Where to begin for beginners?

[JDBowden]

Philosophy can be overwhelming for beginners. This website is filled with topics that I have never heard of, and can be difficult to start.
Where should one begin? I see many comments that are pages upon pages long. Are these self impressed monologues, or are they actually filled with information. I must be honest, I read a handful, and appear to be the former...

[Sunday66]

Philosophy can be overwhelming for beginners. This website is filled with topics that I have never heard of, and can be difficult to start.
Where should one begin? I see many comments that are pages upon pages long. Are these self impressed monologues, or are they actually filled with information. I must be honest, I read a handful, and appear to be the former...

What are you interested in? Think of the questions you yourself have.

[Sy Borg]

It's overwhelming for me too, much of the time. There are needles of perception amongst the stacks of straw. In the end, it's a matter of following one's interest.

[JDBowden]

I have recently been drawn to the teachings of Stoicism. I have not (so far) seen anything about it. I will dig around on here some more.

[Sy Borg]

From memory, most references made to stoicism would come from Chewy Brian, Scott or me, but not usually in dedicated threads. Today's overheated world could probably do with more calm and stoical Marcus Aurelius style thinking.

[Tom Butler]

Philosophy can be overwhelming for beginners.

Yours is an interesting question which I expect many here might ask. I think the problem is the lack of specificity on this board. What is expected. If not my questions, why am I allowed?

There are obviously people on the board who are academically trained in philosophy. However, I think most here are philosophy-minded but from other training. For instance, I am an engineer who has found myself wrapped around the axil of metaphysics.

Philosophy and metaphysics are kissing cousins. From my experience, the difference is that metaphysical enquiry is incomplete if it does not lead to actionable cosmologies. Philosophy seems to be infinitely incomplete. Yet, each involve the same questions, so it is a matter of expectations.

My suggestion is to focus on your curiosity. The satisfaction of curiosity is understanding. It would be a good policy for us to question posts. At the very least, a "What do you mean?" is often in order. If I have not communicated my point, I must assume it is not easily communicated and giver up or that I need to use a different approach. Without someone challenging me, I do not know if I have communicated.

My answer, then, is that your post here is really appropriate but I think your post title is more meaningful than your comment. It is from "beginners" that the best questions come. It is seldom from academically trained philosophers. Trust the equality of your education. Know that no question is too trivial. Do not settle for the "Dazzle them with their ********" approach from other. At the very least, say "huh?".

Finally, remember that the ancient wisdom tells us that the secret wisdom is not secret for those who have eyes to see. It is for you to develop the eyes to see. It is for the learnt to paint meaningful word picture. When the ancients told us to "chop wood, carry water," they were advising that the seeker is expected to do the work of self-education. Else, take up gardening.

[chewybrian]

I have recently been drawn to the teachings of Stoicism. I have not (so far) seen anything about it. I will dig around on here some more.

I don't recall any particular thread about the basics of stoicism, but you could certainly start one and would get some good replies, I think. My favorite is Epictetus, and my favorite from him is "The Enchiridion".

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

^This work in particular is a keystone for psychology and self-help, and cognitive behavioral therapy in particular. You would find it very useful if you have issues with anxiety, depression, anger or addiction, but everyone needs to read it, IMO.

What I particularly like about it is that it is concise and clear, in contrast to soooooo much other philosophy. Epictetus has no interest in showing you how clever he is, but only wants to get the points across to those who are willing to listen. I would search for works with a similar presentation if you want to make quick and useful progress, rather than trying to understand some of the thick stuff that doesn't always have any real world application, anyway. For another example, Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" is a quick and useful explanation of existential ideas.

https://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/273 ... uashed.pdf

I think it is useful and important to get a bit of foundation from the "ancients" before looking at modern writers. Plato's "Apology" is another concise and simple work that shows a lot of what Socrates thought and did.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

It's fine (perhaps beneficial) if you have no particular goals or areas of interest at the start. If you do, though, you'll want to search out works that align with your goals. Tell us your interest, and others will likely have some good recommendations to support it. If you don't want to restrict yourself to any certain area of study, then try a bit of everything. I think the three I linked are solid places to start, but there are many others.

We have many resources at our fingertips these days. I do think you should get the take from the original (often ancient) sources when you can. If nothing else, you get a good foundation for understanding and evaluating other discussions. This guy in the video is one amazing example of the terrific secondary sources available to us today with just a mouse click or two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsdF7oZ ... s-ReasonIO

^In this case, he analyzes and explains "The Enchiridion" line by line, and it is a great companion to the original. He has a ton of other videos, so just go to youtube and ask for "Sadler Rousseau" or Sadler Marx" or whatever interests you, and you are likely to find some good insight from him.

I would encourage you to post new threads asking for the basics of whatever interests you. I think there are many others lurking here who probably have the same questions but are afraid to ask. These types of threads are a refreshing change from the norm and should be much more common.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have recently been drawn to the teachings of Stoicism. I have not (so far) seen anything about it. I will dig around on here some more.

From memory, most references made to stoicism would come from Chewy Brian, Scott or me, but not usually in dedicated threads. Today's overheated world could probably do with more calm and stoical Marcus Aurelius style thinking.

I'm a closet fan too, although I doubt you'll find any direct references to Stoicism in my posts. The little I know of Stoicism makes me think it's a worthwhile school of thought. I don't go much for philosophy 'brand-names', whether its schools of philosophy or individual philosophers. I tend to just cherry-pick the ideas I like, and hang onto them, often forgetting even where I heard of them. But Stoicism seems to be much more worthwhile than other 'brands', IMO.

[JDBowden]

These are good links, reads, and suggestions. Thanks for sending these along; I have downloaded the files and will read them.

I was looking at the subject of metaphysics. I must admit, I am confused by its definition and what it entails exactly...

Can someone explain this to me like I am a baby in diapers? Would this be a correct definition?: "Studying the reasoning behind the existence of anything."

[chewybrian]

These are good links, reads, and suggestions. Thanks for sending these along; I have downloaded the files and will read them.

I was looking at the subject of metaphysics. I must admit, I am confused by its definition and what it entails exactly...

Can someone explain this to me like I am a baby in diapers? Would this be a correct definition?: "Studying the reasoning behind the existence of anything."

I am not remotely qualified to tell you about metaphysics whether I pretend you are a baby or a college professor. I would only give you my opinion that it is a terrible place to begin to study philosophy. You could argue for the rest of your life about determinism and free will without producing any benefit to yourself or society, while missing out on some good stuff down at the foundations of philosophy.

Of course, it might be an interesting diversion or a compelling area of study for certain folks, and I don't mean to say they cannot and should not pursue it, or that it does not have value to them. I only say it has little value for me. Further, it seems unwise to begin to study philosophy way off at the far end while ignoring important and useful things like ethics and morality and the way you should live or might be happy here on earth, right now. This is only my two cents and I am sure that some of the science fanboys did not want to hear it, but there it is anyway.

The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is that of the use of moral theorems, such as, "We ought not to lie;" the second is that of demonstrations, such as, "What is the origin of our obligation not to lie;" the third gives strength and articulation to the other two, such as, "What is the origin of this is a demonstration." For what is demonstration? What is consequence? What contradiction? What truth? What falsehood? The third topic, then, is necessary on the account of the second, and the second on the account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest, is the first. But we act just on the contrary. For we spend all our time on the third topic, and employ all our diligence about that, and entirely neglect the first. Therefore, at the same time that we lie, we are immediately prepared to show how it is demonstrated that lying is not right., Epictetus

[Pattern-chaser]

The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is that of the use of moral theorems, such as, "We ought not to lie;" the second is that of demonstrations, such as, "What is the origin of our obligation not to lie;" the third gives strength and articulation to the other two, such as, "What is the origin of this is a demonstration." For what is demonstration? What is consequence? What contradiction? What truth? What falsehood? The third topic, then, is necessary on the account of the second, and the second on the account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest, is the first. But we act just on the contrary. For we spend all our time on the third topic, and employ all our diligence about that, and entirely neglect the first. Therefore, at the same time that we lie, we are immediately prepared to show how it is demonstrated that lying is not right., Epictetus

I am, and have always been, in favour of honesty in any and all of its guises. I believe this is influenced by my being autistic, although it doesn't feel that way from the inside; it just feels natural and right. Nevertheless, I am surprised to discover that there is a school of thought that the primary purpose of philosophy is to understand that lying is wrong, and why.

I am not at all repulsed by this, but I am surprised.

Food for thought; thank you!

[JDBowden]

"it seems unwise to begin to study philosophy way off at the far end while ignoring important and useful things like ethics and morality and the way you should live or might be happy here on earth, right now."

Good thought. A hard look into metaphysics I can do down the road. I will troll around the pages within Ethics and Morality first. Keep things more bite-sized... Is there a place for famous quotes like that of Epictetus?

[chewybrian]

The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is that of the use of moral theorems, such as, "We ought not to lie;" the second is that of demonstrations, such as, "What is the origin of our obligation not to lie;" the third gives strength and articulation to the other two, such as, "What is the origin of this is a demonstration." For what is demonstration? What is consequence? What contradiction? What truth? What falsehood? The third topic, then, is necessary on the account of the second, and the second on the account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest, is the first. But we act just on the contrary. For we spend all our time on the third topic, and employ all our diligence about that, and entirely neglect the first. Therefore, at the same time that we lie, we are immediately prepared to show how it is demonstrated that lying is not right., Epictetus

I am, and have always been, in favour of honesty in any and all of its guises. I believe this is influenced by my being autistic, although it doesn't feel that way from the inside; it just feels natural and right. Nevertheless, I am surprised to discover that there is a school of thought that the primary purpose of philosophy is to understand that lying is wrong, and why.

I am not at all repulsed by this, but I am surprised.

Food for thought; thank you!

I don't think you got the right message here. Not lying is not the foundation of stoicism, but only an example he was using. The point was that there are these three divisions in philosophy, and we often waste time on the less important, theoretical higher levels while we ignore the critical bedrock concerns and real actions taking place below. I will use another example. We should act justly.

At the bottom level, we try to apply philosophical principles. So, when the rubber meets the road in the real world, I will try to assess my actions and see that they are just. Should I cut in line in front of someone at the store? No. Should I return my empty cart to the corral? Yes. This is a simple but critical form of philosophy, where we apply the principles we have already accepted as being important or useful.

At the next level up, we might try to understand WHY we have to wait our turn in line. We need PROOF. So, we show that things are better for everyone if we all wait our turn, and that doing so is inherently fair for everyone. We are further from doing anything useful, not applying our principles, yet we are still "doing" philosophy.

At the third level, we might ask what is justice or what is the nature of a proof? Why does the conclusion follow from the assertion and the steps in between? How does logic work? We are into epistimological concerns, and we can still be said to be "doing" philosophy. However, these debates have little if any application in the real world. Telling me the nature of proofs does not tell me I should put my cart in the corral.

Stoicism is a practical form of philosophy. If you understand it and assent to it, action is demanded going forward. A full knowledge of virtue includes the desire to live virtuously, because you know it will lead to a better life. So, if we walk out of the grocery store discussing the nature of proofs and in the process leave our cart in a parking space instead of the corral, then we have really missed the point.

The warning he is giving us, and which I attempted to pass on to JD, is that those new to philosophy often want to rush out to the end and try to figure everything out at once (as if!). They want to proudly display their new knowledge in words, but Epictetus says the display should be in actions, in the behavior that results from understanding and following the principles.

Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them. Thus, at an entertainment, don't talk how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that in this manner Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be recommended by him to philosophers, he took and- recommended them, so well did he bear being overlooked. So that if ever any talk should happen among the unlearned concerning philosophic theorems, be you, for the most part, silent. For there is great danger in immediately throwing out what you have not digested. And, if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have begun your business. For sheep don't throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten; but, inwardly digesting their food, they outwardly produce wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you likewise not show theorems to the unlearned, but the actions produced by them after they have been digested.

Many folks, even serious philosophers, simply try to understand principles without bothering to apply them at all. In fact, it is "safer" in a sense to argue ad nauseum about politics, economics or determinism. We can all have strong opinions and good arguments and maybe even "win" once in a while, without being required to really DO anything virtuous or improve our own lives or the lives of others.

I hope that makes the point clearer, but if you want to know more you can see this full work-up on the chapter:

[Tom Butler]

Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them.

Chewybrain, that may be good advice for second-century Greece. Yes, it has some value today, but it smacks of the Golden Rule (Do unto others...). Considering the influence of our human's survival instincts, that ideal just makes the person fresh meat.

Of course, as a layperson, I object to treating laypeople as "unlearned" as if they are the unwashed.

Epictetus says the display should be in actions, in the behavior that results from understanding and following the principles.

Perhaps a more useful model is the "three aspects of the teacher." In essence: Hear me because I teach the organizing principles of nature. See me because I demonstrate the principles as a role model. Understand me as I demonstrate through living the implications of the principles. We see this in the Hermetic teaching and the Christian Bible.

JDBowden's initial question sounds a lot like the question of a person just discovering the idea of being greater than their body. That is, "do I live to perpetuate my species or can I live to gain understanding?" From my experience, it is likely he/she is a nascent seeker after greater discerning intellect. (my apologies , JD Bowden, if I am putting words in your mouth.

As an observer of philosophers in the wild, I have concluded that there is a dearth of attention to the implication of one's philosophical musing.

[Sy Borg]

The warning he is giving us, and which I attempted to pass on to JD, is that those new to philosophy often want to rush out to the end and try to figure everything out at once (as if!). They want to proudly display their new knowledge in words, but Epictetus says the display should be in actions, in the behavior that results from understanding and following the principles.

It seems to me that many lead admirable lives without need for the complex nuances of philosophy. For many, simply a wish to be kind will lead them to many life decisions that would be approved of by most philosophical (or even religious) schools.

Kindness, however, seems rather out of fashion today. As tensions rise, kindness is seen by neocons as a luxury one can no longer afford, even a hubristic and cowardly stance taken by soft and weak "bleeding hearts" and "virtue signallers" before they are inevitably controlled the strong and hard - those with clean instincts. It looks like a shift to a war mindset.

In the face of impending decay of systems that we have valued, being philosophical helps, hence stoicism's revival in recent years. It appears to be an appropriate philosophical medicine for times when one's society is sick. Marcus Aurelius faced constant challenges in a demanding and dangerous job, and he needed to stay relaxed and focused to govern well.

One can be stoic and accepting that stuff happens and at some stage stuff will happen to us. Or one may retreat into distraction or become aggressive. A lot of these choices come down to temperament and conditioning, with philosophy providing post hoc rationalisations. That has social value because credible explanations of one's decisions can promote trust.