Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

news.ycombinator.com

131–140 of 293 posts

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#131

Glad to see this on here. Plenty of good comments. And I'd say there is no downside to spending a particular portion of your daily mental exertions wrestling with The Big Questions You won't find a better place to begin that the Alain de Botton School of Life series (though perhaps could use a more balanced Western to Eastern ratio). Start with Kant, see if it tempts your interest, and you should be able to consume t…

I've read criticisms that Botton is too opinionated, misrepresenting philosophers in order to comport with his worldview.

I personally think that there isn't a better primer than Wikipedia, but I'm hardly a philosopher.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#132

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…

This sounds like good advice in theory, but if someone isn't even at the stage of knowing what they want to read, I don't think picking a significant book at face value is going to work out well. In fact, I bet it would probably end with a large majority of people reading the first 10 pages of Plato/Socrates/etc., getting confused by the utter lack of context, and giving up. That's what I did the first couple times I…

I read Plato's Republic in three weeks at 14.

It was a lot more interesting than anything else at school because it actually talked to you instead of talking at you. If you're going to start anywhere you might as well start there because ethics is an area everyone can understand and the republic is written in a way that anyone with a working brain can appreciate.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#133
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Sartre can't get it right, can a random newcomer understand it the way Heidegger intended?" They're not going to understand Hegel either, and probably not Kant, or a bunch of other philosophers on that list. But Heidegger and Nietzsche were undeniably hugely influential on philosophy, so they belong on that list as much or more than many of the other people listed, who were of minor significance, at best. Ecce Ho…

Absolutely agree. And sticking with western philosophy, if you are suggesting Hegel and Nietzsche. I would also bring you into the (late) twentieth century with Deleuze & Guattari. But I also wouldn't recommend them to a beginner. I also think as a start, knowing these figures, perhaps even tasting their work, lets you read around them. You see the way their ideas spread out into the world. I sometimes think there ar…

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Hegel and Nietzsche, but Heidegger and Nietzsche.

Hegel, however, was clearly influential, so he shouldn't be left out of a list of influential philosophers. I'm just personally not a fan of his at all, and were it not for his significance I would skip him.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#134
AC Grayling edited a pair of introductory volumes on philosophy, aptly titled Philosophy I and Philosophy II. They are meant as a guide to the subject from a modern, Analytic perspective. Each volume contains extended, self-contained, essays on philosophic subtopics and history.

Why AC Grayling's Philosophy I & II instead of the Stanford Encyclopedia: It is 2 volumes, so much, much shorter. I have no idea how long the SEP is in print, but I imagine somewhere near an order of magnitude longer, maybe two orders of magnitude. It is meant to be useful for philosophy grad students and professors. You asked for an introduction.

Why AC Grayling's Philosophy I & II instead of his History of Philosophy. Actually, they are pretty similar. The History is a single volume, so it has the advantage of brevity. But it is more idiosyncratic and Grayling is more out of his depth. Russell's History of Philosophy is worse still in this regard. Scott Soames has a history entitled The World Philosophy Made, which is even more Analytic in outlook.

Why not primary sources: Why not? It is how I went along in the subject. Just start with Plato. Apology (who is this Socrates character anyway?) -> Meno (What is knowledge anyway?) -> Republic (is it better to do injustice or be injusticed?). That will be enough to start. There are plenty of other good suggestions here.

Why not an introduction to Continental philosophy: Actually, I can recommend one. Robert Pippin's Modernism as a Philosophical Problem.

(My credentials. I was a philosophy major at the University of Chicago, which is an Analytic program, where I tried to pursue Continental philosophy, and I have a master's from The New School, which is a Continental program, where I tried to pursue Analytic philosophy.)

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#135

So a lot of philosophical writing references a sort of general canon, at least as far as western thinking is concerned. Other traditions I'm sure have their own details but I can't speak intelligently to them. The field is enormous, and without more specific information regarding your goals it is difficult to pinpoint the classics in subfields that may interest you. That said, there are a few highlights I think you'r…

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is a great introduction to Stoicism

I'm personally much more a fan of Seneca. I find his On the Shortness of Life and many of his Moral Letters to be far more eloquent, readable, and profound than Marcus Aurelius or any other stoic.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#136
To answer your second question first, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand started me down this path. The sheer brazenness of the title made me pick it up: what I read over the next few days broke me. Or the old me.

I've long left Rand behind, but she's a good start for a bare-knuckle punch to the teeth regarding altruism, egalitarianism and the beliefs of the political Left.

Later I picked up the usual suspects: the Greeks, the Stoics, the modern philosophers. Read the classics of the East and of India, read more modern mystics, read the pragmatists, the existentialists and the Communists. Read the economists (Adam Smith et al.) Read Popper, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Heidegger, Rawls, Kripke, Kuhn, Habermas, etc.

I guess if I were to recommend a starting point, I'd start with Book One of David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature. Be sure to heed the title of the book--it's a discussion of human nature, not of the world as-is, as-was or as-will-be. And the first book explores how we understand the world (i.e. ideas) and the limits of our understanding. Note it's a little daunting due to the older language (e.g. connexion vs connection, lots of 'tis, 'tho', 'twill, lots of apostrophe-d) and some of his arguments are initially confusing (skip and come back later,) but it will give you a firm grounding on which to consider later philosophy (and much else besides.)

After that, it won't matter too much which books you start with. If you're young, I'd recommend sticking to fiction for a while, pick up some of the old stuff (Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dante (Inferno,) Rabelais, Cervantes, etc.) Add some new stuff, too (Camus, Tagore, Yoshikawa, Flannery O'Connor, Colson Whitehead, Colum McCann, too many to name.) Once you start hitting thirty or so is when you might pick up some philosophy. The benefit of reading the old stuff first (e.g. Aristotle's Ethics, Plato's Symposium) is that later writers reference them. Even today, were you to read about, for example, the writing craft, teachers still quote Aristotle's Poetics (e.g. all stories have a beginning, middle and end.)

As for personal philosophy, experience will shape you more, especially if/when you have kids, pay higher taxes, buy a house, suffer a sudden medical condition. But understanding the why of it--that's where the philosophers come in handy. Putting your human self--the same human self that is shared by humans from 5,000 years ago--in the context of humanity, of the human community.

(P.S. As a bonus, if you're really itching for philosophy, try out Machiavelli's The Prince as translated by Tim Parks, or for just a little philosophy to start, Rashomon and 17 Other Stories by Akutagawa, esp. "Rashomon" and "In a Bamboo Grove". Another little bit of philosophy can be found in The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov.)

* edit--typos.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#137

I recommend the Philosophise This podcast[0]. It has a lot of episodes on the classic philosophers but it also delves into some of the contemporary philosophers that I find very interesting. I lot of other philosophical discussions seem to act like philsophy stopped around Russell and Wittgenstein. [0] https://www.philosophizethis.org/

I love philosophize this. Stephen West, the host, has a really interesting story too. Man was just bagging groceries and sick of his life, and that's how he got into philosophy.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#138

AC Grayling edited a pair of introductory volumes on philosophy, aptly titled Philosophy I and Philosophy II. They are meant as a guide to the subject from a modern, Analytic perspective. Each volume contains extended, self-contained, essays on philosophic subtopics and history. Why AC Grayling's Philosophy I & II instead of the Stanford Encyclopedia: It is 2 volumes, so much, much shorter. I have no idea how long th…

"My credentials. I was a philosophy major at the University of Chicago, which is an Analytic program, where I tried to pursue Continental philosophy, and I have a master's from The New School, which is a Continental program, where I tried to pursue Analytic philosophy."

Why did you try to learn Continental philosophy in an Analytic program, and Analytic philosophy at a Continental program?

That sounds like a sure fire way to get the worst of both worlds.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#140
I recommend trying to familiarize yourself with the main fields in philosophy first (aesthetics, ethics, postmodernism, whatever) and major contributors. I did this mostly through podcasts. Pick a few philosophers from you favorite field and try to read some of their smallest essays. There's usually an online copy floating around and then flesh out your understanding against secondary sources (reviews, response, wikis or podcasts discussing the piece, etc). Eventually you can work your way up to bigger game, but that's how I do it as an amateur with a passing interest
Post reply on HN