Hippofant put together a fantastic list on the first page, you need to not ignore the texts he said. I am puzzled by the grouping of Nietzsche in with the 'tough reads' though. He is far and away the most enjoyable philosopher to read for me, nearly god damned poetry at times. At the very least some Zarathustra couldn't hurt him, though I think the existentialists in general should be second priority to a lot of other stuff he could be reading.
I'm gonna do some semantic slicing here, but hey, it's a Philosophy thread.
Nietzsche isn't hard to read. He's hard to understand. He's a bit of a Renaissance man, dabbling in a variety of subjects, and he sometimes writes more for style than ease of understanding. It's just based on my personal experience of speaking with people who misunderstand major Nietzschean ideas like the ubermensch. I'm not a Nietzschean philosopher, mind you, but it really seems to me that Nietzsche gets misinterpreted and misquoted a lot, perhaps by people who don't study the entire scope of his work. (Ie, "God is dead" is a sociological/ethical statement, not a metaphysical statement on the non-existence of God. Nietzsche doesn't really do metaphysics or theology.) Some of this misunderstanding may be from me even, but a lot of Nietzsche is open to interpretation and debate by even seasoned philosophicators.
I'd agree with you that it's generally a problem with all existentialists. They'll write novels filled with hidden meanings and they're not hesitant to use a little literary flair in their formal works either. It's not just limited to the German existentialists but the French too. Sometimes you just can't tell if the bit you're reading is Dostoevsky or Aristotle. As such, I'd say for most newcomers who just want a 1-work representation of a movement, the existentialists should generally be off-limits, but at the same time Existentialism is an important movement that you can't really ignore in the purview of Western Philosophy.
So I just suggested Existentialism is a Humanism, because it's a short, summary work from Sartre. It's based on a lecture, so it's written for ease of understanding, and it's light on the repetition. The major themes are clear; the language is relatively jargon-free; and it's an appealing work. Nothing else existentialist I've read has been as easy to both read and understand. Works like Zarathustra, Nausea, Waiting for Godot etc, might be easier to read, but the core themes and ideas aren't as evident, whereas works like Being and Nothingness or Beyond Good and Evil contain difficult ideas - beings-for-others and the will to power are somewhat convoluted ideas.
I dunno. Different levels of interest and commitment will find different approaches better I think.
You make a good point - though it helps to have some sort of familiarity with the concepts of Nietzsche's work before going into it, moreso than most others. With the proper background so one doesn't get lost in all the prose, I still think it's a solid recommendation, though like I said the existentialists should be low on the totem pole of stuff to go through. (Though still on the totem pole, mind you.)
I also do second Existentialism is a Humanism. It is a pretty quick read and definitely easier than Sartre's other stuff, though is still extremely poignant at times.
UnknownSaint on
0
Options
firewaterwordSatchitanandaPais Vasco to San FranciscoRegistered Userregular
YES. YES. A thousand times yes. I only came into this thread to make sure someone mentioned this book. It should be required reading at some point in one's education. It's really, really good.
Buy everything you can find by Nietzsche and Rand. Take all the books and place them in a big pile, douse them with gasoline, and set them on fire. Curl up by the conflagration with something by Plato and enjoy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
"How do I know I exist?" Descartes' Meditation on First Philosophy
"Does God exist?" "Do we have free will?" St. Augustine's On Free Choice of the Will (and maybe Confessions), and Anselm's Basic Writing.
I guess you could also throw in Leibniz in here, too.
"What's our natural state (human nautre)?" Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's Two Treatises of Government or Rousseau. I find Hobbes' philosophy to be more accurate than the others, though.
That's a start, but I strongly suggest you have someone guide you through the readings since it may be a bit confusing at times (aka take a class).
Other than that, I suggest against reading Kant on your own. One of my professors knows someone who's been trying to fully understand Kant for many many years, and he's still at it. Chances are, you won't beat him to it.
While all of the recommendations here are good, don't sell yourself short by only considering Western philosophy. Eastern philosophy is just as important, and there are some truly great works that you'll never hear about in Western tomes or classes:
Chuang Tzu
(A much more approachable Taoist work than the Tao Te Ching, IMO)
There are a number of books on Buddhism and Hinduism as well (I'm too lazy to look for links) but you'll find that going through the Eastern works will give you a new appreciation of some of the more familiar Western ones.
I was amazed that this suggestion didn't pop up earlier.
I don't know how popular this book is in the states, but practically every introductory philosophy college-level course over here refers to this book as studying material.
I personally got rather ticked off at sophie's whineing throughout the book (it's written like a dialogue, where an expert on philosophy explains it all to a brainless nitwit). Very accessable, and covers virtually everything (in western philosophy). You can just read this, highlight the names that appeal to you, and use these names to guide you in your further reading...
The_Glad_Hatter on
0
Options
The_Glad_HatterOne Sly FoxUnderneath a Groovy HatRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
Sorry for the double post: i clicked quote instead of edit.
I was amazed that this suggestion didn't pop up earlier.
Some of us got into Philosophy before Sophie's World was published, went back to read it, and found it hugely annoying because we've had it about up to here with Plato and his misrepresenting, oversimplifying, straw man dialogues! I hate him and all his one-sided dialectical offspring.
Posts
I'm gonna do some semantic slicing here, but hey, it's a Philosophy thread.
Nietzsche isn't hard to read. He's hard to understand. He's a bit of a Renaissance man, dabbling in a variety of subjects, and he sometimes writes more for style than ease of understanding. It's just based on my personal experience of speaking with people who misunderstand major Nietzschean ideas like the ubermensch. I'm not a Nietzschean philosopher, mind you, but it really seems to me that Nietzsche gets misinterpreted and misquoted a lot, perhaps by people who don't study the entire scope of his work. (Ie, "God is dead" is a sociological/ethical statement, not a metaphysical statement on the non-existence of God. Nietzsche doesn't really do metaphysics or theology.) Some of this misunderstanding may be from me even, but a lot of Nietzsche is open to interpretation and debate by even seasoned philosophicators.
I'd agree with you that it's generally a problem with all existentialists. They'll write novels filled with hidden meanings and they're not hesitant to use a little literary flair in their formal works either. It's not just limited to the German existentialists but the French too. Sometimes you just can't tell if the bit you're reading is Dostoevsky or Aristotle. As such, I'd say for most newcomers who just want a 1-work representation of a movement, the existentialists should generally be off-limits, but at the same time Existentialism is an important movement that you can't really ignore in the purview of Western Philosophy.
So I just suggested Existentialism is a Humanism, because it's a short, summary work from Sartre. It's based on a lecture, so it's written for ease of understanding, and it's light on the repetition. The major themes are clear; the language is relatively jargon-free; and it's an appealing work. Nothing else existentialist I've read has been as easy to both read and understand. Works like Zarathustra, Nausea, Waiting for Godot etc, might be easier to read, but the core themes and ideas aren't as evident, whereas works like Being and Nothingness or Beyond Good and Evil contain difficult ideas - beings-for-others and the will to power are somewhat convoluted ideas.
I dunno. Different levels of interest and commitment will find different approaches better I think.
I also do second Existentialism is a Humanism. It is a pretty quick read and definitely easier than Sartre's other stuff, though is still extremely poignant at times.
YES. YES. A thousand times yes. I only came into this thread to make sure someone mentioned this book. It should be required reading at some point in one's education. It's really, really good.
"Does God exist?" "Do we have free will?" St. Augustine's On Free Choice of the Will (and maybe Confessions), and Anselm's Basic Writing.
I guess you could also throw in Leibniz in here, too.
"What's our natural state (human nautre)?" Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's Two Treatises of Government or Rousseau. I find Hobbes' philosophy to be more accurate than the others, though.
That's a start, but I strongly suggest you have someone guide you through the readings since it may be a bit confusing at times (aka take a class).
Other than that, I suggest against reading Kant on your own. One of my professors knows someone who's been trying to fully understand Kant for many many years, and he's still at it. Chances are, you won't beat him to it.
<- Philosophy Major
Chuang Tzu
(A much more approachable Taoist work than the Tao Te Ching, IMO)
The Analects of Confucius
There are a number of books on Buddhism and Hinduism as well (I'm too lazy to look for links) but you'll find that going through the Eastern works will give you a new appreciation of some of the more familiar Western ones.
I was amazed that this suggestion didn't pop up earlier.
I don't know how popular this book is in the states, but practically every introductory philosophy college-level course over here refers to this book as studying material.
I personally got rather ticked off at sophie's whineing throughout the book (it's written like a dialogue, where an expert on philosophy explains it all to a brainless nitwit). Very accessable, and covers virtually everything (in western philosophy). You can just read this, highlight the names that appeal to you, and use these names to guide you in your further reading...
Some of us got into Philosophy before Sophie's World was published, went back to read it, and found it hugely annoying because we've had it about up to here with Plato and his misrepresenting, oversimplifying, straw man dialogues! I hate him and all his one-sided dialectical offspring.