Philosophy

Phoenix publish short books on famous philosophers that are 50 pages or so and cost about 3 quid each. (I have Voltaire and Spinoza)

BTW -- got yer discs, Toby, thanks! Will have yours out soon.

it had a pervy undertone = it gets to the root of the matter surely

(he said "root" uh-huhu-huh)

I haven't read this, but some people go for Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy as an overview. I'd imagine it to be a wee bit biased, though maybe in a good way. For the love of God, pass by the reactionary natterings of Mortimer J. Adler and Roger Scruton with pursed lips and a discrete silence.

OUP has a series called "Very Short Introductions" which might be worth a try. I've been reading the Hegel one, and it's intelligent but pretty lucid (even if it's by...eww...Peter Singer), and lacks the doofiness of other "For Dummies"-style books.

If you wanna go to original sources, good starting points are some of the shorter Platonic dialogues (Ion, Meno, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo), and Descartes' Discourse on Method and the Meditations. They're reasonably easy to read, but opaqueness isn't the problem here: sometimes you have to learn to give philosophers the benefit of the doubt when they say ridiculous things.

Oh, and the Bible. Can't forget the Bible.

Also, like Mike says, avoid anything that looks like a textbook. Personally, I'd also recommend avoiding primary sources for a while, until you've found something you would really really like to get into the details with. It's important to do so at some point, but lots of canonical philosophy is very hard to follow not just because it's difficult and abstract, blah blah blah, but because it's written for other professional philosophers. Having to wade through that can just be a waste of time. So instead, I recommend finding something you think you'd like, then getting a good secondary source on it. Even if it's something academic and technical, if it comes from this century, it will probably be easier to follow (possibly very boring anyway, but oh well). Also, readers are often a lot more profitable for this kind of thing than standalone original texts.

Once you get a better idea of what the main themes in western philosophy are like, you might be able to choose a specific writer or theme more easily. I highly recommend doing so, as it would help you avoid reading that might seem pointless. The breakdown that's usually trotted out is: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics (including political philosophy), aesthetics, logic.

Even though it's pretty approachable, I'm not sure I think reading Plato is that great an idea, at first. If you do, read the 'death of Socrates' dialogues, and don't get too caught up in most of the arguments.

Of course, if you want to read some continental philosophy, I guess all my advice still works, but things just get harder (in my opinion).

Since lots of people seem to me to be expecting something really deep out of philosophy, I feel compelled to warn that that doesn't often happen. Or at least, not very immediately. Mostly philosophy just makes you more confused for a while.

Sophie's World up to Descartes is brilliant. After Descartes both the choices of philosphers and the story disappears up its own arse (though some might say it has a very similar plot to the first Candyman film).

he pretty much says "WOSS THIS ALL ABAHT FECKIN FOREIGNERS THEY COME HERE WITH THEIR PONCEY WAYS etc etc

wheen of the guardian was similar disguised for years, as you know

wheen of the guardian was similarly disguised for years, as you know

i don't think i stressed how poor i actually think russell's history of western phil is: sophie's world is bettah

"Sophie's World" was fun, but everything post-Decartes is so rushed through in order to reach the conclusion that you may as well give up on actually learning much philosophy at that point.

As for HOWP, reading it was my first introduction to philosophy and I found it pretty easy to read and very informative. What Mark says about his stuff post Hegel is probably true, tho. Frexample: Russell's chapter on Nietzche left me completely flabbergasted as to how anyone could actually take him (=N not R) seriously and it wasn't until I read some other stuff about that I realised he wasn't a total Nazi luny on matters philosophical.

Wha'? I don't remember this being what he was saying at all. As I recall his big thing is that science is value neutral, a la Wolpert or someone.

Sophie's World is a pretty rubbish novel but then it is FOR KIDS. I'm not qualified to comment on the standard of its philosophical teachings.

I started it when I was 11 or something and instantly thought "hey this story is shit, he's just trying to make us learn the bastard".

I still think Nietzche is a Nazi loony, it's probably that Russell influence.

Logic by Wilfred Hodges is urgent and key if that is your area. All the PPE-ists would suddenly start scratching their bonces at about page 50 saying "I didn't do philosophy to do maths". Maths & Philosophers laughing all the way to the bank.

True, probably nothing to do with WW2 just having ended. ;) But up to that point I thought it was quiet enjoyable and informative (chapters on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are a bit embarrassing though). The last chapter is extremely funny with that "logic will bring a better world" stuff. Spoken like a true Vulcan, sir.

(also josh i owe you an email from like months ago; again that's gonna be on the new year's resolutions list i'm afraid, the last 5 weeks of my time here are just going to be one big maths panic).

top 5 past-year recent-work philosophy finds:

5. world and life as one - stokhof
4. the emergence of sexuality - arnold davidson
3. derrida & wittgenstin - garver and lee
2. french philosophy in the 20th century - gary gutting
1. jokes - ted cohen

I felt that Copleston's nine volume history of western philosophy provided a pretty good orientation. I've been told by a Philosophy Ph.D. that this is commonly used by graduate studies to study for that big test they have to take, the name of which I forget.

Passmore's A Hundred Years of Philosophy fills in some gaps, but it's emphasis is somewhat different (more emphasis on logic, as I recall). There is another Passmore book that

Also, I enjoyed Ian Hacking's Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy?

None of this will bring you up to date.

i never finished sophie

Russell's "History Of Western Philosophy" is another good one. This book sparked my interest when I was just a poor kid living in the city. He starts at Plato and ends somewhere around Moore(its been awhile, so correct me if I'm wrong).Good starting place.

Only one disagreement here. If your starting out avoid the source works themselves. A lot of philosophy is commenting on what came before it and so on. So having a good overview of the history of philosophy is the primary step. Then go on to read Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc., or whatever you like.

I haven't gotten around to picking up Sohie's World. But I flipped through it at the library once. I'll check it.

Whoa, lots of smart people around here. :)

that book's way worse than sophie's world, even!

Well I said it was light hearted. It may not be the greatest book out there but enjoyable all the same. Its an accessible book if you don't want to go the way of the thick, dry text book. The original post asked for a quick read to start with, am I right? That book fits the profile, I stand by it. My cousin read it and really liked it(he has read about 3 books total in his life). It made me laugh which is more then can be said of the "Critique Of Pure Reason". Its a good place to start.

I only flipped through Sophi'sWorld, so I can't really judge or compare. But I'll check it out.

The point was if someone like my cousin(who on his own wouldn't have read anything like that)could get into the book, anyone could. I thought you were looking for a good entry point that wasn't too scholarly or dry. Its a lite and fun read. And is written in a really engaging way, without being condescending. That is the only book of Botton's I've read, so whether or not he is a jackass...I dunno.You could always just read a text book if that is what your looking for. Once again, I stick by it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a little bit about philosophy without cracking open the 50' pounders. Sorry I couldn't help you out Toby.

The one I really wanted to read -- Focault and Queer Theory -- was practically the only one they didn't have.

http://www.iconbooks.co.uk/pme.cfm

Yes, I read the Baudrillard one on the Millenium, it was bare bones in the worst way possible, it told you the theories, didn't explain or illustrate them and the there seemed to be no links between things.

I want some critical theory that might relate to a paper I want to write on negative space as indexical evidence which is a theory I'm trying to expand for myself and I'm having a tough time relating it to other theory

it's a common problem

I wouldn't claim to be anything like a Wittgenstein expert but arguing whether or not holes exist seems to me like a canonical example of "the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language", essentially confusing a problem with our use of language with a problem of epistemology or ontology.

philosophers obvious don't have buttholes

obviously

to ogmor: yeah, I was a little worried about mentioning the work on holes in the context of medieval theology for that reason. Work on holes today isn't typically cast in that context. Holes are more a case study/testing ground for other metaphysical ideas: like, does my theory about space/time or existence or whatever work for holes? Plus the work today about holes ends up using a lot of logic that's pretty connected to computer science.

as to connections of philo to other areas: I work on the boundary of math and philo so I feel you; but tbf math doesn't have much of a better position on this issue than philo. I mean w/o math bridges would fall down; but when I'm thinking about analytic number theory it's not clear that has much to do with bridges. I think philosophy's problem re. relating to the world in general is shared by most academic disciplines today. That's not a defense of philosophy of course. But the institutional structures that reward us, promote us, don't single out excellence in relating to the world in general. If anything it punishes the pursuit of such excellence. I'm still young (and a first generation college grad) and so still trying to come to grips with the value of my own intellectual pursuits. I mean, I get paid, but what the point of it all is, well, I'm not always sure.

They should just read about the "empties" in Roadside Picnic instead.
(xp)

Euler, I believe the part about the math. In an American movie, if there are equations on a blackboard they are usually gobbledygook, but in a French movie they are often correct and well-known (to mathematicians) formulas. People say it goes back to Napoleon trying to establish a meritocracy and everybody having to take tests including a math test, with the result that the elites have to been reasonably good at math.

the idea that there are really people whose professional lives consist of wondering whether or not holes exist... christ.

btw i think is totally awesome - im always really heartened by the idea that there are a bunch of really smart ppl who have made it their lives to work on these kind of problems - one of our societies greatest achievements is that we can employ hole philosophers and food chemists and theoretical linguists

But, I do think it's frustrating how cut off a lot of philosophy is from other disciplines, how little it seems to be contributing to the overall understanding people have of the world

part of the reason that i wanted recs (indp of lol zing game dev) was that i think it does do this but i mean i dont know anything

to ledge: I tend to think questions of language are questions of ontology; i.e. to be is to be spoken of. But yeah, work on holes is goofy, as I've been saying all along. I read a book on the Beatles a few years ago, called Magic Circles, that quoted Varzi's work on holes quite a lot (another reason why it came to mind here, b/c all things here come back to music eventually).

Basically, if someone would pay me to do it, I'd happily write publicly accessible books on contemporary philosophy for a living. This is what I do in the classroom already, but that's only for a few students at a time. In my career though, what pays the bills is hot new work for specialists, so that's what I do.

but when I'm thinking about analytic number theory it's not clear that has much to do with bridges.

maybe u should try crossing each bridge only once

To answer original revive question: i think Floyd Merrell's work is pretty interesting. to ask for stuff on "new metaphysics" though is sorta problematic since the whole question of metaphysics has been sorta self-referential since at least Heidegger.

Also, not quite philosophy but I definitely think it applies to what you're looking for: Maturana and Varela's "The Tree of Knowledge"

i feel pretty bummed when people get mad that some people are paid to talk about holes

more like shittgenstein

are you here all week?

i will be here at my computer all week yes

im sort of curious though ledge/ogmor: what would you like to see philosophy be working on?

Well I certainly wouldn't want to put any metaphysician out of work (lame holes dudes notwithstanding :) I've personally been falling out of love with most of metaphysics for a while now but as has been mentioned upthread most academic disciplines have some problem relating to the world, and yes it is great that we can afford for people to work on these things that have no real world impact.

OTOH I like to think philosophy does have a tremendous amount to offer the world, in disciplines that really do engage with it on a day-to-day level, e.g. ethics, politics. Not in terms of cutting edge research, just getting some basic ideas out there. I would love for that kind of philosophy to have a more prominent role in the media.

"The Zen philosopher Basha once wrote, 'A flute with no holes, is not a flute. A donut with no hole, is a Danish.'" - Ty Webb

http://www.smoothvibes.com/movabletype/img/basia3.jpg

Euler, I think you're right that the workings of institutions are a big factor in why there are so many very narrow, deep niches. I've been thinking about it for a while and I can't nail exactly what it is that rubs me the wrong way that I'm finding in that entry on holes. It's an embodiment of an approach towards problems and an attitude, maybe.

Plus the work today about holes ends up using a lot of logic that's pretty connected to computer science.

Curious about what this is.

max there is lots of philosophy I love, just some I can't find a use for. I don't think I agree with ledge at all? Though I sympathise with the feeling.

i think a weird aspect of these kinds of critique's of philosophy are using a model of philosophy and an model of how ideas relate to the world that philosophy itself has long since abandoned (namely, the modern/enlightenment vision of philosophy).

If you're talking to me I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying.

im not talking to you I don't think. i dont know what you're saying!

God this is so hard ;_;

if only we knew more about holes than maybe we could all communicate with no problem

http://images.killermovies.com/h/holes/gallery/Posters/holes_teaser_poster.jpg

torn between "your mum's hole", "shut yr hole" and "its a feminist thing"

i think there is a very interesting discussion to be had about general societal differentiation however, but rather than see it as a good or bad thing, i try to think of it as just something that's a fact and probably irreversible. if society has no use (defining "use" very broadly) for philosophy then it'll wither away.

max there is lots of philosophy I love

lol u still havent suggested anything!

hey lamp

hey ogmor wats up

thinking about some secret philosophers.

max otm.

Who says holes aren't relevant?

maybe this is a better place for it.

A survey of nearly 1000 professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views.

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Some of these are pretty abstruse to me. Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism? Ehhh...

Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
Accept or lean toward: conceivable but not metaphysically possible 331 / 931 (35.5%)
Other 234 / 931 (25.1%)
Accept or lean toward: metaphysically possible 217 / 931 (23.3%)
Accept or lean toward: inconceivable 149 / 931 (16%)

Sadly philosophical zombies are their own separate thing and don't tend to be keen on brains.

Damn, I thought for a moment that maybe these guys were at last applying themselves to something useful.

haha I took that survey...and the metasurvey...can't remember exactly what I voted on zombies but I lean toward thinking them metaphysically possible, so probably that.

Cool! Do you work in the field? What did you answer to the trolley question?

yeah I work in the field. I lean toward switching the train, so I probably answered that.

This is my new favorite philosopher: http://jazzfluteweinstein.blogspot.com/

Thought about making a joke about "All You Zombies" but it turns out that that is now part of the philosophical literature: http://www.routledge-philosophy.com/books/Arguing-About-Metaphysics-isbn9780415958264

I'm not a big fan of dinosaur comics, but I had this in my head every day of third year philosophy:
http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-597.png

Bump!

I just finished reading Talking Philosophy: Dialogues with Fifteen Leading Philosophers by Bryan Magee. Some of you may have seen the BBC series this book was based on, but it's basically Bryan Magee - who himself is/was a professional philosopher - interviewing various philosphers about their areas of expertise (which I'm sure you can gather from the title). It's a pretty broad overview coverging a broad range of topics. I'll think of some others later.

Ha ha, "coverging". Covering, obv.

looks dope! thx for the tip

Living Biographies of great philosophers is a good start...Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson etc. Though, it's a very old book.

Just ordered a copy of this for 69p on amazon today. It's a hardback from 1946!

Finished reading The Problems Of Philosophyby Bertrand Russell and currently reading the Richard Tarnas book The Passion Of The Western Mind

Josh's advice upthread from 15 years ago was the same as he gave me on facebook. Anyone would think he was asked that question a lot! ;)

Any more suggestions in the Arthur Schopenhauer/Emil Cioran/Peter Wessel Zapffe/David Benatar aphoristic pessimism vein, or have I reached the end?

Ray Brassier, whose work aims to "push nihilism to its ultimate conclusion", according to Wikipedia. "Philosophy", exhorts Brassier, "would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. It should strive to be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity."