Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#111

Post by mbateman » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 3:28 PM UTC

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…

Yes, this is why I gave a long caveat, and tried to picked only the most accessible primary sources. If there's some work in particular in the list that you think is inappropriate, I could try to defend it.

I think that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is very mixed. Often (not always) the articles spend a lot of time making distinctions among many views, without adequately explaining any of them at an introductory level, and at the expense of any sort of broad view of the issues. So like most philosophy reading it's most useful if you're already in a philosophy course or something like that.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#112

Post by joubert » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 3:34 PM UTC

halojones wrote: post #80

joubert wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bible is a horrible suggestion for a philosophy book. Isn't this a work that prescribes genocide, builds myth, promote the irrational?

(Your reply brings to mind another book I should have mentioned - The Order of Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) by Michel Foucault.) If philosophy is the drive to understand the human condition, I don't think any philosopher can or should ignore the Bible. Athens, Rome and Jerusalem are where the Western mind was born it has been said. And there is nothing to stop you approaching the Bible as it were hermeneutically,…

But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book. Meta-bible discussions, including those by Christian scholars, might form a good corpus of philosophy, however.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#113

Post by zb » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 3:46 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #110

zb wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By "overrated" I don't mean that it's bad. It's overrated in the same way that The Mythical Man Month is the most overrated software engineering book, or Sgt. Pepper is the most overrated album. Those are important works, but they don't live up to the level of hype around them. In fact, I don't think anything could.

I agree with your point, though. (But not sure why it only applies to Americans? ;)

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#114

Post by jemfinch » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 3:53 PM UTC

zb wrote: post #113

jemfinch wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By "overrated" I don't mean that it's bad. It's overrated in the same way that The Mythical Man Month is the most overrated software engineering book, or Sgt. Pepper is the most overrated album. Those are important works, but they don't live up to the level of hype around them. In fact, I don't think anything could. I agree with your point, though. (But not sure why it only applies to Americans? ;)

I can only speak authoritatively about Americans, because I've only lived in America. Residents of other countries may be different :)

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#115

Post by samd » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:06 PM UTC

telemachos wrote: post #109

samd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical background who can pick up A Critique of Pure Reason or the Tractatus and actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or Wittgenstein reborn.

That's why the parent commenter said you need a guide/instructor to properly understand what is going on in these books, and I agree with that. But for people without such a luxury, secondary sources and articles are a good method for gaining some rudimentary understanding of the philosophical topics.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#116

Post by telemachos » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:15 PM UTC

samd wrote: post #115

telemachos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical background who can pick up A Critique of Pure Reason or the Tractatus and actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or Wittgenstein reborn. That's why the parent commenter s…

I don't disagree with some of your larger point. Most people will get the fullest benefit out of a classroom setting, with an engaging and well-read class leader and an engaged and thoughtful group of students to argue with.

However, I still believe that a determined outsider can get real benefit out of philosophy on his or her own. (Not the fullest benefit, but significant benefit.) I completely agree with you about cultural/historical/philosophical background, which is why in my answer I made a point of recommending not just titles but specific editions for classical works. Maybe we could call this the best of both worlds: good primary sources, filled out with enriching secondary material, all in one edition? (It does tend to make those editions more costly than some, and also heavier.)

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#117

Post by joshuacc » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:16 PM UTC

Since it looks like skeptical philosophy is covered pretty well, here are some books from religious philosophy that you'd probably do well to read:

The Tao te Ching

The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas

An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent by John Henry Newman

Either/Or by Kierkegaard

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#118

Post by joshuacc » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:26 PM UTC

joubert wrote: post #112

halojones wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Your reply brings to mind another book I should have mentioned - The Order of Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) by Michel Foucault.) If philosophy is the drive to understand the human condition, I don't think any philosopher can or should ignore the Bible. Athens, Rome and Jerusalem are where the Western mind was born it has been said. And there is nothing to stop you approaching the Bible as it were hermeneutically,…

But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book. Meta-bible discussions, including those by Christian scholars, might form a good corpus of philosophy, however.

While the Bible as a whole isn't a philosophy book, it does contain a few. Books like the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Book of Job, etc. are what we could call "practical philosophy."

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#119

Post by ghb » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:41 PM UTC

The Coming Community, Giorgio Agamben: A series of reflections on medieval philosophy and language that culminates in a notion of community that isn't grounded in any kind of commonality. It's a brilliant work that still serves as the terra firma for understanding the rest of Agamben's more popular works such as Homo Sacer and Means without Ends. This is one of the most influential and brilliantly conceived books I've ever read.

Re: Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books?

#120

Post by halojones » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 5:08 PM UTC

joubert wrote: post #112

halojones wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Your reply brings to mind another book I should have mentioned - The Order of Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) by Michel Foucault.) If philosophy is the drive to understand the human condition, I don't think any philosopher can or should ignore the Bible. Athens, Rome and Jerusalem are where the Western mind was born it has been said. And there is nothing to stop you approaching the Bible as it were hermeneutically,…

But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book. Meta-bible discussions, including those by Christian scholars, might form a good corpus of philosophy, however.

> But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book

Well I just interpret "philosophy" more broadly. Before we can act, and indeed before we can think, we must somehow plant our feet - we can't stand "nowhere" in a sense. And philosophy is just the search for a good place to stand, a "will to locate oneself" perhaps. And if we habitually stand in the same place, we're religious! We can no more be beyond (super) philosophy than we can be beyond (super) religion than we can be beyond (super) man. In this sense, the authors of the books of the bible are philosophers like the rest of us. If it's dissimilar in style to Plato, Aristotle and so on, there you go. So when you say it isn't a good philosophy book, to my mind you're just saying you don't like the philosophy it evinces, which of course is your prerogative.