Best way to study other philosophies?

[LoBagola]

I'm interested in working through Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, Hegel, Hume etc but I do not want to read huge books all over as just working through OPAR and ITOE is taking long enough. Is there a way to study a condensed and to the point version of all their ideas?

 

Any books that summarize ideas?

 

I'd like to be able to refute them myself.

 

If I can refute their metaphysical and epistemological assertions does that mean I can then ignore and avoid studying their ethics? (as I am already protecting myself from the underlying premises so I've effectively cut everything at the root).

Edited July 23, 2013 by LoBagola

[Eiuol]

Nietzsche, Plato, and Hume don't write huge books really. You could find summaries to start, but eventually you'll want to read their actual work eventually. Personally I find Kant uninteresting, I barely studied anything about him.

 

I wouldn't read philosophy just to refute ideas. I like reading philosophy because I gain insights into ideas. Plato has been valuable, and with his style of using Socrates, most of it consists of useful questions, and less about Plato's own beliefs. Nietzsche writes mostly with aphorisms, so you can read him in small pieces even.

[Reidy]

If you go in with the intention of refuting these philosophers rather than of understanding them, you're not going to get very far.  I made that mistake myself in school.

 

Do you have a university extension, night school, what have you in your area?  If it gives philosophy courses, that might be a good place to start.  The big-name philosophers do not write for the beginning reader, and my experience is that you need a teacher to get through them.

[Hairnet]

  I would third that remark. Going in looking to prove someone wrong can lead to a biased and exhausting read. 

 

  I prefer to read philosophical texts to see what kind of good ideas I can lift from them. 

Edited July 23, 2013 by Hairnet

[Ninth Doctor]

Peikoff's 2 courses on the history of philosophy date from the early seventies and catch him at the top of his game.

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/95/founders-of-western-philosophy-thales-to-hume-mp3-download

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/96/modern-philosophy-kant-to-the-present-mp3-download

They're really cheap, certainly (at least) compared to how much they used to cost. I have a reputation as a Peikoff detractor and here I'm recommending them, so that ought to tell you something.

Beyond that, Will Durant's Story of Philosophy comes to mind. Also George Smith's new book is really good, though more limited in scope than what you seem to be asking for.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-of-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00873GLOQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1374623275&sr=1-1&keywords=will+durant

http://www.amazon.com/The-System-of-Liberty-ebook/dp/B00BM4TKKY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374623245&sr=8-1&keywords=george+h.+smith

[LoBagola]

I generally don't like the audio courses. I prefer having text to slowly read through or reference (although I did just purchase "consciousness as identification). 

 

I would third that remark. Going in looking to prove someone wrong can lead to a biased and exhausting read. 

I prefer to read philosophical texts to see what kind of good ideas I can lift from them. 

 

I don't understand - this is how I read Rand, i.e. critically. I might like an idea but if I can't prove it / verify it I will not confidently say I agree with it. I am not yet able to refute much philosophy. Having read some limited philosophy I found I wasn't able to follow many arguments especially because definitions seem to be lax. Whereas with Rand I can often reduce down everything she says to essentials and then the arguments follow.

 

I'm partially taking my cue for doing this from her essay on why you need philosophy where she says:

 

If you feel nothing but boredom when reading the virtually unintelligible theories of some philosophers, you have my deepest sympathy. But if you brush them aside, saying: "Why should I study that stuff when I know it's nonsense?"--you are mistaken. It is nonsense, but you don't know it--not so long as you go on accepting all their conclusions, all the vicious catch phrases generated by those philosophers. And not so long as you are unable to refute them.

 

 

 

I may have the chance of taking up a diploma or first year arts degree (subsidized) so would it be worth it then to take philosophy classes?

 

Are there not any online schools? freelance teachers? 

 

Does anyone not think I would be better off spending all this time studying Objectivists texts instead? (the more esoteric parts of epistemology, metaphysics etc)

Edited July 24, 2013 by LoBagola

[LoBagola]

There are also some free courses available online (courseera) but I'd need to find some kind of freelance tutor to read and give me feedback on my writing. Eventually, I'd like to be competent enough to work through the OAC courses.

[Eiuol]

Does anyone not think I would be better off spending all this time studying Objectivists texts instead? (the more esoteric parts of epistemology, metaphysics etc)

But you didn't start reading Rand's stuff specifically to refute what she wrote, did you? If you for some reason wonder just why someone could sound so wrong, you might be curious about where the ideas come from. You can go to the source and either discover it's not so bad, or see that it's misunderstood, or have questions, or figure out why it is wrong. For instance, I don't have much curiosity about Kant except some super basic things, just not enough to go read "Critique of Pure Reason". I'm not going to waste my time on something that I'm not even curious about. I'll read Nietzsche or perhaps Aristotle because I like their style, so I'm interested. Plato isn't a hard read, and I like Socrates as portrayed, I find the incessant questions interesting. Hegel or Kant just seem like... a tome of endless sentences that never get to the point. I don't "need" to formally refute Kant, and I enjoy myself when I read what I enjoy and benefit from.

 

I actually liked a lot of Objectivist books, so I read a lot of those in the span of about 4 months - go to a library to save money. You might like doing the same. After that I read some Ariistotle because I like Greek thinkers, plus Rand mentioned Aristotle so highly that I was curious. If you want some general philosophy education, take classes at your college, perhaps talk to the professor before registering to see if you'd be interested. I had a great philosophy teacher that kept all the students engaged, but some professors exist that just go towards philosophy at an analytical angle that I simply find boring.

[softwareNerd]

If you're looking for 40-50 pages on each of the 10 most famous western philosophers, Will Durant's book "The Story of Philosophy" would be a good starting point. There's even a good chance you'll find one in your local public library.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I'm interested in working through Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, Hegel, Hume etc but I do not want to read huge books all over as just working through OPAR and ITOE is taking long enough. Is there a way to study a condensed and to the point version of all their ideas?

You'd be surprised how much information you can find on the internet, with just a little bit of digging.

 

There are summarized versions of their works out there- I personally have one on Sartre (don't bother; entire thing's based on hatred of the universe).  But if that's not your thing then you could try simply skimming their original work.

Here's a digital copy of the Critique of Pure Reason:

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Critique-Pure-Reason6x9.pdf

 

But, personally, I wouldn't bother with Kant either.  His entire goal was to protect Christianity from science and he considered concepts to be tools of distortion, which confuse the truth and prevent us from knowing anything at all.

With that information alone, I think any specific argument of his becomes fairly transparent.

[LoBagola]

I am *really* interested in studying Kant because my impression reading O'ists sourced philosophy is that he has consciously devised some plan (conspiracy) to rein destruction on the world - I'd like to read and try understand how that is inferred. This would mean Kant is an evil genius - yes, a genius.

 

Example:

It is highly doubtful that the practitioners and admirers of modern art have the intellectual capacity to understand its philosophical meaning; all they need to do is indulge the worst of their subconscious premises. But their leaders do understand the issue consciously: the father of modern art is Immanuel Kant (see his Critique of Judgment).

 

And so on...