/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2214908]

Interesting philosophy books?

[Anonymous No.2214910]

[Anonymous No.2214911]

Charles Darwin - Theory of Evolution

[Anonymous No.2214913]

Lately I've been reading metaphilosophy.

Deleuze & Guattari's What is Philosophy? on the continental side.

Williamson's The Philosophy of Philosophy on the analytic.

Both are great.

[Anonymous No.2214915]

I don't really have any recommendations myself, but whenever I see one of these threads pop up, there's generally at least one post recommending Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery.

[Anonymous No.2214917]

>>2214913

next you should get int Laruele's Non-philosophy

[Anonymous No.2214919]

Schopenhauer's Essays

[Anonymous No.2214920]

Andrea Dworkin "Pornography, Men Possessing Women

[Anonymous No.2214921]

>>2214917

Reading the wiki page now. I'll have to read more about it.

Looks weird and interesting though. What is Laruelle's response to Nietzsche?

On the wiki page it states, "non-philosophy is also related to Gnosticism and science-fiction; it answers their fundamental question –which is not at all philosophys primary concern–: ‘Should humanity be saved? And how?’ And it is also close to spiritual revolutionaries such as Müntzer and certain mystics who skirted heresy. When all is said and done, is non-philosophy anything other than the chance for an effective utopia?”"

Wouldn't a Nietzschean response state that his moral system is still influenced by Judeao-Christianity?

[Anonymous No.2214922]

peter singer - practical ethics
aj ayer - language truth and logic
albert camus - the myth of sisyphus
david hume - an enquiry concerning human understanding

[Anonymous No.2214965]

I'd say Plato, but although it is indeed interesting, reading it may be a bore.

Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" is great. It's easily understood, beautifully written and a masterpiece on its philosophy. Also, "Beyond Good and Evil", by Nietzsche. I usually advice people to read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, in that order, because it's simply necessary to understand late Philosophy. Also, I'd advice you to read Kant before you read "...Will and Representation", so that you can get a better understanding.

Oh, and no matter what you read, please be careful about the translation. Some translators can ruin a book, so just do a little research and stick to the good ones.

[Anonymous No.2214980]

Bertrand Russell - A History of Western Philosophy

/thread

[Anonymous No.2214987]

>>2214980

he was a materialist and tried to slam henri bergson even though he stated blatantly that he still hadn`t grasped more than a vague understanding of bergsons philosophy. eugh

[Anonymous No.2214996]

Look into Hume's stuff on Human Understanding. A lot of Kierkegaard is legit for diving into but i'd suggest going chronologically.

After Nietzsche, do Stirner and prepare your anus.

But make sure it's after Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.2215018]

>>2214996
Do those guys make you alpha? I would love to abuse women since they love that and the chase more than over thinking pussies.

[Anonymous No.2215020]

>>2214965

Schopenhauer's Metaphysics of the Love of the Sexes is another excellent work.

[Anonymous No.2215025]

>>2214996

Nietzsche and Stirner were relatively meek men. No philosophy, however strongly believed, will make you an ubermensch.

If you want to understand women and sexual attraction, study Schopenhauer. What he says of females holds true for the overwhelming majority. He was to sexual psychology what Machiavelli was to statecraft.

[Anonymous No.2215029]

This is my advice for anyone who wants to get into philosophy. Don't get too stuck in the history of philosophy and try to avoid much of what is considered to be in the continental tradition, i.e. phenomenology, existentialism, post-modernism, hegelianism, etc. Instead, focus on contemporary analytical debates and read the following introductions:

Introduction to general philosophical thought and analysis:
. Hosper's "An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis"
. Hughes' "Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills"
. Bagini's "The Philosopher's Toolkit"

Introduction to formal logic:
. Barwise's & Etchemendy's "Language, Proof, and Logic"

Introduction to the history of western philosophy:
. Hamlyn's "The Penguin History of Western Philosophy"

Introduction to political & normative philosophy:
. Kymlicka's "Contemporary Political Philosophy"
. Wolff's "An Introduction to Political Philosophy"
. Rachel's "The Elements of Moral Philosophy"

>Cont.

[D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2215030]

>>2214996
>But make sure it's after Nietzsche.
I'm interested in your reasoning here. I read quite a bit of Nietzsche before I read Stirner's opus and I felt like I was just reading a primitive, crude aspect of Nietzschean thought that was developed more intricately and with more talent by Nietzsche. My own opinion is that if you read Stirner before you read Nietzsche it at least puts you into a better frame of mind with which to engage Nietzsche's writings.

[Anonymous No.2215031]

>>2215018
>>2215025

What are you on about? When did i say anything about being alpha or fucking women?

It won't help you with women. I stated specifically that Stirner should come after Nietzsche because Stirner usually throws people in a void abyss depression for particular reasons. Nietzsche should prepare you for some of that better.

[Anonymous No.2215032]

>>2215029

Introduction to value theory & meta-ethics:
. Bergström's "Grundbok i Värdeteori"
. Miller's "An Introduction to Contemporary Meta-Ethics"

Introduction to the philosophy of religion & aesthetic philosophy:
. Hume's "On Religion"
. Dickie's "An Introduction to Aesthetics: An Analytic Approach"

Introduction to science theory:
. Chalmers' "What Is This Thing Called Science?"

Introduction to the philosophy of language:
. Lycan's "Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction"

Introduction to contemporary philosophy of mind:
. Ravenscroft's "Philosophy of Mind: A Beginners Guide"
. Chalmers' "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory"

Introduction to epistemology:
. Dancy's "Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology"

Introduction to metaphysics:
. Loux' "Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction"
. Lowe's "A Survey of Metaphysics"

If you want a good web-resource where you can look up frequently updated articles on a myriad of different philosophical subjects, look no further than to:
. http://plato.stanford.edu/

Take it or leave it...

[Anonymous No.2215036]

>>2215032

I had Ravenscroft as a professor for an epistemology class. Such a great lecturer, and he made everything incredibly easy to follow. We used chapters of Philosophy of Mind, and it was great. He also knows a lot about religious philosophy, and has papers on phil papers I believe.

[Anonymous No.2215037]

>>2215030

In my experience, Stirner can be read in a number of different ways. I think Stirner is much more radical and "idealist" in his viewpoint. It's because of this that he states he does not care if people read his work and commit vile crime or because egoist assholes. I fell like Nietzsche goes into a lot more depth on various topics but Stirner's opus is a lot more confrontational. It has the reputation in university circles of causing depression because it changes the way you see society but in reality. It posses an even greater uplifting idea which i can't really explain but is akin to what people find in Nietzsche and Camus after they hit their wall.

[Anonymous No.2215041]

>>2215030

the only time d&e is sincere is when he's talking about nietzsche. what is it about him you like, is it the hubris? is it the fact that he invested a little too much time in defending his base tastes in art with theory?

[Anonymous No.2215049]

>>2215031

Apologies. I was responding to >>2215018

[D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2215064]

>>2215041
>the only time d&e is sincere is when he's talking about nietzsche
get a load of this guy everyone

[Anonymous No.2215068]

I liked this book. it's a good overview of stoicism as a way of life.

[Anonymous No.2215082]

>>2215064

yea you're right. I meant to say that there's a coy and sickingly sweet note in your posts all of a sudden. a warmth that wasn't there before, it's disturbing really

[Anonymous No.2215111]

>>2214913
That is not meta-philosophy. The prefix meta is bullshit. Everything will involve a certain degree of methodical self-awareness, if done correctly.