5 ms·

I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed. Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or Husserl

I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed. Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or Husserl's "Logical Investigations"-- but incredibly difficult to read unprepared. If you were ready to be reading them, you wouldn't be asking the question here. The two books you mention in the question (Common Sense and "On the Fourfold Root") are both quite readable, as are a few of the primary texts mentioned in the responses ("Existentialism is a Humanism", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra") but in general, I'd have to suggest you stay away from primary texts at first. In other words, begin by reading works about philosophy, rather than works of philosophy. A single-volume work on the history of philosophy will give you the broad scope (for example, Durant, or Russell, or "Sophie's World" if you prefer fiction), but will tend to turn the philosophers discussed into caricatures of themselves. You mention that you are in school; I'd suggest you take a philosophy course or two, if you are interested in the field. Having an experienced guide will definitely help.

afroisalreadyin 16y ago
This is also my experience with reading philosophy; just like significant works in any other fields, you can't approach many important books of philosophy head-on. You have to first get an understanding of the bckground, which also allows you to understand the fundamental dichotomies, and why different philosophers treat different questions as the primary ones. In this respect, the best history of philosophy I know of is Skirbekk's "A History of Western Thought: From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century", a highly recommended read.
humblepatience 16y ago
I agree, Being and Time is an impossible read - Betrand Russell is a good start
yters 16y ago
Problem with reading secondary material is it'll be colored by the worldview of said author, and generally people will stick philosophers in easy categories without trying to actually understand them. For example, often you'll read modern synopses of Plato saying he thought the physical world is bad, even though he says no such thing.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  I agree, and I tried to raise that point (regarding one-volume histories turning philosophers into caricatures.) The problem is: you have to start somewhere. And with most philosophers, the primary texts aren't going to make any sense at all if you don't have the context build up already. Secondary sources are a necessary evil at that beginning stage.
  - yters 16y ago
    I'd recommend starting off with easier primary sources. Per that lesswrong post about coming up with solutions too early and how that constrains thinking, the same critique applies here. But, cultural background is useful, I would place that in a different category than the secondary summaries of philosophers' work.
- Mentat_Enki 16y ago
  Technically, HE himself, as in Plato, first person, never says 'the physical world is bad'. However, if you study his work, you will find that this notion is indeed carried out in the words and actions of his protagonist, Socrates. For example, and maybe the best example: Socrates, laying on his back as the numbness and cold from the hemlock worked its way from his legs upward after willingly drinking it, removed the cloth that had been laid across his face and said "Oh... don't forget to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius for me...". This phrase, which was also used by Steinbeck in "The Moon is Down" in a similar context, is taken to mean "please go an make an offering to the God of Ailments & Cures, as I have been cured of the curses of the physical world by death, and am going to a much better place..." Also, Plato's take wasn't that the physical world was "bad" so much as it was composed of imperfect instances of the "Forms"; Reality as mere shadows and projections of purer, more abstract concepts. I take slight issue, however, with you denigrating "secondary materials" with a broad stroke. There are some really very good, objective analyses of Plato (Vlastos, et. al.) that actually provide a great deal of insight from time to time by explaining some of the idioms and pre-conceived notions of the time and culture that are necessarily understood to be placed in the proper context to understand the dialogue. For my 2¢, I say to the OP: Wittgenstein. The "Brown" and "Blue" books. Very interesting, modern philosophy that deals with semantic meaning and the binding of semantics to syntax and lexicon. Very intriguing stuff. Oh, and the guy was a kindergarden teacher, so you KNOW he had balls of steel. ;)

afroisalreadyin 16y ago

This is also my experience with reading philosophy; just like significant works in any other fields, you can't approach many important books of philosophy head-on. You have to first get an understanding of the bckground, which also allows you to understand the fundamental dichotomies, and why different philosophers treat different questions as the primary ones. In this respect, the best history of philosophy I know of is Skirbekk's "A History of Western Thought: From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century", a highly recommended read.

humblepatience 16y ago

I agree, Being and Time is an impossible read - Betrand Russell is a good start

yters 16y ago

Problem with reading secondary material is it'll be colored by the worldview of said author, and generally people will stick philosophers in easy categories without trying to actually understand them. For example, often you'll read modern synopses of Plato saying he thought the physical world is bad, even though he says no such thing.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
I agree, and I tried to raise that point (regarding one-volume histories turning philosophers into caricatures.) The problem is: you have to start somewhere. And with most philosophers, the primary texts aren't going to make any sense at all if you don't have the context build up already. Secondary sources are a necessary evil at that beginning stage.
- yters 16y ago
  I'd recommend starting off with easier primary sources. Per that lesswrong post about coming up with solutions too early and how that constrains thinking, the same critique applies here. But, cultural background is useful, I would place that in a different category than the secondary summaries of philosophers' work.
Mentat_Enki 16y ago
Technically, HE himself, as in Plato, first person, never says 'the physical world is bad'. However, if you study his work, you will find that this notion is indeed carried out in the words and actions of his protagonist, Socrates. For example, and maybe the best example: Socrates, laying on his back as the numbness and cold from the hemlock worked its way from his legs upward after willingly drinking it, removed the cloth that had been laid across his face and said "Oh... don't forget to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius for me...". This phrase, which was also used by Steinbeck in "The Moon is Down" in a similar context, is taken to mean "please go an make an offering to the God of Ailments & Cures, as I have been cured of the curses of the physical world by death, and am going to a much better place..." Also, Plato's take wasn't that the physical world was "bad" so much as it was composed of imperfect instances of the "Forms"; Reality as mere shadows and projections of purer, more abstract concepts. I take slight issue, however, with you denigrating "secondary materials" with a broad stroke. There are some really very good, objective analyses of Plato (Vlastos, et. al.) that actually provide a great deal of insight from time to time by explaining some of the idioms and pre-conceived notions of the time and culture that are necessarily understood to be placed in the proper context to understand the dialogue. For my 2¢, I say to the OP: Wittgenstein. The "Brown" and "Blue" books. Very interesting, modern philosophy that deals with semantic meaning and the binding of semantics to syntax and lexicon. Very intriguing stuff. Oh, and the guy was a kindergarden teacher, so you KNOW he had balls of steel. ;)