I need suggestions for a philosophy book,not an introduction but a primary source non-fiction philoosphy book that is easy to undertand and then others books to increase the difficulty trough time, i dont care about reading philosophy cronological, I only want some interesting book from wathever movement,time or author.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Start with Nicomachean Ethics.
Is it necessary to read Herodotus before Plato?
I guess it couldn't hurt to have a basic idea of Ancient Greek history but Herodotus really focuses on the Persians and the Persian Wars, so if you're looking for more a more broad base of knowledge there are better sources. If anything, Thucydides is more relevant to Plato. To answer your question: no, not really.
Yes, if you want to have a firm grasp on Plato. Herodotus goes in depth on the Anatolian Greeks, this is where philosophy was born. He also explores Egypt and Mesopotamia, which were the main source for the Pre-Socratics.
>actually you need to understand homer, the greek myths and histories, and biblical poetry in order to understand the nature of the world
perhaps suicide is the only solution for people like you
I don't think you read my post
Thomas Nagel: What Does It All Mean?
easy starter reads, from easier to easy:
Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
Thoreau: Walden, Civil Disobedience, Life Without Principle
Paul: Pauline epistles
Epictetus: Enchiridion of Epictetus
Marcus Aurelius: Meditations
Emerson: Nature, Self-Reliance, Circles, The Oversoul
Tupper: Proverbial Philosophy
Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
Augustine: Confessions
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, perhaps Categories if you're up for a bit of an early challenge
Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals
Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
Dewey: Experience & Education
William James: The Will to Believe
Abe: Zen and Western Thought
Some quotes, though they don't necessarily reflect the difficulty of the works they're from:
Paul:
>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Epictetus:
>Like an ape, you mimic all you see, and one thing after another is sure to please you, but is out of favor as soon as it becomes familiar. For you have never entered upon anything considerately, nor after having viewed the whole matter on all sides, or made any scrutiny into it, but rashly, and with a cold inclination.
Emerson:
>I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and consistency. Let the words be gazetted and ridiculous henceforward. Instead of the gong for dinner, let us hear a whistle from the Spartan fife. Let us never bow and apologize more.
Tupper:
>That which may profit and amuse is gathered from the volume of creation, for every chapter therein teemeth with the playfulness of wisdom. The elements of all things are the same, though nature hath mixed them with a difference, and learning delighteth to discover the affinity of seeming opposites: So out of great things and small draweth he the secrets of the universe, and argueth the cycles of the stars, from a pebble flung by a child.
Aristotle:
>When things have only a name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is different, they are called homonymous. Thus, for example, both a man and a picture are animals. These have only a name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is different; for if one is to say what being an animal is for each of them, one will give two distinct definitions.
William James:
>Please remember that optimism and pessimism are definitions of the world, and that our own reactions on the world, small as they are in bulk, are integral parts of the whole thing, and necessarily help to determine the definition.
Nietzsche:
>All concepts in which an entire process is semiotically concentrated elude definition; only that which has no history is definable.
Abe:
>If one realizes that living beings are fundamentally the Buddha-nature, there is no need to emphasize 'having the Buddha-nature'. It suffices simply to say that living beings are living beings.
The obvious answer is some kind of collection of writings from the Western canon, but if you want primary sources, Penguin put out a small book called "The Last Days of Socrates." It's composed of Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Start there, then work through other essential writings of Plato (Symposium, Republic, etc)
Marx
>Copelstone, History of Philosophy
>Hegel, History of Philosophy
The history of philosophy intimately involves the practice of philosophy itself. Copelstone is both thorough and 'easy' to read. Hegel's lectures are much shorter, but a significant technical challange that Copelstone ought to prepare you for as a primer; you'll have the context to investigate non-chronologically from there as suits you.
Philosophy works chronologically. You won't understand it unless you understand it as a series of ideas interacting. This isn't like mathematics where you can jump straight to rules and don't have to learn about Euclid or Leibniz.
If this was the case that would be extremely damning of the discipline. It's supposed to be asking fundamental questions about the world, and hence having to trace back everything shouldn't be necessary unless the 'tracing back' itself is relevant to the topic concerned.
Tracing back is relevant to every topic in philosophy, even meme subdisciplines like logic. Even at a linguistic level it's important; to call something Platonic, Aristotelian, Cartesian etc. offhandedly is normal in philosophy and you won't understand what that means without the historical knowledge.
Remember that philosophy includes every other discipline, there aren't a set of agreed upon rules about things you're allowed to leave out. As such you have to be familiar with everything to at least a working knowledge level.
Don't bother
It's all fluff and no one really knows or cares enough about anything
Just chill out and enjoy life and try your best to comfymaxx with those you're close with
>It's all fluff
>animeposter.jpg
Yeah, you should go study logic so that when posters call a work a "technical challenge", you'll understand what they mean.
Hellenistic Philosophy: Selected readings of epicureanism, stoicism, skepticism, and neoplatonism
This is a good starting point. Most all of the readings are pretty easy.
Here's a good one.
Sex and Character - Otto Weininger
https://justpaste.me/rtsvideo
https://justpaste.me/lsmodel
https://justpaste.me/Bsump4
https://justpaste.me/ExtremeFetish
https://justpaste.me/videorts