, or someone whose writing is good to start with (e.g. Descartes or Socrates' shorter works). A book like 'Think' can help you do that. Just remember that to really get under the skin of things you are going to have to read that shit yourself eventually. With that in your mind, use introductions/summaries/wikipedia as necessary.

[Anonymous No.1057622]

honestly, just skip to modern philosophy. these philosofags will harp on about "blah blah blah influenced so and so's thinking and is therefore very important", and while this is true, "influenced" just means the next guy stole the first guy's idea, phrased it more eloquently, and improved it ever so slightly. Also, a lot of ancient/medieval/enlightenment thinkers write in a language that is unrecognisable to modern english. Again, philosofags will be all "oh to truly understand the points u need to read the primary texts, or is that tooDEEPforyou, bro?" - bullshit. I recommend starting with Wittgenstein then just work your way chronolgically to now. Ignore the rest.

[Anonymous No.1057637]

here's what all the cool kids are reading:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/9130000/9130602/5/print/Speculations_I_Lulu.pdf

[Anonymous No.1057641]

>>1057622
this guy sounds so much like me.

[Anonymous No.1057656]

>>1057622

[Anonymous No.1057663]

>>1056520
actually, his criticisms of Hegel are pretty spot-on. Also, Russell was a bro, bro. Anti WW1 - at the expense of his lecturer position at Cambridge. Pro WW2. Anti Atomic Bomb. Inherited wealth but was Liberal anyway. Travelled the world, and dedicated his life to spreading knowledge to the masses, unlike you philosofags who hoard it like hte jews you are. Yeah, he wrote some shite (don't we all) but all in all I rate him very highly.

[Anonymous No.1057669]

>>1057663
>Inherited wealth but was Liberal anyway.

uhhhh you have no real understanding of british political dynamics (particularly pre-1945) do you

the liberal party was a fairly traditional party, and it wasn't the furthest left or most progressive party - that would easily be labour. the Liberal party traditionally stood for free trade and liberal democratic social ideals - not particularly outre for a wealthy heir.

it wouldn't be particularly out of the ordinary or brave to be a member of the liberal party - it was, to be honest, rather staid. it would be somewhat out of the ordinary for him to be Labour, but even then, Socialism was pretty popular in Britain.

[Anonymous No.1057688]

>>1056711
then you are not trying because I am swimming in it my bro. swimming.

Girls all "whatcho major?" me all "I study philosopher" girls all "mmmmmmmmmmmhmmmm"

[Anonymous No.1057706]

>>1057688
More pussy than a fuckin' toilet seat.

[Anonymous No.1057710]

>>1057669
>>1057669
you have so much asspain over Nietzche's treatment in A History of that it's not even worth arguing with you

Also I am a Britfag History Post Grad (with a keen interest in Philosophy) so don't even try and School me on British Politics. Dickmunch.

[Anonymous No.1057719]

from a fellow philfag:

Start with Meditations, by Descartes.

Then Hume, An Inquiry into the Nature of Human Understanding

then Prolegomena by Kant

then Critique of Pure Reason.

then you're good to go, either analytic or phenomenology/hegel after. Don't bother with the introductions, read a overview history rather.