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

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#101

Post by telemachos »

Mentat_Enki wrote: post #93
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.

Technically, HE himself, as in Plato, first person, never says 'the physical world is bad'. However, if you study his work, you will find that this notion is indeed carried out in the words and actions of his protagonist, Socrates. For example, and maybe the best example: Socrates, laying on his back as the numbness and cold from the hemlock worked its way from his legs upward after willingly drinking it, removed the…

Btw, the interpretation of Socrates and the sacrifice to Asclepius is highly controversial. The interpretation you give is a popular one, but note that it was first offered by Nietzsche. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not a given. To my mind, "death as a cure for life" is more a product of Nietzsche's romanticism than Socrates' views, but I admit that the whole thing is very controversial.

If you're curious, the first page of the following article lists 21 interpretations of that bit from The Phaedo. (Naturally, the author then goes on to offer her own view of the matter. She is an academic, after all.)

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~peter009/debt.pdf

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#103

Post by jashmenn »

Irrational Man is a good introduction to existentialism and he has a very readable overview of philosophy from the Greeks until now.

This is will largely be ignored on this tread, but The Bible is a source of philosophical thought for millions of people. You can get a clear picture of the central theme by reading the book of John.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#104

Post by harscoat »

It depends if you want to be knowledgeable "about" philosophy and knowledge or if you want to apply it to you life.

* K.Popper (in both cases;): _Open society and its ennemies_ http://www.archive.org/stream/opensocietyandit033120mbp#page...

for "Ars Vitae" (applicable to one's life)

* Plato: _Gorgias_

* Marc Aurélius: _Meditations_

* Friedrich Nietzsche: _Beyond good & evil_

I agree with others on Hume, Russell, Husserl. Another great thinker while he does not pretend to be a philosopher is Dan Sperber, I think of 2 books

* Dan Sperber (with Deirdre Wilson) _Relevance. Communication and Cognition_ (Blackwell, 1986)

* Sperber, Dan (1996) Explaining culture: _A naturalistic approach._ (Oxford: Blackwell)

Finally philosophical literature: * Doistoievski: _The Brothers Karamazov_ (question of God is asked)

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#105

Post by shadowfox »

pavs wrote: post #91
jemfinch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy. 25 pages in to the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book, which was a big turn-off for me, I have never read a book that just talks about random stuff for the first 25 pages or so. I thought it was a very weird way to start off a book. I am sure its a decent book, or there wouldn't be so many fans out there, so I will giv…

It only picks up around the middle of the book.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#106

Post by samd »

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…

The above books are great, but unless you are really into philosophy I don't think you'd gain much from reading primary sources. (With the exception of Hume, he's brief and brilliant.) I think someone casually interested in philosophy would be better off reading articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu); and if a subject is particularly interesting then they can always go read some related primary sources.

If you do start reading primary sources, particularly the early modern philosophers, I recommend visiting www.earlymoderntexts.com. Jonathan Bennett has done a great job "translating" the works of Hume, Kant, Locke, Berkley, etc. from old-English (or German, French...) into modern-English so that their philosophical arguments can be understood without being obfuscated by language quirks.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#107

Post by jemfinch »

pavs wrote: post #91
jemfinch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy. 25 pages in to the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book, which was a big turn-off for me, I have never read a book that just talks about random stuff for the first 25 pages or so. I thought it was a very weird way to start off a book. I am sure its a decent book, or there wouldn't be so many fans out there, so I will giv…

> Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy.

No doubt.

> 25 pages in to the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book

It's biographical philosophy. 25 pages of setting the stage for the author's philosophical epiphany in the midst of a pivotal motorcycle trip in his life is addressing the point of the book.

I think perhaps you weren't expecting it to be a biographical book. Perhaps when you give it another go, you should take a quick look at the afterword (regarding the author's son) to get a better grasp of the author's perspective.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#108

Post by telemachos »

cromulent wrote: post #68
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #62

Some great recommendations here! All I can add is the quote "All of Science is footnotes to Plato" -- no matter how far we come, the ancient Greeks still have relevance. So I'd get a good introductory good to at least the top 3: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. (I could list a few more)

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

A sidenote, but I like Bernard Williams' version of this idea even better than the original. It's the first sentence of his survey article "The Legacy of Greek Philosophy":

The legacy of Greece to Western Philosophy is Western Philosophy.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#109

Post by telemachos »

samd wrote: post #106
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…

The above books are great, but unless you are really into philosophy I don't think you'd gain much from reading primary sources. (With the exception of Hume, he's brief and brilliant.) I think someone casually interested in philosophy would be better off reading articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu); and if a subject is particularly interesting then they can always go read some re…

I respectfully disagree. In many cases, reading secondary sources is pointless without also reading the originals. (It's a bit like reading a review of a meal, rather than eating any of it.)

That said, the quality of secondary works varies a lot. Some things, like Mackie's Problems from Locke, are now primary sources in their own right, albeit in a secondary way.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#110

Post by jemfinch »

zb wrote: post #100
pavs wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy. 25 pages in to the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book, which was a big turn-off for me, I have never read a book that just talks about random stuff for the first 25 pages or so. I thought it was a very weird way to start off a book. I am sure its a decent book, or there wouldn't be so many fans out there, so I will giv…

Zen is an overrated book. Having said that, to say that "I have absolutely no idea why people like this book" when you haven't read it (and 25 pages does not count) sounds completely absurd. I do recommend you actually try reading it, even if for no other reason then to find out what everyone else is on about.

I wouldn't call Zen overrated, at least insofar as it's a relatively easy read which makes some good points.

Those points, IMO, are not the author's main philosophical contention, but his presentation of philosophical introspection intertwined with everyday life. Would that more Americans realized they could contemplate metaphysics even while going about their everyday lives.

Post reply on HN