/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2610860]

So I don't really know anything about philosophy. Should I start with this?

[Anonymous No.2610867]

yeah. whatever. read whatever fucking book you want. just read it. read the fucking book. you'll learn everything about everything. just read it. just fucking read it.

[Anonymous No.2610874]

>>2610867
take your medicine

[Anonymous No.2610876]

It'd be the equivalent of watching a Youtube atheist's videos because you want an overview of the history of religion/Christianity

Russell is famously biased, closed-minded, uninformed, and frankly stupid in the book

[Anonymous No.2610879]

>>2610876
Is there, then, a sweeping introduction to philosophy which I can use to see what's out there, in order to determine what I want to read more deeply into?

[Anonymous No.2610885]

It's as good a place as any. People tend to start with Plato or Nietzsche, or some Eastern tradition. I started with Wikipedia.

From what I've been told though, Russell is rather inaccurate in his interpretation of Nietzsche in that book.

[Anonymous No.2610889]

>>2610879
Not really. Nothing famous or classic, anyway. Honestly, there's not much you need to know that a few hours of Wikipedia won't fix. This image is a reasonable guide.

/lit/ is kind of split between whether you should "read what you like," or follow the chronological approach. Personally I advocate the chronological, if you're seriously interested in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2610891]

Every aspiring philosopher should begin with a basic education of formal logic, as it crops up all over the place, and puts you miles ahead of your typical 'armchair' philosophers. I recommend 'Logic' by Paul Tomassi, although the whole book is not neccesary, just a grasp of the basics is enough. Following this (or skipping it if you want to jump in to the meat of it):

Try 'The Right Thing To Do' by James Rachels. I can't find a download link, but here's an overview:

http://www.jamesrachels.org/rtd4e.htm

And If you're interested in Nietzsche, then I agree that you need to go for Plato's Republic (although keep in mind that for a beginner, consider the Socrates in Republic as a fictional character rather than discuss the philosophical views as Socratic, as most people only take Plato's early dialogues to be the historical Socrates. The issue is complicated, but for a beginner, take the mainstream view).

Look at wikipedia pages for Epistemology, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Science, and Metaphysics. Come back if you want more on any of those topics.

Read 'On Denoting' by Bertrand Russell, it's probably his most important work: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoting/

And learn the difference between consequentialist views and deontologism. Included in this is to learn about utilitarianism, egoism, and moral absolutism, and many other ways of looking at things.

[Anonymous No.2610892]

>>2610879
You should read Copleston's 9 volume History of Philosophy series. You can download it for free from the internet, which is morally OK to do, because Copleston is dead.

[Anonymous No.2610893]

>>2610867
great post

[Anonymous No.2610894]

>>2610889
Ignore this guy, OP. He's not helpful at all. Listen to me, instead: >>2610892

[Anonymous No.2610897]

its still a really good overview..but you should take what he says with a pich of salt, as you should when you read anything ever written by anyone ever, and keep in mind that he has a bias towards the "analytical tradition"

[Anonymous No.2610899]

>>2610879
>50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know
It's not a very scholarly title, but there they are.

>>2610889
>>2610889
Seconded.

[Anonymous No.2610903]

>>2610892
>>2610894
I don't really think you need to tell the OP to ignore someone, since he can read both posts and decide for himself either way, faget.

Honestly, I'd avoid any one "history of philosophy" that isn't amalgamated from tons of sources, and very general (eg. Wikipedia, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). Especially 20th century historians of philosophy, who tend to be very jaundiced about which avenues of inquiry were "dead ends" or "pointless/fruitless," etc. Especially since you can read Plato and Aristotle within like 2 months, and literally everything you read afterwards will be ten times as enjoyable and informed.

[Anonymous No.2610909]

>>2610903
If you want something that makes really rigorous use of tons of sources, then the Routledge History of Philosophy is the way to go. It can be quite difficult and confusing for a beginner, though. Be ready to do some work

[Anonymous No.2610926]

Read/listen in this order:
Critical Thinking by Moore & Parker, any edition
The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy by Melchert
Great Ideas of Philosophy (audio), The Teaching Company and Professor Daniel N. Robinson
The Philosopher's Toolkit by Baginni
Plato's complete works, Benjamin Jowett's translations (free.)

[Anonymous No.2610934]

>>2610892
seconding copleston, also

>>2610909
Routledge series is fine too.

[Anonymous No.2610943]

Poster of >>2610934
>>2610926

Thirding Coplestone, but it's a fucking epic.

[Anonymous No.2610945]

You should do what every piece of shit hipster does. Pick up a copy of Critique of Pure Reason. Get a few pages into it. Give up. Read the sparknotes. Tell people you are really into philosophy.

Or you could just read one of the thousands of introductions to philosophy and then start reading up on the topics you are interested in.

[Anonymous No.2610950]

>>2610945
Did you have a bad experience with a dilettante or something?

Dilekant..

[Anonymous No.2610952]

>>2610867
I have no clue what the fuck a suggestion is or how does it works. Do I back that thang up or do I push up on it

[Anonymous No.2610966]

>>2610945
Einstein was reading Kant at age 12, and Kant ended up becoming his favorite philosopher

[Anonymous No.2612219]

>>2610889
This is utter shit.
Listing Phenomenology without Husserl?
Listing only Heidegger?
Come on...!

[Anonymous No.2612604]

My suggestion is actually to start with The Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I know its cliche but its relatable and really gets you into philosophical ideas. it really is a good intro to Plato and everything is really just a footnote to Plato. He's the fucking bomb. I think this is the best way if a teacher isn't guiding you through some of the more challenging parts of philosophy. Also, don't go to Wiki, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It can really clear things up without giving a too much of a biased opinion.

[Anonymous No.2612620]

>>2610860
Im making my way through it now, i had to break it up with some fiction. its good, but i think im impatient for the middle of the book. The greeks and their interest in the universe being made out of x element is boring as fuck

[Anonymous No.2612633]

Why don't we just come up with a guide to philosophy, 50-100 books, from beginner to difficult, read them in this order ect.

It would be really easy to do and it would alleviate all of these stupid threads.

[Anonymous No.2612644]

>>2612633

Ok here I'll start, change whatever you like.

1. The Stranger - Camus
2. Crito - Plato
3. Apology - Socrates
4. Meno - Plato
5. Nausea - Sartre
6. The Rebel - Camus
7. Phaedo - Plato
8. The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus
9. The Republic - Plato
10. The Communist Manifesto - Marx
11. Tao of Pooh - by that one guy
12. The Prince - Machiavelli
94. Being and Time - Heidegger
95. On Grammatology - Derrida

Please add or move around stuff as you please.

[Anonymous No.2612650]

The Great Conversation.

[HeraCletus !!0Tz870rGSWW No.2612657]

>should I start with this?

Nice attempt at the Socratic method but I'm not going to fall for it n00b.

If you want to be a philosopher learn proper reasoning

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[Anonymous No.2612663]

>>2612644
I think novels shouldn't be included in this list.
I love Camus but better keep his The Stranger out of this list.

I'd start with a general introduction
* A History of Western Philo. by Russell (why not)
and if you dont like him personally
go with:

Routledge History of Philosophy (10 Volumes)

or you're in need of something shorter, and other than by Russell:

A Brief History of Western Philosophy - Anthony Kenny

[Anonymous No.2612668]

>>2612663
in addition

there should defs be a book on Logic.

No logic no nothing.

* Logic for Philosophy - Theodore Sider
* Introduction to Logic - Gensler, Harry J
* Logic - Paul Tomassi

[Anonymous No.2612675]

>>2610889
this is an okay chart.

though it would be much better if it'd be placed on a timeframe. for example; Hinduism/Budism normally predates christiantiy but it's (though as an independent source) comes later than Jesus. At least it looks so.

[Anonymous No.2612693]

>>2612633
Pleasu

[Anonymous No.2612697]

im a philosophy major, fuck you, fuck you, god
fuck, die

[Anonymous No.2612703]

>>2612697
u mad bro? please elaborate.

[Anonymous No.2612758]

>>2612703
philosophy made me want to kill myself, it feels so good

[Anonymous No.2612777]

>>2612633
It's already there in the sticky. :)

[Anonymous No.2612787]

Just popped into this thread to make sure that OP steers clear of Russell. Russell is a self-satisfied cunt who lets his inherent banality dribble all over the glorious philosophy of the past.

[Anonymous No.2612793]

>>2612777
But it's a shittty guide

[Anonymous No.2612795]

I strongly recommend you to start with some of the earlier philosophers, like Plato. Try going with "The Republic", "Phaedo" and "Phaedrus". After that, go with Aristotle (reading "Nicomachean Ethics" would be a wise choice).

[Anonymous No.2612796]

>>2612793
I've bought a few books from the Early-Greek philosophy section - it definitely serves well for my purposes of reading them. It's readable and elaborate. How the rest are, however, I wouldn't know.

[Anonymous No.2612800]

By the way, Russell is fucking boring. If he's the first author you are diving into, you probably will stop reading philosophy and will hate it forever.

[Anonymous No.2612808]

I'm noticing a lot of Russell hate here, but wasn't Russell a seminal logician who made important observations in philosophy? Honest question.

[Anonymous No.2612812]

>>2612808
Yes, but I think /lit/ generally tends to be fairly uninterested in logic, and mostly continental / phenomenological in outlook, which does not really incline one to a serious engagement with Russell.

[Anonymous No.2612817]

>>2612812
i.e: they're interested in the lesser branches of philosophes

[Anonymous No.2612827]

>>2612817
well, if that's the way you want to play it, i guess.

it's funny (and i say this with no particular brief for or against analytic philosophy) but it's funny that the only contributions /lit/ really gets from the analytic side of things is "analytic philosophy is superior. contintental philosophy is for dumb babbies, and anyone of real intelligence will do analytic philosophy". i don't think i've ever seen an analytic guy on here make a substantive point or contribute any kind of content to a philosophy discussion here, it's always just a sneering rejection of continental philosophy. it's weird.

[Anonymous No.2612850]

>>2612827
This is 4chan.
/lit/ is always like that about everything, just like other boards are about their interests.

[Anonymous No.2612857]

>>2610860
check out this bookshelf, all formats available, epub and kindle, html and plain text... fuck yeah...
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Philosophy_%28Bookshelf%29

[Anonymous No.2612908]

>>2612857
Sir, I fuckin love you. Please, let me suck your cock

[Anonymous No.2613029]

>>2612808
I've just started reading philosophy more closely.
started with Russell's History...
best thing I've learnt from him: know your fucking Logic, always have a disinterested approach to truth.

I'm not well-versed in philosophy (as I said above), but I used to think the continental ideas (i.e idealism, i.e. Plato and his pathetic followers) were "cool" but after reading Russell's History... I think I'm closer to the British school leaning towards the analytical side of thinking.

[Anonymous No.2613033]

Make sure to stay away from Nietzsche until you can understand him. Basically everybody on the internet misinterprets him.
You should habe at least BASIC understandings of Platonism/generally Hellenistic Philosophy, German Idealism and Schopenhauer to understand where he comes from and what he criticizes. Especially German Idealism for his critique of philosophical systems and teleological thinking.
Also wouldn't help to have read some of the people he influenced (Foucault, other Post-Modernists, Frankfurt School and others).

I'm just sick of Nietzsche-reading freshmen.

[Anonymous No.2613063]

>>2612644
>>2612644

The list is good, but don't read the Communist Manifesto. It is what the title says - a Manifesto meant for the German proletariat of 1848 and not as philosophically worthwhile as it may seem. I would, for a start, recommend Grundrisse der politischen Ökonomie (=Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy).
Or the Paris Manuscripts (also called Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts). This is the young, philosophical Marx. He develops his basic theory of Economics and (which is important) his theory of alienation, which is fascinating and highly important for later developments in non-orthodox Marxism/Critical Theory starting in the 1920s.

Then there's also Capital. But you don't need to read that unless you want to get heavily involved with Marxism. Even Habermas first read it when he was already assistant of Adorno in Frankfurt.

[Anonymous No.2613093]

Not OP, but what do you guys think of these Routes?

[Anonymous No.2613102]

I wouldn't take anything after (maybe) Hume, seriously. Russell seems to lose his analytical abilities after that and just prints his own rather biased opinions on whatever philosopher he's discussing.

[Anonymous No.2613104]

>>2610860
Yes, but skip the part about catholic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2613105]

>>2613093
Looks pretty good. Skip the german idealists. They were all dicks.

[Anonymous No.2613106]

My first philosophical work was Plato's Symposium. I heartily enjoyed it and from then I moved onto Plato's other works (Republic, Phaedo, Apology etc.). I branched off from Republic to other political philosophy, since this was what interested me more than the meaning of life or whatever. Machiavelli's Prince, Paine's Rights of Man, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Hobbes' Leviathan; that sort of thing.

Just find a topic you want to know more about, then read the most entry-level stuff regarding it. If you like what you read, delve deeper and more obscure.

[Anonymous No.2613114]

>>2613104
hahahaahahahahaahhahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.2613118]

>>2613105
Butthurt untermensch detected.

[Anonymous No.2613124]

>>2613105
>>2613105

Definitely not. You won't understand anything properly if you don't know Kant. You wont understand Hegel if you don't know Kant and you won't understand vast parts of Continental Philosophy if you don't understand Hegel. You can't argue that German Idealism is not one of the most fundamental traditions in Modern Philosophy. If you don't read them, you will always stay a pleb.

Schelling and Fichte on the other hand... not that important.

[Anonymous No.2613125]

>>2613104
>>2613114
>catholic philosophy
>rape boys
>condoms give you aids

[Anonymous No.2613130]

>>2613125
I would agree with the skipping Catholic Philosophy. They took Natural Law as a sound concept and turned it into some bullshit ideology that now serves the sole purpose of spreading AIDs in africa.

[Anonymous No.2613140]

>>2613093

OP if you're interested in Political Philosophy don't forget reading Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. They're also fairly easy to grasp, you don't need to know much beforehand to get them. Plus you absolutely need to know these guys if you want to get into this field.

(Macchiavelli also of course)

[Anonymous No.2613144]

>>2613125
>>2613130
You guys obviously have no idea what catholic philosophy is.

The poster who advised OP to skip it did so because Russell didn´t have an idea about it either.

[Anonymous No.2613191]

I think this is a good basis for someone who's really interested in philosophy:

A book about pre-socratic philosophy;
For Plato, enough works have been posted in the thread. Just check what each dialogues is about and pick the ones that seems more interesting to you.
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics
Marcus Aurelius: Meditations; Seneca: On Peace of Mind (or anything really);
Whatever you can find of Epicurus;
Pascal: Pensées;
Descartes: Discourse on Method;
Spinoza: Ethics (be sure to have side notes, commentaries, explanations, or any kind of help);
Leibniz: Monadology;
Locke: Essay Concerning Human Understanding;
Berkeley: A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge;
Hume: Tratise of Human Nature;
Kant: Groundwork of the Methaphysics of Morals, Critique of Practical Reason;
Hegel: some introduction to The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit.
Schopenhauer: I know it's long, but The World as Will and Representation is a must.
Nietzsche: The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil (avoid Thus Spoke Zarathustra like the plague)

Now for philosophy of the last century, it's so vast and varied that I can't reallt recommend stuff. By that time, you'll know what you like and you'll be able to read philosophers according to your interests.

[Anonymous No.2613213]

>>2613130
I think you mean the School of Salamanca, which was the basis for international law, including human rights, and just war theory.

[Anonymous No.2613295]

itt normalfags and plebs

[Anonymous No.2615553]

bump

[Anonymous No.2615561]

>>2613191

I'd switch out Aurelius for Epictetus' Discourses to represent Stoic thought

[Anonymous No.2617016]

>>2612644
can people please continue this? I'm but a poorly educated pleb, and find it very helpful to see numbers used to identify the increase in level of difficulty in an order of books. Also, am pleased to see novels where the concept is demonstrated in reasonably simple real-life terms, and not just tomes where the author expounds own ideas while overloading my feeble tiny brain with big words.

[Anonymous No.2617020]

>>2617016
Well, the problem is that numbers SEEM objective, but really they're totally subjective. For one example - Plato's Republic seems pretty understandable, and the immediate sense of what Plato is saying is pretty comprehensible - but really figuring out what's going on with the Republic is immensely complicated and contentious.

[Anonymous No.2617028]

Never read Russell, he is corrosive fagotry at its finest.

[Anonymous No.2617030]

Just finished reading Seneca/Epictetus/Marcus.

Enjoyed it, some of the stuff was mindblowing.

Wat read now?

[Anonymous No.2617035]

>>2617020
Agreed.

Also important, because Western philosophers were all more-or-less aware of their predecessors, reading things in order will make later things a loooot easier. Just reading Plato and Aristotle will save your goddamn life in the long run.

s'fun too

[Anonymous No.2617063]

The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. It's a pleb book but you seemed to be asking for some kind of sweeping, easy introduction to Western philosophy and this is the book that got me started on that path. Just be sure to follow it up with some 20th century intellectual history reading because it was published in the 1920's.

[Anonymous No.2617072]

>>2617020
Also, Heidegger is difficult mostly because of his tendency to repeat himself over and over. You have to take your time over it. BUT, it's easier than Nietzsche in the sense of the amount of stuff it's referencing (even though he does also reference Nietzsche).

[Anonymous No.2619182]

>>2617030
Do you think the Stoics are still relevant?

Non-philosophy major here.

[Anonymous No.2619197]

>>2619182
There are no modern Stoics really, in the sense of adherence to their metaphysics, but their methods of discipline and all that are pretty interesting and widely read by the general public. Relatively speaking.

[Anonymous No.2619212]

Please just one advice about people new to philosophy. Please, do NOT start with Nietzsche or Sartre. I know it sounds tempting because they are popular with the general public (I started with Sartre too). But you will not really understand them. Reading Nietzsche is only reasonable if you have at least a tiny bit of knowledge of what he's referring to (i.e., criticizing). And Sartre is just not that good of a philosopher in some (if not most, that disputable) parts, so you might want to know what parts sound sketchy instead of just diving in and believing everything, which is a normal reflex is you read about a subject you don't know enough about.

[Anonymous No.2619249]

>>2619182
Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is a good book and you should read it.

[bvalltu !mPczjqR4J6 No.2619625]

oh hey it's this thread again

Just dropping in once more to promote the glory that is the historical approach. Start with the greeks and work your way up.

Also the teaching company has good lectures

[Anonymous No.2619634]

>>2619625
so do you have to pay for the teaching company?

wasn't there a free alternative to this?

[bvalltu !mPczjqR4J6 No.2619648]

>>2619634
I recommend "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 3rd Edition"

http://torrentz.eu/a219d531705ee0818fbc268a0d3daaa419e5109a

84 lectures, from the presocratics to Rorty, MacIntyre and Nozick

It's a pretty good intro

[Anonymous No.2619718]

Descartes Spinoza Hobbes
Hume Berkely Reid
Rousseau Kant Hegel
Stirner Schopenhauer Kierkegaard
Nietzsche Husserl Bergson
Heidegger Schmidt Strauss
Quine Habermas Sloterdijk

[Anonymous No.2619725]

>>2619648
they also have a good course on the greek philosophers, nice intro to the presocratics

it labours the point a little bit on the PLATO IS RESPONDING TO THE FUCKING SOPHISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but honestly, it'll pay for itself in spades when you start reading plato and don't feel lost

[bvalltu !mPczjqR4J6 No.2619729]

>>2619725
Well this is why you start with the presocratics, but if you want a good overview, that's it alright

[bvalltu !mPczjqR4J6 No.2619760]

>>2619725
>>2619725

Oh also, if you want a good intro to ancient-medieval philosophy, I think "The dream of reason" by Anthony Gottlieb is better than the TTC series on the greeks. The audiobook is pretty well done.

It's on torrent, just search for it because this fucking spam prevention shit is preventing me from posting the link

[Anonymous No.2619773]

Another vote for Coppleston.