Need help choosing Greek/Roman authors

[bennyboy]

If you can download it, or can afford to pay for a download, I recommend J. Rufus Fears' audio lectures through The Teaching Company: "Famous Romans" and "Famous Greeks." He is a fantastically interesting lecturer and really gives life to the history, and with wit and great humor. He also talks about Herodotus and other historians. I might be persuaded to put a lecture on Youtube if you can't find one yourself to sample.

[Mudhammam]

Shit, my goal was to spend a year on the history of Western philosophy but it is quickly becoming a monumental task just touching the surface of all the ancients!

Also, I just ordered Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War and a compilation of three plays by Aristophanes because I really wanted to read Clouds.

[Pyrrho]

Shit, my goal was to spend a year on the history of Western philosophy but it is quickly becoming a monumental task just touching the surface of all the ancients!

Also, I just ordered Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War and a compilation of three plays by Aristophanes because I really wanted to read Clouds.

Ha, ha, ha! The lack of information regarding the presocratics has lulled you into the idea that studying western philosophy will take no time! If you spend the rest of your life on this one thing, western philosophy, you will never learn it all.

[Mudhammam]

Well yeah, I was hoping to simply get a very broad overview of the major names and themes. But I can see why the Greeks or the Romans themselves are subjects a person can easily devote their lifetime to studying.

[Exian]

It would be fun (to me) if you'd occasionally let us know your thoughts while you tackle some of these works, btw.

I second this.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For your historian, I strongly recommend Caesar's 'The Gallic Wars'. It is virtually unique among histories as it was written 'on the fly'. It is almost a news account running to seven volumes.

Boru

And for a little Greek history, Thucydides's account of the Peloponnesian War is good reading.

[Brian37]

Philosophy is dead, it really is nothing more than apology. It was a primitive way of brainstorming. But now that we have real science such as neurology and psychiatry and psychology and a scientific understanding of evolutionary biology, the rest really is nothing more than humans making elaborate excuses to claim a social pecking order.

The only "altruism" I can see as valid is knowing our species is literally scientifically unimportant to evolution , the planet and the universe. Accepting that humility is the only way our species can problem solve without the religious or political or economic divisions.

[Mudhammam]

It would be fun (to me) if you'd occasionally let us know your thoughts while you tackle some of these works, btw.

I second this.

Well, here's what I am currently reading for this little project:

A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell - Russell goes through all the major thinkers in the west with an eloquence that is only rivaled by its accessibility. I'm only on page 159 of 836 pages, having gone through ten chapters on the rise of Greek civilization and the Pre-Socratics, then one on Socrates and a handful on Plato, halting at Aristotle. I really enjoy Russell's analysis, for one, because it's clear and concise; secondly, because I find his philosophy and reputation to be truthful and honest. This work also contains such memorable quotes as, "What the gospel account of the Passion and the Crucifixion was for Christians, the Phaedo was for pagan or free-thinking philosophers"; and "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand."

I recommend Russell's book for anyone who would like an overview of western philosophy from Thales in the 6th century to William James and John Dewey in the 19th (and early 20th). Even if you think philosophy is dead, he makes it mightily interesting to discover how and where it began, and how it led to where it was when he wrote in 1945. Obviously, there's been a few developments in the past 70 years, so unless you're specifically intent on Russell, I think there are more updated works on this particular subject.

Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper - This is a collection of all of Plato's works by a number of translators, also including titles in which there is some debate over authorship and those that are unanimously agreed upon to be forged in Plato's name. Yes, there are in fact a handful of very old pseudo-Plato works out there (mostly assumed to have come out of The Academy, Plato's school, after he passed on)! Of the 45 works included, I have read the following (those I would recommend are in bold):
Euthyphro
Apology
Crito
Phaedo
Cratylus
Theaetetus
Sophist
Statesmen
Parmenides
Philebus
Symposium
Phaedrus
Alcibiades**
Second Alcibiades*
Hipparchus*
Rival Lovers*
Theages*
Charmides
Laches
Lysis
Euthyademus
Protagoras
** = authorship disputed
* = unanimous consent that it is pseudo-Plato

I would recommend the first four on this list to everyone. Even if you don't care for philosophy, they're just well-written narratives that contain many excellent quotes---especially the Apology. If you want a taste of Plato's mad genius---a work that will either make you think philosophy is complete eloquence and beauty of the mind or nothing but nonsense and chaos---read Parmenides. In that selection, Plato assumes the voice of Parmenides, who is accompanied by his disciple Zeno, and in a reversal of roles (Socrates is usually made to question others and play the role of teacher), has Socrates learning while Parmenides sets out to demolish Socrates' (though actually Plato's) conception of non-perceptible "Forms." It's a brilliant work because it shows Plato critiquing his own ideas, presumably drawing from those he actually confronted, but it is also very witty; for example, he basically has his opponent (Parmenides in this case), refute the Forms while erecting in its place this conclusion: "Let us then say this - and also that, as it seems, whether one is or is not, it and the others both are and are not, and both appear and do not appear all things in all ways, both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other," to which Socrates replies: "Very true." It's obviously meant to be funny, and Plato is intending to make his opponent sound absurd while also giving devastating criticisms of Plato's own ideas that are never rebutted. For more analysis on this work, check out this thread I made a short time ago.

I won't recommend the complete works for everybody unless you just want to explore Plato, but I do recommend the ones in bold, especially the first four.

The other two I am currently reading are Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement, edited by James B. Pritchard, and The History by Herodotus, trans. by David Grene. I will return to these later because I'm tired of typing at the moment, and will also give a comment or two on Robert Fagles' translation of Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey, The Presocratic Philosophers by G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield, and Alicia Stallings' translation of Lucretius' The Nature of Things

[Pyrrho]

About Bertrand Russell's book: Some people dislike it, as he is very much an interested party in the discussion. In my opinion, it is good that he is open with his views on things, as a pretend "objectivity" is only pretend. It is worth mentioning, though, that not everything he states is uncontroversial, and so one should take care in simply trusting him. Naturally, the same could be said about other such books.

And he is, as you say, an excellent writer. His literary style is superb. Great clarity, and eloquence, combined. It is difficult to not feel envious of his literary skills.

As for what has happened in philosophy since 1945, I think it mostly isn't worth much. I expect that that remark will be misunderstood by some, if they read it, but I don't feel like bothering with an explanation, beyond saying that we have had no one of the caliber of, say, David Hume, since then.

Anyway, I am pretty much on board for your remarks about Russell's book, and about the first four dialogs to read in Plato. I would then go on to the Republic, but that is less important than starting with the first four that you recommend. In your case, though, if you want to read more Plato, you should read the Republic. There you will get to many of the central ideas in Plato's thinking.

[Mudhammam]

About Bertrand Russell's book: Some people dislike it, as he is very much an interested party in the discussion. In my opinion, it is good that he is open with his views on things, as a pretend "objectivity" is only pretend. It is worth mentioning, though, that not everything he states is uncontroversial, and so one should take care in simply trusting him. Naturally, the same could be said about other such books.

And he is, as you say, an excellent writer. His literary style is superb. Great clarity, and eloquence, combined. It is difficult to not feel envious of his literary skills.

As for what has happened in philosophy since 1945, I think it mostly isn't worth much. I expect that that remark will be misunderstood by some, if they read it, but I don't feel like bothering with an explanation, beyond saying that we have had no one of the caliber of, say, David Hume, since then.

Anyway, I am pretty much on board for your remarks about Russell's book, and about the first four dialogs to read in Plato. I would then go on to the Republic, but that is less important than starting with the first four that you recommend. In your case, though, if you want to read more Plato, you should read the Republic. There you will get to many of the central ideas in Plato's thinking.

Yeah, the next batch of Plato's works that I'm getting into include the Republic. I am definitely looking forward to that.