The first 7 philosophy texts you should read
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2024
- I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
Descartes’ Proof of God’s Existence in Meditation #3: • René Descartes - Medit...
What is a Counterexample?: • What is a Counterexamp...
I am Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and here is a list of the seven philosophical pieces of writing that I think someone first getting into philosophy should read, and why:
Plato’s Euthyphro (~399 BCE)
Rene Descartes’ Meditations
Princess Elizabeth's letter to Descartes
David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
HP Grice's Logic and Conversation
HLA Hart's The Concept of Law (just chapters 2, 3, and 4)
Peter Singer's Famine Affluence and Morality
Awesome video! Here is the list:
1. Plato's Eythyphro;
2. Decartes' Meditations on First Philosophy
3. Princess Elizabeth's Letter to Decartes;
4. Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion;
5. H. P Grice's Logic and Conversation;
6. Ch. 2, 3, 4 of H. L. A. Hart's Concept of Law;
7. Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality
I wish I had Kaplan's videos when I was an undergraduate! I've returned to the study of philosophy of later in life, and his videos are a great boon.
Schopenhauer's Notes on Pessimism, Sun Tzu's Art of War, and Aurelius' Meditations are always left off of academic reading lists. It's a good scam the colleges got these days.
@@weathforjr Sun Tzu's art of war is actual garbage. As for Aurelius, Meditations isn't exactly a philosophical work. There were much better more in-depth *philosophical* texts than Aurelius's mediations, such as those written by Epictetus. Finally, Schopenhauer doesn't really get left off academic reading lists so I'm not sure what you're on about.
@@Attalic Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure eastern countries take it very seriously, as they teach it to children. I'll let them know your assessment of their cultural and military history, and I'm sure they'll take notice and stop circulating it immediately.
Was in American schools for 16 years, and the closest thing that was ever mentioned to me of Schopenhauer was his student Nietzsche. Was never on 1 reading list I ever encountered. I'm sure there was no logic behind that, and purely coincidental... had plenty of Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse thrown my way though. I'm sure just random, that.
Same with your estimation of Aurelius. I never said "StaY aWAy FRom CIceRo!", so I don't know what YOU'RE on about...
Thankfully, neither of us has to take the other seriously. Grand how that works, eh?
@weathforjr Considering Meditations is less a philosophical text and more of a self-help book, I really don't see the value in teaching it over other books that cover the same material much better.
As for your mention of Marcuse and Marx, I'm not sure what you're suggesting?
Finally, appealing to other cultures as proof of the valuability of a text is pointless and does nothing. For instance, if someone defended some of the heinous things stated in Mussolini's works by appealing to Fascist Italy, you wouldn't say that they've defended the text itself, much rather just its historical role.
Aristotle wrote dialogues too. They are all lost, but were very highly regarded in antiquity. The most famous was "On Justice." What we have of his writing today are his lecture notes (or so say most scholars). That's why they read so strangely.
yep. some scholars reconstructed the Protreptikos in a conversaational format, and it reads much easier than his ubiquitous lecture notes, which can be very ...ahem... dry. only true Aristotle buffs and fanatics will read Prior Analytics with enthusiasm for his method.
@@biln2 if I would give 2 books of philosophy to anyone it would definitely be Aristotle's Nichomenian Ethics and a second variable depending on my mood. But Aristotle would definitely be there.
Apparently Aristotle's dialogues weren't highly regarded enough for them to be preserved.
The only people that are favoring Aristotle in the comments, are the ones that want to defend physicalism, it's clear by the line of defence used, that's a perfect example of being intellectually dishonest.
Yet another commenter that reallllllly needs to be in the video, that really needs to gain attention.
Please post more often, Professor Kaplan! I had you as a GSI during my undergraduate years at UC Berkeley, and I am so happy to have found your CZcams channel. You were the best GSI I had at Cal! The clarity of your teaching (as I remember it from section years ago and still in these videos) is truly a gift. You have the ability to make learning anything really fun (let alone philosophy which I enjoy). UNCG and all your students are lucky to have you. Thank you!!!
Hello! I am glad I left a positive impression at your GSI.
I love that you seem to genuinely love teaching and imparting knowledge to students. I think it would be great to be a student in your class.
Plato is actually extremely fun to read. I listened to a lot of his works in audiobook form, with different narrators for the different people participating in the dialogues. It almost made it sound like a modern day podcast in a way, I would recommend this to everyone.
What is the version that you listened to?
I will seek it out on audible
@@ianyoung6706 the ones narrated by Ray Childs
could you do a video on how to object to philosophical arguments by attacking premises, using counterexamples, spotting logical flaws or attacking metaphysical underpinnings?
That's a good idea. I don't have a single video on all of that. But for a start, here is a video on counterexamples: czcams.com/video/jPdZ42UX41A/video.html
Also another based on unlawful fallacies
u want vdo of it , thn it is just knwlg, not wisdom,
@@defghi9698 ?
@@AGirlyBoi Maybe you can start with reading lot of philosophy, contemplating over it, talking to people of diff ages.
Brilliant! Great approach towards making philosophy fun, clear, approachable! I enjoy your videos immensely! The energy and passion you keep putting into explaining these concepts - remarkable! Transparent whiteboard making it even better. Great work, man!
Thank you. That's very kind!
@@jeffreykaplan1 I've been trying to figure out how the transparent white board works. You aren't writing backwards. Correct? How do you have the writing come through properly oriented. Do you flip left and right post production? Film a mirror reflection of the live production? Something else?
@@acaryadasa my thought is he flips it horizontally in post as he likely doesn't wear a wedding ring on his right hand.
I have been looking for this channel for more than a decade. Not in name, but in spirit. Glad to have finally found it.
I found _Russell's Paradox_ in my suggested feed a few days ago and loved it. I'm working my way through the rest of your catalog now. I can't believe I (and apparently many others) have been sleeping on your channel for so long. This is really good stuff! And the presentation is easy to follow and engaging. Absolutely love it.
I wish I had resources like this when I first began to dive into philosophy. So many "masterpiece" works are incomprehensible drivel to the average Joe, who knows how many people have been turned off to philosophy as a whole because they didn't start in a good place. I know I was almost one of them. I'm so glad something like this exists to help people begin from a solid starting point.
I'm sure there's a tired joke to be made about _what else would he do with a philosophy degree other than teach philosophy_ but it's clear that you've got a real talent and passion for it.
I'm probably gushing a little much here, but hopefully this helps to get mor3 attention from The Algorithm™ to spread your stuff around some more.
Go ahead and gush... this guy is really really good. I too found the Russel's Paradox talk suggested, and I never inteded to watch 20 minutes or more of technical philispoical double talk. But I was riveted for the entire talk. Profesor Kaplan really has a gift.
Descartes‘ Meditations was one of the first things I read when majoring in philosophy. It is a great Text because of its simplicity and because you can really follow the argument and see where the premise stops and the conclusion starts.
This guy is great. I watched his videos on how to be a better student, and I managed to go from C's and B's to one B and all A's in college.
Wow, that's great to hear. Glad my advice was helpful!! Pass it along.
Great stuff! Your energy and way of explaining things makes a lot of these more complicated issues way easier to understand as a relative newcomer and your students are very lucky.
Stumbled on this and other videos of yours, and they are fantastic. Feeds a strong interest of mine and will guide my ongoing deep dives. Thanks so much!
Can’t wait to start reading these! I’ve been wanting to start reading philosophy, but had no idea where to start. Thank you sooo much!
Very nice choice and great presentation. Descarte's Discourse on Method is mandatory reading in French high school and the cornerstone of logical thinking, at the origin of both abstract scientific research and French Enlightement. Having a "cartesian spirit", searching for the principles behind the symptoms, is deeply engrained in French minds.
I would add Louise Labbé's Debate of Folly and Love, pursuing Plato's Symposium to analyze how love, even disappointed, creates the impulse for creativity, achievement, mixing illusion and aspiration to perfect harmony.
I'm so glad I've found this channel. Thank you.
Thanks for acknowledging Princess Elizabeth!!😍😍👏👏👏God bless you!!
So glad I found your vids through your reddit post. Your sense of humor and ability to make topics easily digestible, if you had the chance to write a book on philosophy I would buy it in an instant lol
I am busy publishing academic papers in order to get tenure at the moment. But a book (or two) will be coming soon!
Man had been posting mad videos for the past 3 years. How am I just getting recommends now. Instant new subscription!
Thanks very much for recommending Famine, Affluence, and Morality! I read it right after watching this. What an incredible paper, certainly a lot to grapple with.
It should be noted that Plato wrote the texts bearing his name. Aristotle's texts are probably compilations of notes taken by his students. The texts are redactions.
Excellent, thank you. Grice and Implicature have always astounded me for the charity of thinking that his analysis needed, and yet it is so obviously true that you think, how could we possibly have not understood that before? Wonderful.
Loved learning about Grice's work when I was studying linguistics.
Thank you Professor Kaplan so much for sharing this. I am just wrapping up a Philosopy 101 course that covered the first 4 items. I have added the last three items on your list to my future reading list.
Thanks for the video, now I know what to read to start learning philosphy
My man, you have found your calling. Thank you for your work.
I’ve wanted to access philosophy for years. Thank you for this video.
Professor Kaplan, I you read these comments then I get to reiterate what many others have said; you are very good at what you do. I had to subscribe.
Ran across your channel through your video on set theory and Russell's Paradox. Amazing work. Addictive binge watching.
I’m so glad to see a new video of you😍
I like that you jump around and point out the most talked about and undersrandable portions of works. Too often, people suggest you read one 500+ page book after another. That approach can be fine, if you are already super motivated to read philosophy. Most people aren't that robot like though.
A really fun text I read in philosophy class on highschool was Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's simple but kinda weird and you can also do as we did in class and make your own critique of it.
I like Anselm's formulation of the ontological argument much better than I do Descartes'. Neither formulation, however, can escape Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate.
I have never read any of these but thanks for the nice short introductions, they seem succinct and precise 😅
You are an excellent teacher. Please continue making these videos.
Hey,
Loving your work after watching your video on Peter Singer. Was just wondering if you would recommend After Virtue by Alasdair Macintyre, or know of any texts I should also read alongside it?
Thank you for this amazing list. I was wondering if there were any accessible reading materials you would suggest to get into Eastern Philosophy?
I first read Singer in the early 80‘s. I’ve carried his views with reflection since, with some affection.
Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", as well as Saint Gregory Palamas's “Triad” and “Apology”.
I am bored and stumble upon this video through algorithm. And it's not disappointing at all. I have read one of these reading list (like meditation by Descartes). This guy open possibilities for me to read similar tone of works in philosophy reading that is so beginner friendly yet intriguing at the same times. Thanks, professor :)
I enjoy your content; thank you for helping me progress in my learning journey.
I consider chapters 1 and 2 of Aristotle’s Metaphizica to be the best starting point as he literally comes with a genealogy of knowledge
I hope it isn't unwelcome for me to make requests like this in your comment section, but I would love to see a video series on James's Pragmatism lectures at some point! No other philosopher seems to shoot himself in the foot so often to actually make himself understood by his readership, a fact made all the more troubling by how clean his prose is. Whereas other philosophers are challenging because their writing is dense or even obscurantist, James's is hard to understand because it so radically appears otherwise. I have a bias here in that I'd consider myself a pragmatist, so of course I want to see content on James, but this is an influential piece of writing whose unassuming appearances make it prone to dramatic misinterpretation. Regardless, adore your videos!
Great video! This was a well thought out list, and I surprisingly haven't read all of these books. Can't wait for new videos
Thank you, my thinking self feels much better situated.
Love H. L. A. Hart's little book (the only J. L. Austin book I've ever read is the even smaller How to do Things with Words). So far as 'legal studies' in general are concerned I also dug a few very different, perhaps more 'literary' as opposed to 'technical,' texts: Sir Henry Maine's Ancient Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes' Breakfast Table series, and a mammoth biography of Learned Hand I read a few years back, the author of which now escapes me! Will check out the Grice paper --thanks!
I concur with you on Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason._ Also with your quip about Singer's _Famine, Affluence, and Morality,_ as I have a hard enough time getting enough quality sleep. By the way, thank you for introducing me to that last work.
I just found this channel and absolutely love it. As far as is being could you touch upon the theory that the universe as we know it could be the creation of a highly advanced computer programming set to create a universe based on evolving programming?
I was wondering only yesterday about something along the lines of Singers reasoning. basically... why is it ok to justify just about any policy that is in the national interest, no matter how damaging it might be for others. Glad I found this, I will read it.
Greatly appreciate the Hart suggestion. Might have my students look at this.
A fellow Philosophy CZcamsr! Keep on doing the good work.
I didn’t have you as a GSI at Berkeley, but I’m so glad you included Princess Elizabeth’s letters to Descartes. They were part of the readings in Crockett’s Descartes course and I remember thinking why doesn’t anybody ever mention these letters when discussing Descartes. They’re so important!
Wtf I was in that class too. Small world
@@luketorre5116 It’s been like 8 years and I still think about Hintikka’s paper on cogito ergo sum. Such a great class.
Good shit. Keep'em coming doc
Man, amazing video, almost convinced of reading his recommendations, never philosophy in my readings..thanks.
Good evening sir! I am a student of UCP and attended your lecture on Law and Morality. I wanted to thank you for imparting your knowledge and expressing philosophy so well!
My plunge into philosophy occurred in the Seventies, but bypassed all the names listed in this piece and instead led to De Beauvoir, Sartre, Camus, Russell and various writers whose works involved philosophy, but were not in themselves philosophical treatises, Hesse, Huxley, Kafka among others.
De Beauvoir's "The Blood of Others" kept me awake at nights in an existential dilemma! 😅
De beauvoir is marxist trash, better to read manga than that crap
Have you discovered Castaneda and Ouspenski?
@@thoseaglestone9372 do you.mean Carlos Castaneda ?
@@13locomamama yep!
@@thoseaglestone9372 can I ask you why do you mention him ?
Is Euthyphro ever translated in multiple ways so that virtue and piety get mixed up, or is their conversation essentially just about virtue despite them going over piety? Are the two conflated in translation?
Mr. Kaplan how can we study Rhetoric and master oratory like Cicero, Churchill Lincoln etc?
Your channel is a goldmine
Was just watching this and thnking Professor Rosencrantz had me read all those back when I took his philosophy classes at UNC-G. And then you said the thing about UNC-G:)
Your channel is amazing man!
I have studied philosophy for more than half my life recreationally and in academia. All your recommendations are great and I to recommend that you read all of. That being said the bible has some of the most elegant answers to all of these questions. Especially when it comes to number 3
Lawl. A lifetime of reading philosophy and all for nought.
When I was adrift doing my masters with one abandoned thesis topic under my belt, I had a vague idea to write about first aid ethics, inspired by my time volunteering with my campus first aid team. My advisor gave me Singer's Famine and told me to respond to it. It ended up being the crux of my first chapter as I tried to argue that Singer's requirements to act are too strong and narrow to be a useful framework when examining actions along a beneficence continuum. I argued that knowledge (specifically phronesis, or practical wisdom) is the key to selecting morally appropriate actions in emergencies (that's the gist, but there was a lot more that went into fleshing it out). I found Singer super frustrating because of how good his argument is, and it took me a long time to turn my vague hunch into a defensible position.
Anyway, this video was a great walk down memory lane for me!
If I may ask you as someone who is in the field: Have philosophers managed to, shall we say "dismantle" some of those Singer's arguments in the past 50 years since they have been proposed? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if there is a consensus on this topic?
This is such an interesting video, I was fascinated by your beautiful tie!
:>
Thank you for your suggestions. (Do you write backwards or alter the video?)
The video is flipped in post. He made a video explaining the university's light board here
czcams.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/video.html
I might just read Logic and Conversation first because the concept of it intrigued me so much!
But hey, did you notice that while the first texts are somewhat "western-global", the last ones are mostly from the English speaking world? Don't you think there might be a bias at work here, that one believes that ones surroundings are of more "general importance" than they really are, as in, in 500 years from now, professor Jeffrey Kaplan VII might be recommending texts from today that are "western-global" rather than the anglosphere ones you're recommending?
I'm just rambling here, great video none the less!
Would consider making a video on philosophy book recommendations covering metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic??
Would recommend reading “The Problems of Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell before any of the works in the list?
The Eloquent Peasant from The Middle Kingdom of Egypt is an excellent philosophical piece regarding the obligations that the wealthy and powerful have towards society.
Truly amazing presentation and selection. Can't thank you enough for directly aknowledge and then just cut off all the bloating usually invade any text about thinking.
(I know it's just the first 7; however just curious if) any reason Aquinas and Nietzsche weren't included - i.e.
1. because some of their best arguments are "redundant" to your list? or is it moreso ...
2. just not in the first 7?
Edit : thanks BTW awesome presentations etc.
While I do not know his reasoning as such, his list is very similar to what I read in my analytic philosophy undergrad. We did a lot of Plato, starting in fact with the Euphythro, as well as Descartes' Meditations, tons of Locke and Hume, skipped Kant, and read Singer and Hart. The entirety of medieval philosophy was skipped (since supposedly nothing pertinent happened in the 1000 years between St Augustine and Descartes) and Nietzsche was considered as not really philosophy and something one might better study in the literature department. I think analytic programs tend to shy away from broad sections of philosophy.
thank you for the advices!
Is there an anthology you recommend to beginner students of philosophy interested in reading the most influential pieces throughout history in moral philosophy?
the question about where you should start with reading philosophy is what it is that you want to gain from it. there is no singular answer, though this is a fairly good list for people wanting to understand several key points in the history of philosophy
I'm reading coherence of the cohorance by Averroes, I find it so good.
Puzzle: 7:35 , Video answering: 8:36
For Grace's Puzzle, is the answer the expected reply in this context (An answer to the question "Is X a good student"). The hidden meaning conveyed in the question not being answered, presumably out of politeness; implying the 'negative'.
Fantastic ! I miss when philosophy channels were more about philosophy and less about performance.
Thank you, Jeffrey!
Fantastic! Could you do a part 2 with your recommended introductions into Islamic and Eastern philosophy?
I would think An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding would be a better choice for Hume since it has most of the same points as the Treatise, as well as some of the points on religion in the On Miracles section.
In general I think a lot of people getting into philosophy are interested in Existentialism, and since most of the existentialists are also very literary in the same vein as Plato, I think they are good places to start.
I do understand a little, but it helps me to expand my logic. Subscribed with pleasure♥. May I ask you to explain the mathematic Discriminant? I was pretty good in school at calculating it, but I never understood the reason why I do it.
It's to see whether your solution is imaginary
Thanks for the Grice. I hadn't heard of him, and in fact when you said it, I thought _Greiß._ Anyway, I just read the paper.
One good recommendation deserves another. Along these lines, here are two:
The former is _Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things_ by George Lakoff. It gives a description from a cognitive science perspective of something called _Idealized Cognitive Models,_ which are related to an older idea by Chuck Fillmore called _frames._ Grice's _maxims_ could be massaged into a CONVERSATION ICM, but there are many others. This gets very interesting. Consider the utterance
_John isn't stingy; he's thrifty._
Note that _isn't_ does not negate any predicate. It negates the ICM or frame, suggesting that a different one is better.
The latter is Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense." This presages a lot of cognitive science by a century. Very few philosophers seem to know about it, and the ones who do seem not to focus on the parts relevant to CS.
This is actually pretty cool. My introduction to Philosophy was Nietzsche (like so many other people) and even if I like his work I have to say that it’s not for everybody. Also the recommendation changes if you want to understand whats Philosophy all about or you want to understand a particular topic.
Great video by the way
I would say read process and reality first, it’s clear concise and short!
Hi, i've just subrcribed. I studied philosophy of science and politics for my degree in Behavioural sciences - you are persuading me to take up more readings in other areas
As an attempt at a solution to the Euthyphro, there is an interesting article called "Abraham, Isaac, and Euthyphro" by Norman Kretzmann that is worth checking out.
Are there any philosophy texts that incorporate principles of praxeology and economics? I would think, at the very least, game theory would be extremely useful in helping to determine principles of ethics and morality.
I love linguistics and structuralism, and I have not read Grice. Thanks for the reccomendation!
Thank you Professor
Simply fantastic.
Thank you for this very helpful video.
I am more interested in metaphysics, ontology and the philosophy of self, rather than ethics or law or morality.
Can someone please recommend good, well translated introductory texts on this matter? The older the better.
Professor Kaplan, could you recommend an agile, brief reader, anthology or introductory textbook for brilliant but young readers? I a 10 year old who has pointed questions and shows some interest in the world of ideas. I would like to kindle rather than suffocate it.
I'm probably prejudiced as a german legal positivist but I think the most clear treatise on legal philosophy is Kelsens Pure Theory of Law in its second edition. After that I'd recommend Alchourron and Bulygins "Normative Systems" and, for a view on sociological view on the legal system, Niklas Luhmanns "law as a social system" . A newer book which I find great is Scott Shapiros "Legality" .
Otherwise I find most books by Dworkin, Finnis, Alexy and other people of that ilk to mostly be empty moral gesturing. But that's a matter of taste probably.
I want to know where you got a huge (plexi)glass plate or window to write on. I'm assuming you just have a dark curtain behind you.
I would also discourage reading primary sources unless you are interested in going to graduate school in philosophy. This may sound like heresy to some philosophers, but contemporary renditions and recapitulations are far more accessible in terms of their writing style and presentation of the material. By reading the canon and its translations, one simply adds an additional layer of difficulty that 95% of students at 95% of institutions do not benefit from and in fact struggle with already. However, for the top 5% of students at any given institution or for the elite top 5% of institutions (like Harvard) then reading primary sources is absolutely critical, especially as preparation for graduate study.
It's is far too common of a trap for professors to teach to create yet more professors, but that is not a sustainable model for the growth of a profession nor a public service, which is part of the point of practicing philosophy to begin with.
Contemporary pedagogical debates over reading the canon remind me of mid-20th Century debates over reading the classics in the original Greek or Latin. It simply adds an additional layer of difficulty without furthering one's comprehension of the arguments and ideas. One of course can still be proud of such a difficult task, but this form of pride resembles those who play games on optional challenge runs or iron-man modes: the extra difficulty is not profitable for its challenge and is quite arbitrary.
Why Euthyphro over The Allegory of a Cave or Apology? I've had professors give both of these as readings in history and philosophy classes but never had to read Euthyphro before (in fact it is one of only a couple works of Plato I have not read so I probably should).
I started Plato with Meno, and I thought it was a beautiful introduction. I prefer it over Apology, because it contains much of the same material, but in practice. In Apology, Socrates describes his method; in Meno, he applies it. Though the Allegory of the Cave is very important, it's also smack dab in the middle of the longest dialogue by a very large margin (Republic), and its probably best understood in the context of the rest of that work.
I'm liking your clear cut and well explained videos on philosophy, but if I may recommend using a better microphone. The audio is ok but even a slightly better mic could make it sound a lot better.
YES. Seriously, I will Venmo this dude $100 if he'll just buy an AT2020 and use it.
Best advice I've ever gotten regarding philosophy - from a group of numerous Philosophy PhD holders no less - was to skip the books and read papers. That said, my experience was that some INTRO texts that gave a shallow-but-broad awareness provided the necessary basic understanding needed to then pursue papers. Further, the very first exercise I found truly valuable was just looking up various fields of philosophy, finding the briefest of summaries of various positions in those fields (for example, logicism, formalism, structuralism, platonism, etc... with regards to philosophy of math) and finding out which ones were closest to the ideas I had at the time.... then digging in deeper to those positions and a little bit into the others to firm up my own understanding. Then came the deep dive into papers.
I actually advise AVOIDING the classics. Look, anyone who knows Kant knows he was a poor writer and that his style does not communicate well nor translate well with/to the modern vernacular. And he's relatively recent compared to sources like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Sextus Empiricus, etc -- so imagine the disconnect there! Instead, read papers that provide modern analyses of these sorts of texts.
May I suggest Principal Upanishads by Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan. While Upanishads are very old. His explanation is in English and very readable.
Thanks,what about epistemology, which text you recommend to read?
I recommend Ed Gettier's landmark, very concise and clear, 1963 paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" His answer to that question is "no" and he presents a couple counterexamples aimed at showing that.
@@jeffreykaplan1
I love that paper. It was one of the first papers that I read as a young teen, because I didn't understand how anyone knows anything at all. The problem of, "Do people know anything?" still bothers me to this day (I'm 29 now), but I try not to let it bother me too much. Life seems to continue on despite our not knowing much of anything. 🤣
@@jeffreykaplan1 Honest question, why not Theaetetus? It addresses the very same question, and also ends with a "no" answer, and is one of the more compelling works of writing I've ever engaged with.
Hello, I have a question: are you the same Jeffrey Kaplan that wrote The Reconstruction of the Ásatrú and Odinist traditions back in the nineties?
He received his undergraduate degree in 2009 (according to the UNC website) so it seems highly unlikely!
Grice's "Logic & Conversation" is something of a surprise as a recommendation for introductory readers. Grice's conception of implicatures makes more sense in the context of the linguistic turn in early 20th Century analytic philosophy, especially post-Wittgenstein.