rationalskepticism.org

The Black Jester wrote:

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.

Is there truly no value in reading Russell's works, or merely no value in his History of Philosophy?

Hard to say. I think it has value into the mindset of colonial Britain, of which I find him to be the rather perfect incarnation. However, he has all the faults of that imperial mindset, and I would say that there are quite a few faults.

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.

Coupled with what you say below, it may be good to read the articles on Nietzsche's books and see which you find more interesting.

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.

If there is such a pull, it might be sufficient to pull you through philosophy.. That is to say, start reading Nietzsche and see when you see a 'thread' -- when he mentions this philosophy or that individual -- follow it as far as you can. Start with wikipedia, then look at the relevant work, and expand. If you feel a pull towards Nietzsche, use it!

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."

I can guarantee your understanding of Nietzsche will change in various readings. It's something that has to mature, and expecting everything to make sense is silly. Most other philosophers put in a book what can be written in a sentence. The rest is just introduction and discussion