7 Answers

  1. We study philosophy for one semester, the lecturer gave a list of additional literature, here are some points:

    1. “Philosophy” by Zotov, Mironov, Razin

    2. “Basic concepts of metaphysics” by Martin Heidegger

    3. The newest philosophical dictionary. Minsk, 2003

    4. “A textbook on philosophy” Alekseev

    5. All people are philosophers ” Popper

    There is probably more interesting and not so educational and scientific literature, but I wanted to share it with you, in case you find something of your own

  2. I would recommend to start not to read textbooks, but rather, let's say, to cultivate the spirit of philosophizing and asking questions about the world around you. For this purpose, it seems to me that it is best to open Plato's Dialogues, starting, of course, from the early ones, and some, like Parmenides, it is better not to open at all. In general. That is, set aside a couple of days of such thorough reading of dialogues. There are dialogues on very simple topics, there is an “Apology of Socrates”, where complex ideas are given in a form that is quite fascinating by modern standards. This, I think, is a good springboard for philosophizing.

    You will open more textbooks for exams, and it is clear that textbooks are secondary. And Plato needs to be discovered on his own. Moreover, the Platonic line had a very great influence on all the subsequent development of philosophy, so that when you read Plato, you will come to one of the sources. So try opening Plato first. If you like it, then maybe the love of philosophizing will also wake up in you.

    PS The audiobook “Dialogues” is also well voiced. I listened to it in my time, I liked it.

  3. In order to start studying philosophy, you need to understand what philosophy as a science does in general (what questions it poses and how it answers them). Reading textbooks like The History of Philosophy is pretty pointless, unless you're trying to flaunt your knowledge of everyone's ideas to others. There are a few exceptions, like Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy.

    I advise you to read the article by A. V. Akhutin “The case of Philosophy”. Quote from the article: “The business of philosophical research begins, in fact, with philosophical puzzling, with the discovery of the actual philosophical problem. This problem opens' when it succeeds' as if removing the dictating texts 'doctrines that teach things and worldviews that have become the “natural light” ' to turn to the things themselves.” G. Hegel: “Individual parts have their main value only through their relation to the whole.”

    Then, I think, you need to read the authors. The basis of Western European philosophy is Ancient Greek philosophy. Start with Plato and you can't go wrong. You can read the authors in chronological order, or you can read them as your heart desires.

  4. Each sandpiper in this question praises its swamp, without relaying the reasons why it praises it, and how it can fit into your background. I will act as a buffoon, and I will say that I was tormented by the question “what is wrong with my thought and my position” (I will not illustrate it).�

    So you should start with the question that torments you (if you just want to have high-level conversations, then you can not read anything, but develop rhetoric). Not even a question, but a contradiction.

    Of all the available Russian-language material, there is a course on modern philosophy. social critique of Alexander Smulyansky. Alexander differs in that he does not talk nonsense – a rare ability. He also has a group in the VK, where you can find audio recordings of almost all his public speeches.

    If the English language doesn't scare you away, then there is a channelSchool of life, where they clearly tell the basics of someone's ideas. There are absolutely insane videos in the kitchen

    This should be enough to understand why you need to read anything at all. I'm more interested in why someone who seems to want to find knowledge (especially independent knowledge) is not looking for it, but wants it to be passed on to him. There are a whole mountain of questions about “studying philosophy” on theq.

    PS I honestly think that when a philosophy student advises an untrained person to read Adorno, it's very funny. Although probably only naive reading slows him down the least. I read his “Sociology of Music” a long time ago, admired its logic, complexity of thought, abundance of internal references, and so agreed with all this that nothing remained of it. But when you read it and understand something, the processor in the brain also overheats.

  5. I would advise you to start not with textbooks, but rather continue with them.�

    There is a wonderful book that briefly and simply sets out the main philosophical teachings on the epochs “Amazing Philosophy” by D. A. Gusev. You can reinforce your interest by reading “A Short Course in Comics: Philosophy” by Mike Patton, the author himself is a professor of philosophy at the University of Montevallo. In the future, you can read the textbooks themselves. And only then continue with Plato and Aristotle and so on by epoch (pre-Socratics will be difficult to begin with). Also, do not forget about the many lectures in both video and audio format, which are very much available on the Internet.

    The main thing is not to immediately become a fan of the philosophical views of one philosopher, otherwise it will completely ruin the objectivity of your views and will interfere with acquaintance with the works of other philosophers.

  6. In order to understand philosophy, it would be nice to study sociology, modern modernist concepts are not particularly divided into philosophy and sociology, but represent a synthesis of both, it makes no sense to read medieval doctrines, it is better to immediately start studying something modern, i.e. modern Western sociologists.

  7. I would not call my answer a mandatory recommendation.

    Rather, it is the most general attempt to define the range of philosophical topics that can guide you when diving into the mysterious world of philosophy. ( other opinions are possible, I'm interested in mine )

    First of all, I would express an opinion that will outrage or cause rejection among many. PHILOSOPHY, as a science, does NOT EXIST in the system of human knowledge. Once upon a time, at the beginning of time, yes – it was a science that branched out into several schools, like all other human sciences. But the further we went, the more philosophers invaded the field of other sciences, and above all physics, creating schools of knowledge-mutants, and physics used these works, on the basis of which new theories of the world order were created. So now the theoretical constructions of the masters of science are sometimes similar to philosophical treatises and use paradigms and tools of philosophy, sometimes mixing it with mathematical ones, which gives amazing and sometimes ridiculous results.

    This is just my sore point, I can talk about it for a long time, but I need to answer the question. To a person who wants to study-study philosophy, I could say this – there is, of course, something common to all schools and directions, and you can probably start with this. I didn't look for any special works on LOGIC, but I read two treatises of Aristotle with enthusiasm. Its logic is recognized as erroneous, but without a doubt it can be used for some research, and it is interesting for self-development. If only because the scientific worldview has been built on its basis for thousands of years. And his books are a good example of writing scientific papers – they compare favorably with many works of modern philosophers who are overloaded with natural sciences, but do not reach the part of the worldview, and suffer from a chronic verbiage that leads the reader into complete bewilderment. Read Aristotle's ” On the Sky “and” Physics”, these books will give a lot in terms of understanding the problems and methods of philosophy. His “Metaphysics” is a bit complicated in terms of the large scope of topics and questions…

    Also recently published a series of books “Anthology of Philosophy” on the centuries.

    Paul Strathern's “20 philosophers” gives an idea of the main trends in philosophy from the beginning to the present, but books about modern philosophers are overloaded with special terminology, and it's boring to read with a dictionary in your hand, don't you agree ?

    In general, if you want to be a philosopher, it is better not to read “philosophical” books at all. There are many fiction books on philosophy cleaner than Abelard, Fromm, Adorn and other brain … ov. “Moby Dick”, “War with Salamanders”, “Man or Animal”, “Notes on cat City”. It's better to think for yourself, and picking at other people's fluctuations is like licking other people's plates.

Leave a Reply