(Part 2) Best philosophy movements books according to redditors
We found 130 Reddit comments discussing the best philosophy movements books. We ranked the 72 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
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.
I've been working through and with Deleuze's work for a while now so here is my two cents. To be honest I think the biggest thing you will be missing here is discussion with other people reading the same works (assuming that you are a good self-motivator, create a 'syllabus' and stick to it). This type of philosophy, perhaps more than any other, is best read together and in discourse. I have seen a couple 'reading group' subreddits around in the past so maybe you could try that. Example.
That said, while it will greatly help you to read the other authors you list, I don't think it is entirely necessary and you run the risk of running out of steam (that is a very difficult list). Also, according to Deleuze himself it can be very productive to read him from various angles and without background (see the last few sentences of the first section here ). Diving in cold might produce something interesting.
Instead of trying to read a 'canonical' list of continental thought, I would recommend reading some of Deleuze's early work where he writes on other philosophers and maybe some Bergson. In particular I would take a look at Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life. It is short, relatively digestible and gives insight into his thought in broad strokes. You can get a pdf online if you google the title. Read that book twice. Then jump into A Thousand Plateaus. Read it at least three times. The first time read the first chapter and then jump through the remaining chapters in order of interest, saving the last chapter in the book for the end. The second time read it from cover to cover. The third time go back to 'randomized' reading, again reading the first and last chapters first and last.
Don't expect to understand everything he is saying and do not get hung up or discouraged when things don't gel together for you. Just keep working through the text and dialogue with it. Write about your experience with the book often. In fact, I suggest you keep a 'reading journal' where you reflect on your thoughts after each time you read. Record the date and page number(s) each time you write. Reading back through will help you see what in the text is speaking to you and what is really confusing you. Be prepared to destroy the book. Write notes to yourself all over it. Record page numbers and interesting passages either in the back of the book or on a piece of paper. You can use this when writing and identifying themes/strands that glow with you.
That is about all the advice I can think of right now. Hopefully some of it will be helpful to you. Most of all just enjoy the process. ATP in particular is not necessarily a book that attempts to 'bestow' Knowledge the way traditional texts do. It is more like an interactive 'art' piece. The point is to create with it.
Any of the "Very Short Introduction" series by Oxford will you give you a succinct, albeit in-depth look at...well- anything! There are over 500 of them I believe: https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/v/very-short-introductions-vsi/?cc=us&lang=en&
Furthermore, you may want to take a look at "Philosophy in Minutes": https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Minutes-Marcus-Weeks/dp/1623653371
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001VLXNIS
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.
Some past answers to this question might be helpful.
For instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9plzgd/books_on_existentialism_for_beginners/e82nyx2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Or, from a Series sometimes used in survey courses: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Existentialism-Movements-Modern-Thought/dp/184465043X
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.
Fechner is known as one of the most positive writers of all time. He wrote a book called The little book of life after death which explains why people shouldn't fear death even in a more materialistic light. Since what we should be looking at isn't total preservation of distinct bodily identity, but like parfit says, continuation from it in the right way. And so there's reason to think that this is preserved. Its hard to describe exactly, but it involves a global perspective, where individual people are like the thoughts of the world. And are like waves in the ocean. Individual identity is lost on death, but their data is preserved in the world at large.
Even though he is not super well known, his writings about this became inspirations for both process theism, and the pantheistic writings of the fathers of quantum mechanics, and likewise through them, the modern philosophical discussion on open individualism. So to provide more context for where his ideas go, one would want to also read some of those, and parfit. Maybe schopenauer also, since he is contrasted with fechner sometimes as someone who thinks something similar, but was super depressed instead of positive.
https://www.amazon.com/little-book-life-after-death-ebook/dp/B00N52L19Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454362314&sr=8-1&keywords=fechner+life+death#nav-subnav
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0918024307?keywords=schrodinger&qid=1450233393&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Relativity-Social-Conception-Lectures/dp/0300028806/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443776539&sr=1-5&keywords=Charles+Hartshorne
https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472760071&sr=8-1&keywords=reasons+and+persons
https://www.amazon.com/Am-You-Metaphysical-Foundations-Synthese/dp/1402029993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454939417&sr=8-1&keywords=I+Am+You%3A+The+Metaphysical+Foundations+for+Global+Ethics
https://www.amazon.com/World-As-Will-Representation-7th/dp/1491025026/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472760223&sr=1-3&keywords=the+world+as+will+and+representation
Mind you, schrodinger's book refuses to talk about the science of what he's getting at, since he was worried at the time that people wouldn't take their new science as seriously if he related them together. So through the lens of modern understanding, learning about some of that helps explain why him and the other founders of qm followed in this same vein.
But yeah. You don't need to read anything else, but fechner's own book to get an idea. Its short and to the point. And written a little poetically, to make it easier to follow. The later books of course provide better argumentation and context for the idea, but they're not really necessary to understand it. Though part of fechner's own book gets a little too poetic at times, so you're not sure whether he means something in a metaphorical or literal sense. Meaning a modern lens is needed to ensure its following the latest understandings. Which some of the other writers provide. But even so.
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.
Hard to say. But I like "In the Shadows of the Silent Majorities" as he uses a broad range of his ideas in it, and it's very short.
There's also "The Spirit of Terrorism". Short, and a very very different take on 9/11.
I think his big treatise would be "Simulacra and Simulation"
Have you seen this book of famous quotes attributed to you? Or this one about Reasons to Vote for you? How do you respond to such flattering published material?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TOPI7I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#customerReviews
The Philosophy of Spinoza by Joseph Ratner.
This should work. I've read part way into it. While the language is a little dense and archaic in places, it's still readable and strikes a nice balance between substance and being accessible.
The Philosophy of Spinoza is an abridged version of Spinoza's works and one of the few to break it down into something approaching understandable language for the lay reader. It removes the geometric proofs and gives you the key points. It is a substantial book though, and gives you a solid working knowledge of what Spinoza was about.
It's also free. :)
So the book was originally titled
Dreadful freedom: a critique of existentialism, then they changed it to Introduction to Existentialism?
There is also an unfinished 4th book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-Roads-Freedom-IV/dp/1847065511/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382629146&sr=1-1&keywords=sartre+the+last+chance
Unfortunately, they want $15 for an unfinished 200 page ebook, which is insane.
Also, here is his play No Exit, it's free(and legal):
https://archive.org/details/NoExit
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/