You haven't read all of the Bible? — Michael

No, there's a few OT books that I haven't fully read.

You mean the Fragments that remain of that? — Agustino

Yes. We don't have titles for his fragments or those of Parmenides, so that's the title scholars have given them.

Why did you pick it? — Agustino

My list reflects those works that I read in full and which influenced my thinking the most. I thought Heraclitus' concept of flux was fascinating, and later I saw some parallels with Schopenhauer's will.

It's surprising that you picked this one. Why so? — Agustino

It thoroughly absorbed my attention the first time I read it, and I found the main character's exasperated protestations and observations conducive to my mood and aligning well with my general outlook on the world. I might not like it as much if I read it now. I don't know.

If I can include Frederick Buechner:
The Bebb series
Godric
Telling the Truth: The Gospel As Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale
On the Road With the Archangel

And I also like several books by Philip Yancey
Disappointment with God
The Jesus I Never Knew
What's So Amazing about Grace?
The Bible Jesus Read
Soul Survivor

It thoroughly absorbed my attention the first time I read it, and I found the main character's exasperated protestations and observations conducive to my mood and aligning well with my general outlook on the world. — Thorongil

True enough but it was kind of silly at least to me. Meursault always seemed to me to be unable for some strange reason to feel compassion (for example for his dying mother) or empathy towards any of the others. Not only this, but he either did not understand the social games people were playing, or if he did, then he did not use them at all to save his own skin (I've never been quite able to decide between the two). Although he did have some "ability", the ability he had was simple passivity and going with the flow of whatever happened. Which did work in some cases - with Marie, with his friends including Raymond, etc.

Yes, that's not so absurd. I've never read the Bible either, yet funnily enough I know quite a bit about it. I've attempted it a couple of times from the beginning, but it's so incredibly tedious and terribly written that I gave up on it.

I've never read the Bible either, yet funnily enough I know quite a bit about it. — Sapientia

:-}

Yep. Regardless of Michael's attempted insinuation, the fact that I haven't read a few books of the Old Testament is not comparable with your situation with Karl Marx's work. At least I've read most of the Bible, you haven't read even 20% of Das Kapital.

Now I do question whether you actually know quite a bit about the Bible, or you THINK you know. Last time we talked you were telling me that the Bible was written many hundreds of years after the time of Jesus >:O

Your opinion isn't worth that much to me. It's not a competition, and I don't need to prove myself to you or to anyone. Think what you want. I know what I know.

Your opinion isn't worth that much to me. It's not a competition, and I don't need to prove myself to you or to anyone. Think what you want. I know what I know. — Sapientia

Well yes, maybe I was too harsh above, excuse me. The last sentence was meant to be a joke, but it didn't come out like that, came more like I was trying to make fun of you unfortunately. What I meant is that you shouldn't consider a work to be significant until you've actually read at least a majority of it. Reading about a work, instead of actually the work, can give you a false idea of what it is. And I really mean a false idea. Like I can't believe the stupid stuff I find about, say, even Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation. If I open up Wikipedia, or even the Stanford page, it's full of stuff I wouldn't consider very accurate.

I disagree with that part about having to read a majority of a work before considering it significant. What do you think my motive is for continuing to read about Marx and Marxism? Obviously the significance of what I've read has struck me. Really, you'd have to be more of an authority on Marx than the author of the book I referred to in order make that kind of judgement about what I've been reading, and I don't think that you are. The book seeks to elucidate what was written, and quotes it frequently. I'm confident that it has already improved my understanding, and that continued reading will give me the understanding that I seek. Then I could move on to the next stage, and perhaps ultimately read the book itself.

I disagree with that part about having to read a majority of a work before considering it significant. What do you think my motive is for continuing to read about Marx and Marxism? Obviously the significance of what I've read has struck me. Really, you'd have to be more of an authority on Marx than the author of the book I referred to in order make that kind of judgement about what I've been reading, and I don't think that you are. The book seeks to elucidate what was written, and quotes it frequently. I'm confident that it has already improved my understanding, and that continued reading will give me the understanding that I seek. Then I could move on to the next stage, and perhaps ultimately read the book itself. — Sapientia

I follow. It's not about whether I'm more of an expert than that guy, this goes deeper. I don't trust experts, most of the experts I've met are wrong very often. I have a deep distrust of experts, even of doctors for example. The other issue I've noticed is that with philosophy sometimes when I read a secondary text by a so-called expert after reading the original, sometimes I feel it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've originally read :s

I get that to some extent, but when it comes to secondary literature, some is more impartial and some is less so. Some books approach it with an angle of "This is my take on it", and don't shy away from that fact. I have another book on Marx which is more like that, but the book I referred to doesn't seem to be of that sort.

Yes, writers of secondary literature usually aren't trying to replicate the original text.

I don't really have favorite philosophical books. My favorite books are all from the social sciences.

But Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy was my first taste of philosophy and probably what I would recommend to anybody wanting to discover philosophy for the first time. It deserves to be mentioned.

1. The Sickness Unto Death--Soren Kierkegaard
2. Writing and Difference--Jacques Derrida
3. The Postmodern Condition--Jean-Francois Lyotard
4. I and Thou--Martin Buber
5. Anti-Oedipus--Deleuze & Guattari
6. The Birth of Tragedy--Friedrich Nietszche
7. Phenomenology of Perception--Maurice Merlau-Ponty
8. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime--Immanuel Kant
9. Capital--Karl Marx
10. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding--David Hume — Thanatos Sand

I'm curious as to what makes The Postmodern Condition a favorite.

It greatly describes the Postmodern sensibility of avoiding meta-narratives, such as Marxism, Christian eschatology, linear Freudianism, or the Enlightenment...of explaining the understanding of how one must occupy these, but does not need to grant them sovereignty or even substantial legitimacy.

It greatly describes the Postmodern sensibility of avoiding meta-narratives, such as Marxism, Christian eschatology, linear Freudianism, or the Enlightenment...of explaining the understanding of how one must occupy these, but does not need to grant them sovereignty or even substantial legitimacy. — Thanatos Sand

I am going to have to bump it closer to the top of my to-read list.

Some stuff:

Nikolai Berdyaev - The Meaning of the Creative Act
Nikolai Berdyaev - Divine and the Human
Owen Barfield - Poetic Diction
Nietszche - The Gay Science

Owen Barfield - Poetic Diction — Noble Dust

Surprised you've listed this over Saving the Appearances. Admittedly, I haven't read it, but some of the reviews that I read of it certainly didn't inspire me to think it superior to Saving (or worth reading for that matter :P ).

Poetic Diction helped in my understanding of how the meanings of words change, and how metaphor is a fundamental component of how language happens. It's not a directly philosophical book, but it's implications are philosophical. It's been a significant influence on me as an artist, and on my own aesthetic philosophy. Saving the Appearances is good, it was just less important for me. But it's definitely required reading for Barfield.

In no order:

A Short History of Decay by Emil Cioran
The Trouble With Being Born by Emil Cioran
Ethics by Spinoza
Freedom as Development by Amartya Sen
Joyful Cruelty by Clement Rosset
Nihil Unbound by Ray Brassier

Hegel - Philosophy of Right
Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols — Erik

This post got me pretty curious. Why Twilight of the Idols over other works from that period? I'd love to hear the rationale, because I think it tends to get interpreted unfairly as a 'minor' work.

Also interested in the rationale for Philosophy of Right since all the Hegel people seem to obsess over the Phenomenology and Logic.

Lol I meant "Development as Freedom"

I have not done any heavy reading for years, even though I have quite a few books lined up to read or re-read.

But I have read some lighter stuff and mostly on the humorous side.

On Bullshit - Harry Frankfurt
The Humans - Matt Haig
How to Stop Time - Matt Haig
Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life - Daniel Klein
Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away - Rebecca Goldstein
Plato and a Platypus Walk into a bar - Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein
Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington - Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein

Not so humorous.
The Gospel of Philip - Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union - Jean-Yves Leloup
The Computer and the Brain - John von Neumann
Theory and Reality An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science - Peter Godfrey-Smith

There are a bunch of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan I want to re-read as well. When I get the time. :chin:

I've only read The Republic and only remember The Forms and The Cave Analogy.

Also Plato's Five Dialogues, The Tao Te Ching and The Analects. Still haven't read The Odes.

The I Ching can be pretty esoteric and superstitious but I may be interested in reading it soon since I still like Astrology, Archetypes, Enneagrams and the like, it's just good old fashion nerd fun I don't necessarily believe in any of the latter. examples.

This post got me pretty curious. Why Twilight of the Idols over other works from that period? I'd love to hear the rationale, because I think it tends to get interpreted unfairly as a 'minor' work. — Ilyosha

I think there's some sentimental attachment as this was the first work of Nietzsche's that I read, and it's the one I return to most. Beyond that superficial reason I think it presents a nice broad overview of the major themes of his philosophy. It also contains a few of my favorite aphorisms (e.g. #1 in 'Reason' in Philosophy, #8 in The Four Great Errors and #5 in What the Germans Lack). So yeah, I know it's not typically interpreted by the experts as being one of his better or more important works, but it's the one that's stuck with me most.

Also interested in the rationale for Philosophy of Right since all the Hegel people seem to obsess over the Phenomenology and Logic. — It's cool

Well, I can't comment on Hegel's Logic because I haven't read it, and large parts of the Phenomenology remain incomprehensible to me. But just when I was about to give up on him, I heard someone mention Philosophy of Right as being surprisingly accessible and full of valuable insights. I gave it a shot and found that to be true. Furthermore, as anyone who's engaged me here would probably attest, my style of thinking is very "Hegelian" - seeing the partial truth of competing sides and then endeavoring to lift them up into some larger, reconciled whole. I guess 'sublation' would be the technical term. Whatever the case, I was influenced just as much by the style of Hegel's work as its substance and, as with Nietzsche, he's left a lasting influence on the way I think about a few things; in this case the family, civil society, the state, etc.

Have you read it? If so, what's your take? There are some parts where I was a bit surprised by how traditionally conservative Hegel comes across as, but there are also areas where's he's pretty radical in outlook. That's actually another attraction I find in the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, and especially Heidegger: they're hard (if not impossible) to place within traditional categories. They seem to think through and beyond rigid alternatives - be they political, philosophical, or whatever - that most of us remain trapped in.

Incidentally, since this list was posted almost a year ago, I may change my list to include one or two really, really good books that I've read within the last year as my focus has shifted towards U.S. history and political philosophy:

Crisis of the House Divided by Harry Jaffa and Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville.

Not sure what I'd remove though...

I actually also think Twilight and The Antichrist are among the best of Nietzsche's works. They're just the right mix of sharpness, cruelty and insight that really make them wonderful reads. I remember reading somewhere that they were Kauffman's recommended places to start with Nietzsche as well, though I can't for the life of me remember where.

:up:

You articulated its importance and attraction much better than I did.

I think there's some sentimental attachment as this was the first work of Nietzsche's that I read, and it's the one I return to most. Beyond that superficial reason... — Erik

:up: I don't think that's a superficial reason at all! Actually, I think you raise at least one interesting question not addressed in this thread, which is the importance of when and how we read certain books in our development cycle. I wonder sometimes if anyone can ever fully understand a philosophical work after 25.

I think it presents a nice broad overview of the major themes of his philosophy. It also contains a few of my favorite aphorisms (e.g. #1 in 'Reason' in Philosophy, #8 in The Four Great Errors and #5 in What the Germans Lack). So yeah, I know it's not typically interpreted by the experts as being one of his better or more important works, but it's the one that's stuck with me most. — Erik

Perhaps with someone like Nietzsche the best works are those which give an overview of his major themes in a representative tone. I mean, we can track the genesis and development of his themes across works, but I think that in some sense none of his works are essential for just that reason: you can engage with his themes by picking up any book. I think that's why the academe managed to flip Genealogy of Morals from an obscure 'minor' work to one of the 10 most assigned books in university syllabi.

Well, I can't comment on Hegel's Logic because I haven't read it, and large parts of the Phenomenology remain incomprehensible to me. But just when I was about to give up on him, I heard someone mention Philosophy of Right as being surprisingly accessible and full of valuable insights. Have you read it? If so, what's your take? There are some parts where I was a bit surprised by how traditionally conservative Hegel comes across as, but there are also areas where's he's pretty radical in outlook. — Erik

I haven't read it in a long time, so I will re-read it on your recommendation. :)

I guess I have mostly given up on Hegel myself. When I read Taylor, Pinkard, Pippin, McDowell, Brandom, Zizek, etc. Hegel seems like one of the most exciting people to have ever lived. But then I read him and get very little of that excitement. He's probably the only canonical figure who leaves me with this feeling. It makes me think that I am better off reading the secondary literature on him.

I remember reading somewhere that they were Kauffman's recommended places to start with Nietzsche as well, though I can't for the life of me remember where. — StreetlightX

I am pretty sure he does so in his lecture "Nietzsche and the Crisis of Philosophy".

What is the crisis of philosophy in his view? I understood that it was the question of how to embrace atheism while avoiding nihilism. I haven't done any reading in this area, but I was told that the history of philosophy since Nietzsche has been a search for a way to reject God while avoiding nihilism. I have been told that no philosopher has yet been successful in this search.

What is the crisis of philosophy in his view? — Ron Cram

The title refers to a Walter Kauffman lecture on Nietzsche, and I believe that Kauffman is referring to his own views and time period when he uses the word "crisis", not to the views of Nietzsche.

I understood that it was the question of how to embrace atheism while avoiding nihilism. I haven't done any reading in this area, but I was told that the history of philosophy since Nietzsche has been a search for a way to reject God while avoiding nihilism. — Ron Cram

Well, if you enjoy philosophy I would recommend that you do some reading in this area. :) Continental philosophy is fascinating. I am sure many people here can recommend books.

I have been told that no philosopher has yet been successful in this search. — Ron Cram

There have been many brilliant philosophers since Nietzsche, a lot of whom have been heavily influenced by him. They have certainly had success, in the sense that they have raised questions anew and have developed significant conceptual resources for understanding and addressing the types of questions which Nietzsche, among others, raised. None has been successful in the way that, say, a mathematician would be, since philosophical questions don't really admit of that sort of answering.