My favorite introductory book is Philosophy 100 Essential Thinkers, by Philip Stokes. He does a great job of highlighting the major ideas of the 100 most influential philosophers. And what I really like about him, is that he is one of the very few Western trained philosophers that actually treats Eastern philosophies as philosophies (as opposed to religions) and right away pounces on the similarities of Heraclitus and Daoism. A breath of fresh air.

In any case, if you want fairly substantial but easy and straight-forward reading of major philosophical ideas, I would highly recommend this book.

Rich

Sein und Zeit - Martin Heidegger

Everything is similar to everything else-in some ways. And different, too. In some ways. You can always find similarities (and differences) between any two things. Of course, with Heraclitus, we have so little of what he is (alleged) to have written, and we can make anything we like out of him. And usually do.

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 10:13 AM ----------



For beginners? Why not Kant's, Critique of Pure Reason, for a little light reading?

The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is a sort of classic place to begin. I strongly recommend the book.

Otherwise, hit the classics. The Republic by Plato, Utilitarianism by JS Mill, Meditations by Descartes, and so forth - the best thing to do is pick these up with commentary to help you understand the works and their implications.

Also, looking around for a used Philosophy 101 text book would be a good idea.

Philosophy began with Sokrates, and some would say has not progressed all that much since; Plato's account of his trial and death therefore remains central to an understanding of philosophy, especially the dialogue, The Apology of Sockrates.

In addition to the works recommended by DT immediately above, the Enchiridion (Handbook) by Epictetus is a fine introduction to Stoic Ethics, and J-J Rousseau's Social Contract to political philosophy.

I read that Russell book and thought it was rubbish. Why do you prefer it over, say, The Web of Belief? The Web of Belief is much newer and it is generally clearer.

And why do people insist that beginners should read the classics? What is this seeming obsession with the history of philosophy? No one recommends beginners of biology to start off by reading Darwin and (Well, maybe some do but that would be stupid.) Mendel. Or Einstein and Bohr in physics etc.

I have not read The Web of Belief, so I cannot recommend it. If you thought Russell's book was rubbish, then I suggest giving it another read.

Because Classics are Classic for a reason. They are not randomly selected. In philosophy, if you enter into higher education, you will read the classics. They are foundational and remain more than relevant - they remain the core of education in philosophy.

The question you ask is like asking "Why read Don Quixote when studying literature?"

I suggest you give The Web of Belief a read. I have read both books and you have read only one. That adds some credit to my judgment and not to yours. Both are available online too. Even on the same page, mine.

They could be classics for bad reasons. Why are they classics? Because they are read a lot? That would not be a useful criteria in judging what is worth reading. (Circular even, in a sense.) I never wrote or implied they were randomly selected.

I'm aware that people will read the classics in a higher philosophy education. That does not imply that they are worth reading/should be preferred over other books.

What do you think it means to say that some book(s) is "foundational"?

I read that Russell book and thought it was rubbish. Why do you prefer it over, say, The Web of Belief? The Web of Belief is much newer and it is generally clearer.

Don't you think that calling Russell's book "rubbish" is a little over the top? His chapter on induction could not be bettered as an introduction to the issue, for instance. Anyway, it isn't as if Quine and Russell were rivals. They are in the same ballpark and could be read together with profit. Russell as a foundationalist approach to epistemology, and Quine as a coherence approach to epistemology. Remember, to paraphrase Newton, if you have seen further than Russell, it is because you stand on the shoulders of giants. And one of those giants was-Russell.

Perhaps, but that book of his is rubbish, and I mean rubbish as in comparison with other philosophy books. He probably did write other good books. I don't know. I have only read that book of his.

Russell is a charlatan in general I would never recommend that a beginner read his works.