Best humanist philosophy books according to redditors
We found 38 Reddit comments discussing the best humanist philosophy books. We ranked the 23 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 38 Reddit comments discussing the best humanist philosophy books. We ranked the 23 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
I hope this thread will get more support behind making our FAQ HERE.
/r/atheism has an FAQ that features recommended book titles
In the context of /r/BlackAtheism there are a few titles:
****
Norm R. Allen
***
I haven't read all of those but its just what I saw from a short search.
Threads like these make me thankful that I started using goodreads to keep track of my books.
My top 5 most recent 5 star SF books (not including Fantasy) are:
It seems I'm quite liberal with my 5 star ratings (or maybe I've just been lucky over the last 8 months) but I believe each one of the books deserved it.
Applied Ethics:
"A Defense of Abortion" - Judith Jarvis Thomson
Assisted Suicide: The Philosopher's Brief - Various
Normative Ethics:
"Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem" - Judith Jarvis Thomson
A Theory of Justice - John Rawls
Utilitarianism: For and Against - J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams
Meta-ethics:
Being For - Mark Schroeder
Normativity - Judith Jarvis Thomson
Michael Smith's The Moral Problem and Bernard Williams' "Internal and External Reasons" deserve honorable mention because they are simply better philosophical works than Schroeder's and Thomson's, it's just that the Schroeder and Thomson are my favorite due to their excellent writing style and clear dedication.
The Wellness Syndrome is a good analysis of exactly what you're talking about. DM me if you want the pdf.
For more critique of Buddhist and mindfulness influence more specifically the speculative non-Buddhist project is a fantastic starting point with a lot of further resources https://speculativenonbuddhism.com
You're on the right track looking for more info :) It's been a long time since I checked on the accessibility of the work, but the person who turned me around on it was Harry Frankfurt, in an essay from The Importance of What We Care About. Frankfurt is really good at showing how central our desires and second order desires are to who we think we are. And acting freely is much more about acting in line with what you want to do than forging a unique path in the universe.
This is a good volume for both a defense and a critique:
http://www.amazon.com/Utilitarianism-Against-J-C-Smart/dp/052109822X
I appreciate the tangential benefits that ethical veganism provide to the environment by attacking industrialized farming practices, I believe it's a necessary discussion that is to be held. The problem I see with veganism - and I realize that this here is the irreconciliable difference between my ideas and those of veganism - is that anti-speciesism is at the heart of the lifestyle and the moral frameworks that support it. I that veganism's reliance on speciesism is counterproductive in our understanding of how to better confront pressing environmental issues that we are facing right now and to me, becomes a reductionist idea that pretends, inadequately, to explain every single facet of the relationship between humans and animals as the exclusive result of discriminations from the former towards the later. In fact, some vegans will say that veganism should be all about anti-speciesism (take a look at my exchange with gurduloo in another thread of this post).
A common vegan talking point against meat consumption is that we, as humans, have no innate desire to hunt, kill, or exploit other living beings for personal gain, but that those are learned traits that are not present in the vast majority of people, for which most prefer to pay others (farmers and the food industry) to do these acts for us. This vegan talking point says paying others to butcher animals for us is carnist and speciesist.
While at first it might make sense, this oversimplified explanation misses a profound discussion on division of labour, which as an economic concept has been approached and discussed since Plato's Republic but has much more recently been identified by Donald E. Brown as a "human universal": "those (empirically determined) features of culture, society, language, behavior, and psyche found in all ethnographically or historically recorded human societies [emphasis mine]".
https://www.amazon.com/Being-Humans-Anthropological-Particularity-Transdisciplinary/dp/3110169746
Brown states that the explanation for human universals might be probabilistic, however "the greater the number of societies that possess the pattern, and the more complex the pattern, the less the likelihood that the distribution of the pattern results from mere coincidence" and he details a few possible explanations for these universals, including them being being features of human nature itself:
>Ethology provides inspiration for the identification of species-typical behaviours and the study of the developmental processes (combining innateness and learning) that produce them (see, e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Seligman/Hager 1972; Tiger/Fox 1971). Sociobiology provides ultimate (i.e. evolutionary) explanations for such universals as kin altruism and the norm of reciprocity (Hamilton 1964; Trivers 1971).
Other philosophers expand on these ideas (see for instance August John Hoffman's "Philosophical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology").
There might or not be evolutionary explanations for the division of labor, but discarding the cultural motivations and consequences of specialization that have brought along the delegating food production and distribution system to third parties, including those that allow the present socio-economic conditions for veganism to exist in the first place - increase in productivity and efficiency, development of technological innovations - seems completely inappropriate.
So a vegan says that we pay farmers of the food industry to do acts of killing for us to eat, and that is a proof of speciesism. I ask you, how can we even come up with sustainable alternatives to production of food and else (even vegan alternatives in this case) if we don't even understand the underlying elements that motivate why we humans act a certain way and how basic economy works?
Factory farming, which is a relatively recent phenomenom, has come to be as a natural consequence of the paradigms of classic economy: Needs are infinite and resources are scarce, economic entities are "rational", rational entities increase profits and reduce costs, the system will balance itself out. The consumerist model and the economic assumptions of classic liberal economy are the elements that we would really have to confront, and we are only going to be able to do that through a true understanding of concepts like "division of labor" and how it affects common used benchmarks that we use to measure economic value: productivity, efficiency, cost reduction, etc.
That's why within veganism you often see discussions about economy and lifestyle issues that people don't agree upon and they are going to give you contradicting answers.
Take for instance plastic and veganism, some vegans defending palm oil (I participated in that thread too countering OP's arguments), veganism and air-flight, almond milk as a substitute for dairy milk, etc.
I took a course on this very subject a couple of years ago. I highly recommend this book for a nice collection of writings on laughter. One of the most interesting and basic ways to define humor is as an incongruence of what we consider to be "normal" or part of reality. That is, we laugh at something that seems unexpected or absurd.
There's also the big factor of expecting something to be funny because it is presented in a way that tells you it's funny. I don't think that sentence made much sense, but give this episode of Radio Lab a listen. It starts out with exploring an anti-joke that comedians Kristen Schaal and Kurt Braunohler use in their performance: Schaal dances around the stage as Braunohler screams for 5-10 minutes, "Kristen Schaal is a horse! Kristen Schaal is a horse! Look at her dance, and look at her go, look at her dance like a horse!" There is absolutely no joke given and there's nothing inherently funny about it (in fact it starts to seem a bit creepy the longer they do it), but the bit receives a flipped bell curve of laughter the longer as the minutes pass. At first it's funny because of its absurdity, then the laughs die out as they audience realizes that they are now outside of the traditional paradigm of a "joke," which is then followed by the realization that the entire thing is supposed to be a joke and thus it elicits laughter again. The audience expects it to have some kind of associated humor since they're at a "comedy" show.
Running with the Pack by Mark Rowlands isn't religious, but is about philosophy/spirituality which I think might help get you into deep thought during your runs.
What operating system do you use? Because I do not know of any other audiobooks but I have some books to recommend. You could use text to speech software to make it into an audiobook.
Here below are some books I recommend.
Google play or Amazon kindle may offer text over speech builtin(meaning you don't have to copy and paste into a special outside program) but I think it is only for certain books but I am not sure.
https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Epicurus-ebook/dp/B014FK6OH8/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1518919480&sr=8-1&keywords=the+essential+epicurus
https://www.amazon.com/Tending-Epicurean-Garden-Hiram-Crespo-ebook/dp/B00O2D62QW/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518919901&sr=1-1&keywords=tending+the+epicurean+garden
https://www.amazon.com/EPICURUS-PLEASANT-LIFE-Philosophy-Nature-ebook/dp/B071KKHF3Y/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=JR1XY1B5HHSZ5ZPJXMT0
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
I would give her "The God Delusion", I didn't think it was extreme at all, as I've read in so many places.
Otherwise I loved all the books by German philosopher and chief atheist Michael Schmidt-Salomon, he's basically the German Sam Harris, but without all the baggage. But the same opinions about determinism, Islam ... he's heavily influenced by Dawkins (and Harris as well I think) and has a humorous style ...
I loved all his books, they're very readable, interesting, well explained, clear and concise, and this one is translated into English on Amazon (but requires a Kindle or free app on the computer):
>Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism: Plea for a mainstream culture appropriate to our times
>
>We are living in a time of asynchrony: While technologically we are firmly in the 21st century, our world views are still characterized by ancient legends which are thousands of years old. This combination of high-level technical ability and highly naïve child-like beliefs could have disastrous consequences in the long run. We are behaving like five-year-olds who have been given responsibility for a jumbo jet.
>
>One of the most depressing problems of our time lies in religious fundamentalists of all stripes casually making use of the fruits of the Enlightenment (freedom of expression, constitutionality, science, technology) in order to prevent its principles being applied to the domain of their own belief. For example, to further their beliefs, the 9/11 terrorists used airplanes constructed on the basis of scientific principles; principles to which their beliefs could never stand up. In return, the "fundamentalist with other means", George W. Bush, led the world into a devastating "crusade" against "terror" and the "axis of evil" making use of a technology which could never have been developed if scientists had contented themselves with the American President's child-like faith that the Bible's creation account is true.
>
>In the face of the dangers arising from the renaissance of unenlightened thinking in a technologically highly developed era, it is a matter of intellectual integrity to speak out clearly - especially where religion is concerned. Anyone who is capable of splitting the atom and communicating via satellites must possess intellectual and emotional maturity. That certain people or groups of persons avoid exposure to criticism by establishing "holy" (i.e. untouchable) rules and uphold their fallacies as mandatory for all time, may and can no longer be accepted practice in a modern society.
I'm merely pointing out one possibility however it's the possibility I believe has the highest probability of being true. You're trying to ask me what has influenced me in this direction. I would have to tell you it has to do with direct experience with phenomena that falls outside the realm of everyday ordinary reality. To go into it here would make too many people uncomfortable and since it was my direct experience it is not something easily provable or transferable. In other words I could tell you but you'd never believe me and I'd have no way to prove it, so I might as well not even go there.
I can however furnish you with reading material that may eventually help you have your own direct experience of non-ordinary reality which might lead to your own revelations.
some of these links will be amazon links but I'm not getting paid by them no worries.
You can do it with buddhist meditation here is a decent guidebook: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
here are some other resources that may be helpful.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0880103728
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882692047
http://www.amazon.com/Not-His-Image-Gnostic-Ecology/dp/193149892X
http://www.workofthechariot.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Trigger-Final-Secret-Illuminati/dp/1561840033
http://www.amazon.com/Valis-Philip-K-Dick/dp/0679734465
http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Dream-Yoga-Complete-Conscious/dp/156455743X
You could always just go the lazy route and eat 6 grams of dried psilocybe cubensis alone in a silent dark room. I hear that works for a lot of people but it's not really what I'm into. :)
good luck!
Ok. If you can't show that the joke is sexist, then you're basically admitting that you haven't even tried to understand the joke. Trying to understand jokes, though difficult, is not "fucking theoretical mathematics". Perhaps more importantly, there's a reason I don't post in threads about theoretical mathematics. I don't understand it. If you don't understand how jokes work, you shouldn't really be getting shouty about them.
Your personal experience of what jokes would and wouldn't offend the women you know is irrelevant here.The reason you or I would be uncomfortable telling this joke in public is that people are silly; they hear something like this, and without knowing why, decide it's sexist and get offended. Exhibit A: You. This does mean it would be unwise to risk offending someone you actually knew. This does not mean the joke is actually sexist or harmful.
If you'd genuinely be interested in finding out more about how jokes work, and the difference between genuinely offensive jokes and the above joke, here are some interesting resources to get to grips with the basics of the topic. The first is a seminal essay on why people laugh, and will give some good solid basics on looking at a joke and deciphering what it is about it that makes it funny. The second is a glorious defense of the art of "shock comedy" by one of its practitioners, Brendon Burns. It won the Edinburgh comedy award, and remains one of the most important hours of stand-up ever performed.
Bergson on the Meaning of the Comic
Brendon Burns' seminal show, "So I suppose this is offensive now?"
I'd also reccommend looking at Jenny Eclair; pioneer of women's comedy in Britain, utterly filthy, and tells the funniest jokes about sucking dick that I've ever heard.
You don't just get to declare that something is sexist, period. If you want to get haughty and offended up on your moral high ground, you have to show that there's a good reason that the joke can't be enjoyed unless you have a sexist attitude. You have no obligation to buy either of the above resources, or find any other way become educated about this topic. However, I would strongly suggest that you refrain from wading in and denouncing perfectly good jokes as "sexist" without any knowledge whatsoever. That you consider this not only morally acceptable, but morally superior, is quite funny really.
I frequently have to stop a discussion and explain to a friend why a joke they've told is offensive and unnacceptable. It pisses me off that people who don't really know what's going on are so happy to plunge in in situations just because they want to feel this snooty sense of superiority.
Again, I don't know you, so the extent to which what I'm saying has any real basis in truth is perhaps limited. The real purpose is perhaps more polemic than considered, the better to provide food for thought.
An old professor of mine would have called this disciplinary decadence.
Epitomo: Epikuraj Skribaĵoj - estas aro de verkaĵoj pri la filozofio epikura kaj facila maniero studi kaj filozofion kaj esperanton
https://www.amazon.com/Epitomo-Esperanto-Hiram-Crespo/dp/1537679473/
Self-Deception (New Problems of Philosophy) by Eric Funkhouser
It’s a really great overview of the subject.
Self-Deception and Morality by Mike W. Martin
Those were the best on the topic.
A good book to help understand our capacity for evil: https://www.amazon.com/HOMO-99-100-NONSAPIENS-Introduction/dp/0988553635
You seem to be suggesting some kind of creative evolution, which, despite its unpopularity, can have some strong arguments for it. If you're up for any reading, and curious about this idea and where the support from it comes from, I'd read Nagel's Mind & Cosmos, Bergson's Creative Evolution, or Scheler's The Human Place in the Cosmos.