posted
On the "I need a Bible" thread, someone asked me what I thought were essential works of philosophy. I'll repost my reply below. But I'm actually really interested in hearing what other Hatrackers have to say on the subject.
----- Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding -- Hume Tao te Ching -- Lao Tzu Spiritual Couplets - Rumi Meditations - Marcus Aurelius The Republic -- Plato The Prince -- Machiavelli Beyond Good and Evil -- Nietzsche Being and Nothingness -- Sartre The Critique of Pure Reason -- Kant Discourse on Method -- Descartes Ethics -- Spinoza The World as Will and Representation -- Schopenhauer
I would not include Wittgenstein, Hegel, nor Aquinas, whom I've always considered blathering idiots. I consider Saul Kripke important (since he basically found a way to redeem Wittgenstein's semantic obsessions and address common-sense problems like the liar paradox through the most sensible explanation of "truth" that I've seen yet), but most of his stuff -- where written at all -- is rather dull to read, and it's not always obvious to a casual reader why it matters. Aristotle's a bit passe, and I include Descartes' Discourse on Method and not his First Philosophy because the Cartesian Method is invaluable, yet his own use of it is hypocritical nearly to the point of metaphorical rape. (That said, I think Spinoza adequately criticizes Descartes' First Philosophy definition of God, and so I think Descartes is useful background for a reading of Ethics, although of course my own position on Ethics is that it's basically what you'd get if Thomas Jefferson wrote Dianetics in Latin.) Leviathan almost made the list, but Hobbes -- like Aquinas -- screws up more often than he gets it right; it and the Summa Theologica are books worth reading if you have time, but I wouldn't necessarily expect to pull anything of value from them.
It's worth noting that I don't apply the same critical eye to Rumi and Lao Tzu that I do to Western philosophies, perhaps because I consciously associate Western philosophy with empiricism. Rumi and Lao Tzu are "useful," then, only because they articulate intriguing viewpoints; their actual philosophies are woefully underdeveloped, and work better when incorporated into other worldviews. Unless of course you're not an empiricist yourself, in which case you might find all the Truth you need in one of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I have desired to read several of those works, I have in fact, read none of them yet. It's a nice list though, and I think I will concentrate on acquiring them so I can read them at my leisure.
posted
I've read a chunk of those, among other works.
As to ones I'd point out myself, I actually enjoyed Robert Pirsig's Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals a great deal.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Analects-Confucius The Chuang Tzu-Chuang Tzu
I would also include the Suttas from the Buddha. For me, some of the most influental work Ive read is from Peter Unger and his book Philosophical Relativity. Check it out. Its good.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find reading philosophy very difficult. My reading comprehension seems to drop to near zero. Only rarely do I "get it" and seem to start anticipating the conclusions that the author is trying to reach.
So, in the context of realizing that I choose my philosophers not for the depth or power of their thoughts, but for my ability to understand what the heck they are saying, I hereby nominate:
William James -- The Varieties of Religious Experience would seem to be of special interest to the discussion here.
Eric Hoffer (edited spelling)-- The True Believer
Karl Popper (edited, I said "William") (okay, he writes on the philosophy of Science, but his discussions on how we know things (epistemology) are quite good.
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions another philosophy of science text, but extremely important to anyone who wants to understand how empiricism operates. I think this is indispensible in modern society.
And for an amazingly fun read:
Jerry Fodor The Architecture of Cognition This guy is seriously challenging and he uses data as well as philosophy to make his case for how we think.
I haven't read all the texts named so far, but I've read a few and, I have to say, I think I need a course in them rather than just casual reading of them. I'm just not equipped to comment on them at all. Often I'm confronted with summaries of these texts and I come away startled that I must've somehow missed their entire central theses. Not always, of course, but I've had people tell me what Spinoza said and then when I read him, I looked for it, and it wasn't there. Or I missed it...
posted
I read some Leo Buscalia for a psychology class many years ago, and I liked it. It went a little too far for me, but he had some real insights about loving oneself and others.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I find reading philosophy very difficult. My reading comprehension seems to drop to near zero. Only rarely do I "get it" and seem to start anticipating the conclusions that the author is trying to reach.
I agree. I've taken a couple philosphy courses and have read some of the books mentioned here. I got far, far more out of the lectures than the actual readings. I think that discussion is a necessary part of studying philosophy.
Another one for the list is The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone De Beauvoir. And Pragmatism is my current favorite. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christy wants to mention an excellent little novel called Sophie's World, which is basically a philosophy primer coupled with some really amusing straw men and a plot.
It's well-written, if occasionally prone to Ayn-Randian "lectures."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a nice list, but it's also daunting. I've finished everything minus the Sartre, Schopenhauer, Rumi, and Spinoza. I've read selections from all of them, and I take to Rumi as a poet, which is saying something because I don't get a whole lot of poetry.
To tell the truth, I've done philosophy the hard way and the easy way, and the most penetrating short book on ethics I've ever read is Alasdair MacIntyre's Short History of Ethics from Homer to the Modernity.
If you have any sort of cursory knowledge about the works Tom has listed at the top, MacIntyre, in 240 pages, gives shape the entire enterprise of ethical philosophy.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm . . . I have dabbled in the others mentioned by Tom via college coursework and leisurely afternoon rambles in the local bookseller's shop, but I concur with Bob - they're hard to follow 'cause my mind can't seem to stay grounded and follow their reasoning.
Here's my list - a modern, more "feminine" approach to philosophy:
Buffalo Woman Comes Singing by Brooke Medicine Eagle
Refuge by Terry Tempest Williams
Traveling Mercies by Anne Lamott
I Should Have Seen It Coming When the Rabbit Died by Teresa Bloomingdale
I Didn't Plan to Be a Witch by Linda Eyre
Sure, it could be argued that this isn't "real" philosophy in the style of Descartes, Socrates, or those other guys that had time on their hands to sit and think and expound upon their worldview - but I do believe that "woman's philosophy" is grounded in the day to day reality of living a fulfilled, happy, productive life.
What more could philosophy ask for?
So, let the candle wax melt, and God move stones, and let us seek to understand that we may believe and not vice versa . . . Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As luck would have it, I am going to the library tomorrow! That's the first book of hers that came up on google - it's looks intriguing. Thanks for the suggestion.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I'm impressed by how well-read many Hatrackers are in philosophy (my own field of study).
The Kant, Descartes and Hume recommendations are good ones, though I would read Meditations on First Philosophy instead of the Discourse. The Discourse just isn't very meaty; without the skeptical challenge Descartes doesn't really have any serious issues to deal with.
I tend to agree with Karl Popper that Plato's work is morally frightful and almost worthless to a modern audience.
I would add the following:
B. Pascal, Pensees -- For the wager argument and some of the most beautiful prose ever set to paper.
D. Dennett, Elbow Room -- The book that cured me once and for all of the idea that free will is incompatible with determinism.
P. Singer, Rethinking Life and Death -- Agree or disagree, you must be able to test your views against Singer's challenge to traditional moral thinking.
R. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia -- Likewise for this provocative classic of political philosophy.
If I had to pick one work of philosophy of science to recommend, it would be either B. van Fraassen, The Scientific Image or, if you know some physics, L. Sklar, Space, Time and Spacetime.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
SInger is crap, I don't like his cavilier attitude about his ability to decide who should live and who should die. He is morally corrupt, not to mention an arrogant ass.
For anything further, why not ask someone who had had personal debates with him?
He posts here as sndrake. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeez, and I thought I knew a bit about philosophy.
Of course, I can assure you that NONE should miss any of the Rambam (Maimonides)'s writings. Particularly the "More Nevochim" ("Guide for the Perplexed"). Also, his set of fourteen books has some fantastic ideas on some issues.
posted
I read about a third of Tom's list and I'm thrilled that he started this thread. In addition to the works listed I'd like to mention the following:
The work that has most affected my view of the nature of man is Goethe's "Faust".
"Lord of the Flies" by William Golding, gave me the clearest appreciation for the value of civilization's laws and norms.
The work that opened my eyes to the difference between girls and women in America is "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French.
The work that caused me to really examine and embrace empathy without a feeling of weakness is Shelley's "Frankenstein"
There are a few more title's at the tip of my tongue, but they're not budging.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I tend to agree with Karl Popper that Plato's work is morally frightful and almost worthless to a modern audience.
With the resurgence of virtue ethics through such philosophers as Anscombe, MacIntyre, and Foot, I would hardly call Plato worthless to a modern audience. Also, Plato provides a nice contrast to emotivists like Ayer. A solid background in Plato and Aristotle is essentially necessary to understand modern philosophy--Plato influenced every western philosopher who came after him.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read a little philosophy, and taken part in several class discussions.
I, too, found the discussions easier to understand.
Generally, I am unimpressed with the way most philosophy is written, as if deliberately above "ordinary" readers' heads. I can't respect that. I don't care how much of a "buzz" they create.
I also look with disdain upon most scholarly papers because of the same reason.
Card has written about this, mostly in regards to "high" literature, but I can't remember where. Anybody know?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe asking for "essential" works of philosophy is almost a contradiction in terms.
Firstly, philosophy is dialogue, not the reading of works. The only really essential thing about it is the ability to reason about the world and discuss that reasoning - this alone would be enough to make you a philosopher, and without this you could read every philosophy book in the world and still not really be doing any philosophy. And unlike art, understanding a philosopher's argument is much more important than understanding or reading their works. If you understand or have been taught Plato's main arguments and why Plato argued they were true, I don't think it makes much difference if you've read any of his dialogues.
Secondly, the nature of philosophy is such that there can be no essential canon. There are no fundamental assumptions that must be understood to understand the field as a whole - rather there are only assumptions within certain branches of the different schools of thought within philosophy. If you want to understand certain Eastern schools of philosophy, it might be very important to read the Tao te Ching, but that book certainly isn't fundamental to understand philosophy as a whole. It could be totally wrong, as far as we know.
Thirdly, philosophy is also simply too broad to have any "essential" works. The Prince may be significant in political theory, but it makes little difference to the study of metaphysics. The Origin of Species is important to the scientific branches of philosophy, but not so much to certain ethical areas. I don't think any work is broad enough to encompass everything, and you can't really say with confidence that one area is important while the others are not.
However, if you want "essential works" to mean "works that I particularly like a lot" or "works that are particularly well written" or "works that should be read in Introduction to Philosophy classes" then I could give a few, most of which will be repeats already said...
The Trial and Death of Socrates & The Republic -- Plato Meditations on First Philosophy -- Descartes Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding -- Hume The Prince -- Machiavelli On Liberty -- Mill Beyond Good and Evil -- Nietzsche The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Kuhn Anarchy, State and Utopia -- Nozick And probably a bunch of good articles, none of which I can recall by name. I'm also missing a bunch of people who have fantastic arguments but with works that are just too long and/or confusing - Kant would be at the top of that list.
quote:SInger is crap, I don't like his cavilier attitude about his ability to decide who should live and who should die. He is morally corrupt, not to mention an arrogant ass.
None of which count as good reason to discount a work's philosophical value - or else Nietzsche would not be on any of these lists. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, in some cases (in particular Kant), the difficulty is not some litmus test to weed out the unworthy. The subject matter really is that complicated. Kant himself, in the First Critique essentially tried to lay out epistemology in it's entirety. In others, you are seeing translations of the way people wrote thousands of years ago, the styles of which were much different back then. Although I think Plato, reaches near Shakespearian levels, especially as far as comedy goes, at times. Well, that is, if Old Bill were Greek and ancient.
I'd add any decent book on the pre-Socratics, or on Pythogoras and his cult of dour men. Most of it is obsolete, but still huge, even in Socrates' and Plato's times.
I'd add a couple Vonnegut titles to the list, but I think we're going for more structured titles.
posted
I know there is a translation problem...and they are talking about vastly complicated matters... I just happen to think that they COULD write in a way that is easier to understand. The sentences are often as long as a paragraph...and increasingly complex. I often have to struggle to figure out what the subject and verb are. It shouldn't be THAT hard. Sure, the subject matter might be difficult to wrap your mind around--THAT's okay. But the writing style doesn't need to be so dense and near incomprehensible.
I realize not everyone feels that way. I've always had plenty of classmates who could read philosophy and just "get" it, although I always suspect that they're reading a Dummies version or something before class.
I do think that much of the writing style IS deliberate--the intellectuals (professors especially) have a superiority complex. If regular joes started understanding what they're talking about, they wouldn't feel nearly so special.
Again, the concepts can be complex. I'm okay with that. I take issue with the unnecessarily complex writing styles.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just happen to think that they COULD write in a way that is easier to understand. The sentences are often as long as a paragraph...and increasingly complex.
This is unquestionably true. I think there are two reasons for this:
1) Deliberate obfuscation. Many philosophers were and are very pompous, and liked to talk over people's heads.
2) A perceived need for "precise" language. Many of the works I've cited spend a lot of time defining specific terms for later use; these terms, when strung together, can sound ridiculously obtuse and clunky, even in their native languages. (And, worse yet, sometimes the philosopher "forgets" that he's redefined a term for his own specific purposes halfway through a work, then uses the common definition -- or, worse, connotations -- to make other arguments, despite the fact that he hasn't incorporated that original definition into his term. I consider this blatantly abusive.) Something about studying philosophy does this to people; consider the amount of time Tres spent puzzling over the definition of "essential" in his post. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to add The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Lots of great lessons that can be applied to more than just War
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something about studying philosophy does this to people; consider the amount of time Tres spent puzzling over the definition of "essential" in his post.
That's because the need for precise language is not just perceived. Studying philosophy tends to make you realize just how often a larger disagreement boils down to a disagreement in the meaning of terms. It is all about the careful construction of an argument, and its all too easy to prove a false point if you are inconsistent in your definitions - something Plato is very guilty of, for instance.
The danger in this is an overcomplication of things that is in some part necessary. Not always though... It's a bit like anything technical for the matter - it's to some extent needed, but to some extent a habit the technically-inclined get into and can't get out of.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* I don't disagree, Tres. I'm less blatant about it, but I'm pretty obsessed with axioms and definitions, myself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:SInger is crap, I don't like his cavilier attitude about his ability to decide who should live and who should die. He is morally corrupt, not to mention an arrogant ass.
For anything further, why not ask someone who had had personal debates with him?
He posts here as sndrake.
Yes, sn and I have talked about this at length.
All I will say is that while I respect sn's intelligence and enthusiasm, from what I can tell he is a card-carrying activist. A position like that makes it difficult to get along with anyone who disagrees with you very strongly. It makes it especially difficult to get along with philosophers who disagree, because philosophers typically try to keep intense emotion and indignation out of their debates. That may seem callous, but the real reason for it is that sound arguments, and not emotional appeals, are what lead us to the truth. This is what Tres was getting at as well.
So I'm not sure sndrake is the right guy to ask about whether Singer is an arrogant ass. For the same reasons I wouldn't ask Clinton whether Gingrich is an arrogant ass.
I also recall that sn thinks Singer has mis-represented a number of the examples he uses. This may be true, I haven't looked into it myself, but from what I remember (it's been a while), the mis-representation was mostly tangential to the ethical points Singer was trying to make.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those are not the only two options for paths to truth. Both of the above have serious pitfalls.
Not really. "Sound argument" is one of our technical philosopher terms. A sound argument is an argument with premises that logically entail its conclusion, and are true. Thus the conclusion has to be true, on pain of contradiction.
So if you start out with truth, sound arguments can't fail to lead you to truth.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
