[Jim Bon Jovi]

So I've just about devoured the books I brought out here with me and thought I'd move on to some philosophy since I haven't read anything but history for well over a year now.

I did a bit of philosophy at school and some in uni but I've never intentionally sat down to read any off of my own steam so don't really know where to start.

People I've covered that I liked:

JS Mill
Jeremy Bentham
David Hume
Descartes
Kant
Marx
Adam Smith
Plato
Fukiyama
Sam huntington


I know the last 2 are technically political scientists but they kind of fall into the broad sphere of philosophy imo.

Anyways any ideas?

One of my old politics teachers from high school once gave me a post-it note with "the glass bead game" written on it and told me it was a philosophy book he'd read when he was my age back then and hated then read it again when he was older (about my age now) and it changed his life. I don't know why but I've always remembered that and I even have the post-it note stuck on my pinboard back home so it would be cool to read that first

[marta anna]

I think your list of philosophers is quite broad and diversified. Both chronologically and thematically the span of your interest is very very broad.

Plato represents antiquity and the very basics of philosophy (I think that Plato ought to be roughly known by all people interested in philosophby because he put bases for all theoretical/abstract thinking - he gave foundations to the idea of an abstract concept, the universal etc)

Des Cartes and Hume and Kant represent the philosophy of the self and epistemology - they stress the difference between the external world and the world of the subject and his/her perceptions. So I would put them in one line and their philosophies as a progression of a certain,epistemological thought. ( However, Des Cartes deals also with physics and astronomy in eg. The Principles of Philosophy )

JS Mill deals more with social thought - utilitarianism

Of Marx I do not know much. Neither do I know much about smith (only that much that he was dealing with the economic issues in the era of developing capitalism in the 18th century)

As far as I am concerned, it is much easier for me o focus on something more uniform - the philosophy of one epoch (once I was very much into Plato plus pythagoreans plus Milesian philosophers plus Socratees). Then I switched to the 18th century British philosophy (but since it was built on some earlier foundations I had to come back to the 17th century and study Des Cartes). And then I moved on to Kant. What then happened to my philosophical interests was that I no longer penetrated one epoch but rather one line of thought - epistemology which gradually develops one idea - the idea that perceptions of the subject are distinct from the objective things in the external world. In this progress of thught which starts with Des Cartes, goes through Locke, Hume Berkeley to Kant, one can see how the next philosopher adds some new ideas to the theories of his predecessor (eg Kant adds to and expands the views of Hume), how the subsequent philosopher solves the dilemmas which appeared in the theories of his predecssor but were not solved by the latter.

This is how I approach philosophy - either as a process or as a worldview of one particular epoch.

Your approach seems to be different than mine - comprehensive rather than focussed on one epoch/theme. I think that it may be a good method provided that it suits you temperament.

I am curious what particular areas of Plato's thought you are interestd in. I just ask because I have a particular sentiment to Plato!

[Jim Bon Jovi]

The parts of Plato we covered in high school dealt with his theory of the abstract. I remember doing a bunch of stuff on his cave analogy which I quite enjoyed.

My range of focus is probably a bit too broad really.

If I was going to focus on one particular area I would probably get more out of the philosophy of morality and human actions (Out of all people on the list the ones I have the most interest in are JS Mill, Bentham and Kant)

So if you have any ideas of I should approach reading their work then that would be great because you can definitely get lost or frustrated just jumping into philosophy willy nilly imo.

[Iceman]

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Ice

[DevilsSon]

Ever read Sophie's World? I wouldn't necessarily say it's a good book, but it does offer you a broad overview of philosophy.

What I am reading right now is George Batialles. A french guy who you might have come across as he wrote a few important economical studies. Anyhow, I'd start with reading the Story of the Eye and Madame Edwarda (which is literature), before moving to his study of Eroticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille

Another guy who has been fascinating me lately is Emil Cioran. He is Romanian born but wrote mainly in French. He's been called by many the philosopher of the apocalypse or the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. In my opinion, the greatest nihilist I have come across. His thougths are so pure and straight-forward. Depending on what mood you are into, I'd recommend Tears and Saints or on the Heights of Despair (which he wrote when he was 22). Might be slightly disillusioning at times though.

Also, whatever leads into existentialism I like. Starting with anything by Dostyevsky going all the way to Albert Camus or Jean Paul Satre. There are sooo many great books out there, all you need to do is reach out and grab them.

As about Fukuyama or Samuel Huntington - waste of time really.The Clah of Civilizations must be the biggest piece of junk I have come across.

[marta anna]

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

The parts of Plato we covered in high school dealt with his theory of the abstract. I remember doing a bunch of stuff on his cave analogy which I quite enjoyed.

My range of focus is probably a bit too broad really.

If I was going to focus on one particular area I would probably get more out of the philosophy of morality and human actions (Out of all people on the list the ones I have the most interest in are JS Mill, Bentham and Kant)

So if you have any ideas of I should approach reading their work then that would be great because you can definitely get lost or frustrated just jumping into philosophy willy nilly imo.

Hm, I do not know much about tha area of philosophy which is in your focus. hence I would not be too helpful in giving any tips or recommending titles. If I tried it would be dishonest

If you do not know where to start the penetration of your chosen topic, you may benefit a lot with starting your research with reading some general critical or handbook or wikipedia texts about the philosophers you want to read. There you will find information which particular text (or what particular texts) of a philosoher is a must, in which texts he deals with which topic etc. This is how I approach the problem if I do not know where to start.


As far as studying philosophy is concened is reading not only source texts but also some sholarly critical studies which analyse the ideas of a given philosopher. It helps a lot! I appreciated critical studies when I was reading Plato. Only then could I understand his ideas fairly properly