Ask HN: Can anyone recommend some philosophy reading?

The books that made me decide to be a philosophy major:

Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Ishmael

Days of War, Nights of Love: Crimethinc for Beginners

The Way of the Peaceful Warrior

I read a lot of God's essays.

God says... summit females enquiry liberality teachers once field trees brows hale five reproved Ambition waver what's LIABILITY sinner tumultuously Dakota Ordainer decrepit falls distracting equably rejoices aright husbands owe assurance poison mighty throngs watch bemoaning Idaho withering mule slow able Passing both looking Difficulty Creusa's framed thereof expectation phantoms recorded regeneratedst hearers forgotten patience hushed power borrow desireth presumed notorious unintelligible Only objections fixing enacted keeps inward day painful vanished Instantly sacrificed sayings forgot Up vessel eminent based claim mingled increase singular trust directly deceiving exultation healthfully own walked engaged powers purely rehearse capable sawest intense turn checking safer fairness nets bubblings vindicating Each Wondrous obstinacy fostering filleth original position loth Soft tip oratory decree quickness lighted curiously affirming furtherance equals Men abiding commanded genius after aside songs deserted pricks dreaded trailed vaunt Law of crookedness tumbling sighed ceasing also Latins delayed magical shapen contradicting tastes frightful inclination immense deferred required meditated theatre swerving

If you do not mind I would like to pick the Apology:

http://www.classicallibrary.org/plato/dialogues/12_apology.h...

It seems that it is the most accessible text. In my opinion it goes beyond the limits of philosophy and it becomes real poetry.

I'm going to say something probably unpopular, given the tone of many of the suggestions popping up, but philosophy is one case where I actually prefer to stay away from the so-called "primary sources". They are typically extraordinarily long and verbose for what they have to say, and if the idea some source is groping for is genuinely new, the fact that they are only in the beginning phases of grappling with it tends to show in the presentation. Plus they will tend to use quirky nomenclature that was not necessarily settled on later. If I'm after an actual understanding of philosophy and not merely enjoying some work for its own sake, it's better to read something that has been distilled over the years to its essence and stripped of its ornamentation, so you can contemplate the essence of the idea on its own.

I scare-quoted "primary source" because in a way, the ideas belong to humanity as a whole and the first person to "discover" a particular school of thought is not always its best advocate; it's primary more in the sense merely of first rather than the journalistic sense of authoritative. I would say the journalism or scientific drive for the "primary" sources is much less important here. To me it would be like insisting the only way to tour the Americas is to follow Columbus' precise route and anything else isn't really seeing the Americas.

I say this not because they are worthless or even a bad idea, but that I really do consider them a bad place to start.

Frankly, you could do a lot worse than to just cruise Wikipedia, and drill down in what you find interesting from there. (Don't skip the drilling down. I'm not saying Wikipedia is a full education on the topic. I'm just saying, it's really not a half-bad way to start.)

Hard to beat Arthur Schopenhauer--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer Even better since much of his work is freely available from sources like Gutenberg and similar...they even have 'Studies in Pessimism' as an audio book!