Howdy everyone. So I've decided that I want to develop a really solid foundation for myself in terms of philosophy. What I want to do is read directly from the philosophers themselves, but I need help navigating through the vast mountains of trash in order to find the gems. So I want recommendations on some philosophers that you think would be worth my time to read. I've recently come across Brand Blanshard who seems like a very interesting figure, and one of the next books I really want to read is his Reason and Analysis. Hoppe mentioned Blanshard in an interview I've read, along with Karl-otto Apel and Jurgen Habermas. Anyone else I should be reading along those lines? Specific books by the authors would also be great help. I'm really interested in epistemology, by the way, if that makes things easier.
Oh, and you don't need to recommend to me anything by Mises or Aristotle, as I've read or currently am reading most of their works.
Thanks in advance!
Well Aristotle would have been a recommendation (as would Aquinas, aside from his religious writings) and the guys you mentioned. Kant, though difficult, is worth reading, and so is Hume, if only to understand much of modern philosophy - and I would recommend Nietzsche and Mill too (not so much Leibniz, Berkeley or Descartes; Locke, maybe; Marx, to get an understanding of his philosophy.) Of modern philosophers, Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke and Russell are important. I'd also suggest reading Henry Veatch's excellent works as well as Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas den Uyl's writings. All deal with ethics, though Veatch also tackles ontological/epistemological questions. On epistemology Laurence BonJour, David Kelley and Martin Hollis are fantastic. Naturally I would propose reading Rand, Chris Sciabarra, Barry Smith and Long as well. If you're into philosophy of mind, check out Edward Feser (and by extension David Odelberg), Jerry Fodor, Daniel Dennett and Jaegwon Kim, as well as BonJour and Nagel. These authors' works are all pretty much related to core Austrian epistemological and ethical/political theory, and are part of the cutting edge of the field (as in some of the highest quality, not necessarily the most popular, works.).
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Don't forget our very own Geoffrey Allan Plauche!
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
I know you said you didn't want introductions but I'm reading An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics recommended by Jon right now, which is great.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Is Schopenhauer worth reading?
GilesStratton: Is Schopenhauer worth reading? Yes, but just make sure you dont have any sharp implements near-by...saps the will so to speak. Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke are amazing. The only problem is that if you understand just one of these greats the philosophical writings of Mises and Aristotle will seem like pompous college papers by the time you are finished. I'm just glad that one can be an (honorary) Austrian without having to formulate any of that rationalist nonsense. | Post Points: 20
Yes, but just make sure you dont have any sharp implements near-by...saps the will so to speak.
Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke are amazing. The only problem is that if you understand just one of these greats the philosophical writings of Mises and Aristotle will seem like pompous college papers by the time you are finished. I'm just glad that one can be an (honorary) Austrian without having to formulate any of that rationalist nonsense.
I would reccommend a general introductory text before diving into any specific philosphers writings. The trouble with just diving in is that you don't understand the context from which he was coming at the problem. Take Kant for example. Most of Kant's works are in direct response to the problems posed by Hume. Or Bertrand Russel, who makes more sense when you understand the great upheavals the logic of mathematics were going through during his time. Even Socrates and Plato make more sense after reading summaries on the pre-socratic hellenstic philosophers.
Probably any basic text will do.
I made the mistake of reading a lot of individual stuff before ever reading an overview of the western tradition and a lot of things didn't make sense until I did. With the exception of the theologians (Aquinas et al. whom i don't know why so much space is wasted on) the canon of western philosophy forms a fairly coherent picture.
Don't read Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy.
I got around to reading this recently after knowing most of the people in it. And it is entirely biased and speculation. He does a hatchet job on pretty much every section. If you need to know timelines and lists of names, it's good. But other than that, it's not even a good bibliography as I don't think Russell went too far into each philosopher's books. For instance in the Nietzsche section he seems only to have read Nietzsche's highly-edited Will to Power "finished" by his anti-semitic sister. So Russell reads that and paints Nietzsche as 19th century Hitler who failed. Completely pathetic reading of his body of work. Then you get an awkward play he wrote where he has a dialectic between the Buddha and Nietzsche which ends up butchering both philosophies.
I noticed this text was mentioned in a recent Lew Rockwell article, which is why I mention it here.
Jon Irenicus:not so much Leibniz, Berkeley or Descartes
Given that Mises is very much in the rationalist school of epistemology (as opposed to the empiricist) wouldn't it make sense to read Leibniz and Descartes, since they are the fathers of modern rationalism?
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Daniel J. Sanchez: Jon Irenicus:not so much Leibniz, Berkeley or Descartes Given that Mises is very much in the rationalist school of epistemology (as opposed to the empiricist) wouldn't it make sense to read Leibniz and Descartes, since they are the fathers of modern rationalism?
That's what I was thinking as well.
On a related note, any good (modern perhaps?) rationalist thinkers I should be reading similar to the ones I mentioned in my original post? I'm more interested in rationalists at the moment like Brand Blanshard.
Thanks for all of these recommendations by the way!
No, because Mises is not a classical rationalist as are Leibniz or Spinoza or Descartes. He is not even very akin to Kant. He's closer to Aristotle, and in some ways Frege. As for modern rationalists, I recommend BonJour and Martin Hollis. They deal extensively with positivism, pragmatism and other variants of so-called "empiricism".
Yes, heaven forbid anyone should buy into their sophomoric nonsense! How unfashionable that'd be!
Actually my impression was the reverse - my respect for Mises, Aristotle, Hoppe (who draws on both Kripke and Wittgenstein) &c. as philosophers was reinforced, not weakened, by their writings. And as for Wittgenstein, Long certainly does a nice job of synthesising his views with Mises's... It must be the rationalist "nonsense" making me think this though.
phrizek:On a related note, any good (modern perhaps?) rationalist thinkers I should be reading similar to the ones I mentioned in my original post? I'm more interested in rationalists at the moment like Brand Blanshard.
I was wondering the exact same thing the other day, also after reading Hoppe.
GilesStratton: phrizek:On a related note, any good (modern perhaps?) rationalist thinkers I should be reading similar to the ones I mentioned in my original post? I'm more interested in rationalists at the moment like Brand Blanshard. I was wondering the exact same thing the other day, also after reading Hoppe.
Yeah, this thread was for the most part motivated by an attempt to understand the influences that shaped Hoppe's thinking. I didn't want to say it out right because I figured I could also learn a thing or two from a more general understanding of philosophy. I kind of wish Hoppe would write an annotated bibliography of the books (and authors) that had a considerable influence on him, kind of like his one on Anarcho-capitalism.
phrizek:Yeah, this thread was for the most part motivated by an attempt to understand the influences that shaped Hoppe's thinking. I didn't want to say it out right because I figured I could also learn a thing or two from a more general understanding of philosophy. I kind of wish Hoppe would write an annotated bibliography of the books (and authors) that had a considerable influence on him, kind of like his one on Anarcho-capitalism.
His new book apparently covers a lot of this material, but I'm not sure how long until it comes out. Alternatively one could email him.
Like I said, Hollis or BonJour are worth reading on the topic. Hollis is an important influence on Hoppe and has for years attacked scientistic tendencies in the social sciences.
Jon Irenicus: Like I said, Hollis or BonJour are worth reading on the topic. Hollis is an important influence on Hoppe and has for years attacked scientistic tendencies in the social sciences.
Thanks for mentioning these two. I've been scoping them out on Amazon and they seem to fit the bill. From BonJour, it looks like In Defense of Pure Reason is a good book to start with, but I have no clue about which from Hollis to read. Any ideas?
GilesStratton: phrizek:Yeah, this thread was for the most part motivated by an attempt to understand the influences that shaped Hoppe's thinking. I didn't want to say it out right because I figured I could also learn a thing or two from a more general understanding of philosophy. I kind of wish Hoppe would write an annotated bibliography of the books (and authors) that had a considerable influence on him, kind of like his one on Anarcho-capitalism. His new book apparently covers a lot of this material, but I'm not sure how long until it comes out. Alternatively one could email him.
I'm so stoked about his new book! He said it would take a number of years to complete, right?
I might try emailing him...thanks for the tip.
Giles, I would warn against Schopenhauer as he's a deeply pessimistic philosopher so he could be a huge downer for you (or anyone for that matter).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
BonJour's The Structure of Empirical Knowledge is worth reading too. As for Hollis, his Rational Economic Man is the book to read.
Regarding Schopenhauer, I find him amusing.
I would recommend overcomingbias.com and reading the backlog if you're interested in rationality in practice. Just click posts you find interesting and then click on all the links that that post links to by way of explanation.