8 Philosophy Books You Need to Read
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2024
- Want to start reading philosophy? Here are eight books we recommend.
Some of these are difficult for beginners, but they are well worth the effort. Spending time reading a difficult work of philosophy will make you a better reader and a better thinker.
Enjoy!
Intro 00:00
Plato's Five Dialogues 00:56 (amzn.to/3hz89wG)
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 02:35 (amzn.to/3TlS6je)
Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature 04:10 (amzn.to/3O0uj7h)
Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy 06:14 (amzn.to/3tmNJtK)
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 08:07 (amzn.to/3hr6g5b)
Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic 10:04 (amzn.to/3A7g9f0)
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 11:00 (amzn.to/3UJsEFm)
Heidegger's Being and Time 12:13 (amzn.to/3TlTdPW)
We use affiliate links with Amazon
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?
@@wtfmoment5761 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 .
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 :)
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!
This is why I love this channel, just the back and forth engagement in comments is very enlightening as a beginner myself!!!
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
This is a great video! I’ve been wanting to dove into philosophy and was intimidated and unsure where to start. This gave me some great direction! I’ll definitely be picking up a few of these titles!
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.
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"?
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.
Thank you so much for including Hume! I don't know why he is so overlooked.
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.
Im from Spain and i am watching your videos to acquire more vocabulary in English. Thank you!
Thank you for your work in philosophy.
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.
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.
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
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...
Thank you so much for this 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.
Funny how you present a way to read/study Heidegger in the exac t way I've been lately doing; hats off.
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. Subscribed and waiting for new videos! 😄
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.
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.
You have helped me has a 15 year old getting in to philosophy.😊
This is an excellent list. Just found your channel and now newly subscribed.
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?
For a lecture series on Kant. There is Robert Paul Wolff avaliable on CZcams.
thanks
He’s great ! Vouch
@JLchevz
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.
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. 👍
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?
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).
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
You have helped me has a 15 year old getting in to philosophy.
thank you for this.
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.
Plato's Five Dialogues 00:56
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics 02:35
David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature 04:10
Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy 06:14
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason 08:07
Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic 10:04
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations 11:00
Heidegger's Being and Time 12:13
This won't make you any smarter, read mine : Twilight of the Idoles.
Thank you so much!
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.
Cool suggestions. Subscribed.
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.
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
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
It's crucial to read the Tractacus, 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 Tractacus, 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'm currently reading Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Later I'm going to read Plato.
Big fan of the logical positivism slander👍
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.
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.
Great video i have been considering reading the Plato dialogues, you might’ve sold me on them! Also, question!!! I thrifted a copy of the myth of Sisyphus + other essays by Camus recently but I don’t have a strong philosophy foundation. I’m not sure if I should jump into it or get a better basis of absurdism first? Any recommendations would be appreciated thank you!!
Also consider reading Ayer's short article entitled "What I saw when I was dead."
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.
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.
For the Pre-Socratics Oxford World's Classics has a good compilation titled The First Philosophers.
Thank you so much!
Nice collection 👍
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.
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.
It would be great if you do a similar video but talking about ethics!
Thank you. I have found my niche
To put all of this and more in perspective, I found Walter Kaufmann"s Critique of Religion and Philosophy most insightful.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about The Kybalion and hermetic philosophy
"I try to think, but nothing happens." (Curly from The Three Stooges)
Profound.
Subscribed for sure👌
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? 🤣
@@Cynthia-uf9ro Sure. Or all of the dialogues. I did.
Excellent video
I am new to Reading Philosophic books... (Actually books in General 😅)...
I started with "Thus spoke Zarathustra" by Nietzsche which took me like 2 or weeks or so (and I read at least an hour each day) it was very hard to read for me, but very interesting (even though its not a "classical" philosophical book).
And I am struggling very much with Kant, so I am glad I am not the only one 😅. And as a native german speaker I can only agree that he has a very troublesome german.
Hegel however is quite funny to me (at least the First Pages I looked into), because he writes very "cerebral" 😅
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.
@@_jared
Hello, friend, I have a question
@@_jared
I'm planning to go into philosophies of Hegel, Kant, Schelling, Focault, .. and a whole lotta German and French thinkers.
And I'm also planning to learn a German and French language for that..
Is learning a German for say, Hegel for instance, necessary?
Or does it offer an immense benefit for understanding?
Yunno, philosophers like Hegel/Kant are notoriously to read, so I have this idea; maybe the translation process from one language to another, *among other things* ,causes some loss of context and content.. etc.. hence making the study project more difficult than it was in the original language..
Is the effort of learning a new language worth the benefits here?
Is it worth the hassle?.. are my underlying assumptions even correct?
I hope to get an answer, thank you
@@metro2197 yes I am also facing same problem. Learning will have two advantages. I am also learning Deutsch, Spanish, French and then Latin.
@@vedanshvedansh844
Glad someone feels the same
Thanks for the response
@@metro2197 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.
Great picks
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?
I hope you do recommended philosophy books for beginners. 😊
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Thank you for this insightful video! I’m still in high school and I’ve been researching philosophy more in depth for around a year now. I’m interested in learning philosophy to an academic degree but I know majoring in philosophy might not be possible for me; do you have any advice on pursuing philosophy academically? Are taking philosophy classes without studying specifically in the field of philosophy as pertinent? Is it possible to “become a philosopher” without years of in depth study(masters/doctorate degree)? Higher education is very expensive and my parents simply don’t value philosophy whatsoever, I just don’t want to dismiss my ambitions and dreams due to my parent’s negation. Thank you!
Read in your free time. If you are dedicated and interested you can achieve more in your free time, than in uni. Uni is good for discussions and clarifications how to interpret certain aspects, but not necessarily needed. Being a philosopher is a state of mind, not a piece of paper that says so.
If you are really invested, you can learn German and enrol in FernUniversitätHagen. A degree in cultural sciences costs about 1700 €.
Дякую!
Дуже цікаве та корисне відео!
As a casual armchair philosophy reader, I’m so glad to hear an educated reader of philosophy to say Hegel and Kant are hard.
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”
Intriguing. Good recommendations. Commenting for algo boost as well.
What is Wittgenstein saying?
Well, he's saying and demonstrating that he is socially incompetent, inept and slightly, just slight post-modern but not enough that he can be considered or be rightfully called one. Positivism and the consensus is that it's kind of morally or ethically unfeasible and questionable at most.
Nice to have Ayer here as well. I'm not gonna deny that Wittgenstein is intelligent, but socializing and speech goes hand in hand with language.
In regards to Heidegger, some called him a Noughtsee sympathizer or a faschizt which I have no words why. I just thought it would be interesting to bring up. He's good though.
I'd add The Republic for good measure.
Wanted to get your opinion of Mortimer Adler's book "Six Great Ideas" Looks like a good intro to basic ideas.
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.
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.
One of the earliest philosophy books
I read and engaged with was
A. J. Ayer's "Language, Truth and Logic"
at age sixteen.
It was also one of the first books
where I saw flaws in the argument
It marked the movement from
being a sponge reader to being in dialogue with the writer
and I had the Penguin/Pelican edition
and the margins were scrawled over
because logical positivism just destroys itself
with its own arguments.
My first philosophy book
was "The Prince" by Macchiavelli
which as a thirteen year old on a camping holiday
in the Malvern Hills in England
with my family was a bit bored
and begged for some pocket money
and got given 50 pence to buy
books and a comic
(this was 1976 BTW)
I paid 35 pence for the George Bull translation
in a Penguin Classic edition
and was enthralled by it.
I agree with you about Virtue ethics and the move away from said subject!! Maybe they lack the courage!
To the uninitiated, me, what is logical positivism and why should "logical positivism be avoided at all costs"? Maybe a future video is pending. I'm glad I found this channel, subscribed, and am looking forward to becoming initiated.
Best to look up A J Ayer on CZcams. There's a Brian McGee interview that's an excellent starting point.
The idea that positivism is all bad is ridiculous. It's an excellent point of departure for serious philosophy. But it doesn't get the job done. The reasons which are technical are extremely important. Much better than vacuous continental philosophy where everything goes
Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heidegger is impossible to read for an undergrad. But he did teach at on of my schools. Freiburg.
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.
Many thanks and also to the erudite and informative commenters. In truth I have learned that I know only one thing - how little I know! It is so helpful to have this kind of guidance as to where to start.
Ever heard of A.F. Chalmer's "What is this thing called science?" Blew my mind open especially in light of recent "scientism" claims.
Kayan Kollyn: the spiral of the ellmott & messenger of the secret
😮😮😮😮
One of the great fantasy adventure saga book series ❤❤❤
😊😊
Waiting for your review
very interesting list, and while they are for sure all "classics," I'm far from certain they, certainly in whole, are appropriate for beginners. I have three types of observation. 1. would maintain a firewall between continentalism and most everything else on your list not Heidegger. the forms of argumentation are soooo different (ok Wittgenstein is Sui generis). I'd have two lists therefore, with Heidegger, Neitsche, Camus, Ricour... and a second that looks more like you list above. 2) some of these texts are either good in part, and or nearly impenetrable, e.g., good luck to the new reader without the guide of a good commentary to dissect Kant's transcendental deduction, or, parts of Hume are brilliant, on sense and causation, others much less impactful. 3. I would try to pick a few topics that are both central and interesting, and then effectively a virtual anthology. here are a few targeted thoughts (I confess a Parfitian bias - he supervised my D.Phil and well.. I find his work fascinating and well written).
1. logical positivism (not easy going but its central)
- selections from CPR on analytic/synthetic and synthetic a priori
-Selections from Ayer
- Quine, two dogmas
2. solipsism/private language
--wittgenstein , phil investigation sections-ish 256 and etc
-kripke - wittgenstein on rules and private language
3. skepticism
--plato allegory of cave
hume, treatise sections on causation and induction
--decartes, the cogito
4. personal identity
-- lives of Theseus, Plutarch Theseus' paradox
-Reasons and Persons, Part III
5. Thomas Nagel, View from nowhere
6. Moral and political
- parfit, on what matters, vol 1 parts 2 and 3
- Rawls, a theory of justice
7. just because its a great puzzle, Newcombs problem by nozick.
not saying I have the topics or selections perfect, but if I were to introduce someone to philosophy not to cover the classics per se, but to show them the problems to wrestle with written in a compelling, targeted and at least arguably accessible if only because of keeping the most inaccessible bits to a minimum, this would be my list
-
Hi Jared. I have a couple questions. As a math guy, I am very curious about Pythagoras. I know he did not write anything, but can you recommend good reading on his philosophy? I also wonder how you feel about studying the western cannon in relatively chronological order?
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