Planetarion Forums

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:02

Care of dearest inf, add books if you feel I've missed out on something and I'll probably end up using this list myself.

Plato - The Republic (first truly great work on both political and individual philosophy)
Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics (two treatises on ethics, eudemian is earlier I seem to recall)
Aristotle - De Anima (On The Soul)
(these three works are the most significant ones to understand the roots of medieval and renaissance philosophy, and indeed right up to modern times)

More - Utopia (the creation of an entire genre of literature and one of the most interesting books I've ever read, go irony btw)
Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy (in my opinion this book signalled the end of the unquestioned dominance of the classic philosophers and scholars)
Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Locke and Descartes set the scene for modern philosophy, basically a systematic attempt to set out the entire field of knowledge in a readable fashion. Unfortunately it does drag a bit at times)
Samuel Johnson - Selected Essays (I'm unsure how many different books go under this title but the one I have is a "penguin classic")
Rousseau - A Discourse On Inequality (he goes a bit mental at times but he's well worth it for the insights he brings if not his conclusions in their entirety)

Mill - On Liberty (First treatise to organise the ideas that had sprung up around the concept of liberty into a coherent philosophy)
Marx and Engels - The Communist Manifesto (although very different books with different emphases try reading the above two directly after each other)

Nietzche - Thus Spoke Zarathrusta [and Beyond Good And Evil to a lesser extent] (great reading and innovative ideas, despite what rubbish "liberals" would have you believe)

Sartre - The Age of Reason, Iron in the Soul and Reprieve (they're a triology whose name I always forget, roads to liberty or something, definitely one of the more readable philosophers you'll find and the father of existentialism)
Rand - Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (essential reading to understand modern theories of objectivism-individual, which people invariably **** up, and capitalism-political)

That's about as general and broad as I can make it heh. I should probably recommend Kant (critiques of pure and practical reason) but I really don't like that guy.)

Read the history of those times (classical greece, the renaissance, the enlightenment and the 19th and early 20th centuries) as well before you read the books from those periods. And when/if you finish buy Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, which is still the best history of philosophy you'll find.

I'd recommend some Arab philosophers from around 900AD as well but I haven't even read anything from that period myself, bar history, so I can't really comment. That's on my reading list along with any decent chinese philosophers I come across.

skiddy · 20 Jul 2003, 16:07

Tao Te Ching - Lao-Tzu

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:14

Really? Reading isolated excerpts it seems a bit "let's all pretend we've gone totally metaphysical". Perhaps it's the translation, although I'm certainly not learning how to speak classical mandarin chinese to read a few books heh.

W · 20 Jul 2003, 16:19

This isn't philosophy, this is history. History of philosophy to be exact.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 16:19

Alternately, read Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" which covers most of the above, and won't take months to get through.

p.s. Rand doesn't belong on the list.
p.p.s. For a more practical look at Marxist thought, check out Engels "Origin of Private Property, Family and the State". You can't go wrong with the manifesto tho - it's not particularly "philosophical" though. Try the "German Ideology" I suppose for that.
p.p.p.s. What about Hobbes? OK, he's a tosser.

queball · 20 Jul 2003, 16:22

I recommend The New Lifetime Reading Plan to anyone who wants to bluff being well-read, for example to fit in with toffs at prestigious universities.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:23

It was supposed to be a general introduction W. How anyone can pretend to understand something without analysing the causes behind it is beyond me.

Dante, Rand does so belong on that list (although we could put friedman on instead). And once again it's just a generalised list. Hobbes and Kant can go **** themselves.

PS Ta queball, I'll be pretending to order it soon.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Dante, Rand does so belong on that list

I don't see how you can have a list of philosophical texts and have Rand over Kant (or Hegel, or Hobbes, or Acquinas, or Spinoza, or Machiavelli, etc). The former is merely a sub-par novelist.

Friedman is more of an economist, does he have much to say about philosophy?

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I don't see how you can have a list of philosophical texts and have Rand over Kant (or Hegel, or Hobbes, or Acquinas, or Spinoza, or Machiavelli, etc). The former is merely a sub-par novelist.

Friedman is more of an economist, does he have much to say about philosophy?

I was trying to give a relatively balanced general overview. If you want to add to it then by all means go ahead. Friedman had a few writings on political philosophy which serve to provide the same perspective as rand. Personally if I gave my own favourite list I'd say anything by voltaire and anything by nietzche and tell the rest to **** off.

PS Just thought of something else, book called the Philosophy Gym (forget the author's name).

W · 20 Jul 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It was supposed to be a general introduction W. How anyone can pretend to understand something without analysing the causes behind it is beyond me.

That's the thing. You seek to understand human philosophy. Thus you see human philosophers as the cause, and study them. You might even be very good at understanding human philosophers. But you'll never be a philosopher. I prefer to understand reality. Then human philosophers are simply inspiration.

Or to quote your link to the Tao Te Ching:

Quote:

The enlightened possess understanding
So profound they can not be understood.
Because they cannot be understood
I can only describe their appearance:

Cautious as one crossing thin ice,
Undecided as one surrounded by danger,
Modest as one who is a guest,
Unbounded as melting ice,
Genuine as unshaped wood,
Broad as a valley,
Seamless as muddy water.

The people on lists like these are the ones with the most set patterns of thought, the dogmatists, the ones who state rather than question. I'd rather read (and gain more inspiration from) a cheap scifi pocket than any of these.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by W

Don't imagine your problems affect everyone else.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Personally if I gave my own favourite list I'd say anything by voltaire and anything by nietzche and tell the rest to **** off.

Voltaire is the win, but Nietzsche? I found him very poor. What useful, concrete issues did he raise? What suggestions? What insights did he make, or even spark?

Second rate poetry. He's philosophies equivalent of nu-metal.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 16:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Voltaire is the win, but Nietzsche? I found him very poor. What useful, concrete issues did he raise? What suggestions? What insights did he make, or even spark?

Second rate poetry. He's philosophies equivalent of nu-metal.

They both made me laugh. (More gets a mention for making me grin wryly).

KaneED · 20 Jul 2003, 16:59

Are there any history books you'd recommend to accompany the time periods my love?

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by KaneED
Are there any history books you'd recommend to accompany the time periods my love?

Aye but they're probably too right-wing/not completely made up for dante and W respectively.

PS I tried to :rolleyes: in size 52 but it wouldn't work :(

KaneED · 20 Jul 2003, 17:02

And, for those books that are stories, how do you decipher their philosophical meaning or do they become patently obvious when you actualyl read the book?

W · 20 Jul 2003, 17:04

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Don't imagine your problems affect everyone else.

What problems are these?

Let me recommend my own list of philosophical reading:

The five books of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy triology
The Centauri Device by M. John Harrison
Stranger In A Strange Land and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein
Gravity Dreams and The Forever Hero by L. E. Modesitt jr
The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin

Yes, these are all science fiction books. They'll do more for your mind than years studying historical philosophy.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Aye but they're probably too right-wing/not completely made up for dante and W respectively.

The issue is not whether anyone is right or left wing. It's whether they make a significant contribution to the body of work, or are "relevent" in some academic sense (depending on why you're reading of course).

It's the equivalent of including Insane Badger in a "Britain's Top 100 Intellectuals" list. Not connected to him being right-wing but still absurd.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KaneED
And, for those books that are stories, how do you decipher their philosophical meaning or do they become patently obvious when you actualyl read the book?

They try to encourage you to develop your own understanding of the situation so it mirrors theirs. Well most of them do, rand just belabours the point until you cry. Mostly they're fairly obvious though, that's the gift of a great novelist.

W, the problem you appeared to state you have when you said

Quote:

The people on lists like these are the ones with the most set patterns of thought, the dogmatists, the ones who state rather than question. I'd rather read (and gain more inspiration from) a cheap scifi pocket than any of these.

You seem to state here that you feel that you feel yourself unable to glean anything of worth from those philosophers. I can, and have. Thus it's your problem and not mine.

And those books might do more for your mind, however seeing as I've read a few of those I'll say that I felt that voltaire or aristotle did more for my mind than the authors you just mentioned.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by W
They'll do more for your mind than years studying historical philosophy.

As much as it pains me to say, I partially agree with W here. A lot of contemporary philosophy seems mired in a weird past-worshipping phase where no-one actually does anything.

To paraphrase Daniel Dennett : We should not learn philosophy, we should do it.

Of course, there are still a lot of insights to be gained, etc, etc.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The issue is not whether anyone is right or left wing. It's whether they make a significant contribution to the body of work, or are "relevent" in some academic sense (depending on why you're reading of course).

It's the equivalent of including Insane Badger in a "Britain's Top 100 Intellectuals" list. Not connected to him being right-wing but still absurd.

I said recommended philosophical reading, not greatest philosophers ever and the works they've written. I'm not going to go around telling everyone they should only read marxist books or objectivist ones or that they should only study existentialism. I trust in people to make their own decisions when they're given enough information, rather than force-feeding them everything that I've managed to convince myself is correct.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I said recommended philosophical reading, not greatest philosophers ever and the works they've written.

I'm aware of this, however I still wouldn't recommend Rand to someone who was looking for some sort of insight (which I presume is the point of the exercise). This is nothing to do with accuracy or even political ideology - I wouldn't recommend Lenin to most either (depending on their interest of course).

Obviously it's your list and you can recommend what you wish, but I presume you wished for some kind of debate.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm aware of this, however I still wouldn't recommend Rand to someone who was looking for some sort of insight (which I presume is the point of the exercise). This is nothing to do with accuracy or even political ideology - I wouldn't recommend Lenin to most either (depending on their interest of course).

Obviously it's your list and you can recommend what you wish, but I presume you wished for some kind of debate.

It was supposed to be a general introduction actually. inf said he wanted a starting point, and I'm fairly sure there's a couple of different starting points in there. You presumed right or else I would have just pmed him the list. However I was hoping more for other books and reasons why they're recommended than why the above list is missing xyz or why it's not really philosophy and so on and so forth.

plasmas_arms · 20 Jul 2003, 17:24

Nietzsche is it not?

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
Nietzsche is it not?

Screw you pedant with your narrowly defined limitations and ego-centric life. You're preventing my womanhood from fully blossoming :(

plasmas_arms · 20 Jul 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Screw you pedant with your narrowly defined limitations and ego-centric life. You're preventing my womanhood from fully blossoming

I think you're great jonny. When you come to scotland I'm buying you a beer!

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
I think you're great jonny. When you come to scotland I'm buying you a beer!

Ah, thanks tony :))))

plasmas_arms · 20 Jul 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Ah, thanks tony )))

As long as its not guiness, Sure Johnny

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
As long as its not guiness, Sure Johnny

As long as it's not tennants I'm totally up for it as well.

plasmas_arms · 20 Jul 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
As long as it's not tennants I'm totally up for it as well.

Tiger it is then.

Maybe some bucky

))

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by plasmas_arms
Tiger it is then.

Maybe some bucky ))

Tiger beer? Never heard of it.

PS we still hijack threads pretty well!

queball · 20 Jul 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As much as it pains me to say, I partially agree with W here. A lot of contemporary philosophy seems mired in a weird past-worshipping phase where no-one actually does anything.

To paraphrase Daniel Dennett : We should not learn philosophy, we should do it.

Of course, there are still a lot of insights to be gained, etc, etc.

I dunno. Phenomonology has been successful in physics. Marxism and critical theory are intensely practical for everything else. There's various

ideas like memeology and cybernetics which are sort of philosophical. Ethics is still as strong as ever.

If someone comes up with an idea that helps me argue in Internet discussions then

. What contemporary philosophy do you mean?

plasmas_arms · 20 Jul 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Tiger beer? Never heard of it.

PS we still hijack threads pretty well!

Its singaporean (?) and I like it.

Can you be said to hijack your own thread, isnt it just 'redirecting' ?

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
If someone comes up with an idea that helps me argue in Internet discussions then . What contemporary philosophy do you mean?

Whenever anyone asks me for what I recommend concerning contemporary philosophy I always link to this.

PS I can do anything now they've made me a mod!

W · 20 Jul 2003, 18:33

What I want to know is what Inf wants. What purpose those this thread serve for him?

Deepflow · 20 Jul 2003, 19:03

i thoguht you and jonny arguing was amusing for about 30 seconds...

that served enough of a purpose for me.

JonnyBGood · 20 Jul 2003, 19:32

Quote:

Originally posted by W
What I want to know is what Inf wants. What purpose those this thread serve for him?

Maybe he forgot to pm his thoughts to you

Dante Hicks · 20 Jul 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
What contemporary philosophy do you mean?

I meant the study of philosophy at universities, although to be honest, I'm mainly discussing political philosophy (which my experience stems from). One of the reasons I found studying politics to be tiresome was that it was all learning what other people thought of fundamental questions. Not as a starting point, but an end point too.

And then it get's more abstract. It's not "What do you think of the role of the state", it's "What was Marx's view of the state?", and then "What did Foucault think of Marx's view of the state" to "What did some piss-ant nobody think of Foucault's view of the Marxist view....", etc.

inf · 20 Jul 2003, 21:05

Quote:

Originally posted by W
What I want to know is what Inf wants. What purpose those this thread serve for him?

I wanted a few recommendations of philosophy texts.

Thanks to Jonny. Any other recommendations are welcome.

Also links to (free) ebooks would be good.

W · 20 Jul 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by inf
I wanted a few recommendations of philosophy texts.

Thanks to Jonny. Any other recommendations are welcome.

Also links to (free) ebooks would be good.

I mean, why?

You motive tells alot more of what to recommend.

inf · 21 Jul 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by W
I mean, why?

You motive tells alot more of what to recommend.

I just want to explore philpsophy a bit.

huh · 21 Jul 2003, 00:31

This thread is full of pretentious waste and should be deleted before the world cringes too much.

MrL_JaKiri · 21 Jul 2003, 00:44

John Stuart Mill - O(n)f (Liberty) his own free will on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

G_frog · 21 Jul 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by inf
I wanted a few recommendations of philosophy texts.

Thanks to Jonny. Any other recommendations are welcome.

Also links to (free) ebooks would be good.

Try Project Gutenberg for ebooks of raw philosophical texts.

Russell's History of Western Philosophy is probably a very good starting point.

P.S. I feel honour-bound to state that daniel dennett makes richard dawkins look like richard lewontin. (for the non-biologists, that makes him a fool.)

MrL_JaKiri · 21 Jul 2003, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog
Russell

There you go, bringing god into it again

JonnyBGood · 21 Jul 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by huh
This thread is full of pretentious waste and should be deleted before the world cringes too much.

We really need a size 50 rolleyes smiley guys.

Nodrog · 21 Jul 2003, 01:38

Is this the thread where I tell everyone how clever I am?

W · 21 Jul 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Is this the thread where I tell everyone how clever I am?

Sure, why not, we all need a good laugh

Nodrog · 21 Jul 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by W
Sure, why not, we all need a good laugh

ur dum

Dante Hicks · 21 Jul 2003, 06:05

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog
P.S. I feel honour-bound to state that daniel dennett makes richard dawkins look like richard lewontin. (for the non-biologists, that makes him a fool.)

Hey, what's wrong with Lewontin?

Dawkins is OK, although I'm generous since he's a pretty strong atheist.

[edit]And Matt Ridley smells[/edit]