[Magublafix]

I want to read some philosophical stuff...
Please recommend me some writers with interresting theories.....

thx...

[Glice]

Yay! Usually I get to these threads too late, and someone's already tainted your mind with existentialism, which is arse.

If you're not too acquainted with philosophy, there's lots of introduction to philosophy type books which you can pick up to give you a taster of what you might be interested in finding out more about. A lot of people scorn the Begginers [insert philosophy/ philosopher] but I happen to think they're quite useful if you don't want to read, say, Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

There are a few books which have wonderful narratives which suggest or explain a philosophy - for instance, Kierkegaard's 'Either/ or' (or any of his), Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' or Camus' 'The Plague/ The Fall/ The Outsider' - I happen to like the former best, but lots of people prefer the outsider.

If you're looking at getting an overview of philosophy 'from the horses mouth' (as it were), then any of these are pretty much indisposable -

Plato - Last days of Socrates; The Republic
Aristotle - The Nichomacaen ethics (sp?); The Politics; The Metaphysics.
Descartes - Meditations
Kant - Critique of Pure Reason; Critique of Judgement.
Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit
Nietzsche - Pretty much anything by him should give you an idea of what he's about, but you probably don't need the last few he wrote.
Adorno - Negative Dialectics.
*Edit: Sartre - Being and Nothingness
Heidegger - Being and Time

*These last two I really hate but are very important to philosophy. This list is by no means exhaustive, and I'm sure that Atari or some other people here will come and add some that have temporarily slipped my mind.

To be perfectly honest, you should avoid Hegel, Adorno and Kant until you've read quite a bit on the subject - while they are absolutely necessary, you probably won't get them immediately. In fact, if you meet anyone who has read and understood all of Hegel, they're either a liar or a genius.

But the best advice I can give is to read an introduction to philosophy-type book, find out what you're interested in and follow that up. Most of all, don't let yourself be baffled or overwhelmed by the books - I've been studying philosophy for most of my adult life, and I still pick up some books and fail to understand them on first reading.

Or were you looking for people to explain their favourite theories to you? I can wax lyrical about a couple of my favourites if that's what you're after.

[Magublafix]

Oh thank you for this long answer, it's more than i have expected...

[RIPfrey05]

 

[Glice]

No worries, glad to be of some help. Just as an aside, I'll recommend these books (although they're abolute bastards to read)

Derrida - Writing and Difference - took me about 6 months and three readings to get it, but my mind was melted when I did.
Lyotard - Libidinal Economy - My favourite book bar none. Simply the most beautiful prose imaginable for what is quite dense philosophy.
Deleuze - A thousand plateaus - For the Sonic Youth link, it's really obvious that Kim was reading this while writing a thousand leaves.

[Glice]

Oh, RipFrey, thanks for picking up on that, I can't believe I forgot that utterly essential tome for anyone wanting to know about anything.

[RIPfrey05]

No problem homes.

[FruitLoop]

Originally Posted by Glice

Yay! Usually I get to these threads too late, and someone's already tainted your mind with existentialism, which is arse.
--------
*Edit: Sartre - Being and Nothingness

though i couldn't care less about philosophy (thanks to horrid teachers), i thought Sartre was an existentialist........

I might be so wrong there though.....

[!@#$%!]

most philosophy before nietzsche is utter shit: covert theology

go straight for nietzsche:

beyond good and evil is awesome

then if you want to fill your mind with nonsense, work your way back to the past or "forward" to the present (as if there had been any improvement... but anyway...).

[Rupert 'Stiles' Stilinski]

Although I may get shit for this...

If you're young and looking for something challenging but readable that could really impact your world view, you might want to read some Ayn Rand non-fiction. She is an "objectivist" and though I don't completely buy into the extremes that she preaches, it did do quite a bit of good for my willow wild mind when I was in my late teens and early twenties.

She doesn't even compare to the "greats", but just a thought for something a little different.

I really like "The Virtue of Selfishness" which has several authors (mostly Rand) discussing practical lifestyle tips on how to live a virtuous life in an irrational society.

Or you could just listen to the new Liars album and let your mind wander???

[Sheriff Rhys Chatham]

of course i have to reccomend existentialism
jean-paul sarter
bubar
kant
kierkegaard
nietzsche (still trying to remember how to spell his friggen name)

adler has some good non existential stuff.

[golden child]

blaine pascal

[nomadicfollower]

I've tried reading Camus' The Myth of Sysphius, but I couldn't get it. I found myself re-reading the same page over and over, but that might be how most philosophy is.
I don't normally read philosophies. I would rather read Dostoyevsky as a philosopher.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by FruitLoop

though i couldn't care less about philosophy (thanks to horrid teachers), i thought Sartre was an existentialist........

I might be so wrong there though.....

Originally Posted by Glice

*Edit: Sartre - Being and Nothingness

*These last two [i.e Sartre and Heidegger] I really hate but are very important to philosophy.

You're not wrong, I do think Sartre's existentialism is one of the poorest excuses for philosophy; he is important enough to merit being read.

I should clarify - Sartre, in and of himself is not so unbearable - I merely have moderate antipathy; in and of the legion of people who read and misinterpret him I find him unbearable. He is the one that most people start on, and also the one that an overwhelming majority of new-to-philosophy types abuse for their own ends.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

most philosophy before nietzsche is utter shit: covert theology

And Thus Spake Zarathustra gets away from this criticism because it's less covert? I realise he criticise theology very heavily, but lets not forget that the concept of the superman is entirely concieved through religious notions. Rarely does a philosopher get away from theology with anything approximating conviction.

[Daycare Nation]

Nietschze is important as a precursor to the existentialists, but I consider him rather irrelevant now.

Derrida will poison you.

Read some books on mysticism instead of philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have any real answers.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Daycare Nation

Nietschze is important as a precursor to the existentialists, but I consider him rather irrelevant now.

Derrida will poison you.

Read some books on mysticism instead of philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have any real answers.

Sigh. Any philosopher is important to the continuum of understanding - part of the point is that it will never have answers because it will never have simple question. If you're expecting philosophy to explain, in cold algebraic and ontological proofs, the nature of existence, then it will always fail to satisfy. But it's function is never to do that, philosophy operates on a field of understanding which is distinct (though not in its totality inseparable) from the understanding which post-enlightenment notions of science have imparted upon people. Such an expectation of philosophy is tantamount to philistinism or a kind of brute-naivety.

[Glice]

Although you may be saying that Nietzsche is not currently in favour in philosophical circles, which is also wrong given the current interest in Deleuze, who wrote fairly extensively on Nietzshce. Now if you'd've said the same about Berkley...

[Daycare Nation]

philosophy operates on a field of understanding which is distinct (though not in its totality inseparable) from the understanding which post-enlightenment notions of science have imparted upon people.

So does mysticism. So does religion. In the end, though, using your mind is only mental masturbation. I prefer direct experience of the Real.

[Daycare Nation]

I'm saying that he is relevant only as a precursor to the existentialists...I also think the existentialists fail.

[Glice]

Yes. Mysticism provides one set of 'answers' for one set of people who have one set of understanding which appeals to them most. Religion, although often posited as a detraction or denial operates in a similar fashion. Philosophy endeavours to understand the general way in which understanding occurs throughout existence, which is in turn appealing to some. Mysticism and Religion are a naturally smaller field of understanding because their appreciation largely relies upon contingent factors such as culture or upbringing (&c). As soon as one endeavours to appreciate, but not involve oneself in, religions and myths from without ones own temporal confines, one is commiting an act of philosophy.

'Direct experience of the real' sounds like an elusive concept, certainly not one that would appreciate anything like a thorough investigation, although many believe they have asserted such. I don't mind too much if you want to think that, doesn't worry me in the slightest, but a Lacanian would shoot you down in flames for provocative statements like that.