I'm not a philosopher, but damn, if it picks up by episode 70 doesn't sound like the most philosopher thing to my ears.

What's your take to the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps?

I’d suggest starting reading the books of Walther Ziegler about famous philosophers. Read his books „Plato in 60 minutes“, „Kant in 60 minutes“ and then whatever is of interest for you.

These books are such amazing beginnings to get a general grasp of philosophical concepts. From there, start reading the originals.

Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy is excellent.

This is the premise for a sitcom I think

Pinker is Hegelian 😂 😂 😂

[removed]

[removed]

As recommended by John Caputo (and myself) https://www.introducingbooks.com/ 'comic books' but they are a quick intro, and some not bad IMO.

If you are new, a quick historical overview is I think a good place to start, as you could spend several lifetimes exploring just one philosopher or one idea.

When I stated it was Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, but it's very dated now.

Beware of YouTube, unless by some respectable source. The Gregory Sadler ones seem OK.

Also many 'commentary' books on philosophers often have a bias.

The problem – or joy of philosophy is unlike science, (very) old theories are still very relevant.

If you haven’t already heard, it’s something most people on this subreddit have listened to: a podcast called “Philosophize This!” by Stephen West. Free with no ads on Spotify. Absolute gem.

It starts off slow and awkward, but as he ages, his voice deepens and he really picks up around episode ~70.

I truly recommend it, both for chronological development as well as research opportunities (pausing the podcast to explore the topics/concepts/ideas in depth).

Enjoy!

Also, you won’t learn much on this subreddit. It’s stale and most people on here are too refined in philosophy to talk about intro level or basic concepts. It’s also a terrible platform for philosophy, given that it’s a mere substitute for the speed and efficiency of interpersonal dialectic, of which occurs mostly in person.

[deleted]

I recommend you watch a YouTube documentary on diogenese. That's a great start 😂

It's fine to point out that children die of starvation and preventable disease in truly horrific numbers, but it is dishonest to not acknowledge that the rate at which that is occurring is dropping and has been for decades.

It's fair to point out that the gap between the low class and the high class is widening, but dishonest to ignore that the percentage of people in the lowest margins of wealth has plummeted.

In response to the eloquent commentary proffered by the esteemed KwesiJohnson, I am compelled to concede the undeniable verity that optimism may, in fact, be a privilege reserved for certain echelons within our contemporary society. The disparities and injustices that persistently plague our world render the notion of universally embracing an optimistic outlook an exercise in futility.

It is of utmost importance to emphasize that the intention behind my erstwhile response was not to cavalierly dismiss the harsh realities that a significant portion of our global populace endures. Rather, the objective was to present a counter-argument to Schopenhauer's unyielding pessimism, thus providing a more comprehensive and multifaceted analysis of the philosophical debate at hand.

I duly acknowledge your unvarnished candor and concur wholeheartedly that it is incumbent upon us as denizens of this shared reality to labor assiduously toward the creation of a more equitable, just, and compassionate society. In so doing, we shall endeavor to afford all individuals the prospect of adopting a more optimistic outlook on life, irrespective of their station or circumstances.

It is through enlightened discourse and rigorous dialectical examination that we may gain a deeper understanding of the manifold experiences and perspectives that inform our collective philosophical ruminations. As such, we shall be better equipped to confront and surmount the seemingly insurmountable challenges that beset us all in our ceaseless quest for wisdom and enlightenment.

Targeting civilians was a crime even back in WWI. The weapons have become more sophisticated, thus less civilians suffer. But the casus belli is still as ridiculous in Ukraine as it was during both world wars. I would not call Russians super-smart and mature when they follow the original Nazis step by step. Doesn't look they've learnt anything.

Even for all its tragedies, the war in Ukraine doesn’t come remotely close to the horrors of the great wars of the 20th century, neither in its scale, nor in the method in which it is conducted.

Both Vietnam and the Korean War had millions of civilian deaths. Millions. Ukraine will have several tens of thousands by the time it’s done. Horrendous but… still very small in comparison.

And that’s not even talking about the methods. The Nazis were obviously monsters, but even looking at the Allies - the indiscriminate bombing civilian targets to oblivion was not only not as controversial as today but the standard practice. Killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands.

Nowadays, when we talk about civilian bombing, it’s generally about infrastructure being destroyed and whether the collateral was acceptable or not. No one wants to be seen as targeting civilians and comparatively, the deaths among them remain low.

One of those is not like the other

[removed]

To the first part - I may not be able to change anything by not spending money on an asshole artist, that's true.

I may not be able to stop a corrupt politician from getting elected by voting for their opponent. Isn't it still worth it to cast my vote?

For the rest - I guess I think about it this way - an artist's art is an extension of their humanity, and what they think it means to be human. It is in many ways how they view the world.

So a) I find it hard to believe that their views don't make it into their work either overtly or covertly, and b) by commercially supporting these people I am endorsing their views. Now (b) might be a stretch for people, and I'm not saying that everyone must do this, but it is an ethical standard that costs me relatively little (oh no I don't get to consume to whatever vehicle the HP universe is putting out this month) and gives me a benefit (I feel good about keeping my money spent on people I feel worthy of my support).

There's so much art out there ready to consume, and so many artists to support. I can be picky and still have a rich and full life.

[removed]

[removed]

Probably: Marx, likely: Hitler, unlikely: Kissinger. Makes you wonder who’s next.

[removed]

[removed]

Kierkegaard knew of Schopenhauer and felt a deep resonance with him.

well according to those logics and views there are some contradictions that are acceptable. im not saying that arbitrary contradictory sentences make sense and i dont even know too much about those views but im open to the idea that logic can be done in different ways.

 

even so, i dont think the idea of non-contradiction is enough to pick out truth because truth depends on the premises and if these are blurry or underdetermined or context dependent then its not straightforward.