Best existentialist philosophy books according to redditors
We found 52 Reddit comments discussing the best existentialist philosophy books. We ranked the 27 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 52 Reddit comments discussing the best existentialist philosophy books. We ranked the 27 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Nobody has mentioned Kierkegaard yet, whom you should definitely read, especially Either/Or and Fear and Trembling. He is often cited as the founder of the "movement." As with other existentialist texts, they tread the line between philosophy and literature and hence raise numerous interpretative problems. I'd also say that you can understand more where Kierkegaard is coming from if you see how he's responding to Hegel - but I still got a lot out of him before reading any Hegel, so don't worry too much about it.
Existentialism as such rather fell out of favour in the academy in the '70s (I mean of course in departments of literature and continental philosophy). As the generation of post-structural theory swept in, committed to anti-humanism, existentialism was washed away as old-fashioned, conservative and too focused on individuals, rather than systems. People criticised Sartre for being the 'wrong kind' of public intellectual, ie. setting himself up as an authority. The dominant approach within literary studies today still has little time for existentialism, which I think is a shame, given that a lot of students come to literature as adolescents when reading these texts (being naive enough to think literature can tell them some about their life, etc).
There's a good "reconstruction" of the philosophical aspects of existentialism here:
http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-Reconstruction-David-E-Cooper/dp/0631213236
That may be a good primer for you, before you think about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, (early) Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, et al.
Would also add Cioran to that list. The bleakest of the lot - though again more a kind of essayist than a philosopher.
In terms of literature, there's the obvious stuff like Dostoevsky (Devils, Brothers Katamazov, Notes from the Underground) and Sartre/Camus's own texts. Absurdism is also strongly related - Ionesco, for example. Mid-period Beckett can also be read as an absurdist and existentialist: the famous plays like Godot and Endgame, but also look at Krapp's Last Tape, which I think is his best theatrical work. Even better than these is his "Trilogy" of novels: Molly, Malone Dies and The Unnamable. The first two, and especially Malone Dies, are amongst my very favourite books.
Gide's "The Immoralist" is in some ways an interesting precursor to Camus, I think. And there are other "existential" first-person narratives like Rilke's Maurids Brigg (I actually hate this) or Knut Hamsun's Hunger.
I would hesitate before characterising Kafka as existentialist - I think there's a lot more going on with him - but there's a lot of resonance. Read the Trial, but better still the short stories - Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, Investigations of a Dog, the Burrow.
It's possibly also worth considering the relationship between existentialism and other movements within other media, eg. expressionism in the visual arts and cinema. But I'm not knowledgable enough to say anything good about this. Look at some Egon Schiele paintings though.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001VLXNIS
How to Be an Existentialist: or How to Get Real, Get a Grip and Stop Making Excuses https://www.amazon.com/dp/1441139877/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_xz7azb48VBEAK
This book was an entertaining and informative read. I highly suggest it.
Existential philosophy deals with the issues of human existence, our emotions, our thoughts and the purpose and meaning to our life(or the lack there-of, or the idea that it's our own duty to put meaning to our lives). What I was referring to is the idea that even if we have people around us, we have to cross that bridge alone, there's no one going with us. If you're not familiar with the existentialists they're worth checking out - this book is a great starter, http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-Beginners-David-Cogswell/dp/1934389218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311134877&sr=8-1 .
Sartre presented a lecture called "Existentialism and Humanism," which can now be found in print as Existentialism is a Humanism. It's almost like an Existentialism manefesto, per se. The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is a good treatise on existentialism (Absurdism, really, but it'll do).
I would not hesitate to start reading fiction novels that have Existentialist themes. Camus' The Stranger, Sartre's Nausea, and Dostyevsky's Notes From the Underground are just a few that will find your studies well.
As for secondary literature, the only text I can knowledgeably recommend is Existentialism For Dummies, as I'm currently working my way through it. It's actually not as bad as you might think coming from the "For Dummies" series. It doesn't go too in-depth, and ideas are very concise and oftentimes humorous.
I have also heard good things about David Cogswell's Existentialism For Beginners, though I have never read it myself.
If your niece feels comfortable with this level of writing and philosophical examination, it is almost imperative to read Kierkegaard's Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, among others. It is good to have some background understanding of Kant and perhaps have a few essays by Schopenhauer under your belt leading up to the more rigorous academics like Heidegger and Hegel.
Good luck, and happy reading!
Some past answers to this question might be helpful.
For instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9plzgd/books_on_existentialism_for_beginners/e82nyx2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Or, from a Series sometimes used in survey courses: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Existentialism-Movements-Modern-Thought/dp/184465043X
Sounds like you're stuck in negative feedback loops. You feel bad because you feel bad because you feel bad... etc...
I recommend starting slowly, get exercise, eat right, try to take care of your body best you can. Taking care of the body will help boost mood and motivation. Success builds upon success but it's really really hard to get those initial successes. Try to keep your mood up and starting putting in the bitch work.
This book really helped me start to get my shit together:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Existentialist-Making-Excuses/dp/1441188436
So the book was originally titled
Dreadful freedom: a critique of existentialism, then they changed it to Introduction to Existentialism?
Gonick also has a History of The U.S., by the way.
Van Lente and Dunlavey's Action Philosophers is also a candidate if you're into the history of philosophy. In fact, while I'm at it, let me recommend the "For beginners" series about different philosophers and philosophic traditions. Examples: Marx, Freud, Existensialism etc. For a preview of the series, check out Philosophy for beginners at Google Books.
Edit: They even have reddit favourite Noam Chomsky for beginners!
Fechner is known as one of the most positive writers of all time. He wrote a book called The little book of life after death which explains why people shouldn't fear death even in a more materialistic light. Since what we should be looking at isn't total preservation of distinct bodily identity, but like parfit says, continuation from it in the right way. And so there's reason to think that this is preserved. Its hard to describe exactly, but it involves a global perspective, where individual people are like the thoughts of the world. And are like waves in the ocean. Individual identity is lost on death, but their data is preserved in the world at large.
Even though he is not super well known, his writings about this became inspirations for both process theism, and the pantheistic writings of the fathers of quantum mechanics, and likewise through them, the modern philosophical discussion on open individualism. So to provide more context for where his ideas go, one would want to also read some of those, and parfit. Maybe schopenauer also, since he is contrasted with fechner sometimes as someone who thinks something similar, but was super depressed instead of positive.
https://www.amazon.com/little-book-life-after-death-ebook/dp/B00N52L19Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454362314&sr=8-1&keywords=fechner+life+death#nav-subnav
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918024307?keywords=schrodinger&qid=1450233393&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Relativity-Social-Conception-Lectures/dp/0300028806/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443776539&sr=1-5&keywords=Charles+Hartshorne
https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472760071&sr=8-1&keywords=reasons+and+persons
https://www.amazon.com/Am-You-Metaphysical-Foundations-Synthese/dp/1402029993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454939417&sr=8-1&keywords=I+Am+You%3A+The+Metaphysical+Foundations+for+Global+Ethics
https://www.amazon.com/World-As-Will-Representation-7th/dp/1491025026/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472760223&sr=1-3&keywords=the+world+as+will+and+representation
Mind you, schrodinger's book refuses to talk about the science of what he's getting at, since he was worried at the time that people wouldn't take their new science as seriously if he related them together. So through the lens of modern understanding, learning about some of that helps explain why him and the other founders of qm followed in this same vein.
But yeah. You don't need to read anything else, but fechner's own book to get an idea. Its short and to the point. And written a little poetically, to make it easier to follow. The later books of course provide better argumentation and context for the idea, but they're not really necessary to understand it. Though part of fechner's own book gets a little too poetic at times, so you're not sure whether he means something in a metaphorical or literal sense. Meaning a modern lens is needed to ensure its following the latest understandings. Which some of the other writers provide. But even so.
> The free market is supposed to be...
I smell a strawman, but let's proceed anyway.
> Competition ensues, which leads to a range of prices for goods ensuring that all society can afford them.
Well, 2 sentences in and we're departing from free market analysis and toward normative views. Competition doesn't necessarily lead to "a range of prices" and certainly doesn't ensure "that all society can afford them". It does, generally, place a natural soft-cap on prices, but that says nothing about affordability. There is competition in boats and airplane manufacturers. Does that mean that "all society can afford" boats and planes? Of course not.
> Even if it seems some people are becoming much richer than the rest, this is good because it will eventually lead to them spending more and providing more jobs. In this way wealth ‘trickles down' to the rest of society.
Yep, straw man. This has nothing to do with free market economics.
> free market theory was developed for the small regional economies that existed under feudalism in the European late middle ages. Consequently, it is ill-matched to the current reality of globally integrated corporations and modern marketing techniques.
Old, therefore invalid? This is a form of chronological snobbery (a kind of genetic fallacy). It's the same kind of argument used by people who claim the US Constitution was never designed to handle modern machine guns or the internet, therefore "common sense" controls over guns or on speech are necessary.
> In the made-up world of perfect competition, it is the consumer who rules.
Actual free market theory doesn't assume perfect competition. That is a creation of various neoclassical economists as a theoretical market (with tons of nuance simplified away to reduce complexity) to reflect idealized efficiency. But free market advocates and theorists don't actually ascribe to the concept of perfect competition because it doesn't exist. It's simply an academic construct that has more often been used to justify intervention (a non-perfect market suffers from X or Y failing, thus requiring intervention) than to defend free markets.
> The pretence that we live in a free market system regulated by competition and ruled by the consumer is continued only because it benefits the world's elite.
I absolutely and completely agree with this statement. So why is he attacking free markets if he recognizes we don't actually live in one?
> It suggests that capitalism is “democratic” economically as well as politically. Just as we cast our vote in elections, by buying good “A” instead of good “B”, we are casting our vote in the economy. Since, as the theory goes, the consumer is king, each individual purchase we make contributes to society's collective decisions as to how scarce resources and labour are best utilised.
That's generally accurate.
> competition does the opposite of what the theory claims. ... Once they reach this position, they not only wield power within their sector, they also act together with other dominant monopolies to wield their joint power in all aspects of society.
He recognizes that we don't live in a free market, but then attributes the centralization due to cronyism - govt protection and insulation of established or politically connected firms - to the free market!? These things are not the result of competition, but the lack thereof.
> Through advertising, companies create markets for their products
Well, yes and no. They try to alert consumers of their products and to distinguish their offerings from others. In that sense, yes, they are trying to create markets. However, if this is suggesting - as I've heard some claim - that marketing and advertising somehow coerces helpless people into buying their products, regardless of whether they truly want to or not, then that's a bit of an exaggeration.
> The single aim of companies is to create demand in order to ensure ever-greater profit. The logic of capitalism is that companies must constantly reinvest profits or go under. Companies cannot stand still.
I will agree with this with one caveat. The goal is profit, yes. However, inflation is a large part of the driver for "ever-greater profit".
> Companies must constantly create new markets for new goods and services, whether it is the latest generation internet superhighway technology, or a new flavour of potato crisps.
Yes, and this is a GOOD thing. This is the driver of innovation and increased efficiency.
> Since environmental damage is not generally directly borne by companies, it does not impact on profit, at least in the short term. ... The winners will generally be those who care the least about the environment
This is part of a larger conversation about how the corporate protections from govt have insulated companies from their externalities at the expense of weakened private property protections. Most free market advocates push for private property protections that allow individual property owners (or as a group) to sue companies that expose their (the individual's) property to pollution.
> as the global environmental destruction continues apace, capitalism is spending more on bribing governments and running slick greenwash advertising campaigns, aimed at undermining protest. They plough ...
Again, they're not describing free markets anymore but just ranting about the current situation. And I don't completely disagree with their gripes with the current system.
> The need to constantly expand and get ahead is a key factor in making capitalism inherently unstable. Historically...
As I said before, inflation and central banks (very much not free markets) contribute largely to this "need to constantly expand". This article talks about the difference between the concept of consumerism (push to buy, buy, buy, and more and more and more profits) and capitalism (free markets). I haven't read it myself, but I've heard that this book speaks well to that idea.
> The single-minded drive for profit means companies inevitably must create unwanted need to stimulate ever-more demand, hence the massive advertising budgets they all have.
Wait, companies can use advertising and make people buy things that they do not want? So free will (in even the most loose sense) doesn't exist and people are easily and simply brainwashed and can be compelled to purchase even things they do not want?
> Capitalism does not produce for the poor, as they have no income and are therefore not a source of profit.
What nonsense is this? Why in the world does Wal-Mart, Goodwill, Aldis, etc exist if not specifically to provide for low-income individuals?
> of all the ridiculous claims of free market theory, perhaps the most obscene one is the boast that it is able to allocate resources equitably. While we have unwanted computers piling up in one part of the world, we have children dying of starvation in others.
Again, current system vs free markets. But even ignoring that, consider how difficult it is in the current system to import/export/trade goods between countries without inspections, regulations, quotas, tariffs, etc. That is certainly not the free market. Nor is the general circumstances in countries wallowing in poverty very free market. Usually these countries not only have repressive human rights, but almost non-existent private property rights, and in many places, the only free markets are black markets. So I'd challenge the author to find a country generally agreed to have a fairly free market and private property rights, but has more children dying of starvation than computers.
13 rules to not be a fucking cuck by TFM
It's short but jammed pack with knowledge on self ownership and self actualization.
www.amazon.com/13-Rules-Not-king-Cuck/dp/1079042733/
I think that's a fair assessment of 'the Absurd'. There isn't really a wrong answer here! In this game it's all about interpretation and supporting yourself logically and coherently. My suggestion to you then, is to take a look at The Myth of Sysiphus (and the [sparknotes won't you here hurt either] (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sisyphus/summary/)). Find yourself a breakdown of Camus' philosophy somewhere that you can understand. This is sprawling, complicated stuff, and no one in their right mind would expect someone in high school to write a comprehensive paper covering all of Camus' philosophy from source texts. Solomon's 'Existentialism' really is gold. I tried to find a pdf online for you, but it doesn't seem to exist. Since you seem to have an interest in the topic, I'd suggest picking this up at some point (maybe a birthday or Xmas gift?). Solomon also has a short little paperback called 'Introducing The Existentialists' which is worth picking up. Any more questions, ask away! Good luck!
Another option would be to plunge into existentialism in general. This book was used by one of my favorite profs for our existentialism course; it has a lot of really accessible introductions to the excerpts it provides. To me, it seems more valuable to get a total overview of the issues of the time, then look at the arc of one particular philosopher's works, and then plunge into the individual work that appeals to you most. It's better to get at least a generalized sketch of what Nietzsche is responding to and who else was working at the time, to contextualize your reading, because a lot of misunderstanding of Nietzsche comes from total lack of context WRT to his key themes, goals, and ideas.
I recommend Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. It's an easy-to-read overview and history of existentialism and its major figures. It would be perfect for someone in high school, instead of immediately tackling a work by any one particular author.
Well, ultimately, your feelings about death are totally irrelevant.
So... maybe it's best to decide to have more pleasant feelings about it.
Or.. maybe you should look into Existentialism? http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804286/
Start with Fear and Trembling. It's really something else, as much concerned with its aesthetic as with its philosophy.
I would also suggest perhaps picking up the Existentialism anthology by Solomon (http://amzn.to/qSR7f9), which has a broad selection of short excerpts from different of Kierkegaard's texts. Also, you'll then be able to read other existentialists to get a feel for just how widely varied this branch of philosophy is.
The Sickness Unto Death is also a good choice for after Fear and Trembling-- a lot of what Kierkegaard writes in the Sickness is very similar to what Heidegger has to say, but Kierkegaard makes much more sense.
The beautiful thing and the very modern thing about Kierkegaard is that he doesn't have a systematic philosophy-- instead, he has a series of personas in his different books that can be at odds with the others. He's very much so anti-systematizing- the Preface to Fear and Trembling will make this abundantly clear.
Having a firm grasp on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche will make learning your 20th century philosophy, especially the Continental (and in particular the French) kind massively easier.
Existentialism: Basic Writings is a great book with a broad scope of existential literature.
If you only cover ancient philosophy, you are going to teach these children a brief part of the history of philosophy, not a brief overview of philosophy itself. Many children will probably leave thinking philosophy is something that only pertains to silly Greek men.
This book was put together wonderfully by a professor, and spoke to me like nothing else had as a youth. You must read it, and teach the younglings. The second chapter which is on freedom will appeal to them immensely.
What you're doing is great, it's about time we brought philosophy back into school. Even if it is only for the first third of a class.
I think you're referring to Existentialism? A Beginners Guide
There is also an unfinished 4th book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-Roads-Freedom-IV/dp/1847065511/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382629146&sr=1-1&keywords=sartre+the+last+chance
Unfortunately, they want $15 for an unfinished 200 page ebook, which is insane.
Also, here is his play No Exit, it's free(and legal):
https://archive.org/details/NoExit
I read this great book called "How to be an Existentialist" by Gary Cox and it gives an easy to understand review of what existentialism means both as a philosophy and practically
http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Existentialist-Making-Excuses/dp/1441188436
edit: too many greats doth not a greater make
I'm in the same boat as you. I think about that a lot, and it has been affecting my life in a lot of ways, unfortunately...
I'm not really in a position to help, but I'll tell you how I've been dealing with it so far. There are two books that I've been reading that I find helpful with this subject: "A Confession", by Leo Tolstoy, and "How to be an Existentialist", by Gary Cox.
I just finished first and am going through the second right now. It was helpful to read Tolstoys educated and well thought-out opinions and experiences on the matter. Hard to say about the second book, but so far it's pretty good.
To my dismay, it seems like most answers point to "deal with it," which I find frustrating.
Heidegger discusses 'mood' in Being in Time, and how it affects how we see and interact with the world. It's a pretty dense text, but there's plenty of secondary literature on it, and it also opened a lot of ways of discussing similar themes. You may find this to have a few things worth looking into.
AFAIK this book is presented as an alternative to 12 Rules. From the Table of Contents it seems more focused on Stoicism and Nietzsche than traditional Christian values.
https://www.amazon.com/13-Rules-Not-king-Cuck/dp/1079042733 (no promo link)
> I guess Heidegger wasn't a philosopher then, or Gentile for that matter, or Croce.
Not my point. There's literally a book called Heideggerian Marxism,
there's alsothere used to be a Heidegger flair on /r/socialism, so I really don't think "Heidegger was a fascist" is really as slam dunk a thing as you seem to be implying.> Why do we bother extracting meaning from words?
Because that's how communication happens? I'm having trouble seeing what it is that is "so important to [me]" here.
this is the first book I picked up. I liked that it read like a college class, although the highly intellectual style of writing made it a more difficult read. but it explored and compared many different basics of existentialism and helped me define terms i wasn't comfortable with.
Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction by Thomas Flynn. I really love these "A Short Introduction" books. I have read many of them on different philosophers. The authors of these books are writing to appeal to people who are not well versed in philosophy, religion, etc. I think you should understand what existentialism is to see if that is similar to your anxiety. Even better, perhaps you would enjoy a book on meditation, like this book, which has a five-star rating on Amazon.
I think it might be best to get a 'reader' that has selections from many different philosophers and, ideally, solid introductions to each to help put them in context and distill a few of their major ideas. This will help you get a sense of what you're interested in and what you'd like to pursue deeper.
As an example the book Existentialism provides a great overview of existentialist thinkers with outstanding introductions to each. And that's an area that tends to be appealing to newcomers and also to younger people That's not to put it down to say it's a lesser area of philosophy. It's as rich, deep, challenging and diverse as any other.
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Amazon Smile Link: A Very Short Introduction
|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.
Just to play um..devil's advocate there was an existentialist theory that a utopian paradise free of violence couldn't exist, and God made the world this way because this is the best he can manage to minimize pain and suffering. It's just a theory that was later mostly discredited by the big existentialist boys.
source: http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851685936
In Soviet Union at the time there were a lot of existentialists who also believed in God.
If you want to improve you must learn and do, advice only gives guidance, you will see I mentioned I researched health.
Health as in how to exercise, how to eat well.
Health as in how to have a healthy social life.
Here are the resources I used:
That's a lot of good stuff right there. Now you have no excuses!