In which order should these philosophers be read?
I want to read the following books:
My question is, in which order should I read them? Should I read them from the beginning till the ending like fiction books or only parts? I have only read some dialogues by Plato. Would I understand these philosophers without reading anyone else?
- Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
- The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
- Either/Or by Kierkegaard
- Being and Time by Heidegger
My question is, in which order should I read them? Should I read them from the beginning till the ending like fiction books or only parts? I have only read some dialogues by Plato. Would I understand these philosophers without reading anyone else?
Comments (42)
Seriously though, chronologically - by year of publication!
Hume is missing, I'd read some of him first. And yes I'd always just start with Plato, if you haven't already.
Kant is very difficult to read. It's probably better to get a book about Kant than a book by him. Schopenhauer was a terrible person who wrote terrible philosophy.
Kierkegaard is at least entertaining.
Heidegger is too heavy with the jargon. In order to understand Heidegger, you have to accept Heidegger. All that 'being in the world' bollocks drove me nuts.
But all in all, a finer collection of subjectivists, metaphysical nutjobs and sexual deviants has never been assembled! What's missing is epistemologists. Locke, Moore, Ayer, Bohm - and Hume.
I'd read chronologically, to understand the development of philosophy - and where further reading can be placed in that order.
Kant is fine to just read directly if you're used to long and compex sentences and if you're fine with getting the gist of the philosophy rather than trying to follow the entire argument step-by-step. If you do want to understand it step by step, you'll probably need some kind of glossary of terms (or make one while you read) to get all the connections.
A good way to figure out whether you want to directly read Kant is to read his "groundwork of the metaphysics of morals". It technically comes after the critique of pure reason, but it's a relatively short, accessible and self-contained text.
Also just starting out with a general history of philosophy will get you exposed to a lot of ideas in a short time, so that you can better place the primary texts when you read them.
Plato, Hume, Nietzsche and then straight to existentialist if that is your interest... i'd skip all the rest.
Hume, "an inquiry concerning human understanding", his later book (not the big tome) is enough to get a decent understanding of his philosophy.
Nietzsche, "Genealogy of morals", and "beyond Good and Evil", are maybe the two books that I definitely would read.
Schopenhauer reacts to Kant.
Heidegger reacts to Kierkegaard and Kant and Schopenhauer (though I can't remember if his Schop or Kierkegaard reaction is in being and time).
So probably: Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Heidegger.
>Includes Heidegger (Nazi) and Schopenhauer (Pessimist conservative).
:roll:
Forgot to say, if you're trying to find your way around philosophy, check out the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - they're free, extensive, peer reviewed and up to date. Introductory sections in them tend not to be mercilessly technical either (except formal logic articles).
(instead of CPR)
A. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics
(esp. from § 57 onward), Immanuel Kant
B. The World As Will And Representation
(esp. "Appendix: Critique of the Kantian philosophy", vol. 1), Arthur Schopenhauer
(instead of E/O or BT)
C. The Life of the Mind, Hannah Arendt
When you, inquisitive soul that you are, frequenting libraries and bookstores, have found a certain one that has impressed upon you that he holds the key to understanding life and the world you live in, then of course you will dwell with him a while and absorb his wisdom and attempt to live according to his (or her) precepts. Invariably, he will reveal in his writings those who have influenced him, and, should you sense that his ideas are lacking, or spurred on to investigate the origins of his thought, you will read those and, perhaps, supplant his thought with one of them...
This typically continues through a couple of iterations until you find the soul that you will trust in for the rest of your life.
This is a good list. However, you ought to be prepared by a rather large jump in the order of difficulty once you reach Heidegger. I'd suggest looking around for some secondary reading to help you as well. Richard Polt's intro is particularly good.
First, Sarah Blakwell's At The Existentialist Cafe, which covers most of the major existentialists in a very accessible and entertaining way. Second, Raymond Geuss's Changing the Subject, which covers a bunch of Western philosophy beginning with Socrates and ending with Adorno (Heidegger and Nietzsche are in there too). The only problem with these suggestions is that neither Kant nor Schopenhauer are covered. Schopenhauer is readable on his own though. Kant I really don't know. Most of the secondary works on him I know are big and dry.
Are you reading translations or do you read in the originals?...because you can’t trust translators, who tend to translate key words differently in different contexts, or, worse, interpret what they think the author meant. There is, however, a tradition of literal translation, from William of Moerbeke to the 20th century Straussians, so I would recommend you either (worse) read good literal translations, or (better) learn the original languages.
Finally, just remember in your study of philosophy, that any learning not motivated by the felt need to understand how the world works and the meaning of life is mere pedantry.
I'm absolutely motivated by that, I can get really focused while reading philosophy. It fascinates me and I enjoy learning.
Otherwise, seek out the literal translations. There was an efflorescence of them in the 20th century by disciples of Leo Strauss in English. Allan Bloom did an excellent one of Plato’s Republic and Rousseau’s Emile. Harvey Mansfield translated Tocqueville’s Democracy in America literally late last century...
But you cannot trust the translators for, as I said, they tend to interpret rather than translate. As far as German translations go, I have no personal knowledge.
In any case, you can cover most of the modern Western Canon (Descartes onwards) with English, French and German. Bonne courage.
Western philosophy almost entirely consists of discussions on minor points made by Plato. To appreciate any of this one must first read Plato and Platonic commentary to help sort out philosophical history, issues, representations and misrepresentations.
Ancient Greek is an impossible read for nonspecialists, therefore we are wholly reliant on arguable translations and interpretation of arguable translation. There is plenty of first rate commentary available via the internet in English but even then philosophical keywords must be parenthesized from the original Greek and all possible meanings be sufficiently researched from dictionaries and footnotes of commentaries.
The process above is minimal to make any sense of the enormous amount of philosophical output we see today. For example, Plato exposed but did not sufficiently distinguish acquaintance, opinion, wisdom, knowledge, and partial versions of each. At which point can we make any sense when using words that refer to these concepts? Are these in motion or fixed, psychological or public, subjective or objective? What are we naming? In practice, a clear modern exposition of a sentence from the Meno or the Theaetetus has made many a professional carrier.
Secondly, Allan Bloom’s translation of The Republic. I would guess there are extant translations of many of the other Dialogues by this school, but I am unaware of them.
Oh! If you read the Symposium, read the translation of Seth Benardete.
My advice: read them in alphabetical order. Makes referring to the content much easier that way.
Wester philosophy doesn’t consist of discussions of MINOR points made by Plato, but rather MAJOR ones. For example, when he described the philosopher as a naked man taking cover behind a little wall to escape the slings and arrows directed toward him, the Enlighteners took this as a call to arms...to transform political life in order to protect the philosopher.
“Ancient Greek”, you say, “is an impossible read for nonspecialists”. By “nonspecialists” do you mean those who cannot read Ancient Greek? If so, agree. But anyone with a knack for languages can learn to read it in a year or so of constant study. As far as the uncertainty of the meanings of Greek words goes, this can only be cleared up by continuing on to read enough variety of the extant literature, Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides, etc, so that, just as in your native language, you come to learn the various shades of meaning, and how they evolved over the centuries...
In doing this, you will, of course, become immersed in Ancient Greek culture, put yourself so-to-speak in Homer’s or Xenophon’s shoes. This is truly respecting another’s culture, when you study it so assiduously that you actually hope and expect to learn something about life from it. In contrast, the modern “respect for cultures” does not animate a soul to want to know anything about any particular one, to long to learn anything about past times or places...other than the saccharine moral that “we should all just get along”.
The World as Will and as Representation, you can read without any prerequisites, though it can be difficult to understand.
Either/Or, you can read without any prerequisites.
Critique of Pure Reason is a place to start for a general understanding of modern philosophy. There are a few, though.
If you're preparing to read Being and Time, I don't think that you have chosen the correct texts. He references a number of other philosophers in it, but I can't remember which. I'd bet that there's a way to find out, though.
If you're preparing to read Being and Nothingness, just read Being and Time. You only have to understand so much of Being and Time to understand Being and Nothingness.
I'll just tell you not to learn anything about the history of Philosophy and to just get into Gilles Deleuze, but I'm not too sure that I would listen to myself.