Best philosophy history books according to redditors

We found 424 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy history books. We ranked the 220 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Philosophy History & Survey:

u/rynebrandon · 127 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I think you've got to be more explicit about your phrasing here. What does it mean for something to work? "Work" meaning that it provides the lowest prices or the most efficient allocation of goods? "Work" meaning that it leads to a socially desirable distribution of labor and rewards? "Work" for all goods regardless or is it ok if it only "works" for non-real, non-durable private goods? Whether something "works" really depends almost entirely on 1) your perspective and what you think a fair and just society looks like and 2) what type of goods or segment of the market you're talking about.

Almost no one advocates a fully unregulated private market, nor has one ever really been attempted (England in the 19th century is probably the closest thing to pure, laissez faire capitalism on a large scale).

In the end, what we usually debate in these political forums is what specific configuration of private, semi-public and public institutions best serves the public interest, however it is we choose to define those terms. Lifetimes could be spent (and have been spent) trying to answer that very question. Whatever your opinion on Marx's proposed solution to the problems he pointed out, he was for his day, a brilliant critic of market economies who many would say rightly pointed out the dehumanizing realities of a pure market economy. On the other hand, strongly-regulated Keynesian experiments in the undeveloped world with robust support for labor and that - ideally - attempt to put a strong premium on human dignity are rarely what most would call a rousing success.

Honestly, I could go on for hours with this (or really the rest of my life) but my favorite response to this basic notion doesn't come from an economist at all but an administrative philosopher with essentially no economic background, Jos Raadschelders. He said "suffice it to say that public and market norms compete, and neither can completely displace the other." So, in answering your question at the broadest level, that's the best response possible. Do fully unregulated markets "work?" By most definitions of "work," probably not. But I don't think most people advocate for that. To borrow a phrase: suffice it to say the owners of capital tend to believe that we are over-regulated and consumers and/or workers often believe their institutional protections' (be they governmental or otherwise) are not robust enough. Think of it as a continuum where almost everyone believes that a mostly unregulated market is the most efficient arrangement for many things and almost everyone believes that the market will do harm to individuals, societies and even itself if left totally unfettered. The rest comes down to which configuration of markets, hierarchies and institutional protections within that continuum we find most beneficial. That final answer will vary widely from person to person.

u/Lauzon_ · 22 pointsr/MensRights

Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.

Me a feminist? No way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs

How Feminism conned society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozEFVPDxeg

Benevolent sexism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo

The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

Feminism and the Disposable Male.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

-----

A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:

Women power in the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

---------

Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xmm3p/i_cant_believe_people_think_we_dont_need_a_mens/

------

Good reading:

The Myth of Male Power

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM

The Privileged Sex

http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00EX5PJC2/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403378&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=privilged+sex

No More Sex War

http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/1856191915/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403395&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=no+more+sex+war

The Second Sexism

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403501&sr=1-1&keywords=second+sexism

The War Against Boys

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403440&sr=1-1&keywords=war+against+boys

u/LucifersHammerr · 20 pointsr/MensRights

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)

u/[deleted] · 19 pointsr/philosophy

I'm not /u/hungrystegosaurus, but here are a few personal suggestions:

Philosophy on the whole -- Copleston is the standard and for good reason

Early Greek philosophy -- Nietzsche has a relatively accessible and worthwhile overview on many Greek sages that I found to be a supremely helpful, though controversial, introduction

Plato -- Very, very tough to recommend any good introduction to his work taken holistically, but I'll go out on a limb and recommend something Straussian, which is a little tough for a first-timer but grounds Platonic philosophy in living moral and political issues OP is likely more familiar with. Shorter dialogues like the Meno and the Apology might also be worth checking out

Aristotle -- Forget the abstruse metaphysics; stick with the ethics. The Cambridge intro is adequate

Renaissance / Enlightenment philosophy -- Not my primary interest, but rather than plunging into Kant, try something like the Novum Organum by Bacon, which is an admirably clear laying-out of the Enlightenment project, written without impenetrable jargon and in a digestible aphoristic style

Nietzsche -- Most anything by Kaufmann will do, but this is a nice piece

Heidegger -- Richard Polt's introduction

Existentialism in general -- Not a written reference, but this video lecture series by Solomon, an excellent UT philosophy professor, makes for a nice companion

Contemporary philosophy -- /u/ReallyNicole, one of this subreddit's moderators, would be able to offer a ton of great introductory material. She's sort of a pro at linking to articles

This is barely scratching the surface, but scratching the surface is more than enough. If OP can get through even half of this material in a year or two's time, he'll be well on his way to developing his philosophical faculties and familiarity.

To recommend motherfucking Being and Time or the Critique of Pure Reason (without supplemental aids, no less) to a 17-year-old novice is so egregiously, maddeningly, ball-shrivelingly stupid and such wholly, purely, offensively bad advice that I honestly wouldn't mind seeing /u/JamieHugo permanently banned from this subreddit for corrupting the youth.

u/ottoseesotto · 19 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Eh, Marx was inevitable. He took the ideas of a genius, Hegel, and the idea of the historical dialectic and inverted it.

Marx made a good observation about a way of interpreting the driving forces behind human history. He was ultimately wrong (historical materialism is too simplistic), but that idea was going to happen one way or the other.

We ought to blame Marx as much as Stalin and Mao as well as everyone else who behaved like a total fuckwad when it wasn’t necessary to behave like a total fuckwad.

I recommend everyone to listen to Peter Singer summarize Hegel

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X

And Marx

https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/0192854054

Edit: Lots of overlap between Peterson and Hegel btw. Though Hagel was highly critical of the Classical Liberal notion of freedom.

Edit: Fixed spelling for all anal retentives

u/Snow_Mandalorian · 17 pointsr/philosophy

Some are good, some are full of cringe. But I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to someone interested in philosophy but has no idea where to start nor is currently enrolled in a university.

I started with Metallica and Philosophy. If you think explaining the Ship of Theseus by way of Lars Ulrich losing a piece of his drum kit every show during a tour is maybe slightly funny but useful, it can't hurt to pick these up. Not much here for people with a general background in philosophy though. They're definitely introductions to the field that try to hook you with topics you already care or know some stuff about.

I still unashamedly stand by Philosophy for Dummies being the best damn introduction to philosophy I've ever read though.

u/No1ExpectsThrowAway · 16 pointsr/SeattleWA

> What specifically are Catholic hospitals doing? How are they killing people?

Oh shit, you weighed in on this issue with the full knowledge that you don't know anything about any of the topics that relate to it?

Start here: https://www.aclu.org/blog/religious-liberty/you-go-catholic-hospital-read
And here: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Dummies-Tom-Morris/dp/0764551531
And here: https://www.amazon.com/Medical-Ethics-Dummies-Jane-Runzheimer/dp/0470878568

Edit: It doesn't matter whether you were ignorant of any of this beforehand. You've supported the notion that religious beliefs are more valuable than women or their rights. You're completely evil. Fuck you.

u/ADefiniteDescription · 15 pointsr/askphilosophy

I haven't read it, but I think people have pointed to David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys as an example of something you're looking for.

u/scdozer435 · 10 pointsr/askphilosophy

The book I always recommend people start out with is Sophie's World, not because it's the most in-depth, but because it's the most accessible for a newcomer. It's also the most entertaining I've read. If you want something more in-depth, Russell's History of Western Philosophy is generally this subreddit's big recommendation, although I personally wouldn't say it's a great starting point. His reading of some thinkers is not great, and he's not quite as good at dumbing down certain ideas to an introductory level.

A good summary of philosophy will help you for a couple reasons. One, it will give you enough information to find out what thinkers and ideas interest you. If you're interested in a particular question or thinker, then that's obviously where you should go. Philosophy of religion? Logic? Aesthetics and art? Language? There's plenty written on all these topics, but it can be a bit overwhelming to try and just attack all of philosophy at once. Like any other field, there will be parts of it that click with you, and parts that don't really seem all that appealing. Find your niche, and pursue it. In addition to giving you an idea of where to go, a good overview will put ideas in context. Understanding Augustine and Aquinas will make more sense if you know that they're working with a foundation of the Greek thought of Plato and Aristotle. Descartes wrote his meditations during the enlightenment, and was a major contributor to much of the emphasis on reason that defined that era. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's existentialist ideas become more powerful when you realize they're critiquing and challenging the technicality of Kant and Hegel. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and while you can't be expected to know all the details of everything, your niche area of interest will make more sense if you understand it's context.

As for easier texts that I'd recommend trying out (once you find an area of interest), here's a few that are pretty important and also fairly accessible. These are texts that are generally read by all philosophy students, due to their importance, but if you're just into this for personal interest, you can pick and choose a bit. Still, these are important works, so they'll be very good to read anyways.

Plato - Apology: not terribly dense, but an accessible text in which Socrates basically defends his pursuing philosophical thought. I'd recommend this as an accessible introduction that will get you to feel like philosophy matters; think of it as pump-up music before a big game.

Plato - The Republic: this is arguably Plato's most important work. In it, he talks about the nature of men, politics, education and art.

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics: a text that deals with leading a life in accordance with virtue. Aristotle's style is a bit dry and technical, but he's also very important.

Augustine - On Free Choice of the Will: a dialogue similar to Plato's in which Augustine argues that the existence of God does not conflict with man having free will.

Aquinas - Selected Excerpts: he wrote a lot, so you don't wanna try reading a whole one of his works. This selects his key ideas and puts them in bite-sized chunks. He's a big Christian thinker, arguing for the existence and goodness of God and related theological concepts.

Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy: Descartes uses reason to prove he exists, along with some other things. Pretty easy to read, although it sparked a revolution in thought, making epistemology a central problem of philosophy.

Kant - Grounding for Metaphysics of Morals: one of his easier works, but it's still one of the more technical works I'm recommending, in which Kant demonstrates that morals are a priori.

Kierkegaard - Fear and Trembling: one of my favorite books, Kierkegaard writes about the nature of faith using the story of Abraham and Isaac as his starting point. A huge critic of Kant's obsession with pure reason, he is generally considered to be the first existential thinker.

Nietzsche - Beyond Good & Evil: Nietzsche is one of the more controversial thinkers in history. Also a critic of Kant, he is one of the most profound critics of religion. This book is one of his more important, in which he talks about his problems of religion, the culture around him, and at times points us in the direction he wants us to go. Know that he doesn't write in a terribly direct manner, so if you choose to read him, come here for assistance. He's a bit different to read, and can be challenging if you're not ready.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and having a good reference to help you along will be very helpful.

u/tunaonrye · 10 pointsr/changemyview

You are painting both "feminists" and "MRAs" with a very broad brush. Feminist thinking is not simple, there are classic feminists like Wollstonecraft, Mill & Taylor, moving to Friedan, Gloria Steinam, and more of the third-wave feminists who are (arguably) more essentialist about gender - but even there, there is a range. MRA and feminists on the most attention-getting parts internet are often reactionary and insular, but that does not mean the whole movement is.

I'm less convinced that the MRA has much of an intellectual wing, but here is one example.

Further, here is an explicit feminist writer on how gender equality hasn't gotten there yet in the US

u/Simkin · 10 pointsr/philosophy

I'd actually recommend watching through the documentary in the link above as a halfway decent introduction to the main themes relevant to studying Nietzsche in an easily digestible format.

As far as books go, afaik most philosophy courses on Nietzsche start out with Beyond Good and Evil. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his self-designated magnum opus, though I recommend having some background knowledge of its context before attempting to scale it. My personal favorite, Gay Science, is a wonderfully thought-provoking and entertaining read.

There are also plenty of good commentaries and biographies around. A classic would be Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It's a bit old, but I wouldn't hold that against it. Kaufmann can of course be accused of revisionism, but his influence in presenting some of the first analyses encompassing Nietzsche's entire work as well as rehabilitating his academic respectability post-WW2 is seminal. Some others over here might have hints on more current biographies worth checking out. Also, most translations of Nietzsche's original works have decent commentaries with them, I'd look out for RJ Hollingdale's and Kaufmann's versions in particular.

Good luck with your pursuit of philosophy :)

Edit: typo (or two)

u/Blackblade_ · 9 pointsr/TheRedPill

For Nietzsche, or for life in general?

I'll assume the first one. Read these in the order given:

Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufman.

Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche

On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche

Beyond Good & Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

I would highly recommend getting the Kaufman translations. Thus Spake Zarathustra is collected in The Portable Nietzsche and Genealogy of Morals is collected together with Ecce Homo. Once you've read the ones I've listed, you'll already have his other important books if you want to read them. I'd read the Kaufman book first for two reasons: Understanding Nietzsche life and times helps to contextualize his philosophy, and Kaufman is terrific biographer, plus Kaufman gives a thorough overview of Nietzsche's ideas. And sometime it really helps to have a map of the territory before you plunge into the abyss. Nietzsche can be very challenging, especially to the 21st century reader.

u/BarrelRoll1996 · 8 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

You seem sincere so I'll try my best to not be a total dick. It's really difficult for people who come from heavy science backgrounds to read something like this and not just roll their eyes.

You are making huge sweeping conclusions from self-reports of NDE and arguing that since this phenomena exists and it is not easily explained that this substantiates dualism, a philosophical world view that was discarded long ago (for orgins of this idea read Meditations on First Philosophy: In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body Are Demonstrated).



u/SubDavidsonic · 8 pointsr/askphilosophy

William Lycan's Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction is very helpful and comprehensive as an overview.

As for really famous primary works in the field, you might want to check these out:


Truth and Meaning

Tarski's The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics

Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism

Davidson's Truth and Meaning

Pragmatics

Austin's How to Do Things with Words

Grice's Logic and Conversation


Reference

Donellen's Reference and Definite Descriptions

Kripke's Naming and Necessity

Wittgenstein

Primary Lit:

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus (obviously)

Secondary Lit (I'm only well versed on the secondary lit for the later Wittgenstein, so I'll give you that):

Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide

John McDowell's Wittgenstein on Following a Rule

Meredith Williams' Wittgenstein, Mind, and Meaning

----

Hope that helps!

EDIT: Added a lot

u/Myrdradek · 7 pointsr/badphilosophy

Woah looks like someone's falling victim to the second sexism https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

u/TheUtilitaria · 7 pointsr/slatestarcodex

If you mean the original Hegelian idea, not Marxism, then good luck; it's bizarre and baffling. The clearest book I ever read on it was Peter Singer's Hegel, A Very Short Introduction. Singer does as good a job as anyone could. For Marx's version, Singer's Marx, A Very Short Introduction is the best introduction too.

Before diving in, Scott does a very good job of explaining why its worth paying at least a bit of attention to Hegel even given his horrible reputation among analytic philosophers

I'm amazed at how little philosophy the ""philosophers"" that write for these magazines seem to know. I've read just two books on Hegel and the very first thing that pops out is how utterly divergent he is from the enlightenment ideal of progress through incremental problem-solving. Hegel's version of progress is Mind/Spirit resolving contradictions through a dialectical struggle, then reaching a new understanding of itself, as part of a historical process with the goal of obtaining absolute knowledge. That's not a kind of progress that Kant or Mill or the American founding fathers would recognize.

u/MaceWumpus · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

It seems to me that Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist is the English work most likely to have been translated into Greek. It's worth reading though a little dated, and is pretty easy to understand in English.

u/Bietzsches · 7 pointsr/PoliticalScience

Wow frankly you're really making me mull over helping you as I'm sincerely questioning your priorities and how justified your opinion of yourself is. You may have great critical reasoning abilities but that makes up for nothing in life by itself. In any case Leo Strauss's work the History of Political Philosophy is an exhaustive chronological account of the most significant political thinkers in Western history from Thucydides to Heidegger. I read it as a senior in high school and it's in large part due to this book I ended up in the field I did (intellectual history). A truly invaluable resource.

u/mrfurious · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

You're welcome! I think one of the best resources out there for these distinctions and other important preliminaries to philosophy is The Philosopher's Toolkit. Chapter 4 does a good job on many of the distinctions.

u/MegistaGene · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

I haven't read it, but I can tell you that the consensus about it in the History of Philosophy community is that it's pretty bad. I've only seen it cited in history of philosophy journals as a foil. For a broad introduction, I've heard Kenny's new work is pretty good. And I rather like Copleston's History, though it's nine ~500 page volumes. I think your best bet, though, is just to read some philosophical classics. Perhaps Plato's Five Dialogues (https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Dialogues-Euthyphro-Apology-Classics/dp/0872206335/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069583&sr=8-1&keywords=five+dialogues), Descartes' Meditations (https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-First-Philosophy-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872201929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069631&sr=8-1&keywords=meditations+descartes), Russel's Problems of Philosophy (https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/1613821875/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069667&sr=8-7&keywords=problems+of+philosophy), and maybe Searle's Brief Introduction to Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brief-Introduction-Fundamentals-Philosophy/dp/0195157346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467069693&sr=8-1&keywords=searle+mind).

There are better, more important, and more recent works than these, but I think these are good intros to philosophy as a whole for two reasons: 1) these are very representative of Ancient, Modern, Early Analytic, and contemporary philosophy of mind. And 2) these are all pretty easy. Philosophy's batshit complicated, at times; but none of these are more difficult than they have to be (and yet, they're not Idiot's Guides … )

u/Fafner_88 · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

Wittgenstein by William Child is really good. It covers all the major topics and is written in a very clear and easy to follow prose. A more advanced book is Marie McGinn's Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

But reading Wittgenstein himself is indispensable. I would recommend starting with the Blue and Brown books (it's a single book actually), and then reading his magnum opus Philosophical Investigations. You should keep in mind that there is no scholarly consensus even on the basics of W's philosophy and you should therefore be very cautious with any secondary literature that you read. It is better to make up your own mind based on Wittgenstein's own texts rather than what commentators say about them. Wittgenstein's later philosophy is non-technical and pretty much self-contained in that it doesn't presuppose much prior philosophical knowledge to understand (or at least to be able to follow it) so there's really no good reason why you shouldn't just start with the primary texts.

u/Ihatecheese86 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

History of Political Philosophy (edited by Strauss and Cropsey) contains insightful and illuminating essays for just about every major thinker in western philosophy. The essays are about the same length as the one you posted- so it's not a stretch to read one in a sitting or two. Machiavelli's entry was done by Strauss himself, who wrote prolifically on Machiavelli and in a lot of ways revitalized serious interest in his works.

It's a great essay, and the book isn't a bad resource to have.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Political-Philosophy-Leo-Strauss/dp/0226777103

u/ProbablyNotDave · 5 pointsr/mealtimevideos

Alain Badiou recently wrote this article on Hegel's master/slave dialectic, but did so asking the question as to it's relation to real slavery. It answers the question quite nicely while also providing an extremely clear reading of Hegel's argument.

Frederick Beiser also wrote a book on Hegel (there are ways to get the PDF version of this if you look in the right places) that is clear and does a good job dispelling the common misreadings of Hegel.

Peter Singer's Very Short Introduction to Hegel (again, available as a PDF in the right places) is also extremely clear and well written.

If you're serious about reading Hegel, pick yourself up a copy of Phenomenology of Spirit and read through it with Gregory Sadler's Lecture series. He goes through paragraph by paragraph explaining the whole text. He's extremely engaging and extremely insightful.

If you can't get enough Hegel and you want to go all in, I'd recommend The Hegel Variations by Fredric Jameson, Hegel: Three Studies by Theodore Adorno, and Less Than Nothing by some Slovenian guy.

Sorry if that's overkill, hope it helps!

u/Arturos · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

It depends on what you mean. In one sense, you don't really need a book to be able to have discussions about philosophical issues - just someone willing to engage in good faith discussion. But there are some resources that could help you express yourself more effectively.

Philosophers argue using the rules of logic, so one way to learn how to argue effectively is to learn about logic. There are a lot of great internet resources out there that help you learn to discern good reasoning from bad reasoning. But if you do want a book, I like this Critical Thinking textbook. Very readable and very funny.

For something that applies to philosophy more directly, there's the Philosopher's Toolkit. It explains a bunch of concepts and argument forms you're likely to see when doing philosophy.

Beyond that, there are all kinds of primers on the main branches of philosophy and on specific philosophical questions. You can get a feel for the territory by reading introductory texts or Stanford Encyclopedia articles.

Hope this was helpful.

u/ub3rm3nsch · 5 pointsr/IsraelPalestine

The Member States of the United Nations - an international organization - recognize borders by recognizing States. Hence, why I said:

> the international community does in fact determine borders.

Here is how that happens.

The UN as an organization enforces and protects those borders. This takes place in a variety of ways.

If you want to understand more about how States became the primary political actor that make rules vis-a-vis each other, this book will help you learn more about that.

If you'd like to learn more about how States use and delegate power to International Organizations in order to solve international problems, this book will help you do that.

If you'd like to learn more about how the UN System works to enforce borders, this book will help you do that.

Someone posted a website where you can find free books on the non-politics thread. You can probably find pdf copies of each of these books (though personally I just keep them on my shelf to read in a more tangible form and for quick reference).

u/admorobo · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Honestly, I think the "Very Short Introduction" series by the Oxford Press is the best way to go. There are literally dozens and dozens of short, easy-to-read books that break down different concepts objectively and succinctly. The Very Short Introduction to Philosophy will probably be good for him, and then he can always jump off into others [Existentialism, Epistemology, et cetera) as he'd like. Hope this helps!

u/FA1R_ENOUGH · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

I'd recommend reading a book on the history of philosophy. That way, you'll have a working understanding of all the major philosophers, and you will probably find someone's philosophy interesting enough to pursue them further. A classic is Samuel Enoch Stumpf's Socrates to Sarte. A friend of mine also recommended a more contemporary book that he said is becoming more standard today. A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny.

Other standards works many students start with include Rene Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy. Also, Plato is a good starting point. The Five Dialogues are some of his earlier works. These include the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, and Phaedo. I personally started with Plato's Republic, which a former professor informed me that you must read in order to consider yourself educated in today's world (Interestingly enough, he's only ever said that about books he's read).

u/animistern · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

If you're looking for a broad overview or a history of western philosophy, I wholeheartedly recommend Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee. Magee's ability to extract the diamond heart of a philosophical work and explain it clearly (many times even clearer than the original writer) is unmatched by anyone, in my opinion. His books Confessions of a Philosopher and The Great Philosophers are also brilliant overview-type books, but Story of Philosophy is the most recent, the most comprehensive (although not the deepest), and it's full of images, so I would recommend that you start there.

u/Toadytoadstool · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy
u/Youre_Government · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Way to not post the rest of that article. They claim the book at #1 can be found for under $200, though I can't find it. As far as I've seen, you can get the book listed at #1 for $440. The second book can be had for the low low price (/s) of $330.

And I also don't see any reference to actual courses where these books are required. Something like #5 looks like it's probably a medical school textbook, which I guess I didn't exclude explicitly, but I thought it was understood that we're really talking about undergrad textbooks.

u/meshoome · 3 pointsr/Philo4begginersclub

There is a book that I recently bought.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-Philosophical/dp/1405190183

It is the best resource I could find on philosophical arguments and terms for a beginner.

I started reading philosophy 2 months back and have made some progress thanks to this book. So I wanted to share and hear your views on it if anyone else has given the book a shot.

u/transeunte · 3 pointsr/philosophy

For those looking for a good introduction on Hegel, I recommend the Very Short Introduction title written by Peter Singer.

u/rednblack · 3 pointsr/philosophy

The Philosopher's Toolkit and The Story of Philosophy both seem like great places to start.

u/Georgy_K_Zhukov · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Its been some years since I studied Nietzsche with any real application, so I should be clear that I'm really just giving a quick summary of Kaufmann's work on Nietzsche, primarily from his annotations in the aforementioned volumes, as well as Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Kaufmann was a very key part in rescuing Nietzsche's legacy from the Nazis, which was first tarnished by his sister, and then my editors like Alfred Bäumler, whose annotated edition was one of the most widely read in the interwar years, and also was an avowed Nazi. At Nuremberg, it was noted:

>[Nietzsche's] vision of the masses being governed without constraints by rules presaged the Nazi regime. Nietzsche believed in the supreme race and the primacy of Germany in which he saw a young soul and inexhaustible reserves.

And that was certainly the image cultivated about Nietzsche, which the Nazi party latched onto, but I would also point back to the unpublished line above, which is only one of many you can find where he has quite the opposite to say in regards to the German spirit.

Take what he had to say on the Slavs compared to the Germans:

>The Poles I consider the most gifted and gallant among the Slavic peoples; and the giftedness of the Slavs seems greater to me than that of the Germans.

Much of the discussion that Kaufmann covers in Nietzsche about this (the entire 10th chapter, "The Master Race", is devoted mostly to race and Nazism) comes down to perception of race in Nietzsche's writings, and specifically the concept of 'master race', which of course tied in well with the Nazi's own philosophical underpinnings (although it should be noted Nietzsche [seemed to] fit their philosophy, and was not the source of it). But, as Kaufmann points out, Nietzsche writes against nationalism, advocates the 'mixed race' marriages, and is generally quite praiseful of the Jews in this regards, "just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant". He certainly had views on race that we would find troubling, but far from being the hateful, racial supremacy of Nazism, it was really more an advocacy of many different races, each with their various characteristics, coming together, intermingling, and leading to his hope of the "European Man" (So... yeah, he wasn't exactly not racist either, just not in anywhere near the same context as Nazism).

To quote Kaufmann, "It would be cumbersome and pointless to adduce endless examples from Nazi works on Nietzsche to refute them each time by referring to the context of Nietzsche's remarks", but nevertheless, Nazi scholars of Nietzsche, such as Max Oehler or Bäumler, often had to do some serious mental gymnastics to excuse or rationalize the anti-German, pro-Jewish, anti-Nationalist, anti-anti-Semitism (an 'obscenity' in Nietzsche's words), which were numerous, and generally done through taking them out of context, or else subtle editing.

So I hope that gives you a little glimpse, but if this is a topic that interests you, I really would recommend you track down a copy of Kaufmann's book, as just reading it will be much better than me trying to make out my indecipherable margin notes that are nearly a decade old! (Amazon has a "look inside", so see if you can get some samples of Chapter 10) The sum of it is that Nietzsche's philosophy often can be troubling, and there is plenty to his that simply can't be excused. He is controversial in his own right, even without the association with Nazism, but that association is very much an unfortunate one that shouldn't be taken as representative of his works, and post-WWII scholars have really worked hard to destroy.

Edit: Minor clean up

u/vlad_tepes · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

>It speaks absolutely and concretely, often without reasoning. It simply states what is, without question or exploration.

Well, it's a manifesto, not a scientific article. For that, you should try Das Kapital

http://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Gateway-Karl-Marx/dp/089526711X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229642727&sr=8-1

u/stephfj · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Dermot Moran's Introduction to Phenomenology is excellent, with a chapter devoted to each of the major figures.

u/Heydammit · 3 pointsr/Drama

>pretty good example of a whataboutism.

But what you described it as is a red herring fallacy, or more appropriately tu quoque. So again, please learn2philosophy before you start trying to spew stuff. I recommend reading a book.

>Who is?

I am. You are. You replied to me about why it would be logically consistent to kill human meaters. You have engaged and you now you can't back out lest vegans look like dumdums.

>I am defering to an authority figure because the cat killing thing is about whether "a vegan" should or should not kill their cat and the vegan society pretty much decides what "a vegan" means.

This is erroneous. Does this mean that if the Vegan Society decides tomorrow to state that Vegans now include people that only drink milk on Sundays, they would be correct?

If the Vegan Society told you to go jump off a bridge, would you do it?

u/Rope_Dragon · 3 pointsr/samharris

>And I don't pretend that I have anything more than a populist's understanding of these topics. I'm surely just scraping the surface of most topics, misunderstanding things, and I would never think I can be part of an academic conversation because I listen to a couple podcasts.

And I respect you understanding your own ignorance in a topic, because that shows intelligence. Philosophy, interestingly, is the subject that most makes me feel more stupid the more I've studied it, so you're definitely not alone! That being said, many people from the new atheist / "skeptic" community act like this gem

>Yeah, I just say "this is interesting, I'd even like to talk about it with strangers", but I acknowledge the second part of your sentence and am OK realizing my understanding is often limited and quite possibly wrong.


And I think you should use that understanding as motivation to maybe go directly to the sources that these podcasts engage with :) Philosophy is a subject with so many fantastic, but extremely accurate introductory books and I go back to them every now and then to refresh myself on the basics. My favorite example is Prof Simon Blackburn's - Think and another really good piece which goes into a lot of informal logic as well as the jargon: The Philosopher's Toolkit

I find both of those to give an excellent simplification of some of the bigger elements of philosophy without overstretching and misrepresenting their subject matter! :)

u/MartyHeidegger · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

I would highly recommend getting a few of the A Very Short Introduction series of books such as Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. These provide great overview to several topics in various fields (Science, History, Philosophy, Etc). I've yet to come across one of these books that I didn't like.

u/JazzFinder · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The simpliest yet a complete definition at from (PhilosophyBasics.com - Existentialism)(http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_existentialism.html)

Beginners books guides for reference:

u/cdtCPTret · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill
u/fearandloath8 · 3 pointsr/ThomasPynchon

You would definitely dig these. They might seem basic, but you'll remember it all, see how it all moves through history, and know what you want to dig into further:

Postmodernism

Critical Theory

Marxism

Philosophy in General

u/rocky13 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

>If I’m going to want to learn philosophy, I’m going to have to open a book and do it myself.


Hey, good for you! I'm working through Philosophy Made Simple.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Complete-Important/dp/0385425333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519172180&sr=8-1&keywords=philosophy+made+simple

So far as I can tell it is doing a pretty good job of covering the basics.

Also, I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I agree a bad teacher does tend to put people off.

u/mittmattmutt · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Hopefully someone more versed in Sartre will be able to help you out. But based on my studying him at undergrad, the idea is that what's special about the for-itself is that it's able to think of things that don't exist (nothingness), and imagine possibilities for itself that aren't realised. So, I as a conscious human can imagine myself being other than I am, for example, as flying through the air even though I'm sitting. A stone, though, an in-itself, doesn't have this gap between what it is and what it can think itself as being.

So then I'd want to say 'nonself-identical' just means something like 'has consciousness and thus lacks any defined once for all essence because is able to contemplate alternate possibilities for itself' and 'internal negation' is the distance between oneself considered as in-itself and as for-itself brought about by this ability.

But I'm not a Sartre expert, and also personally I think looking too hard for precision here is a mistake. The textbook we used (https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Phenomenology-Dermot-Moran/dp/0415183731) wasn't too complimentary about Sartre's technical ontological skills, and I agreed with it, though you might check out https://www.amazon.com/Sartres-Being-Nothingness-Readers-Guides/dp/0826474691 and https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Jean-Paul-Sartres-Nothingness-Reprint/dp/0226096998/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=JZ8S92AXKWP0FC21AAB7 for more sympathetic readings (I haven't read the former but guess it's good).

u/urbinsanity · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I haven't read them myself but I have it on very good authority that the best two intro texts to Levinas' thought are two books by Adriaan Peperzak: Beyond: The Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and To The Other: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas

A background in phenomenology and continental thought is also very helpful. For phenomenology if you need it Introduction to Phenomenology by Dermot Moran is pretty good. One thing to keep in mind while you read is that Levinas, rather than invent new terms, uses very familiar ones in very distinct ways. He is supposedly trying to radically depart from the general trajectory of western thought, or possibly even articulate something different altogether (partially as a result of his 'phenomenological reduction'). He does often define what he means by things like "religion", "metaphysics" and "ontology", for example, so be sure to flag any 'definitions' when you come across them. If possible it might be good to try to put together a reading group as it is the type of work that everyone will latch onto something different, so brining those points of contact together can be very fruitful.

I've seen Levinas come up on this sub a few times in the past little while so it might be worth it to even see if people around here want to read through with you, though face-to-face conversation might be better (that was a lame 'Levinas joke'!)

u/meaculpa91 · 2 pointsr/whowouldwin

Reading back, I do not interpret my comments as you've narrated. Can you show an explicit example that shows why you do?

A second reading does not show me that I'm not telling you why I think that way. I guess I'll just try to be more explicit.

Here's how I think. I'm a person who, in their natural state, isn't very reasonable and isn't very logical, like every other human being on the planet (whether they want to admit it or not). I don't think I or anyone else has the cognizance to look at a set of beliefs as broad as Christianity or any other religion and say that it makes completely unfalsifiable claims, especially when there's things like this and this and this and this. I'm not going to go into those books individually and say why I think they're right or wrong. I'm just going to say they offer big boy arguments, believe in something falsifiable, and make arguments towards it. Saying that Descartes or C.S. Lewis had unfalsfiable beliefs is plainly and undeniably false, and worse, is unfair to the fact that they support these arguments with carefully planned logic.

Saying Fred Phelps or the average Bible Belt fundamentalist has unfalsifiable beliefs isn't. So saying the whole kitten kaboodle is unfalsifiable is a sweeping generalization of a broad range of beliefs under the term "religion."

It's just not fair to the people who wrestle with their beliefs and really try to give solid reasons for believing. It puts them in the same category as buck-tooth fundamentalists.

If you want this conversation to continue, I'm going to ask you apologize for attacking my character over something as inconsequential as an internet discussion, and I'm going to further ask you not to do shit like that again. I don't know what kind of filter makes you think any of those statements are "insulting" unless you think it's an insult for someone to say your thinking isn't fair/logical. So far the first and only insults and attacks on character have been made by you. Unless you consider "I guess you don't hear a whole lot of profound statements" a pretty big insult. I agree that it was nasty & mean to say and I've apologized to the person affected.

u/AndreDaGiant · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

I actually have that exact book lying on my desk at this very moment. :) Haven't read it yet though.

u/ComeUpon · 2 pointsr/philosophy

If you could provide us with a bit more information about the course, it might be easier for us to make recommendations. For example, is the course you're planning on taking an intro course or an upper level course?

Regardless of the content of the course, however, I think that something like The Philosopher's Toolkit would be a great pickup. Probably much more useful than any single historical work that you might think to pick up. You can also readily find PDF versions of it online, if you know where to look.

u/scrackin · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

It depends on if you want to learn about "philosophy" as in the ideas that philosophers have put down and discussed, or if you want "philosophy" as a method of working with those (or any) ideas. Personally, I've always been more interested in philosophy as a method, so if you'd like to eventually be able to have meaningful discourse on philosophical subjects, something like The Philosopher's Toolkit would be a worthwhile read.

u/NotReallySpartacus · 2 pointsr/socialism

Absolutely. It's short, but Singer manages to make the most of it, in my opinion. I'm not sure whether it satisfies OPs demand for a book to "tackle Marx's arguments in the modern world", though. It's more of an introduction to Marx's thought.

His short introduction to Hegel is the best I've read in the series, by the way.

u/simism66 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I would start at the beginning, since Wittgenstein introduces themes and ideas and then builds on them throughout. Some of the most famous passages are in the the late 100s and early 200s (the "rule-following argument") and the mid 200s to early 300s (the "private language argument"). There's some sections in between the beginning and there that you might be able to skip, but it's hard to say exactly which ones.

If you end up being interested and want to study the book in any depth, I'd reccomend reading it along with Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide.

u/ah18255 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

I am currently an MA candidate in philosophy. I love the story of philosophy by Byan Magee I bought it on a whim but it is one of the best books I have ever purchased. It gives a great timeline to philosophy, explain why the different thinkers are categorized the way that they are, and then gives an introduction to each of the major thinkers in that area of philosophy. I would say that for someone who likes philosophy and is interested in digging into it but needs a "reference guide" this book could not be more perfect.

u/Themoopanator123 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I don't study philosophy academically at the moment although I did take a course in A-level philosophy which I have just finished. I currently and previously only studied out of interest (I'm also 19). And I haven't been doing so "properly" for that long but perhaps that will help my answer a little bit.

Argumentation

As for the first question, it is fairly important to understand the basics of argumentation. In reading philosophical texts you want to be able to "extract" an argument because most don't provide or describe arguments in simple syllogistic form (that is, with premises and conclusions clearly laid out in a list). Most arguments are 'within' the text, often mixed in with lengthy defences of certain premises or elaboration on the meanings of key words used in the argument itself. Learning a little bit of propositional logic might be helpful. It's fairly straight forward and intuitive to learn about the different kind of argument structures you'll be encountering. Being able to look at a text and then reconstruct the text as a kind of structured argument is a learning technique I've seen used a lot.

Reading Recommendations

As for reading, it really depends on what you're interested in. I can't really give you recommendations based on the information you've given because philosophy is a gigantic field. Like, gigantic. If you can think of a thing, there is probably a "philosophy of" that thing. Case in point. But that's not particularly a problem. What you should probably do if you're not so sure of what areas of philosophy you're interested in is read some introductory texts that take you through many areas and see which catch your attention. These texts will often point you towards the key ideas in those areas of philosophy and recommend further reading of the big players in those areas.

Frequently I've seen recommended, Think by Simon Blackburn. You may also consider An Introduction to Philosophy by Paul Nuttall or Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton. The first real read I had in philosophy when I was younger was A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton also. None of these texts are exhaustive, of course. They simply open doors.

I might be able to recommend other reading if you say you have some particular interest in philosophy. Otherwise, those are good introductory texts to philosophy as a whole.

What do I wish I was told when starting to read about philosophy?

To be honest, I wish that it was made clear how important our intuitions are in philosophy. I came from a 'background' in enjoying sciences. (Background maybe isn't the right word since I was fairly young but I liked science). My interest in philosophy was perhaps mostly spurred on by my growing interest in the sciences. They grew up together, lets say. I liked science because I liked having good reasons for beliefs about profound things. Since I didn't see the use of intuitions in the sciences, I believed out-right that intuition should be avoided as a basis for reasoning. Now I see how absurd this is. Philosophers spend a lot of time considering what makes something rational or what kind of justification for our beliefs are good and which are bad. Intuition is something we come equipped to these discussions with and is something we are forced to work with and you should make friends with it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the processes of science should be heavily relying on intuitions. But intuitions are very much required to 'kick-start' philosophical inquiry. And it took a while for me to really deal with this.

Maybe there's other stuff I would say too, but that's the big one. I have unambiguously thought to myself before that I wish I was told this and forced to deal with it earlier on in the process.

Edit: Added in the advice section.

u/Vwar · 2 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.

u/PriaBiasa · 2 pointsr/indonesia

you can start with this series. or this[part1] and this[part2]

or this book

if you have found the topic you like, you might like to go to read the hardcore boring book LOL

u/dweissglass · 2 pointsr/teachphilosophy

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I got hit with a pretty nasty respiratory bug which put me down for awhile.

Anyway, on to talking about a general plan for this project. I think that the best thing to do would be to start with a light touch, and see how well she takes to it.

With that in mind, I might recommend starting with 'Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar'. Plato and a Platypus is a cheap, and reasonably instructive (though superficial) introduction to a range of philosophical questions through jokes. It is a strange approach, but one I think works quite well as a something like a philosophical appetizer that introduces lots of interesting topics. It has a sequel focused on politics ("Aristotle and an Aardvark") which is also quite good. I will warn that not all of the jokes are appropriate for all audiences, so whether you like this book might depend on how liberal you feel like being regarding jokes featuring explicit language, adult themes, etc.

I also definitely recommend anything from the Oxford Very Short Introduction series, particularly (given your interests) the Very Short Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics. In my experience, the entire VSI series is excellent, and I've used some of them to teach philosophy at the community college level. They are extremely brief (they can fit into my pockets) and accessible, and also quite cheap (usually about 10 bucks a piece). They are written by leading experts on each given topic, and there is an enormous selection if you decide that you want to explore particular topics (Ancient Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Theology, etc). They will be a bit tougher than Plato and a Platypus in that they don't typically have much fluff, but should still be generally relatively accessible. The Ethics volume is pretty solid, built around a series of major questions that ethics needs to respond to. I will offer two warnings about the VSI series:
(1) VSI formatting is largely left up to the author, so the approach varies considerably from text to text. This allows authors to structure the material however they feel is best, which usually turns out great. Just be ready for some jumps in how they deal with things (e.g., the Ethics volume is divided into sections which each review some set of related questions and possible answers, while the Logic volume is problem centered and features new tools of formal logic to address various problems presented in each chapter)
(2) Authors of VSI are almost always working scholars with particular philosophical viewpoints - and this will come across in their texts. Expect some axes to be ground, and presuppositions assumed. That said, of the one's I've read (maybe 5 or so at this point), they still presented a rather fair overview of the field.

I think for books, you will be hard pressed to do better than Plato and a Platypus/Aristotle and an Aardvark to provoke the feeling that philosophy is worthwhile, and the Very Short Introduction series to provide an actual introduction into the field.

There are also some great philosophy podcasts. The best for a non-philosopher is likely "Philosophize This", which is a largely chronological review of a fair chunk of the most significant philosophers in history (even including some non-Western thinkers). Again, the material isn't explicitly aimed at younger folk, so there may be some touchy content, but it is generally an exceptional program. They have quite a backlog now (something like 90 episodes), so there is plenty of material there.

Also, I've found a couple of course plans for philosophy in middle school. The strongest looking one to me is this one from UNC. Definitely worth looking at as a way to structure your thoughts, but I would augment it with some of the resources covered above.

I think this would yield a pretty low cost way to test if this approach will work. Assuming you were to buy all four books I've mentioned, I think it would run a total of about $40 per person, which should make this a pretty light investment in terms of money. Likewise, the books are all relatively short, so you might make it through them in as little as a month (if you were really motivated).

I think the real trick will be in deciding where to go after the initial introduction has been made and more serious texts are being considered, but this will depend a lot on how this project develops. I think the best thing to do with that is to wait and see how things turn out, then plan the next leg of the introduction. I'll be around for the foreseeable future, and would be happy to help you figure that out when the time comes.

Let me know what you think, and keep me in the loop as the project unfolds. I am very interested in this project and would be happy to lend a hand when possible.

u/redvolunteer · 2 pointsr/communism101

/u/ksan recently wrote a good piece that lists a number of introductory texts for Hegel here. I'm currently in the middle of reading Beiser's Hegel and it's very manageable. If you want something lighter, I'd recommend starting with this first but it is a very short introduction. Whilst it's a hundred pages or so you'll be left feeling like you just read an abstract. You should be able to find a copy of both texts online in PDF form without any trouble.

At the very least, you'll probably want to get a grasp of what the structure of Phenomenology PoR is and what Hegel is trying to convey before Marx's Contribution will make any sense.

u/JasonMacker · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton

It's an excellent book intended for laymen that explains a lot of philosophy in an easy-to-read format. If you look a the reviews, the only ones that are low are from angry theists who whine that he's presenting arguments against the existence of God.

u/AdmiralJackbar · 2 pointsr/philosophy

If you are interested in learning philosophy then, ostensibly, you already have some big questions floating around up there. Ask yourself what interests you. Language? Ethics? Epistemology? I would first familiarize myself with some basics here and here but then from there, you should just start digging in.

Now, some authors will be inaccessible if you don't have a firm grasp of the historical tradition of philosophy cough Heidegger cough but you can do just fine with others.

Plato is fine to start with but if you really want to be captivated and excited, you have to start with Nietzsche. He is implicitly answering philosophers like Plato and Descartes but again, as long as you have a rudimentary understanding of them, it's doable. You can do more detailed analysis later.

Nietzsche's writing is full of passion and sets out to undermine every assumption behind Western philosophy. He tackles morality, epistemology, language, aesthetics, and just about everything else. He'll motivate you to get into the rest of tradition so that you have a more contextual understanding of where is he writing from.

I recommend:

Kaufman's Nietzsche

and

Beyond Good and Evil

I don't where you can find it, but his essay, On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense is fantastic, if not just for the first few paragraphs.

u/hammiesink · 2 pointsr/DRReadingGroup

>Thank you (again!) but I probably require A Beginner's Guide to Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide. I'll see if I can source a copy though.

If that's the case, then just get this for a $1.73 in paperback. It does a decent job covering the main topics of philosophy (and, like most, it's Aquinas section is weak; but you can return to that later).

u/veritas96 · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

my phone auto put the umlauts...
firstly, i am interpreting the words ubermensch & untermensch in the nietzsche- en ideal, so i if am off then my bad.
anyway, i describe Bean as an untermensch because, like you said, he was not a leader. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra specifically states "I love the untermensch who built the home of the ubermensch.. etc" (something like that, i do not have the book in front of me) implying that the untermensch is the follower of the uber, even if he has a larger intellectual faculty.
furthermore, in walter Kaufman's Portrait of Nietzsche, he elaborates that the niezsche- en ubermensche is one who is completely in control of his emotions (Julius Caesar was listed as an example)

basically, i am insinuating that Bean is not an ubermensch because he is distincly not in control of his passions (which NIetzsche lists as a chief quality of the over human) and is under ender, primarily because ender

> combined humanities desire for power (Peter) and empathy (Valentine) together, and therefore represented all of us



Also, you Bean doesnt have followers because he is too ubermenschen, its because he is not in control of he passions and emotion, and has too much to weigh in.



(If i am totally off then feel free to point it out, i am but a high schooler)

feel free to point out any of my mistakes or any misinterpretations

Walter Kaufman was renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet.


Thanks

u/SedendoetQuiescendo · 2 pointsr/antinatalism

I bought a book almost 2 years ago called The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments, which had an article by Peter Singer, "Should This Be the Last Generation?" The piece mentioned Schopenhauer and Benatar, so I looked into both philosophers further, and I've been interested in antinatalism ever since!

u/omid_ · 2 pointsr/exmuslim

The Phantom Tollbooth isn't philosophy but it's a great book when it comes to critical thinking and insight.

For philosophy in particular, getting a philosophy textbook is the best way to go, imo. Especially one that presents views in unbiased format. Philosophy, a very short introduction, while not perfect, presents ideas in the proposition/critique format that encourages thinkers to always be concerned with defending their ideas, not just presenting them.

u/rustyseapants · 2 pointsr/philosophy



I would think you would start off from the beginning, I am presuming you mean Western philosophy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

https://historyofphilosophy.net/

Philosophy for dummies


Arthur Holmes history of Philosophy Wheaton collegeYouTube


Crash course philosophy YouTube


Fee public domain books: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/meta/collections

Look for subject line philosophy

u/SomeIrishGuy · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I asked a similar question not so long ago and got some good answers. You might want to take a look at the thread.

I ended up going with The Routledge Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations by Marie McGinn which is designed to be read in parallel with the primary text.

u/jez2718 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

I think S. Blackburn's Think is an excellent introduction to some of the major areas in philosophy. You might also what to look at some of the philosophical books in the "Very Short Introduction" series, for example the Philosophy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Philosophy of Science and Free Will ones, which as you can guess are good places to start.

A book I quite enjoyed as an introduction to the great philosophers was The Philosophy Book, which not only gave clear descriptions of each of the philosophers' views, but also often gave a clear flowchart summary of their arguments.

u/Risk_Audacity · 2 pointsr/philosophy

If you're just starting out, things will get confusing quickly. I found that Sparknotes - Philosophy can really help in giving plain-worded insight towards what a text may be getting at, and a nice study guide to encourage thought about whatever you may be reading.


I also started out by reading through A Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy. It gives a quick summary of pretty much all-things philosophy, which can give you an idea of what you might find interesting to start out with in your studies.

u/digable-me · 2 pointsr/philosophy

Start with the Tractatus, then the Philosophical Investigations, and then On Certainty. Read the source material at the same time as reading commentaries. Having read a large chunk of the many commentaries on Wittgenstein, the best on PI is Marie McGinn's. With Wittgenstein the style and the content of his work are two sides to the same coin, and McGinn understands that well.

u/Moontouch · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Peter Singer devotes a chapter to this in Hegel: A Very Short Introduction. If you don't have the book, go to the Amazon link here, open up the book by clicking on it, and go to page 32.

u/Jacques_Cormery · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Hey there. I see this thread is a day old, so you may not still be active here, but your project is an interesting one (though I sincerely hope you some day find a philosopher or three who interests you enough to explore more than a surface-level caricature). That being said, you might be interested in Just the Arguments. It's a book compiling 100 of the most famous arguments in Western philosophy, giving each topic no more than a couple pages. So you aren't the first person to be interested in a stripped-down version of philosophical discourse. And reading through that book might help you round out some of your mistakes.

u/johnfrance · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

I’d more or less disagree with Marxist theory being ‘difficult’ or obscure, at least in its fundamentals. I agree that the average “SJW” knows nothing of Marxism, but nearly all wouldn’t claim to either.

If Marxism is difficult to learn it’s only because there has been a hundred years of enemies intentionally publishing incorrect ‘summaries’ or other explanatory works that mislead. There are a number of basic truism that get repeated by people who think they are intelligent critics (foremost of which is ‘sounds great is theory, but not so much in practice’, or ‘Marx doesn’t consider the question of human nature), which are part of the general ‘sense’ that exists over the nature of Marxism.

I’ll point to this edition of Capital on amazon. At my local Chapters this is the only edition they had. It’s an abridgement, with an introductory essay explaining why Marx was all wrong and presenting an incorrect version of this philosophy. The abridgement selectively takes out all the parts which show the editor’s essay to be wrong, and only includes parts that make Marx seem antiquated and irrelevant.


It seems odd to say that if the activists know nothing of Marxism, and the profs know nothing of Marxism, than what is being practiced is still Marxism.

You act as if the very idea of censorship originated with Marxism.

u/gb997 · 1 pointr/CriticalTheory

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X

i read this in less than a day i think. pretty informative considering how concise it is.

u/monkeyx · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Because you need to star somewhere and this is pretty accessible and short:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Basics-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415693160

u/sejdz · 1 pointr/antinatalism

>And I think my next pick up will be something by Benatar.

I guess you'll enjoy this.

u/salahuddin1234 · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

I started with this book. Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction

u/aryaf · 1 pointr/philosophy

Get this book, it's perfect for someone like you:

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Bryan-Magee/dp/078947994X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1317926985&sr=8-2

Also check out the "Philosophy Bites" podcast.

u/RealityApologist · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

You might enjoy The Stone Reader, which is an anthology of essays based on the New York Time's op/ed series written by professional philosophers ("The Stone"). The essays are pretty variable in terms of quality, but they're all aimed at popular audiences, and some of them are really quite good.

u/youneeddiscipline · 1 pointr/TheAmazingRace

No I am not using it wrong. Behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Prejudice or discrimination based on sex.

If two men had made the statements they wanted to win for men all over the country to prove a point wouldn't that be a sexist statement to make? Two women who are friends who say they are racing to see the world and have wonderful adventures together and hey, maybe win a million dollars doing it, shouldn't so difficult to say. When you have to make it a point that you are racing for women to prove a point then you are sexist.

You are no different than the girls on Survivor that huddle together and say "we need to stick together as women and get rid of the men so a woman wins". You are no different than minorities grouping together and saying they need to get rid of white people so a minority wins.

Racing on AR should not be about proving points to the world. It should be about proving something to yourself and having amazing experiences.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

https://lithub.com/mia-the-liberal-men-we-love/

u/Rustain · 1 pointr/askphilosophy
u/Heideggerismycopilot · 1 pointr/coolguides

The best place to start I found was with an introductory guide. As a dyslexic this one was always a favourite. Still refer back to it too. It has useful reading guides, shows interrelationships between schools of thought and is, to boot, amusing. It will also be a damn sight more accurate/informative that whatever Buzzfeed author wrote that visual guide.

https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Philosophy-Graphic-Dave-Robinson/dp/184046853X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1540218763

Aside from this try Bertrand Russel's Introduction to Philosophy. Its a bit dated now but Russel writes beautifully, always a plus for the newcomer.

u/KaliYugaz · 1 pointr/anime

No really, it's a great book. Only about 200 pages, and explains how to think phenomenologically in a very simple and accessible way. Towards the end, it shows how Continental phenomenology as a tradition compares to modernist philosophy, postmodernism, and pre-modern Western philosophies like Thomism.

It also goes over all the broad sub-movements within it, like existential phenomenology, Heidegger's philosophy of Being, poststructuralism, etc, but for a longer (400 something pgs.) overview of Continental philosophy from a historic perspective a better book might be Intro to Phenomenology by Moran.

Also, another book recommended to me (currently on my reading list) by Kaufer and Cheremo goes over the contemporary project to combine phenomenological insights with cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and psychology.

u/MrMercurial · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Outside of regular feminist literature (feminists usually acknowledge that the patriarchy is bad for men in various ways) I think David Benatar has a new book that might have some relevant stuff, though I haven't read it myself. Edit: here it is - http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512

u/rapscalian · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

A few places you might think of starting with:
Gary Gutting has some fairly accessible stuff on french philosophy.

Peter Singer has written books on Hegel and Marx that might be helpful.

u/chiobu69 · 1 pointr/Showerthoughts

Your words are unclear and you know not what you speak of.

I encourage you to learn Philosophy, which uses reason and evidence, rather than Religion which uses superstition.

Here is a good book on philosophy:

Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton

The first chapter is on whether God exists, and gives several arguments for and against the existence of God. Interesting stuff.

u/Lawen · 1 pointr/philosophy

Sophie's World is a good recommendation. If you don't want fiction, I'd suggest (and have in other, similar threads) Simon Blackburn's Think as a good, high-level overview of Philosophy. I'd also pick up a text specifically about logic and/or critical thinking that covers basic argument structure and the common fallacies (perhaps The Philosopher's Toolkit ). After reading those, you should have a grasp on both how philosophers do their thing as well as an overview of the various topics in philosophy. From there, you can start reading more about the areas that particularly interest you.

u/agnosgnosia · 1 pointr/IWantToLearn

Buy this book and [this book]9http://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logic-Pragmatic-Douglas-Walton/dp/0521713803/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343375779&sr=1-2&keywords=informal+logic) and this book and this book.

I know that's a lot to read but you asked a question that has a really big answer to it. If you attempt to rush through a subject like "how to argue well" you'll just end up not achieving what you wanted to be able to do in the first place. I would start with Philosophy made simple first. It has summaries of major philosophical ideas and at the end introduces logic. Taht's where you'll get your feet with modus tolens, modus ponens, affirming the consequent, necessity, sufficiency and all that jazz. Good luck!

u/WaTar42 · 1 pointr/funny

Peter Singer's very short introduction on Hegel was a good starting when I had to read about Hegel.

u/ypsm · 1 pointr/AskReddit

You might check out The Second Sexism, by David Benatar. He has expanded the arguments into a forthcoming book too.

u/NinesRS · 1 pointr/intj

Honestly, the hardest part of him is where to start. Ask five people and you'll get six answers.

But as a general recommendation, stick primarily to Walter Kaufmann's books, and you can't go wrong. He was one of the leading scholars on the school of his thought, and I find his translations of Nietzsche to capture the dramatic emphasis of his prose the best.

For a brief introduction I'd start with his Biography by Kaufmann, this is useful for understanding the time in which he lived, the philosophical climate, and debunking myths about him, followed by Basic Writings, and then The Portable Nietzsche which contains his more complex works, Twilight and Zarathustra. Each of these contain complete texts, as well as discussion and expositions to give them more context, and are extremely helpful in understanding the work.

Also, If you're a materialist already, an Atheist or an agnostic, start with The Antichrist and you'll fall in love with him in the first pages. Its a summary of his view on Christian morality, and it doesn't hold back at all, a quick read at about a hundred or so pages. If you want an appetizer, peruse The Will To Power, his book of aphorisms, to whet your palate (this is also where most of the romance quotes live). These were my introductions, and I never looked back.

u/RelativityCoffee · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Logic will help a lot, but as a math major it will probably come quite easily for you.

What are your texts for intro?

I think one of the best ways to start is to read the Hackett edition of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. Go slowly. Write out questions and comments. Re-read. Come back here and post your questions.

u/nihilist_nancy · 1 pointr/MensRights

I didn't know Pat had a scholar brother.

/s

Here's the full link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512 - for those of us that hate the mobile version.

u/badphilosophy_SS · 1 pointr/SubredditSimulator
u/kinematografi · 1 pointr/AskReddit

This is a good start

and so is this!

This is, possibly surprisingly, good too.

If you're looking to jump right into a text and think you have a grip on the language, try Foucault's Madness and Civilization It's great and pretty easy to read.

Another good introduction (or at least, MY introduction to philosophy is Slavoj Zizek. He's pretty easy to read and understand, but makes ties to Lacan, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc in a cohesive manner that makes you want to learn more. Of his work, I'd check out The Sublime Object of Ideology, The Parallax View or watch his movie! (Which is extraordinarily entertaining for how dense it is. He's also kind of amazing in a philosophical rock star kind of way.)

Hope that gets you started!

u/xonoph · 1 pointr/philosophy

I recommend the Wadsworth website. This link is to their timeline series:
http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/special_features/timeline/timeline.html
They also have by topic and by philosopher.
Another good website, mentioned by others, is Squashed Philosophers, but it has a different purpose (to skim original works).

If you prefer audiobooks, there's a good lecture series, Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition:
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=470
You probably don't need the whole 84 lectures, just a few of the bigger names like Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein will give you a solid foundation.

For books, Philosophy Made Simple is a solid entry level intro,
http://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Richard-Popkin/dp/0385425333

I also like from Socrates to Satre
http://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Sartre-Philosophic-Quest/dp/0553251619
Which goes in for just a few big names, and has a companion tv show.

There's no definitive anything, and probably better than these that I'm not aware of, but a good approach is to graze a little from a few different introductory books, aiming to familiarise yourself with terms and names - and then graze again to get a slightly deeper insight into how they connect etc.

u/Petria · 1 pointr/philosophy

If you're interested in political philosophy at all, this is an excellent book that ranges from Thucydides to Heidegger. Also, some of the contributors to that book are worth reading separately as well.

u/gilles_trilleuze · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Hegel's really a fan of protestantism....which will shortly become apparent to you. He's also really interested in the french revolution...so that might give you some ideas. If you have any specific questions I can probably help. I found Peter Singer's introduction to Hegel pretty helpful and concise. You can probably find a pdf floating around somewhere on the internet.

u/WaltWhitman11 · 1 pointr/philosophy

Richard Popkin's intro book Philosophy Made Simple is a pretty good resource I've found.

http://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Richard-Popkin/dp/0385425333

u/lonewolf420 · 1 pointr/news

Thanks for taking the time and shareing about your experiences! Canada seams to have a better grasp on this it turns out, In my high school we had classes that would be elective but it barely scratches the surface of what you would like to pursue in college. I don't have any experience as a teacher, but it just seams to me if you had local businesses possibly get local tax credit by accepting an intern from a high school or just even shadowing a professional it would go a long way.

Getting past the localization is going to be difficult, another option would be to get instructors from professional organizations to do certification type classes so you could leave high school with possibly some technical certifications. We had a close community college that you could dual enroll in classes after you where a junior at the highschool, but most didn't take them up on that.

1.) I have read Philosophy for Dummys by Tom Morris a philosophy professor from Notre Dame, excellent book its like taking a semester of his class. I completely agree with a philosophy class or even book like this one.

2.) this is a great concept, because many financial tools require mathematical concepts as well.

3.) That could work possibly with one person on a particular day but getting a group of people for a day would be a bit harder to do with some professionals who might have the same working hours as school hours.

u/SocratiCrystalMethod · 1 pointr/philosophy

The "A Very Short Introduction" series has pretty killer philosophy entries, based on time periods and world regions.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Short-Introduction-Edward-Craig/dp/0192854216

This is the more basic of them. 200-level instructors might use these, but I was surprised to find that they contain a lot of information that was useful even for a 400-level Aristotelian metaphysics class. Also, Sue Hamilton is a distinguished Indian philosophy expert and wrote a VSI on it which is probably better and more accessible than just about anything.

u/thinkPhilosophy · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

On Hegel in particular, I would recommend Hegel: A Very Short Introduction or the more scholarly An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History.

u/DrThoss · 0 pointsr/Nietzsche

I'll make the pitch for Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. I felt totally lost trying to read Nietzsche at first. With a basis from this book on which I could THEN approach his works, I have really been able to go through all of them.