metaphysics and an intro to philosophy

[the last donut of the night]

i basically come here in need of some clarification. i've gotten interested in philosophy, but i really don't know where to start, since the entire thing seems like a huge tangle -- every term leads to an older interpretation, to a different school of thought, etc. this is especially true of modern philosophy, that hearks back to metaphysics but critiques it (idk?). any help for a confused new guy?

[Mr. Natural]

Last Donut, I fairly recently began wading through philosophy texts, myself. The work that really unsnarled some of the tangles as regards Marxism and the materialist dialectic is Helena Sheehan's Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1983). This is a rich, easy read, and it clears up some significant misunderstandings as regards the relationship of Marx to Engels and the dialectic. It is also an excellent introduction to prominent Marxists and their scientific/philosophic positions.

Here is what Sheehan has to say of her work: "It is the story of the shifting nexus of science, philosophy, and politics within Marxism ....This work attempts to give a historical account of the development of Marxism as a philosophy of science, as well as a philosophical analysis of the issues involved. This volume encompasses the first hundred years of the existence of Marxism, beginning with the mid-1840s when the philosophical ideas of Marx and Engels began to emerge in mature form ... It deals both with the mainstream of the Marxist tradition in the development of dialectical materialism as a philosophy of science and with the diverging currents advocating alternative philosophical positions. It shows the Marxist tradition to be far more complex and differentiated than is usually imagined ...."

Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc., are also extensively dealt with in this carefully researched work.

[Decolonize The Left]

i basically come here in need of some clarification. i've gotten interested in philosophy, but i really don't know where to start, since the entire thing seems like a huge tangle -- every term leads to an older interpretation, to a different school of thought, etc. this is especially true of modern philosophy, that hearks back to metaphysics but critiques it (idk?). any help for a confused new guy?

This is a really general question... need more specifics to help.

- August

[o well this is ok I guess]

This is a really general question... need more specifics to help.

- August He's asking how he ought to ease himself into the study of philosophy. You know, so he's not in the dark when kierkegaard makes fun of hegel or why so-and-so declares metaphysics kaput or whatever

[The Jay]

I say just jump right in and start with Plato's Republic and build up from the Greeks on-wards. That way you'll get all the nuances of the other philosophers criticisms.

[Deicide]

The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel is a good start. Although it has shortcomings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy#Reaction_and_after math

[Caj]

The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel is a good start. Although it has shortcomings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy#Reaction_and_after math

Yeah, I'd second this. Although Russell doesn't make any attempt to maintain objectivity and often goes more in depth into history than necessary, it's still the best introduction to philosophy that I've encountered.

[Dean]

i basically come here in need of some clarification. i've gotten interested in philosophy, but i really don't know where to start, since the entire thing seems like a huge tangle -- every term leads to an older interpretation, to a different school of thought, etc. this is especially true of modern philosophy, that hearks back to metaphysics but critiques it (idk?). any help for a confused new guy?

Philosophy is not about having full ownership over the subject at hand. You "are doing things right" if you can read some philosophy and "fill in the blanks." The problem is that it can be so damn vague. But it doesn't have to be, depending on what (who) you're reading.

Wittgenstein said that if something was real, it couldn't be expressed in words, and that if something could be expressed in words, its not real. It sounds absurd, but think about it more closely: words are definite concepts, and the world is ultimately uncertain. In the same way, math is a reflection of reality - reality and math will never add up to be exactly the same.

The point is... you won't pick up a book and say "aha! that's precisely how I feel" unless you're being dishonest. Even those philosophers who I most respect often say things I think are absurd. But sometimes, I read something and say "I thought I was the only one who thought that way." Trust me, read enough and you'll find that happen to you as well. It will help you learn about your own thought processes, give you different ways to look at something, etc.

If you are reading philosophers and you need the Oxford English Dictionary to get what they're saying, then you're reading something that you shouldn't be reading. Some people like to be very concise, and that is fine, but it shouldn't take 10 citations to get one sentence. I learned more from Erich Fromm and Karl Marx than any other authors, and they are cited as being easy reads for their respective subjects. Fromm is much easier because he wrote in English and in the 20th century. Chomsky is great but he can be dry - a good option with him is to search indexes or online resources of his works for whatever topic you are interested in.

As I've gotten older, I can stomach "wonky" philosophy with more citations, more obscurity. But its absolutely not worth it if you can't go for a page without scratching your head over what is being said. Take things slow, and it will be more enjoyable, and ultimately you'll end up going much faster than I think you would otherwise.

[ChrisK]

I'd recommend Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy. Its more accurate than Russel's and is a good introduction to the many schools of philosophy.

[ChrisK]

Wittgenstein said that if something was real, it couldn't be expressed in words, and that if something could be expressed in words, its not real. It sounds absurd, but think about it more closely: words are definite concepts, and the world is ultimately uncertain. In the same way, math is a reflection of reality - reality and math will never add up to be exactly the same.

He most certainly did not say that.

[Kronsteen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy#Reaction_and_after math

That article links to another on Frederick Copleston's much larger 'A History of Philosophy', which is very readable and thorough, if you don't mind it being slow. If you have a local university with a decent library, they'll probably have a copy.

Alfred Ayer wrote a sequel to Russell's books, called 'Philosophy in the 20th Century', which is worth looking at.

Oddly, I've never come across a good marxist history of philosophy. Some terribly written ones, and horribly inaccurate ones - but none I'd recommend.

Has anyone found any good general philosophy primers from a historical materialist perspective?


Wittgenstein said that if something was real, it couldn't be expressed in words

What an utterly bizarre thing to say about Wittgenstein. The closest he came was "Whereof we cannot speak we much be silent", which referred to spiritual or religious matters beyond science.

[Lyev]

I study philosophy at college (UK college -- I'm 18) and the way we started the course was with a unit called "grounds of epistemology". This may sometimes sound a bit lame and may not tickle your fancy right away, but it helps introduce a number of key concepts and helps with a simple introduction the basis of philosophical argumentation and language, I would say. We have read only two texts over the past 2 years -- J.S Mill's "On Liberty" and Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism", both of which we went through incredibly slowly, both with study guides and also a lot of discussion, debate and essay writing in between.

[L.A.P.]

I always think that if someone wants to know a good place to start on philosophy it's Republic by Plato.

[Kronsteen]

For those looking for an introductory overview of western philosophy, this youtube channel contains a classic BBC series of philosophers discussing 'the greats':

http://www.youtube.com/user/flame0430

This was actually my own introduction to philosophy, and I still recommend it.

[Sans]

Wittgenstein said that if something was real, it couldn't be expressed in words, and that if something could be expressed in words, its not real. It sounds absurd, but think about it more closely: words are definite concepts, and the world is ultimately uncertain. In the same way, math is a reflection of reality - reality and math will never add up to be exactly the same.

The point is... you won't pick up a book and say "aha! that's precisely how I feel" unless you're being dishonest. Even those philosophers who I most respect often say things I think are absurd. But sometimes, I read something and say "I thought I was the only one who thought that way." Trust me, read enough and you'll find that happen to you as well. It will help you learn about your own thought processes, give you different ways to look at something, etc.

The first paragraph is correct but I don't think the second follows. Wittgenstein's comment on what can be said can't be shown, and what can be shown can't be said, can be extrapolated to situations (combinations of objects), but opinions and thoughts seem to me expressed in language, and thus something that can be said. From that we get that a text in a book could in fact express precisely how you think.

As we know, Wittgenstein argued against statements like "my idea is that p" referring to mental objects or phenomena, but rather as expressive statements like simply "p".

[Deicide]

OP check out this podcast series ''The Partially Examined Life''.

http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/

[L.A.P.]

Three Minute Philosophy videos on YouTube are pretty funny too.

q34MHpBu0Oo

Tm0Uq08xXhY

Mz_iGGGMddw

BHihkRwisbE

X-buzVjYQvY

r3QZ2Ko-FOg

xwOCmJevigw

[[email protected]]

Get the Russell.

What area of thought interests you? Marxism, Anarchism, Christian Socialism, other specific socialisms?

If you're interested in a history of Marxist thought and thinkers, get the history of ideas by the late, great Polish socialist, Kolakowski entitled Main Currents of Marxism.

If you're interested in Marx in particular, I'd get the McMurtry, Structure of Marx's Worldview. If sociology, read something by Coser e.g. Masters of Sociological Thought. If you're interested in a serious treatment of Marx by economists get something by Cohen or someone else from the Analytical Marxist school.

If you're interested in unions or activism, I can probably recommend something more practical.

[Reify]

When starting out with philosophy, I'd recommend either starting with Plato (who documented a lot of his teacher's, Socrates, philosophy, as well as being a philosopher in his own right) or with Descartes. They say that all of (Western) philosophy are footnotes to Plato, largely because a lot of the issues we explore in philosophy today were issues that Plato was concerned with in his day as well. Questions such as 'what is knowledge?', 'what is virtue?', 'what is truth?' etc etc are all characteristic of the type of philosophical questions Plato (following from Socrates) was interested in.

Descartes is often regarded as the father of 'modern' philosophy. He's famous for his method of philosophy which starts with doubting the reality of everything, and then attempts to prove their existence. I'm not very good at explaining this, so I recommend Brian Magee's talks which are available on youtube. They are very good basic introductions to major philosophers, each lasting about forty minutes or so. Here's the one on Descartes which I recommend: '[please remove the spaces; I'm not allowed to post links apparently]

www . youtube . com / watch?v=44h9QuWcJYk

It's worth checking out Youtube for lectures like this as they are very effective in engaging the uninitiated, whereas delving right into the works of philosophers themselves can be daunting at first. But when you can, I recommend reading the raw material before going to secondary literature, as everyone in philosophy has an agenda to push. One of my personal favourite lecturers on Youtube with a clear left-wing agenda is Rick Roderick, and it might well be worth trying out his lectures on Socrates if you're interested.

www . youtube . com / watch?v=6ABpkmMoQUc

If you're interested in Nietzsche, I'd be glad to tell you the little I know about him. I'm just finishing off my undergraduate dissertation on him, so I know a bit now.

[Reify]

When starting out with philosophy, I'd recommend either starting with Plato (who documented a lot of his teacher's, Socrates, philosophy, as well as being a philosopher in his own right) or with Descartes. They say that all of (Western) philosophy are footnotes to Plato, largely because a lot of the issues we explore in philosophy today were issues that Plato was concerned with in his day as well. Questions such as 'what is knowledge?', 'what is virtue?', 'what is truth?' etc etc are all characteristic of the type of philosophical questions Plato (following from Socrates) was interested in.

Descartes is often regarded as the father of 'modern' philosophy. He's famous for his method of philosophy which starts with doubting the reality of everything, and then attempts to prove their existence. I'm not very good at explaining this, so I recommend Brian Magee's talks which are available on youtube. They are very good basic introductions to major philosophers, each lasting about forty minutes or so. Here's the one on Descartes which I recommend: '[please remove the spaces; I'm not allowed to post links apparently]

www . youtube . com / watch?v=44h9QuWcJYk

It's worth checking out Youtube for lectures like this as they are very effective in engaging the uninitiated, whereas delving right into the works of philosophers themselves can be daunting at first. But when you can, I recommend reading the raw material before going to secondary literature, as everyone in philosophy has an agenda to push. One of my personal favourite lecturers on Youtube with a clear left-wing agenda is Rick Roderick, and it might well be worth trying out his lectures on Socrates if you're interested.

www . youtube . com / watch?v=6ABpkmMoQUc

If you're interested in Nietzsche, I'd be glad to tell you the little I know about him. I'm just finishing off my undergraduate dissertation on him, so I know a bit now.