- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“Theses on Feuerbach” by Marx. Only half a page of A4 large print, and gave rise to hundreds of volumes of research, even without taking into account the Soviet literature, they have a super-concentration of creative thought. On the second place in my personal list is Montaigne's “Experiments”.
I am not a philosopher and this, of course, limits the possibilities of my perception of philosophy. Therefore, I like books that stand, in one sense or another, on the border of philosophy and something else. For example, I really love Descartes ' Discourses on the Method , a work that is not so much a philosophical treatise as a story about life's journey or, as they now like to say, an intellectual autobiography. Small works by Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov “The Meaning of Love”, “Plato's Life Drama”, “The Idea of a superman”. They are very bright and rich in ideas, but they do not differ in convincing arguments, which does not bother me at all. Certainly Russell's “History of Western Philosophy”, which is also on the border of philosophy proper and cultural history. Leibniz's “monadology”, which primarily affects the scope of the imagination. I am very close to the genre of aphorisms that discuss philosophical issues. First of all, Pascal, who is incredibly deep in this genre. The Apocalypse of Our Time and other collections by Rozanov, Wittgenstein's Culture and Value, and Goethe's magnificent aphorisms scattered through various books. Closer to our days – articles by Averintsev and Mamardashvili. However, they are still more cultural historians for me. Well, my favorite philosopher is Max Scheler, from whom I read and love (and, like, more or less understand) almost everything.
I am still under the impression of Spinoza's “Ethics”. Although most of the things that are written in it can and should be argued, I still admire Spinoza's sanity. Especially sharp is the “Addition” to the first chapter, where he perfectly carries the concepts of good/evil, innocence/sin, beauty/ugliness, and others that are so beloved by many. In other words, in any intellectual conversation, an irreplaceable thing and an endless source of thoughts with which it is interesting to agree and even more interesting to argue.
Although I am an atheist, it turns out that the second hero of this answer is also a religious philosopher – Søren Kierkegaard and his “Either-or”. Very witty, intricate, twisted like a good complex novel treatise. In contrast to Spinoza's sanity, here is the naked blood, tears, and lymph of a man who is trying to recognize the absurdity of God. And spit on Hegel's grave as heavily as possible. The intonation of the whole book is not in the spirit of “boys, I'll explain to you how much” like in Hegel or Aquinas (they had their own reasons for this, what's more), but a painful attempt to believe for yourself, to understand for yourself, to see for yourself. We like to print a separate piece of “Either-or” called “Diary of a Seducer”, but it's like reading the chapters of “Anna Karenina” or something similar torn out right in the middle-it seems to be interesting, but it makes no sense. Kierkegaard is a man who is painfully stuck in solving the question that Dostoevsky will later raise. The question of the “child's teardrop”. Both Kierkegaard's silence and tossing are much more convincing and clever than Dostoevsky's decisive answer.
Plato's “State”. I can't say that I understood everything that was written there, but you can think about each sentence from different points of view and evoke a ton of different associations.
This is one of the first works of Western philosophy, and it already raises many topics that will then be studied by other philosophers for more than two thousand years (and after us, too).
And, no matter how much anyone scares the complex and incomprehensible philosophy of the ancient Greeks, Plato has an extremely simple language.
Diogenes of Laertes. “On the life, teachings, and sayings of famous philosophers.”
Juicy. It's fresh. Available. Not boring at all.
I feel free to recommend reading it to everyone, not just lovers of philosophy. You don't even need to read it in a row. Start, say, with a story about Diogenes. You will quickly see that the ancient Greek philosophers were not very boring people!
For example, the aforementioned Diogenes once shouted – “Hey, people!” – and when the people came running, he attacked them with a stick, saying: “I called people, not scoundrels.” And in general, mixed with wild jokes about the rulers, fellow philosophers and all the rest, surprisingly subtle observations about the universe and society.
I don't like pure philosophy. I sincerely consider it the most witty and profound book describing the Buddhist philosophy of the universe in the form of a story – “Chapaev and the Void” by Pelevin.
Bertrand Russell-A History of Western Philosophy. Perhaps the most comprehensive book on the subject, full of relevant humor and healthy skepticism. After reading it, you realize that “everything has already happened”)))