Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#141

Post by mindviews »

cma wrote: post #132
mindviews wrote: post #42

Given that philosophy as practiced in academia is as much about creating arguments as about the ideas themselves, I suggest "The Philosopher's Toolkit" as a useful reference. For what I'll call "hard philosophy" I put my votes for books by Hilary Putnam and John Dewey. As a rationalist seeking a solid basis for ethics in the physical world, I've found both authors quite instructive. Perhaps "Objectivity" by Nicholas…

What are your Dewey recommendations?

I've read both "Experience and Nature" and "How We Think" and can recommend both. "How We Think" was published first and is shorter - would make for a good introduction to Dewey. "Experience and Nature" is longer and has more weight but is also more work to read. I haven't read more than excerpts from his other works so I can't add much. Otherwise, I intend to read "The Public and its Problems" which is supposed to be a good work on democracy.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#143

Post by Sember »

mbateman wrote: post #92

Hi, I'm an ABD philosopher. The deepest and most interesting philosophical books are generally difficult and best accompanied by some form of instruction. This is true regardless of how clearly (e.g. Plato) or esoterically (e.g. Kant) written they are. There are some good secondary sources that can help but it's far preferable to be able to talk to an expert in a one-on-one or smallish setting. It would take a long t…

No Hegel?

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#144

Post by rwl »

makmanalp wrote: post #124
mbateman wrote: post #92

Hi, I'm an ABD philosopher. The deepest and most interesting philosophical books are generally difficult and best accompanied by some form of instruction. This is true regardless of how clearly (e.g. Plato) or esoterically (e.g. Kant) written they are. There are some good secondary sources that can help but it's far preferable to be able to talk to an expert in a one-on-one or smallish setting. It would take a long t…

This has always puzzled me. Why does it seem that the vast majority of philosophers love to stray away from plain, clear, specific definitions and step-by-step, verifiable logic? Why is it that people can't be more like Hume or Feynman? Maybe they think that complex ideas can only be explained in a nebulous, vague manner? Every time I read an overgeneralization such as "subject is ", especially when the author does n…

Actually, a lot of contemporary philosophy -- at least as it is practiced in the English-speaking world -- strives for exactly the "plain, clear, specific definitions" and "verifiable logic" you're looking for. I think the overgeneralizations and nebulous explanations you refer to are more typical of "Continental" philosophy and related disciplines like "critical theory."

The former style of philosophy does produce work that is clearer and easier to read, but it has its own limitations: in the worst cases, philosophers get so hung up on being clear that they shy away from discussing the difficult problems that bring people to philosophy in the first place, and instead spend their careers arguing over minutiae or practicing pseudo-science. Clear definitions aren't going to provide you with the final word on how to treat others, how to organize society, what really exists, or how we know about it.

Then again, the latter style of philosophy doesn't necessarily do much better on addressing these "big questions." Sometimes it is better at keeping these questions in view, but (as you point out) it is often extremely esoteric.

The best philosophers, I think, understand that clear definitions are a starting place, a model that needs to be developed. They see that model as a tool for addressing the thorny, complicated, and tangled questions that philosophers are asked to answer, not as a truth that must be defended in its own right. The goal is to find real philosophical truths. Where a rigorous, methodical approach helps us attain that goal, it should be welcomed; but where that approach becomes a hindrance, it should be left behind.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#145

Post by rwl »

telemachos wrote: post #95

Some from the canon: Plato: Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito (translated by David Gallop) The Modes of Scepticism by Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes (a beautiful collection of texts from Pyrrhonian scepticism and analysis of their arguments; the best way I know to meet ancient scepticism) Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy (The Cambridge University Press edition is very good; it's probably worth buying t…

This is a great list. +1 on the Philosophical Investigations.

As an introductory book, I would recommend Russell's Problems of Philosophy.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#146

Post by SkyMarshal »

darushimo wrote: post #64
SkyMarshal wrote: post #23

Sophie's World is a fun novel and a map of the historical development of philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophies_World The first book on philosophy that both blew my hair back and made me realize philosophy is alot more than just academic was You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) . http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schwarz-cover.htm... My best friend in college was a Russian Jew whose fami…

not to sound like an ass, but if you want to seriously deal with philosophy, don't waste your time with sophies world. or 'zen and the art of...' for that matter.

Granted it doesn't delve deep and is just a broad overview couched in a fun story, but do you know of better books that gives a chronological history of the development of philosophy?

Some things I find useful to understand how they developed, in what chronological order, philosophy especially. Much of philosophy is a response to preceding ideas, and it helps to understand it all if you start at the beginning and work your way forward to present day, rather than read disjointed segments of it out of context from how it developed.

I'm sure there's something better than Sophie's World for that, I just don't know what it is.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#147

Post by yters »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #82
yters wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with reading secondary material is it'll be colored by the worldview of said author, and generally people will stick philosophers in easy categories without trying to actually understand them. For example, often you'll read modern synopses of Plato saying he thought the physical world is bad, even though he says no such thing.

I agree, and I tried to raise that point (regarding one-volume histories turning philosophers into caricatures.) The problem is: you have to start somewhere. And with most philosophers, the primary texts aren't going to make any sense at all if you don't have the context build up already. Secondary sources are a necessary evil at that beginning stage.

I'd recommend starting off with easier primary sources. Per that lesswrong post about coming up with solutions too early and how that constrains thinking, the same critique applies here.

But, cultural background is useful, I would place that in a different category than the secondary summaries of philosophers' work.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#148

Post by darushimo »

jemfinch wrote: post #83
darushimo wrote: post #66

There seem to be two questions here. First: 'what are some eye-opening reads'? Second: 'what are some good philosophy books?' The fact is, "eye-opening reads" really depends on the eye, and without much context, it's very difficult to give recommendations. So I'll name two books that were 'eye-opening' for me AND are good philosophy and another that is just 'good philosophy.' J. S. Mill's On Liberty. Read it. It's sh…

> While not eye-opening, 'sexy philosophy' or quite 'enjoyable,' GMM is a relatively short read and a worthwhile thought-journey. For the majority of extremely utilitarian American readers, GMM will most definitely be eye-opening.

Right. Sorry for the conflation of editorial and description in that sentence.
Post reply on HN