ex-xian

The website I referenced has a good chronological list. I'll post the names, but at the website, there are links to the actual texts online.


Descartes

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Baruch Spinoza The Ethics

John Locke, Essay Concerning the Human Understanding

Gottfried Leibniz, The Monadology

George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Immanuel Kant

I think this mostly covers the major players of the modern era of philosophy. Historically, next comes people like Hegel, Kierlegaard, and Nietzche. If you're really brave, try Hegel. I skipped ahead to the positivists, but I did read some marx. After the postivists, I read some of the post-modernists. I really hate post-modernists. Anyway, my project for the summer is to fill in the gaps in my reading.

Also this website, www.epistemelinks.com has online texts of many, many wonderful writers.

The_Ist

Haha, as your question suggests, the language here gets quite tricky.

It is a very interesting perspective, but I'm not totally convinced that Nietzsche's objection holds water. As with many other issues, Nietzsche unfortunately brings up ingenious and revolutionary points, but doesn't really provide a concrete logical basis for them (IMO). He's not the most exhaustive philosopher, to say the least. For example, he gives "lightning flashes" as a case where the subject-verb dichotomy doesn't exist. This is because the verb is somewhat defined into the subject - there is no "lightning" that does not "flash." But there are heaps of examples where the verb is independent of the subject, such as "The man walks." Here, the verb "walks" is additive, because it is not defined in the subject "man" and actually tells us something new as opposed to just saying "The man." So maybe Nietzsche's example is just an instance of a specific linguistic defect.

But, then again, is it really a logical necessity that thoughts have a thinker? If it is at all logically possible that thoughts could just "exist" independent of a thinker, then the cogito may be in trouble, because Descartes was working from the position of not taking ANY of his previously held knowledge for granted.

As others have said, I would recommend reading philosophers in between Descartes and Nietzsche before reading Nietzsche.

But if you want to dive into Nietzsche, I would recommend reading "On the Genealogy of Morals," followed by "Thus Spake Zarathustra." Admittedly, those are the only two Nietzschean works I've read, but they seem to complement each other pretty well.

As I said above, he is definitely not a conventional philosopher. His language is very passionate and expressive. It often seems (to me, at least) like he throws out assertions and ideas without going through the process of proving their validity.

Needless to say that, since I'm a Christian, I don't hold him in the highest regard, but there is no questioning his genius and philosophical importance.

mike_decock

I'm not totally convinced, either. The point, for me, is that it adds uncertainty to something I thought was very certain. This is both good and bad.

Added to my Wish List. Thanks!

-Mike...

Clutch

If you want to understand Descartes in particular, and the issues he discusses, you really can't do much better than The Cambridge Companion to Descartes. Some of the CC's are better than others, but this one is a classic: expert, wide-ranging and accessible articles by first-rate scholars.

mike_decock

Thanks, Clutch.

If RD had been shown a chimpanzee communicating with humans (using sign language), would he have assumed they had a soul?

-Mike...

God Fearing Atheist

I was always partial to Nietzsche's "Daybreak". I think it covers all his bases pretty well.

-GFA

Keith Russell

Hey, everybody.

I usually have a copy of Beyond Good and Evil somewhere nearby.

Parts of it are somewhat insipid, but the brilliant parts more than make up for those.

Keith.

Supergirl

My first real Philo read was "Sophie's World" by a Polish or Scandinavian auther.

It may be a youth read, but it is very easy and puts the philosophers in chronological order.

Witt

mike_decock: I'm completely new to the study of philosophy. Just out of curiosity, I started reading Descartes' Discourse on Method because I have always been fascinated with his famous statement "I think, therefore I am".
To me, this is the only statement which I have been able to hold as inarguably true. In order to think, I must exist.


Hi Mike,

"I think, therefore I am" is tautologous because it cannot be otherwise.

To possess any attribute is to confirm existence.
If we maintain that what is shown demonstrates presence, then we must agree with Descartes dictum.

We cannot deny that we exist. The process of denial confirms existence.

I do not exist, is contradictory.

I exist, cannot be denied by anyone who reads it and understands it.

If 'I' have a particular attribute, eg. I think, then it clearly follows that I have some attribute.

That 'x has some property' means that 'x exists'.

"I think" entails: I exist, truth exists, thinking exists.

Independent of your want to imply religious connotations, Descartes dictum stands.

Witt

mike_decock

Assuming that thought requires a thinker and that "I" is the thinker, what is "I"?

-Mike...