Problems of Philosophy

File: 941d3d1d-e211-454f-bbe1-54f8e4e36458.jpg (132KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 800x800px

>>9564592
No. Bertrand Russell was a foolish atheist. Start here.

Bertrand Russell let his wife sleep around. She even got pregnant a few times with other men's kids which Russell financially supported.

>>9564592
no the complete works of Plato, Beyond Good and Evil, and Meditations are a good start though.

more like problems of being a dumb cuck

>>9564637
C U C K
U
C
K

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_%28Copleston%29

>>9564637
Was that before or after he ate Vivienne's puss?

>>9564592
why not an introductory anthology like this?
>https://www.amazon.com/Norton-Introduction-Philosophy-Gideon-Rosen/dp/0393932206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495992478&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Norton+Introduction+to+Philosophy

I don't think /lit/ will agree with me here, but I think a complete pop-philosophy book like Julian Baggini's The Pig That Wants to be Eaten is the perfect introduction to philosophy. Build up the enjoyment first before getting the deeper (but much more difficult) sense of satisfaction that comes from tackling more serious texts and original works of philosophy.

>>9564867
Yeah I can agree. A lot of "real" philosophers spend dozens of pages to argue for a premise that's actually one of several sub-conclusions, and the main argument is like 20 premises long...

I'm looking at you, Kant.

>>9564918
That's a level to work up towards for sure (even though I enjoy philosophy I'm nowhere near there yet), but I think it's important to nurture that positive feeling about the subject first. Else some good-intentioned bloke might go straight for the Critique of Pure Reason, fail to understand a word of it and hate it, and be put off for life.

>>9564646

>starting with nietzsche

lol k.

>>9564867
I had a very similar experience with durant's "story of philosophy." I didn't retain much but it gave me a taste and made me sufficiently excited that I pucked up enough momentum to power through the first few stumbling blocks when I started reading the actual sources.

No.
Start with Ecclesiastes and Book of Solomon/Wisdom of Solomon.
>Then the Greeks and Romans
Not Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.
The other Greeks like Epicurus, Aristophanes, all the numerous ZENO-some-other-name-here.

>Or you can skip all that shit and jump to Marcus Aurelius directly, then stop, stop there, that's all you need to know

File: 41J6D-GNI7L.jpg (31KB, 312x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 312x500px

>>9564592
That's not even the best intro written by Russel. Pic related is better, but still not the ideal place to start.

Get a textbook written by a historian of philosophy (or, better still, several historians of philosophy). Actual philosophers tend to sneak (or in Russel's case, ham-fistedly shoehorn) judgements of other philosophers into their history texts. Historians of philosophy tend to be less biased, although they'll still have favorites.

>>9564592

Yes it absolutely is a good starter to get you into the habit of thinking philosophically. You should then get into the historical tradition afterwards, but it's a solid introductory book.

>>9564850

Western Philosophy: An Anthology by John Cottingham is better.

Yes, but it will only serve as an introduction to a small section of philosophy

>>9564592
Getting tired of these threads. Just cop Copleston's 11 volume history, and put these baby bitch threads to rest.