The first 7 philosophy texts you should read

[@PatriciusOenus]

Awesome video! Here is the list: 1. Plato's Eythyphro; 2. Decartes' Meditations on First Philosophy 3. Princess Elizabeth's Letter to Decartes; 4. Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; 5. H. P Grice's Logic and Conversation; 6. Ch. 2, 3, 4 of H. L. A. Hart's Concept of Law; 7. Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality

[@PatriciusOenus]

I wish I had Kaplan's videos when I was an undergraduate! I've returned to the study of philosophy of later in life, and his videos are a great boon.

[@J.Panxer]

Schopenhauer's Notes on Pessimism, Sun Tzu's Art of War, and Aurelius' Meditations are always left off of academic reading lists. It's a good scam the colleges got these days.

[@Attalic]

@@J.Panxer Sun Tzu's art of war is actual garbage. As for Aurelius, Meditations isn't exactly a philosophical work. There were much better more in-depth *philosophical* texts than Aurelius's mediations, such as those written by Epictetus. Finally, Schopenhauer doesn't really get left off academic reading lists so I'm not sure what you're on about.

[@J.Panxer]

@@Attalic Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure eastern countries take it very seriously, as they teach it to children. I'll let them know your assessment of their cultural and military history, and I'm sure they'll take notice and stop circulating it immediately. Was in American schools for 16 years, and the closest thing that was ever mentioned to me of Schopenhauer was his student Nietzsche. Was never on 1 reading list I ever encountered. I'm sure there was no logic behind that, and purely coincidental... had plenty of Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse thrown my way though. I'm sure just random, that. Same with your estimation of Aurelius. I never said "StaY aWAy FRom CIceRo!", so I don't know what YOU'RE on about... Thankfully, neither of us has to take the other seriously. Grand how that works, eh?

[@Attalic]

@weathforjr Considering Meditations is less a philosophical text and more of a self-help book, I really don't see the value in teaching it over other books that cover the same material much better. As for your mention of Marcuse and Marx, I'm not sure what you're suggesting? Finally, appealing to other cultures as proof of the valuability of a text is pointless and does nothing. For instance, if someone defended some of the heinous things stated in Mussolini's works by appealing to Fascist Italy, you wouldn't say that they've defended the text itself, much rather just its historical role.

[@jamesduffy5980]

Aristotle wrote dialogues too. They are all lost, but were very highly regarded in antiquity. The most famous was "On Justice." What we have of his writing today are his lecture notes (or so say most scholars). That's why they read so strangely.

[@biln2]

yep. some scholars reconstructed the Protreptikos in a conversaational format, and it reads much easier than his ubiquitous lecture notes, which can be very ...ahem... dry. only true Aristotle buffs and fanatics will read Prior Analytics with enthusiasm for his method.

[@rishabhaniket1952]

​@@biln2 if I would give 2 books of philosophy to anyone it would definitely be Aristotle's Nichomenian Ethics and a second variable depending on my mood. But Aristotle would definitely be there.

[@13tuyuti]

Apparently Aristotle's dialogues weren't highly regarded enough for them to be preserved.

[@DS-nv2ni]

The only people that are favoring Aristotle in the comments, are the ones that want to defend physicalism, it's clear by the line of defence used, that's a perfect example of being intellectually dishonest.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

Yet another commenter that reallllllly needs to be in the video, that really needs to gain attention.

[@redvelvetsprinkles]

Please post more often, Professor Kaplan! I had you as a GSI during my undergraduate years at UC Berkeley, and I am so happy to have found your KZbin channel. You were the best GSI I had at Cal! The clarity of your teaching (as I remember it from section years ago and still in these videos) is truly a gift. You have the ability to make learning anything really fun (let alone philosophy which I enjoy). UNCG and all your students are lucky to have you. Thank you!!!

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Hello! I am glad I left a positive impression at your GSI.

[@JeffRebornNow]

I love that you seem to genuinely love teaching and imparting knowledge to students. I think it would be great to be a student in your class.

[@sanserof7]

Plato is actually extremely fun to read. I listened to a lot of his works in audiobook form, with different narrators for the different people participating in the dialogues. It almost made it sound like a modern day podcast in a way, I would recommend this to everyone.

[@ianyoung6706]

What is the version that you listened to? I will seek it out on audible

[@sanserof7]

@@ianyoung6706 the ones narrated by Ray Childs

[@joshuasroka4403]

I have been looking for this channel for more than a decade. Not in name, but in spirit. Glad to have finally found it.

[@CistiC0987]

Brilliant! Great approach towards making philosophy fun, clear, approachable! I enjoy your videos immensely! The energy and passion you keep putting into explaining these concepts - remarkable! Transparent whiteboard making it even better. Great work, man!

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Thank you. That's very kind!

[@acaryadasa]

@@profjeffreykaplan I've been trying to figure out how the transparent white board works. You aren't writing backwards. Correct? How do you have the writing come through properly oriented. Do you flip left and right post production? Film a mirror reflection of the live production? Something else?

[@zacharysmith5061]

@@acaryadasa my thought is he flips it horizontally in post as he likely doesn't wear a wedding ring on his right hand.

[@anyoutubehandle]

This guy is great. I watched his videos on how to be a better student, and I managed to go from C's and B's to one B and all A's in college.

[@profjeffreykaplan]

Wow, that's great to hear. Glad my advice was helpful!! Pass it along.

[@turquoise8916]

Descartes‘ Meditations was one of the first things I read when majoring in philosophy. It is a great Text because of its simplicity and because you can really follow the argument and see where the premise stops and the conclusion starts.

[@RobExNihilo]

I found _Russell's Paradox_ in my suggested feed a few days ago and loved it. I'm working my way through the rest of your catalog now. I can't believe I (and apparently many others) have been sleeping on your channel for so long. This is really good stuff! And the presentation is easy to follow and engaging. Absolutely love it. I wish I had resources like this when I first began to dive into philosophy. So many "masterpiece" works are incomprehensible drivel to the average Joe, who knows how many people have been turned off to philosophy as a whole because they didn't start in a good place. I know I was almost one of them. I'm so glad something like this exists to help people begin from a solid starting point. I'm sure there's a tired joke to be made about _what else would he do with a philosophy degree other than teach philosophy_ but it's clear that you've got a real talent and passion for it. I'm probably gushing a little much here, but hopefully this helps to get mor3 attention from The Algorithm™ to spread your stuff around some more.

[@JamesHunterRoss]

Go ahead and gush... this guy is really really good. I too found the Russel's Paradox talk suggested, and I never inteded to watch 20 minutes or more of technical philispoical double talk. But I was riveted for the entire talk. Profesor Kaplan really has a gift.

[@AGirlyReader]

could you do a video on how to object to philosophical arguments by attacking premises, using counterexamples, spotting logical flaws or attacking metaphysical underpinnings?

[@profjeffreykaplan]

That's a good idea. I don't have a single video on all of that. But for a start, here is a video on counterexamples: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIHHi2doir1nZ6M

[@eduardosuela7291]

Also another based on unlawful fallacies

[@defghi9698]

u want vdo of it , thn it is just knwlg, not wisdom,

[@AGirlyReader]

@@defghi9698 ?

[@defghi9698]

@@AGirlyReader Maybe you can start with reading lot of philosophy, contemplating over it, talking to people of diff ages.

[@aravindappat]

Man had been posting mad videos for the past 3 years. How am I just getting recommends now. Instant new subscription!

[@AustinWestbro]

Can’t wait to start reading these! I’ve been wanting to start reading philosophy, but had no idea where to start. Thank you sooo much!

[@christopherschmaltz182]

Stumbled on this and other videos of yours, and they are fantastic. Feeds a strong interest of mine and will guide my ongoing deep dives. Thanks so much!

[@dauhloweme8127]

So glad I found your vids through your reddit post. Your sense of humor and ability to make topics easily digestible, if you had the chance to write a book on philosophy I would buy it in an instant lol

[@profjeffreykaplan]

I am busy publishing academic papers in order to get tenure at the moment. But a book (or two) will be coming soon!

[@JamesHunterRoss]

Professor Kaplan, I you read these comments then I get to reiterate what many others have said; you are very good at what you do. I had to subscribe.

[@gerryleb8575]

It should be noted that Plato wrote the texts bearing his name. Aristotle's texts are probably compilations of notes taken by his students. The texts are redactions.

[@nickhodge8063]

My man, you have found your calling. Thank you for your work.

[@gengis737]

Very nice choice and great presentation. Descarte's Discourse on Method is mandatory reading in French high school and the cornerstone of logical thinking, at the origin of both abstract scientific research and French Enlightement. Having a "cartesian spirit", searching for the principles behind the symptoms, is deeply engrained in French minds. I would add Louise Labbé's Debate of Folly and Love, pursuing Plato's Symposium to analyze how love, even disappointed, creates the impulse for creativity, achievement, mixing illusion and aspiration to perfect harmony.

[@bokramubokramu8834]

Good shit. Keep'em coming doc

[@j_vasey]

I’ve wanted to access philosophy for years. Thank you for this video.

[@ethansalvesen8268]

Great stuff! Your energy and way of explaining things makes a lot of these more complicated issues way easier to understand as a relative newcomer and your students are very lucky.

[@joseernestovillagrabaldivi6986]

Thanks for the video, now I know what to read to start learning philosphy

[@raquelr.700]

I'm so glad I've found this channel. Thank you.

[@FuriousGeorge67]

Ran across your channel through your video on set theory and Russell's Paradox. Amazing work. Addictive binge watching.

[@orthochristos]

Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", as well as Saint Gregory Palamas's “Triad” and “Apology”.

[@Inabin]

Thanks very much for recommending Famine, Affluence, and Morality! I read it right after watching this. What an incredible paper, certainly a lot to grapple with.

[@stevefranklin9176]

I first read Singer in the early 80‘s. I’ve carried his views with reflection since, with some affection.

[@PhilosophyWithLilly]

A fellow Philosophy KZbinr! Keep on doing the good work.

[@radshiba3345]

I hope it isn't unwelcome for me to make requests like this in your comment section, but I would love to see a video series on James's Pragmatism lectures at some point! No other philosopher seems to shoot himself in the foot so often to actually make himself understood by his readership, a fact made all the more troubling by how clean his prose is. Whereas other philosophers are challenging because their writing is dense or even obscurantist, James's is hard to understand because it so radically appears otherwise. I have a bias here in that I'd consider myself a pragmatist, so of course I want to see content on James, but this is an influential piece of writing whose unassuming appearances make it prone to dramatic misinterpretation. Regardless, adore your videos!

[@TMIvey-gk4mw]

Thank you Professor Kaplan so much for sharing this. I am just wrapping up a Philosopy 101 course that covered the first 4 items. I have added the last three items on your list to my future reading list.

[@guaranafria]

A really fun text I read in philosophy class on highschool was Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's simple but kinda weird and you can also do as we did in class and make your own critique of it.

[@JeffRebornNow]

I like Anselm's formulation of the ontological argument much better than I do Descartes'. Neither formulation, however, can escape Kant's objection that existence is not a predicate.

[@tuchngo5475]

I have never read any of these but thanks for the nice short introductions, they seem succinct and precise 😅

[@smithscott1700]

Excellent, thank you. Grice and Implicature have always astounded me for the charity of thinking that his analysis needed, and yet it is so obviously true that you think, how could we possibly have not understood that before? Wonderful.

[@digitig]

Loved learning about Grice's work when I was studying linguistics.

[@YugaKhan]

I have studied philosophy for more than half my life recreationally and in academia. All your recommendations are great and I to recommend that you read all of. That being said the bible has some of the most elegant answers to all of these questions. Especially when it comes to number 3

[@araucariapasquale1]

Lawl. A lifetime of reading philosophy and all for nought.

[@scottie_2058]

I’m so glad to see a new video of you😍

[@Locomotive244]

Your channel is a goldmine

[@rexharrison6827]

My plunge into philosophy occurred in the Seventies, but bypassed all the names listed in this piece and instead led to De Beauvoir, Sartre, Camus, Russell and various writers whose works involved philosophy, but were not in themselves philosophical treatises, Hesse, Huxley, Kafka among others. De Beauvoir's "The Blood of Others" kept me awake at nights in an existential dilemma! 😅

[@nonbreapelido3549]

De beauvoir is marxist trash, better to read manga than that crap

[@thoseaglestone9372]

Have you discovered Castaneda and Ouspenski?

[@13locomamama]

​@@thoseaglestone9372 do you.mean Carlos Castaneda ?

[@thoseaglestone9372]

@@13locomamama yep!

[@13locomamama]

@@thoseaglestone9372 can I ask you why do you mention him ?

[@Georginho-io2ng]

I consider chapters 1 and 2 of Aristotle’s Metaphizica to be the best starting point as he literally comes with a genealogy of knowledge

[@dimiberberu]

It's bet to start with Kant & Hegel as holistic philosophers (still more idealistic) & Marx who is opposed by the West for dismantling their hypocrisy.

[@zafar0132]

I was wondering only yesterday about something along the lines of Singers reasoning. basically... why is it ok to justify just about any policy that is in the national interest, no matter how damaging it might be for others. Glad I found this, I will read it.

[@jazzman2516]

Socrates was an ABSOLUTE genius. His process of thinking remains hardly rivalled. Such humility, such simplicity, yet such perfect logic.

[@Chris.4345]

I didn’t have you as a GSI at Berkeley, but I’m so glad you included Princess Elizabeth’s letters to Descartes. They were part of the readings in Crockett’s Descartes course and I remember thinking why doesn’t anybody ever mention these letters when discussing Descartes. They’re so important!

[@luketorre5116]

Wtf I was in that class too. Small world

[@Chris.4345]

@@luketorre5116 It’s been like 8 years and I still think about Hintikka’s paper on cogito ergo sum. Such a great class.

[@sherryr8671]

Good evening sir! I am a student of UCP and attended your lecture on Law and Morality. I wanted to thank you for imparting your knowledge and expressing philosophy so well!

[@robabramovitz5192]

You are an excellent teacher. Please continue making these videos.

[@huckster86]

When I was adrift doing my masters with one abandoned thesis topic under my belt, I had a vague idea to write about first aid ethics, inspired by my time volunteering with my campus first aid team. My advisor gave me Singer's Famine and told me to respond to it. It ended up being the crux of my first chapter as I tried to argue that Singer's requirements to act are too strong and narrow to be a useful framework when examining actions along a beneficence continuum. I argued that knowledge (specifically phronesis, or practical wisdom) is the key to selecting morally appropriate actions in emergencies (that's the gist, but there was a lot more that went into fleshing it out). I found Singer super frustrating because of how good his argument is, and it took me a long time to turn my vague hunch into a defensible position. Anyway, this video was a great walk down memory lane for me!

[@RunawayYe]

If I may ask you as someone who is in the field: Have philosophers managed to, shall we say "dismantle" some of those Singer's arguments in the past 50 years since they have been proposed? I guess what I'm trying to ask is if there is a consensus on this topic?

[@dellh86]

I like that you jump around and point out the most talked about and undersrandable portions of works. Too often, people suggest you read one 500+ page book after another. That approach can be fine, if you are already super motivated to read philosophy. Most people aren't that robot like though.

[@IIsPaco]

Fantastic! Could you do a part 2 with your recommended introductions into Islamic and Eastern philosophy?

[@lessthanzero.]

Your channel is amazing man!

[@howardmceachern6614]

I enjoy your content; thank you for helping me progress in my learning journey.

[@davidnevett5880]

Man, amazing video, almost convinced of reading his recommendations, never philosophy in my readings..thanks.

[@LearnThaiRapidMethod]

This is such an interesting video, I was fascinated by your beautiful tie! :>

[@elpeonbigoton8022]

This is actually pretty cool. My introduction to Philosophy was Nietzsche (like so many other people) and even if I like his work I have to say that it’s not for everybody. Also the recommendation changes if you want to understand whats Philosophy all about or you want to understand a particular topic. Great video by the way

[@antonomaseapophasis5142]

Thank you, my thinking self feels much better situated.

[@Geozeff]

Puzzle: 7:35 , Video answering: 8:36 For Grace's Puzzle, is the answer the expected reply in this context (An answer to the question "Is X a good student"). The hidden meaning conveyed in the question not being answered, presumably out of politeness; implying the 'negative'.

[@WhoRoui]

Great video! This was a well thought out list, and I surprisingly haven't read all of these books. Can't wait for new videos

[@hadmatter9240]

I concur with you on Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason._ Also with your quip about Singer's _Famine, Affluence, and Morality,_ as I have a hard enough time getting enough quality sleep. By the way, thank you for introducing me to that last work.

[@rudy2538]

As someone that started philosphy by reading Kant's critique of pure reason, I can confirm I understood next to norhing

[@jaredjordan9863]

The Eloquent Peasant from The Middle Kingdom of Egypt is an excellent philosophical piece regarding the obligations that the wealthy and powerful have towards society.

[@helipeus1882]

I have read Euthypro and I have to say that I think it is best dialogue Plato has ever written It really felt like this is essence of philosophy

[@manavkhatarkar9983]

Would consider making a video on philosophy book recommendations covering metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and logic??

[@NelsonStJames]

Fantastic ! I miss when philosophy channels were more about philosophy and less about performance.

[@thetwiceapostle6175]

the question about where you should start with reading philosophy is what it is that you want to gain from it. there is no singular answer, though this is a fairly good list for people wanting to understand several key points in the history of philosophy

[@jrshipley]

Greatly appreciate the Hart suggestion. Might have my students look at this.

[@aldi6622]

I am bored and stumble upon this video through algorithm. And it's not disappointing at all. I have read one of these reading list (like meditation by Descartes). This guy open possibilities for me to read similar tone of works in philosophy reading that is so beginner friendly yet intriguing at the same times. Thanks, professor :)

[@ConwayBob]

Thank you, Jeffrey!

[@xibbit6322]

I would say read process and reality first, it’s clear concise and short!

[@Tymbus]

Hi, i've just subrcribed. I studied philosophy of science and politics for my degree in Behavioural sciences - you are persuading me to take up more readings in other areas

[@EricZucchini]

I might just read Logic and Conversation first because the concept of it intrigued me so much! But hey, did you notice that while the first texts are somewhat "western-global", the last ones are mostly from the English speaking world? Don't you think there might be a bias at work here, that one believes that ones surroundings are of more "general importance" than they really are, as in, in 500 years from now, professor Jeffrey Kaplan VII might be recommending texts from today that are "western-global" rather than the anglosphere ones you're recommending? I'm just rambling here, great video none the less!

[@lrwerewolf]

Best advice I've ever gotten regarding philosophy - from a group of numerous Philosophy PhD holders no less - was to skip the books and read papers. That said, my experience was that some INTRO texts that gave a shallow-but-broad awareness provided the necessary basic understanding needed to then pursue papers. Further, the very first exercise I found truly valuable was just looking up various fields of philosophy, finding the briefest of summaries of various positions in those fields (for example, logicism, formalism, structuralism, platonism, etc... with regards to philosophy of math) and finding out which ones were closest to the ideas I had at the time.... then digging in deeper to those positions and a little bit into the others to firm up my own understanding. Then came the deep dive into papers. I actually advise AVOIDING the classics. Look, anyone who knows Kant knows he was a poor writer and that his style does not communicate well nor translate well with/to the modern vernacular. And he's relatively recent compared to sources like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Sextus Empiricus, etc -- so imagine the disconnect there! Instead, read papers that provide modern analyses of these sorts of texts.

[@letsimage]

thank you for the advices!

[@playingmusiconmars]

I'm probably prejudiced as a german legal positivist but I think the most clear treatise on legal philosophy is Kelsens Pure Theory of Law in its second edition. After that I'd recommend Alchourron and Bulygins "Normative Systems" and, for a view on sociological view on the legal system, Niklas Luhmanns "law as a social system" . A newer book which I find great is Scott Shapiros "Legality" . Otherwise I find most books by Dworkin, Finnis, Alexy and other people of that ilk to mostly be empty moral gesturing. But that's a matter of taste probably.

[@JoashExplains]

Make a part 2 please!

[@briankleinschmidt3664]

0:08 You're off to a rough start. You'll have to flap your arm a lot harder if you're going to take off. Reading list: Proverbs Ecclesiastics Suma Theologie The Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Analytics of Confucius. Down and out in Paris and London 1984 Human Rights Ethics - Clark Butler (My philosophy professor in college.) The Small Catechism - Martin Luther.

[@grafplaten]

Maybe you should check the spelling of several of the titles you recommended (few of which could be considered works of philosophy).

[@michaelbedford8017]

Nice move to highlight Princess Elizabeth at '#3', depite the fact that you neglect to say whether they're in order of importance. The Princess was no doubt a 'super-smart cookie' but her entanglement with Descartes makes it almost impossible to decide who influenced whom on many different issues.

[@joew1865]

Wow there were ads at the beginning of this video. I hope you are getting a share of the monetization... Your videos are great.

[@shaheerziya]

Thank you for this amazing list. I was wondering if there were any accessible reading materials you would suggest to get into Eastern Philosophy?

[@DoloresLehmann]

1:20 No one chooses to love anything or anyone. You either do, or you don't. If God loves good actions, then he does so because he himself is good and good actions resonate with his nature.

[@ve6753]

Love H. L. A. Hart's little book (the only J. L. Austin book I've ever read is the even smaller How to do Things with Words). So far as 'legal studies' in general are concerned I also dug a few very different, perhaps more 'literary' as opposed to 'technical,' texts: Sir Henry Maine's Ancient Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes' Breakfast Table series, and a mammoth biography of Learned Hand I read a few years back, the author of which now escapes me! Will check out the Grice paper --thanks!

[@biln2]

6:05 i've been telling these youngins that for years, but there is a trend in the philosophical "academy" where Kant is considered essential for later grasping Hegel, who is worshipped within the same orthodoxy despite being "utterly" ridiculous.

[@billfarrar6153]

Was just watching this and thnking Professor Rosencrantz had me read all those back when I took his philosophy classes at UNC-G. And then you said the thing about UNC-G:)

[@AlephOmega-zy5qs]

LMAO I had that Aristotle style rigidity issue hit me in the face like a brick after I finished City of God by St. Augustine and started Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine has this swaggering form of rhetoric that's really fun to read and Aquinas would list out a question, write out each detailed objection to the question, followed by his argument which neatly addressed every single objection that was previously raised. Aquinas was extremely rigorous, well thought out, and that's why he's this titanic monolith in Catholic theology. But he can be so dull. Fun fact, Aquinas refers to Aristotle only as "The Philosopher." That is a massive compliment and makes a lot of sense considering the obsession with rigor that both men shared.

[@CatMinder-nl4ke]

"I think, therefore I am ... because if I am not, it doesn't matter what I think."

[@jwmmitch]

Hey! ASD Level 1 here..... I totally didn't understand "Student has excellent handwriting" meant they were a bad philosophy student. But I can understand why it means that after it being pointed out . Now I want to read all of that guy's (Griggs?) Work on communication

[@jrshipley]

Meditation IV is the best one. The problem of error is a fundamental challenge to the cartesian response to skepticism, that God provably exists and is not a deceiver. If "skip it if it's confusing" is the standard then pretty much only read Meditation I.

[@samuelsisti4849]

I love linguistics and structuralism, and I have not read Grice. Thanks for the reccomendation!

[@cleitonoliveira932]

Plato's entire work is one unique long argument to describe what is justice, and it doesn't start in Eutiphro but in The Republic. The Republic is created as a though experiment to find what is justice for a man, as if the man is made by several conflicting and complementing parts that are hard to see in the man, but easier in a republic made from different sectors with different objectives. He recognizes that a man is complicated and he contradicts himself, so he could be divided in simpler parts, according with the notion that a simple object should do just a single thing. And the argument about the Republic starts because Thrasymachus gives a notion of justice that seems impossible to argue against. Everything that comes after just follows this line.

[@MMurine]

Symposium, Timaeus, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Parmenides are all very important Platonic dialogues that have little to nothing to do with justice.

[@SingleMalt77005]

I love your lectures. Let me put a bug in your ear to do a presentation on Robert Prisig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and his philosophy of Quality.

[@thinkaboutwhy]

Thank you Professor

[@8CanadianBacon9]

I watched a video of yours on the core argument of Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality. I was kind of bummed at the clickbait, though, as the argument isn’t novel. It really boils down to: If I know someone needs help, and I can help them, then I should help even if it requires sacrifice, especially if it’s a morally trivial sacrifice like luxury. This has been a concept for thousands of years, and there are no shortage of people who have asked themselves if simple luxuries like fast food are okay when there are kids starving in Africa. What is so controversial or novel about Singer’s paper? The most controversial thing about Singer’s paper isn’t actually premise #1 but rather that Peter Singer is the one who proposed it! Peter Singer believes that killing infants is morally okay. In his example of the child drowning in a shallow pond, he argues that we are morally obligated to rescue the child because the only cost to us is that we muddy our clothes (which is trivial). However, if I change the analogy to an infant drowning in a pond, suddenly Singer believes you are NOT morally obligated to rescue the drowning infant. Why should I read this man’s stuff? He believes the value of human life depends on cognitive abilities (to be determined by Singer himself, no doubt). I’m glad he doesn’t rule the world, or we’d eventually see a massive genocide.

[@xaverstenliz8466]

if you explore a topic and can't sleep after means you are above knowledge...deeper understanding...this is why school helps to sleep...understanding is a total new life changing experience!

[@Wertsir]

On the topic of language being a cooperative enterprise, if you give the Logic and Conversation hypothetical to ChatGPT it goes as follows: Me: “Suppose that there's a student that is applying for a Phd program in Philosophy, and one of their professors who taught them is asked if they’re a good student, and the professor answers “they have excellent handwriting”. What does the professor mean?” GPT: “The professor's response "they have excellent handwriting" may be an example of damning with faint praise. In other words, the professor is complimenting the student on something relatively trivial, like their handwriting, instead of praising their academic performance, intellectual capacity, or any other qualities more relevant to a Ph.D. program in Philosophy. This could be an indirect way of suggesting that the student may not be well-suited for the program without explicitly saying so.”

[@helenamcginty4920]

I have several times borrowed library books on philosophy. I have never been able to get far into them. Some revel in obscuring meaning by using convoluted writing styles. Others are clearer but really, as I was a busy working class mother I found all there ponderings so irrelevant to my life I decided that all these rich men needed to try doing something useful like get outside, get a spade and try digging their big gardens clearing the weeds, carting them off to the compost heap then get planting vegetables. Guarantee they would collapse wheezing before they fug one spit.

[@helenamcginty4920]

I might try again sometime now i am semi retired instead of pratting about on here.

[@ruthoglesby1805]

@@helenamcginty4920 I hope you do continue. What interest you? I found philosophy through psychology; perhaps read 'philosophy of' type book regarding a subject you are familiar with to help 'ground' the philosophy.

[@actionjack7655]

Philosophy works best when you read it in chronological order , getting an idea of how and when certain concepts came to be

[@agucci]

I will always read philosophy books.

[@mikebelbin]

If you're interested in atheism, certainly check out the David Hume book Kaplan recommends: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. It's so readable and thorough. Add to it Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell. A complementary 20th century book which covers what attitude you can adopt next.

[@robertharris1748]

Not sure which is the most accessible work, but I'd add Jeremy Bentham to the list.

[@grafplaten]

Russell's essay is rather superficial. I would recommend Joachim Kahl's "The Misery of Christianity" instead.

[@David_Alvarez77]

@@grafplaten Interesting. Never heard of that work.

[@petermacmillan6756]

I study rhetoric. Plato was hostile to rhetoric (the dialogue Gorgias) and Aristotle's Rhetoric (actually, a student's notes on what Aristotle said about rhetoric) answers all of Plato's objections and offers advice that is still useful. Plato's dialogue Phaedrus is interesting, but most of his dialogues aren't particularly persuasive to me. I'm not a philosopher, so some of the problems and issues that Plato and others debated may be more meaningful to philosophers than to me. The philosophers whose work makes the most sense to me are pragmatists. Like them, I get impatient with unanswerable paradoxes or logical impossibilities, and I find elaborate theories that can be ignored if the first principle is wrong are a waste of time. I found this video interesting, and I would love to hear your take on classical rhetoricians like Cicero, Quintilian, Isocrates, Gorgias, and others. I'm also curious about your take on William James, CS Peirce, John Dewey, and other pragmatists.

[@ardidsonriente2223]

Truly amazing presentation and selection. Can't thank you enough for directly aknowledge and then just cut off all the bloating usually invade any text about thinking.

[@Gator732]

I'm liking your clear cut and well explained videos on philosophy, but if I may recommend using a better microphone. The audio is ok but even a slightly better mic could make it sound a lot better.

[@RadicalShiba1917]

YES. Seriously, I will Venmo this dude $100 if he'll just buy an AT2020 and use it.

[@stephenmani8495]

Thank you for this guidance. It is useful for a newcomer to Philosophy like me. However, I wonder why all the names are only Western philosophers, and no Eastern philosophers figures in the list. Names like Buddha and Confucius come to the mind straightaway. But I am sure there are many others, considering Eastern civilizations like China and India have been around for thousands of years - possibly for longer than the European civilization?

[@pwmiles56]

Too boring

[@maniron2861]

Well I am not a professor of philosophy but here is what I understand, philosophy as a discipline is considered by and large to be western philosophy, where philosophy is a creation of Greeks and from there on taken on by Europe, other historical civilizations and their philosophical developments are not studied in discipline of philosophy except in a small degree. This is because of following reasons : 1) methods of philosophising of other civilizations are at times very different from those in west and philosophical discourses and inquires themselves vary quite significantly from the major established discourse and inquires in Western philosophy 2)western philosophy is inseparable from history of Europe and its evolution which is specific to it and other parts of world do no share that, so enterprise of academic abstract philosophy is not universal in its presence and hence the historical philosophical legacies from other parts of the world could not continue to be inherited and developed by their descendant societies . 3) epistemic organization and genealogy of western philosophy is more break free than other parts of the world . If you wish to dive into non western philosophy, you would have to unlearn a lot of western philosophy and learn about methods, inquires and discourses present in other historical philosophical legacies and read them and contemplate over them slowly. Just to give an example Buddhist thought from east does not involve inquires through abstract ideas only but they have their own ontological practise of yog and vipasanna say for example on which they have massive contemplative discourses, and these discourses are enlightening on multiple epistemic subjects like neurology, biology, mind sciences, psychology and even philosophy.

[@electromajick]

Philosophy can be fun. Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre is amazing, funny and a great place to start.