Modern books for getting into philosophy?
I am hoping to slide into Philosophy of Science within two to three years and would like to ge a solid grasp on Western Philosophy in general. I've read some stuff but since Philosophy is a Twitter thread, I can't understand the more contemporary works without a good basis on the older ones. I would like something that is reliable but easily understandable. Kafka's Aphorisms is one I enjoyed, it made me think but was written in clear english. I don't care too much about particular authors, just the important ideas that would form a good basis, in modern english.
Comments (35)
The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy, Bryan Magee
The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (3rd Ed), Peter S. Fosl and Julian Baggini
to get you startered. The bibliographies of both books are very much worth checking out too.
:fire:
Per 180's suggestion, continuing with Magee:
His Confessions of a Philosopher and then, The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. He's probably the single best one, but I'm sure there are others.
Another good one is Copleston's History of Philosophy series; 9 books that cover the history of (mostly western) philosophy starting with ancient Greece and Rome, all the way up to 19-20th century existentialism and analytic philosophy/logical positivism/etc.
I think some universities still use this series as an introductory-level textbook- also very clear and easy to read, and much more encyclopedic/exhaustive than Russell's book. You can often find them at used bookstores, rummage sales, and so on, since (I'm assuming) its fairly expensive to buy the entire series new. And each one is self-contained, so you can pick and choose which ones you want to read, as your own interests dictate
Another reliably awesome resource is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (here), which contains entries from basic overviews of basic philosophical topics to very specific/specialized topics at a higher-than-introductory level. Entries are written by scholars/educators in a relevant field, so very high quality stuff (and free is always good, right?)
And Kaufmann was an interesting character- he was maybe the most important Nietzsche scholar/translator in the 2nd half of the 20th century, and was the person most responsible for defeating and replacing the highly distorted and inaccurate prevailing wisdom RE Nietzsche's views, that were the result of aggressive propaganda campaigns by the Third Reich and Joseph Goebbels (with the assistance of Nietzsche's crazy Nazi-loving sister and her husband) to appropriate Nietzsche's philosophy, even though Nietzsche was a very outspoken critic of the state, nationalism (especially German nationalism), and state violence.
Kaufmann's popular book, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist is (or at least was) sort of the gold standard of Nietzsche interpretation/scholarship, and so is highly recommended if you have any interest in Nietzsche (personally, I find Nietzche's views and writing to be fascinating, even though I think he was wrong about 80% of the time).
Magee's video interviews with philosophers are also great for lazy people like me:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFF9E7ADD88FBA144
Young folk don't read. They watch videos.
There are repercussions.
I'd be interested to hear which of his views you think were wrong and why. Also I find it hard to relate to finding views you consider wrong to be fascinating; which leads me to wonder whether philosophical views are ever right or wrong, rather than showing or failing to show insight.
I'd certainly find it hard to understand why anyone would be fascinated with philosophical works they thought to be lacking in insight. That leads me to the curly question as to whether a work could be insightful, yet nonetheless, wrong. :chin:
How much time do you have? This could take all day. How about some notable examples: Nietzsche's views on realism wrt truth-value and value judgments/normativity were internally inconsistent- in some of his works, he espouses a form of nominalism/anti-realism wrt truth-value and normativity, but in others he is presupposing a realist position, for instance in his critique of Christianity (as, seemingly, objectively false and evil/harmful). This inconsistency severely undermines many of his arguments and positions, imo.
As for being fascinated by someone whose views you mostly disagree with: Nietzsche is, imo, the most interesting character in the entire history of philosophy. He was a very weird dude, but also was (legitimately) brilliant and highly creative/unique, and was easily the most talented/most literary writer in the history of philosophy (at least, of those philosophers I've ever come across), with a unique and distinctive style and voice. So his writing is just satisfying to read, because its well-written and highly original.
And many of his philosophical ideas and proposals were fascinating to me; even if they weren't true or accurate, they still provoked thought and discussion, and were quite unique and just fun to think about- for instance, the idea of the re-evaluation of all values, of the will to power, of the eternal return of the same. Nietzsche also anticipated an impressive amount of 19th-20th century psychology (the concept of sublimation, for instance- Freud was a big Nietzsche fan), theology, and literature/the arts. He is probably the philosopher who has had the most influence outside of philosophy.
So he's an interesting character/personality, is fun to read (and often very clever and/or insightful), and has a lot of fun and unique ideas... even if I think most of his ideas were wrong/incomplete/etc.
I read stuff to the contrary. Would you care to provide sources on this claim?
To be clear, I was calling Freud a Nietszche "fan" in a sort of tongue-in-cheek/non-literal way: what I meant is that Niezsche had a notably significant influence on Freud's views and psychological theories, and so Freud owed Nietzsche a great deal professionally and intellectually.
(Do you remember where you read to the contrary, specifically, btw?)
In any case, this is something Kaufmann talks about in Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (mentioned above), and I see from a Google search that its a fairly popular topic:
"The Influence of Nietzsche on Freud's Ideas"
"Explaining Freud with Nietzsche"
"Freud's Burden of Debt to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer"
There's also a bunch of scholarly/peer-reviewed articles on the topic on e.g. JSTOR, which are extremely expensive (unless you have a subscription or access via your job or university), so I won't bother posting them here, but hopefully the above links suffice to capture the general idea.
You seem to be on point with that claim. Thanks for the references.
Honestly though, I would just look into a particular area that grabs you and just go with the flow. All roads lead to Rome ;)
:100:
I have the second one! I read it, flew over me noggin I must say. Will read it again. Seems like a list of concepts, distinctions, perspectives, common, noob and even fatal mistakes, etc. that could help a beginner make sense of the bewildering jungle of ideas philosophy is; I don't know what the draw is for seasoned philosophers like yourself! :grin:
Np. I'd recommend taking a look at the links, if you're interested in psychology/the history of psychology (and/or checking out the Kaufmann book, or any of the other works I mentioned for that matter, if any spark your interest).
Just an exceedingly interesting character, with some very interesting ideas that ended up anticipating developments in other fields (esp psychology) that would not come to pass for decades.
I see Nietzsche's critique of Christianity highlighting its incipient nihilism: by imposing values it undermines the ability to find/ create one's own, so I don't see that as presupposing realism. Perhaps you could cite some of writings that explicitly advocate realism.His attitude to normativity I see as consistently oppositional; that is he disapproves of general rules that apply to everyone. My understanding of his attitude towards "truth" is that it is less important than flourishing.
Quoting busycuttingcrap
I agree with you on that, and on his status as a great writer, and on the scope of his influence. I don't look on philosophical works as being right or wrong, but as either insightful or lacking insight, interesting or lacking interest. When Nietzsche says: "There are no truths (or "facts" depending on translation), only perspectives" I don't take him to be denying that there are empirical facts, but as emphasizing their relativistic, contextual nature, and I also take it as a statement concerning supposed philosophical truths (or facts) of which there are none, because each of us has (or should have) their own unique philosophy, as befits their unique individuality.
The only over-arching value I can find in Nietzsche is that of flourishing.
Nietzsche's critique of Christianity (specifically The Antichrist) amounts to the charges that Christianity is both false and pernicious. Specifically, Nietzsche identifies and critiques what he believed to be the foundational presuppositions of Christianity: the existence of God, the existence of an afterlife or other world, the existence of a moral world order, and free will. He ultimately claims that these presuppositions are false, and that the values they promote are internally inconsistent, and that their falsity/inconsistency makes them morally wrong or harmful in some way.
This is all highly realist, at least implicitly: critiquing a religion/its system of values on the grounds that their foundational truth-claims are false and their values morally bad/harmful (which, of course, seems to imply that there is such a thing as truth/falsity, and some fact of the matter as to whether a given set of values is bad or harmful in some meaningful way).
And there are many other passages where Nietzsche says things about e.g. truth, perception, science, and so on that are also highly amenable to realist/cognitivist interpretation (e.g. the beginning of Human All-Too-Human where he talks about the "knowledge" and "truths" the historical sense has achieved, and contrasts that with the "error" and "mistakes" made by theology and metaphysics): He praises the sciences (especially in Human All-Too-Human) and the senses (e.g. Beyond G&E 134, Twilight of the Idols III 1-2), and often waxes poetic about "knowledge" (e.g."With Knowledge, the body purifies itself; making experiments with knowledge it elevates itself; in the lover of knowledge all instincts become holy"- Zarathustra) and "truth" (e.g. "How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare? More and more that become for me the real measure of value... Zarathustra is more truthful than any other thinker.."- Ecce Homo).
But then, on the other hand, there are many other passages where he seems to be advancing an anti-realist critique of these things, often in the same work (i.e. elsewhere in Human All-Too-Human he says, "A man may stretch himself out ever so far with his knowledge; he may seem to himself ever so objective but eventually realizes nothing therefrom but his own biography", and elsewhere in Beyond G&E he says "science at its best seeks most to keep us in this simplified thoroughly artificial suitably constructed and falsified world").
So this is a deep tension running through much of Nietzsche's philosophy (which keeps Nietzsche scholars endlessly arguing in circles) which is not possible (imo) to completely resolve or reconcile, because this was simply how Nietzsche's mind and method of philosophy worked (for better and for worse).
But so this is also just part of what makes Nietzsche so interesting (imo): he was (explicitly) opposed to philosophical systems, and his views are often very difficult to square with one another or to try to construct some coherent system out of. And sometimes he says things that are in tension with (at a minimum), or even outright contradict things he's said elsewhere. Much of the time he seems less concerned with what is true or self-consistent in some technical or straightforward sense, or amenable to some systematic treatment or analysis, and much more interested in some deeper penetrating insight about how some things work. Which he occasionally achieved, imo.
So Nietzsche wasn't right much of the time, but he was always interesting, and often deeply insightful. And so I agree completely with what you said about being concerned with whether a given philosopher is interesting or insightful as much if not more than whether they are right or correct or perfectly self-consistent, which is why Nietzsche is (and probably always will be) one of my personal favorite philosophers.
This was an insight for me, way back when, upon reading Nietzsche -- he contradicts himself, even in the same work.
Maybe it's wrong, but I interpret those contradictions as purposeful.
(This is one of the questions that keeps Nietzsche scholars arguing in circles, i.e. whether these tensions and contradictions are deliberate or not- we probably will never know the true answer)
I've never found an adequate way to describe it, but a lot of Nietzsche's work seems to me to amount to some form of philosophical experimentation: he's not always truly advocating or committed to something he says, so much as he's often just trying it on to see how it fits.
And so this process was, predictably, very hit or miss... but when it hits, its deeply satisfying.
At the very least, that makes sense of his various contradictions, and aphoristic style of speaking, and his stance on truth...
I feel you when you describe your fascination with Nietzsche. Love him or hate him, he can't be ignored. He was an incredibly original thinker that also knew how to think.
And such a good writer! A lot of philosophy is downright miserable to read- have you ever tried to read Kan't CPR, for instance? As in, reading it cover to cover? Pure torture! :vomit:
I mean, how many works of philosophy do you enjoy going back and re-reading periodically? Has anyone read Being and Time or On Sense and Reference multiple times, for purely entertainment purposes? I doubt it.
Its frankly sort of embarrassing how short the list of notable philosophers who managed to combine a bright philosophical mind with competent communication/writing skills is.. but Nietzsche probably belongs at or near the top of the list. And not just because its usually clear and understandable, but because it occasionally even achieves poetic beauty, which is a very rare thing to find in your usual philosophical tomes.
What about Wittgenstein?
:D
I understand what you mean, but I actually love reading Kant. It's not literary at all, so that's why I say I understand. But I sort of enjoy the rhythms of a mind expressing itself in the most explicit manner.
To answer your question directly, and humble-brag, I've read the CPR 2 times :D -- first translation by Norman Kemp Smith, the latter read on Pluhar's
The Tractatus is about as obscure and technically dense as you'll find, but the PI (and to a lesser extent On Certainty and Culture and Value and so on) is definitely on the list of well-written + legitimately insightful/significant philosophical treatises. Love Wittgenstein.
Yes, but it's profound, isn't it?
The world is the totality of facts and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent, are really cool things to do as a philosopher! :cool:
Don't get me wrong, I definitely respect the hell out of Kant, and recognize his influence/significance in the history of philosophy (and cosmology/astronomy, surprisingly!)... but I definitely don't enjoy reading much of his writing (the CPR in particular is especially impenetrable- I took a course that was an entire semester focused exclusively on the CPR, and I still don't think I understood more than half of it). A brilliant mind, but not the greatest or clearest writer there ever was.
But, you know, different strokes for different folks and all. I'm actually somewhat jealous of people who can read stuff like Kant's CPR, and get some enjoyment out of it (because for me its pure toil).
Quoting Moliere
Wow... You deserve a medal or something, that's no small feat. :grin: :strong:
.
Oh absolutely. And its technical density is actually quite elegant. And the views it espouses are also super interesting, and significant for the history of philosophy.
But its not exactly the type of writing you think of or expect when you think of great writing (because it is incredibly obscure, even for people with some background familiarity with philosophy). But you can't miss the writing skill, which we then saw even more of in his later works- the PI in particular is a marvel of philosophical clarity and simplicity (despite dealing with some heavy/highly technical philosophical problems and concepts).
So Witt is definitely on the short list of great philosophers who could actually write well.
Some of the tension between different views of the 'real' in Nietzsche's work involve views of natural law.
While noting that what has transpired is a vital testimony to what is happening now, he is very skeptical of the search for laws of the universe in the way Kant, for example, said was given to us to discover.
And yet, N was not claiming Hume was correct in saying causality is only a story we tell ourselves.
One day, I'll be strong enough to do the third reading, where-upon the true and secret meaning I've been seeking will reveal itself to me. :D
I finally realized that if I wanted to go down the route of making sensible claims about what Kant really meant then I'd have to actually become an academic, and I decided against that.
So, a medal? Sure. "The medal of loving the critique of pure reason" :D
An exceptional thinker. I heard Bryan Magee talking about this - he said Kant wrote abysmally and was a great chore to read. He suggests a reason - Kant is one of those rare people who did his best work in old age (post 60 years) He didn't know how much time he had left and he had so much to say. So he wrote hurriedly. And yet I have read passages by Kant about noumena that are elegant and vivid. Perhaps he could have been a great prose stylist if he'd started at 30. :wink:
Don't be so modest, reading the entire CPR (let alone doing so more than once!!!) and doing so with your sanity intact is no small feat- plenty of bright philosophical minds that have been defeated by Kant's prose... So maybe something like "the medal of surviving the CPR... multiple times" :grin:
A fair point.
It seems to be well accepted that Nietzsche contradicts himself often in his works, He presents multiple different perspectives and I think arguably takes none of them as absolute, in the way classic realists take their positions to be absolute.
I found this quote from Nietzsche online:
There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be.
? Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals / Ecce Homo
Quoting busycuttingcrap
So I would agree with this, but add the caveat that he wasn't wrong either; that "right or wrong" is not a suitable lens through which to view Nietzsche or in fact most of philosophy. That is to say that I agree with Hegel that philosophical ideas contain their own negations; that any idea can appear right from some perspective and wrong from others.