Hello /sci/, since you (or /lit/) are considered the genius tier of 4chins, I bring my question to you.
What is the most up to date philosophical equivalent of Newton's (or Whitehead/Russel's) Principia? I'm looking to read THE book on philosophy no matter how long it takes me, but I'm not familiar with any modern philosophers. Bonus if it involves mathematics/science, but I'm looking for something along the lines of the ultimate book of knowledge avaialble to modern man.
>i'll ask /lit/ too to avoid bias
The problem is in how you're wording your question OP.
Newton just did some infinitesimal calculations of motion and defined what a force was + astronomy. He wasn't even recognized until 100s of years later. Decarte was more popular with his theory of vortices, but people were like 'Oh shit, Newton's better' in 1800's.
My guess is that you want to learn Logic, because that's the underpinning of any argument presented for Metaphysics, Aesthetics, Ethics, etc.
I guess I did word it vaguely. I am currently reading Russel's History of Western Philosophy which is a "beginners" guide to philosophy from his own words, and that led me to wonder if there was a more modern equivalent that was as thorough as he was. I know more modern philosophers dove into logic so I was looking for something current that was at his or Newton's level of "The Book" on the subject.
Does that make sense?
I'll put it a different way: don't hold arguments of authority because you feel superior due to reading something. 'If only you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason you would understand!'
That's what I meant it's like a field of philosophy. It used to be called natural philosophy. His question is way too broad. Philosophy is huge. Science is huge. I think we need to stop using the terms so much. Confusion. It's why we created the term science.
Newton's principia, Euclid's elements Darwin's origin of species and the like are revered because they proved influential to future developments, not because they were stellar in their own right. Think Shakespeare, or the Bible. For instance, Darwin didn't know about genes. It's a sort of romanticized hindsight, we read them "for culture" if ever.
With regard to Russell and Whitehead, Zermelo Fraenkel set theory is commonly used as a foundation for contemporary mathematics, as a default presumed to be humming in the background, as a kernel for things like (standard) analysis and algebra.
Euclid's elements is in and of itself full-stellar, however. We still use and appreciate the exact same sorts of arguments and diagrams, accept them as generally correct, and dress them up with foundations and this decade's new formalism to salve our egos.
The bible is just an anthology, but I assume you mean Abrahamic faiths and I mostly agree with that.
That the bible was very influential to western societies is unavoidable and that alone merits some passing acquaintence with it (some might say especially, if you view religion as a negative influence to be corrected) Plus several themes are particularly resonant. If nothing else, read exodus. God was a fucking alpha male, fucked over an entire nation not to save his people but to show that he's top dog. He basically forgot about them for 300 years then forced the Pharoah to fight him back and get rekt for days. Hardcore.
Are you retarded? He was president of the royal society in his time, his physics revolution was recognized in his time as was the development of calculus and all the other mathematical shit he found, he built the first ever reflecting telescope, and he was also Warden and Master of the fucking royal mint. Newton has ALWAYS been in the spotlight.