18 Answers

  1. You know, I will probably express a seditious thought, but I think it's a bad idea to get acquainted with philosophy through books on the history of philosophy and especially university textbooks: Russell, Reali-Antiseri, Chanyshev, Mironov-that's all.You will not gain an understanding of philosophy in this way – you will gain an understanding of what other people have said about philosophical problems, and this is not the same thing. I would advise you to choose better: what kind of philosophical problem are you interested in? And read the literature on this particular philosophical problem. And the most important thing is to combine reading literature with your own reflection on this topic, otherwise everything will be in vain – again, you will only get an idea of what certain people said about it, but you will not get an understanding of the philosophy itself.

    What exactly are you interested in? A problem of cognition? A foundation problem? Maybe a meaning problem? Or a human problem? The recommended literature will be very different depending on the problem that interests and concerns you. Therefore, there can be no universal list for “mandatory reading” – all this does not make any sense.

    I myself have always been interested in the problem of the essence of philosophical knowledge itself. Why does a person philosophize at all? What does it give him? And what, perhaps, does it deprive you of? What is the difference between philosophical thinking and any other type of thinking? If you are interested in something like this, then I would recommend these books::

    1. Plato. The Apology of Socrates. You can also use some other dialogs, but don't start with the State right away! If you come to him later, read Alcibiades or something else from the purely Socratic dialogues.

    2. M. K. Mamardashvili. The need for yourself. Introduction to Philosophy is a very unusual series of lectures, in which this key idea is carried out: any acquaintance with philosophy must necessarily be associated with the experience of independent thinking, and not just with reading books and getting acquainted with various “opinions about philosophy”.

    3. To. Jaspers. Introduction to Philosophy.

    4. H. Ortega y Gasset. Lectures “What is philosophy?”

    I repeat: do not try to embrace the vast, do not read everything in a row. It is better to focus on one topic, perhaps even very, very specific, but one that will really interest you, and will not just be another “tick” in the list.

  2. There is hardly such a limited set of books. Under the label ” philosophy “so many different things are combined that without reading a couple of cabinets of books to understand” philosophy in general ” will not work.

    If you are interested in surreal prose, complex text, with a claim to profundity, then read continental philosophers, i.e. everything that Passmore denotes by the expression “Franco-Teutonic zayum“. You can also include Russian dialecticians there.

    If you are more inclined to science than to literature, then you should be more careful with the choice of books, but some of the classics are still necessary for a more adequate understanding.

    Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mach, Poincare, Frege, Russell, Popper

  4. You need to start with antiquity. Chanyshev A. N. Filosofiya drevnego mira [Philosophy of the Ancient World], Moscow: Vysshaya shkola Publ., 1999.

    Further. Bertrand Russell. History of Western philosophy. (The publication should be taken after 1999, and not the Soviet cut-off, where the chapter on Karl Marx disappeared without a trace under the knife of censorship.)

    You can not ignore the Russian philosophy. Read Vasily Zenkovsky's History of Russian Philosophy.

  5. The rule is always simple:”You can't teach philosophy, you can teach philosophizing.” That is, any reading of books is only learning. Understanding is within you. It is, of course, based on experience, including reading, but philosophy is a product of internal reflection, not reading.

  6. Philosophy – to say in Russian mudrolyubie. That is , the very name suggests that philosophy studies, and therefore teaches us, different concepts of thinking, understanding ourselves and the world around us.

    Actually, a good philosophy textbook would probably help, but I don't know any of them.

    Personally, the book of the philosopher E. Fromm “To have or to be” helped me to understand the essence and purpose of philosophy. It is very well translated and therefore quite understandable.

    Try. What if you like it?

  7. read my answers on this resource, maybe you can take something for yourself. You don't need to understand philosophy. Nobody understands philosophy. We need to try to understand specific philosophers, get used to their specific thoughts, enter as an actor into their way of thinking, thinking… Every philosopher demonstrates and manifests the play of his own thinking, of his own life. And usually the thinking of a true philosopher coincides with the configuration of his life, and in some cases with the configuration of the life of an entire generation, even an epoch.

    And yes, you can read Lev Shestov or Alfred Whitehead… You can also look into the world of Nikolai Lossky or Nikolai Berdyaev. And I don't recommend French postmodernists, because it smells like a kind of intellectual French Baroque or Rococo, they really like to express themselves pretentiously, mannerisms.

  8. Philosophy is not a science. It should be understood as a repository of ideas that are erroneous and ridiculous, not scientific, or funny. Logic and dialectic are power. Everything else is a madman's business. The search for truth and meaning, happiness and the utopian, the ideal, humanism and all other isms. All this is necessary only for talking over a bottle. Free will, the human problem, and arguments about matter and spirit, is a game for alcoholics. For those who do not understand life, for those who do not know how to live, unrealized and for politicians. Do you want to live a happy life? Learn the tickets and put them out of your mind. Otherwise, you will become an idealist and hate life. Because life is not perfect and wrong. The only purpose of philosophy is to make it easier for an intellectual to prove to stupid people that they are stupid and stupid.
    And to understand philosophy, it is enough to answer your own questions. Who you are, what you do, and why. How you want to live, and how you should live. And everything else is superfluous. A toy for politicians to fool the crowd with the appearance of thinking and knowing the truth. To argue with thinkers, why? They won't save you, or help you, or teach you anything.

  9. Philosophy is holistic and every philosopher, without exception, has sought the truth. Full justification of “freedom” in Plotinus 'work” On Freedom and the Will of the Primordial One” : “God Exists as a consequence of His own will, His substantial self-sufficiency is Absolute freedom, Independence. Freedom – as the choice of a free entity, a person, as a manifestation of the ability to choose, as an essential ability, i.e. to have the ability to choose.” But perhaps the departure of man from God was the reason for the birth of Modern philosophy. The first materialist philosophers were the French enlighteners: Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Mellier, Robespierre, Diderot, Helventius,�

    Lamethry, Holbach-whose philosophy was based on the ideas of “the eternity of matter”, but the main reason for this idea was a feeling of hostility to the church. Followers of this idea and other philosophers openly declared: “crush this reptile.” This, apparently, was the impetus for the formation of a new atheistic worldview. Christian ecclesiastical morality (even pantheistic and deistic) was alien to the French materialists, since they were fighting not just against the Church, but against religion. “Any religion, in their opinion, is the result of deception, Matter is everything that affects our feelings.” The weakness of this definition is obvious: it is given through the cognitive ability of a person, and this ability will eventually be given through the definition of matter, because there is nothing else but matter. Nietzsche then denies all human values. This fact indicates his mental illness.” Consciousness is a phenomenon of life in a certain period, ” says Nietzsche. “Nietzsche himself confirms his morbid state of mind. Dilthay would later edit Nietzsche's philosophy of life. “The second great fallacy is 'false causation'. People mistakenly believed that all their actions had a final reason, their free will. I am the cause of all people's actions. The third great fallacy is ” imaginary causality.” People are always trying to explain things that they don't know, especially if they are intimidated by them. Explaining these phenomena calms people down, even if they give false explanations. This is a manifestation of the will to power”(quoted by: V. P. Lega). Of course, such a call gives rise to the formation of a new worldview: revolution, murder, confiscation of property, where morality becomes” the desire of the will to power, the morality of “unity and struggle of opposites” . There is no such thing as morality. But the basic idea of all classical philosophy has always been: ethics, morality, human happiness, its virtues. Therefore, the church fathers naturally created their own treasury of the greatest wisdom on the basis of the greatest works of philosophy that they read in the original, handwritten publication, and on the basis of their personal religious experience. Such authors include: St. Augustine, “The City of God”, “Confession”, Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologia”, Nicholas of Cusa, I. Kant and others, and lectures on YouTube by V. P. Lega, the library of the ABC site. <url>.�

  10. A brief excursion into any philosophy,or rather direction, is necessary .For this reason, everything related to philosophy is suitable.But one thing is certain,the best one that leaves everything else far behind is the Bible!

  11. Probably, as always, I'll get off with links to Arzamas. They have everything quite succinct and accessible, and in general – of course, textbooks in this sense are structured. We read Philosophy at Moscow State University under the editorship of Mironov.�

    1. Link to materials about Greek philosophy�

    https://arzamas.academy/materials/784

    1. Guide to the philosophy of the XX century. With links to literature in each field

    https://arzamas.academy/materials/411

    1. Link to the course “Non-Soviet philosophy in the USSR” – 6 lectures and many additional materials.

    https://arzamas.academy/courses/1

    1. And, so to speak, “for dessert” – a course where the concept of love is analyzed from the points of view of different philosophers

    https://arzamas.academy/courses/63/1

    Try searching their site by code word – I'm already mired in a million open tabs, and I'll also be studying.

  12. russell . history of philosophy

    deleuze . what is philosophy?

    foucault. words and things

    oretga-i-gasset. what is philosophy?

    jaspers: introduction to philosophy

    Chomsky. language and thought

  13. Rather, it depends on the direction you want.

    If you are interested in academic/general, then Google the corresponding material.

    I will say that this is not an area where you can blindly advise something.�

    I'm doing this:

    – I read / listen to lectures, articles, books and other material on topics of interest to me, and then I build my understanding/perception/attitude to the world.

    At the same time, I have good versions and theories in the opinion of people I know.

    As for me, so in this lesson, a personal individual position and point of view is important, which will help you to have an interesting argument with a friend in the kitchen, or to live comfortably and with pleasure on our wonderful planet)

  14. I'm going to be rude, but I'll tell you what it is. None of the people gave a good answer to the question asked. When I started studying philosophy, I also searched the Internet for what exactly to read and in what order, but I didn't learn anything useful, practically. Some recommend lectures, others general articles that give only the smallest idea of philosophy. You will never understand it if you study it like this. I'll try to make it easier for you and somehow get the mess out of your head. I will give you an example of my particular path of studying philosophy.

    1. Bertrand Russell “History of Western Philosophy”.

    It was with this book that I began to immerse myself in this discipline. It gives an excellent general idea of philosophy. After reading it, you will be able to briefly understand the ideas of specific theorists and navigate large expanses that were not previously known to you. Then you should go gradually from the beginning, having read the works of the most important ones.

    2. Plato “Dialogues” and “The State”.

    Two works by Plato, where he recorded the dialogues of his teacher Socrates with the ancient sages. After the first reading, I had about 5-10 incomprehensible words, the meaning of which I later learned in the dictionary, so you should not have any difficulties.

    3. Aristotle “Ethics”, “State”, “Rhetoric”.

    Aristotle is a disciple of Plato and continues his ideas. Books are not difficult at all. You can safely read and enjoy.

    4. Aristotle “Metaphysics”.

    This work of Aristotle was singled out separately, since it already differs in the level of complexity from its previous ones. Here is a serious discussion about the world and things. An important book that marked the beginning of metaphysics. As you read it, you'll need to work with the dictionary. But it's worth it.

    5. Thomas Aquinas ' Summa Theologica.

    It will serve as an introduction to scholastic philosophy. If you want to learn more about this trend, you can search for some modern collections on the Internet. Personally, this was enough for me.

    6. Rene Descartes “Discourses on Method” and “Reflections on the First Philosophy”.

    Very important books. The author resolves questions that philosophers have previously argued about.

    Then you can navigate for yourself. I will write to you about other branches, and you can also read the philosophers in order.

    Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche, Leibniz)

    Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)

    Political philosophy (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Engels, etc.)

    German Idealism (Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Bradley)

    Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Marcel, Heidegger, Sartre)

    Pragmatism (Pierce, James, Dewey, Rorty)

    Phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty)

    Analytical Philosophy (Frege, Russell, Moore, Schlick, Carnap, Wittgenstein)

    Post-Structuralism (Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida)

    Post-analytic Philosophy (Quine, Davidson, Rorty, Putnam)

    You can download these books here:

    https://platona.net

    VK group with philosophy books:

    https://vk.com/intellegenceperson

    I was glad to answer.

  15. There is an excellent book by Justine Gorder “The World of Sofia”, which conveys philosophical concepts in simple language, as well as introduces the reader to a historical excursion. Then you should read “A Brief History of Thought” by Luke Ferry.

    “History of Philosophy” from Moscow State University will allow you to immerse yourself in the subject, as well as choose directions for independent study. You can practice metaphylosophy, or you can choose a specific field.

  16. there are questions that are very complex even if they seem simple from the first time there is a formal moment like going to school or university to the faculty and there trying to answer with the help of teachers and students and the list of special literature will probably be large and for many years of reading and you can try to think about what is called out loud and ask yourself whether it is possible to understand the meaning of philosophy from an abstract or from a retelling or from a single article it is unlikely that it is like trying to retell a symphony with these words you can try of course but maybe it is better to listen to it and then only you will be able to ask yourself about your attitude to a person to their history culture start thinking and ask yourself your own questions and just think

  17. There is a series of books under the conditional title “Kant in 30 minutes” or something like that. On the basis of the surname Kant can be any other of the famous philosophical surnames. But for me, even these books have not been able to fully clarify philosophy as a science. Don't try to understand. You need to learn to philosophize.

  18. Honestly? That's straight honest-honestly? I envy you. If you don't understand philosophy, then this is most likely your path. In addition, you have a clear and solid picture of the world, and this is good. Thank God for what you have.

Leave a Reply

Categories