I teach philosophy in a french highschool, and while you're presenting classics and strong authors only, I think you are mixing up difficulties level to a point where it could really be confusing for a beginer. Plato's dialogues are nice and beautiful. It's not always easy to understand, but it's always compelling to read. You have strong and well defined characters, clashes of ideas, intellectual dramas (can Socrates be saved from his unfair trial ? Euthyphro's ending is more soul crushing than most tragic plays). You have homo-erotic stuff that Oscar Wilde would die for, secret love affairs to read between the lines, a lot of hilarious situations and jokes, great analogies to explain complex ideas, geometry lessons (it's more exciting than it sounds), and myths so creative they changed our culture (Gyges invisibility ring from the Republic inspired other myths with northmen or hobbits, everyone heard about the androgynous beings split in two and condemned to search for their lost soulmate, and some people still believe in the lost Atlantis described in Crito). So yes, you should begin with Plato, everyone should try to read some Plato, even if you think it's not for you, I can assure you there is a dialogue you will find interesting and compelling. You should try and begin with Euthyphro (the nature of religious devotion), the Apology (Socrates on trial), Gorgias (the nature of rhetorics and the problem with democracy), Meno (the nature of ideas), the Symposium (about love and drunkness) and even the Republic (is there something behind death, and how should we live?). You should avoid some difficult dialogues at first : do not read the Philebe, the Sophist, Theethetes, or the Laws as your first Plato. It would be a strange reading experience, unless you're a mathematician, a logician, a software designer or some kind of reader who already derives pleasure from classical logic. Meanwhile, Aristotle's works are much dryer to read, especially for a beginer. Nichomachean ethics is the easy part, sure, but the easy part of Aristotle's works is still pretty complicated compared to Plato's. If Plato and Aristotle were alive today, both teaching classical athenian philosophy : Plato wrote the intro class, highschool and college undergrad courses, teaching more difficult stuff in his class and by oral tradiction only, no notes allowed. While Aristotle published every research paper, on the most difficult philosophical problems understandable only for college to PhD level, and a lot of stuff on subsequent reasearch fields like astronomy, physics and zoology. David Hume is a very good read, but instead of getting your head insides that treaty first, I strongly recommand to begin with the easy version : "An enquiry concerning human understanding". It's shorter, pursue the same line of reasonning and it was litterally written for beginers. Reading Descartes's letters is a very unusual tip, but I think you're right : it's a good way to see how philosophy is supposed to be a dialogue in essence (...much like Plato's works). If you really want to read Descartes and don't find any edition of his correspondance to a reasonnable price, you can begin with the "Discours de la méthode" (Discourse on the method), which was designed for beginers : it's really short and summerise most of his thoughts about skepticism and science. If you're at an intermediate level and already know some philosphy, I recommand skipping that Discours and get right into the more thorough (but not too complicated) "Meditations of First philosophy". Descartes is a never-ending spiral of complexity, the more you read it, the more you understand how subtle and complicated it really is. And it's the exact opposite of what you should feel reading Kant. While this systematic philosopher becomes easier and clearer while you read it and note the most significant words and expressions, I strongly recommand you not to begin with his longest, most complex and subtle work : Critique of Pure Reason. It's not a challenge, it's a suicide, it's like day one at a bakery school and the chef tells you « today, we're gonna do a two meters high wedding cake, and each stage is a different recipe ». I politely suggest you to try and bake some croissants first, at least. If you really do want to begin with that colossal book, I suggest you to read Kant's intro to the second edition before you even buy the Critique of Pure Reason. It's short, yet thorough, understandable and gives you a good feeling of the ambitions at play and the task lying ahead. If you want to read Kant, I strongly recommand "What is Enlightenment ?", which is very short and was specifically written for beginers, or the longer but still quite easy to read "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch". I simply don't know Ayer's book, so I'm trusting you on that one. About analytical philosophy, I think the best first read to recommand would be "Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy” Do not feel intimidated by this long title, it's a conference quite easy to follow, while presenting most different aspects of philosophy. I used a part of it with my seventeen years old pupils, and it kinda works as a general intro to philosophy. I strongly disagree with you for the next two books. Wittgenstein and Heidegger are simply not for beginers at all, you need a warning not to read those books if you're not already familiar with some philosophical ideas and works. You should already know some concepts about analytical philosophy before reading Wittgenstein, it's a poor introduction to the field (or the best intro to philosophy if you're a very lonesome genius, but there is no in-between). Worst of all, for a beginer, “Time and Being” is simply a long and obscure rant made of gibberish, you need to read at least some Kant and a thing or two from Husserl (which is pretty difficult on itself) to start reading Heidegger and understand it. I haven't read Heidegger in english, though, maybe the translation is dumbing it down, but in German or French my warning is heavily justified. Those are my two cents and my personnal opinion. Have fun reading, and if you really want to try difficult books, then feel free to completely ignore my advice: while I have a good experience about teaching and explaining those authors, I mostly teach to teenagers, your adult mind is something else entirely.
@@hineko_ Homosexuality was considered a refined pleasure in Athens, from 500 BCE to 200 BCE at least: deal with it. If that kind of romantic relationship between intellectual characters is enough to make you struggle with your own feelings, ask yourself some questions, because it's obviously not the book that makes you unconfortable, but your own repressed desires. And from all the great qualities and books quoted above, that's what you remember most?
I totally agree with you. Sein und Zeit is absolutely impossible for a beginner (even for a confirmed that would try the CAPES) and will just disgust of philosophy. Plus, the main difficulty will be doing it ALONE, without teacher to guide.
One point about Hume is that he wrote in English, and fairly modern English at that, so there aren't any issues with translation. In addition, Hume was a superb stylist, so he's actually enjoyable to read from both a substantive and an esthetic perspective.
Philosophy as an academic discipline may be difficult to understand in all its aspects, however, I do think that more people should learn about philosophical values as they are helpful in our lives. The way you speak about those books made me think that you have a vast knowledge about certain things that are deemed timely and relevant.
I'm a bloody beginner in philosophy and like ethics and morals a lot, yes they might change the world to a better place. But isn't it important to respect every human being, no matter what he's doing, no matter if he's a native living without knowing anything about virtues or a corrupt ceo, who might do bad stuff. A wise man once told me, when there's somebody so angry at you, that he wants to kill you, you've definitely made something wrong
I've always liked to think of philosophy in the etymological sense from the original Latin; love of knowledge It breaks down my interest in philosophy as essentially trying to build a library of knowledge to help me understand how the universe works. This includes topics such as physics, metaphysics, logic; but also phycology, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, geopolitics, biology, physics, empathy, social skills, language etc to connect with people and engage with the world around you to the fullest But the simplest way to describe still comes back to simply trying to understand the world through thinking, and love of knowledge really embodies that for me so it's convent that that's the literal definiton :)
As a philosophy major I actually feel like it is hard to make a distinction between "beginner level" and like a more "advanced level" of philosophy... Sure, there are certain philosophers that are more complicated to understand because you might need some understanding of their use of certain words and expressions, but in the end if you want to read it and understand their thoughts, you will have to start somewhere. I see here comments by people saying that e.g. reading Kant as a "beginner" is a stupid idea but I just feel like philosophy is something that you just have to to jump right into it and then figure out where to go from there, trying to understand the key concepts and ideas. To people who are not used to read philosophy, I would just recommend starting somewhere with some of the big names and then just read something and if you are not really interested in it, skip it and go on to the next thing until you reach a philosopher or a topic that you find soo interesting that putting all the work to like slowly understand it is fun to you and not a difficult task...
The Symposium is a must read. You cannot leave that out. It is Plato's love-song to Socrates. I first read it years ago as a philosophy major. It made me thoroughly ashamed of the emphasis I was putting on grades. Also , the ring of gyges from The Republic. Both of these can be life-changing works to read.
An old college philosophy professor of mine told us that Kant’s German was so difficult to read that even the German students would learn English in order to read him in English translation. I don’t know if it’s true but it sounds believable.
I cannot confirm that, because I really dont know, if someones doing that. But what I can say is, that Kants German is in fact pretty hard to read even as A-Level Graduates (we had some of his work in German Classes).
As a German I can not relate to that. In fact, we read Kant in 9th grade. And as a history student at university, who MUST learn greek and Latin, to work with historical sources I doubt anyone with a scientific approach would prefer working with translations.
@@mathiashilbert8076 Dude, where do you live that you read Kant in 9th grade? XD Kants German is a spit in the readers face to show you what it means to have too much time to think about how you formulate your sentences in a way, that leads to the most unnecessary complications, in order to make a point, that could have been made clear in clear way, clear. Can’t imitate it properly.
Love your breakdown! It's a great list. One comment: 'Critique of Pure Reason' and 'Being and Time' are two of the most important and influential philosophy texts of all time; they're also two of the most difficult (add in Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' and you have the whole trifecta). I wouldn't push beginning philosophy readers into that deep end just yet; they'll catch their death of German. More concise introductions to those philosophers' thoughts are Kant's 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics' and Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphysics?". In addition, regarding the order of presentation, I'd read Descartes before Hume and Wittgenstein before Ayer (order of who influenced who). To this list I'd add Nietzsche's 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' (particularly if your tastes are more toward literature than straightforward philosophy). Solid runners-up include Spinoza's 'Ethics', Kierkegaard's 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript', and Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy'. Anyone interested in more contemporary, life-relevant philosophical thought could benefit from Robert Nozick's 'The Examined Life'. Enjoy!
I heard once from a young man, he had psychic troubles, and he couldn't understand Being and Time, and he was reading this book again and again... it was an obsession. Then, G. Deleuze who worked a lot on Spinoza, said that there was always something he didn't understand. I personally don't think Spinoza is from any use. So Cartesians.
I think it's good to start with Plato. I'm not a philosophy student (heck, not even something related), yet I found his Dialogues quite easy to digest -and also quite interesting.
@@bruvhellnah story of philosophy by will durant is best and easy for beginners. Once you read it u will revisit it again and again. For indian philosophy, bhartiya darshan by harendra prasad is excellent.
Dialogues in our movie that emerge a transcdental idealism.... platos republic is a triadic division where the spheres of existence don't meet. There you don't need to read it. We do that in university and I was supposed to show up with dialogues in time with existential structures of existence....happens all the time even in high-school ..
I would include Kierkegaard's Either/Or to balance the language philosophy of the Vieñna Circle. Analytic philosophy doesn't have the tools to answer the question what is the role of the self in the organization of experience. As the founder of existentialism, Kierkegaard highlights the problematic nature of choice. He is linked to Aristotle through teleological explanation by highlighting Christianity as the goal of the ethical life. He taught us the inescapable regret built into every life decision . K links to Dante as well in his exaltation of the Christian life. He traffics with both classic literature, history and theology.
Many existentialists didn’t even regard Kierkegaard as a philosopher. Heidegger is probably good enough to represent a continental bent - allbeit a little difficult for a beginner.
@@noahlibra I would feel that I was cheating my students were I to teach existentialism with the exclusion of the great Dane. True, he is fatiguing to read but so worth it. His wily use of pseudonyms, focus on inwardness and hyperreligiosity make him unique among engaging philosophers.
Of course it does. I don't think any tradition except the logicist has anything worthwhile to say about epistemology or ontology or anything that concerns itself about the nature of the world. Existentialism I'd call primarily a literary and cultural movement connected to human perception of life, and as you suggest, the paradox of choice. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both considered the problem and reached radically opposite conclusions! - and the discussion persisted well into the last decades of the twentieth century. Of the two, Kierkegaard seems more like he is philosophizing honestly rather than using rhetoric to argue conclusions he has reached ahead of time. I don't agree with his conclusions but his intellectual honesty is in plain evidence throughout his process
@@sharonbre9347 Certainty nothing that hasn't been comfortably superseded in the logicist tradition. Take Descartes's inability to understand how pain or any other mental state can have a physical reality without postulating an independent reality of purely mental phenomena. It never occurred to him that what is physical isn't just stuff. That stuff can be arranged in logical configurations and the properties of those configurations will also make a difference to the physical reality. That, brain states, can make up mind. Or his saying that if a being with desirable qualities exists, an optimal such being must exist. Does that mean we can simultaneously have a spear that can pierce any armor and an armor that can resist any spear. Because there are spears that can pierce some armors, and armors that can stop some spears, the optimal counterparts also exist? It's a rookie mistake and one nobody trained in logicism, would ever make. Or take Hagel going on about existence and non-existence as predicates and then literally building up a tangle of concepts to build on this illogical foundation. In logicism, we do this very easily. Existence is not a predicate because then nonexistence would also have to be(because the negation of a predicate is also a predicate) In reality we never talk about existence or non-existence, only the unsatisfisability and satisfiability of certain predicates. When we say a round square is nonexistent we really mean the predicate 'round square' is unsatisfiable. We have nothing to learn(on this head) from the pre-logicists. Sometimes they asked good questions and their mistakes are illuminating. But their contributions are no longer directly valuable in any way
Even though the books shown here are unarguably crucial for understanding philosophical movements they represent/are a part of, I would argue that, for a beginner it would be much more useful to get a grip of what those movements are. Reading something on the history of philosophy, like Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy", I think would help an unknowing person understand the core concepts of most historically significant philosophies.
8:30 That was the best way to describe Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in one sentence: The truth is paperback books will fall apart if you use them a lot.
As a philosopher for Theological studies, this video is really well done. I agree with you on all your recommendations and reasoning. Just found your channel and it has solid content
Id also recommend “Candide” by Voltaire; definitely reveals a lot of the historical-context of the pre-Enlightenment to Enlightenment period, and also shows a lot of Voltaire’s satirical use of rhetoric to dog on religious (more strictly, theological) fanaticism, and social and political schemes. Very easy to read, not too obscure/cryptic in language.
Starting with ‘Being and Time’ is a little bold, although I approve of the choice of text! Imo Descartes-Locke-Berkeley-Hume & Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz are all good lines to go down for the budding philosopher, plus Plato and Aristotle obviously. Kant should probably come later at which point Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl and others can succeed a reading of Kant.
1) Write in your books. Underline, question , answer back. A half empty page?---use it. 2) In twenty years are you going to be able it pick up that box containing all your journals? 3) Pay attention to language. 4) Have at least a few books that you are not reading but just dipping into now and then. 5) This last point is the most important.
I took a class on Heidegger's Being and Time and it was the most difficult philosophy book I have ever read (and I've read Hegel). I think a beginner would get little to no value from some of these recommendations, and might be discouraged from learning philosophy. It's like taking someone who has never done math before and recommending calculus.
What I think is really cool about Plato is that he explains his philosophies in the form of stories that are clear and easy to understand in comparison to Aristotle. And the early dialogues are not only telling of the philosophies of Plato and his famous teacher, but they are also essentially biographical of Socrates! So, you're getting not only a whole bunch of very rich philosophical ideas, but you are also getting a really cool history lesson!
The problem with the Dialogues is that they promote the idea of resolving troubles through words, ie the base of democracy. So we are all required to submit to reason, to common sens and truth, to share the same truth. It's so untrue today, no one share the other's mind. And the dialogues are social, while the romantic idea is the loneliness of individuals (lincommunicabilité, Antonioni).
Many thanks for illuminating philosophy here with such clarity . Recently, I read a book called : Philosophy Classics by Tom Butler Bowdon which distills the ideas and thoughts of 50 great philosophers in a unique thematic format which was helpful for beginners like me. Just exploring the wonder of Being, Truth and Meaning.
I've had the privilege of joining some hi-level philosophy groups and studying with professors of philosophy formally and informally. I've also been part of philosophy enthusiast groups. While I enjoyed both, there was a world of difference between the two. As much as possible study with someone with training in philosophy.
@@lisandroge Though Meetup, and also by checking event listings and posters at the local universities, including faculty departmental events and student events.
I just stumbled upon on this channel and its seems like this channel was the channel i have been seeking sense i joined youtube. I look forward oo seeing this channel blossom. Much love!
Hey, while these are all really great recommendations, in our current time we know now that there have been many, many female philosophers who have influenced these writings and who have influenced philosophy as a whole to a greater degree than some of the people on this list. Sor Juana de la Cruz, Anne Conway, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, Hannah Arendt, Beauvoir, Emilie DuChatelet, Iris Murdoch, Damaris Masham, are all good examples, but for a more detailed look check out both the wiki page on female philosophers and this years Early Modern Philosophy edited by Lisa Shapiro and Marcy P. Lascano.
As a philosophy teacher in Brazil, my list is a bit different. Plato, Aristotle and Descartes are the same... But I'd sugest Malebranche "The Search after the Truth" Spinoza's "On Improvement of the Understanding"; Kant's "Logic"; Hegel's "Aesthetics"; Adorno's "Minima Moralia"; Foucault's "Discipline and Punish". I had good experience teaching about those. Not easy to read but nevertheless, formative. I'd suggest other ones I personally enjoy, but they can get quite obscure.
@@martacusmaximoids7512 Kant's Lectures on Logic are very good. Sometimes they are edited as one book. And why Spinoza's? Well, in this book, Spinoza treats the problem of the adequate use of reason. This is before Kant, and despite being a very dense text, it summarizes some of Spinoza's ideas on other books such as Ethics and Teological-Political Tretease. Off course this won't substitute these readings, but this is a good place of introduction and shows the importance of seeking "adequate thinking". And the last reason is... my research on Didactics mobilizes authors from the 1600's. I'd recommend Comenius book on Didactics. Which here means the "art of teaching everything to everyone". There are contemporary readings I use to prepare my classes, but teaching in teacher education is my line of work as a researcher.
Just buy used copies of the books in the video and just put them in your shelf. People will be impressed when they see it, they'll think, "Wow he reads such deep books he must be so smart." Make sure to read a few Wikipedia article summaries of the book in case they ask you about them.
I could quibble about a couple of choices, but overall I like the list. I had a professor claim to have written his dissertation on a single paragraph of Aristotle. I'm starting to think such claims are like our grandparents telling us that everyday they walked 10 miles to school uphill, and then walked back home -- also uphill. By the way, I can barely read Hume, Kant, Spinoza, or Hegel -- so I don't. I think for those interested in the history of analytic philosophy, the natural starting point is Frege and Russell, but to understand where they are coming from, then also British Idealism, which was informed by German Idealism -- but they are not the same.
Thank you for the recommendations! One way to stretch the life of those affordable editions is clear contact paper. I started doing that in high school and can attest that it helped a lot. In fact, I still have one of the books and it looks good considering that it's from the 90s.
Surprised you didn’t include nietsche, as many find him foundational in modern thinking whether one agrees or not. 🤷♂️ And that you went with five dialogues, instead of the Republic. Great list either way. 👍
Thanks for this. If I may offer a personal reflection: I think that, of these texts, two that sit in tension (in the philosophy of mind) are Descartes meditations and Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations. Both are compelling. But both can’t be right. So, Wittgenstein lets the fly out of the bottle; but we will always, always, go back to Descartes. Peter
As a first touching point with philosophy I can recommend Sophies World. Its quite easy to read and summarises many important philosophers and their thoughts.
As someone who got into philosophy very early in life, early teens, and went on to get a degree my suggestion is a good compilation like Durant’s. It’s not a new book but a classic in its own. Getting a history of philosophy is in my opinion a much more accessible way to contextualize it more than anything and understanding the influences these men (yes largely men) had on one another and the broader world of ideas. If anything grabs you then allow yourself to read a little more about them. Go slow, there is more to be gleaned from reading and rereading philosophers in the same tradition if you can.
@@workt42 I am german and I do not understand Hegel. A new language to learn is always great , howerver I think some philosophers are just difficult to read independently if their textes are translated or not.
@@workt42 sorry, my reply should not confuse or disturb you. Please do not take it too serious, I am not qualified to speak about philosophy , I am just a very common and curious reader, who reads a little of anything (in german this is named diletant ) Persit and have joy and many achievements in your intelectual journey.
I am doing my last year in high school right now-I’ll be studying philosophy as a major in Zürich next year (unless something goes terribly wrong). Videos like these help me because, while I am very interested in philosophy as a whole, the way it is taught by my teacher can only be described as an insult to the field. The man is an egocentric fool, he explains philosophers to us with no care for accuracy, always using their ideologies to put forward his own opinions, and we never read an actual text with him. This means that I find myself quite lost in the scene of philosophical literature, not yet having read any philosopher that I supposedly studied (I got a start on the Symposium and on Thus Spoke Zarathustra, for no particular reason other than that I got them for my birthday). So, yeah, thank you again :) I love that youtube can be a resource for learning; it might not be able to replace school, but it sure gives me some useful advice on what to do while my teacher is tragically incompetent :/ I wish everyone who read this a good day (or night, depending on when you are), stay safe and stay hydrated ;)
History of Western Philosophy Russell, read widely. Start with what problem/issue troubles you or fascinates you and try to solve it.That helps open new doors.
It's crucial to read the Tractatus, before even getting the idea of reading the Philosophical Investigations - the former is where Wittgenstein exposes us to his early philosophy, which is still under the influence of positivism (I consider the later Wittgenstein not to be a positivst) of Russell. I find it useful to know where this great thinker started developing his later ideas, and reading the Tractatus, as well at least a summary of Russell's philosophy, is a nice introduction to what is then to become this satisfying work. And I would also recommend reading On Doubt, Culture and Values after the Investigations (not before, as the latter explains concepts used in the former)
I think some of these recommendations are excellent, but I think others are inappropriate in a list for beginners. The Critique of Pure Reason is essential for a dedicated student of philosophy, but for a beginner I think the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics would be a better place to start. Also, I don’t think Heidegger belongs on any list for beginners. I would replace Being and Time with Bertrand Russels’ A History of Western Philosophy and his Problems of Philosophy. I read the latter in high school and it led me to a long life of reading philosophy!
Critique of pure reason was the hardest book Iv ever read. I’m still not 100% sure I actually understood what the hell I read, but the things I know I did understand I now practice and it inspired me enough to go back to school. I don’t know if I’d call it beginner but I’d call it essential
I wouldn't recommend starting with Critique of Pure Reason the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics is more accessible and a lot shorter really helped me get the bigger picture of Critique of Pure Reason
All important books but aren't they a bit heavy and intimidating for a beginner ? - at least I would recommend more general books for beginners like "Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton" or "Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn". Books like those like those give one the basic ideas and concepts of Philosophy and prepare one to tackle the source material which can often be very demanding.
@@_jared Yes it is of course different if you are reading these in a course where you have a teacher to guide you - I for example read Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics in my introduction to Ethics class and I also read Descartes when studying his philosophy so I get your point. I was more thinking about someone who's not in school but is getting interested in philosophy.
@@_jared In my opinion, Örn Leifsson raises a good point. Not only many of these books are too hard for a beginner in Philosophy to read without any background (reading Plato and Aristotle is not enough, I believe), more so if not in a course context, where they can contrast their grasping of the text with the lecturer. Even if you would like to stick only to primary sources, I would consider these: Plato - Euthyphro or Phaedo Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics Seneca - Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium or Marcus Aurelius - Meditations Descartes - Discourse on the Method Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (much easier than the Treatise) or Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (for Philosophy of Religion) John Stuart Mill - On Liberty or Henry Sidgwick - The Methods of Ethics Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy (for analytical introduction) Sartre - Existentialism Is a Humanism John Rawls - A Theory of Justice (for modern Political philosophy)
I agree and disagree with all the comments that disagree. I agree because it’s probably best to start with books explaining Philosophy and it’s trajectory like Sophie's World (even history of western philosophy is easy to understand just dense). On the other hand, Philosophy is challenging and always is, even when you are an expert (coming from someone who is not an expert). You have to jump in the deep end eventually.
It would help to read the titles, authors, and edition info consistently throughout the video and not assume someone is able to see the video and is not visually impaired or listening to this as an audio experience only.
i actually think this is a good beginner list. in my view the hardest here are kant and heidegger. being and time is tough, sure, but sweat it out. and for me, i’ve just personally found kant’s writing a little tougher.
Heidegger’s reliance on that Jargon heavy language is evidence that his ideas are meaningless; his ideas can’t stand on their own merits, so he has to create those buttresses to support his flawed ideas.
I dont know, Kant, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein are not beginner friendly. The Greeks are probably the best place to start for primary sources, but usually, I'd recommend some secondary, introductory sources. Or, better yet, secondary sources as a companion to primary sources
No os saltéis a los Escolásticos. Aquellos filósofos a los que veneráis se sustentan o ejercen dialéctica con la Escolástica: por ejemplo, Heidegger, que, bebe de Francisco Suárez.
The biggest problem with Heidegger is that he is ideologically loyal to a certain ‘authentic’ form of German language which is opposed to the traditional metaphysical terminology of his predecessors. However, clarity in understanding his work is contingent on discerning those relations between his thought and that of earlier thinkers. The problem is that even a reader well acquainted with the project of the German idealists will have trouble understanding the ways in which Being and Time operates as a critique of those works and therefore will find Heidegger’s own project even more abstruse than in the manner to which one may already be disposed. I would recommend reading some introductions to existentialism, shoring up one’s bonafides in medieval scholasticism, and then reading Sartre’s Being and Nothingness in tandem with Heidegger’s works, because, although the former’s project is slightly different with respect to what Sartre thinks about ‘human reality’ and the fundamental project of Being, coming to a more conclusive position than Heidegger about the nature of phenomenology and the ultimate inadequacy of metaphysics as a technique of knowledge, Sartre does explicate Heideggerian existentialism in clearer terms, and those with which someone who has studied Idealism might be more well acquainted.
For the Critique of pure reason, the best companion, in my opinion and generally held in very high regard, is the Cambridge companion to the critique of pure reason, although this is a pretty academic work. A slightly easier and more comprehensive one is the Routledge companion to the Critique of pure reason. For an introduction into Kant and the work itself I would recommend the text: "Kant' by Paul Guyer in the Routledge philosophers series. Reading the chapters on the critique before diving in can really help, but watching some lecture before would still be advised to start of with a general idea of what the project of the Critique is all about.
This man really recommended reading Husserl as a beginner to philosophy. I encountered Husserl in a course - so with instruction from a professor - and I still hardly understood anything. I for sure wouldn't put that on a beginner's list.
To your point of Hume at 4:40 I would say Hume is one of the founding intellectuals that in later centuries turned into British 20th century figures like GEMoore, Bertrand Russell etc.
I obviously understand the decision to include Kant, but as an introduction I think that's a choice that is going to turn a lot of people off from philosophy. I'd probably replace it with Mill's On Liberty. Otherwise fantastic list and all excellent suggestions.
Thank you! Always nice to see a list of recommendations with a short explanation why these particular are books suggested. Also thank you for the “be practical and pragmatic” advice! Sometimes I want to dish out more money on a nice hard cover book, but then I’m afraid to take it out of the house and damage it somehow. Books are meant to be read and studied. It’s nice to have a beautiful collection at home, but there is not much use if you don’t actually read them.
I do not think this is a a very good list for beginners. The Plato and Aristotle suggested are both good, but the particular works of Hume and Kant suggested here are very much not good choices for beginning students and will likely put the reader off. For Hume I would suggest either "The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" which is much more polished and accessible or even "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." For Kant, I would suggest either "What Is Enlightenment?," "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics," or maybe a collection of his political and ethical works, such as "Perpetual Peace and Other Essays." Also, Heidegger and Wittgenstein are not good beginning choices as they are both difficult in their own rights and also presuppose that the reader is well versed in much of the tradition. There is a tendency among graduate students and even PhD's to forget how much they have learned and to misjudge what would be appropriate for a reader who is really just beginning. So, as a set of beginners suggested readings, this is not a very helpful list.
Your recommendations lean towards knowing about philosophy as a tool to understand the world around us, but the majesty of philosophy is it’s love of wisdom that opens the door to the Oracle of Delphi’s proverb to ”Know Thyself”. And this is best ignited by the works of Pierre Hadot such as “Philosophy as a Way of Life”……for in the proper understanding and practice “Well being is realized in small steps, but that is no small thing.” -Zeno
These titles are indeed important to world literature (and your summary is incredibly helpful!). But the video should be named "8 Western Philosophy Books..." (which is 100% OK). Otherwise, we are insinuating that the vast majority of humanity from South Asia, Africa, the Far East, South and Central America, Oceania etc. has said, written or thought nothing of value in philosophy.
'Philosophy' being a word from ancient Greek, "Western philosophy" is a pleonasm. To designate all non-Western thought with a monolithic term connoting a specific cultural and historical formation is itself a subtle form of cultural imperialism. This in no way means that non-Western thought is any less interesting or worthy of study than philosophy, just that we should call it with appropriate terms.
Heidegger? - Not a good idea. If you think logical positivism is disastrous Heidegger has to be off the scale. Descartes Méditations are extraordinary, possibly the best philosophical writing of any time (you certainly do not have to agree with him though). If you can read French, the translation (from Latin) supervised by Descartes is wonderful. I do not know what to say about Kant, he did not attempt to be readable. I would recommend Bertrand Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'. It is well written, not long, though actually quite dense. It packs a lot into a few pages. What unites Descartes, Hume and Russell is the clarity of their writing and their clarity of thought (Plato similarly). Academic philosophy needs to be far more critical of opacity. It should take the example of science. In fact the harder the concepts, the clearer the writing needs to be.
“The Philosophy Book: From the Vedas to the New Atheists” 2016 by Gregory Bassham. 527 pages, oversized book with many illustrations. A much easier and broader look at 2500 years of thinkers in one-page nutshells.
I think those works of plato are good, but a more complete selection would be to add the republic and gorgias. Republic is going to give the platonic idea of justice and why we should be just, which many philosophers comment on, and gorgias distinguishes rhetoric from philosophy/logic and it's importance in protecting yourself from rhetoric.
A very good beginner book is "philosophy and cosmovision" by Mario Ferreira dos Santos. Unfortunately, the book is only available in portuguese and the lastest edition of the book isn't so good. Mario is, according to many people and a great brazilian philosopher, the greatest brazilian philosopher of all times, although he has been forgotten even by ourselves.
Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes Are great Wisdom literature as well would recommend it. Colossians 2:8 (ESV): 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Whenever I read philosophy by someone like Focault I take my time… I’ll read like 18 pages in an hour when I’d read other non philosophical books that are 300+ pages in like 3 hours…
I would like to recommend shri "Bhagavad Geeta" and other Indian philosophies to know the real meaning of life .....then you will know that other philosophies are meaningful or meaningless.
When you say “read a little bit” what is your process on how to determine the best passages to read and those to omit? I recently finished John Locke’s Second book of Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The version I own is Dover 2 Vol. set. It contains copious amounts of footnotes (many of which are great in themselves) but the first volume I basically read word for word. Every page. This left me feeling like I could have spent those hours diversifying and my into others like Hume. However I also have this “completionist” mindset about many things in life, not just reading. I would love to hear your feedback! Thanks for the good video.
Excellent video, so refreshing from the normal stuff on here talking about "nice" covers, Vampires, Dragons and comics, sorry graphic novels. Keep up the good work.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I teach philosophy in a french highschool, and while you're presenting classics and strong authors only, I think you are mixing up difficulties level to a point where it could really be confusing for a beginer.
Plato's dialogues are nice and beautiful. It's not always easy to understand, but it's always compelling to read. You have strong and well defined characters, clashes of ideas, intellectual dramas (can Socrates be saved from his unfair trial ? Euthyphro's ending is more soul crushing than most tragic plays). You have homo-erotic stuff that Oscar Wilde would die for, secret love affairs to read between the lines, a lot of hilarious situations and jokes, great analogies to explain complex ideas, geometry lessons (it's more exciting than it sounds), and myths so creative they changed our culture (Gyges invisibility ring from the Republic inspired other myths with northmen or hobbits, everyone heard about the androgynous beings split in two and condemned to search for their lost soulmate, and some people still believe in the lost Atlantis described in Crito). So yes, you should begin with Plato, everyone should try to read some Plato, even if you think it's not for you, I can assure you there is a dialogue you will find interesting and compelling.
You should try and begin with Euthyphro (the nature of religious devotion), the Apology (Socrates on trial), Gorgias (the nature of rhetorics and the problem with democracy), Meno (the nature of ideas), the Symposium (about love and drunkness) and even the Republic (is there something behind death, and how should we live?).
You should avoid some difficult dialogues at first : do not read the Philebe, the Sophist, Theethetes, or the Laws as your first Plato. It would be a strange reading experience, unless you're a mathematician, a logician, a software designer or some kind of reader who already derives pleasure from classical logic.
Meanwhile, Aristotle's works are much dryer to read, especially for a beginer. Nichomachean ethics is the easy part, sure, but the easy part of Aristotle's works is still pretty complicated compared to Plato's.
If Plato and Aristotle were alive today, both teaching classical athenian philosophy : Plato wrote the intro class, highschool and college undergrad courses, teaching more difficult stuff in his class and by oral tradiction only, no notes allowed. While Aristotle published every research paper, on the most difficult philosophical problems understandable only for college to PhD level, and a lot of stuff on subsequent reasearch fields like astronomy, physics and zoology.
David Hume is a very good read, but instead of getting your head insides that treaty first, I strongly recommand to begin with the easy version : "An enquiry concerning human understanding". It's shorter, pursue the same line of reasonning and it was litterally written for beginers.
Reading Descartes's letters is a very unusual tip, but I think you're right : it's a good way to see how philosophy is supposed to be a dialogue in essence (...much like Plato's works). If you really want to read Descartes and don't find any edition of his correspondance to a reasonnable price, you can begin with the "Discours de la méthode" (Discourse on the method), which was designed for beginers : it's really short and summerise most of his thoughts about skepticism and science. If you're at an intermediate level and already know some philosphy, I recommand skipping that Discours and get right into the more thorough (but not too complicated) "Meditations of First philosophy". Descartes is a never-ending spiral of complexity, the more you read it, the more you understand how subtle and complicated it really is.
And it's the exact opposite of what you should feel reading Kant. While this systematic philosopher becomes easier and clearer while you read it and note the most significant words and expressions, I strongly recommand you not to begin with his longest, most complex and subtle work : Critique of Pure Reason. It's not a challenge, it's a suicide, it's like day one at a bakery school and the chef tells you « today, we're gonna do a two meters high wedding cake, and each stage is a different recipe ». I politely suggest you to try and bake some croissants first, at least. If you really do want to begin with that colossal book, I suggest you to read Kant's intro to the second edition before you even buy the Critique of Pure Reason. It's short, yet thorough, understandable and gives you a good feeling of the ambitions at play and the task lying ahead.
If you want to read Kant, I strongly recommand "What is Enlightenment ?", which is very short and was specifically written for beginers, or the longer but still quite easy to read "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch".
I simply don't know Ayer's book, so I'm trusting you on that one. About analytical philosophy, I think the best first read to recommand would be "Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy” Do not feel intimidated by this long title, it's a conference quite easy to follow, while presenting most different aspects of philosophy. I used a part of it with my seventeen years old pupils, and it kinda works as a general intro to philosophy.
I strongly disagree with you for the next two books. Wittgenstein and Heidegger are simply not for beginers at all, you need a warning not to read those books if you're not already familiar with some philosophical ideas and works.
You should already know some concepts about analytical philosophy before reading Wittgenstein, it's a poor introduction to the field (or the best intro to philosophy if you're a very lonesome genius, but there is no in-between).
Worst of all, for a beginer, “Time and Being” is simply a long and obscure rant made of gibberish, you need to read at least some Kant and a thing or two from Husserl (which is pretty difficult on itself) to start reading Heidegger and understand it. I haven't read Heidegger in english, though, maybe the translation is dumbing it down, but in German or French my warning is heavily justified.
Those are my two cents and my personnal opinion. Have fun reading, and if you really want to try difficult books, then feel free to completely ignore my advice: while I have a good experience about teaching and explaining those authors, I mostly teach to teenagers, your adult mind is something else entirely.
Had fun reading this comment, I appreciate the time and effort you put in it!
Thanks 👍🏻
@@hineko_ Homosexuality was considered a refined pleasure in Athens, from 500 BCE to 200 BCE at least: deal with it.
If that kind of romantic relationship between intellectual characters is enough to make you struggle with your own feelings, ask yourself some questions, because it's obviously not the book that makes you unconfortable, but your own repressed desires.
And from all the great qualities and books quoted above, that's what you remember most?
@@AbuRashidIbnArabi Thanks a lot!
I totally agree with you. Sein und Zeit is absolutely impossible for a beginner (even for a confirmed that would try the CAPES) and will just disgust of philosophy. Plus, the main difficulty will be doing it ALONE, without teacher to guide.
One point about Hume is that he wrote in English, and fairly modern English at that, so there aren't any issues with translation. In addition, Hume was a superb stylist, so he's actually enjoyable to read from both a substantive and an esthetic perspective.
I strongly agree, to the farthest extent possible, with you, man.
Hume is not enjoyable to read
I cannot relate.
@@vedanshvedansh844 Spot on.
My last name is Nance also .
Two great books for absolute beginners:
-Gilles Deleuze: Difference and Repetition
-Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality
🤣 don't forget the Phenomenology of Spirit!
@@cesargonzalez5356, what about the MOST important word of literature ever composed, "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity"?
Philosophy as an academic discipline may be difficult to understand in all its aspects, however, I do think that more people should learn about philosophical values as they are helpful in our lives. The way you speak about those books made me think that you have a vast knowledge about certain things that are deemed timely and relevant.
I'm a bloody beginner in philosophy and like ethics and morals a lot, yes they might change the world to a better place. But isn't it important to respect every human being, no matter what he's doing, no matter if he's a native living without knowing anything about virtues or a corrupt ceo, who might do bad stuff.
A wise man once told me, when there's somebody so angry at you, that he wants to kill you, you've definitely made something wrong
among us
The internet is such a funny place because you have such an insightful comment and the person who wrote it has an amogus pfp😭
@@dxubty Hahaha yeah was thinking the exact same ;)
I've always liked to think of philosophy in the etymological sense from the original Latin; love of knowledge
It breaks down my interest in philosophy as essentially trying to build a library of knowledge to help me understand how the universe works. This includes topics such as physics, metaphysics, logic; but also phycology, politics, sociology, anthropology, economics, geopolitics, biology, physics, empathy, social skills, language etc to connect with people and engage with the world around you to the fullest
But the simplest way to describe still comes back to simply trying to understand the world through thinking, and love of knowledge really embodies that for me so it's convent that that's the literal definiton :)
As a philosophy major I actually feel like it is hard to make a distinction between "beginner level" and like a more "advanced level" of philosophy... Sure, there are certain philosophers that are more complicated to understand because you might need some understanding of their use of certain words and expressions, but in the end if you want to read it and understand their thoughts, you will have to start somewhere. I see here comments by people saying that e.g. reading Kant as a "beginner" is a stupid idea but I just feel like philosophy is something that you just have to to jump right into it and then figure out where to go from there, trying to understand the key concepts and ideas. To people who are not used to read philosophy, I would just recommend starting somewhere with some of the big names and then just read something and if you are not really interested in it, skip it and go on to the next thing until you reach a philosopher or a topic that you find soo interesting that putting all the work to like slowly understand it is fun to you and not a difficult task...
This is why I love this channel, just the back and forth engagement in comments is very enlightening as a beginner myself!!!
The Symposium is a must read. You cannot leave that out. It is Plato's love-song to Socrates. I first read it years ago as a philosophy major. It made me thoroughly ashamed of the emphasis I was putting on grades. Also , the ring of gyges from The Republic. Both of these can be life-changing works to read.
An old college philosophy professor of mine told us that Kant’s German was so difficult to read that even the German students would learn English in order to read him in English translation.
I don’t know if it’s true but it sounds believable.
I cannot confirm that, because I really dont know, if someones doing that. But what I can say is, that Kants German is in fact pretty hard to read even as A-Level Graduates (we had some of his work in German Classes).
as a senior in germany yes he is so incredibly difficult to read
As a German I can not relate to that. In fact, we read Kant in 9th grade. And as a history student at university, who MUST learn greek and Latin, to work with historical sources I doubt anyone with a scientific approach would prefer working with translations.
@@mathiashilbert8076 I wish I was taught those languages when I was younger
@@mathiashilbert8076 Dude, where do you live that you read Kant in 9th grade? XD
Kants German is a spit in the readers face to show you what it means to have too much time to think about how you formulate your sentences in a way, that leads to the most unnecessary complications, in order to make a point, that could have been made clear in clear way, clear. Can’t imitate it properly.
Love your breakdown! It's a great list.
One comment: 'Critique of Pure Reason' and 'Being and Time' are two of the most important and influential philosophy texts of all time; they're also two of the most difficult (add in Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' and you have the whole trifecta). I wouldn't push beginning philosophy readers into that deep end just yet; they'll catch their death of German. More concise introductions to those philosophers' thoughts are Kant's 'Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics' and Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphysics?".
In addition, regarding the order of presentation, I'd read Descartes before Hume and Wittgenstein before Ayer (order of who influenced who).
To this list I'd add Nietzsche's 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' (particularly if your tastes are more toward literature than straightforward philosophy). Solid runners-up include Spinoza's 'Ethics', Kierkegaard's 'Concluding Unscientific Postscript', and Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy'.
Anyone interested in more contemporary, life-relevant philosophical thought could benefit from Robert Nozick's 'The Examined Life'.
Enjoy!
I heard once from a young man, he had psychic troubles, and he couldn't understand Being and Time, and he was reading this book again and again... it was an obsession. Then, G. Deleuze who worked a lot on Spinoza, said that there was always something he didn't understand. I personally don't think Spinoza is from any use. So Cartesians.
There is not ecumenism in philosophy.
I think it's good to start with Plato. I'm not a philosophy student (heck, not even something related), yet I found his Dialogues quite easy to digest -and also quite interesting.
I would suggest Nagarjuna's Madhyamakakarika. He talks about zeroism. He resembles kant 2000 years ago. He wrote poetically. Such a masterpiece
Yes, that book underrated ND under appreciated.
Thanks for this. What other philosophy books would you recommend to a beginner?
@@bruvhellnah Anything by Plato would be an excellent start to Philosophy reading in particular.
@@bruvhellnah story of philosophy by will durant is best and easy for beginners. Once you read it u will revisit it again and again.
For indian philosophy, bhartiya darshan by harendra prasad is excellent.
what is your point to compare Kant and some indian thinker?
For a lecture series on Kant. There is Robert Paul Wolff avaliable on RUclips.
thanks
He’s great ! Vouch
@JLchevz
Dialogues in our movie that emerge a transcdental idealism.... platos republic is a triadic division where the spheres of existence don't meet. There you don't need to read it. We do that in university and I was supposed to show up with dialogues in time with existential structures of existence....happens all the time even in high-school ..
I would include Kierkegaard's Either/Or to balance the language philosophy of the Vieñna Circle. Analytic philosophy doesn't have the tools to answer the question what is the role of the self in the organization of experience. As the founder of existentialism, Kierkegaard highlights the problematic nature of choice. He is linked to Aristotle through teleological explanation by highlighting Christianity as the goal of the ethical life. He taught us the inescapable regret built into every life decision .
K links to Dante as well in his exaltation of the Christian life. He traffics with both classic literature, history and theology.
Many existentialists didn’t even regard Kierkegaard as a philosopher. Heidegger is probably good enough to represent a continental bent - allbeit a little difficult for a beginner.
@@noahlibra I would feel that I was cheating my students were I to teach existentialism with the exclusion of the great Dane. True, he is fatiguing to read but so worth it. His wily use of pseudonyms, focus on inwardness and hyperreligiosity make him unique among engaging philosophers.
Of course it does. I don't think any tradition except the logicist has anything worthwhile to say about epistemology or ontology or anything that concerns itself about the nature of the world.
Existentialism I'd call primarily a literary and cultural movement connected to human perception of life, and as you suggest, the paradox of choice. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both considered the problem and reached radically opposite conclusions! - and the discussion persisted well into the last decades of the twentieth century. Of the two, Kierkegaard seems more like he is philosophizing honestly rather than using rhetoric to argue conclusions he has reached ahead of time. I don't agree with his conclusions but his intellectual honesty is in plain evidence throughout his process
@@jamespower5165 wait, what? You think neither Descartes nor Kant has anything worthwhile to say regarding epistemology and ontology? Who raised you?
@@sharonbre9347 Certainty nothing that hasn't been comfortably superseded in the logicist tradition. Take Descartes's inability to understand how pain or any other mental state can have a physical reality without postulating an independent reality of purely mental phenomena. It never occurred to him that what is physical isn't just stuff. That stuff can be arranged in logical configurations and the properties of those configurations will also make a difference to the physical reality. That, brain states, can make up mind. Or his saying that if a being with desirable qualities exists, an optimal such being must exist. Does that mean we can simultaneously have a spear that can pierce any armor and an armor that can resist any spear. Because there are spears that can pierce some armors, and armors that can stop some spears, the optimal counterparts also exist? It's a rookie mistake and one nobody trained in logicism, would ever make.
Or take Hagel going on about existence and non-existence as predicates and then literally building up a tangle of concepts to build on this illogical foundation. In logicism, we do this very easily. Existence is not a predicate because then nonexistence would also have to be(because the negation of a predicate is also a predicate) In reality we never talk about existence or non-existence, only the unsatisfisability and satisfiability of certain predicates. When we say a round square is nonexistent we really mean the predicate 'round square' is unsatisfiable.
We have nothing to learn(on this head) from the pre-logicists. Sometimes they asked good questions and their mistakes are illuminating. But their contributions are no longer directly valuable in any way
Even though the books shown here are unarguably crucial for understanding philosophical movements they represent/are a part of, I would argue that, for a beginner it would be much more useful to get a grip of what those movements are. Reading something on the history of philosophy, like Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy", I think would help an unknowing person understand the core concepts of most historically significant philosophies.
8:30 That was the best way to describe Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in one sentence:
The truth is paperback books will fall apart if you use them a lot.
Im from Spain and i am watching your videos to acquire more vocabulary in English. Thank you!
As a philosopher for Theological studies, this video is really well done. I agree with you on all your recommendations and reasoning. Just found your channel and it has solid content
Everyone should read:
Kant - What is Enlightenment?
Plato - The Republic
Plato - Parmenides
Spengler - Man & Technics
Hegel - Philosophy of Right
Everyone should read Plato's Parmenides? 🤣
Id also recommend “Candide” by Voltaire; definitely reveals a lot of the historical-context of the pre-Enlightenment to Enlightenment period, and also shows a lot of Voltaire’s satirical use of rhetoric to dog on religious (more strictly, theological) fanaticism, and social and political schemes.
Very easy to read, not too obscure/cryptic in language.
Do you think it is helpful to read "Candide" without reading "Theodicy" first, as the former was a response to the latter?
Starting with ‘Being and Time’ is a little bold, although I approve of the choice of text! Imo Descartes-Locke-Berkeley-Hume & Descartes-Spinoza-Leibniz are all good lines to go down for the budding philosopher, plus Plato and Aristotle obviously. Kant should probably come later at which point Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl and others can succeed a reading of Kant.
1) Write in your books. Underline, question , answer back. A half empty page?---use it. 2) In twenty years are you going to be able it pick up that box containing all your journals? 3) Pay attention to language. 4) Have at least a few books that you are not reading but just dipping into now and then. 5) This last point is the most important.
I took a class on Heidegger's Being and Time and it was the most difficult philosophy book I have ever read (and I've read Hegel). I think a beginner would get little to no value from some of these recommendations, and might be discouraged from learning philosophy. It's like taking someone who has never done math before and recommending calculus.
What I think is really cool about Plato is that he explains his philosophies in the form of stories that are clear and easy to understand in comparison to Aristotle. And the early dialogues are not only telling of the philosophies of Plato and his famous teacher, but they are also essentially biographical of Socrates! So, you're getting not only a whole bunch of very rich philosophical ideas, but you are also getting a really cool history lesson!
The problem with the Dialogues is that they promote the idea of resolving troubles through words, ie the base of democracy. So we are all required to submit to reason, to common sens and truth, to share the same truth. It's so untrue today, no one share the other's mind. And the dialogues are social, while the romantic idea is the loneliness of individuals (lincommunicabilité, Antonioni).
Many thanks for illuminating philosophy here with such clarity .
Recently, I read a book called :
Philosophy Classics by Tom Butler Bowdon which distills the ideas and thoughts of 50 great philosophers in a unique thematic format which was helpful for beginners like me. Just exploring the wonder of Being, Truth and Meaning.
Thank you so much for including Hume! I don't know why he is so overlooked.
I've had the privilege of joining some hi-level philosophy groups and studying with professors of philosophy formally and informally. I've also been part of philosophy enthusiast groups. While I enjoyed both, there was a world of difference between the two. As much as possible study with someone with training in philosophy.
How did you find these philosophy groups?
@@lisandroge Though Meetup, and also by checking event listings and posters at the local universities, including faculty departmental events and student events.
I just stumbled upon on this channel and its seems like this channel was the channel i have been seeking sense i joined youtube. I look forward oo seeing this channel blossom.
Much love!
You can get most (if not all) philosophy books for free online in various formats. I like PDF because it gives you a lot options for note taking, etc.
that's true but one of my favorite things about reading is that it takes my eyes off of digital screens for a while
Hey can you list down a bunch of places where one can find these for free?
Hey, while these are all really great recommendations, in our current time we know now that there have been many, many female philosophers who have influenced these writings and who have influenced philosophy as a whole to a greater degree than some of the people on this list. Sor Juana de la Cruz, Anne Conway, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, Hannah Arendt, Beauvoir, Emilie DuChatelet, Iris Murdoch, Damaris Masham, are all good examples, but for a more detailed look check out both the wiki page on female philosophers and this years Early Modern Philosophy edited by Lisa Shapiro and Marcy P. Lascano.
As a philosophy teacher in Brazil, my list is a bit different.
Plato, Aristotle and Descartes are the same...
But I'd sugest Malebranche "The Search after the Truth"
Spinoza's "On Improvement of the Understanding";
Kant's "Logic";
Hegel's "Aesthetics";
Adorno's "Minima Moralia";
Foucault's "Discipline and Punish".
I had good experience teaching about those. Not easy to read but nevertheless, formative. I'd suggest other ones I personally enjoy, but they can get quite obscure.
Very interesting list, just wondering why you chose this work by Spinoza, and what work you mean exactly by Kant's Logic?
@@martacusmaximoids7512 Kant's Lectures on Logic are very good. Sometimes they are edited as one book.
And why Spinoza's? Well, in this book, Spinoza treats the problem of the adequate use of reason. This is before Kant, and despite being a very dense text, it summarizes some of Spinoza's ideas on other books such as Ethics and Teological-Political Tretease. Off course this won't substitute these readings, but this is a good place of introduction and shows the importance of seeking "adequate thinking".
And the last reason is... my research on Didactics mobilizes authors from the 1600's. I'd recommend Comenius book on Didactics. Which here means the "art of teaching everything to everyone". There are contemporary readings I use to prepare my classes, but teaching in teacher education is my line of work as a researcher.
Just buy used copies of the books in the video and just put them in your shelf. People will be impressed when they see it, they'll think, "Wow he reads such deep books he must be so smart." Make sure to read a few Wikipedia article summaries of the book in case they ask you about them.
In the original language too
I'm currently reading Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Later I'm going to read Plato.
I could quibble about a couple of choices, but overall I like the list. I had a professor claim to have written his dissertation on a single paragraph of Aristotle. I'm starting to think such claims are like our grandparents telling us that everyday they walked 10 miles to school uphill, and then walked back home -- also uphill. By the way, I can barely read Hume, Kant, Spinoza, or Hegel -- so I don't. I think for those interested in the history of analytic philosophy, the natural starting point is Frege and Russell, but to understand where they are coming from, then also British Idealism, which was informed by German Idealism -- but they are not the same.
For the Pre-Socratics Oxford World's Classics has a good compilation titled The First Philosophers.
Thank you so much!
Thank you for the recommendations! One way to stretch the life of those affordable editions is clear contact paper. I started doing that in high school and can attest that it helped a lot. In fact, I still have one of the books and it looks good considering that it's from the 90s.
Packing tape works too
Surprised you didn’t include nietsche, as many find him foundational in modern thinking whether one agrees or not. 🤷♂️
And that you went with five dialogues, instead of the Republic.
Great list either way. 👍
To put all of this and more in perspective, I found Walter Kaufmann"s Critique of Religion and Philosophy most insightful.
Thanks for this. If I may offer a personal reflection: I think that, of these texts, two that sit in tension (in the philosophy of mind) are Descartes meditations and Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations. Both are compelling. But both can’t be right. So, Wittgenstein lets the fly out of the bottle; but we will always, always, go back to Descartes.
Peter
As a first touching point with philosophy I can recommend Sophies World. Its quite easy to read and summarises many important philosophers and their thoughts.
As someone who got into philosophy very early in life, early teens, and went on to get a degree my suggestion is a good compilation like Durant’s. It’s not a new book but a classic in its own. Getting a history of philosophy is in my opinion a much more accessible way to contextualize it more than anything and understanding the influences these men (yes largely men) had on one another and the broader world of ideas. If anything grabs you then allow yourself to read a little more about them. Go slow, there is more to be gleaned from reading and rereading philosophers in the same tradition if you can.
Great list - I would personally add Nagarjuna as well. It’s a bit difficult but no one has written more elegantly on phenomenology in my opinion.
@@workt42 yes I am also facing same problem. Learning will have two advantages. I am also learning Deutsch, Spanish, French and then Latin.
@@workt42 I am german and I do not understand Hegel. A new language to learn is always great , howerver I think some philosophers are just difficult to read independently if their textes are translated or not.
@@workt42 sorry, my reply should not confuse or disturb you. Please do not take it too serious, I am not qualified to speak about philosophy , I am just a very common and curious reader, who reads a little of anything (in german this is named diletant ) Persit and have joy and many achievements in your intelectual journey.
Funny how you present a way to read/study Heidegger in the exac t way I've been lately doing; hats off.
Some crazy hard books there. Anyone not doing a philosophy major might do well to just concentrate on the first three books and read them thoroughly.
Big fan of the logical positivism slander👍
"I try to think, but nothing happens." (Curly from The Three Stooges)
Profound.
As a casual armchair philosophy reader, I’m so glad to hear an educated reader of philosophy to say Hegel and Kant are hard.
I am doing my last year in high school right now-I’ll be studying philosophy as a major in Zürich next year (unless something goes terribly wrong). Videos like these help me because, while I am very interested in philosophy as a whole, the way it is taught by my teacher can only be described as an insult to the field. The man is an egocentric fool, he explains philosophers to us with no care for accuracy, always using their ideologies to put forward his own opinions, and we never read an actual text with him. This means that I find myself quite lost in the scene of philosophical literature, not yet having read any philosopher that I supposedly studied (I got a start on the Symposium and on Thus Spoke Zarathustra, for no particular reason other than that I got them for my birthday). So, yeah, thank you again :)
I love that youtube can be a resource for learning; it might not be able to replace school, but it sure gives me some useful advice on what to do while my teacher is tragically incompetent :/
I wish everyone who read this a good day (or night, depending on when you are), stay safe and stay hydrated ;)
History of Western Philosophy Russell, read widely. Start with what problem/issue troubles you or fascinates you and try to solve it.That helps open new doors.
It's crucial to read the Tractatus, before even getting the idea of reading the Philosophical Investigations - the former is where Wittgenstein exposes us to his early philosophy, which is still under the influence of positivism (I consider the later Wittgenstein not to be a positivst) of Russell. I find it useful to know where this great thinker started developing his later ideas, and reading the Tractatus, as well at least a summary of Russell's philosophy, is a nice introduction to what is then to become this satisfying work. And I would also recommend reading On Doubt, Culture and Values after the Investigations (not before, as the latter explains concepts used in the former)
I think some of these recommendations are excellent, but I think others are inappropriate in a list for beginners. The Critique of Pure Reason is essential for a dedicated student of philosophy, but for a beginner I think the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics would be a better place to start. Also, I don’t think Heidegger belongs on any list for beginners. I would replace Being and Time with Bertrand Russels’ A History of Western Philosophy and his Problems of Philosophy. I read the latter in high school and it led me to a long life of reading philosophy!
Gosh, I had just posted the same recommendations, and had the same experience.
Critique of pure reason was the hardest book Iv ever read. I’m still not 100% sure I actually understood what the hell I read, but the things I know I did understand I now practice and it inspired me enough to go back to school.
I don’t know if I’d call it beginner but I’d call it essential
I wouldn't recommend starting with Critique of Pure Reason the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics is more accessible and a lot shorter really helped me get the bigger picture of Critique of Pure Reason
All important books but aren't they a bit heavy and intimidating for a beginner ? - at least I would recommend more general books for beginners like "Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton" or "Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn". Books like those like those give one the basic ideas and concepts of Philosophy and prepare one to tackle the source material which can often be very demanding.
@@_jared Yes it is of course different if you are reading these in a course where you have a teacher to guide you - I for example read Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics in my introduction to Ethics class and I also read Descartes when studying his philosophy so I get your point. I was more thinking about someone who's not in school but is getting interested in philosophy.
@@_jared In my opinion, Örn Leifsson raises a good point. Not only many of these books are too hard for a beginner in Philosophy to read without any background (reading Plato and Aristotle is not enough, I believe), more so if not in a course context, where they can contrast their grasping of the text with the lecturer.
Even if you would like to stick only to primary sources, I would consider these:
Plato - Euthyphro or Phaedo
Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
Seneca - Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium or Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Descartes - Discourse on the Method
Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (much easier than the Treatise) or Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (for Philosophy of Religion)
John Stuart Mill - On Liberty or Henry Sidgwick - The Methods of Ethics
Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy (for analytical introduction)
Sartre - Existentialism Is a Humanism
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice (for modern Political philosophy)
I agree and disagree with all the comments that disagree. I agree because it’s probably best to start with books explaining Philosophy and it’s trajectory like Sophie's World (even history of western philosophy is easy to understand just dense). On the other hand, Philosophy is challenging and always is, even when you are an expert (coming from someone who is not an expert). You have to jump in the deep end eventually.
Also consider reading Ayer's short article entitled "What I saw when I was dead."
The critique of pure reason is an absolute nightmare to read I’m so glad you opened up your opinion with “DIS BOOK HARD AF”
You have helped me has a 15 year old getting in to philosophy.😊
It would help to read the titles, authors, and edition info consistently throughout the video and not assume someone is able to see the video and is not visually impaired or listening to this as an audio experience only.
You have helped me has a 15 year old getting in to philosophy.
i actually think this is a good beginner list. in my view the hardest here are kant and heidegger. being and time is tough, sure, but sweat it out. and for me, i’ve just personally found kant’s writing a little tougher.
Heidegger’s reliance on that Jargon heavy language is evidence that his ideas are meaningless; his ideas can’t stand on their own merits, so he has to create those buttresses to support his flawed ideas.
I dont know, Kant, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein are not beginner friendly. The Greeks are probably the best place to start for primary sources, but usually, I'd recommend some secondary, introductory sources. Or, better yet, secondary sources as a companion to primary sources
No os saltéis a los Escolásticos. Aquellos filósofos a los que veneráis se sustentan o ejercen dialéctica con la Escolástica: por ejemplo, Heidegger, que, bebe de Francisco Suárez.
The biggest problem with Heidegger is that he is ideologically loyal to a certain ‘authentic’ form of German language which is opposed to the traditional metaphysical terminology of his predecessors. However, clarity in understanding his work is contingent on discerning those relations between his thought and that of earlier thinkers. The problem is that even a reader well acquainted with the project of the German idealists will have trouble understanding the ways in which Being and Time operates as a critique of those works and therefore will find Heidegger’s own project even more abstruse than in the manner to which one may already be disposed. I would recommend reading some introductions to existentialism, shoring up one’s bonafides in medieval scholasticism, and then reading Sartre’s Being and Nothingness in tandem with Heidegger’s works, because, although the former’s project is slightly different with respect to what Sartre thinks about ‘human reality’ and the fundamental project of Being, coming to a more conclusive position than Heidegger about the nature of phenomenology and the ultimate inadequacy of metaphysics as a technique of knowledge, Sartre does explicate Heideggerian existentialism in clearer terms, and those with which someone who has studied Idealism might be more well acquainted.
Aquinas doesn't make the list?
For the Critique of pure reason, the best companion, in my opinion and generally held in very high regard, is the Cambridge companion to the critique of pure reason, although this is a pretty academic work. A slightly easier and more comprehensive one is the Routledge companion to the Critique of pure reason. For an introduction into Kant and the work itself I would recommend the text: "Kant' by Paul Guyer in the Routledge philosophers series. Reading the chapters on the critique before diving in can really help, but watching some lecture before would still be advised to start of with a general idea of what the project of the Critique is all about.
This man really recommended reading Husserl as a beginner to philosophy. I encountered Husserl in a course - so with instruction from a professor - and I still hardly understood anything. I for sure wouldn't put that on a beginner's list.
To your point of Hume at 4:40 I would say Hume is one of the founding intellectuals that in later centuries turned into British 20th century figures like GEMoore, Bertrand Russell etc.
I obviously understand the decision to include Kant, but as an introduction I think that's a choice that is going to turn a lot of people off from philosophy. I'd probably replace it with Mill's On Liberty. Otherwise fantastic list and all excellent suggestions.
Everyone needs to read St Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche.
These are philosophical musts.
Ever heard of A.F. Chalmer's "What is this thing called science?" Blew my mind open especially in light of recent "scientism" claims.
add Boethius, Kierkegaard, Mill (on liberty), Nietzsche, subtract Heidegger.
Some of those are for grad students, but they’re not a bad take on a “best of”.
Thank you! Always nice to see a list of recommendations with a short explanation why these particular are books suggested. Also thank you for the “be practical and pragmatic” advice! Sometimes I want to dish out more money on a nice hard cover book, but then I’m afraid to take it out of the house and damage it somehow. Books are meant to be read and studied. It’s nice to have a beautiful collection at home, but there is not much use if you don’t actually read them.
Ugh I read Kant, wrote an 8 page essay on his work, and still have no clue what he was on about. 😂
I do not think this is a a very good list for beginners. The Plato and Aristotle suggested are both good, but the particular works of Hume and Kant suggested here are very much not good choices for beginning students and will likely put the reader off. For Hume I would suggest either "The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" which is much more polished and accessible or even "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." For Kant, I would suggest either "What Is Enlightenment?," "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals," "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics," or maybe a collection of his political and ethical works, such as "Perpetual Peace and Other Essays." Also, Heidegger and Wittgenstein are not good beginning choices as they are both difficult in their own rights and also presuppose that the reader is well versed in much of the tradition. There is a tendency among graduate students and even PhD's to forget how much they have learned and to misjudge what would be appropriate for a reader who is really just beginning. So, as a set of beginners suggested readings, this is not a very helpful list.
I agree with you about Virtue ethics and the move away from said subject!! Maybe they lack the courage!
Your recommendations lean towards knowing about philosophy as a tool to understand the world around us, but the majesty of philosophy is it’s love of wisdom that opens the door to the Oracle of Delphi’s proverb to ”Know Thyself”. And this is best ignited by the works of Pierre Hadot such as “Philosophy as a Way of Life”……for in the proper understanding and practice “Well being is realized in small steps, but that is no small thing.” -Zeno
These titles are indeed important to world literature (and your summary is incredibly helpful!). But the video should be named "8 Western Philosophy Books..." (which is 100% OK). Otherwise, we are insinuating that the vast majority of humanity from South Asia, Africa, the Far East, South and Central America, Oceania etc. has said, written or thought nothing of value in philosophy.
'Philosophy' being a word from ancient Greek, "Western philosophy" is a pleonasm. To designate all non-Western thought with a monolithic term connoting a specific cultural and historical formation is itself a subtle form of cultural imperialism.
This in no way means that non-Western thought is any less interesting or worthy of study than philosophy, just that we should call it with appropriate terms.
Heidegger? - Not a good idea. If you think logical positivism is disastrous Heidegger has to be off the scale.
Descartes Méditations are extraordinary, possibly the best philosophical writing of any time (you certainly do not have to agree with him though). If you can read French, the translation (from Latin) supervised by Descartes is wonderful. I do not know what to say about Kant, he did not attempt to be readable.
I would recommend Bertrand Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'. It is well written, not long, though actually quite dense. It packs a lot into a few pages.
What unites Descartes, Hume and Russell is the clarity of their writing and their clarity of thought (Plato similarly). Academic philosophy needs to be far more critical of opacity. It should take the example of science. In fact the harder the concepts, the clearer the writing needs to be.
Heidegger is impossible to read for an undergrad. But he did teach at on of my schools. Freiburg.
“The Philosophy Book: From the Vedas to the New Atheists” 2016 by Gregory Bassham. 527 pages, oversized book with many illustrations. A much easier and broader look at 2500 years of thinkers in one-page nutshells.
Thank you. Subscribed and waiting for new videos! 😄
I would add "8 Books of Western Philosophy" you should read. Otherwise what is with Laotse or the Upanishaden?
I think those works of plato are good, but a more complete selection would be to add the republic and gorgias. Republic is going to give the platonic idea of justice and why we should be just, which many philosophers comment on, and gorgias distinguishes rhetoric from philosophy/logic and it's importance in protecting yourself from rhetoric.
What if I want to engage into Philosophical buggery and ignore the cannon?
Thank you. I have found my niche
Thank you for your work in philosophy.
Thank you so much for this video!
A very good beginner book is "philosophy and cosmovision" by Mario Ferreira dos Santos. Unfortunately, the book is only available in portuguese and the lastest edition of the book isn't so good. Mario is, according to many people and a great brazilian philosopher, the greatest brazilian philosopher of all times, although he has been forgotten even by ourselves.
For the criticizing comments: The title never says beginners and he literally says that critique of pure reason is a challenging read.
I think that people are referring to the video's description.
What about The world as Will and Representation?
Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
Are great Wisdom literature as well would recommend it.
Colossians 2:8 (ESV): 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Whenever I read philosophy by someone like Focault I take my time… I’ll read like 18 pages in an hour when I’d read other non philosophical books that are 300+ pages in like 3 hours…
I would like to recommend shri "Bhagavad Geeta" and other Indian philosophies to know the real meaning of life .....then you will know that other philosophies are meaningful or meaningless.
I jumped to the Kant section directly, then I hear you saying "this is not my copy, this is my wife's copy". Words couldn't describe my envy.
I would add Spinoza to this list!
I will concentrate on Spinoza, opening to any mind!
This is an excellent list. Just found your channel and now newly subscribed.
I think Hume is the greatest thinker of all time, who can overcome his skeptics?
When you say “read a little bit” what is your process on how to determine the best passages to read and those to omit? I recently finished John Locke’s Second book of Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The version I own is Dover 2 Vol. set. It contains copious amounts of footnotes (many of which are great in themselves) but the first volume I basically read word for word. Every page. This left me feeling like I could have spent those hours diversifying and my into others like Hume. However I also have this “completionist” mindset about many things in life, not just reading. I would love to hear your feedback! Thanks for the good video.
Excellent video, so refreshing from the normal stuff on here talking about "nice" covers, Vampires, Dragons and comics, sorry graphic novels. Keep up the good work.