5 ms·

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but READ THE PRIMARY SOURCES. "There is a strange idea that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but READ THE PRIMARY SOURCES. "There is a strange idea that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about ‘isms’ and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my endeavors as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire." -C.S. Lewis I attend the best "Great Books" program in the country, the Torrey Honors College. Here are the strictly philosophy texts they had us start off with the first semester: Plato's Meno, Symposium, and Republic, and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. You can find the full reading list here: https://www.biola.edu/torrey/academics/reading-list https://www.biola.edu/torrey/academics/reading-list If you want to dig in more, I would encourage you to look into the "Great Books of the Western World" set compiled by Mortimer Adler. There is an accompanying curriculum that walks you through reading them without a teacher or classroom [https://www.thegreatideas.org/tgi-program.html https://www.thegreatideas.org/tgi-program.html]. You can typically find them on eBay for relatively cheap.

crazygringo 6y ago
At some point you should get to the original sources if you want to be an academic, yes. But the reality is that 99% of the original source material is not relevant, will not be particularly rewarding, and may require a grad-level background to even understand many of the sentences. You want to read Hobbes Leviathan? Guess what, the only parts that matter today are a handful of pages. Same with Kant's Groundwork, Aristotle's Politics, etc. The famous philosophers are (mostly) famous for their essential ideas, not the full lengths of their books. For example: the majority of Hobbes' Leviathan is coming up with an entire theory of natural law, dealing with religion, etc. But none of that stuff was particularly noteworthy. The part that's relevant today was his original thoughts on the social contract, which is a very short part. It's far more important to read textbooks, surveys, etc. to understand the ideas and be able to put each philosopher in context of who they were responding to and who responded to them. Then if you're an academic or going to write a paper or something, sure go to the actual sources. I say this having read tons of Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Kant, Locke, Rawls, etc. I've needed to for my work, but I would never recommend reading them to someone just casually interested in philosophy. That's like telling someone who wants to learn how to program that they should be reading the C compiler source code.
- bordercases 6y ago
  At the same time these primary works are the main examples of philosophy actually being done. Any summary material can only speak to the results of philosophy, while the primary sources when closely analyzed (like source code!) yield the process. Which will be more helpful if one wants to develop a "personal philosophy"? Working out the chains of reasoning or picking-and-choosing from a menu?
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    I honestly can't agree at all. The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. Then it's up to generates of scholars afterwards to argue about what the actual process of logical argument was. Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. Very often, it's precisely the summary works that situate the thinkers in a context that illuminates the process that led to their conclusions. Also I don't know what you mean about "developing a personal philosophy"... I'm talking about academic philosophy here.
    - bordercases 6y ago
      The goal of the OP was stated at the bottom of the post as developing a personal philosophy. You can take it up with them, but I interpreted it as coming up with a reasoned worldview for oneself through contemplating existing philosophies. I actually agree that philosophical works are not mathematical proofs. But thought processes do not close over logic, they close over natural language. The point of reading primary texts is to interpret the text, to reverse out the thought process of what is being said through close reading and exposing hidden assumptions (i.e. hermeneutics). This isn't a strictly logical process, but it's common to all natural-language argumentation, including philosophy and law. With that in mind, if Kant, Aristotle, Seneca and Rawls count as primary works – then what you're saying is false. They didn't state things in a vacuum; they all developed their views in a context, some of it from some base observations, much of it responding to interpretations of other points of view. You have a point in that primary sources are not sufficient on their own, and scholars use their experience and erudition to understand these observations and fill in the context, particularly when the writing is otherwise more sparse. But neither would introductory texts be sufficient since they hide a lot of the tacit knowledge that could allow one to reason the way the author of a text reasoned when they produced their philosophical viewpoint.
bigfoot675 6y ago
This sounds like good advice in theory, but if someone isn't even at the stage of knowing what they want to read, I don't think picking a significant book at face value is going to work out well. In fact, I bet it would probably end with a large majority of people reading the first 10 pages of Plato/Socrates/etc., getting confused by the utter lack of context, and giving up. That's what I did the first couple times I "tried to get into philosophy." It took me getting to undergrad philosophy classes to really "get it." At the very least, if you're going to go for primary sources, find a guide or lecture to lead you through it. Of course primary sources are important to read in philosophy, but in my personal opinion, I would recommend going for an introductory text first and picking primary sources to read from there.
- konjin 6y ago
  I read Plato's Republic in three weeks at 14. It was a lot more interesting than anything else at school because it actually talked to you instead of talking at you. If you're going to start anywhere you might as well start there because ethics is an area everyone can understand and the republic is written in a way that anyone with a working brain can appreciate.
unreal6 6y ago
I would agree that reading the primary sources is important, but it must be accompanied by some form of commentary, especially when beginning (whether this is in the form of a teacher/professor, books or another form I think is less relevant). A lot of philosophical texts are incredibly dense and challenging to understand. In many cases, without context about what is being discussed or responded to, the points won't necessarily be understood.
rstefanic 6y ago
It's an unpopular opinion depending on what you're recommending. Telling someone "read the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle" will lead someone to just pick up any copy of the Nicomachean Ethics. There are a lot of translations of the Nicomachean Ethics and they are not all equal. They range from very good translations, to idiosyncratic readings of the text, to flat out bad translations. Beyond poor translations, the ancients that you've recommended are good to start with and the recommendation to read the primary sources of them is just fine. Those texts are easy to digest without having a formal background in philosophy. But for other philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel), telling someone to just "pick up one of their primary texts" is a disaster. It will either (a.) be complete gibberish to the reader without any context and they may just give up, or worse, (b.) they think they'll understand something without the proper context and spew nonsense in regards to that philosopher (this is why there are so many bad readings of Nietzsche). So depending on what you're recommending, primary sources can be good, but in my experience, primary sources aren't good most of the time. Moreover, if someone is interested in a specific field like the OP is, then having a good secondary source can be extremely helpful to give someone an overview and proper understanding of the topic.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "for other philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel), telling someone to just "pick up one of their primary texts" is a disaster. It will either (a.) be complete gibberish to the reader without any context and they may just give up, or worse, (b.) they think they'll understand something without the proper context and spew nonsense in regards to that philosopher (this is why there are so many bad readings of Nietzsche)." This is why you'll want to read those primary sources as part of a class, instead of just trying to go it alone. But even that won't save you from "bad readings" of Nietzsche or any other philosopher, as plenty of experts disagree on what he meant. He, like some other philosophers, just wrote in a way that doesn't have one obvious meaning that everyone can agree on. With experience and study, you can make up your own mind, which will be better than swallowing some other person's pre-digested interpretation of him. You might have an easier time understanding a secondary source's interpretation of Nietzsche, but that doesn't mean that you understand Nietzsche.

crazygringo 6y ago

At some point you should get to the original sources if you want to be an academic, yes. But the reality is that 99% of the original source material is not relevant, will not be particularly rewarding, and may require a grad-level background to even understand many of the sentences. You want to read Hobbes Leviathan? Guess what, the only parts that matter today are a handful of pages. Same with Kant's Groundwork, Aristotle's Politics, etc. The famous philosophers are (mostly) famous for their essential ideas, not the full lengths of their books. For example: the majority of Hobbes' Leviathan is coming up with an entire theory of natural law, dealing with religion, etc. But none of that stuff was particularly noteworthy. The part that's relevant today was his original thoughts on the social contract, which is a very short part. It's far more important to read textbooks, surveys, etc. to understand the ideas and be able to put each philosopher in context of who they were responding to and who responded to them. Then if you're an academic or going to write a paper or something, sure go to the actual sources. I say this having read tons of Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Kant, Locke, Rawls, etc. I've needed to for my work, but I would never recommend reading them to someone just casually interested in philosophy. That's like telling someone who wants to learn how to program that they should be reading the C compiler source code.

bordercases 6y ago
At the same time these primary works are the main examples of philosophy actually being done. Any summary material can only speak to the results of philosophy, while the primary sources when closely analyzed (like source code!) yield the process. Which will be more helpful if one wants to develop a "personal philosophy"? Working out the chains of reasoning or picking-and-choosing from a menu?
- crazygringo 6y ago
  I honestly can't agree at all. The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. Then it's up to generates of scholars afterwards to argue about what the actual process of logical argument was. Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. Very often, it's precisely the summary works that situate the thinkers in a context that illuminates the process that led to their conclusions. Also I don't know what you mean about "developing a personal philosophy"... I'm talking about academic philosophy here.
  - bordercases 6y ago
    The goal of the OP was stated at the bottom of the post as developing a personal philosophy. You can take it up with them, but I interpreted it as coming up with a reasoned worldview for oneself through contemplating existing philosophies. I actually agree that philosophical works are not mathematical proofs. But thought processes do not close over logic, they close over natural language. The point of reading primary texts is to interpret the text, to reverse out the thought process of what is being said through close reading and exposing hidden assumptions (i.e. hermeneutics). This isn't a strictly logical process, but it's common to all natural-language argumentation, including philosophy and law. With that in mind, if Kant, Aristotle, Seneca and Rawls count as primary works – then what you're saying is false. They didn't state things in a vacuum; they all developed their views in a context, some of it from some base observations, much of it responding to interpretations of other points of view. You have a point in that primary sources are not sufficient on their own, and scholars use their experience and erudition to understand these observations and fill in the context, particularly when the writing is otherwise more sparse. But neither would introductory texts be sufficient since they hide a lot of the tacit knowledge that could allow one to reason the way the author of a text reasoned when they produced their philosophical viewpoint.

bigfoot675 6y ago

This sounds like good advice in theory, but if someone isn't even at the stage of knowing what they want to read, I don't think picking a significant book at face value is going to work out well. In fact, I bet it would probably end with a large majority of people reading the first 10 pages of Plato/Socrates/etc., getting confused by the utter lack of context, and giving up. That's what I did the first couple times I "tried to get into philosophy." It took me getting to undergrad philosophy classes to really "get it." At the very least, if you're going to go for primary sources, find a guide or lecture to lead you through it. Of course primary sources are important to read in philosophy, but in my personal opinion, I would recommend going for an introductory text first and picking primary sources to read from there.

konjin 6y ago
I read Plato's Republic in three weeks at 14. It was a lot more interesting than anything else at school because it actually talked to you instead of talking at you. If you're going to start anywhere you might as well start there because ethics is an area everyone can understand and the republic is written in a way that anyone with a working brain can appreciate.

unreal6 6y ago

I would agree that reading the primary sources is important, but it must be accompanied by some form of commentary, especially when beginning (whether this is in the form of a teacher/professor, books or another form I think is less relevant). A lot of philosophical texts are incredibly dense and challenging to understand. In many cases, without context about what is being discussed or responded to, the points won't necessarily be understood.

rstefanic 6y ago

It's an unpopular opinion depending on what you're recommending. Telling someone "read the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle" will lead someone to just pick up any copy of the Nicomachean Ethics. There are a lot of translations of the Nicomachean Ethics and they are not all equal. They range from very good translations, to idiosyncratic readings of the text, to flat out bad translations. Beyond poor translations, the ancients that you've recommended are good to start with and the recommendation to read the primary sources of them is just fine. Those texts are easy to digest without having a formal background in philosophy. But for other philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel), telling someone to just "pick up one of their primary texts" is a disaster. It will either (a.) be complete gibberish to the reader without any context and they may just give up, or worse, (b.) they think they'll understand something without the proper context and spew nonsense in regards to that philosopher (this is why there are so many bad readings of Nietzsche). So depending on what you're recommending, primary sources can be good, but in my experience, primary sources aren't good most of the time. Moreover, if someone is interested in a specific field like the OP is, then having a good secondary source can be extremely helpful to give someone an overview and proper understanding of the topic.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"for other philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel), telling someone to just "pick up one of their primary texts" is a disaster. It will either (a.) be complete gibberish to the reader without any context and they may just give up, or worse, (b.) they think they'll understand something without the proper context and spew nonsense in regards to that philosopher (this is why there are so many bad readings of Nietzsche)." This is why you'll want to read those primary sources as part of a class, instead of just trying to go it alone. But even that won't save you from "bad readings" of Nietzsche or any other philosopher, as plenty of experts disagree on what he meant. He, like some other philosophers, just wrote in a way that doesn't have one obvious meaning that everyone can agree on. With experience and study, you can make up your own mind, which will be better than swallowing some other person's pre-digested interpretation of him. You might have an easier time understanding a secondary source's interpretation of Nietzsche, but that doesn't mean that you understand Nietzsche.