Best philosopher biographies according to redditors

We found 227 Reddit comments discussing the best philosopher biographies. We ranked the 96 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Philosopher Biographies:

u/Clint_Redwood · 25 pointsr/TheRedPill

Think of a baby and how they have object permanency. When you walk out of the room you are no longer in the baby's frame of existence. Well you as a human being never really lose this frame phenomenon psychologically. As you grow older it just grows larger. Every piece of knowledge, every place you've traveled, very technique, person, thing, entity you've ever meet or learn expands your frame of existence.

However your frame of existence is totally dynamic every second. Like right now you're reading TRP, your frame is concentrated to the screen. You're not thinking about that fly sitting on your wall, or what color is the shoes you are or what your dad is doing right now. But the mere fact that I said these things means they are now inside your frame because you're thinking about them. Your frame is dynamically changing every second and it has since the day you were born. Random thoughts are coming in and out of your head, events are happening all around you, in your house, on your street, in your city, your state government, people are moving and things are happen every second but somehow your mind knows what to focus on at any given moment, totally autonomously.

As far as artificial intelligence goes, computers always try to calculate every possible parameter they are giving to solve a problem. The classic example of Frame Problem is place a sentient AI bomb defusing robot in a room and tell it to defuse the bomb before it goes off. Well, that robot will sit there till infinite trying to calculate every possible outcome and it's probability of happening. It will figure the likelihood of touching it one way, will it explode? What if the walls change colors, probability of explosion? What's the probability of the wall changing color? What if it backs up an inch, what's the probability? It will try to calculate everything it can unless programmed otherwise.

From the moment a human is born it can dynamically adjust their frame and egocentricity. This is one of the reasons we have consciousness and we do it totally subconsciously. There are deeply rooted networks in the brain that tell you what you need to be focusing on at any given moment. Cortisol levels connect to fear and danger. Oxytocin will make you focus on those you care about. Dopamine will make you more or less erratic(ADD). And there a million other things that all control and change your frame at any given moment. And that's not even getting into were thoughts generate in the mind or how memory recall and memory reassociation works. Have you ever thought about were your thoughts come from? Go through the day and start paying attention to why the hell you just though what you did? Do your thoughts just come out of thin air or was their a trigger or cascade effect to bring you to where you are right now?

This is a... confusing and hard problem to recreate with AI. The Frame problem was discovered in 1969 and it still hasn't been solved.

If you're interested in this stuff I highly recommend watching Jordan B Peterson in the link above. He's a Pychologist who has pretty much spend his entire life trying to figure this out. He ever wrote a very extensive book on it called "Maps of Meaning: The Architeture of Belief". That book he also teaches as a class in the university of Toronto and you can access all his lectures on youtube. He posts every one of them for the semester. I even believe you can get the syllabus and worksheet stuff on his website.

What's interesting is you'll start to see The Frame Problem explained in many different ways, by different people and at different time periods. I'm a big fan of studying every genius that's ever lived. Inventors, physicists, chemists, etc. Einstein, Van braun, Richard Feynman, Tyson, Hawkings, etc. and pretty much every hyper intelligent individual will tell you that you are and always will be an idiot. What they are referring to is you can never know everything. No matter how large of a frame you grow, no matter how much information, experiences or things you can possibly attain physically or mentally, there will always be more you don't know or haven't experienced. This is an extremely useful thing to realize, one it humbles you and people like humility and two, your options are now limitless. If you become curious about something, you can imagine how deep that rabbit hole could possibly go, but you won't truly know till you start exploring.

Another example in history and probably one of the first times the frame idea was written down was Epictetus and Stoicism. The first line of Enchiridion which is the stoic handbook and condensed version of Epictetus: Discourses writings, says,
> "There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. beyond our power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever are not properly our own affairs."

Epictetus was a student of Crate and Crate was a Student of Socrates. This was probably the first time the Frame Problem was idealized in writing. Or at least the first one to be preserved till today. In fact stoicism pretty much entirely revolves around learning your frame and controlling what you can. Any time you spend on things outside your control is considered time wasted, which you can never get back. So it's half learning frame and half improving time efficiency.

Self improvement is in a way is an active expansion of your frame, even if the subconscious mechanisms that drive it you didn't think about till I just explained it to you.

u/[deleted] · 19 pointsr/philosophy

I'm not /u/hungrystegosaurus, but here are a few personal suggestions:

Philosophy on the whole -- Copleston is the standard and for good reason

Early Greek philosophy -- Nietzsche has a relatively accessible and worthwhile overview on many Greek sages that I found to be a supremely helpful, though controversial, introduction

Plato -- Very, very tough to recommend any good introduction to his work taken holistically, but I'll go out on a limb and recommend something Straussian, which is a little tough for a first-timer but grounds Platonic philosophy in living moral and political issues OP is likely more familiar with. Shorter dialogues like the Meno and the Apology might also be worth checking out

Aristotle -- Forget the abstruse metaphysics; stick with the ethics. The Cambridge intro is adequate

Renaissance / Enlightenment philosophy -- Not my primary interest, but rather than plunging into Kant, try something like the Novum Organum by Bacon, which is an admirably clear laying-out of the Enlightenment project, written without impenetrable jargon and in a digestible aphoristic style

Nietzsche -- Most anything by Kaufmann will do, but this is a nice piece

Heidegger -- Richard Polt's introduction

Existentialism in general -- Not a written reference, but this video lecture series by Solomon, an excellent UT philosophy professor, makes for a nice companion

Contemporary philosophy -- /u/ReallyNicole, one of this subreddit's moderators, would be able to offer a ton of great introductory material. She's sort of a pro at linking to articles

This is barely scratching the surface, but scratching the surface is more than enough. If OP can get through even half of this material in a year or two's time, he'll be well on his way to developing his philosophical faculties and familiarity.

To recommend motherfucking Being and Time or the Critique of Pure Reason (without supplemental aids, no less) to a 17-year-old novice is so egregiously, maddeningly, ball-shrivelingly stupid and such wholly, purely, offensively bad advice that I honestly wouldn't mind seeing /u/JamieHugo permanently banned from this subreddit for corrupting the youth.

u/hiddensynapse · 14 pointsr/radiohead

I should add that Jung's writing is notoriously challenging to interpret, even for those with PhDs in psychology. If you're not familiar with reading philosophy, then you'll probably struggle a bit with Jung. Jung was my introduction to dense philosophical reading, and it was definitely challenging to decipher, requiring multiple reads to "fully" understand. Almost every sentence is packed with meaning, and it can take years of reflection to fully understand what he’s trying to say. I felt like I understood him completely the first time through, but realized that there was so much more to his work after subsequent examinations.

I was 15 or so when I discovered him, and at the time I thought his ideas where flawless. 11 years later, I’ve uncovered some questionable aspects of his theories (particularly pertaining to archetypes), but I still think he’s absolutely brilliant, perhaps the Einstein of psychology.

Depending on what we discover about the universe in the coming years, his theories will either prove to be a century ahead of his time, or to be pseudoscientific nonsense. The collective unconscious and synchronicity have profound implications about the nature of consciousness and the universe. Jung is controversial because many of his theories are rooted in deeply spiritual concepts.

Before you dive into his original writings, I recommend doing some research on his key concepts first. There are several primers on Jungian psychology that are far more accessible than his direct work. I recommend this one:

Here's a few Jungian concepts worth checking out. Keep in mind that Jung's work has been interpreted in several different ways, so these descriptions are just my own interpretations, and are not necessarily correct. I'd recommend checking out with the wiki for each concept as a starting point, and then reading his autobiography.

  1. The Anima and Animus (of course) - the feminine and masculine dimensions of the human psyche (respectively) occurrent in every person.
  2. The Collective Unconscious - the shared, unconscious, psychological framework of humanity. Can be interpreted genetically or in a more spiritual way.
  3. Synchronicity - definitely one of Jung's most controversial ideas, but also one of his most interesting. Essentially it's "meaningful coincidence"
  4. Typology - Jung's theory of personality, which is the basis of the Myers-Briggs personality test. Includes the concepts of introversion and extroversion, which Jung originated.
  5. The Shadow - this is the dark, animalistic side of the human psyche present in all of us. It's our base, mostly unconscious animalistic tendencies, and the source of all "evil". According to Jung, we all have the capacity to do horrible things, and controlling those impulses requires a recognition and awareness of one's shadow. In order to fight your inner demons, you must first be aware of them.
  6. Individuation - one could say this is Jung's concept of "enlightenment". It refers to the process of becoming fully aware of your unconscious, and integrating it into your personality.
  7. Archetypes - this concept is interwoven with the Shadow, Anima, Animus, and the collective unconscious. I interpret it as shared psychological constructs and dispositions. I think Jung takes the idea of archetypes too far, but I still believe that it has merit when considered moderately.

    As for original works, I started with his autobiography "Memories, Dreams, Reflections". I think it's an excellent introduction to his mind.
u/Im_regular_legs · 14 pointsr/enoughpetersonspam


I'd urge you to actively avoid any other videos attempting to explain him.

Books: This is extremely simple, clear, and accurate, which is very high praise when it comes to Derrida. Also look up "Deconstruction in a Nutshell", and his interview with Julia Kristeva in "Positions". This is really good and in-depth but difficult. For something by Derrida himself, everyone starts with "Structure Sign & Play". "Différance", "The Ends of Man" and "Signature Event Context" are also good, albeit difficult, as is all of his work.

For Foucault I find Stanford, Wikipedia, pretty much any lectures on youtube about him, PartiallyExaminedLife, to be fine before you jump straight into Discipline and Punish. It's difficult though. Or you could get The Foucault Reader by Paul Rabinow which collects a lot of his writings from various works as well as interviews, the latter obviously being a lot more accessible.

u/j9461701 · 12 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> Holography has provided rich insights into the study of strongly correlated quantum matter without quasiparticle excitations, advances in the nonperturbative bootstrap approach are inching toward a complete reformulation of quantum field theory in a nonlagrangian framework, quantum information perspectives have generated totally novel schemes for understanding entropy in field theories ...the very concept of symmetry has been generalized to higher-form gauge fields and higher-dimensional charged objects (allowing for symmetry-breaking perspectives on topological phases, previously thought to be beyond the Landau paradigm), and for the first time in over a century theoretical physics is generating deep new insights into the most ambitious mathematical programs like Geometric Langlands and Morse theory.

Finding a dozen new ways to reach the same old conclusions, or discovering a slightly different way to describe a field, is precisely what I mean when I say spinning wheels. What is dark matter? What is beyond the standard model? How does gravity operate on the quantum level? We have no idea, and what's worse our best hope of finding even a hint of a direction to go in for real answers fell apart.

Once upon a time physicists rocked the world with every discovery, changed how people perceived everything around them from sunlight to matter to time itself. To say we have not entered a period of relative stagnation compared to the halcyon days of yesteryear, especially with regards to "big" discoveries that get laypeople excited, just doesn't seem to be accurate.

>If the LHC had detected superpartners or signatures of dark matter it would definitely have been among the biggest discoveries of early 21st century physics, but theoretical physics has gotten along just fine without it.

I'm only an undergrad, so you may well be right. I'm just describing my perspective as I saw things when I looked into whether I wanted to continue my studies into graduate school, and it's quite possible I read the wrong blogs and looked at the wrong books. But what do you think about posts like this one:

Or more broadly I suppose her claim (which she wrote a book about that's soon to be released) that theoretical physics' obsession with mathematical beauty and sophistication is to blame for the modern period of failure to innovate? That theoretical physicists have just been re-arranging the mathematical deck chairs rather than doing real work?

u/Qwill2 · 11 pointsr/askphilosophy

From Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche, edited by Christopher Middleton:

Page 260-261: Letter to Franz Overbeck, February 23, 1887 about a French translation of Notes from the Underground ("L’Esprit souterrain"):

> The instinct of affinity (or what shall I call it?) spoke to me instantaneously -- my joy was beyond bounds; not since my first encounter with Stendhal's Rouge et Noir have I known such joy. (The book consists of two novellas, the first really a piece of music, very foreign, very un-German music; the second a stroke of psychological genius, a sort of self-ridicule of the XX XX.) Incidentally, these Greeks have a great deal on their conscience -- falsification was their real trade; the whole of European psychology is sick with Greek superficialities, and without the modicum of Judaism, and so on, and so on.

It doesn't say XX XX in the text, it says two words in Greek which I can't bother to find out how to write...

Page 317: Letter to Georg Brandes, October 20, 1888:

> I quite believe it when you say that "in Russia one can come to life again"; any Russian book -- above all, Dostoevski (translated into French, for heaven's sake not German!!) -- I count among my greatest moments of pleasurable relief.

Page 327: Letter to Georg Brandes, November 20, 1888:

> I completely believe what you say about Dostoevski; I prize his work, on the other hand, as the most valuable psychological material known to me -- I am grateful to him in a remarkable way, however much he goes against my deepest instincts. Roughly as in my relation to Pascal, whom I almost love because he has taught me such an infinite amount -- the only logical Christian.

From Will to Power, edited by Walter Kaufmann:

Page 389-390:

> 735: There are delicate and sickly inclined natures, so-called idealists, who cannot achieve anything better than a crime, cru, vert: (98) it is the great justification of their little, pale existences, a payment for a protracted cowardice and mendaciousness, a moment at least of strength: afterwards they perish of it. (99)

> 736: In our civilized world, we learn to know almost only the wretched criminal, crushed by the curse and the contempt of society, mistrutful of himself, often belittling and slandering his deed, a miscarried type of criminal; and we resist the idea that all great human beings have been criminals (only in the grand and not in a miserable style), that crime belongs to greatness (-- or that is the experience og those who have tried the reins and of all who have descended deepest into great souls---). To be "free as a bird" from tradition, the conscience of duty --- every great human being knows this danger. But he also desires it: he desires a great goal and therefore also the means to it. (100)

The notes are of course Kaufmann's:

> (98) raw, green
> (99) Possibly a comment on Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. See also the next footnote and section 740 below.
> (100) Cf. Twilight [of the Idols], "Skrimishes," section 45, which deals at greater length with "The criminal and what is related to him" and says: "The testimony of Dostoevsky is relevant... -- Dostoevsky, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn..." (Portable Nietzsche, pp. 549-51). Cf. also section 740 below. Se also the Appendix, below
Also, If you search for "dosto" here, you'll find more references to Dostoevsky.

Pages 391-393:

> 740: Crime belongs to the concept "revolt against the social order." One does not "punish" a rebel; one suppresses him. A rebel can be a miserable and contemptible man; but there is nothing contemptible in a revolt as such-and to be a rebel in view of contemporary society does not in itself lower the value of a man. There are even cases in which one might have to honor a rebel, because he finds something in our society against which war ought to be waged --he awakens us from our slumber.

> If a criminal perpetrates an individual act against an individual this does not demonstrate that his whole instinct is not in a state of war with the whole order: his deed as a mere symptom.

> One should reduce the concept "punishment" to the concept: suppression of a revolt, security measures against the suppressed (total or partial imprisonment). But one should not express contempt through punishment: a criminal is in any case a man who risks his life, his honor, his freedom-a man of courage. Neither should one take punishment to be a penance; or as a payment, as if an exchange relationship existed between guilt and punishment --punishment does not purify, for crime does not sully.

> One should not deprive the criminal of the possibility of making his peace with society; provided he does not belong to the
race of criminals. In that case one should make war on him even before he has committed any hostile act (first operation as soon as one has him in one's power: his castration).

> One should not hold against the criminal his bad manners or the low level of his intelligence. Nothing is more common than
that he should misunderstand himself (for often his rebellious instinct, the rancor of the déclassé, has not reached consciousness, faute le lecture), (102) that he should slander and dishonor his deed under the influence of fear and failure-quite apart from those cases in which, psychologically speaking, the criminal surrenders to an uncomprehended drive and by some subsidiary action ascribes a false motive to his deed (perhaps by a robbery when what he wanted was blood). (103)

> One should beware of assessing the value of a man according to a single deed. Napoleon warned against this. For our haut-relief deeds are quite especially insignificant. If men like us have no crime, e,g., murder, on our conscience-why is it? Because a few opportune circumstances were lacking. And if we did it, what would that indicate about our value? In a way one would despise us if one thought we had not the strength to kill a man under certain circumstances. In almost all crimes some qualities also find expression which ought not to be lacking in a man. It was not without justification that Dostoevsky said of the inmates of his Siberian prisons that they formed the strongest and most valuable part of the Russian people.''' (104) If with us the criminal is an illnourished and stunted plant, this is to the dishonor of our social relationships; in the age of the Renaissance the criminal throve and acquired for himself his own kind of virtue --virtue in the Renaissance style, to be sure, virtù, moraline-free virtue.

> One can enhance only those men whom one does not treat with contempt; moral contempt causes greater indignity and harm than any crime.

> (102) For lack of reading.
> (103) Cf.. Zarathustra I. "On the Pale Criminal" (Portable Nietzsche, p. 149ff), and Crime and Punishment; but when Nietzsche wrote Zarathustra, he had not even heard of Dostoevsky. For the details concerning his reading of Dostoevsky, see my notes on Genealogy, essay III, sections 15 and 24.
> (104) Cf. Twilight, "Skirmishes," section 45 (Portable Nietzsche, pp. 549-51), and section 736 above.

Page 417:

> 788: To restore a good conscience to the evil man -- has this been my unconscious endeavour? I mean, to the evil man in so far as he is the strong man? (Dostoevsky's judgment on the criminals in prison should be cited here.)

You can also search for "dosto" here and find more references.

u/RomanOrgy69 · 9 pointsr/Wicca

For reliable sources:

High Magic's Aid by Gerald Gardner

Aradia: Gospel of the Witches by Charles Godfrey Leland

1: Witchfather: A Life of Gerald Gardner: Into the Witch Cult by Philip Heselton

Lid off the Cauldron by Patrica Crowther

The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton

Foundations of Practical Magic: An Introduction to Qabalistic, Magical and Meditative Techniques by Israel Regardie

A Witches' Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar

Witchcraft for Tomorrow by Doreen Valiente

Modern Magick: Eleven Lessons in the High Magickal Arts by Donald Michael Kraig

Magical Power For Beginners: How to Raise & Send Energy for Spells That Work by Deborah Lipp

Fifty Years Of Wicca by Frederic Lamond

For essential materials,

-An athame

-A wand

-A pentacle

-A chalice

-Incense and censer

> Would I be considered a true Wiccan if I hid it from those around me?

Yes, you would be considered a "true Wiccan." Most Wiccans since the inception of Wicca kept secret the fact they were witches. It's only in very recent times that people are so forward about the fact that they're witches. I myself keep it pretty well hidden. Only those in my coven and my closest loved ones know that I'm Wiccan.

>When choosing a patron/matron do you pick from literally any gods/goddesses?

The concept of a patron/matron deity is relatively new to Wicca. Originally, the Goddess worshiped by the Witches was the Lunar Goddess of Fertility - often called Diana, Aradia, Hekate, Isis, the Queen of Elphame, etc. The original God worshiped by the Witches was the Horned God of Death and Resurrection - often called Pan, Cernunnos, Janicot, etc. However, in recent times, Wiccans (myself included) have begun working with all types of Pagan deities. So in short, yes, you can pick any god or goddess you feel a connection with.

> Can you celebrate the Wiccan holidays and still celebrate things like Christmas?

Yes, most Wiccans still celebrate cultural holidays such as Christmas.

u/Marshmlol · 9 pointsr/CriticalTheory

Here is the textbook I used for my Critical Theory Class at UCLA. It's called the Norton Anthology of Critical Theory. While this is a good introduction to many theorists, I also suggest you to research supplemental materials on databases - ie. JSTOR - to understand movements/concepts.

There is also a comic book series that's descent depending on what you pick. While I enjoyed Foucault for Beginners, I hated Derrida for Beginners.

Lastly, Jonathan Culler's Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction is an excellent entry point. I actually met Culler when I visited Cornell. He's an awesome guy. Anyways, I think Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction should also be an excellent resource, although I haven't read it myself.

u/BlueOtterSocks · 9 pointsr/mbti

This is the short summary I read to get acquainted with Jungian psychology at large. There's a few different ones out there. It's super enriching.

For type specifically, there's no substitute for "Psychological Types". I recommend chapters 2, 10, and any relevant definitions from chapter 11. I also recommend getting the revised translation, since it's a much easier read (the one available online is an older edition), but that costs $$$ :(

u/Lynxx · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

The first two books that come to mind are The Story of Philosophy by William Durant, and A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. I've never read the Russell book personally, but I've heard great things about it (plus, its got a great cover).

u/Sich_befinden · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Shaun Gallagher's Phenomenology is a great introduction, and covers a lot of the areas and distinctions made by philosophers.

Dan Zahavi's Husserl's Phenomenology is actually pretty decent. He considers other positions and how they relate to the O.G. of phenomenology. Plus, Zahavi is a freakishly clear writer.

Edit/PS: "Introductions to Heidegger" are often hard to recommend, but with your political philosophy bent, I'd suggest Irene McMullin's Time and the Shared World: Heidegger on Social Relations. I can't wholeheartedly recommend the book, as I have yet to read it, but reviews speak highly of it.

And, as far as I'm aware, Richard Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction is a core book in its comprehensive overview of Heidegger's works.

u/travelinghobbit · 5 pointsr/whatisthisthing

I want to say it's from Osamu Tezuka.

Maybe this series?

u/trpobserver · 5 pointsr/asktrp

Heres my suggestion:

Write down the three things you want to change the most.

Write down how you will change them

Read this little book to help guide you through the process, a process which your brain will undoubtedly try to make difficult for you.

u/OhDannyBoy00 · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy". I'm reading it now and I wish it was the first book I read. At 400 pages it definitely skips some major parts of history but it's written in a way that's very entertaining. It reads like a novel and makes the material accessible instead of getting bogged down with technicals like Anthony Kenny's history.

A really great way to get "the flavour" of philosophy as they like to say.

u/notphilosophy · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

Might I suggest Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy. It's like Russell's History of Phi, but not as popular. I ate that book up as a new undergrad student and I enjoy keeping it by my bedside. I never read it anymore, but I feel good knowing it's at an arm's length.

u/animistern · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

If you're looking for a broad overview or a history of western philosophy, I wholeheartedly recommend Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee. Magee's ability to extract the diamond heart of a philosophical work and explain it clearly (many times even clearer than the original writer) is unmatched by anyone, in my opinion. His books Confessions of a Philosopher and The Great Philosophers are also brilliant overview-type books, but Story of Philosophy is the most recent, the most comprehensive (although not the deepest), and it's full of images, so I would recommend that you start there.

u/thesmileyoneplays · 4 pointsr/kundalini

I think you have me a bit wrong... I don't mind paying for classes, and I certainly don't mind paying for correct, valid information.

What I do mind paying for is for example the SR example I posted - I bought her "advanced blah blah teachings" for $7.99 and even though she states she is selfless and has no ego, the pdf was full of sentences like "I strolled through town and my aura was so big that everyone was looking at me in admiration and bowing at me" this doesn't sound to me like someone with no ego? So if that perception of the author is correct then how can the other info (that you are paying $30 for) also be correct?

And my point about the power and esoteric knowledge, I probably didn't word properly. Here reddit is free, and you tell people not to mess with K, that it can kill you. On all these other sites people are encouraging anyone to unlock K...via their $49/m online course....

Pay to potentially die (atleast your body) vs get the real info for free. Which would you choose? You have given me far more real info than any accumaltive knowledge I have gained in the WWW domain so far!

I am also reading a book (that I payed for :P)

Do you know of the Author? He has mentioned K quite a bit but that was not why I bought it... I seem drawn to this topic of spirituality lately. And work stuff is no longer as important as it once was. Ironically I am an internet marketer but I don't use websites (and have no intention of using K as a niche!)

u/ThisAdorableSOB · 3 pointsr/MGTOW

No More Mr Nice Guy was the book I was referring to - hopefully other commenters can offer more examples.

I've been reading A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy & Enchiridion by Epicurus for some easy-to-digest MGTOW philosophy which has crossed nicely into the mainstream. For fiction I'd hugely recommend Whatever by Michel Houellebecq & Lights Out in Wonderland by DBC Pierre (one of my all-time favourites.)

To be fair, Bukowski can be read to help with the "Don't Give A Fuck" attitude that can help build your confidence. He tends to see women without the rose-tinted glasses, to put it delicately. He's written lots of poetry but his novels are the best. Bluebird is one of my favourite poems by him. Post Office is one of his great novels.

That's all I can think of for now.

u/Shitgenstein · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Heidegger is tough, even for people who aren't beginners with regard to philosophy in general. For myself, I had a strong background in Aristotle before reading selections of Heidegger's early lectures on Aristotle, which helped me see where Heidegger was coming from with regard to 'being qua being.'

However, though I haven't read it, there's a book, Heidegger: An Introduction that looks promising.

u/Wegmarken · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

In my experience, thinkers like Derrida can really throw you for a loop on your first few tries. One professor described the process as being re-reading over and over until you figure out the questions they're asking, at which point you're ready to read them. For me, the thing that smooths out the process is secondary sources. They explain terms, themes and ideas, as well as contextualizing them in the thinkers larger context. Oxford Very Short Introductions are cheap, accessible, well-written, and have "For further reading" sections that will help you go deeper. I've got a growing collection of them, and it's generally my favorite place to start when trying to learn about something new. I'd also recommend John Caputo's Deconstruction in a Nutshell, which is a Q/A session with Derrida, followed by commentary by Caputo explaining Derrida's answers and pointing towards where in Derrida's work particular ideas and themes can be found.

u/HumeFrood · 3 pointsr/philosophy

A lot of Bertrand Russell's books are accessible, as long as you're willing to put up with some of his personal biases. There are arguably a lot of misinterpretations of individual philosophers in his book "A History of Western Philosophy," for example, but it can still give you a good general overview that's also very accessible. I've also heard nothing but good things about The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. I haven't read it, but I've read other books by him and they're all very accessible.

u/rednblack · 3 pointsr/philosophy

The Philosopher's Toolkit and The Story of Philosophy both seem like great places to start.

u/platochronic · 3 pointsr/philosophy

I would recommend an introductory book. Personally, I suggest Story of Philosophy by Will Durant. But if you really want to understand it, you're going to have to get in the habit of reading slowly and rereading until you really understand it. And have a dictionary and look up of all of the words you don't know.

If you finish the book, I guarantee your entire perspective on life will be completely different. Not necessarily for the better, as some people learn more than they bargain for. But if you finish and really want to learn more, I can give you other good introductions.

u/Pation · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy
u/SimoneNonvelodico · 3 pointsr/rational

I agree that you can't just accept the notion that things work as they are, and entire fields can lock themselves into a rut. I actually read recently a book by Sabine Hossenfelder on how this seems to be the case for modern particle physics, Lost in Math, and I tend to agree with her on that. But I'm also really wary of anything that suggests that I should take at face value the idea that this thing that looks simple to crack is actually that simple and everyone else is just too stuck in their own assumptions and can't think outside the box.

To make an example, I do have a feeling that medicine suffers from some of these problems. Seen from the outside, a lot of the field seems stuffy, locked into practices and habits (especially in terms of how things are taught and learned) that seem more the product of its historical tradition than of sensible didactic practice. The gap between the state-of-the-art researchers and your common GP seems immense. It seems hardly believable that there could be anything beyond simple gut-level decisions or optimism-biased assumptions going on when a doctor hears you describing a bunch of symptoms and rules out that it's just some trivial thing in three minutes without even touching you. I don't think there is, in fact. But the problem is also, while I do have these suspicions (and the right to express them, I think), every time I talked with people who actually are doctors about them I always got the answer that basically the whole shebang is just such a convoluted fucking mess that these sort of heuristics are still the only effective way we seem to have to navigate them. Of course, one could argue, maybe they just say that because they're doctors; they've been trained a certain way and can't see beyond the habits and prejudices that have been drilled into them together with the knowledge. That can be true. But either way, I can't imagine any serious reform coming from anyone but a doctor who still understands the knowledge sufficiently to realise what could be done to amend the way it's applied, because mine are just surface level feelings. There's too many things I ignore to actually make any kind of constructive proposal.

And when EY for example makes the Bank of Japan example in his book (just started reading), he does mention the opinion of professional economists. It's not something out of thin air. Rather, you get actual experts who don't have the sort of ties that will coax them into a socially-reinforced or biased position ("I don't want to criticise my senior colleagues, therefore I will not openly question their decisions even if I think they're wrong), and develop a contrarian opinion. It's not literally just one person.

u/ADefiniteDescription · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

I've always seen Kuehn's recommended.

u/TheAethereal · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

I would read Plato's Republic. I don't like Plato, but it's really foundational for western philosophy. Then read Aristotle. This is also a great book.

u/AllanfromWales · 3 pointsr/Wicca

No previous religious affiliation.
Practicing wicca for 35 years.
Introduced by my gf who joined a coven - I followed her in.
Coven Wicca offers me the opportunity to express my reverence for nature in a group context.
For me, Wicca is a religious means of expressing a reverence for nature.
My reverence for nature infuses my daily life. Wicca is semi-formalised way of expressing that. But the reverence comes first - Wicca is simply a mechanism.
For history, read Witchfather - two volumes.
Note that for some Wiccans for whom reverence for nature is the key driver, Wicca is not seen as supernatural.

u/rook218 · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

A Primer of Jungian Psychology is what they taught in my history of psychology course about 10 years back. I still remember the title because it was actually a really interesting read

u/johnfeldmann · 3 pointsr/Christianity

Christopher Smith writes: "Deconstruction [Derrida's philosophy] has often been misunderstood to refer to an aggressive and destructive analytical method to be imposed on a text from the outside. Derrida explicitly denies this. Rather, he asserts that deconstruction is something that happens from within a text or system as a result of its internal tensions and contradictions. The goal of this “auto-deconstruction,” moreover, is only destructive insofar as it seeks to clear ground for renewal and development. It is not the systems and the structures themselves that Derrida opposes, but their dogmatism and inflexibility. I suggest you read Derrida for Beginners, it looks like a comic book but the series is written by competent academics. And read Christopher Smith's In Defense of a "Christian" Pluralism. I am pretty confident Smith's application of deconstruction to religion will make sense to somebody unfamiliar with the philosophy, and help illuminate it. Feel free to PM me if you have questions, mate.

u/blue_roster_cult · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

It wasn't a series, sorry if I gave that impression. I was referring to two separate books, although they may in fact be a part of a series:

Western Philosophy

And the one on Derrida which I wouldn't recommend to a 13 year old for obvious reasons. But a little web searching and you might find it's part of a series or something.

It's been well over a decade since I read either book, so you might take my recommendation with a grain of salt.

u/adrianscholl · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy is an excellent overview of philosophy. While it is limited to a small selection of the most notable philosophers, each chapter is dedicated to providing a very readable summary of the ideas of one philosopher. I sincerely believe the best way to get into philosophy is to get a very general "historical map" of the big ideas. Once you have that, it becomes much more rewarding to pick a philosopher of interest and study them in greater detail.

u/williamsates · 3 pointsr/marxism_101

Start with the 'Phenomenology of Spirit', skip the preface as it was written last, and dive into the introduction. Having a good grasp of Kant and his Critiques will help immensely, as would a general introduction to German Idealism.

In terms of secondary literature, sometimes a break is needed from technical arguments, but if you still want to learn about philosophy, then reading biographies can be helpful, it was to me... Terry Pinkard wrote a good biography of Hegel. Manfred Kuehn wrote a very good biography of [Kant.] (

In terms of secondary literature on the Phenomenology specifically, Robert Stern's The Routledge Guidebook to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit and Kenneth Westphal's Hegel's Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit are very helpful.

Happy reading!

u/AllanfromWales1 · 3 pointsr/Wicca

The standard work on the subject is Ron Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon. If you want biographies of Gardner and 2 and Valiente, Philip Heselton has written them. Someone needs to write a history of the Eclectic Wiccan movement since the mid-1980's, but I don't know of one.

u/globi227 · 2 pointsr/howtonotgiveafuck

I am reading Epictetus' Enchiridion right now and I suggest buying it. $2 on Amazon.


Art of Living:

That AoL book doesn't have the most amazing reviews, but I think it is the only version. Does anyone know of another/better version?

u/Jamska · 2 pointsr/IAmA
u/pepto_dismal81 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

Will Durant's 'The Story of Philosophy' is what got me excited about the subject when i was a young man.

u/hydrokush · 2 pointsr/IndianEnts

An amazing book. If further interested, check out The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant ( Another brilliant book which goes in more depth.

u/smj711 · 2 pointsr/occult

Witchfather: : A Life of Gerald Gardner, Volume 1--Into the Witch Cult

Witchfather: A Life of Gerald Gardner, Vol 2: From Witch Cult to Wicca

u/es-335 · 2 pointsr/history

I loooves me some Paine! Him and Jefferson are the two most interesting U.S. historical figures to me.

If you possess some understanding of society in the U.S. at the time of Paine, go with Eric Foner's book. It's not necessarily a direct biography, but more of a detailing as to how Paine was regarded during and shortly after his life, and how his ideas fit in with society then.

There's Nelson's book which is excellent, and certainly more a detailing of the man's life and thoughts.

Then you have Hitchens's bio of Paine, which is relatively brief to the other two, but Hitchens is one of my favourite authors and he always packs quite the punch-per-sentence ratio. This one leans far more toward how Paine's legacy has been tremendously impactful on thought, politics and political philosophy in the U.S. particularly but sadly overlooked in recognition thereof.

There are more and it's up to you of course, but if I had to choose one to begin with it would be Nelson's.

u/yonina · 2 pointsr/books

There is also a terrific new biography by Julian Young, a scholar of 19th and 20th century German philosophy, which I have yet to finish but will now dramatically recommend: Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography.

u/jothco · 2 pointsr/books

You could try the Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
Frederick Copleston wrote a fantastic history of philosophy in 11 volumes.
Anthony Kenny has done a somewhat more concise history.
Brian Magee has done it in one volume

Will Durant is also a good bet and a segue into history.

Read a People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and/or Lies my History Teacher told Me.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is also good.

Read some theology. Not many people do. Try Rowan Williams. I'd recommend his Resurrection, but he's also written a book on Dostoevsky.

Read Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment. Notes from the Underground. Brothers Karamazov. Take your pick.

Might check out Edward Said's Orientalism. Maybe some Foucault.

Learn about economics. Naked Economics is a good start. Hazlitt's Economics in one lesson is also popular.

u/sparkzebra · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

You might try an intellectual biography to start with Nietzche, like Hollingdale or Kaufmann, which can help in taking the place of an instructor as a guide.

I know less about Hobbes, and I know you said you want to stop watching YouTube videos, but I really loved Quentin Skinner's Genealogy of the State in which Hobbes features prominently. Using a service like can make it a bit less laborious, since you can then listen while doing other stuff.

u/logger1234 · 2 pointsr/Stoicism

You can get a copy of the enchiridion pretty cheap too. I think I paid $3.50.

I've REALLY gotten a lot out of the Cynthia King Translation of Musonius Rufus, though. Got it from inter-library loan for free. Thin book. Great read.

u/_the_shape_ · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

I can't remember who it was (and a very long time ago too) that wrote that Nietzsche's praise of the Jews was really intended to be a read as a warning that they shouldn't be casually dismissed, that they truly are a force to be reckoned with, something to that extent. Not like I agree with that sentiment, but it certainly left my head spinning when I came upon it at the time. "Bizarre, sneaky, grim, but well-argued", I thought. I found it while digging up material myself for a paper I wrote during my undergrad days years ago. It very-well may have been a National Socialist scholar who interpreted Nietzsche that way. Alfred Baeumler, maybe? I came across so many different voices arguing in a ton of varying directions doing that paper, so it's hard to remember. Sorry.

Check this book out, along with this one. The letters are full of a lot of clear examples in which he himself denounces any endorsement of anti-semitism, but the former book can help you balance the scales a bit and go into the ways his work was handled by National Socialists and proto-fascists.

u/SoupOrVillain · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

If you’re interested in the evolution of Nietzsche’s ideas on truth over the course of his writings I would highly recommend this book. As for his intellectual development generally—as in his break with Wagner and Schopenhauer, and the influence of materialism and Reé etc—I would recommend you try a biography such as this one.

u/zaphod4prez · 2 pointsr/GetStudying

/u/tuckermalc and /u/pizzzahero both have great comments. I'll add a bit. Go to /r/stoicism, read [William Irvine's book] (, then read [Epictetus's Enchiridion] ( follow their guidelines. Also check out /r/theXeffect. The most important thing is controlling your habits. If you're in the habit of eating healthy, getting enough sleep, going to the gym, etc. then you're set.

Now for stuff that's harder to do. Go see a therapist. Or a psychiatrist. Try to find a [therapist who can do EMDR] ( with you, it's a very effective technique (I saw a clinician who uses EMDR for two years, and it changed my life-- and, importantly, it's supported by strong scientific evidence, it's not quackery stuff like homeopathy or acupuncture). If you decide to go to a psychiatrist, tell them you don't want SSRIs. Look at other drugs: Wellbutrin, tricyclics, SNRIs, etc (check out selegiline in patch form, called EMSAM, as well). Seriously, go see a professional and talk to them. I have no doubt that you're wrestling with mental illness. I have been there. For me, it just felt normal. I didn't understand that other people didn't feel like I it took me a long time to go get help. But it's so important to just start working through these things and getting support. That's really the most important thing you can do. It will make your life so much better. If you aren't able to get to a therapist, do Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) on yourself! [This is a brilliant program] ( that's widely respected. Do it over and over. Also read [Feeling Good by David Burns] ( It's a book on CBT, and can help you get started. There are lots of other resources out there, but you have to begin by realizing that something is wrong.

Finally, I'll talk about college. Don't try to go to fricking Harvard or MIT. You won't get in, and those aren't even the right schools for you. There are many excellent schools out there that aren't the super super famous Ivies. Look at reputable state schools, like UMich, UMinnesota, the UC system, etc. get ["Colleges that Change Lives"] (, the [Fiske Guide to Colleges] (, and [Debt-Free U] ( One thing I realized after college was that I would've been happy at any of the school I looked at. People are fed such a line of BS about school, like you have to go to the top Ivies or something. No way. Find a good place at which you can function, learn as much as possible, and have a good social life. Like another person said, also look at going to a community college for a year and then transferring-- my relative did this and ended up at Harvard for grad school in the end.

u/PFunk1985 · 2 pointsr/KamikazeByWords

You did great. I’m buying the Dover Thrift edition though. Only $3.

u/decibel9 · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

Yeah it seems to me a serious work. As a description says this is "the antithesis of the first biographies of the philosopher, all biased". Janz was actually a passionate researcher, he got into philology to follow N. writings, he also helped an exhumation of his musical works and wrote 3 huge biographical volumes despite there was already a huge biography from Richard Blunck at the time. I didn't know they haven't translated it in English, perhaps the epistolary can be useful as well, as Janz's work makes large use of it.

u/NostromoXIII · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

Well, if you are into the Meditations, you must read:

The Enchiridion by Epictetus as it is probably the best book on the philosophy of stoicism out there. It is quite short and cheap and will worth a read:,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

u/ezk3626 · 2 pointsr/DebateAChristian

My experience is that the debates between the Bible and science are largely grandstanding by both sides and is essentially intellectual professional wresting. Generally it is people who have given up their profession in science or ministry in order to make a living debating for entertainment. But because of the prejudices of the audience the science side is pathetically ignorant of how philosophy works and the Christian side is pathetically ignorant of how science works.

But that is just my experience. Maybe someone else can refer you to something quality.

As an exception (kind of) there is a book by a Harvard professor of medical ethics comparing the biography and world view of Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis which I think does a fine job of fairly representing both sides to the point that both I and my philosophy of science professor said we thought it described our world view.

u/ZephirAWT · 2 pointsr/ScienceUncensored

The End of Theoretical Physics As We Know It Computer simulations and custom-built quantum analogues are analogy of inquiry based "research" in psychology: they tend to produce results expected during their design.

In its present stage mainstream physics suffers with overproduction of overly conservative and dogmatic proponents of unitary theories based on (self-imagined indeed) beauty rather than adherence with experiments in the same way like with overly liberal phenomenological approach, which resigned to whatever attempt for unification with attitude: "every opinion can be equally right here".. The most loud apologists of both groups of physicists used to fight wildly each other (1, 2) - but at the end both approaches spectacularly failed in the same way. Whereas the actually effective theories are still heartily ignored with both groups at the same moment, because both attitudes are occupationally motivated at their very end.

u/PhdPhysics1 · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

There was a time when String Theory was viewed as promising, but I think that era has past. These days, a large percentage of Physicists view ST as failed and a cautionary tale about what happens when science becomes decoupled from experiment. There are lots, and lots, and lots of books about this topic.


I like to think about things as follows... As far as we know, ST is the only consistent way to unify the 4 fundamental forces while quantizing gravity. This unification requires multiple dimensions, super symmetric particles, and a negative cosmological constant. Unfortunately, Dark Energy is in direct conflict with a negative cosmological constant, super symmetry is looking less likely, and LIGO has found no evidence of extra dimensions. So if anything, ST is strong evidence that a Grand Unification Theory does not exist, and perhaps a new approach is needed. I know many Physicists realize this (perhaps not publicly but at least privately). This is why at the bleeding edge of research we are seeing forays into new areas, e.g. emergent gravity from quantum information, space-time from entanglement, etc.

u/cold_iron_76 · 2 pointsr/worldnews

The Power of Myth is probably how most people become familiar with Joseph Campbell but he also has plenty of books and videos. There is also a series of some of his lecture called Mythos that is more detailed. I think it is 6 discs. I just checked the series out from my library so can't speak yet as to how good it is.

I'm not really in to mythologies and stuff and never had any interest in them even though I have a degree in psychology, but, when I saw The Power of Myth it really made me think about a lot of stuff including archetypes in a different way. His discussions with Bill Moyers really enlightened me.

As somebody else mentioned, you can also look into Carl Jung. Jung can be difficult to understand, especially for people with no foundation in early, turn of the 20th Century psychology. A book that I recommend as a primer into his basic ideas that I really like is A Primer of Jungian Psychology. Unfortunately, no ebook version, but the book is fairly thin and written well, covering a lot of Jung's beliefs without getting too complex.

u/stupac2 · 2 pointsr/oakland

Well, it may sound tidy but the basic laws of nature are often tidy in that way. But at a more fundamental level it's not that people bring some expectation that things should precisely cancel, (obviously it shouldn't!) but rather that's the answer you get when you run the calculations (as I understand it, that's waaaaay above my pay grade).

The expectation isn't exactly that things work in reverse, some laws do work that way (Newton's laws, most basic quantum mechanics, a bunch of others) but some don't. Entropy (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is a great example. But we do expect CPT to be a true symmetry, although I forget the exact reason why (it may have something to do with Noether's theorem).

Does that make sense? You can find some people who will argue that physicists have certain weird blind spots (Lost in Math is a recent book that makes that argument), but generally speaking the big questions in our current theories are guided by the theories themselves. Baryogenesis is a big one, merging QM and Relativity is another, the nature of dark matter/energy yet another. The main thing these have in common is that our current theories/models can't explain them, so the question is what direction to go in.

u/mleeeeeee · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

>I'm less qualified than others to recommend a biographical source on Kant

There's a well-regarded biography of Kant by Manfred Kuehn.

u/fjbwriter · 2 pointsr/fantasywriters

Buddha and Christ not going off and having weird adventures? I think Christopher Moore and Osamu Tezuka would like a word with you.

u/rnsbrum · 2 pointsr/asktrp

Read something on the history of philosophy, then something about each field, just to understand the basics of it(epistemology, ethics, morals, antropology, methaphysics, logic, aesthetics)

Start with the Greeks (Plato, Socrates and Aristotle) then move up to the scholastic(Thomas Aquine, Saint Augustine) then westerners(Kant, Hobbes, Rousseau, Descartes, Popper, Wittgenstein, Russel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer) then read about politics.


Start by watching videos about the history of Philosophy, what philosophy is and then move to Greek philosophy then to individual philosophers, so that you can understand the context of their ideas. Then, as you get more interested, you can pick up a book of your interest. If you go directly into the book, you might feel overwhelmed and lost.


If you are looking for something like a "philosophy for life" I would recommend reading reading Meditations by the Emperor of Rome Marcus Aurelius, if you want something that will shatter your world but its hard to digest read Nietzsche. Both are very redpilled. If you want to pursue higher knowledge, or simply high culture, follow the what I wrote above.


These are great men, and we have inhereted their legacy, please take this seriously.


u/Myfavoritesplit · 2 pointsr/spirituality

Angels are here to kick ass. They would like the apocalypse (lifting of the veil) to occur very much. Mankind needs to move forward towards God, even by point of the sword if need be in their plan.

They love your light, but they do in fact hate on that darkness.

u/Marc-le-Half-Fool · 2 pointsr/kundalini

> I think you have me a bit wrong... I don't mind paying for classes, and I certainly don't mind paying for correct, valid information.

I indeed have you wrong, and I love being wrong about some things! Your early word use resembled someone who has been banned and re-entering under a different username. You are clearly not him. (The talent of some people, copying other people's British accents in text!! Sheesh! Smiles.)

> What I do mind paying for is for example the SR example I posted-- I bought her "advanced blah blah teachings" for $7.99 and even though she states she is selfless and has no ego, the pdf was full of sentences like "I strolled through town and my aura was so big that everyone was looking at me in admiration and bowing at me" this doesn't sound to me like someone with no ego? So if that perception of the author is correct then how can the other info (that you are paying $30 for) also be correct?

Well, in that case I would say you spent $8 to make an observation that will correctly prevent you from wasting any further time and money. You correctly noted spiritual characteristics which are common and acceptable to some people, not you, nor me. You also got to exercise your judgement and discernment. A good lessons at a reasonable cost.

This is a really excellent lesson for the whole sub, too. I thank you.

Here's something she may not know - people come for the energy, not her. Some people may nod out of a sense of unity or connectedness, nothing about her supposed wonderfulness is involved. This is stuff I was taught about in the first hours that followed my training. It's easy to become egotistical about what comes with Kundalini unless you are trained against it.

I have a wee bit of bad news for you. The above situation will be common among those who call themselves spiritual teachers. The trick is that YOU know what to seek for yourself. You know the signs of a lesser-quality teacher. That teacher may still be very useful and helpful to many other people. Not to you. Are you starting to see how this might be true?

So now that you know some characteristics of a lesser-quality teacher, is a better quality teacher one merely without these qualities? You have stuff to figure out.

There are sand traps on a golf course. There are curves on a racetrack.

The world isn't perfect and none of our teachers are, meself included. This is why this sub suggests you choose your own teachers, and practice the awareness and accountability that match Kundalini no matter the teacher.

YOUR trick is to find a teacher to stretch you forwards, not backwards, and forwards from where you are without snapping you in two. I have no doubts in your ability to eventually satisfy that urge. You?

In the meantime, continue growing, observing, learning, and practicing the patience of.... you know... and work on your foundation skills! Have I suggested the Teacher Finding part of the wiki yet?

>And my point about the power and esoteric knowledge, I probably didn't word properly. Here reddit is free, and you tell people not to mess with K, that it can kill you. On all these other sites people are encouraging anyone to unlock K...via their $49/m online course....

You're right. I say to not mess around with Kundalini - and that anyone curious should go find themselves a teacher. I do not say to not participate. I urge people to participate wisely, and to figure out what that even means. People are educated or informed by those words, but not bound by them. People are free to go discover the validity of that idea for themselves. People are free to go it on their own and progress only a little - that's fine.

When it comes to mistakes, I hope to discourage people from making the worst of them. I cannot stop people from making basic mistakes. Those are necessary to learn from.

When I first started answering questions in this sub, I had a tricky choice - to figure out HOW to be as honest as possible, without ruining everything. Kundalini, until fairly recently has been kept esoteric, even in the spiritually-flourishing land of India.

If anyone has seen the last X-Men:Apocalypse movie, you'll perhaps understand the kinds of media influences affecting the general consciousness towards anyone with more ability than their own bell-curve average. That movie and the X-Men series goes well-beyond what Kundalini can do - and influences the general population with respect to their fears. Meanwhile, many to most Kundalini-curious people UNDER-estimate what Kundalini can do, and set themselves up for trouble.

A fine local example we heard just today (I started writing this a few days ago) is the silly idea that you cannot find real teachers, that teachers aren't out there, so don't bother looking. If you believe that, guess what? It becomes true for you. Simple. If you buy into that, you buy into limitation. If you give up, (Like Gopi Krishna did), you deserve what you get.

Further from this sub, those who are probably the most afraid of abilities are ironically the same group who are most likely to fund an experimental disaster they cannot control.


Regarding my talking about consequences, free or not...

Sure, one can screw up badly with Kundalini, and a few might - not many.

Lets say a friend offers you to ride their modern motorcycle for the first time in your life. Unlike back in the 1940's or 70's, when most bikes made 15-55 horsepower and brakes were equally soft, you unwisely accept a friend's offer to try a bike that makes 170+ horsepower, weighs less than 400 pounds, can go 100MPH (160KPH) in 1st gear in about 6 or 7 seconds, has 5 other gears, and can launch you into the ditch supremely-quickly if you don't know what you're doing, or to the moon if you're really a clutz. You'd want to know, right? Is there a n00b mode? Yes - it's called Rain mode, and will probably (Maybe? Hopefully?) keep you out of the ditch. An instant underwear colour-changer, otherwise! Smiles.

Most people who mess up with K will make minor mistakes and feel the immediate karma, know they've made an error, (Especially if they have a handy teacher to point it out), and learn from it. They'll perhaps repair or correct what they've done. EVERYONE learning Kundalini as an energy method will make this kind of mistake because we are human.

A few will mess up more profoundly, possibly earning a temporary loss of sanity in the forms of psychosis, schizophrenia. or mental illness. That's not the only cause for these, by any means of the imagination. This is treatable, and healable for the most part - it just takes time. These ones may not be mistakes involving karma - it may be just too much growth while unstable due to being under the influence, or just too much growth mixed with fear. BAM!

A very rare few who are uninformed or unguided, who feel they are above all rules, living serious nasty adversity, commonly emotionally hurt or numb, have abilities beyond their wisdom, and may also not be in their sound mind and judgment - not sober), may cause harm to others in anger or fear. In attacking others, they will attack themselves and pay immediate karma. These ones are rare but not unheard of. The general group of sub readers, for which this specific warning doesn't apply directly, need to know the full potential of the consequences for these kinds of mistakes so they can actively and intentionally avoid them. That's my take on it.

Reddit has a wide reach. I chose to be honest about the potential consequences, even if it revealed that Kundalini can be effective or powerful. I also teach that the power cannot be the reason for doing Kundalini, as that unavoidably corrupts into self-defeating, self-limiting or self-destructive actions. Knowledge, wisdom, service, love. These all work fine. Honestly revealing the potential consequences was the only way to help people make their choices so that they avoid those consequences willingly. If they choose not to head, they will know consequences. Simple.

>I am also reading a book (that I payed for :P)

Cool. The book rings a bell, sounds interesting and full of useful lessons and observations.

Sri M is an unusual name. Does he elaborate? M and Q worked with a numbered guy, IIRC. Smiles.

>Do you know of the Author? He has mentioned K quite a bit but that was not why I bought it... I seem drawn to this topic of spirituality lately. And work stuff is no longer as important as it once was.

Well, you're approaching 30 and getting smarter and wiser. (Uh oh!)

Spirituality is often best taught in the form of stories. It's a HUGE topic. When you find someone you like, dig deep. Re-read it intuitively. Just open the book picking a random page and see what emerges. (I added your book to our wiki books list - thanks.)

Re work, I see nothing incompatible in web marketing with your spirituality unless you are asked to do morally-questionable things. Are there more fun jobs? Lifeguarding at a beach may seem better, but it's seasonal, and you'll end up hiding from the sun and the sand fleas.

>Ironically I am an internet marketer but I don't use websites (and have no intention of using K as a niche!)

That is ironic, yet means you are or should be well-informed about the riches, defects and hazards associated with the web. Bonus for you and for us.

Thanks for a terrific reply.

Oh, last idea. "SR" may indeed be very generous in her personal life. We don't know. She would still have to pay for web access, a computer, a website, food, rent, heat, electricity, etc. We all have bills to pay.

We've had worse than "SR". Someone recently spammed the sub twice (buh bye) with a site that claimed K is not dangerous, try our better format, etc. I'm not sure what watered-down snake oil they think they are selling, but it's not K as I know it.

Have fun!

u/JustinPA · 2 pointsr/atheism

Holy crap... I bought the book for $2.95 (new and from Amazon) last fall.

You can see here that it was less than $4 for months last year. Wow.

I'd suggest anybody wait for it to drop below ten bucks before grabbing it, the price fluctuates quite a bit.

u/cryptocap · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I assume that you meant this book, The Story of Philosophy?

u/ThierryEnnui14 · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Will Durant's book is so much better than Russell's. Durant is not as biased regarding philosophers he agrees or disagrees with. And he's simply a much better writer, IMO.

Durant combined with Kenny is probably the best route.

u/kickflip1sttry · 1 pointr/Destiny

i didn’t say it was defunct, that’s your own reading. i don’t think political systems are right or wrong, they are different principles for organising the state. for example, neo-liberalism is trying to take liberal principles to their logical end, a part of this end is getting rid of as much bureaucracy as possible because bureaucracy often impedes on the individuals freedom and right to choose for themselves. ofc there is nothing wrong with that principle but the result has been that this principle organises a society in a way that overloads poorer citizens with stress as opposed to rich citizens who have the capital to farm out their labour, think of nannies and au pairs as examples. so there’s a result of that organisation and it’s rightness or wrongness is up to the principles of the person evaluating that outcome.

liberals don’t challenge their beliefs, that’s the entire point. destiny will never challenge steven pinker’s “best timeline ever” theory for example. a part of that is because it’s an ideological pillar of liberalism just like fukuyama‘s “end of history”.

i also didn’t say that he’s an ideologue for promoting rational discussion, i said he’s an ideologue because a part of the liberal project is thinking your political system, even when it’s emprically shaky like rational choice theory or neoclassical economics as I said before, is based on reason and that other political systems are irrational. here I’ll get you started:

you’ll notice that neoclassical economics is mathematically consistent and not empirically consistent, see laffer curve etc. liberals are okay with this because according to rationalism math has the deeper truth embedded in it. sabine hossenfelder touches on this in her “beauty leads physics astray” book:

so the point stands, a part of liberal ideology is thinking you are rational/truth seeker/a political (i realise now I should have said “anti-ideology” instead of “apolitical, my bad) and those of other ideologies are irrational. you’re doing it right now, you’ve taken “ideology” as a slur because liberals are supposed to be anti-ideology by definition. im not using ideologue in the way you are using it.

im not making a value judgement on whether or not hussan’s principles are better than destiny’s or vice versa, I’m saying that both are ideological and pointing out the ways in which destiny’s displays his ideology.

if you’d like me to critique soclaism and hasan’s idealogical bent i can but maybe dm me as it has nothing to do with this discussion.

sorry for all the edits, I’m trying to use as many examples as I can so I’m not jargoning past you

u/PastryGood · 1 pointr/loseit

I'm very happy that I was able to help :)

And yes, a lot of people will blame everything around them for the misery of themselves. This seems to be the easy way out, but you must ask yourself what good it does in the end. There are things which are outside of your control. What people might do to you, say to you, and so on. However no matter what harsh things you go through in life it is ultimately you that decide how to respond to them. You decide what to do with it. It is as Epictetus once said:

> "Man is affected not by events, but by the view he takes of them."

Usually I do not actually like to talk openly about the philosophy I follow, for the simple reason that I just try to live by it. Use actions, not words. Also for many people it might seem that you try to push something on to them. However I felt in this case I was justified to give an explanation of what exactly helped me :-)

Anyways, if you are interested in the principles I explained, then what you seek is reading on Stoicism. The book that has especially helped me is this one:
Stoicism and the art of happiness

It has eye-opening/life-changing wisdoms and perspectives on everything that has to do with you. How to deal with emotions, what they are, and what is essential to life a good life. Another interesting fact is that many of the mental exercises and perspectives the stoics used is now today amongst some of the most scientifically well-documented practices used by cognitive behavioural therapy (also with a quick google search, you will find that even the founder of CBT was inspired by the stoic teachings), which deals with practically all kinds of mental sufferings you can imagine.

It's a practical book on the life philosophy of Stoicism, and it is written by a credible psychotherapist who also takes interest in the study of Stoicism (hence the book!). It's not academic in any way, it's meant to be easily approachable and easy to implement into your life. Here's a quick breakdown of it all:

Stoicism is a life philosophy that was founded by the ancient greeks around 301 BCE. It's not a religion, or any kind of weird cult. It is a collection of principles that is meant to guide you towards happiness (in greek context meaning something more along the lines of inner well-being and tranquility).

I would suggest you read the book :-) Maybe you will come to pick up on everything stoicism has to offer, maybe you will only pick up whatever principles and wisdoms that you think are right, or maybe you won't find much agreement with it at all, all which is fine. However I think you will find some wisdoms you will definitely find to your liking, as you sound intrigued by the principles. The important thing is that no matter what, it will most certainly set you out on your way to think more about yourself and how to control your life and achieve your own understanding of well-being.

If Stoicism comes to your liking (start with the above book first, though), I could recommend books by some of the most famous ancient Stoics through time. I will leave some here for future reference for you:

Meditations - Marcus Aurelius - This is one of the most famous stoic texts.

Enchiridion - Epictetus

Dialogues and Essays - Seneca

These books read as manuals, not to be read in one sitting. They are huge collections of letters, essays and short passages from these excellent people about everything that has to do with achieving inner well-being, and how to view the world around you. They are remarkable ancient works, and it is truly inspiring and motivating to open them and just read a few of the lines from time to time.

As with anything, it's a learning process to change mindset. But it slowly comes when you study it. You learn the wisdoms and principles they had, you think about them and if they make sense, you apply them and live them, revisit them and so on, until they really become a part of you. It is truly worth the time though, and I think you see that too from what I could understand in your reply.

Best of luck to you! If you have any questions feel free to PM me as well, I'd be happy to help.

u/seanbennick · 1 pointr/ptsd

Try the ice cube trick if the anxiety ever hits and you have a drink handy. I just hold an ice cube in my left hand until it melts. Can still shake hands and everything but the ice cube seems to force my heart to slow down a bit. My best guess is that it triggers the Mammalian Diving Reflex and turns off whatever is derailing.

That trick came from a Viet Nam Vet, has been a huge help as time has gone on.

As for things sticking around, now that I'm well into my 40's the flashbacks and nightmares seem to have slowed to almost nothing - though they can still get triggered by trauma anniversary and other surprises. I have one trauma around a car accident so anytime the brakes squeal behind me I get to have a fun day.

Totally agree that basic Meditation is necessary to get through, can't see it ever being accepted in the public school system here in the US though - hell some places refuse to teach Evolution.

I also think that Philosophy has helped me cope some - Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius have been incredibly helpful reading to sort of adjust the way I see the world these days. I highly recommend the two following books:

u/egoadvocate · 1 pointr/Stoicism

First, I thought Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot had few insights and was dull and hard to understand. I do not recommend it.

I highly recommend The Philosophy of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, a book about stoicism and how it relates to psychology. I read this book twice it was so good. Here is the link:

Also, you have to read the Enchiridion by Epictetus. Here is the link:

u/lvl_5_laser_lotus · 1 pointr/Buddhism

Buddha - the graphic novels

u/BrickSalad · 1 pointr/moderatepolitics

Study philosophy! Seriously, just get a big ol' book on the history of philosophy like this one and wade your way through it. A good amount of political thought is based on philosophy, so understanding it is essential to truly understanding politics. You'll find yourself pondering the great questions like "What is the value of equality? Is it compatible with freedom? Is government necessary? Is there a such thing as a Just War? Are morals relative?", and your answers to these questions will determine where you lie politically. (I haven't actually read the book I linked to, but I've heard it's good and I don't want to recommend you that $100 textbook I read.)

Now, when you wade into the terrifying mess that is contemporary politics, you should learn and keep in mind all of the logical fallacies, because you'll hear lots of them. There isn't really any place to "get started" with this, just look around for sources of unbiased information. Never trust the mainstream media, don't trust fringe activists either. Of course they're both right from time to time, but you're better off doing in depth research on any position. If your like me, that means you'll be ambivalent about most issues simply because you don't have the time to learn about them. That's okay, sometimes it's best to just say "I don't know".

u/Catafrato · 1 pointr/LucidDreaming

This is a very good video introduction to Stoicism.

The main ancient Stoic books that have survived are Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, Epictetus's Discourses and Enchiridion, which is basically a summary of the Discourses, and Seneca's Letters to Lucilius and Essays. All these editions are relatively new translations and, in Seneca's case, abridged, but they will give you an idea of what Stoicism is about. I suggest you first read the Enchiridion (it is no longer than 40 pages) and then the Meditations (around 150-200 pages), and then dig deeper if you get interested.

There are other ancient sources, and quite a lot of modern work is being done currently, but those are the ones I suggest you begin with.

Then there are very active modern Stoic communities, like /r/Stoicism, the Facebook group, and NewStoa, with its College of Stoic Philosophers, that lets you take a very good four month long course by email.

The great thing about Stoicism as a way of life is that it has neither the blind dogmatism of organized religion nor the ardent skepticism of atheism. It puts the soul back in the universe, in a way, and, on the personal level, empowers you to take responsibility for your actions and to take it easy with what you cannot control.

u/HudsonsirhesHicks · 1 pointr/graphicnovels

I'd really recommend "Buddha" by Osamu Tezuk. It's a great intro to one of the forefathers of the genre, and chock full of the myths and history of that period in time.

u/Wylkus · 1 pointr/history

I feel the best way to go about this is to gain a general sense of the outline of history, which isn't nearly so difficult as it may seem as first once you realize that the "history" that mainly gets talked about is only about 3000 years. Learn some sign posts for that span, and then from there you can fit anything new you learn into the general outline you've gained. A couple good books for gaining those signposts are:

A History of the World in 6 Glasses. A phenomenal starting book. Gives very, very broad strokes on the entirety of human development, from pre-history when we first made beer inside hollowed tree trunks (it predates pottery), all the way to the dawn of the global economy with the perpetual success of Coca-Cola.

Roots of the Western Tradition An incredibly short (265 pages!) overview of Ancient Mesopotamia up to the decline of the Roman Empire written in very accessible language. Phenomenal text.

The Story of Philosophy. A bit more dense than the other's, but a tour de force breakdown of the history of Western thought.

Obviously the above is very Western centric, I wish I could recommend similar books that cover Asian history, but sadly I can't think of any (though hopefully others will point some out in the comments). Still though, once you gain the signposts I talked about, learning Asian history will still be easier as you can slot things into the apporpriate time period. Like "Oh, the first Chinese Empire (Qin Dynasty) rose up in the same era as Rome was rising as a power and fighting it's wars against Carthage". Or, "Oh, the Mongols took power in Asia just about right after the Crusades."

As a little bonus, they may not be accurate but historical movies can still help pin down those first signposts of your history outline. Here's a little list.

u/godless_communism · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Derrida for Beginners is a comic book. But it blew my itty-bitty little mind.

u/flanders4ever · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

My advice is to dabble in the tradition for a little bit before you consider majoring in it. You have probably taken Physics, History, Math, Economics, etc, in High School and understand what sort of thing you'd be studying if you take any of these subjects as a major. This is not the case for philosophy. To decide whether you want to major in Philosophy, I think you need to do two things. First, you might want to dabble in the philosophical tradition as broadly as possible. You can do this by going through a book that deals with the history of the movement. I wish Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy was my introduction to the history of philosophy. Durant gives his own arguments for why philosophy is a worthwhile thing to study, but also gives a really nice, readable, and informative history of some of the greatest philosophers of all time. The second way to dabble in the field is by taking one philosopher central to the cannon and really get into him. (Hopefully, it wont always be a "him" :). Its not easy to decide which philosopher to read first. In any case, it will be massively difficult to get through whatever book you decide to read, since philosophy books are unlike any other book you were taught in high school. Personally, if i were you, I'd read Durant's work first, and choose whatever philosopher you enjoyed reading about most in that book, and then find the most important book that author has written. If you have trouble deciding that, of course feel free to ask us!

u/surfed_ · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Not about PM, but this was a great read for me when I first started exploring philosophy:

u/GodVonGodel · 1 pointr/zen

I'm sorry that I forgot to recommend some of Derrida's works.

I would first recommend watching the documentary Derrida. Then dive into the books below.

Derrida wrote many books but these are the ones best tackled as first and/or second readings:

u/kathranis_remar · 1 pointr/philosophy

Confessions of a philosopher by Bryan Magee.

Not sure if it's for kids though.

u/maximalhockey · 1 pointr/todayilearned

They went for walks at Oxford or Cambridge. On vacation atm and can't look up the details, but this book is where I read up on it:

u/warringtonjeffreys · 1 pointr/occult

Books about Enochian angel magic are only going to perplex you. Open one up and see for yourself. I think you might be better off reading about John Dee, to start.

u/djpk19 · 1 pointr/Buddhism
u/cookedlamb · 1 pointr/me_irl
u/drunkenmonkey22 · 1 pointr/philosophy
u/AaronKClark · 1 pointr/gatech
u/78fivealive · 1 pointr/books

Buddha by Osamu Tezuka, in 8 volumes. Although it's manga, the storytelling is sophisticated, not watered down for children.

u/MagicDeliveryBox · 1 pointr/philosophy

Books about formal logic: Need advice especially from german-speaking people!

So i decided that it would be quite useful to educate myself about the science of logic as logic is the fundament of not only philosophy, but so many subjects. I now have two options (i think) which seem to be ok, but i am unsure which one to choose (this will be only answerable by german-speaking redditors and to those who at least know one of them):

  1. Einführung in die Logik (De Gruyter Studium)

  2. Einführung in die formale Logik für Philosophen

    I want the most complete and yet basic book there is (and i know this perfect one probably doesnt exists). It shouldnt be specialist on one topic. I can buy supplemental literature for that matter. Also a kindle option would be optimal. If you have any other recommendations be free to share them here. I could read in english, but i hard would prefer it to be in german as it is obviously much easier to me.
u/UncleScam78 · 1 pointr/Stoicism

I have the "Dover Thrift Edition" (Amazon link) which uses the public domain George Long translation, I would recommend it highly.

u/facingthat · 1 pointr/philosophy

This was helpful to me a few years ago. There is nothing wrong with referencing a scholar who has done the dirty work.

Never mind the one star rating post, this is infinitely more accessible than reading his text and figuring it out yourself.

u/RockHat · 1 pointr/exmormon

Mail is so important to missionaries. It's terribly depressing when you don't have anything because everyone makes a huge deal about it.

I would send him candy or cookies. If you know what he likes, all the better. If it's homemade, that's super cool. There's something about homemade cookies that is just so comforting.

It's hard to say exactly what to write since I don't know him or his situation. He may possibly be dealing with guilt over "unresolved sins" and he's likely very sad at being put in an isolation camp and shut off from his family and friends. It's super hard, and it can continue for several months as he goes into the mission field.

If it were me, I would send my brother in law a copy of Epictetus' Enchiridion (I know it's not an "approved" book but worth the try). Or I would alternatively just quote extensively from it, copy & paste into a letter to get around the rules. You can copy from the Gutenberg Project.

u/zanycaswell · 1 pointr/gaybros

Don't stress over things you can't change. I know that's kinda a cliche, and much easier said than done, but it's absolutely true. Maybe read the the Enchiridion? It's a pretty quick read and a good introduction to stoicism, helped me in some ways.

Obviously some things are harder being gay, but it doesn't mean you can't still live a good life.

u/IntoTheNucleus · 1 pointr/Stoicism

It's from Fragments of Epictetus, to be specific it's this copy. And no, as I mentioned in the description the translators added a * which supported my initial understanding.

u/whiskeyisneat · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

Thomas Paine's last words are pretty cool. From Thomas Paine's Rights of Man:

"Dying in ulcerated agony, he was imposed upon by two Presbyterian ministers who pushed past his housekeeper and urged him to avoid damnation by accepting Jesus Christ. 'Let me have non of your Popish stuff. Get Away with you, good morning, good morning.' The same demand was made of him as his eyes were closing. 'Do you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?' He answered quite distinctly: 'I have no wish to believe on that subject." Thus he expired with his reason..."

u/-m4x · -1 pointsr/de

So funktioniert das mit Logik nicht. (read,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch )

Politik gegen die eigenen Interessen zu machen impliziert nicht die Existenz einer Partei explizit für die eigenen Interessen.

Abgesehen davon, ja. Im Zweifel wären Linke und Grüne (selbstverständlich) jugendfreundlicher als die drecks Wichser/ Abschaums/ Selbstgefälligkeits/ Troll/ Alten/ Arbeitgeber/ Hass-partei SPD.

Ach, und unter der Prämisse, es gäbe keine Partei, die die Interessen der 20jährigen vertritt: Als Konsequenz Parteien zu wählen, die GEGEN deine Interessen sind, anstatt dich zu politisieren und für deine Repräsentation zu kämpfen, ist von Zynismus durchsiebte Lethargie auf Kosten all der Armen Schweine, für die du meinst, sprechen zu können.

u/paiute · -10 pointsr/Physics

I am in the middle of Lost in Math by Sabine Hossenfelder. It is so far an engrossing read. If you have any interest in particle physics you will enjoy it.