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

81–90 of 148 posts

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#81

Post by yters »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #65

I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed. Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or Husserl's "Logical Investigations"-- but incredibly difficult to read unprepared. If you were ready to be reading them, you wouldn't be asking the question here. The two books you mention in the question (Common Sense and "On the Fourfold Root") are both quite readabl…

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.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#82

Post by michael_dorfman »

yters wrote: post #81
michael_dorfman wrote: post #65

I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed. Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or Husserl's "Logical Investigations"-- but incredibly difficult to read unprepared. If you were ready to be reading them, you wouldn't be asking the question here. The two books you mention in the question (Common Sense and "On the Fourfold Root") are both quite readabl…

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.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#83

Post by jemfinch »

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.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#84

Post by igravious »

antoniogarrote wrote: post #22

-Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations by Ludvig Wittgenstein -The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper -On Liberty John Stuart Mill -Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and their Computation by Machine by John McCarthy

While it is eye-opening I could hardly recommend the Tractatus unless you get it with a commentary. How about The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and the Tractatus by Michael Morris?

Good call with Karl Popper. On Liberty is archaic somewhat. To recommend just that book by John McCarthy is too narrow, and besides logic and the theory of computation are not a part of philosophy per se. Logic is a tool of philosophers. The theory of computation could possibly be folded into philosophy of mind but I've never seen it done so, there is a strong argument that it should be.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#85

Post by gjm11 »

Obviously anyone's recommendations are going to tell you as much about that person's philosophical preferences as about the actual books. We might be able to do better if you told us more about your own interests and prejudices. Anyway, here are a few recommendations:

Ethics and (technical questions about) personal identity: "Reasons and persons", by Derek Parfit. Quite heavy going, but Parfit's an outstandingly clear thinker and there are some very good ideas here.

Applied ethics: "Living high and letting die", by Peter Unger. Argues for the counterintuitive conclusion that basically all of us in the affluent West have an obligation to do (not just somewhat more but) vastly more for the least well-off.

Philosophy of religion (from a definitely atheist perspective): "The miracle of theism", by John Mackie. Quite dense, but well written, clear and mostly fair. Much much more seriously intellectually than any of the recent "New Atheist" books.

Philosophy of mind, epistemology, ethics, decision theory, philosophy of physics, many other things: "Good and Real", by Gary Drescher. "A breathtakingly original assault on all the Big Issues!", says Daniel Dennett, and he's right.

Recommended on just about any topic: the "Oxford Readings in Philosophy" series of anthologies. Each volume consists of a lengthy introduction followed by somewhere on the order of 10 important articles from the primary literature. Generally very approachable and well selected.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#86

Post by danielford »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #75
cromulent wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "All of Science is footnotes to Plato" Science? Wasn't Whitehead talking about Western philosophy?

Isn't philosophy the mother of science?

Yes, but you still dicked up the quote. Footnotes and mothers are not synonymous, much to the relief of both.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#87

Post by jemfinch »

pavs wrote: post #48
pavelludiq wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the opposite reaction. I almost never finish books, this book is the first one bigger than a 100 pages that i finished front to cover. I'm currently re-reading it. Here are a few reasons why i liked it: -It was the first book on philosophy i actually read. The closest book on philosophy i ever had contact with before was a high school textbook and it was more than horrible. -I read it with a deliberate reason,…

For the first ~25 page or so the book is nothing but this guy who goes to biking with his friends and son. Maybe my expectation was too high, maybe I was hoping to be blown away by some deep philosophical understanding. Or maybe its the writing style, I felt like I was reading someone's diary, reading his mundane everyday thoughts. Absolutely nothing. Just a guy riding his bike for ~25 pages. I stopped reading where…

> I will probably give it another shot, most likely not anytime soon.

If you stopped reading it after 25 pages, you never gave it a shot in the first place. It's 464 pages long, for Pete's sake!

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#89

Post by DanielBMarkham »

danielford wrote: post #86
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't philosophy the mother of science?

Yes, but you still dicked up the quote. Footnotes and mothers are not synonymous, much to the relief of both.

For the anal-retentive among you. It would be footnotes and children are not synonymous. Not footnotes and mothers. Philosophy generates science. Western philosophy is a footnote. Your transitives are mixed up.

You can generalize and say "philosophy and science are derived from Greek works, which are still relevant" and help this guy out, or we can play word games. I could give a shit what the actual quote was. My goal wasn't to impress the guy with my knowledge of quotes, it was to offer a recommendation.

Post reply on HN