Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 293 posts

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#71
It's not necessarily a book, but I can recommend "The Philosopher's Toolkit: How to Be the Most Rational Person in Any Room", by the Great Courses on Audible.

I decided to get it with a remaining Audible credit I had, and found it to be informative and easy to understand for someone without any previous experience in philosophy. It also comes with a 200-page PDF guidebook that includes the bulk of the content and follows along with the lectures. I think it's easier to digest then just reading through a traditional book as well.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that philosophy is distinct from the history of philosophy. If you care about what is true, and not the historical development of ideas, there's not much point in reading things written before, say, 1900, or even 1950. So no Hume or Hegel or whatever. In general these texts are poorly written and unclear compared to modern ones. And of course, they can't treat the developments that have taken place in the inte…

I can't possibly see reading Hegel being a good idea for a beginner. It'll just lead to thinking philosophy is intentionally obtuse. He's basically impossible to parse without taking a philosophy course. http://existentialcomics.com/comic/281

Yes, as a philosophy major, I also agree that anything that is not 20th century philosophy is not really that helpful. It can be interesting academically, to trace the evolution of philosophy, but it won't really scratch that itch of engaging in the big questions.

The biggest value I got out of being a philosophy major was building reading concentration skills - being able to read dense passages takes a lot of commitment and practice, and that can build thinking skills. The internet teaches us to skim and do fast/shallow reading, which doesn't lead to deep thinking. Reading older philosophy is a great way of building those deep reading skills, even if the actual content of those texts is not applicable to modern life.

To the OP, if you see this, I would suggest looking into Experimental Philosophy. It's a branch of philosophy that focuses on using neuroscience to understand how we think about the world. Books like Thinking Fast and Slow may be much more interesting to you.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#73
post #15

* For an (opinionated) overview of philosophy up until the first part of the 20th century you can try Russell's History of Western Philosophy [1]. * A very detailed and useful resource for a lot of topics is also the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2]. * You can also try the Oxford University Press Very Short Introduction series [3]. These cover a broad range of topics, not just philosophy; plus, you can approac…

"For an (opinionated) overview of philosophy up until the first part of the 20th century you can try Russell's History of Western Philosophy" Opinionated is one way of describing it. Myopic, ill-informed, and narrow-minded on subjects that Russell wasn't an expert on is another way to put it. As someone who used to be a huge fan of Russell when I was young, I'd say a beginner would do themselves a huge disservice by…

Thinking about it now, I'm not even sure you can have such a thing as an 'objective' overview of philosophy. Clearly nobody will be equally knowledgeable about let's say, the pre-socratics, the Cambridge Platonists and contemporary moral philosophers. On top of that, everybody has their own opinions, their likes and dislikes.

With this in mind, it's probably good to treat anything you read as something that has to be filtered through your own mind; always questioned and re-questioned, compared with the original sources and with competing interpretations and views.

At the end of the day we have to make our own mind, nothing should be taken as holy writ. This is the case for people with some philosophical experience, as well as for beginners.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#74
I would skip the source texts because they are often hard to read. Unfortunately ground breaking ideas and a clear expository style rarely go hand in hand.

Philosophy Hour with Brian McGee was a great BBC show from the 70s where they interviewed top philosophers in an accessible way. Definitely check it out.

There is also the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which is a top level resource but also very accessible.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#75
This is a controversial opinion but I think that an introduction to philosophy should probably focus on commentaries and summaries of the great works rather than the original source material. This is stems from a general point about education that it is usually easier to absorb knowledge from a text book that summarizes research than to get it from the original research itself. Philosophy as an academic discipline is somewhat exceptional in that it strictly emphasizes the original works/classics as opposed to most sciences which focus on summaries of key concepts (nobody reads Darwin to learn about evolution or Keynes to learn about economics though both authors are worth reading at some point). This is probably not the best approach for new comers. Obviously things will be missing but these are much more accessible and provide a lot of context that would be lacking if one were to simply jump in.

The advice to take an intro course is solid. Open culture has a few linked courses that look good (it’s all about the quality of the lecturer). Also a compendium book is a good place to start.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#76
To get an overview it makes sense to read about the history of philosophy.

It's not practical to read all of platon, just to learn a few important ideas...

Also there is not one true philosophy. Nietzsche is very different from Kant for example.

One book I really want to recommend you:

Sigmund Freud - The Interpretation of Dreams

It's more a psychology book, but it is deeply philosophical.

Freud tries to analyse how the brain works, using logic and observation of human behaviour.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#77
post #68
post #48

Generic advice: skip the classics and read a modern introductory text about them. If your goal is to understand , why would you read Newton rather than an entry-level college textbook?

I agree with this. I never understood why philosophy is always structured as a history of the subject. It would be like learning math from a history of math class. I would like to see a philosophy course which starts from a modern perspective and references the history as secondary.

"I never understood why philosophy is always structured as a history of the subject"

Because primary sources are highly valued in philosophy, and unlike math or science, those sources never become obsolete.

Also, contemporary philosophers trying to restate the ancients often distort the originals, or do so in an inferior way.

Philosophy is not a mathematical or experimental result you could just summarize or restate in an equivalent way without distorting the meaning.

That's not to say that summaries or restatements don't have their place in philosophy too, but to really get what these philosophers were saying there is no substitute for reading the originals.

One other thing I want to add is that, unlike most other academic fields, philosophy is very much a conversation where the participants of today are still in dialogue with people who wrote hundreds and thousands of years ago.

If you were to limit yourself to just what your contemporaries said and wrote, then even if these contemporaries were honestly doing their best to summarize and restate what came before them (instead of distorting them and putting words in their mouth, which philosophers have a bad habit of doing) then you wouldn't be a fully informed participant in the conversation.

It's also a bit like a court of law, where you don't want to admit hearsay evidence, but want to hear directly from the people who were there.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#79
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 translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about ‘isms’ and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my endeavors as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire." -C.S. Lewis

I attend the best "Great Books" program in the country, the Torrey Honors College. Here are the strictly philosophy texts they had us start off with the first semester: Plato's Meno, Symposium, and Republic, and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. You can find the full reading list here: https://www.biola.edu/torrey/academics/reading-list

If you want to dig in more, I would encourage you to look into the "Great Books of the Western World" set compiled by Mortimer Adler. There is an accompanying curriculum that walks you through reading them without a teacher or classroom [https://www.thegreatideas.org/tgi-program.html]. You can typically find them on eBay for relatively cheap.

Re: Ask HN: Learning about philosophy

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add Heidegger's Being and Time to that list, and Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra or The Gay Science to that list. These are are probably the most significant works of Continental philosophy, and should definitely take precedence of Foucault, who's really the only representative of Continental philosophy (with the exception of maybe Hegel) on your list. It should also be made clear that plato.standford.edu is a…

Yet again, recommending abstruse works. Being and Time is absurdly difficult for even Philosophy Ph.Ds to parse. Worse yet, Phenomenology is kinda like metaphysics in that many people in the field don't believe that it's even truly legitimate. Heidegger had to go and claim that his biggest fans (Sartre) actually compleatly misunderstood him entirely. If Sartre can't get it right, can a random newcomer understand it t…

I think you mean abstruse or obscure, not obtuse. Obtuse means stupid.
Post reply on HN