Can somebody recommend me some philosophic books
 

I want to read some philosophical stuff...
Please recommend me some writers with interresting theories.....

thx...

Yay! Usually I get to these threads too late, and someone's already tainted your mind with existentialism, which is arse.

If you're not too acquainted with philosophy, there's lots of introduction to philosophy type books which you can pick up to give you a taster of what you might be interested in finding out more about. A lot of people scorn the Begginers [insert philosophy/ philosopher] but I happen to think they're quite useful if you don't want to read, say, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

There are a few books which have wonderful narratives which suggest or explain a philosophy - for instance, Kierkegaard's 'Either/ or' (or any of his), Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' or Camus' 'The Plague/ The Fall/ The Outsider' - I happen to like the former best, but lots of people prefer the outsider.

If you're looking at getting an overview of philosophy 'from the horses mouth' (as it were), then any of these are pretty much indisposable -

Plato - Last days of Socrates; The Republic
Aristotle - The Nichomacaen ethics (sp?); The Politics; The Metaphysics.
Descartes - Meditations
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason; Critique of Judgement.
Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit
Nietzsche - Pretty much anything by him should give you an idea of what he's about, but you probably don't need the last few he wrote.
Adorno - Negative Dialectics.
*Edit: Sartre - Being and Nothingness
Heidegger - Being and Time

*These last two I really hate but are very important to philosophy. This list is by no means exhaustive, and I'm sure that Atari or some other people here will come and add some that have temporarily slipped my mind.

To be perfectly honest, you should avoid Hegel, Adorno and Kant until you've read quite a bit on the subject - while they are absolutely necessary, you probably won't get them immediately. In fact, if you meet anyone who has read and understood all of Hegel, they're either a liar or a genius.

But the best advice I can give is to read an introduction to philosophy-type book, find out what you're interested in and follow that up. Most of all, don't let yourself be baffled or overwhelmed by the books - I've been studying philosophy for most of my adult life, and I still pick up some books and fail to understand them on first reading.

Or were you looking for people to explain their favourite theories to you? I can wax lyrical about a couple of my favourites if that's what you're after.

Oh thank you for this long answer, it's more than i have expected...

No worries, glad to be of some help. Just as an aside, I'll recommend these books (although they're abolute bastards to read)

Derrida - Writing and Difference - took me about 6 months and three readings to get it, but my mind was melted when I did.
Lyotard - Libidinal Economy - My favourite book bar none. Simply the most beautiful prose imaginable for what is quite dense philosophy.
Deleuze - A thousand plateaus - For the Sonic Youth link, it's really obvious that Kim was reading this while writing a thousand leaves.

Oh, RipFrey, thanks for picking up on that, I can't believe I forgot that utterly essential tome for anyone wanting to know about anything.

No problem homes.

though i couldn't care less about philosophy (thanks to horrid teachers), i thought Sartre was an existentialist........

I might be so wrong there though.....

most philosophy before nietzsche is utter shit: covert theology

go straight for nietzsche:

beyond good and evil is awesome

then if you want to fill your mind with nonsense, work your way back to the past or "forward" to the present (as if there had been any improvement... but anyway...).

Although I may get shit for this...

If you're young and looking for something challenging but readable that could really impact your world view, you might want to read some Ayn Rand non-fiction. She is an "objectivist" and though I don't completely buy into the extremes that she preaches, it did do quite a bit of good for my willow wild mind when I was in my late teens and early twenties.

She doesn't even compare to the "greats", but just a thought for something a little different.

I really like "The Virtue of Selfishness" which has several authors (mostly Rand) discussing practical lifestyle tips on how to live a virtuous life in an irrational society.

Or you could just listen to the new Liars album and let your mind wander???

of course i have to reccomend existentialism
jean-paul sarter
bubar
kant
kierkegaard
nietzsche (still trying to remember how to spell his friggen name)

adler has some good non existential stuff.

blaine pascal

I've tried reading Camus' The Myth of Sysphius, but I couldn't get it. I found myself re-reading the same page over and over, but that might be how most philosophy is.
I don't normally read philosophies. I would rather read Dostoyevsky as a philosopher.

You're not wrong, I do think Sartre's existentialism is one of the poorest excuses for philosophy; he is important enough to merit being read.

I should clarify - Sartre, in and of himself is not so unbearable - I merely have moderate antipathy; in and of the legion of people who read and misinterpret him I find him unbearable. He is the one that most people start on, and also the one that an overwhelming majority of new-to-philosophy types abuse for their own ends.



And Thus Spake Zarathustra gets away from this criticism because it's less covert? I realise he criticise theology very heavily, but lets not forget that the concept of the superman is entirely concieved through religious notions. Rarely does a philosopher get away from theology with anything approximating conviction.

Nietschze is important as a precursor to the existentialists, but I consider him rather irrelevant now.

Derrida will poison you.

Read some books on mysticism instead of philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have any real answers.

Sigh. Any philosopher is important to the continuum of understanding - part of the point is that it will never have answers because it will never have simple question. If you're expecting philosophy to explain, in cold algebraic and ontological proofs, the nature of existence, then it will always fail to satisfy. But it's function is never to do that, philosophy operates on a field of understanding which is distinct (though not in its totality inseparable) from the understanding which post-enlightenment notions of science have imparted upon people. Such an expectation of philosophy is tantamount to philistinism or a kind of brute-naivety.

Although you may be saying that Nietzsche is not currently in favour in philosophical circles, which is also wrong given the current interest in Deleuze, who wrote fairly extensively on Nietzshce. Now if you'd've said the same about Berkley...

So does mysticism. So does religion. In the end, though, using your mind is only mental masturbation. I prefer direct experience of the Real.

I'm saying that he is relevant only as a precursor to the existentialists...I also think the existentialists fail.

Yes. Mysticism provides one set of 'answers' for one set of people who have one set of understanding which appeals to them most. Religion, although often posited as a detraction or denial operates in a similar fashion. Philosophy endeavours to understand the general way in which understanding occurs throughout existence, which is in turn appealing to some. Mysticism and Religion are a naturally smaller field of understanding because their appreciation largely relies upon contingent factors such as culture or upbringing (&c). As soon as one endeavours to appreciate, but not involve oneself in, religions and myths from without ones own temporal confines, one is commiting an act of philosophy.

'Direct experience of the real' sounds like an elusive concept, certainly not one that would appreciate anything like a thorough investigation, although many believe they have asserted such. I don't mind too much if you want to think that, doesn't worry me in the slightest, but a Lacanian would shoot you down in flames for provocative statements like that.

And you are free to think that those who commit acts of philosophy do so from a standpoint which is "outside one's temporal confines," but mental constructs are actually the same as cultural constructs. One merely exchanges the cultural construct for one's own philosophical context within which to masturbate mentally...both constructs are finite, both are inherently false.

mais non, mon frere! (chuckles @ my pomposity)-- the notion of the superman is darwinian in origin, if anything. not hegelian. and zarathustra is an awful book-- makes me think of a teenage comic book. zarathustra and his animals! (yuck). too mythical for my taste. thus i recommended beyond good and evil, in which he proceeds to smash all preexisting philosophy & proposes a project for the future philosophers. nietzsche always loved his zarathustra though. i find it unreadable.

The notion of the Superman is actually Christian in origin.

Read "The Antichrist." I love that book.

so, i'm not the only sane person here. i would like to add that introduction to objectivist epistemology is the most well thought out work on the subject of which i'm aware. also try atlas shrugged -- it is philosophy even though it's enshrouded in a work of fiction.

other than that, aristotle's organon is a must, since logic is the foundation of philosophy (and all human inquiry for that matter) . . . as are the nicomachean ethics and the physics. also, i seriously despise kant, but since he's so obscenely influential if you can try foundations for the metaphysics of morals or the critique of pure reason (although i would recommend reading prolegomena to any future metaphysics instead, since it's shorter and SLIGHTLY more intelligible) go for it, though be prepared to read summaries and go to outside sources for clarification.

for some somewhat lighter reading try plato's dialogues (namely, the apology, the crito, the meno, the phaedo, the symposium) or descartes's meditations. locke's essay concerning human understanding, berkeley's dialogues between hylas and philonous, nietzsche's thus spake zarathustra, hume's enquiry concerning human understanding, and js mill's utilitarianism are also all classics, though if you're conscious you'll find something objectionable in all of those.

really? i thought jerry siegel was a jew :D

seriously, what are you talking about? please explain...

Well, St. Paul has this idea of the natural man versus the spiritual man....It occurs in modern esoteric thought as well. It's the idea that if nature evolves, then so does the spirit. So, the new species will be "Homo Spiritualis," whereas now the common, unevolved folk which Nietzsche would call "the herd" are "Homo Sapiens."

See, I was all about to agree entirely, but saying all are inherently false is such a nihilistic statement I can't help but disagree. Show me something that couldn't, by some feat, be shown to be false. This doesn't make it false - but to work on the assumption that anything that could be construed as false is false only commits yourself to barbaristic nihilism.

!"£$% - You're a top poster, and I'm not wanting to start an argument (not that I am with anyone else on this thread, you understand), but saying Nietzsche 'smashes' philosophy and then conveniently disliking the books which don't fit your appreciation of Nietzsche (who was, for the most part, fairly consistent) strikes me as ignoring the general thrust of philosophy - no one 'smashes' anything, rarely does an idea not return on the whim of the zeitgeist. I've read papers saying Nietzsche has more in common with ancient Sufism and Buddhism than Western philosophy - and although I disagree with most of them, the philosophy student in me has to assert that all philosophy exists in a continuum, never exempt of context which is often the mis-apprehension of science rather than philosophy.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, you're all wrong apart from the bits where you say I'm a prick, and I'm going to bed.

*Edit - any criticisms of my articulation at the moment are spot on as well.

So, Christ became this "Homo Spiritualis" and according to St. Paul we can become the same. Nietzsche just hijacked the concept. But "The Antichrist" is more of a cultural commentary than it is philosophy, in my opinion. Nietzsche critiqued society and the church, and what he had to say was true...but I wouldn't take the phrase "God is dead" literally. After all, what is God?

st paul was (there is no other way to say this) a sick fuck. and he didnt believe we came from apes. hence, no tightrope. and nietzsche did a lot more than "criticize society and the church". the church was not the issue-- he was not luther-- but the whole heritage of judeochristian morality in life & politics & art & philosophy of course.


a bad idea

I read Nietzsche's book, so I can safely say that I know what I read and don't need your concise little summary. I also happen to like St. Paul. He gets a bad reputation, and perhaps you don't realize that many of the writings attributed to him were actually written by others using his name...This is confirmed by Biblical scholars. He was actually liberal for his time.

Also, I don't believe that we came from apes either. But I believe that our bodies evolved from apes.

That animated film, um, i think it's titled Waking Sleep, i watched that the other day. That's a bit neat. I would love to read up on philosophy but i have pretty limited resources. My public library doesn't even carry any P.K. Dick books. Not that he writes philosophy, it's just a shame. Uh, i'm too young.

F.A.Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Nozick

Some good Hayek Articles to read before you try to get into his books are:
"The use of knowledge in society"
"Why I am not a conservative"
"Liberalism"
"Individualism: True and False"

oh man, how could i have missed this. sorry for the lack of a prompt reply. yes, i'm inconsistent and i'm certainly using a scandal-sheet style of writing here :D i've been around this board long enough to have learned the hard way that academic discussions are wasted on most people-- so yes, i exaggerate and make an ass of myself. sure, nietzsche was refuting idealism, etc etc-- i won't discuss that over the internet though-- the place is more suitable for jokes! does anybody *really* read to understand? you and a couple of others... most people just want to hear their own voice. but anyway, yeah, i don't like the style of zarathustra if thats the book you're refering to-- the ideas are fine, it's just the mythical dithyrambs that annoy me (and his animals! gack!) regardless of how much nietzsche loved it. maybe it's the translation that fucks it up. now, back to toilet jokes :D

Ace, good man.

You could vote in my excellent and amusing poll if you like - in fact, you could even throw in a reference to your genitals if you like. I know I did.

*Edit - Man? Is that so wiild an assumption?

I agree. We should be having fun. Why don't we all sit down together and sip some refreshing water!

how is anything inherantly false unless you ivoke the name and plan of god?

Hey! Have some refreshing water.