Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

This is an unhelpful nebulous statement, at its worst a circular definition and victim to the Münchhausen trilemma.

> untenable because to know what can be known presumes knowing what is to be known first

Not at all, I suggest to read Critique of Pure Reason. It is never about what is to be known, but really how one can know and in what way is one able to know. I meant "what is possible to know" in a metaphysical sense rather than a specific object of the apperception.

I'll also note that epistemology was well established by Western philosophy long before Descartes.

I would first distinguish between history of philosophy from philosophy itself. Sometimes these two things are confused, much like people will sometimes confuse being a philosophy professor with being a philosopher (these two can coincide, naturally, but the former does not necessarily entail the latter). Some history is edifying, of course, because philosophical arguments and discussion occur in time, and indeed, history will incidentally enter the picture on its own as a way of presenting the dialectical refinement of some position (for example, the typical way Aristotle's theory of act and potency is presented is by beginning with Parmenides, followed by a somewhat idealized version of Heraclitus and then by showing how Aristotle's theory resolves the resulting aporia).

In retrospect, I would recommend something in the Aristotelian vein. It not only serves as a strong and sound foundation, as well as a good base from which to examine other positions, but it will save you a lot of grief later (even here, it took me a long time to overcome ingrained biases and habits of mind that were insinuated by the modern education system). I would highly recommend some of Edward Feser's books. He's well known for writing in a lucid style that dispenses with some of the the needless jargon that some philosophers are known for. On the introductory side, "Aquinas" [0] is probably a good starting point. A follow up, or if you can handle something a bit more substantive to begin with, would be his "Scholastic Metaphysics" [1]. I emphasize metaphysics first because the most basic philosophical questions are metaphysical; everything else benefits greatly from a clear understanding of metaphysical issues. Avoid any philosophical approach that begins with methodological doubt. It will destroy your capacity to know or to reason and may actually succeed in driving you mad (no joke). Groarke [5] wonderfully argues how such doubt is ultimately unresolvable through reason because it isn't a rational doubt—something that arises when we are met with, say, conflicting evidence—but a _willed_ doubt.

I'll leave it at that, partly because I would have to take some time to think about what additional recommendations I should make so that they would be most helpful to you, and partly because I think the recommendations I've made above will occupy you for some time and lead you in a direction of inquiry all on their own.

(Some honorable mentions: David Oderberg's "Real Essentialism" is a nice complement to [1]. Etienne Gilson's "Being and Some philosophers" [2] is also a nice trek through metaphysics. His "Methodical Realism" [3] is also a nice quick read in which he argues against idealism, while "The Unity of Philosophical Experience" [4] is a historical tour of how various major philosophers in history have failed.)

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6963088-aquinas

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19160503-scholastic-meta...

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2479290.Being_and_Some_P...

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12409190-methodical-real...

[4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/232542.The_Unity_of_Phil...

[5] https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/an-aristotelian-account-of-inductio...

I actually agree that philosophical works are not mathematical proofs. But thought processes do not close over logic, they close over natural language. The point of reading primary texts is to interpret the text, to reverse out the thought process of what is being said through close reading and exposing hidden assumptions (i.e. hermeneutics). This isn't a strictly logical process, but it's common to all natural-language argumentation, including philosophy and law.

With that in mind, if Kant, Aristotle, Seneca and Rawls count as primary works – then what you're saying is false. They didn't state things in a vacuum; they all developed their views in a context, some of it from some base observations, much of it responding to interpretations of other points of view.

You have a point in that primary sources are not sufficient on their own, and scholars use their experience and erudition to understand these observations and fill in the context, particularly when the writing is otherwise more sparse. But neither would introductory texts be sufficient since they hide a lot of the tacit knowledge that could allow one to reason the way the author of a text reasoned when they produced their philosophical viewpoint.

> Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated.

This is such a strange take. I have always found the absolute opposite to be true. Recently, I’ve read Spinoza Ethics (literal attempts at geometric proofs), Kant’s Critique (arguments meticulously crafted line by line, from the regressive methodology to the transcendental proofs it reads like program in degree of detail) and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (basically a modern day academic thesis in style and substance).

Im not denying that some philosophers simply state things without arguments, but then that’s something a critic would point out with textual references and attack. Bad business to do if philosophy’s your trade...