the /lit/ guide to (analytic) philosophy

[Anonymous No.8071100]

This is brand new original content, /lit/.... Introducing the /lit/ Guide to Analytic Philosophy, In Four Parts.

> "Core" analytic philosophy - metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind:
http://imgur.com/a7QG2Vk

> Moral, social, and political philosophy:
http://imgur.com/CNAwUrU

> Philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics:
http://imgur.com/COJ51qj

> Historical background:
http://imgur.com/pLF9WUe

Full album: http://imgur.com/a/Uj5Ib
List of all books (with ISBNs on the left): http://pastebin.com/bf5fZE9b

[Anonymous No.8071152]

the moral, social and political philosophy chart

[Anonymous No.8071155]

>>>/his/

report and sage

[Anonymous No.8071167]

>>8071155
From the sticky: " Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer."

This is a list of "specific philosophical works", so is a perfect topic for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.8071197]

Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics

[Anonymous No.8071214]

it's not a guide when there isn't a comprehensive order to follow

[Anonymous No.8071213]

Historical background chart

[Anonymous No.8071222]

>>8071214
Philosophy has no particular "order" to it. There may be a few prerequisites here and there, but most good philosophy is self-contained.

[Anonymous No.8071224]

needs a guide famalam

[Anonymous No.8071233]

>>8071222
so don't name it a guide, a guide already prescribes a subjetive order. it's a chart

[Anonymous No.8071236]

>>8071224
Well, what are you interested in, in particular?

[Anonymous No.8071244]

>>8071233
It's a "guide" in the sense that it points out which books are considered central and worth reading. A music "guide" doesn't dictate the order in which you must listen to albums. You can pretty much read the books in whatever order strikes your fancy.

[Anonymous No.8071289]

>>8071236
dunno i don't know much philo

can pure mathematics be esoteric?

[Anonymous No.8071318]

>>8071289
Well, Godel was a Platonist and a bit of a mystic in his later years (and/or batshit insane, in the Philip K Dick style). Cantor, the inventor of set theory, also had some strange ideas.

A good intro to Philosophy of Mathematics for the lay reader is "Thinking about Mathematics" by Stewart Shapiro:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1102226.Thinking_about_Mathematics

[Anonymous No.8071336]

>>8071318
is there an intro to analytic philo?

[Anonymous No.8071376]

[Anonymous No.8071408]

>>8071336
Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy' is a short and very accessible introduction to philosophy in general. A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic' is the definitive statement of early-stage analytic philosophy, logical positivism. Both are perfectly accessible for the lay man. From there, you can peruse an anthology of articles, or a historical survey. Then you'll be ready to jump in anywhere, basically.

>Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31799.The_Problems_of_Philosophy

>Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/584608.Language_Truth_and_Logic

>Kenny's 'A New History of Western Philosophy'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14828803-a-new-history-of-western-philosophy

>Martinich's 'Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology'
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13253902-analytic-philosophy

> List of Recommended Readings for Beginning Grad Students doing Analytic Philosophy
http://www.sinandogramaci.net/Site/Teaching_files/Reading%20List%20for%20Ph.D%20students.pdf

[Anonymous No.8071420]

>>8071100
Could use some more additions, but it's a very good list

[Anonymous No.8071422]

>>8071100
Guide to analytical thomism please

[Anonymous No.8071434]

>Analytical Philosophy

[Anonymous No.8071468]

>>8071420
Thanks. What would you add?

Here is the full list in text form: http://pastebin.com/bf5fZE9b

[Anonymous No.8071487]

>>8071468
Not him but I would add a prefix to all your guides: "Get a Maths degree first"

[Anonymous No.8071497]

>>8071422
That's outside my expertise, I'm afraid. I've read Geach, Anscombe, and Alasdair MacIntyre, but not on matters relating to Thomism. They're good philosophers, regardless.

[Anonymous No.8071502]

>>8071100
Best analytical philosophies of mind that echoes or complements Buddhist philosophies?

[Anonymous No.8071509]

>>8071487
That reminds me - I was going to do a fifth chart just for Logic and Foundations of Mathematics, but didn't get around to it. It does help to have some undergraduate exposure to quantitative reasoning and hard science - the exact amount needed varies by sub-discipline.

[Anonymous No.8071514]

>>8071468
Godel's collected works, or volume 3 at least. Some of the books on the philosophy of Bell's theorem, and Chomsky's Syntactic Structures to start. It would be nice if we could create something like this, perhaps structured chronologically, that eventually encompasses the entirety of the analytic tradition because this is a really good start

[Anonymous No.8071527]

>>8071502
Check out 'Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy':
http://www.amazon.com/Pointing-Moon-Buddhism-Analytic-Philosophy/dp/0195381564

[Anonymous No.8071563]

>>8071514
>Godel's collected works, or volume 3 at least.
Yeah, that would have gone in the 'Logic and Foundations of Mathematics' chart. I tried to stick to works that aren't purely technical, even in the philosophy of science/math list. The Logic chart would include classic textbooks like these:
http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/Appendix.pdf

>Some of the books on the philosophy of Bell's theorem,
Well, the philosophy of science chart includes:
- J.S. Bell's "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics",
- Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order',
- Albert's 'Quantum Mechanics and Experience',
- Maudlin's 'Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity'
- Wallace's 'The Emergent Multiverse'

I think I got Bell's theorem covered pretty well, no?

>and Chomsky's Syntactic Structures
Yeah, the line between philosophy of language and full-on linguistics can get a little blurry. You could fill a whole chart just with formal semantics.

>It would be nice if we could create something like this, perhaps structured chronologically, that eventually encompasses the entirety of the analytic tradition because this is a really good start

There was a lot I didn't include, as I wanted to keep it to what could fit on a few images. This is more of quick overview just to indicate what people actually read in philosophy departments.

[Anonymous No.8071576]

Thank God. We needed one of these.

[Anonymous No.8071584]

>>8071563
yeah, quantum mechanics is well represented here, though I would add Cushing and McMullin's 'Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem' if only because it contains a wide ranging and very good overview of the various philosophical problems Bell raises. Much better than Maudlin I'd say

[Anonymous No.8071600]

[Anonymous No.8071622]

>>8071600
This is the cover /lit/'s guide to analytics deserves.

[Anonymous No.8071702]

Can someone please make one for continental philosophy?

[Anonymous No.8071705]

Luka jes tu?

[Anonymous No.8071710]

>>8071497
Thank you very much. I will start reading After Virtue after Feser's Aristotle on Method and Metaphisics

[Anonymous No.8071715]

>>8071702
No, continental philosophy is shit.

[Anonymous No.8071718]

>>8071715
What exactly does continental have? Hegel, other germans and french fags?

[Anonymous No.8071728]

>>8071718
nothing because continental philosophy doesn't exists, and neither the ones accused to practice it recognize themselves a such.
It just really means: "not analytic philosphy".

[Anonymous No.8071732]

Thanks OP and everybody else who contributed!

As much as I enjoy maymays, it's really nice to see /lit/ being useful from time to time.

[Anonymous No.8071747]

>>8071728
The label "Continental" began as a euphemism for "bad philosophy". It has nothing to do with geography. It's just not polite to call someone "a low-quality pseudo-philosopher who is read only by retards", so the appellation "Continental" was born.

[Anonymous No.8071752]

>>8071747

so
>It just really means: "not analytic philosphy".

[Anonymous No.8071757]

>>8071747
I forgot to mention that this is solely my own opinion

[Anonymous No.8071777]

>>8071732
Thank you. It took me several hours to put it together. I thought I'd share on a topic I had a bit of knowledge about (for a change).

[Anonymous No.8071801]

>>8071197
>Against the Method
>Feyerabend
>Analytic

[Anonymous No.8071859]

>>8071100
give me a link to downloads of moral social political, and metaphysics epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind

[Anonymous No.8071931]

>>8071100
This is the first good thread with an erudited OP /lit/ has seen in awhile.

[Anonymous No.8072036]

>>8071801

Feyerabend tries to directly engage Popper and his falsifying method, so yes, he's branded as an analytic. Also, did the OP forget about Kuhn or did I just miss him?

[Anonymous No.8072044]

>>8072036
>did the OP forget about Kuhn or did I just miss him?
Second row, third column.

[Anonymous No.8073517]

>>8072044
>>8072036

Kuhn and Feyerabend are postmodernists. I though that brand them directly as continental (even if they are philosophers of science). For me it's okay to consider them analytics! I actually appreciate the contributions they made to the understanding of scientific knowledge and its generation, but actual scientifics usually hate them and are considered as hacks or just filthy humanists. Of course that people don't understand shit.

[Anonymous No.8073559]

>>8073517
Well, Kuhn is part of the canon in analytic philosophy of science. Even the most hard-nosed philosopher of physics will have read him, and will have an opinion one way or the other on his work. In that sense, he occupies a position similar to Rawls in political philosophy.

Stylistically, I have no issue calling either Kuhn or Feyerabend "analytic philosophers". Some of the content of what they say may be a bit off-the-wall, but it is perfectly clear what they are saying. There is no deliberate obscurantism. Whether or not their work actually offers any useful insights or perspectives is a separate question.

[Anonymous No.8073583]

>>8071100
Thanks my man, really appreciate this.

Just wondering, where is the best place to get Frege's Sense and Reference? The philosophical writings of gottlb frege?

Also you might want to have switched out the Tractatus for Major Works. It includes the Tractatus but also contains the blue and brown books and on certainty.

[Anonymous No.8073895]

>>8073583

Yes, and "Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege" is freely available in full here:

http://www.olimon.org/uan/frege-writings.pdf

"The Frege Reader" also has it.

Here's a helpful overview of the core distinction between sense & reference: http://tedsider.org/teaching/language/HO_Frege.pdf

[Anonymous No.8074377]

>>8071747
Fucking kill yourself shit posting faggot

[Anonymous No.8074459]

Analytical pepes?

[Anonymous No.8074831]

>>8074459
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

[Anonymous No.8074858]

>>8071100
>Dennett

>>8071197
>No Hacking
>No Dupré

[Anonymous No.8074869]

>>8074858
Hacking is in there, anon. Fourth row, first column.

[Anonymous No.8074921]

>>8071236
Anyone got a recommendation on what to tackle first for the moral, social and political chart?

[Anonymous No.8074933]

this is the only one you need desu

[Anonymous No.8074956]

>>8074869
Ah my bad. Disregard my former post, I suck cock

[Anonymous No.8074959]

>>8071100
why no analytical starter kit?

[Anonymous No.8075871]

>>8074921
For consequentialist ethics, rationality and personal identity: Derek Parfit - 'Reasons and Persons' (1984)

For virtue ethics: Philippa Foot - 'Virtues and Vices' (1979)

For irrealism in meta-ethics: J. L. Mackie - 'Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong' (1977)

For skepticism about ethical theories: Bernard Williams - 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' (1985)

For subjectivity vs objectivity: Thomas Nagel - 'The View from Nowhere' (1986)

For political philosophy: John Rawls - 'A Theory of Justice' (1971)

For legal philosophy: H.L.A. Hart - 'The Concept of Law' (1961)

For applied ethics: Peter Singer - 'Practical Ethics' (1979)

[Anonymous No.8075886]

>>8071100
literally what is the purpose of this image? the type of person to be interested in analytic philosophy isn't the type to use a 4chan picture as a guide

[Anonymous No.8075890]

Is there something similar for continental philosphy?

[Anonymous No.8076156]

>>8075890
Continental philosophy is gay

[Anonymous No.8076300]

>>8076156
please see >>8074933

[Anonymous No.8076326]

>>8071728
you really are fucked in the head and you literally flipped everything upside down. well done retard.

it takes like two minutes to confirm that the term 'analytic' came about by just meaning 'not continental', or even more inditing 'not philosophy' (as practiced by the whole of human race up until this point). yes analytics are assberger that they had to separate themselves from the entirety of human thought. analytic philosophy is literally protestant garbage.

[Anonymous No.8076355]

>>8076326
0/10.

[Anonymous No.8076380]

>>8076355
>for you

[Anonymous No.8076413]

>>8076355
>they had to separate themselves from the entirety of human thought

>The [analytic] linguistic conception of philosophy was rightly seen as novel in the history of philosophy. For this reason analytic philosophy is reputed to have originated in a philosophical revolution on the grand scale—not merely in a revolt against British Idealism, but against traditional philosophy on the whole. [1]

it took me 20 seconds to confirm this
it's an exercise for the reader to confirm that analytic philosophy is protestant garbage

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/

[Anonymous No.8076420]

>>8071509
yeah do make that if you can these lists seem all well and good but i am a retard

[Anonymous No.8076464]

>>8071718

[Anonymous No.8076590]

>>8071213
>guide to analytic philosophy (historical)
>Plato, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, Kant, NIETZSCHE

a bit of padding can't hurt

[Anonymous No.8077222]

>>8071718
everything the west has produced of intellectual worth

[Anonymous No.8077381]

>>8075871
Thanks senpai. I'm a newbie and after the greeks and stoics I'll start on this. Much Appreciated.

[Anonymous No.8077489]

What are some good books on critical thinking? I want to get better at constructing arguments, solving problems and conveying ideas to others.

[Anonymous No.8078317]

>>8071715
>we should take your word for it and not read any for ourselves because clearly you are the font of all wisdom

[Anonymous No.8079028]

>>8077489
How to become a really good pain in the ass by Christopher Dicarlo

[Anonymous No.8079045]

>>8077489
"Logic: The Laws of Truth" by Nicholas J.J. Smith: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13748126-logic
"Thinking Things Through: An Introduction to Philosophical Issues and Achievements" by Clark N. Glymour: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2490062.Thinking_Things_Through

There are also many textbooks on "Critical Thinking" but I'm not familiar with them. The study of logic and philosophy will inculcate critical thinking skills by osmosis.

[Anonymous No.8079477]

>>8071318
>Cantor, the inventor of set theory
>mfw

>>8073559
>>8073517
>There is no deliberate obscurantism
That's only small consolation. Kuhn must stand up on his substance, and most any serious physical scientist will tell you he's sorely lacking.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/10/kuhn-o28.html

>>8077489
Pure mathematics. I'm not kidding. Nothing can really beat it as far as training up heavy abstraction, objectivity and a serious eye to rigorous argument, especially dispelling informal fallacies and mistakes like linguistic juggling (which may be far from obvious) that certain philosophical frameworks implicitly rely upon and train one to accept as valid. Competent proof reading and writing at the advanced undergraduate level is a crystallized nugget of objective formal argument through the ages and you find yourself intuitively applying overarching concepts and argumentation strategies to philosophical and literary contexts.
Abbot's analysis book is a good introduction to proof, as is Rosenlicht's (which is less well-motivated, but like ten bucks.)

[Anonymous No.8079491]

>>8079477
>Cantor, the inventor of set theory
>mfw

Who do you think invented it, then? The study of sets was not formalized into a theory until the 1870s.

"Mathematical topics typically emerge and evolve through interactions among many researchers. Set theory, however, was founded by a single paper in 1874 by Georg Cantor: 'On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers'.
[Johnson, Philip (1972), A History of Set Theory]

[Anonymous No.8079497]

>>8077489

Schoppy's 'The Art of Being Right' is priceless.

[Anonymous No.8079551]

>>8079491
Not the guy you are replying to, but: I don't like how that historian phrased it. Cantor, by publishing his paper proved that the cardinality of R is larger than that of N. Thus, for the first time in history, distinguishing uncountable sets and countable ones. This is just one theorem, and a single theorem does not encompass all of the theory, since "theory" means something entirely different. It can be said that Cantor was the father of what later became to be known as naive set theory ("naive" here implies a time years after Cantor published his proof: it has to do with the comprehension principle and Russell's paradox), not that he founded all of the theory (naive or axiomatic) "by a single paper in 1874".

Read Kanamori's paper if you want a more detailed and scholarly history of the subject.