# Getting started in Philosophy



## yiostheoy

Most of us who are versed in Philosophy took a college class called Intro Philosophy 101.

This is typically a survey course covering all the philosophers and philosophy types from west to east starting with Thales in Greece and Confucius in China.

It then spends a section on each of the subsequent philosophers in Europe and in Asia.

If you are in high school or college, it would be wise to plan to take a 101 course like this before you finish college.

If you are too old to go back to college, here are 3 books that will accomplish the same thing for you:

- "Essentials Of Philosophy", by James Mannion, Fall River Press (2002).

- "History Of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster (1945/1972).

- "Modern Philosophy", by Roger Scruton, Penguin Press (1994).

You should read all 3 in that order, Mannion first, Russell second, and Scruton third.

That will give you the basics to understand what philosophy, science, and religion really are, and why they must be kept separate in your thinking.


----------



## yiostheoy

Once you get a handle on the procedures of Philosophy, then it is time to get a handle on history too.

The best place to start with a study of history is "History Of The World" by J.M. Roberts, Penguin Books (2002).


----------



## Unkotare

For whose benefit do you imagine this thread to be, aside from yourself?


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says...

... don't fergit the pipe...

... an' horn-rimmed glasses...

... dey make ya look distinguished...

... whilst ya philosophizin'.


----------



## IsaacNewton

yiostheoy said:


> Most of us who are versed in Philosophy took a college class called Intro Philosophy 101.
> 
> This is typically a survey course covering all the philosophers and philosophy types from west to east starting with Thales in Greece and Confucius in China.
> 
> It then spends a section on each of the subsequent philosophers in Europe and in Asia.
> 
> If you are in high school or college, it would be wise to plan to take a 101 course like this before you finish college.
> 
> If you are too old to go back to college, here are 3 books that will accomplish the same thing for you:
> 
> - "Essentials Of Philosophy", by James Mannion, Fall River Press (2002).
> 
> - "History Of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster (1945/1972).
> 
> - "Modern Philosophy", by Roger Scruton, Penguin Press (1994).
> 
> You should read all 3 in that order, Mannion first, Russell second, and Scruton third.
> 
> That will give you the basics to understand what philosophy, science, and religion really are, and why they must be kept separate in your thinking.



Thanks for the suggestions. Glad to see others on here that read! I'd add Walden by Henry David Thoreau as a must read.


----------



## Lumpy 1




----------



## midcan5

Thanks for the book recommendation.   History of the World

I would recommend Anthony Kenny's 'History' and Peter Watson's 'Idea' books as introductions into the world of thought. 

A few links below. 3AM has lots of interviews, Aeon covers lots of topics, 'what it's like' more interviews, and both Leiter and Horowitz run excellent thoughtful blogs. See my thread below too, over 19k views so far. 

Life After Faith
Interviews
How should philosophy be taught? | Aeon

WIU Philosophy Prof. Powell:  "In Defense of Philosophy"
Rust Belt Philosophy

My threads on USMB - 19 thousand views on first link.

'Why Study Philosophy'
Conversational Philosophy

"When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science."  from edge.org   - another excellent site.


----------



## Unkotare

midcan5 said:


> Thanks for the book recommendation. ...
> 
> I would recommend ... See my thread below too, over 19k views so far.
> 
> Life After Faith
> Interviews
> How should philosophy be taught? | Aeon
> 
> WIU Philosophy Prof. Powell:  "In Defense of Philosophy"
> Rust Belt Philosophy
> 
> My threads on USMB - 19 thousand views on first link.
> 
> 'Why Study Philosophy'
> Conversational Philosophy
> 
> "When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
> When God changes your mind, that's faith.
> When facts change your mind, that's science."  from edge.org   - another excellent site.






"Recommended reading: my threads on this site..."





You just won the world championship for pretentious self importance!


----------



## yiostheoy

The answer to the question "why study philosophy" has got to be to lay a foundation for all other human though in life both professionally and in your private time.

I would not suggest becoming a philosophy professional, with a Ph.D., but I would recommend getting the basics down to where you know the difference between epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, rhetoric, fallacies, teleology, the proofs of God, and the difference between philosophy, science, and religion.


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> ....
> 
> I would not suggest becoming a philosophy professional, with a Ph.D., ....




Why not?

(Maybe this thread can be saved after all)


----------



## yiostheoy

There are some majors in college that are really hard to find a job with.

Philosophy is one.

Anyone with a major in Philosophy better plan to become a college teacher.  They don't even teach it in high school.

It's not even worth getting a minor in Philosophy because after you have taken one or two college classes then you already know all the philosophy that you ever need to know in your life.


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> ...after you have taken one or two college classes then you already know all the philosophy that you ever need to know in your life.




If you really think so, you wasted your time starting this thread and you understand nothing.


----------



## yiostheoy

Unkotare said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...after you have taken one or two college classes then you already know all the philosophy that you ever need to know in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think so, you wasted your time starting this thread and you understand nothing.
Click to expand...

Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.

But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.

First semester -- survey course.

Second semester -- modern course.

Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.

There you have it.

You really don't need to become an expert at every Tom, Dick, and Harry philosopher beyond the survey course.

The evolution of the history of Philosophy is worth studying for Greece AND for China because this tells how clear human thought arose.

Aristotle is the first philosopher that is worth studying.  Plato is a big waste of time.

Aristotle gave us logic, ethics, identification of fallacies, the Prime Mover proof of God, etc.

Descartes is the next philosopher worth studying because he vanquished the skeptics with cogito ergo sum -- you cannot deny cogito ergo sum.

Immanuel Kant is the next philosopher worth studying.

It is also good to know Machiavelli and Nietzsche in case you need to kill somebody, such as for jobs like a cop, soldier, CIA, or head of state.  Revenge is a dish best served cold.  That which does not kill us makes us stronger.


----------



## Unkotare

The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.





...as I suspected from the outset.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Philosophy is a great way to challenge your own parochial beliefs.

But when you boil it all down it's basically just another person telling you what they think is important what their perceptions of life and ethics are.

So read and endeavor to understand it but use it as a tool to come up with your own personal code.


----------



## yiostheoy

Unkotare said:


> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as I suspected from the outset.


Ad hom.  Go fokk off.


----------



## yiostheoy

Skull Pilot said:


> Philosophy is a great way to challenge your own parochial beliefs.
> 
> But when you boil it all down it's basically just another person telling you what they think is important what their perceptions of life and ethics are.
> 
> So read and endeavor to understand it but use it as a tool to come up with your own personal code.


Exactly right!

Philosophy is the only way to learn the analytical skills to be able to challenge religion and science.

There is a lot of bad religion and junk science in the world.

Philosophy is the only way to combat it.

And I certainly would not advocate making another philosopher's ideas your own.

Everyone should come up with their own philosophy.


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy is a great way to challenge your own parochial beliefs.
> 
> But when you boil it all down it's basically just another person telling you what they think is important what their perceptions of life and ethics are.
> 
> So read and endeavor to understand it but use it as a tool to come up with your own personal code.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right!
> 
> Philosophy is the only way to learn the analytical skills to be able to challenge religion and science.
> 
> There is a lot of bad religion and junk science in the world.
> 
> Philosophy is the only way to combat it.
> 
> And I certainly would not advocate making another philosopher's ideas your own.
> 
> Everyone should come up with their own philosophy.
Click to expand...




Maybe you should learn more about the subject than just reading a list of texts for an intro course before doling out the advice, professor.


----------



## Mindful

yiostheoy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
Click to expand...


He's turned up here, has he?


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's turned up here, has he?
Click to expand...



Who?


----------



## Mindful

Unkotare said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's turned up here, has he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
Click to expand...


As if you didn't know. Don't act coy.


----------



## Unkotare

Mindful said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's turned up here, has he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As if you didn't know. Don't act coy.
Click to expand...



If you mean me, why wouldn't I "turn up" here?


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> Most of us who are versed in Philosophy took a college class called Intro Philosophy 101.
> 
> This is typically a survey course covering all the philosophers and philosophy types from west to east starting with Thales in Greece and Confucius in China.
> 
> It then spends a section on each of the subsequent philosophers in Europe and in Asia.
> 
> If you are in high school or college, it would be wise to plan to take a 101 course like this before you finish college.
> 
> If you are too old to go back to college, here are 3 books that will accomplish the same thing for you:
> 
> - "Essentials Of Philosophy", by James Mannion, Fall River Press (2002).
> 
> - "History Of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster (1945/1972).
> 
> - "Modern Philosophy", by Roger Scruton, Penguin Press (1994).
> 
> You should read all 3 in that order, Mannion first, Russell second, and Scruton third.
> 
> That will give you the basics to understand what philosophy, science, and religion really are, and why they must be kept separate in your thinking.








Do you have any experience actually studying Philosophy or doing work in the field?


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> Once you get a handle on the procedures of Philosophy, then it is time to get a handle on history too.
> 
> The best place to start with a study of history is "History Of The World" by J.M. Roberts, Penguin Books (2002).






Do you have any actual experience studying History or doing any work in the field?


----------



## OldLady

yiostheoy said:


> Most of us who are versed in Philosophy took a college class called Intro Philosophy 101.
> 
> This is typically a survey course covering all the philosophers and philosophy types from west to east starting with Thales in Greece and Confucius in China.
> 
> It then spends a section on each of the subsequent philosophers in Europe and in Asia.
> 
> If you are in high school or college, it would be wise to plan to take a 101 course like this before you finish college.
> 
> If you are too old to go back to college, here are 3 books that will accomplish the same thing for you:
> 
> - "Essentials Of Philosophy", by James Mannion, Fall River Press (2002).
> 
> - "History Of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster (1945/1972).
> 
> - "Modern Philosophy", by Roger Scruton, Penguin Press (1994).
> 
> You should read all 3 in that order, Mannion first, Russell second, and Scruton third.
> 
> That will give you the basics to understand what philosophy, science, and religion really are, and why they must be kept separate in your thinking.


Thanks!  I learned a lot of the English classics from a co-worker who had a degree in English Lit back before I went to college.  It always is good to keep learning.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
Click to expand...

You can't take Unkotare seriously; his/her username reflects his/her online persona accurately, including his/her intellect.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't take Unkotare seriously; his/her username reflects his/her online persona accurately, including his/her intellect.
> .
Click to expand...






Thanks for admitting that you also have no real understanding of the topic.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> Second semester -- modern course.
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.


It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
1- intro/survey
2- philosophy of mind
3- philosophy of science
4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
.


----------



## PK1

Unkotare said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't take Unkotare seriously; his/her username reflects his/her online persona accurately, including his/her intellect.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you also have no real understanding of the topic.
Click to expand...

An opinion from a philosophy pretender.
.


----------



## Unkotare

PK1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above comments indicate a superficial and juvenile understanding of the subject at best.
> ...as I suspected from the outset.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hom.  Go fokk off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't take Unkotare seriously; his/her username reflects his/her online persona accurately, including his/her intellect.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you also have no real understanding of the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An opinion from a philosophy pretender.
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, he is. I hope you aren't as well.


----------



## yiostheoy

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> Second semester -- modern course.
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
Click to expand...

For a science major that does make perfect sense.


----------



## yiostheoy

For most people, college has become a trade school where they learn a major to become a professional.

But philosophy should not be ignored in that process.

When I was younger, philosophy was simply entertainment.

As I grew older, philosophy became critical to understanding everything.

Now I only wish I had paid even more attention to it sooner.

It's too bad that colleges don't make at least 2 philosophy classes requirements --

1 - the survey of history of philosophy

2 - ethics.


----------



## yiostheoy

PK1 said:


> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .


I would definitely add ethics to this list.

The most important aspect of philosophy if nothing else is ethics.

Ethics affects everybody.

Even someone who cannot understand philosophy should be able to grasp ethics at the very least.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> Second semester -- modern course.
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a science major that does make perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Before "modern sciences" established their methods of hypothesis testing, science was considered part of philosophy. 
All scientists should understand basic philosophical ideas (esp ontology & logic) as well as philosophical concepts in their specialties.
.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I would definitely add ethics to this list.
> 
> The most important aspect of philosophy if nothing else is ethics.
> 
> Ethics affects everybody.
> 
> Even someone who cannot understand philosophy should be able to grasp ethics at the very least.
Click to expand...

---
Ethics?
In psychology, it would reflect the study of empathy & prosocial behavior.
All behavioral scientists should understand cultural anthropology, and "moral relativism".
Medical ethics is another perspective.
.


----------



## yiostheoy

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I would definitely add ethics to this list.
> 
> The most important aspect of philosophy if nothing else is ethics.
> 
> Ethics affects everybody.
> 
> Even someone who cannot understand philosophy should be able to grasp ethics at the very least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Ethics?
> In psychology, it would reflect the study of empathy & prosocial behavior.
> All behavioral scientists should understand cultural anthropology, and "moral relativism".
> Medical ethics is another perspective.
> .
Click to expand...

From a personal perspective, ethics is all about empathy for others.  I agree.

From a philosophical perspective, doing the right thing because it is best would be the basis.

Of course the psychology justifies it as well.


----------



## yiostheoy

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> Second semester -- modern course.
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a science major that does make perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before "modern sciences" established their methods of hypothesis testing, science was considered part of philosophy.
> All scientists should understand basic philosophical ideas (esp ontology & logic) as well as philosophical concepts in their specialties.
> .
Click to expand...

My personal observation is that Galileo invented science when he pointed his homemade telescope at the planet Jupiter and observed it's 4 satellites rotating around it rather than as the Church claimed that all things rotate around the Earth.

All the previous philosophers were simply speculating about the physical world without actually performing any observations or experiments.

Galileo is therefore the father of science.


----------



## Unkotare

*facepalm*


----------



## Trump.Stamped

yiostheoy said:


> Most of us who are versed in Philosophy took a college class called Intro Philosophy 101.
> 
> This is typically a survey course covering all the philosophers and philosophy types from west to east starting with Thales in Greece and Confucius in China.
> 
> It then spends a section on each of the subsequent philosophers in Europe and in Asia.
> 
> If you are in high school or college, it would be wise to plan to take a 101 course like this before you finish college.
> 
> If you are too old to go back to college, here are 3 books that will accomplish the same thing for you:
> 
> - "Essentials Of Philosophy", by James Mannion, Fall River Press (2002).
> 
> - "History Of Western Philosophy", by Bertrand Russell, Simon & Schuster (1945/1972).
> 
> - "Modern Philosophy", by Roger Scruton, Penguin Press (1994).
> 
> You should read all 3 in that order, Mannion first, Russell second, and Scruton third.
> 
> That will give you the basics to understand what philosophy, science, and religion really are, and why they must be kept separate in your thinking.



Had to take philosophy as a freshman for my engineering degree. You want to see a group of very uncomfortable people, go to a philosophy class full of engineering students...


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> Second semester -- modern course.
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't hurt taking more than 3 philosophy classes, but 4 may be sufficient for a theoretical scientist:
> 1- intro/survey
> 2- philosophy of mind
> 3- philosophy of science
> 4- philosophy of specific science, e.g., physics.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a science major that does make perfect sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before "modern sciences" established their methods of hypothesis testing, science was considered part of philosophy.
> All scientists should understand basic philosophical ideas (esp ontology & logic) as well as philosophical concepts in their specialties.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My personal observation is that Galileo invented science when he pointed his homemade telescope at the planet Jupiter and observed it's 4 satellites rotating around it rather than as the Church claimed that all things rotate around the Earth.
> 
> All the previous philosophers were simply speculating about the physical world without actually performing any observations or experiments.
> 
> Galileo is therefore the father of science.
Click to expand...

I agree that Galileo should be considered *a* father of modern science, but he was one, a major one, of many key contributors to "science" (scientific fields) as we know it/them today.
BTW, Copernicus gets credit for formalizing the heliocentric model ... before Galileo.

List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.


----------



## yiostheoy

Copernicus did not prove it however.  With Copernicus it was strictly speculation, just like all the other predecessors of Galileo whom we erroneously call "scientists". 

Galileo was indeed the first scientist.


----------



## Unkotare

yiostheoy said:


> Copernicus did not prove it however.  With Copernicus it was strictly speculation, just like all the other predecessors of Galileo whom we erroneously call "scientists".
> 
> Galileo was indeed the first scientist.




More nonsense from the 'scholar' of the book jacket...^^^^^


----------



## The Pipe

The study of philosophy is only worth a damn if your motivation is primal fear towards the widely-accepted idea that death leads to eternal oblivion. The Pipe asked its father at age 6 and a half, _What is death_?, and its father basically said that death leads to eternal oblivion---"when you're dead, you're dead". The Pipe could not accept that as true. This kicked off a lifelong scrutiny of the notion of nihilism/eternal oblivion. This eventually led to boiling it all down to three fundamental questions that all philosophers should address: _Why am I alive as a temporary creature? Is there a singular, dominating creator? Is there consciousness after death?_ They are loaded questions that spawn many extrapolations. In the end, the answers are reached via logic, reason, heart, intuition, and a tiny leap of faith in a fearless & eternal idea. Furthermore, like it or not---and most of you won't---studying philosophy, spirituality, and enlightenment without resorting to drugs like marijuana, MDMA, LSD, and shrooms, is like studying an ocean whilst camped in a desert.


----------



## xband

The first philosophy book I read was The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. I chose that book because I knew it would be offensive.


----------



## The Pipe

xband said:


> The first philosophy book I read was The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. I chose that book because I knew it would be offensive.


How did you know it was offensive? And, specifically, what was offensive about it?


----------



## xband

The Pipe said:


> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first philosophy book I read was The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. I chose that book because I knew it would be offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you know it was offensive? And, specifically, what was offensive about it?
Click to expand...


When Hitler was in prison and wrote Mein Kamph he was reading the works of Spengler. I hate Hitler but wanted to read what made him go insane.


----------



## The Pipe

xband said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xband said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first philosophy book I read was The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. I chose that book because I knew it would be offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you know it was offensive? And, specifically, what was offensive about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Hitler was in prison and wrote Mein Kamph he was reading the works of Spengler. I hate Hitler but wanted to read what made him go insane.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Any specific points about Spengler's book that you found offensive? Any passages you think responsible for Hitler going insane?


----------



## Unkotare

The Pipe said:


> The study of philosophy is only worth a damn if your motivation is primal fear towards the widely-accepted idea that death leads to eternal oblivion. The Pipe asked its father at age 6 and a half, _What is death_?, and its father basically said that death leads to eternal oblivion---"when you're dead, you're dead". The Pipe could not accept that as true. This kicked off a lifelong scrutiny of the notion of nihilism/eternal oblivion. This eventually led to boiling it all down to three fundamental questions that all philosophers should address: _Why am I alive as a temporary creature? Is there a singular, dominating creator? Is there consciousness after death?_ They are loaded questions that spawn many extrapolations. In the end, the answers are reached via logic, reason, heart, intuition, and a tiny leap of faith in a fearless & eternal idea. Furthermore, like it or not---and most of you won't---studying philosophy, spirituality, and enlightenment without resorting to drugs like marijuana, MDMA, LSD, and shrooms, is like studying an ocean whilst camped in a desert.




What a load of ignorant, juvenile nonsense.


----------



## yiostheoy

xband said:


> The first philosophy book I read was The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler. I chose that book because I knew it would be offensive.


Many if not all of Spengler's ideas proved to be merely speculative fallacies.

The West (Caucasian Land) has dominated Asia, Africa, Arabia, and even Latin America since the dawn of European exploration.

There is no end in sight, although if China plays its cards right (unlike Japan which did not) then it may gain some dominance if it can curb its population and feed its masses.

Simply put, the USA (and Russia) have the most vast natural resources of any of the other 206 sovereign nations.

Whether Adolf went insane reading Spengler seems unlikely to me.

Judging from the pages of "Mein Kampf," which was co-authored as a joint effort not just by Adolf himself, but judging by it he was already insane when he wrote it.

He was insane with hate.

Hate is an emotion and it can easily drive you insane.

When Jesus said to love your enemies he probably meant to look at their good side and try to make amends with them, or else perhaps to kill them mercifully and humanely, but not hatefully.

There is a good wiki write-up on Spengler:

The Decline of the West - Wikipedia


----------



## yiostheoy

The Pipe said:


> The study of philosophy is only worth a damn if your motivation is primal fear towards the widely-accepted idea that death leads to eternal oblivion. The Pipe asked its father at age 6 and a half, _What is death_?, and its father basically said that death leads to eternal oblivion---"when you're dead, you're dead". The Pipe could not accept that as true. This kicked off a lifelong scrutiny of the notion of nihilism/eternal oblivion. This eventually led to boiling it all down to three fundamental questions that all philosophers should address: _Why am I alive as a temporary creature? Is there a singular, dominating creator? Is there consciousness after death?_ They are loaded questions that spawn many extrapolations. In the end, the answers are reached via logic, reason, heart, intuition, and a tiny leap of faith in a fearless & eternal idea. Furthermore, like it or not---and most of you won't---studying philosophy, spirituality, and enlightenment without resorting to drugs like marijuana, MDMA, LSD, and shrooms, is like studying an ocean whilst camped in a desert.


Philosophy is critical to any understanding of life, whether physical, emotional, political, scientific, or religious.

What happens after we die is less relevant than what we do during our lives.

Philosophy helps us to understand meanings and gives us benchmarks for making choices.

Unless you want to live your life brainwashed by religion, or unless you make science your religion, you will need philosophy to free you from ignorance and bad thinking.

The ancient Greeks discovered this as well.


----------



## Unkotare

The study, and practice, of Philosophy does not preclude either science or faith. The ancient Greeks understood THAT very well.


----------



## The Pipe

Unkotare said:


> The study, and practice, of Philosophy does not preclude either science or faith. The ancient Greeks understood THAT very well.



And your point is?


----------



## Lewdog

yiostheoy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...after you have taken one or two college classes then you already know all the philosophy that you ever need to know in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think so, you wasted your time starting this thread and you understand nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> 
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> 
> Second semester -- modern course.
> 
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> There you have it.
> 
> You really don't need to become an expert at every Tom, Dick, and Harry philosopher beyond the survey course.
> 
> The evolution of the history of Philosophy is worth studying for Greece AND for China because this tells how clear human thought arose.
> 
> Aristotle is the first philosopher that is worth studying.  Plato is a big waste of time.
> 
> Aristotle gave us logic, ethics, identification of fallacies, the Prime Mover proof of God, etc.
> 
> Descartes is the next philosopher worth studying because he vanquished the skeptics with cogito ergo sum -- you cannot deny cogito ergo sum.
> 
> Immanuel Kant is the next philosopher worth studying.
> 
> It is also good to know Machiavelli and Nietzsche in case you need to kill somebody, such as for jobs like a cop, soldier, CIA, or head of state.  Revenge is a dish best served cold.  That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
Click to expand...


Funny I was just reading about Kant in my Police Ethics book today and how his idea of absolutism is wrong on so many levels, because everything is based on as long as you do things for the right reasons, the outcome doesn't matter.


----------



## Unkotare

Lewdog said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...after you have taken one or two college classes then you already know all the philosophy that you ever need to know in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really think so, you wasted your time starting this thread and you understand nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone needs to understand the basics of philosophical thinking.
> 
> But you can get the basics in just a couple or 3 semesters.
> 
> First semester -- survey course.
> 
> Second semester -- modern course.
> 
> Third semester -- logic versus rhetoric.
> 
> There you have it.
> 
> You really don't need to become an expert at every Tom, Dick, and Harry philosopher beyond the survey course.
> 
> The evolution of the history of Philosophy is worth studying for Greece AND for China because this tells how clear human thought arose.
> 
> Aristotle is the first philosopher that is worth studying.  Plato is a big waste of time.
> 
> Aristotle gave us logic, ethics, identification of fallacies, the Prime Mover proof of God, etc.
> 
> Descartes is the next philosopher worth studying because he vanquished the skeptics with cogito ergo sum -- you cannot deny cogito ergo sum.
> 
> Immanuel Kant is the next philosopher worth studying.
> 
> It is also good to know Machiavelli and Nietzsche in case you need to kill somebody, such as for jobs like a cop, soldier, CIA, or head of state.  Revenge is a dish best served cold.  That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny I was just reading about Kant in my Police Ethics book today and how his idea of absolutism is wrong on so many levels, because everything is based on as long as you do things for the right reasons, the outcome doesn't matter.
Click to expand...




You need to study it much more deeply than that Yoi kid ever has.


----------

