Best analytic philosophy books according to redditors

I'm sure you're trying to troll here, but let me take your question seriously.

Here's a selection for your convenience:

• The debate over multilevel selection theory comes down to a common conflation of two different definitions of the term which can be quite well-clarified by judicious use of the Price equation.
  
• It is not sufficient for a proposition to be known that it be (i) justified, (ii) true, and (iii) believed by an agent.
  
• Naive versions of divine command theory fail outright. That one goes back to Plato.
  
• For a large number of instances, spacetime substantivalism leads to very strange conclusions.
  
• For more, you could try this entire book.

Striking new mandela effect with the name "Gottlieb". Some people have had their name changed to "Gottlob".

I found this striking example, a list of people named Gottlieb. Sure enough one of the individuals listed is now known as "Gottlob":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_(name)

• Gottlob Heinrich Curt von Tottleben, German-born Russian general
  
  A search online provides residue of others spelling his name as Gottlieb.
  
  Philosopher "Gottlob Frege" is described as "Gottlieb" in this book description.
  
  https://www.amazon.ca/Frege-Introduction-Founder-Analytic-Philosophy/dp/0631222316
  
  This name change effect provides some interesting examples of classical music mandela effects. Lesser-known classical composers Christian Gottlob Neefe and Daniel Gottlob Türk also had their names updated from Gottlieb. Turk is a composer of piano pieces that have been performed by many beginner pianists. I found tons of residue including books and recordings spelling Turk's name as "Gottlieb". Gottlob is unrecognizable and foreign spelling to me. There are many examples of his spelling "Gottlieb" Turk showing up on Amazon as well, exactly how I remember his name. Gottlieb Turk is also easy to find on YouTube with many recording his music and spelling his name this way.

Gary Gutting has a fine book, What Philosophers Know which focusses on this question with regard to fairly contemporary "analytic" philosophy. The answer is, in general, very little (as the survey rofflewoffles posted also shows).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Meaningless-Life-James-Tartaglia/dp/1350017515/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=Philosophy+in+a+meaningless+life+tartaglia&qid=1568479362&sr=8-3

This is an interesting book from an analytic philosopher who takes nihilism seriously but doesn't think its a negative thing.

Kenny is a good writer:

http://www.amazon.com/Frege-Introduction-Founder-Analytic-Philosophy/dp/0631222316

Frege isn't going to help you understand the tractatus. To do that get a companion to wittgenstein (the tractatus doesn't use much formal logic).

to learn logic for free, try Gary Hardegree's free online text "Symbolic Logic: A First Course". If you want to spend money, the most excellent book on logic is Logic: The Basics. However, it's not the best to teach a good understanding of how to do logic, but rather is good to learn philosophy of logic as an introductory work. To learn how to do logic, try Language, Proof and Logic. With the software. The software is fantastic. Both books are very philosophical, and engage in the linguistic topics that Wittgenstein was concerned with, truth, meaning, and content.

Here are two books that are on my to-read list:

The Limits of Analysis, by Stanley Rosen.

Fashionable Nihilism: A Critique of Analytic Philosophy, by Bruce Wilshire.

This is the old debate between analytic and continental philosophy, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

How about this for a summary: Analytic philosophy says everything about nothing. Continental philosophy says nothing about everything.

It's like Wittgenstein's move from his Tractatus (analytic) to his Philosophical Investigations (continental).

See also http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Analytical-Philosophy-Michael-Dummett/dp/0674644735/

Try this anthology of essays. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1444335707/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1466903891&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=analytic+philosophy+sosa

There is a newish series of books that highlights current debates - I'd recommend you look at it's epistemology entry, New Waves in Epistemology if you can get it from your library. At the very least you should take a look at the NPDR Review here which should give you an idea of what's happening here and now in epistemology.

My understanding is that meta-epistemology is currently a hot topic as well, but given that one of my department's major players is currently working on that, it may be a bit hyped up around here.

Analytic philosophy kind of means two things: first, most people use the label to mean a method — careful, heavily argument-centric, precise, mostly deferential to the natural sciences. In this sense there is lots of analytic philosophy and you can't really get an introduction to all of it. Second, since the above tradition really became conscious of itself during the time of Frege, Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein (and I agree, don't start with him), it's the name for an historical period that started with those philosophers.

I think you can get a decent intro to both via a book called The Game of the Name by Gregory McCullough. It's heavily focused on philosophy of language, but good analytics know that stuff well. To dig into another area I like the Dimensions of Philosophy series though some of them are becoming dated nowadays. Still, they're all great analytic introductions to different areas.

Here's the anthology used by a class at my college. Contains most of the central writings, so you can branch out from there when you find something that really interests you.

>Admittedly, analytical philosophy is the only type that has any real significance in the world of academia.

This has been a waning truth since 2001.

>The fairly traditional introductory text is "The Republic" by Plato. A massively influential work, and it is easy to read, not difficult to follow, and not bogged down by jargon like most modern philosophy. However, you might find it fairly boring.

Try The Last Days of Socrates.

Taylor Carman's book on Heidegger is very good, I would stay away from Hubert Dreyfus as long as possible. John Richardson, Kockelmans, von Hermann, et al. are good and especially open sources on Heidegger, actually fitting his philosophical approach. Dreyfus had some good points writing about the shortcomings and possibility of A.I., which didn't help with reading Heidegger in other ways (e.g.: reading Heidegger through Meister Eckhart and/or the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (sp.?), through Derrida, etc.). Then again, I respect Dreyfus (of course) as an academic and I enjoyed his pragmatist approach to his philosophy, but this doesn't fit Heidegger at all to be honest (sp.). This leads to simplification and 'ossification' of frames of reference, which should be avoided by all means possible.

Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction seems relevant here. It's a philosophy acknowledging that the universe will come to an end (by heat death), and so asks how and why philosophy should proceed with that knowledge.

You might be interested in checking out the work of Taylor Carman (particularly this book ). Taylor Carman views Heidegger’s entire project as essentially Kantian, and focuses on their relation.

> Did you ever go the extra mile and read Hegel extensively as well? I've been tempted to undertake this endeavor to understand Kierkegaard better. If you've gone down that road: did you find it worthwhile?

I haven’t read Hegel extensively, but I have read some. I have no doubt that it would prove to be a fruitful endeavor and help illuminate Kierkegaard’s project.

There are also some good studies of Kierkegaard’s relation to Hegel, especially this work and this one.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
James W. Cornman , Keith Lehrer , George Sotiros Pappas [Amazon Link] although published in 1991 it is going to leave out developments in the last 20 years.

But it does fairly well to present a rigorous exploration of 5 key issues in philosophy: God; Epistemology; Ethics; Free Will; Consciousness. Plus it has an overview chapter on Philosophy and its methods.

What makes it of particular interest is that the authors commit to defending particular answers in these areas after having traversed (as best they can) the main relevant issues and positions.

That confers an important understanding of philosophy: that is about trying to find answers to fundamental questions. Rather, as many folk regard philosophy, as a pointless exchange of views without any hope of progress.

Even some philosophers have an unfortunate antipathy toward answers in philosophy. I've heard one philosopher declare something like "Philosophy isn't about answers. If answers are provided in philosophy it becomes ideology and dogma. Philosophy is about questions."

Note the Cornman, Lehrer, and Pappas book can be a bit turgid in its writing style. So I'm glad you have a book of Russell's, Russell being a model of clear and plain expression. I haven't read his Problems of philosophy. I just might have to get it myself.

A friend also recommends An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis (4th Edition, 1996), John Hospers [Amazon Link].

This is a obligatory one.


This is a good read

>In this show they are selling one thing; that it all makes sense. That there is an underlying rhythm to reality, and by living in the right way and taking the right drugs and being a general desperate bastard you can perceive it. You can never control it and you can never, never understand it, but it is there and it can be seen. Sometimes. Sometimes, when you’re watching True Detective on TV, it seems like it all makes sense.

I couldn't disagree more with this. I think TD is playing with the allure that "it all makes sense," but that in the end that's a bluff – a bluff we tell ourselves, a bluff that makes characters like Rust so attractive in spite of because of the pathos of "seeing it all." What TD is really about, if you ask me, is the incredible fragility of human being in the face of the chaos and destruction that is the world we live in. There are at least three reasons for understanding TD in this way: 1. the manner in which the story is constructed; 2. because on this reading it succeeds; and 3. it's the most compelling reading.

First, the story itself is constructed around narratives: the narratives we tell ourselves about who we are, the narratives we tell others about who we are, the narratives that detectives construct in piecing together crimes and the narratives we construct in making sense of the world. Rust has a very compelling perspective which we might call nihilism unbound, but he pays a terrible price for it and ultimately he recognizes it is unsustainable. Much could be said on this point, but to keep it simple I'll just say that the story ends not with some kind cosmic confirmation or closure, but with pathos – a pathos that is cathartic, perhaps, but without clear resolution.

Second, many people felt the ending was a disappointment. The principle of charity would suggest that we give TD the best possible reading which would entail understanding it as succeeding at what it evidently succeeded at rather than failing at what we thought it ought to have been.

Three, the world doesn't make sense. How wonderful to have that fact reflected on television. Why would you want it any other way?

While looking for a list of things wrong with a methodology isn't the best attitude to approach the issue, Bruce Wilshire's Fashionable Nihilism is probably a good place to look if you are interested! Wilshire is an odd beast-hybrid of pragmatism and phenomenology, so he has a novel perspective on the whole matter.

Because of the continued expansion of the universe, eventually even matter itself will disorganize and molecular structures of any kind will not be possible. These machines you are referring to will devolve into nothing (refer to "Nihil Unbound"

Ray Brassier is a good contemporary source on this. If a bit verbose at times.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nihil-Unbound-Enlightenment-Extinction-Brassier/dp/023052205X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=ray+brassier&qid=1572768710&sr=8-1

Try Stroll's Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy. There's a chapter dedicated specifically to the subject and methods of analytic philosophy. It's an easy read, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

I started this history of analytic philosophy and like it so far.

20th Century Analytic Philosophy, Avrrum Stroll

It covers language, logic, and ethics, going from Frege through Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Moore, and others. I wouldn't recommend it for a freshman just entering college, but it sounds like you have at least a couple of years of school behind you.

I am coming from the continental side of philosophy, so any posts by analytic philosophers will carry more weight, but it's something you might check out.

I would recommend this book.