Hey everyone. Been mainly lurking on these boards for a while as my interest in philosphy has grown.
My question is what are reputable resources for learning the basics of philosophy as I have been finding some conflicting info on the net. Any good books that seemed to be of help? Any info would be appreciated.
Also just curious what inspired or turned everyone here on to learning about philosophy?
Sophie’s World by Gaardner (or something like that) is good if you’re really really a beginner.
otherwise: Start at Descartes - what should be the mantra of any beginning reader.
and report back when you’re done.
be off with you now though.
some old Socrate scrolls that might have been proven wrong, but is a good way to get you thinking.
Hello there:
Welcome to ILP. Looking for good books? I’d suggest you find a general area of philosophy (i.e. western philosophical thought, empiracism, postmodernism, epistomology, etc.) and them find some well-written books that disscuss primarily a specific area of philosophy. If you don’t know what area intrests you, I’d recommend to consider reading Plato’s Republic. It’s a good place to start, since it gives you the basics of western philosophical thought.
Good luck. 
Sorry to sound glum but book learning philosophy is not easy.
Find a decent evening class at your local college, it will do wonders for you. Or alternativley try distance learning, a useful thing again.
These can be relativiley cheap options compared to the cost of text books etc (because bear in mind its useless reading Decsartes wtihout a companion explaining it all - there are essentially three intereprations simple, criticisive, psychological)
Anyway good luck.
New Philos,
The single volume I would recommend is Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. It is enormous, but do not be put off because Russell’s writing style is very fluid and he is able to break complex arguments down to the fundamentals. Almost every significant historical philosopher is covered and put into a lucid context. It’s the kind of book you can read straight through and get a sense of how philosophy developed, or you can skip around in it as well and use it as a reference, turning to a summary of one philosopher or another. Russell has his bias, but he tries hard to not let it intercede. This book is clear, concise (despite 800 pages) and best of all inexpensive ($17).
Dunamis
Havn’t read that paticular volume but I would be extremely skeptical on Russells grasp of philosophical history.
He introduced his theory of Definite Descriptions which reduces
“Bismark was an astute diplomat”
to
“There is one and only one x and one and only one y such that x was an astute diplomat, x was the first chancellor of y and y is the cause of these sense-data-of-germany”
logical nonsense not to mention completley avoidable by reading a philospher named Freger who published his work over 30 years prior to Russells writing.
I think BMW-Guy is right on the money. It has been said that all western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.
Y.,
Like I said, he has his bias. Like you said, you have not read this particular volume. He, despite your sense, was at one time the foremost professor of philosophy at what was perhaps the foremost philosophy department in the world. And he did receive the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950, most notably for his literary summations. I know of no other volume that presents philosophy with such scope and clarity, no matter what one may think of his own philosophical contribution to the field. It has been decades since I read this volume, but certainly would recommend it as a beginners course. Every teacher has his/her perspective which should be factored in.
Dunamis
p.s. Are you under the impression that Russell did not read Frege?
heh…thanks jerry.
Plato’s Republic was the first philosophical book I ever read (I had to read it in 9th grade for school), and it still remains one of my very favorites today.
It is deep enough to be considered a solid philosophical-text, yet it is easy enough for a beginner (or even a 9th grader) to understand.
In addition, Plato covers several different areas of philosophy in his book. 
Take a look at the philosophy pages at, for example, Harvard University’s and Stanford University’s websites. They will show you how philosophy is divided up; they may list texts; and they may provide lecture files.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is available on-line.
What “turned me on”? 1. My parents insisted that learning/education was important. 2. Repeatedly asking “Why?” (like a child) leads to philosophy. 3. Looking for meaning.
Start by reading this post, sucker.
I second Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Or anything by Russell for that matter, especially Problems Of Philosophy, as he holds your hand through all those really smart things you already thought of by yourself and then gently reveals to you (over tea and currant buns) the pathetic naivé slob you actually are. From there it’s all uphill, and not just for you, but for Russell as well. It will provide no comfort to learn that at 93 he was found self-impaled on a large dill pickle inscribed with the second and third verse of Glen Cambell’s “Mammy Blue.” He never did figure out what all that sense data was dancing before his eyes, but he managed to look rather dashing with that pipe of his until Wittgenstein shoved it in the opposite end, still lit. I suggest skipping next to Wittgenstein’s Poker, a wonderfully cheery yarn about Mother Philosophia’s slow, lingering cancer cough…where Popper and Ludwig spar, each with his own brand of half-insane bafoonry. Try to remember that Thales thought it was all water. Pythagoras would kick the fuck out of you if you ate beans, and he liked shapes and math and music and shit. Socrates was the bestest. He said he knew the most cause he knew nothing. Plato was his hunky student who wrote it all down and made it better –– a real Val Kilmer of his times. Then Aristotle, the old boring fuckhead who took all the fun out of it, except for the thing about rubbing the elephant with salt, that was fun. His student Alex fucked EVERYTHING up, and that’s why there are still annoying christian fuckheads on ILP board to this day. Descartes asked some basic slumber party questions, and killed a few dogs too, and the Monooqs of the world will wax stupid about dualism. (Don’t believe in dualism. It’s bullshit.) After that philosophy became the art of saying cool things better, case in point, the unoriginal and lovable Voltaire, and the fierce and graceful poet, Nietschze. (Good idea to learn how to spell Nietschze, that alone will take you a long way.) Kant, Hegel and Heideggar are idiots and you can waste a lifetime exploring the foothills of their blind alleys. Pragmatist’s are wrong but they’re…um, right. Continental’s are europeans who get laid. Analyticals are sunday fishermen with sons named Parker or Harris, and they are fucking pricks. Philosophy is not dead, but it has altzheimer’s. To visit it in its assisted living facility, see Rorty, but don’t breath too deep, and carry rubbing alcohol.
You, my dear Gamer, are a masterpiece.
[note to She: doesn’t Gamer remind you of SDNafka? I’d love to see these two in a duo.]
Thanks for the responses, gives me some good idea where to look.
Honestly I have been reading up on Plato’s Republic. It is taking me a bit to “digest” some of it and make sense of things. As yuxia mentioned philosophy is not easy.
new philos, welcome!
I find the ancient philosophers more interesting than the modern ones. Just remember reading Russell that not all philosophers are atheist, and reading Descartes that not all philosophy starts from questioning the senses.
When I went to college, I loved the meaning of literature and the reasonableness of math, and found I could combine then in studying Philosophy! Also, wanted to know what the great minds knew – if they do know much.
I would also add Will Durant’s “The Story of Philosophy” as being concise enough to have merit and it is probably more accessible than Russell’s book (though I found Russell to be more informative). Durant does a good job of catching the “spirit” of philosophy, especially the Greeks.
If he did, he obviously didn’t grasp it because the basic logical distinction (and it is a logical proof) between Meaning and Reference is laid out.
Which clearly allays the reasons for which Russell introduced his theory of Definite Descriptions - Namely that a statement like “The king of france is bald” uttered at this time is not meaningless but merely referenceless and for that reason the theory is completely meaningless as well as being entirely avoidable for the reasons that Russell stated.
Additionally THe Problems of Philosophy is full of rubbish. It’s all based on Sense Data which is logical nonsense.
Y.
“If he did, he obviously didn’t grasp it because the basic logical distinction (and it is a logical proof) between Meaning and Reference is laid out.”
Obviously you are an incredibly brilliant philosopher, able to grasp elemental arguments that evaded some of history’s ablest minds, but perhaps you should read the correspondence between Russell and Frege during the years 1902 and 1903, just so you can have an even fuller grasp of the pinnacle on which you stand.
Dunamis
schopenhauer was the smartest man who ever lived. this is obvious because he knew while he was writing that nothing had been done in philosophy since kant. and he recognized that difference between the mistakes of a genius (kant) and mistake of a something else, like hegel… and fichte and scheling. but you’re right gamer, maybe some people shouldn’t read kant, because they won’t understand anything or see his genius… in the pretty way you said it. and these are the same type of people who would have more fun with nietsche …which wouldn’t be spoiled if you told them they weren’t reading philosophy.
anyways, i’m now the smartest man in the entire world because i know nothing has been done in philosophy since kant despite schopenhauer.