What Should Be Read?

[ComradeRed]

What should one read? Should one read the earlier works of the classics and then move onto the critiques and essays thereof? Or should one read summaries of the classics and move from there? Or should one merely read the classics and write critiques et al? Or Shoulf one read the urtexts of post-renaissance writings(e.g. enlightenment and after)? Or should one ignore the classics in its entirety?

[Essential Insignificance]

One should read when one has time to read; one should read what one is capable of reading; one should always be reading.

One of Essential Insignificance's much loved axioms. :lol:

Schopenhauer once said something to the effect: "so many great books to read, yet so little time."

And I agree.

[Palmares]

I think the best thing is to first understand the concepts that you are dealing with. Some (if not many) philosophical works can be, lack of a better word, pithy. Reading closely and carefully is a must.

I am not expert on this (as I still find varous philosophical works somewhat difficult to read), but after you have gained a general understanding of the concepts, I would say reading summaries would be a safe next step.

If you are lazy like me, try reading philosophical fiction. :lol:

[apathy maybe]

Make sure you read Terry Pratchett's books on the Discworld. Another really good read is 1984 (and Animal Farm too). The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (a trilogy in five parts) is essential reading as well.

I can't offer any non-fiction, but once you’ve read them (above) you'll be set for Science Fiction. And if the first book you read is shit, don't give up. Ray Bradbury’s earlier work wasn’t great but his Fantasy is good. Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy (just read the three) is good. Tolkien, The Hobbit is a classic. I could go on, but I won't.

EI has good advice, but maybe slightly extreme (you need time to sleep and fuck (I was going to have eat in there, but you can eat and read at the same time)).

(oh wait, books on philosophy? For the layperson? Alice in Wonderland, but that’s only because Alice in Wonderland is the best book on anything for the layperson.)

[anjali]

I think classics are The Books that enlightened people to change the world, books that everyone knows. Surely The HObbit does not belong to these books. Orwells 1984 does though.

My opinion is that one should start reading as much as time permits. For example not lose alot of time in ancient philosophy, but should read the basics and summaries of them and some critiques. (ancient philosophy contains all greek, roman indian and chinese). He can then I think move on to some summaries of the philosophy and books of the Arabians. And then start reading whole books of the Rennaisance and the Enlighment. Spinoza, Decart, John Lock, Rousau, Machiavelli, etc. The closer one gets to the early 20th century themore books from that time he should read. Marx of course, Nietzche and of course not only the works on materialism and dialectical materialism but also the opposing philosophy of idealism with Hegel. From 20th century i think one should move to Karl Popper from germany and Jean Paul Sartr. Oh I almost forgot Wietgestein I think is important.

Then there are other classics that someone should definetely read. Or lets better say that there are some classic writers from which one ought to have read at least one book. These are I think Oscar Wilde, Bertholt Brecht, well I think I can say JRR Tolkien, Albert Kamy and probably Orwel together with Frederico Garcia Lorca.

As Essential Insignificance posted "so many great books to read, yet so little time."

I would not like to enter the realm of poetry here, because the list will get to big.

[redfront]

I think a great starter for any novice on the subject is "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig.
It offers both ancient Greek philosophy and philosophy from the 20th century, together with some eastern thoughts and by the way a great story :)

[Proud Mary!]

If you decide to start reading philosophy, then you should be aware that it is a long journey to go. In order to completely understand one particular position you have to overwhelm all of the preceding philosophies.
My advice would be to determine the topic you're most interested in, and then start exploring from ancient times to nowadays.

For the example: if you decide to read political philosophy, you should start with Plato and Aristotle (reading The State, Politics and possibly Athenian Constitution)...
Then Machiavelli (paying special attention to changes he innovates in political theory - politics becomes techne instead of being praxis...) You can continue with theories of John Locke, Tomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau (paying special attention to the idea natural - state, law and right; idea of common will...)
You shouldn't overlook ideas of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant (opposition among utilitarism and deontology). Try to read some of the works of Alexis de Tocqueville (pay attention to the idea of tyranny of majority)
Now the big bite - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. You cannot understand Marx if you haven't read Hegel. It's just impossible. Though, Hegel is extremely hard to digest, I recommend all kinds of secondary materials. Especially the book on Hegel written by Alexander Kojeeve ("Reading Hegel" or something like that).
Now, you can move to Marx and other leftists (Engels, Trotsky...) and potentially close the cycle reading modern authors as Noam Chomsky, Karl Popper (I strongly recommend his critics of Marxism published in "Open Society And His Enemies").

Try to find internet resources for the topics you explore, study guides, secondary materials... I recommend this site:
EPISTEME LINKS (http://www.epistemelinks.com)

It's not necessary to read oriental philosophy, because it has completely different foundations from western philosophy.

[redfront]

Originally posted by Proud Mary!@Oct 18 2004, 12:13 AM
It's not necessary to read oriental philosophy, because it has completely different foundations from western philosophy.
Yet it is philosophy..

[monkeydust]

Just read what you enjoy reading, and what you're interested in.

Anything else just won't work out.

[Pete]

Don't skip the Early Christians and Latins between the Greeks and the Early Moderns, that would just be wrong. Plotinus and Augustine will help show that Machiavelli did not innovate as much as would seem if you skipped those 1800 years.

[Proud Mary!]

Guys, you're right... But, look what I had on mind...
Philosophy is such a complex thing, it needs years and years of studying
+ you need to have a good mentor + it is desirable to have a discussion group, lectures...
And still, one is always convicted to be like Socrates: to know that he knows nothing :unsure:

Philosophy is my professional orientation, but you can't expect from everybody to be an expert! Intellectuals need to know certain things, but not necessarily everything. I reduced the reading list to most important authors. It's helpful to make a strong structure of knowledge... later, one can fill in the gaps (if he's interested to do it) but too much information just wont work with somebody who's not devoted strictly to philosophy.

[simonamstell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:32 AM
What should one read?MARSIPAN Should one TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA COLLIDGE ? FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMINread the earlier works of INCONCLUSIVE the classics and then move onto the critiques and essays thereof? Or should FOD one read summaries of the classics and move fromWOOLEYBACK there? Or shouldHERRING one merely read the classics and write critiques et al? Or Shoulf one read the SUPERMAN AND PAULA BROWNS NEW SNOWSUIT urtexts of post-renaissance writings(e.g. enlightenment and after)? Or should one ignore the classics in its entirety?
I HOPE NEXT TIME U GO TO SLEEP THAT U DONT WAKE UP

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:17 PM
I HOPE NEXT TIME U GO TO SLEEP THAT U DONT WAKE UP
we just heard this one
little vocabulary he



i think everybody would like to die like this,you will surely not.




nazi on boards.

[simonamstell]

shut it u foreign git

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:19 PM
shut it u foreign git
leuk what fun

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ah
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: hu





sorry for this tread......

[simonamstell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:34 PM
sorry for this tread......
we all accept ur apology although i tink it would ave been better if u apologised for ur existence.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 09:56 PM
we all accept ur apology although i tink it would ave been better if u apologised for ur existence.
i thought it is like personal.anyway i won't apologize to you.bozo

[simonamstell]

omg learn proper english before u talk to me again. None of your posts make sense. I seriously hope u die very painfully.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
omg learn proper english before u talk to me again. None of your posts make sense. I seriously hope u die very painfully.
i forgot

va te faire encule tete de mort
car la vie n'a de sens que le jour ou on meurt

[gaf]

i forgot to say sorry RS to smash your tread :( :( :(
but action means reaction...stupid one i agree,but yeah i now have a little clue.....