I’ve always had an interest in philosophy but never really knew where to start. I’m very much a neophyte, and would like to stick to philosophical topics I think I adhere to (but I don’t really know where I would fall). I’m not really interested in philosophic religions.
Here’s where I stand:
I’ve heard terms like a priori and arguments and logic that have labels, but I have no education on those basics… is there a primer for a beginner like me?
As far as reality goes, I believe what we see is what we are. But I do think there might be more to the universe than we can detect with current technology, at least directly, and some things we may never be able to answer scientifically… I’m not saying there’s no deeper underlying reality, but that seems pretty far fetched. Although, I’m interested in some arguments surround those ideas.
Religion and theism I find :rolleyes: There could be a God, but if there is, he’s gone out of his way to make it look like he’s not around.
I’m deeply curious in the nature of consciousness, individuality and the general nature of being.
Profoundly interested in the cosmos and our place in it. Although I have a general feeling everything is random and no meaning to be found.
Sophie’s World is supposed to be a pretty accessible introduction to most of western philosophy. It might be worth a look so you can follow up on whatever you find interesting.
I recommend the original books, rather than books about the books. Read, for example, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason or Plato’s The Republic. In general, you’ll do better if you move chronologically. Start with the philosophers listed at the top of this page. They are the really big players in Western philosophy. Each has written at least one major treatise.
One that I would add that most people overlook is Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. It develops a credible philosophy of economics (not just as in “money”, but as in “human relations”) that eventually brought down socialism. You can read the book online through the link. I would also add Jesus as a philosopher, and for that, I’d read the book of John, also available online for free.
Descartes Meditations and Plato’s Republic sound like good starts, based on what you’ve said, at least as far as primary texts go. My own philosophy background doesn’t go into much secondary material, so I can’t recommend any.
I’d recommending at first picking up a used Intro to Philosophy textbook and a reader of some sort-- that gets you a glossary, nutshell overviews of major philosophers and movements, a sampler of essays and arguments, etc. Read the Intro textbook, work through the primers on logic sure to be contained therein, become familiar with the lingo of the field. And then, pick a field you’re interested in exploring…
IMO it sounds like you might be interested in existentialism; I tried reading Kierkegaard and Sartre years ago with no grounding in the study of philosophy, pretty much because the basic description of existentialism sounded like my cup of tea. Without that grounding, though, I really didn’t “get it.” I couldn’t judge their arguments without understanding the contexts in which they were written-- against what were they arguing, why they were using certain terms. I’m only now taking philosophy courses in school, starting to get a feel for things, and perhaps I’ll someday be able to return to Sartre and Kierkegaard…
I always go to the book store, and hold a copy of The Republic in my hand, but then I get intimidated and chicken out. You can’t go through life without reading excerpts from Plato, Descartes and Kant, and I’ve always found what they’ve had to say seminal and interesting. I guess now’s the time to dive in.
Interesting that you bring up the book of John. I was raised in a fundamental christian home, and I am very familiar with their view on the bible in general. I’ve read the book when I was younger, and still under the influence of christian beliefs. I always thought it interesting in its mirroring of genesis in the first chapter, but it’s hard to take seriously when you start to shed theology in general. Can you tell me what you get out of the book, as I’ve never thought about it in a strictly philosophical sense?
I’m sure you’ve hit the nail on the head there. I’ll definitely look into that. Thanks, now I don’t feel so bad about never breaching these topics… there’s a lot of prerequisite material to go over it seems.
I do hold the scientific method to be one of man’s greatest achievements though, and put a lot of stock in it. But I do think, eventually, it might not be enough to explain or resolve the deepest questions mankind has been hunting for. Such as how the universe came to be. Why something exists, rather than nothing… etc.
I’d start with something like that, and then pick up the originals once you’ve got an idea what the debates were like when they were written and what the current debates are like.
If you are interested in podcasts, there are a few philosophy oriented podcasts that I’ve enjoyed:
Both books are well written and comprehensive. Solomon and Higgins manage to make Hegel interesting, which is no mean feat. Scruton is a really good, snarky writer. He’s pretty opinionated, but usually fair. He’s a Tory, and I am not, but I still enjoyed the book.
Reading the classics from Plato to Wittgenstein is an admirable endeavour, but it will take a lot of energy and time. Also if you do it on your own, you may fall prey to some gross misconceptions. If you do go that route outside of a course, I’d recommend looking through scholarly interpretations of each Author.
An oldie but a goodie is Will Durant’s Story of Philosophy, a very readable introduction to many of the major philosophers and their ideas. (My Amazon search reveals that it is also available as an audiobook.)
One of my own favorite philosopical works is Martin Gardner’s The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, in which Gardner (who’s better known for his writings on recreational mathematics or on pseudoscience, but who has an extensive background in philosophy) describes and defends his own views on a variety of philosophical questions (including aesthetic, economic, ethical, and religious ones). If I recall correctly, the first chapter or two are the least interesting to someone who isn’t already a philosopher, so don’t get bogged down at the beginning.
If you do try to tackle the original works, I’ll just say that some are far more readible than others.
Hey, what happened to Nikos Kazantzakis. He doesn’t show up on either the major philosophers up on top or the minor ones at the bottom. Is he considered primarily a poet and novelist now?
The notion of love as a philosophical aesthetic. Jesus teaches a morality that is aesthetical, rather than ethical, in nature. In other words, goodness is something of great value given freely out of love, rather than something earned by following a set of rules. The only other philosopher you will find who spent so much time and effort on aesthetics is Schopenhauer, and it is thoroughly depressing and useless.
Pretty much, yes. But so is Kahlil Gibran, and his work is philosophically insightful. I think a lot of people contribute much to philosophy without being philosophers. I think the list could be much larger, but already the task is onerous for someone just starting out. I think it’s a good list as a place to begin.
Gah. That reminds me. Put Sir Karl Popper on your list, too. Especially Science: Conjectures and Refutations. He’s my favorite philosopher of science, and he pretty much invented the notion of falsifiability.
I’m sorry to hog the thread, but there is one more thing I think I should add in the field of general advice, and this is especially true if you decide to read the original books — take your time and read slowly. You get no extra credit for speed-reading, and sometimes there’s a lot of information packed into just a few words.
Generally, a good philosophy writer will define his terms up front. Sometimes, you’ll be a bit inclined to balk at his definitions, but remember that they’re just a convenience. Kant, for example, borrows the term “synthetic” from the general language and uses it in a way that might be foreign to you at first. So when you get to the parts where the writer is defining things, it’s worth your while to slow down so you can get through what he says after that much easier.
And don’t worry, It’s normal practice in every discipline to borrow terms from general usage and make them specialized, rather than inventing whole new words. That’s why we have words like “force” that mean something completely different in law than in physics.
Also, by reading chronologically, you’ll find that later philosophers take those same terms and change their meanings ever so slightly to suit their own work. And by having the prior definitions under your belt, you’ll get a lot more out of the nuance of it all. (See what Student Driver said about Sartre, for instance.) Read over things if necessary. Don’t be afraid to read something three or four times over. When you get to Kant or Hagel — especially Hagel — you’re going to need the patience of Job.
I was surprised at how densely packed writing could be when taking a course on Hume last semester-- half a semester’s exploration and discussion of Hume’s fork and the is/ought problem arose from relatively short passages; a sentence or two, perhaps a paragraph. I found that reading criticism of a piece, even if it was criticism I found flawed, helped to reveal important passages that bore further reading and interpretation.
Then again, taking a grad-level seminar on a lark without having an Intro course under my belt might have accounted for some of my reading difficulties…
