Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
wiki wrote: despite the fact that chocolate is not a fruit[citation needed]
Astreja wrote:I look at this sub-forum with great longing, wanting to participate but not really being all that conversant with the classics and some of the terminology.
Can you recommend any websites or smallish books that cover the basics of philosophical discourse without bogging down in minutiae?
Sophie's World is an excellent intro to philosophy.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Sophie's World is an excellent intro to philosophy.
ETA: I see it has already been recommended. That's two votes.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:Sophie's World is an excellent intro to philosophy.
Doesn't have Nietzsche. That said, it's better to not have him then to discuss him like Bertrand Wooster.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:There's also Maya, from the same author as Sophie's world, which deals more with eastern philosophy - perhaps UE can cover more of that, I didn't find that a terribly impressive book either.
Astreja wrote:ethics
Astreja wrote:epistemology
Astreja wrote:logic
Tsuyoiko wrote:I'll suggest some works for each of the areas you mentioned, but you'll probably want to google for an overview of the ideas contained in them first, rather than jumping straight into the actual works.Astreja wrote:ethics
On Liberty and Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
Anything by Peter Singer
The Socratic Dialogues
Modern Moral Philosophy by G Anscombe
Ethics Without Principles by Jonathan DancyAstreja wrote:epistemology
Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Discourse on the Method by Rene Descartes
An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Jonathan DancyAstreja wrote:logic
Organon by Aristotle
Concept Notation by Gottlob Frege
Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:
With the exception of Aristotle and Frege, all shit.
Although UE's advice is solid on Sophie's World, I usually recommend people use wikipedia. There just isn't a proper general book on philosophy that isn't horribly biased one way or the other. From there, read primary works of authors - don't be afraid to read diagonal, skip chapters or not understand stuff. Go back later if you want more. Check out different authors, different viewpoints.
The Black Jester wrote:Comte de St.-Germain wrote:
With the exception of Aristotle and Frege, all shit.
Although UE's advice is solid on Sophie's World, I usually recommend people use wikipedia. There just isn't a proper general book on philosophy that isn't horribly biased one way or the other. From there, read primary works of authors - don't be afraid to read diagonal, skip chapters or not understand stuff. Go back later if you want more. Check out different authors, different viewpoints.
Intriguing advice. Forgive the intrusion, but I've been following this thread (and other Philosophy threads) with interest, and have appreciated your contributions. I've been looking for some advice on solid, introductory material myself, and have been frustrated by the offerings I've been finding thus far. Most that I've seen do seem to have a fairly obvious slant, particularly where introductions to Philosophy of Mind are concerned. I can't imagine introductory material in, say, Ethics would be any less biased.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:
From there, read primary works of authors - don't be afraid to read diagonal, skip chapters or not understand stuff.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:If you look at Bertrand Wooster Russell, you'll come out feeling pretty horrible if you have any regard for Post-Kantian German philosophy.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:None of those books are introductions, however, and perhaps even impossible to read for someone who doesn't have a background in philosophy. Hence my recommendation of wikipedia. It's not entirely fair and balanced, but if you read multiple articles, you usually end up with a pretty good understanding.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:For an understanding of Nietzsche, I would first recommend his own books, if that's impossible, the wikipedia pages on him and his works, and only then various introduction texts. The latter are always occupied with interpreting him in their own ideology.
katja z wrote: You would recommend diagonal reading of philosophy? I'd always been under the impression that I had to get everything the author was saying, and this can be slow and hard work*, especially with the more recent ones, with the whole cumulative history of the field behind them.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:None of those books are introductions, however, and perhaps even impossible to read for someone who doesn't have a background in philosophy. Hence my recommendation of wikipedia. It's not entirely fair and balanced, but if you read multiple articles, you usually end up with a pretty good understanding.
I have suspected that my attempts to learn Philosophy would be ill-fated without more formal instruciton in the area (I have had some, but minimal). Indeed, it almost put me off the quest entirely. Sole reliance on my own faculties seemed foolish and deluded at best, and likely to lead me entirely astray at worst. It is comforting to know that Wikipedia has some actual useful information, that can perhaps rescue my endeavors. I will take your advice.
Comte de St.-Germain wrote:For an understanding of Nietzsche, I would first recommend his own books, if that's impossible, the wikipedia pages on him and his works, and only then various introduction texts. The latter are always occupied with interpreting him in their own ideology.
This strikes me as very wise. There always seems to be a desperate attempt to appropriate Nietzsche, or worse, to "rescue" him from certain implications by commentators on his works. But I am definitely fascinated by what I have encountered of his works - there is a strange gravitational pull about him for me.
katja z wrote: You would recommend diagonal reading of philosophy? I'd always been under the impression that I had to get everything the author was saying, and this can be slow and hard work*, especially with the more recent ones, with the whole cumulative history of the field behind them.
My initial reaction exactly. I read Philosophy terribly slowly as a result, making my attempts to learn anything in a particular area laborious and painful. But rewarding, nonetheless. It's encouraging to think I can give myself permission to "not understand."
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest