Recommend me some good philosophy

[Cruddy]

Thanks Imran. You've saved me about 10 years of translation and decoding! Shokran!

EDIT: Mind you, I picked up the same idea from Terry Pratchett's novel Small Gods

[GePap]

It is impossible to condence the thought of any of those people down (besides maybe Rand...).

Oh, and the charaterisations of Nietzshce here are generally wrong. Now, to being, there are some things about Nietzsche not to like, most specifically his total mysogeny (he speaks very badly of women). But he is one of the most influential thinkers of our times, so he should be read. Now, about reading neitzsche, he is a fun writer, as far as philosohpers, go, but he can still be difficult to figure out, specially since while he has a lot of catchy phrases, they rarely stand alone.

Now, what can I say about his philosophy? Nietzsche does believe that the Will to Power is the central force in the universe: beings are out to control. When you can;t control others, you turn aginst yourself, in order to gain utter power over yourself. Now, I think what nietzsch aims for (his uberman), is a free creative being, one that strive to create new worlds, without regard to anything else. One of the things he seeks is a "gay science" (the old gay, happy), meant to find the world without all the pomp and druggery that ususally is said to come from important and crucial acts.

I think the best books of his to read are "The Geneology of Morals" "thus spoke Zarathustra", and "Beyond Good and Evil".

[Frankychan]

thanks guys for the recommendations.

I'm a socialist...so are there philosophers out there who touch up on this train of thought...

(and I'm a Buddhist, so you guys can kill the Buddhist-bashing )

[Frankychan]

sorry...jumping the gun there...but,

Some works I've already read are

Tao Te Ching-Really good. I enjoyed it very much despite the fact that some area's were a little too transcendental (and hence, not understandable) in some area's.

Some of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"-I didn't read the whole thing.


I detest Rand because I think that the idea that the individual is the "center of the universe" is basically....well, let's say something I don't agree with.

But thanks for the advice.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frankychan
I'm a socialist...so are there philosophers out there who touch up on this train of thought...

You could look at Marx and Engels first and foremost, then Lenin and even Mao. You could also look at some liberal (economic liberal, not classsical liberal i.e. Libertarian) philosophers such as John Rawls.

Originally posted by Frankychan
and I'm a Buddhist, so you guys can kill the Buddhist-bashing

Are you sure? That's quite startling indeed.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You could look at Marx and Engels first and foremost, then Lenin and even Mao. You could also look at some liberal (economic liberal, not classsical liberal i.e. Libertarian) philosophers such as John Rawls.

Thanks U.R. I find Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao as being too extremist for myself. I have about 3 different copies of "the Manifesto" and I disagree with their revolutionary and violent ideas. I personally believe that there can be socialist change through nonviolent and democratic means.

I'll look into Rawls.

And the "bashing" was all in good fun so I don't mind....unless your asking if it's startling that I'm a Buddhist.

[DaShi]

Make up your own. You'll be far more interested in it than any of the other crap that's out there.


Then you can start a cult.

[lord of the mark]

havent read much philosophy lately so i'll just make some off the cuff remarks.

Rawls - yeah, if youre looking for someone influential on the left, but not as extreme as Marxists, you almost have to start with Rawls.

Nietsche - as GEpap says, its widely held that the popular view of Neitsche is wrong - Walter Kaufman i beleive is a noted N commentator and advocate of the N was nice school of thought - N's work is so filled with humour, sarcasm etc that its easy to read it any number of ways.

Kant is definitely difficult to read in English.

Hume is a much easier read, but not sure he addresses the issues that concern you.

Someone whos not considered a serious philosopher (AFAIK) but who is relatively easy to read, and says alot of interest to the current situation is Francis Fukayama's "The end of history and the last man" Basically presents a case for a view of Hegel as a neo-con . Certainly a good alternative to those who see Hegel as a proto-fascist, and very interesting if youre a civ2 player (read it and you'll see what i mean - you'll understand the philisophical depth Reynolds built into Civ2 much better after that - see my column Civ2's Hegelian tech tree)

Good luck, enjoy.

[Bosh]

Tao Te Ching-Really good. I enjoyed it very much despite the fact that some area's were a little too transcendental (and hence, not understandable) in some area's.

The Chuangtzu isn't any easier, its kind of Tao Te Ching in parables...

[Buck Birdseed]

For more classical political stuff, I heartily recommend Machiavelli's "Discourses", a cornerstone of classical thinking about freedom with many ideas that are still extremely relevant today about how to construct a society that works and yet provides people with freedom and equality.

[Maniac]

Does "Tao of Poo" mean "Tao of Physics"??

Anyway, my advise would be:
The more you read about philosophy, the more you realize it's all crap and there probably isn't one "ultimate philosophy" or "absolute truth". So just don't start reading philosophy in the first place.