5 ms·

I respectfully disagree. In many cases, reading secondary sources is pointless without also reading the originals. (It's a bit like reading a review of a meal,

I respectfully disagree. In many cases, reading secondary sources is pointless without also reading the originals. (It's a bit like reading a review of a meal, rather than eating any of it.) That said, the quality of secondary works varies a lot. Some things, like Mackie's Problems from Locke, are now primary sources in their own right, albeit in a secondary way.

samd 16y ago
But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical background who can pick up A Critique of Pure Reason or the Tractatus and actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or Wittgenstein reborn. That's why the parent commenter said you need a guide/instructor to properly understand what is going on in these books, and I agree with that. But for people without such a luxury, secondary sources and articles are a good method for gaining some rudimentary understanding of the philosophical topics.
- telemachos 16y ago
  I don't disagree with some of your larger point. Most people will get the fullest benefit out of a classroom setting, with an engaging and well-read class leader and an engaged and thoughtful group of students to argue with. However, I still believe that a determined outsider can get real benefit out of philosophy on his or her own. (Not the fullest benefit, but significant benefit.) I completely agree with you about cultural/historical/philosophical background, which is why in my answer I made a point of recommending not just titles but specific editions for classical works. Maybe we could call this the best of both worlds: good primary sources, filled out with enriching secondary material, all in one edition? (It does tend to make those editions more costly than some, and also heavier.)

samd 16y ago

But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical background who can pick up A Critique of Pure Reason or the Tractatus and actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or Wittgenstein reborn. That's why the parent commenter said you need a guide/instructor to properly understand what is going on in these books, and I agree with that. But for people without such a luxury, secondary sources and articles are a good method for gaining some rudimentary understanding of the philosophical topics.

telemachos 16y ago
I don't disagree with some of your larger point. Most people will get the fullest benefit out of a classroom setting, with an engaging and well-read class leader and an engaged and thoughtful group of students to argue with. However, I still believe that a determined outsider can get real benefit out of philosophy on his or her own. (Not the fullest benefit, but significant benefit.) I completely agree with you about cultural/historical/philosophical background, which is why in my answer I made a point of recommending not just titles but specific editions for classical works. Maybe we could call this the best of both worlds: good primary sources, filled out with enriching secondary material, all in one edition? (It does tend to make those editions more costly than some, and also heavier.)