I have very little formal or informal training in philosophy, but it is a subject that interests me and one I’d like to study. However, I’m at a loss as to where to start. My first thought was to start at the beginning or near-beginning of philosophy itself by reading Plato. I quickly realized that this was an incredibly poor approach, as this would require me reading about 1,600 pages from a man who essentially supports an Orwellian super-egalitarian state. So, help me out. Where in the world should I begin?
Just get as basic and general used college intro to philosophy that will fulfill most people’s basic expectations when they think “philosophy”, something like this :
http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Great-Philosophers-Historical-Introduction/dp/1880157543
and just springboard from there
And maybe just a basic logic book?
Anyway, if you get a bunch of people telling you “philosophy is useless” - or “this is the only philosophy book you need” I think they miss the point of the question and want to argue what is or isn’t philosophy - or what is or isn’t correct.
You should begin by identifying a philosophical problem that really interests you. Think and read about it. The rabbit hole starts here. Reading other philosophers can be frustrating or misleading if you don’t share their problems. Don’t try and learn technical things like logic right away, because you’ll need to be motivated by a problem first. The “foundations” come last: start building the ceiling before the walls are there, otherwise you’ll never feel like finishing the floor. I know this seems a bit weird, but it’s right.
Plato has some good stuff, well his Socrates stuff is good (early stuff). But my first ‘philosophy book’ was a fiction book, Sohpie’s World. It is a good book and covers the basics in various philosophers like the pre Socratic philosophers, Socrates. Plato, Aristotle. Descrates, Kant, Kirkegaard, Marx (err), and a few others. Here is an ebook of it.
I also got a book titled 'Sophie’s Reader" ( which isnt a connection to the first book) and that is a more formal introduction to philosophy. Interesting read nevertheless. I do not think there is an online version for this book but it can be bought here,
Oh, I should recommend this, as it is on Mises:
There is also this lecture series entitled “The History of Political Philosophy” by David Gordon. It’s a pretty good basic run down on things but overall really good for political philosophy.
http://mises.org/media/category/98The-History-of-Political-Philosophy-From-Plato-to-Rothbard
Thanks for the suggestions everybody. I’m a little tentative on spending money on a subject I might not even enjoy, so I’ll probably keep researching the “leads” you guys have posted.
Modus Tollen,
The main “problem” that interests me is the nature of knowledge, i.e. can we deduct all knowable information using reason (I think this school of thought is known as rationalism) or does all knowable information come from external stimuli (empiricism, I believe). Becoming more knowledgeable on this topic would also help me understand methodology in other areas, such as economics. Thoughts?
Well here is a Wikipedia outline of things, that you could probably hvae fun exploring. Hopefully that will trail you to something you want to spend time on:
There was actually just a post on Maverick Philosopher about this: Assembling a Philosophical Toolkit. Check out the comments.
Reading philosophical blogs such as his (David Gordon is a fan), Beyond Necessity, and others will help you understand common philosophical topics.
H.W.B. Joseph’s An Introduction to Logic is not just an awesome work on traditional logic, but also a solid survey of philosophy over the ages. Reading it will help you enormously in evaluating the arguments of philosophers, such as those who run those blogs above.
I think most begin with Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. It isn’t that thorough, but it will introduce you to all of the big names and their basic ideas. With a little bit of criticism from Russell himself. You get the greeks, the medieval philosophers, the renaissance, nietzsche, and all the way to Dewey, I think. But nothing after it.
To correct the original post, Plato did not support an egalitarian state. But wanted philosophers to rule as kings. One is not better than the other, but that’s the gist of Plato’s Republic.
Father Frederick Copleston has a pretty good series called ‘A History of Philosophy’ (1-8), from a Catholic perspective (but pretty objective, overall – moreso than Russell). It covers many more philosophers, because it is in many volumes. Including ones you don’t hear people talk much about. This makes it much more dense read than Russell’s book. Sometimes it takes time to process all of the info. It starts with the Greeks, but ends with existentialism.
Le Master,
“An Introduction to Logic” looks very interesting. I think I may pick it up.
Wasn’t it Plato who wanted everyone in the ideal society to own the same amount of land? Ah well, I never really understood idealism, even the little bits that have been explained to me by others.
“A History of Western Philosophy” an “An Introduction to Logic” are going to be the two introductory books I go with. The former will help me get a quick overview of most philosophical schools, and the latter will hopefully allow me to come to my own conclusions on the soundness of philosophical principles.
Thanks for the help everyone. If you have any more suggestions, feel free to post them.
Just don’t listen to Russell when he talks about Nietzsche. He is embarrassingly biased, but that is because it was prior to his image rehabilitation by the modern translators.
History of Western Philosophy is good place to start. You cannot understand philosophy without understanding its history. Avoid Wikipedia, which is good on some things, but not philosophy. H.W.B. Joseph is also good. If you are interested in economics, Hume’s essays are good. There is something about them here http://mises.org/daily/5077/David-Hume-and-the-Theory-of-Money .
From Socrates to Sartre by T.Z. Lavine, and A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny.
You really need a good introduction to Western Philosophy. Modern philosophy comes in two flavours- Analytic -which is also known as Anglo American is highly logical. Continental philosophy is Highly subjective and mostly devoted to the spreading of marxism. It is essentially worthless.
Within Analytical Philosophy the two rival arguments of Rawls and Nozick are very worthwhile. Nozick is the foremost libertarian Philosopher of the modern period and Rawls is an egalitarian.
speak for yourself on that one… Kant (German Idealism) is very influential to the framework of Misesian praxeology. And Nietzsche and Kirkegaard are both very influential on me.
AaronBurr,
I’ll be sure to check out Nozick when I have the chance. I’ll have a lot of reading to do over the summer, for sure.
Isaac,
I never got the hatred for Kant from libertarians, and more frequently, from objectivists. Didn’t he solve the problems of empiricism and rationalism?
yes, but only if you accept Kantian framework. Let me give you a relevant example: Economics can prove that central planning for society is horrid and that a society needs a medium of exchange ( money) to prosper, but if you reject the whole idea of Economics, like some Anarchists do, then it is pretty hard to use Economics to prove your claim against central planning or claim for the role of money because some reject the whole subject of Economics. Same thing would apply to the Kantian framework…
The big difference between Misesian view on praxeology and Rothbardian view on praxeology is that Mises used Kant framework and Rothbard used an Aristotle framework. Even though Rothbard agreed with Mises on Economics and the idea of praxeology, he rejected the Kantian framework. The ‘Aristotle’ type libertarians don’t really hate Kant’s philosophy, per se, they just ignore it entirely. Objectivists, in the other hand, not only ignore Kant’s philosophy but also hate it because it is against Reason. They attack Kantian philosophy not only on the analytic/synthetic issue but on Kant’s view of ethics and duty.