Philosophy Books

[rkomar]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...f_the_Universe is a fun, light introduction to philosophy using science fiction films to illustrate some basic schools of thought. It's not a deep explanation of philosophy, but it's interesting to see how the movies committed to the various philosophies.

[crich70]

Not to drag the conversation off topic or to the point of having to be moved to Politics/ Religion but to understand a given philosopher's viewpoint isn't it also necessary to understand something of their religious views (if any) as well? I mean both Plato and Aristotle for example lived with the Greek pantheon of Gods and Goddesses while more modern philosopher's have been either of the Islamic, Christian or Jewish faiths. Or in some cases Atheistic in beliefs. I mean what a person believes in has to color how they view the world and therefore how their philosophy develops. And the politics of a given writer have to have had some input as well I would think.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by crich70

Not to drag the conversation off topic or to the point of having to be moved to Politics/ Religion but to understand a given philosopher's viewpoint isn't it also necessary to understand something of their religious views (if any) as well? I mean both Plato and Aristotle for example lived with the Greek pantheon of Gods and Goddesses while more modern philosopher's have been either of the Islamic, Christian or Jewish faiths. Or in some cases Atheistic in beliefs. I mean what a person believes in has to color how they view the world and therefore how their philosophy develops. And the politics of a given writer have to have had some input as well I would think.

As I understand it we can discuss religion in direct relation to a book and it would be OK. The problem is keeping the discussion relevant and on-topic, which is exceedingly hard to do and generally doesn't last long.

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

In our general forums we're reverting to our previous standards and restrict political and religious topics that have absolutely no connection to our site's theme (e-books, reading, publishing, etc.).

As I read that, as long as there is a direct connection to the site's theme it should be OK. So discussing an author's viewpoint (including religion) in context of a book in the reading recommendations forum should be OK. It wouldn't be OK in the lounge or in the Kindle forum where an author's viewpoint wouldn't be relevant.

Of course, I'm not a mod and they might say otherwise.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

As I understand it we can discuss religion in direct relation to a book and it would be OK. The problem is keeping the discussion relevant and on-topic, which is exceedingly hard to do and generally doesn't last long.

As I read that, as long as there is a direct connection to the site's theme it should be OK. So discussing an author's viewpoint (including religion) in context of a book in the reading recommendations forum should be OK. It wouldn't be OK in the lounge or in the Kindle forum where an author's viewpoint wouldn't be relevant.

Of course, I'm not a mod and they might say otherwise.

True enough on all points. I just mentioned it because well the world that a given author lived in had to have had some influence on them. Their observations of the world etc. For example how good and bad are rewarded by a given deity or deities (according to their worldview) would I think have had some impact on how they viewed the world and their fellow human beings and hence influenced their philosophies. I imagine reading some biographies (if they exist) on a given philosopher such as Plato or Aristotle would also help in understanding where they were coming from. To borrow an example from literature Charles Dickens grew up in a poor family and his father was at times in debtors prison while young Charles had to work at hard menial jobs to take care of himself. Later he borrowed from his own childhood to create characters like David Copperfield and Oliver Twist.

[gmw]

crich, it is definitely a good idea to keep in mind that all authors will have a bias, whether that bias was instilled due to religious influence or - as per your example with Dickens - events in their own upbringing. It's one of the things that keeps philosophy interesting

Take, for example, the John Ruskin book I cited earlier. While I found his alternative view of economics fascinating, I'm not about to buy into it verbatim. Ruskin was a man who believed in hierarchical structures ... and I guess I do too, to an extent, but Ruskin - being a man of his time - shows a definite skew toward a class system that accepts the rich as inherently smarter/better than the poor. Certainly he was compassionate enough to believe these richer/smarter/better/higher-class people have a responsibility to those less able, but there remained that implicit assumption that a person was rich/higher-class because they were more able - as if one led to the other (in either direction?). Or that's the way much of it read to me.

In more modern works of a philosophical nature it can be more difficult to identify the author's bias because we are more likely to share them. This is one of the things that makes reading philosophy both more interesting and more difficult: constantly reminding yourself to be critical (in the sense of thoughtful analysis) rather than merely accepting of what you read.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

This is one of the things that makes reading philosophy both more interesting and more difficult: constantly reminding yourself to be critical (in the sense of thoughtful analysis) rather than merely accepting of what you read.

We should of course always analyse philosophical ideas, but a teacher once gave me the advice (which I think has merit) to try to accept an author's views when reading a work, and then, once you've read it, subject what you've read to critical analysis. If we start off by rejecting something outright because the author's views are unpleasant to a modern audience (which a great many works written in the past of course are), we are likely to miss the gems of wisdom that the work contains.

An example would be Aristotle's book "The Nicomachean Ethics". One of the foundation works on ethics, but the modern reader is likely to be horrified by Aristotle's views on slavery that are expressed in the book. You'd be doing yourself a disservice, though, if you avoided reading it because of that.

[crich70]

I can't help but think that trying to maintain that critical balance while reading about philosophy could lead to learning more about the life/times of the philosopher and therefore broadening one's scope though. I mean it has to prompt the reader to ask questions like: Why did author x say this or that? or What would be the larger ramifications of x, y or z being like the author thinks it should be? As you said gmw we shouldn't just accept what we read as gospel (so to speak) but should ask the questions that come to mind. I'm thinking there is a big difference between just reading about a theory of philosophy and really understanding it and why the author held their particular belief. Mark Twain once said 'that the difference between the right word and the almost right word was akin to the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.' I'm thinking that something of the like is also apparent between merely reading a theory of philosophy and understanding how the author came to that belief and what its deeper meaning is. And learning more about a topic is always good.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We should of course always analyse philosophical ideas, but a teacher once gave me the advice (which I think has merit) to try to accept an author's views when reading a work, and then, once you've read it, subject what you've read to critical analysis. If we start off by rejecting something outright because the author's views are unpleasant to a modern audience (which a great many works written in the past of course are), we are likely to miss the gems of wisdom that the work contains.

An example would be Aristotle's book "The Nicomachean Ethics". One of the foundation works on ethics, but the modern reader is likely to be horrified by Aristotle's views on slavery that are expressed in the book. You'd be doing yourself a disservice, though, if you avoided reading it because of that.

I agree that there were some beliefs of the past that we find distasteful today. In ancient Ur for example women weren't taught at schools because it was felt that their brain was too small to enable them to learn. Today of course we know that that belief is nonsense but at that time that was the prevailing belief. My OP was merely meant to keep in mind that something shaped the author's viewpoint on the world and influenced them when they came up with their belief. We are all shaped by the society in which we live. Bias is just one example of that shaping. I just think that once we know what a philosopher (like Aristotle or Plato) thinks about a given topic we should go on to ask 'why' they think that way about the topic. Otherwise we risk taking a given text at face value only.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crich70

I just think that once we know what a philosopher (like Aristotle or Plato) thinks about a given topic we should go on to ask 'why' they think that way about the topic. Otherwise we risk taking a given text at face value only.

I understand what you're saying, but I'd suggest that an author who espouses a view without making an argument in support of it is not actually writing philosophy at all. Argumentation is essentially what philosophy is.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We should of course always analyse philosophical ideas, but a teacher once gave me the advice (which I think has merit) to try to accept an author's views when reading a work, and then, once you've read it, subject what you've read to critical analysis. If we start off by rejecting something outright because the author's views are unpleasant to a modern audience (which a great many works written in the past of course are), we are likely to miss the gems of wisdom that the work contains.

An example would be Aristotle's book "The Nicomachean Ethics". One of the foundation works on ethics, but the modern reader is likely to be horrified by Aristotle's views on slavery that are expressed in the book. You'd be doing yourself a disservice, though, if you avoided reading it because of that.

I see your point (or your teacher's point) - but would argue that subjecting something to critical analysis as you read is not, necessarily, the same as rejecting it. Rather, I see it as collating a list of questions or concerns that you are seeking to get answered or resolved as you read on. Not sure if my memory is poor, or I'm easily distracted, but if I don't consciously gather the thoughts as a I go they don't always come back to me at the end.

As with that Ruskin work, there was a lot in here I could not accept at face value, even taking into consideration the time at which it was written. But (like me ) Ruskin is quite long-winded, and a lot of things do get explained in ways that had them make sense once you kept going.

Of course, if you're actually studying philosophy (rather than taking a more casual interest as I do), then you'll probably be reading through the work more than once - in which case you get the luxury of reading with acceptance first and then reading with a more critical eye later.

[Nothingness]

Jean-Paul Sartre and François La Rochefoucaul are my favorite. Sartre's plays are also good and contains elements of his philosophy.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nothingness

Jean-Paul Sartre and François La Rochefoucaul are my favorite. Sartre's plays are also good and contains elements of his philosophy.

My favorite Sartre is his trilogy, The Roads to Freedom (The Age of Reason, The Reprieve, and Troubled Sleep). It was supposed to be a tetralogy but the fourth book was never finished. I read it as a teenager and it has stuck with me for more than 50 years.

The three main characters are interesting but what I found most interesting was the philosophical thought I drew from the books: There is no freedom without responsibility. Essentially, the characters are an unmarried professor, his mistress, and their best friend, a gay man. When the mistress becomes pregnant by the professor, he offers to pay for an abortion but will not marry her because he believes that to do so would mean giving up his most cherished possession, his freedom. She wants to keep the baby and the best friend steps forward and offers to marry her. Ultimately, the professor learns that to be free one must accept the responsibilities that being free imposes.

I think this is what ails American society today. Too many Americans think that being free equates with no responsibilities when just the opposite is true.

Although the books are not literary classics, they are well worth reading.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Nothingness

Jean-Paul Sartre and François La Rochefoucaul are my favorite. Sartre's plays are also good and contains elements of his philosophy.

I've seen "No Exit" (i.e. Hell is other People).