Philosophical reading

[liam]

Having recently begun a lifelong dream of a vast library of philosophy/theoretical psychology/sociology/anthropology books, I am now wondering what particular works I should procure. Thus I cast the floor open to all you folks at AF, what partcular works would you consider to be necessary or what are your favourite books within the aforementioned categories?

I'd like to start by saying that my current favourite book within these categories is the Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals by Immanuel Kant. Now it's your turn, folks

[Hovik]

Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre is definitely a must have. Just about anything by Nietzsche belongs in there too.

[Epimethean]

Anything by Bertrand Russell.

[liam]

Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre is definitely a must have. Just about anything by Nietzsche belongs in there too.

Actually in the process of being and nothingness right now, it is certainly a strange read but far more palatable than anything by Nietzsche, his writing style is completely ludicrous in BG&E
Sartre's entire philosophy is quite a materialist approach but I find his refernces to Heidegger and Husserl to be a bit too frequent. However, perhaps I'm still wet behind the ears in these things. Overall it's quite a lucid experience

Anything by Bertrand Russell.

Agreed! I was hoping for a copy of principia mathematica at some point, as well as his illustrious history of western philosophy

[Tobie]

Francis Bacon's works on the Scientific Method would be well worth it. Novum Organum is the main one I believe.

[Rev. Rye]

What about Schopenhauer? He's one of my favourite philosophers.

[liam]

What about Schopenhauer? He's one of my favourite philosophers.

Indeed, the world as will is in the post
If anyone knows any particularly good moral absolutist literature I would very much appreciate being directed towards it as there is little that I know of. Keep the other stuff coming too though good folks!

[Hovik]

Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre is definitely a must have. Just about anything by Nietzsche belongs in there too.

Actually in the process of being and nothingness right now, it is certainly a strange read but far more palatable than anything by Nietzsche, his writing style is completely ludicrous in BG&E
Sartre's entire philosophy is quite a materialist approach but I find his refernces to Heidegger and Husserl to be a bit too frequent. However, perhaps I'm still wet behind the ears in these things. Overall it's quite a lucid experience

I very much enjoy Sartre's particular brand of existentialism such that it has been quite influential in the way in which I look at the world. I'm in the process of reading B&N myself after having read several of his other papers and works. His writing can be a little thick, too.

As for Nietzsche, his writing is indeed a little difficult to work through; it takes a careful reading to understand all of what he says.

[Angrboda]

A year ago, I set out to give myself a philosophical education by reading all the landmark works, starting at a good point, and working forward. Unfortunately, I've become involved with book clubs and discussion groups, and I find those Epicurean delights more compelling, so have no time to do any of my own reading. But here as best I can reconstruct, is the list, in chronological order (with supplements where needed):

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (I've learned that his best arguments are split among the Treatise and Enquiry)
Immanuel Kant, Critique Of Pure Reason
Schopenhauer, The World As Will And Representation
Gottlob Frege (no specific work, there is a good Frege reader)
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early and Late (Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations)

And from there it wasn't certain; tentatively I had acquired some of Quine's work in the absence of better wisdom.

In addition to being sidetracked by other matters, I've also developed an interest in Greek philosophy, notable Heraclitus and Democritus among the pre-Socratics, and the Stoics, Skeptics, Cynics and Epicureans. Not all that interested in either Plato or Aristotle.

I actually read the Philosophical Investigations, or most of it, and was bored senseless by it. I can see how the questions were powerful once, when he was writing, but 60 year of cognitive science, animal psychology, linguistics and so forth, imho, make the Investigations obsolete.

I have a theory about philosophy. I think it's a lot like studying history. In philosophy, everything occurs with respect to a tradition, or next to it; so the course of philosophy is one long dialectic. Unfortunately, you know if you've studied history, it's impossible to understand a specific period or place, without reference to the larger currents in history; unfortunately, the best way to understand the larger currents in history is by studying some periods and places in some depth. It's a chicken and egg problem, or a vase / faces illusion type thing. What I suspect is best is to weave your own dialectic, bouncing back and forth between big picture and little picture: study the big picture to know what the important little pictures are and why, study the little pictures to put flesh on the bones of your big picture outline.

Anyway. I think you actually got a full nickel out of me. You can paypal me the 3 cents.

Oh, and in addition, as a result of developments in my theories about cognitive science and philosophy of mind, I've come to the conclusion that I need to acquire an understanding of process philosophy to fully formulate my system clearly and defensibly, probably starting with Whitehead, of course. For what it's worth, my main interests are cognitive science, including philosophy of mind, epistemology, and theory of discourses (with emphasis on psychology, cognitive bias, and bounded rationality). I have a considerably lesser interest in philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, and vagueness theory; I've also, as a necessity of my cognitive scientific theories had to take on ethics as, not so much an area to study, but to see that those parts of my system with ethical ramifications — and my system has significant ethical ramifications — so I need an understanding of ethics, practical philosophy of ethics, to make sure my system shakes down properly, and I'm not missing something due to ignorance.

[liam]

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (I've learned that his best arguments are split among the Treatise and Enquiry)
Immanuel Kant, Critique Of Pure Reason
Schopenhauer, The World As Will And Representation
Gottlob Frege (no specific work, there is a good Frege reader)
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early and Late (Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations)

And from there it wasn't certain; tentatively I had acquired some of Quine's work in the absence of better wisdom.

In addition to being sidetracked by other matters, I've also developed an interest in Greek philosophy, notable Heraclitus and Democritus among the pre-Socratics, and the Stoics, Skeptics, Cynics and Epicureans. Not all that interested in either Plato or Aristotle.
[/b]

Quite the list, I've yet to delve into mathematical philosophy as the actual mathematical knowledge required to fully understand it is beyond my grasp, so no frege just yet, I intend to intriduce myself to set theory through russell and slowly learn maths. I am no real fan of plato or aristotle, they may have started the majority of philosophical inquiries but there is something so rudimentary about their work that just seems unbearable to read. However, they are in need of their due and it is certainly given in my mind The stoics and epicurians were interesting philosophers and I admire their moral perspectives a damn sight more than some others i could mention *cough*JEREMYBENTHAM*cough*

I very much enjoy Sartre's particular brand of existentialism such that it has been quite influential in the way in which I look at the world. I'm in the process of reading B&N myself after having read several of his other papers and works. His writing can be a little thick, too.

As for Nietzsche, his writing is indeed a little difficult to work through; it takes a careful reading to understand all of what he says.

Indeed, Sartre can be think but with enough post-it notes and time you can eventually dig through die spiele, I've never really had the same understanding of nietzsche, he seems to write in such a contrived manner as to put me off entirely. He is reputedly very good though so I suppose I shall have to force myself through his work someday