4 ms·

This is a controversial opinion but I think that an introduction to philosophy should probably focus on commentaries and summaries of the great works rather tha

This is a controversial opinion but I think that an introduction to philosophy should probably focus on commentaries and summaries of the great works rather than the original source material. This is stems from a general point about education that it is usually easier to absorb knowledge from a text book that summarizes research than to get it from the original research itself. Philosophy as an academic discipline is somewhat exceptional in that it strictly emphasizes the original works/classics as opposed to most sciences which focus on summaries of key concepts (nobody reads Darwin to learn about evolution or Keynes to learn about economics though both authors are worth reading at some point). This is probably not the best approach for new comers. Obviously things will be missing but these are much more accessible and provide a lot of context that would be lacking if one were to simply jump in. The advice to take an intro course is solid. Open culture has a few linked courses that look good (it’s all about the quality of the lecturer). Also a compendium book is a good place to start.

nicoburns 6y ago
I disagree with this om the basis that it unnecessarily constrains your thinking. If you read the primary sources first then you can go in with an open mind and come to your own interpretation. If you read the secondary sources first then you'll be fitting it into the boxes provided when you read the primary.
randomNumber7 6y ago
I agree with you, because it would be too time consuming to read all original sources. To get the context (how ideas evolved over time) you need to learn a bit about the history of philosophy. On the other hand reading original sources gives you more than a summary. The way of thinking leading to the idea or the way the idea is presented is often more interesting than the idea itself. Take Platon for example. The way he teaches his ideas in dialogue form is very pedagogical. It is even used in psychology [0]. An other example is Freud. He uses a very genius style of logical reasoning. Reading a summary of his ideas doesn't help you because you'll probably not understand it (and think it's nonsense) and sometimes he is just wrong (e.g. homosexuality is mental illness). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning#Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning#Psycholog...

nicoburns 6y ago

I disagree with this om the basis that it unnecessarily constrains your thinking. If you read the primary sources first then you can go in with an open mind and come to your own interpretation. If you read the secondary sources first then you'll be fitting it into the boxes provided when you read the primary.

randomNumber7 6y ago

I agree with you, because it would be too time consuming to read all original sources. To get the context (how ideas evolved over time) you need to learn a bit about the history of philosophy. On the other hand reading original sources gives you more than a summary. The way of thinking leading to the idea or the way the idea is presented is often more interesting than the idea itself. Take Platon for example. The way he teaches his ideas in dialogue form is very pedagogical. It is even used in psychology [0]. An other example is Freud. He uses a very genius style of logical reasoning. Reading a summary of his ideas doesn't help you because you'll probably not understand it (and think it's nonsense) and sometimes he is just wrong (e.g. homosexuality is mental illness). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning#Psychology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning#Psycholog...