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

Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#211

Post by libraryofbabel »

pmoriarty wrote: post #157
ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #142

If you want to learn about philosophy, I highly recommend Russel's History of Western Philosophy. It's usually frowned upon and recommended to avoid for Philosophy students exactly for the same reasons I think it's one of the best books ever written: It doesn't shy away of critique and dispute, as it was written by a practicing philosopher (who still values objectivity and holds to high standards of reasoning). The l…

I'm going to be the lone naysayer here, and recommend against Russell's book. Russell is an eloquent, entertaining, and engaging writer. I used to be a huge Russell fan myself when I was young, and back then I would have recommended his book too. But then I actually studied philosophy and realized how myopic, limited, and biased Russell was outside his areas of specialty (Analytic philosophy, math, and logic). Yes, y…

Not the lone naysayer! I’m still a huge Russell fan, but my advice on his History of Western Philosophy is avoid like the plague until you know enough to read it with a very critical eye.

I think the real danger is that he’s such a pleasant, engaging, clear, logically compelling writer. And especially so to folks of a mathematical, analytical bent - like probably most HN readers. And then you remember that this book was written by an Englishman in 1946. You know, right after the worst war in the history of the world, in which Germany was the central antagonist. Of course he’s going to totally misinterpret Hegel, Nietzsche, and a whole bunch of other thinkers.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#212

Post by coldtea »

Here's a quick, fun, path, that goes all over the place, but covers lots of areas, while being accessible to a tech guy:

1) Plato's dialogues. They are easy to find, including online, and easy to read.

A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato’s thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them”.

And that's not some liberal arts philosopher that doesn't understand science. That's the genius writer and mathematician A.N Whitehead that worked with Bertrand Russell on Principia Mathematica.

2) Aristotle, The Metaphysics

3) Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

4) David Hume's: A Treatise of Human Nature and/or An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

5) Nietchze, The gay science (meaning "the joyful science")

6) Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

7) Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre

8) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper

9) Against Method, Paul Feyerabend

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#213

Post by rramadass »

istjohn wrote: post #173

In my opinion, philosophy as a means of understanding ourselves and our world beyond what science can tell us is essentially futile. In Plato's day, there was no delineation between science, philosophy and mathematics. The word "philosophy" meant "love of wisdom" in Greek. A philosopher was just someone who wanted to discover knowledge of any kind. Over time, philosophers systematized certain areas of knowledge, givi…

You make a very good point. The central issue has become; What does the word Philosophy itself mean in the current time and context? The way i look at it is as a holistic integration of the essence of the various compartmentalized sciences. It is of necessity somewhat vague since everything plays into (in some form) what one may call as my emergent consciousness. As a living organism on a time scale, i need to continuously adapt to my circumstances but how do i do it and still maintain autonomy? Nature has given us a brain which thinks thoughts well over and above that of mere survival and reproduction. Hence my need for meaning and happiness.

One way is a completely materialistic viewpoint best laid out by Jack London in his novel "The Sea Wolf" - https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1jqpar/what_book_sin... The other way is to either subscribe (suspending judgement) to an existing school and follow its Religion or come up with your own based on what appeals to you.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#214

Post by menssen »

biswaroop wrote: post #41
pmoriarty wrote: post #23

The best way to learn about philosophy is to take a good introductory course. Books aren't nearly as good because you won't get to discuss the ideas with other students who are also learning the subject, which is half the fun and half the point of philosophy. You'll also miss out on the insights and explanations of the professor, which will be very valuable, if the professor is any good. As for books, the Socratic di…

This is such a good point. Pretty much any human endeavor (philosophy, startups, physics, mathematics, literature, music, art, physical training, etc) can be much more fruitful when done in collaboration with others who are also trying hard. This is why cutting edge research continues to be done in universities, and why YC is so successful. As a fan of both analytic and continental philosophy, I can also confirm that…

Well, but we are all philosophers -- lovers of wisdom -- or at least all who begin to ask about it are. Sure, it would be idiotic to say that such a book is the end of philosophy, but actually such a book as the beginning of philosophy seems pretty valuable. You need a comprehensive starting point to tell you give you some Wikipedia (or SEP) rabbit holes to go down.

Here is one very specific recommendation for a place to start: Richard Rorty, and in particular, his book "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature."

I've suffered through the tension between the Continental and Anglican worlds, and I think that Rorty is extremely valuable as a bridge between the two, and potentially an entry point to the one you're not familiar with (or both if you're familiar with neither).

Given the original question (about "mental models"), the Philosophy of the Mind is one of the more universal topics, that tends to be less controversial across the different schools of Philosophy. That Rorty book is a decent entry point to it, which will lead to things like...

A debate between Rorty and John Searle about consciousness (Searle is a mind-is-not-the-brain person):

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/425883

Correspondence between Searle and Dan Dennet about the mind (Dennet is a brain-is-a-computer person):

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-c...

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#215

Post by pmoriarty »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #211
pmoriarty wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to be the lone naysayer here, and recommend against Russell's book. Russell is an eloquent, entertaining, and engaging writer. I used to be a huge Russell fan myself when I was young, and back then I would have recommended his book too. But then I actually studied philosophy and realized how myopic, limited, and biased Russell was outside his areas of specialty (Analytic philosophy, math, and logic). Yes, y…

Not the lone naysayer! I’m still a huge Russell fan, but my advice on his History of Western Philosophy is avoid like the plague until you know enough to read it with a very critical eye. I think the real danger is that he’s such a pleasant, engaging, clear, logically compelling writer. And especially so to folks of a mathematical, analytical bent - like probably most HN readers. And then you remember that this book…

I'm still a huge Russell fan myself, but more for his political activism and style of popular writing than for his philosophy.

I've found his actual philosophical writing pretty impenetrable. Have you ever read On Denoting? For me that was every bit as hard to understand as the most difficult of Continental writings.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#216

Post by jorgesborges »

crazygringo wrote: post #93
Ninjinka wrote: post #79

This is apparently an unpopular opinion, but READ THE PRIMARY SOURCES. "There is a strange idea that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a…

At some point you should get to the original sources if you want to be an academic, yes. But the reality is that 99% of the original source material is not relevant, will not be particularly rewarding, and may require a grad-level background to even understand many of the sentences. You want to read Hobbes Leviathan? Guess what, the only parts that matter today are a handful of pages. Same with Kant's Groundwork, Ari…

Original sources are paramount to any real sense of understanding. In my opinion the best approach is reading primary and secondary material in tandem. Understanding ideas is important obviously. But there’s also something to be said about the experience of navigating a difficult text and beginning to grok it, and the process itself is rewarding and worthwhile.

That said if the person asking this question has no interest in being an academic, your advice is horrible. Imagine reading about Plato but never reading a dialogue, never getting a sense of being in a room with Socrates. Imagine reading about the death of God but not a single sentence of Nietzsche’s maddeningly beautiful prose. You need to engage with real philosophy.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#217

Post by Tainnor »

coldtea wrote: post #209
istjohn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to start with the Socratic dialogues. OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics. They would be much better off getting a lay of the land from a modern writer. In fact, just as you don't read original research papers to l…

> OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics. I'd suggest the opposite, do start from the Socratic dialogues if you are really interested in philosophy. On the other hand, if you want to be a tech guy with the common tech preconceptions about philosophy, feel free…

I agree that there is no such thing as a "state of the art" in a subject such as philosophy... but you can read a lot of stuff from e.g. Plato or Aristotle that is just refuted nowadays. For example, I studied linguistics and whenever I had to read Plato about language I was reminded that he really had no idea what he was talking about.

I also personally don't like Plato (he always creates these absolute strawmen as opponents), but that's more personal. I agree though that it's valuable to read at least some of it and to see whether it speaks to you or whether you find the method of inquiry interesting.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#218

Post by elefanten »

pmoriarty wrote: post #179
istjohn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to start with the Socratic dialogues. OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics. They would be much better off getting a lay of the land from a modern writer. In fact, just as you don't read original research papers to l…

"Philosophy today, almost by definition, is the study of problems that have resisted all attempts at systematic understanding for two thousand years. It has no wisdom for us. If you want wisdom, look to math and science." What do math and science study? What is the proper subject of chemistry or physics? That question such questions are not something math or science can answer. When you've got some knowledge (say fro…

I agree with both you and GP at the same time. Here's what splits the difference: science can't help us answer your list of genuinely crucial and relevant questions... but neither, really, can philosophy.

GP is fundamentally right that those questions have proven intractable to philosophy. Philosophy is a standing list of all the theses put forward as solutions to those questions. But even people who are fully engaged with, have a stake in and spend their whole lives wrestling with such questions can come to diametrically or orthogonally opposed answers.

Shrug?

Philosophy offers lots of frameworks, tools, prior art, etc. to tackle such questions with. But it can offer you no sure answers and no means of mediating between potential answers.

Science, while it has huge blindspots and terminal unanswered questions, can goddamn perform in the areas that are well-trodden.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#220

Post by istjohn »

coldtea wrote: post #209
istjohn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with the recommendation to start with the Socratic dialogues. OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics. They would be much better off getting a lay of the land from a modern writer. In fact, just as you don't read original research papers to l…

> OP wants to "develop a personal philosophy." So they will want to learn the state of the art of philosophy. Starting with Plato to learn philosophy is like starting with Archimedes to learn physics. I'd suggest the opposite, do start from the Socratic dialogues if you are really interested in philosophy. On the other hand, if you want to be a tech guy with the common tech preconceptions about philosophy, feel free…

> Science is a tool, we don't ask tools for their opinions or for our goals or for what to do with them. We use them to make things or to examine things, no to think about what we want to make, or to think about what is best to make. That's for philosophy.

And yet philosophy is utterly incapable of telling us what to make or do. People often come to philosophy with the hope that studying philosophy will help them live a better life or help them make sense of life. The truth is, it won't. They can devote their life to studying philosophy and they won't squeeze a single drop of utility from that parched rock.

Post reply on HN