Based on the the previous discussion (which died out quick) lets compile a list of books that serve as an introduction to philosophy.
There is a google doc but it seems beyond reach for the average /lit/izen
Said previous thread: >>7600865
All suggestion welcome and lets not limit this to just western philosophy.
DONT LET THE THREAD DIE MOTHAFUCKAS
This may not be the proper thread for this, but...
Man, Boethius talks too much in his, "The Consolation of Philosophy." The "my diary t b h f a m /lit/ meme in strong in him. Truly a man before his time.
I'm mostly just bitching, because I dislike stoicism. In reality, it's probably a fine follow up to Plato's Republic if one is interested in the school of thought.
> all CHRONOLOGICAL
no, there are tons of places you can jump into without reading other authors first. You can even read Kant after just skimming some Hume and get what you want out of it. You can read Heidegger after Aristotle and Hegel. Chronological is the best method, but let's be real, there's so much and some of us are interested in specific pieces of philosophy first.
Any recs for philosophical fiction?
I read the Borges short story about a secret society compiling a thorough encyclopedia of a planet that had Berkeleyan Idealism as common sense and now I need more.
I will also add to that: if you read philosophy, but no poetry, then you're missing half of the historical argument. Poetry subsumes much of the human aspect of philosophy's history, and even splits off dramatically from it only to reconnect (you could see how Whitman basically attempts to shatter philosophy, and how Stephens drives back towards it again, though irreparably split forever from both the continental tradition, and the analytical (though the split from the analytical is obvious, since positivism and logic are completely incompatible with Poetry))
Poetry is the other half of this document that's missing. I'm probably the only person on this retard board who's read at least 10 poets from every decade going back to 1000AD, so I might eventually make a chart like this.
Though I will admit I'm deficient in the philosophy side, so I duly thank you guys as well for this chart.
>lets not limit this to just western philosophy.
I was thinking, just flicking through the Google Doc, that it could use a brief note about Eastern philosophy at the start, or maybe something a bit more comprehensive separately.
There's a lot of misconceptions about Confucius and the Daoists which can be quite succinctly cleared up, along with pointers to the other big names in classical Chinese philosophy. I'd be happy to give it a go, with the reservation that my knowledge is limited to a recent undergraduate course in classical Chinese philosophy. That said, I could give more than enough to get people started on an academically informed path.
Something similar could be done for classical Indian thought including Brahminism, the split into Buddhism, etc.
That's actually a great time for Troubadour poetry. Off the top of my head, you had Marcabrun, de Blaye, de Born, and Ventadour. You had the first wave of early French Chansons. You had the first Middle-English religious poems, and many documents written in verse. The English were toying with Latin, and the French were just about to write Troubadouric poems themselves. In Italy you hadn't much yet, though.
Though the Welsh and Catalans were writing poetry too, I can't name any immediately though.
(I'll argue that the only decades that are hard to write about in terms of poetry are maybe the totally lost 1890s, at least in english; the current decade, and the past decade; the decade or two right after the "incunable" era ended; and maybe the 1780-90 period, where other than Cowper and a few others, the poetry wasn't very good.
Aaaaalso, the main logic recommendations seem to be Aristotle and a introductory overview text. Perhaps some practical logic manuals might be useful for people who actually want to do propositional and predicate logic, learn derivations, etc.
I'm probably reaching and being lazy, but does anyone have a neat collection of epubs or mobis or whatever for this sort of thing? Would save me having to spend an hour scouring the net if someone already has a neat set.
>There is a google doc but it seems beyond reach for the average /lit/izen
I'm not sure about that, but
The Last Days of Socrates
A Concise Introduction to Logic
One book chosen from the field they are interested in, and it has to be a founding text (it will most likely be Plato or Aristotle)
Those three and wikipedia are more than enough for someone to get an introduction to philosophy.
I've read "The First Philosophers", and I enjoyed it a lot - it's one of the books I enjoyed most in terms of secondary philosophical texts, maybe the most (although I don't read a lot of them). He seems unusually perceptive, although maybe not everyone would agree with his interpretations etc. You might also bear in mind Jonathan Barnes (author of "Early Greek Philosophy") wrote a larger book on the presocratics for the "Arguments of the Philosophers" series.
Although having a quick look over Amazon reviews for that book, someone quotes Barnes' translation of Heraclitus' fragment B50 as:
>"Listening not to me but to my account it is wise to agree that everything is one."
In my experience "account" in that sentence is usually rendered as "Logos" or "Word" (and a french translation of "la Pensee"), as in something more than the words Heraclitus has written. I can't find an in-depth analysis of the greek structure of that fragment - some translate it as "my [logos]" and some as "the [logos]" and it's hard to imagine the Greek is that ambiguous.
If anyone can read the Greek, this is it.
Ἡ. μὲν οὖν ἕνφησιν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν διαιρετὸν ἀδιαίρετον, γενητὸν ἀγένητον, θνητὸν ἀθάνατον, λόγον αἰῶνα, πατέρα υἱόν, θεὸν δίkαιον· «οὐk ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦ λόγου ἀkούσαντας ὁμολογεῖν σοφόν ἐστιν ἓν πάντα εἶναί»
At any rate it seems like Barnes' translation and interpretation is really out-there when it comes to Heraclitus if he translates it that way. Reading a bit more of that review, this person seems to have some legitimate objections to how Barnes approaches the pre-socratics and it sounds like he isn't a very reliable scholar.
I think it's the third review of the amazon.com reviews on the above page - Nicolas E Leon Ruiz is the reviewer's name - his objections seem solid to me and he recommends some books on the pre-socratics which he prefers.
I can shit out a long list of names and movements and important works in a few hours, but it won't be as nice as the philosophy google doc in the thread. Something like that would take a month of an hour a day.
Are you fine with a rough draft?
I'll have a list of "I don't like poetry and I want to start liking it" books that work like a charm, all from different time periods, that will get people more interested. Other than that it'll be mostly chronological
Taking an intro to Philosophy class this semester
> C.S. Lewis - Abolition of Man
>Dalai Lama - How to See Yourself as you Really Are
Am I in for a fun semester?
That is the cornerstone of Catholic theology beginning with Augustine. A lot of Catholics have this streak through them as a result, right up to modern day, with a lot of interesting and occasionally subaltern Catholics (areligious or no) in the 20th century.
Look into Augistinian thought vs. the Pelagian controversy / Pelagius.
Pelagius was a Christian "heresy" that Augustine really angrily railed against. He denied original sin, the idea that we are indelibly tainted by the Fall of Man, and basically said that man can earn heaven by being a super good person, and even improve this world. He denied predestination too. Augustine is the polar opposite, saying that ONLY divine grace can forgive original sin, that the earthly city (this life) is basically a pile of shit made barely tolerable so that we can strive toward the heavenly city of the next life, and that predestination is so hardcore that God already knows who will be saved and who won't. Picking apart exactly how much leeway even exists for humans to "earn" God's grace is kind of a problem with Augustinian theology.
At least this is the usual simplified tradition, which tends to make a stark dichotomy out of Pelagius vs. Augustine: The Carnage in Carthage.
>mfw trying to read Hegel's lessons on Philosophy of History
I may be actually retarded cause it can't be this simple.
Can someone explain his vision on the matter? I get that the Spirit manifests itself in history in order to express itself, that it manifests in the form of the important civilisations and that the end result of such expression is freedom. He also justifies God by telling that evil is necessary.
But is that correct? It feels like I'm missing something.
I'm reading The Ego and It's Own right now.
I think that is not that Spirit appears 'in' history, history itself never appears but is only the immediate presupposition (and at the same the result), a potentiality, of the various facets that Spirit gives itself in time through the various oppositions and negativity it uses in order to determine itself.
Like the genus of the animal, 'dog' is its universal self-equal determination, but the universal 'dog' is merely a potentiality, is what allows the negative singular to appear, but is set forth in the concrete world is always the individual clashing against other individuals (principle of difference, as opposed to the unchanging universal), giving birth (this is important) precisely because of this conflict to the genus.
The role of opposition and sublation of this opposition is also why 'evil' is essential and ultimately we can only determine what is good through this difference.
Useful text for you, about Hegel dialectical interpretation of time and history:
You really should read his PoS before anything else.
No surprisingly. The professor has mentioned before he's a Christian Apologist, but is by no means telling us that we have to believe it. He's giving us a huge TL;DR of most other philosophers during the lectures.
>one guy helmed it to make sure cunts wouldn't delete everything
Once again proving that progress can only be accomplished when the masses are held together with a righteous iron fist.
Molyneaux's problem - would someone blind from birth be able to identify spheres and cubes visually based only on previous tactile experience of them.
I looked it up on wikipedia and my first thought was "no" - then I read further down and saw that it's been tested and the results were no success.
I think it's a scientific question, shown by its testability.
> I think it's a scientific question, shown by its testability.
clearly the "yes or no" aspect of it is, but the answer being "no" can certainly lead into other philosophical questions regarding the senses.
I haven't read any Kant. Having a quick look at the SEP article on his views of space and time it has this quote "Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind's nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally."
If you unpack "coordinating everything sensed externally" it reads to me like he's assuming an outside, real space in which "everything" exists "externally", undermining his statement "space isn't real". Reading that I expect I wouldn't agree with his ideas as a whole. I've had that impression with some of the secondary reading I've done of him as well.
I don't know how much I can contribute without having read more of his writing, though. Anyway, it's late for me so I will check back in tomorrow or so.
Initially i also thought it would be no but then one of my friends brought up a painter who is able to paint perspectives even though he was born with no eyes. I'm not sure if this proves that a blind man is able to understand visual perception in some way as I know very little about neurological details. I do however agree that it seems to be more of a scientific problem but it is interesting how the idea at the center of it plays into other enlightenment philosophical debates
/druggo/ here. I've been trying to figure out as of late -- is an individual's reality defined by their consciousness? and if so is an expansion of consciousness thru psychedelic drugs an expanding of an individual's reality? trippy shit to think about.
He's probably the most distinguished pope ever, he spoke over 10 languages fluently, a lot of academics and including the Vatican itself considered him the worlds best living theologian, the pope actually came to him for advice on bible shit mang.
They are already offering Ratzinger study degrees.
When one wishes to read a later philosopher, say Deleuze, could one just read the SEP articles on his influences instead of reading the whole western canon?
(For the Deleuze example, I mean his works that aren't interpretations)
SEP can work, but not for Deleuze
for Deleuze in particular you'd want a pretty good familiarity with the subjects of his historical works because his historical works are the best chance you'd have at understanding the basis of his philosophy before plunging into his original writings (capitalism and schizophrenia, difference and repetition, etc)
Is it alright to start reading philosophy with Descartes or do I need to start with the greeks?
I've had a few philosophy classes so I have a general textbook view of philosophy as a whole but never read anything and Descartes seems interesting both in his philosphy and the way he applied it to his life.
You can start with Meditations if you want. You'll be able to glean some of what he's saying. But to really appreciate Descartes' philosophy (as with every philosopher), you have to understand the historical context he was writing in, along with the philosophical traditions he either adheres to or distances himself with.
You can jump right in, sure, but a lot of shit happened between 400 BCE and 1600 CE