Philosophy Book
Xeones
Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to serve as
an introduction to philosophy for a relative novice?
I Thanks You Graciously,
-Sean
piet...@my-deja.com
as it is quite readable. He argues against the scholastic
trend in philosophy, and argues for a more colloquial approach.
He covers all the bases of Western philosophy up to the 1920's,
(acknowledging the unfair omission of the Eastern philosophies).
e.g. you wont find any Sartre, Foucault, Derrida etc. in here.
But they are all derivative of Nietzsche anyway, and Durant
spends some time on Nietzsche (though you get a eugenic slant
that is somewhat unfair and due to the bad source material he had
at the time)
It was published in 1926 and was a bestseller at the time,
it is still in print as far as i know.
plus, if you want FREE postage-paid copy, email me a snail
mail address (piet...@my-deja.com) and I will mail you one!
I have 3 copies i think, so if any others want a copy, email me,
and i will send to the first 3, FREE postage etc.
cheers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James Bishop
philosophy. It doesn't get very in-depth but it will give you an overview
of most philosophical disciplines and schools, so that you will have a basic
knowledge from which to grow.
James
Xeones wrote in message <7viqhl$de6$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>...
Anjo van Wely
> I'm 17 years of age and relatively new to the world of philosophy.
>Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to serve as
>an introduction to philosophy for a relative novice?
>
>I Thanks You Graciously,
>
>-Sean
>
>
Hello Sean,
Try Bertrand Russell's 1945) A History of Western Philosophy, New
York: Simon and Schuster; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1946.
Lot's of succes!
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
<piet...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7vjho7$hq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi! I really like Will Durant's 'The Story of Philosophy',
> as it is quite readable. He argues against the scholastic
> trend in philosophy, and argues for a more colloquial approach.
yes, he, i and many others find good arguement against the scholastic approach
which hinders far more than it helps.....words replace life on this level.....
an excellent choice for anyone from beginner to intermediate.......
g.
russell
changed my life. One that made the life of the mind seem
real, possible, inevitable and worthwhile. Check out "The
Brothers karamozov" By Fydor Dostoyevsky, try to get it
translated by Constance Garnett.
RW
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Richard Reboulet
Paul McGilloway
I would recommend: Teichman J., & Evans K. C., 'Philosophy A Beginner's
Guide' (Oxford: Blackwell 1996) This book touches on the main schools of
thought within philosophy and some of the main debates.
McInerney P. K., 'Introduction to Philosophy' (NY: Harpercollins 1992) This
book as the above but has selected writings from some of the main canon of
western philosophers and also a glossary of some of the frequent terms used.
Good luck
Xeones
seemed to forget to justify picking Roger Scruton's Modern Philosophy.
Please tell me why you picked this book, and why I, as an intelligent
reader, should be interested in it.
I thank you for your generosity,
-Sean
<hcump...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7vla3q$sjl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> There is something about philosophy that makes many people think works
> of history and biography, albeit history of philosophy and biography of
> philosophers, are works of philosophy. The Story of Philosophy was one
> of the most dull and pointless books that I have ever read. It idolizes
> Voltaire who was not a philosopher but makes no mention of Wittgenstein
> who transformed the subject. I would no more recommend "A History of
> Western Philosophy" as an introduction to philosophy than I would "A
> History of Western Physics" as a study guide to physics.
> Furthermore philosophy, akin to science, is a fast moving subject, most
> of what is known today has been learned since WWII. Of course modern
> work elaborates and corrects earlier work but why not benefit from the
> patient labors of so many philospphers and jump straight to the answers.
> Having got that off my chest I would suggest "Modern Philosophy: An
> Introduction and Survey" by Roger Scruton.
>
>
> In article <7viqhl$de6$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> "Xeones" <swe...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > I'm 17 years of age and relatively new to the world of philosophy.
> > Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to
> serve as
> > an introduction to philosophy for a relative novice?
> >
> > I Thanks You Graciously,
> >
> > -Sean
> >
> >
>
>
hcump...@my-deja.com
piet...@my-deja.com
> There is something about philosophy that makes many people think works
> of history and biography, albeit history of philosophy and biography
of
> philosophers, are works of philosophy.
exactly.
as i recall, plato kind of wove a story around socrates.
> The Story of Philosophy was one
> of the most dull and pointless books that I have ever read.
phew. really?
> It idolizes Voltaire who was not a philosopher but makes no
> mention of Wittgenstein who transformed the subject.
It was published in 1926.
Maybe before Wittgenstein was known?
At any rate, imho Wittgenstein's banal semantic insights
seem largely irrelevant to the average beginner's
enjoyment of the classic philosophers - and anyway, he was
hardly a seeker of the stature of Nietzsche, or Socrates, imho.
> I would no more recommend "A History of
> Western Philosophy" as an introduction to philosophy than I would "A
> History of Western Physics" as a study guide to physics.
> Furthermore philosophy, akin to science, is a fast moving subject,
most
> of what is known today has been learned since WWII. Of course modern
> work elaborates and corrects earlier work
imho, this is where philosophy fails to emulate physics, in that
corrections and elaborations are rarely the case, rather fashions
come and go. e.g. foucault and philosophy of sexual identity etc.
> but why not benefit from the
> patient labors of so many philospphers and jump straight to
> the answers.
cause there aint none. heh.
there is only a long soap opera of reclusive egotists one-upping
each other. albeit, in interesting and creative ways.
> Having got that off my chest I would suggest "Modern Philosophy: An
> Introduction and Survey" by Roger Scruton.
when does he start 'modern' off?
e.g. post wwii?
is there anything about what the next fad beyond
post-modernism will be? e.g. what the heck are those
academic French alcoholics up to now? :)
> "Xeones" <swe...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > I'm 17 years of age and relatively new to the world of
philosophy.
> > Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to
> serve as
> > an introduction to philosophy for a relative novice?
> >
hmmm, allow me to correct myself on second thought:
first: 'The Trial of Socrates' - the tiny penguin paperback edition.
that really should be enough to think about for a lifetime, but in
the unlikely event not, then try:
'The Story of Philosophy' - Will Durant
then: 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' -Nietzsche
then: 'How to Bluff your way in Philosophy' - the Bluffer's Guide series
then: 'Foucault for Dummies' - by the Dummies' Philosophy Group
then: 'Monty Python's Philosophical Drinking Song-book'
:)
piet...@my-deja.com
http://www.knuten.liu.se/~bjoch509/
lots of online texts too.
Steve Green
I found Bertand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" excellent.
He's a great ( and funny ) writter and the book has a terrific index at
the back.
Steve
Xeones wrote:
>
> I'm 17 years of age and relatively new to the world of philosophy.
> Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to serve as
> an introduction to philosophy for a relative novice?
>
Steve Green
I found Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" excellent.
He's a great ( and funny ) writer and the book has a terrific index at
russell
> There is something about philosophy that makes many
> people think works
> of history and biography, albeit history of philosophy
> and biography of
> philosophers, are works of philosophy.
As with any thing in life, is it not best to start at the
begining?
The Story of
> Philosophy was one
> of the most dull and pointless books that I have ever
> read. It idolizes
> Voltaire who was not a philosopher but makes no
> mention of Wittgenstein
> who transformed the subject.
Voltaire was indeed a philosopher, I cant see how you can
say he was not, please enlighten. As far as Wittgenststein
goes, his idea of formalizing thought into a system of
logical mathematics, though cleaver, is obsurd. And as for
his impact on the rest of modern philosophy, Im not so sure
I see it. Maybe on modern logic, but is that all philosophy
consists of
I would no more recommend
> "A History of
> Western Philosophy" as an introduction to philosophy
> than I would "A
> History of Western Physics" as a study guide to
> physics.
There is a great difference, physics would deal with certain
equations, the mindset of the physisist is irrelevant, but
when you speak of a mans philosophy, what is going on in his
life, and his time frame is very important! For instance,
what sense would say "Fear and Trembling" make, if we didnt
know about Kierkrgaards leaving of his fiance regina for
religious reasons, and his comparison of that to Abrahams
sacrifice of Issac?
> Furthermore philosophy, akin to science, is a fast
> moving subject, most
> of what is known today has been learned since WWII.
First of all, what is KNOWN today? Not a great deal. Many
people have opinions, but to be crude yet understandable,
"opinions are like assholes, we all have one". We are still
wrestling with the questions of the ancient greeks are we
not? Or have you figured out what piety is?
Of
> course modern
> work elaborates and corrects earlier work but why not
> benefit from the
> patient labors of so many philospphers and jump
> straight to the answers.
Again what are these answers you speak of?
> Having got that off my chest I would suggest "Modern
> Philosophy: An
> Introduction and Survey" by Roger Scruton.
In truth, though I had made a book suggestion earlier on, on
this board, I must correect myself, any beginer in
philosophy should, I feel start with Plato's dialouges.
They give great and lucid advice on how Philosophy is done,
rather than what philosophy is. As for the message to which
I am replying. How obtuse!
russell
Pietzsche said:
e.g. what the heck are those academic French alcoholics up
to now? :)
THis coupled with the slight on postmodernism actually made
me laugh aloud........Are you challengeing my seriousness as
a philosopher? :)
Thanks for the chuckle.
piet...@my-deja.com
> > Having got that off my chest I would suggest "Modern Philosophy: An
> > Introduction and Survey" by Roger Scruton.
hey, forgot to thank you for the recommendation, btw. thanks!
this book is on amazon, (of course) and looks affordable, too!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140249079
fwiw, amazon lists another title by Scruton which sounds exactly
like what Xeones was looking for:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713992263
this plagiarized from Amazon:
In An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy, Roger
Scruton aims to present neither a history nor a
survey of the subject (goals he's already met in his
Modern Philosophy and A Short History of Modern
Philosophy). Rather, he attempts to make philosophy
interesting by showing why it is interesting to him.
Thus the book's 12 short chapters deal not only with
philosophy's old standards--truth, time, freedom,
God--but also with topics that not all philosophers
would regard as central, such as sex and music. The
views of other philosophers peek through from time to
time: several pages are devoted to savaging the
French historian Michel Foucault and the American
jurist Richard Posner, while the influences of
Scruton's philosophical heroes, Kant and Wittgenstein,
are detectable everywhere. Still, Scruton's
primary concern is to present the problems and lay out
their possible solutions as he sees them. True to
the standards of the Anglo-American tradition of
philosophy to which he declares allegiance, Scruton
writes clearly, precisely, and honestly. At times he
can be unnecessarily cagey: there is no telling, for
example, on the basis of his chapter on God whether he
in fact believes in God. But for the most part he
is forthright, even when espousing controversial
positions, such as claiming a uniquely privileged moral
status for heterosexual monogamy. All in all, the
intelligent person who reads Scruton's book can expect
to learn how another intelligent person, who has
thought long and hard, views philosophy. --Glenn
Branch
also plagiarized from Amazon on the 'Modern Philosophy' book:
Reviews
Synopsis
Philosopher Roger Scruton offers a wide-ranging
perspective on philosophy, from logic to aesthetics,
written in a lively and engaging way that is sure to
stimulate debate. Rather than producing a survey of
an academic discipline, Scruton reclaims philosophy for
worldly concerns.
Customer Comments : Number of Reviews: 2
A reader from TEXAS , May 13, 1999
THIS BOOK IS WORTH RE-READING AND STUDYING
This ia certainly one of the better books on modern
philosphy that I have read. It is not the type of book
one would simply scan through, but should be read
carefully and studied. It is a very psoitive
presentation of material that tends to be negative in
today's world. For me it is already a reference.
--This text refers to the hardcover edition of this
title
laughi...@hotmail.com from somewhere out in the Wild
West, USA , April 29, 1999
WARNING: This may not be as "down to earth" as
advertised
Don't get me wrong, Scruton is damn good and keeps the
book interesting and with a far livelier tone
(and higher level of complexity) than you might expect
from an attempt at an "introduction" to
philosophy. But make no mistake this is not exactly
easy stuff (though I'm sure it pales when compared to
the whole oeuvre of Analytical gobbledegook from which
it was basically spawned).
This book is at it's best (for my interests anyway)
when discussing the classic conundrums of modern
philosophy i.e. Descartes, Spinoza, Wittgenstein et al.
Once the topic moves too far into all this
linguistic stuff, my personal peepers start to glaze
something awful. The blurb on the front cover claims
that philosophy should return itself to broader
concerns. I couldn't agree more. I'm just not sure this book
does that, entirely . At least not the broader concerns
I would imagine most of us have on a day to day
basis or even in our wackier, more "speculative"
moments. Though to be honest, precisely what a
successful version of such would look like is somewhat
beyond me. The debate is complex, so why
pretend otherwise? And it seems, as this book displays
quite well, that even "the fundamentals" are still
much in contention. The rest of us, in the meantime,
are just trying to get through the day with a
semblance of a clue, and are forced to do so whether or
not we can prove a "self" or a "world" or what
a predicate *really* means in the sentences we use.
Still, there is much to be gained by slogging through
the forays into the logic of language (not entirely
without interest of course) to find when Scruton
actually does come down to street level. It is at that
point I believe he is at his most illuminating.
But maybe that's just me.
> hmmm, allow me to correct myself on second thought:
>
> first: 'The Trial of Socrates' - the tiny penguin paperback edition.
oops, was thinking of Irving Stone's historical novel, but
really meant 'The Last Days of Socrates', containing the 3 classic
dialogs of Plato regarding Socrates' trial and death aka, if we
want to get, ahem, religious about it, his 'passion'.
After all, it is a truism of sorts (iirc) that one of a philosopher's
main jobs is to die 'well', and if at all possible, with a
serene mind without confusion. This, at least, Socrates epitomizes.
Though, Plato may have been pulling our leg, of course, but I like
to think not.
Nietzsche too, imho, has an instructive demise (assuming the
syphilis hypothesis is eventually discredited - c.f. prof. Claudia
Crawford's argument - in favor of the metanoia hypothesis),
though in a more subtle and allegorical way than Socrates,
yet still quite instructive - e.g. Bataille's comment re the
'challenge' to the future philosophers of Nietzsche's 'crucifixion'.
Ken Wood
Presuming that you might want to *enjoy* your first look into philosophy,
you might want to check out Philosophy For Beginners by Richard Osborne....
at amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com on the web or at your local bookstore.
Cool! [and pretty comprehensive as an introduction] 8^)
Ken
Xeones <swe...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:7viqhl$de6$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> I'm 17 years of age and relatively new to the world of philosophy.
> Could I impose on you to suggest a formidable book of philosophy to serve
as