Reddit mentions: The best eastern philosophy books

For Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Kemp Smith and Guyer/Wood are both good options, but I would recommend the Pluhar translation.

If you want to try to read the Critique, you should first read Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. He wrote it to introduce the project of the Critique, and it does an excellent job at this. It's available in the Cambridge collection edition as part of Theoretical Philosophy After 1781 or on its own.

Secondary literature would also be a good idea. The best reference is Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism. Allison interprets Kant a very specific way on a number of contentious issues. For excellent references which adopt some alternate views, see Guyer's Kant and Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. All of these would be excellent secondary references and of great help in approaching the Critique. Guyer's Kant is probably the easiest read, so might be a good place to start.

For Descartes, you should get the first two volumes of the Cottingham edition called The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. The Discourse is an excellent place to start. With it you should also read The World and at least some of the Rules for the Direction of the Mind; perhaps the first six or so, or more if you find them interesting. These are all in the first volume. After these, you should read his Meditations, which are in volume two.

Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy

★★★★★ - Awesome!

It's a very general overview of Chinese philosophy, starting with Confucius and working its way to modern day interpretations.

One thing that really struck me was Confucius' idea of "revivalistic traditionalism".

>Revivalism is a movement to effect positive social change in the present by rediscovering the deep meaning of the texts, practices, and values of the past. Many of the great progressive social movements of history have been revivalistic, including the American civil rights movement. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. called on Americans to actually live up to the principles of freedom, equality, and human dignity central to the Christian tradition and to Western democratic thought rather than merely pay lip service to them...

Honestly, I thought that would be a really valuable thing to have as socialists/anarchists. One of the most common critiques of the Left in general is our dedication to the examination of situations 100+ years ago to look for insights into the modern day. Well, rather than doing that, we can take from Marx whatever is valuable, we can take from the classical liberal philosophers whatever we find valuable there, we can take from the ancient Greek philosophers, etc...

The point is we have a lot of material to help us build our ideal world that doesn't necessarily have to be on the foundation that Marx laid down...or Kropotkin, in my case as an anarchist. That material was developed over literally thousands of years from the ideas of Confucius and the Greek philosophers to today. There are insights in there to inform today and I think we're doing a disservice to ourselves by focusing so much on Marx.

The rapturous states are signs of high concentrative abilities, enjoy. However, this is just a factor of awakening.

Being present is. That is enlightenment. Not trying for anything, but being at total peace, acceptance of all the flow of phenomena, pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.

If you are interested in some detailed talks on the 7 factors of awakening according to the Buddha, consider listening to Joseph Goldstein's talks on The Satipatthana Sutta, parts 27-35, and # 27 is here. Joseph is ridiculously modest. Do not let that fool you into thinking he does not know. He teaches in that tone.

If you want more stories of high yogis, try Miracle of Love. It's about Neem Karoli Baba, Ram Dass and Krishna Das's teacher.

Also, Be Love Now has a number of stories about modern saints/yogis.

Also, Osho has quite a lot to offer. His book, Tantra might be of interest to you. I went through an extensive kundalini awakening and Osho's talks and books helped me a lot through those times.

I'll say, you are correct in seeing that what you've experienced so far is not "it," not enough. That is wisdom. Carry on.

I'm not sure what you've read thus far, but the three most important books in the Daoist canon are, in generally agreed upon order:

1. The Tao Te Ching (Dao De Ching, Daodejing, &c.). My favorite translation is the done by Addiss and Lombardo, but there are certainly other good translations.
   
   
2. The Chuan Tzu (Zhuangzi) I'm partial to the translation by Hamill and Seaton, though I admit that may be because it was my first exposure to Daoism. It doesn't strive for accuracy, but has taken some liberties in making the text accessible to most readers by doing away with pedantry.
   
   
3. The Lieh Tzu (Liezi) My favorite translation is the one by Eva Wong, though it also was going for readability above accuracy. I'm currently reading a much more accurate translation done by Thomas Cleary which has, thus far, been rather good.

Indian Philosophy (outside Buddhism - which is gaining some popularity), those that went to a more academic direction, seems to be relatively unrecognized. Very few seem to engage with Early Modern Indian Philosophy - philosophers like Sri Harsha and all. Prof. Jonardon Ganeri is a good source to look more into.


Other Indian Philosophers from the 1900s are relatively unknown too (relatively unknown even among relatively unknowns). Examples are, AC Mukherjee, KC Bhattacharya, Dyaya Krishna, Satchitananda. That said I don't know how well regarded they are on Indian Universities, or how well known are they, but at least I can barely find them to be talked about anywhere in the Internet. I don't even find many philosophers specializing on Indian philosophy to be talking much about them. I mostly discovered them through Jay Garfield. And these guys were actually trying to engage internationally - with texts from Western philosophers like Kant, Hegel, and talking about them in terms of Advaita Vedanta.


https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/b26076/ramchandra_gandhi_and_contemporary_indian/eirmn3h/?context=3


That said, I haven't really read all them. I have read a paper on KC Bhattacharya's work; it was interesting. But nothing much else. So I can't pick out one and say if one of them is a hidden gem and which one it is.


I am also interested in Vaddera Chandidas: https://www.amazon.com/Desire-Liberation-Biography-Vaddera-Chandidas-ebook/dp/B07FYBSWHM/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=


Who is quite hyped up by Raghurajmaru and also in the free sample. But I am finding the description quite vague - it kind of sound Buddhist but I am not sure what unique arguments do he make. There isn't enough details to make me confident about purchasing it, and I didn't find any reviews and such either (may be if someone here knows more about it, that would be nice). Now, if the praises by Raghurajmaru and others for Chandidas are justified, then he could be another hidden gem, or may be not.

Ultimately, almost all of Eastern philosophy is underrated by Western standard as others said.

There's probably a few ways you could go about expanding your knowledge base. The two that seem most fruitful are

1. Reading for a deeper understanding of the topics that you're already familiar with.
   
   
2. Ranging more broadly into other areas that may interest you.
   
   If (1), then I'd probably suggest one of two courses. Either, (a) read the stuff that influenced the existential thinkers that you've listed, or (b) read some literature dealing with issues related to the thinkers you've listed.
   
   For (a) I'd suggest the following:
   
   

• Anything by Kant
  
• (In the case of Kierkegaard) Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or his Aesthetics
  
• (For Nietzsche) Emerson's essays, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, or Spinoza's Ethics
  
• Maybe some Freud for the later thinkers? Civilization and its Discontents is really good.
  
  For (b) it's really a mixed bag. I'd suggest going through the SEP articles on the thinkers you've listed and looking into some good secondary literature on them. If you're super interested in Nietzsche, I'd definitely suggest reading Leiter's Nietzsche on Morality. I really couldn't tell you more unless you told me something more specific about your interests.
  
  If (2), then I suppose I'd suggest one of the following:
  
  
• Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy for a good, broad introduction to Chinese Thought
  
• The Analects of Confucius. This translation is excellent
  
• A Short History of Chinese Philosophy
  
• Heidegger's Being and Time
  
• Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception
  
• Some of Rilke's work
  
• Unamuno's Tragic Sense of Life
  
  Again, it's hard to give you better directions without more information on what you're actually interested in. I've just thrown a bunch of stuff at you, and you couldn't possibly be expected to read, say, Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation over break and be expected to really understand it.

Yes. Trust me when I say that you'll need second literature if you are willing to understand one line of, for instance, the Critique of Pure Reason. There are good introductory books on Kant out there that can help you.

If you know almost nothing about his philosophy, I recommend Scruton's or Wood's books that approach his whole philosophy without any details, making it accessible. A good start. At the same time you could give the Prefaces A and B, and the Introduction of the first Critique a try.

For what I call "intermediary literature", there is Gardner's "GuideBook", and having "A Kant Dictionary" by your side would help a lot.

Some might recommend Allison's defense of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, I think it is great, started to read it some weeks ago, but as well as Strawson's The Bounds of Sense or Heidegger's Kant and the Problems of Metaphysics, it is way advanced.

The most important thing is that you (or any other who is reading this and is also interested in Kant) are motivated, that you don't quit when read at the first time and understand barely nothing. With effort and persistence it gets better.

p.s.: I do not intend to advertise for Amazon, you can read the synopses and reviews and buy somewhere else.

First off - allow me to say that the best way for Westerners to learn about Islam is through Islamic Philosophy. The books I'm going to recommend are introductory books on Islamic Philosophy. I have not included classical works because they can get very deep and in some cases, can only truly be appreciated with the assistance of a teacher.

A good book on the outline, origins, and highlights of Islamic Philosophy and its current state has been written by Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr: Islamic Philosophy from Its Origin to the Present. Professor Nasr (not to be confused with Vali Nasr) has written many books on Islamic Philosophy and Sufism.


A very good book was written by the late Ayatollah Mutahhari: Fundamentals of Islamic Thought: God, Man, and the Universe.

Another strong book on Islamic Philosophy translated in English has been written by the late Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr: Our Philosophy on Amazon or cheaper version here or alternatively Our Philosophy Online. This book, aside from laying down the foundation of epistemology and rationality, includes a critical analysis of various world philosophies (ex. Marxism) from an Islamic perspective.


Finally, you can look at the works of the acclaimed William Chittick. He has multiple works on Sufism, Islamic Philosophy, etc. William Chittick, Seyed Hossein Nasr, and Hamid Algar are who you want to look for. They are the leading Western academics on Islamic Philosophy and Sufism.


If, after reading these books, Shi'a/Sufi philosophy really appeals to you, you should strongly consider learning Persian. The Islamic seminaries in Qom (Iran) have produced many masterpieces. If you'd like to get more resources or recommendations, let me know.

It sounds like you're interested in Chinese (and eastern) philosophy and thought. I'd recommend starting with this:

An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy, Karyn Lai, Cambridge (2008).

And then seeing which schools of thought you are most interested in. Certain schools of thought are more of a hot topic right now than others, particularly in ethics and political philosophy, so which one you end up liking will affect what you have to work with. I don't want to mention ones that are a particularly big deal for fear of biasing you. You can explore these further than Lai's book describes by using this:

Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, P.J. Ivanhoe, Bryan W. Van Norden, Hackett (2006).

I am not very familiar with Chinese Philosophy though, so I would cross check these recommendations with somebody actually involved in the subject. It is a dying field in the west so it would be great if you ended up interested in pursuing it so we can win some great thinkers back and do some cool collaborative research.

> Considering Lynch's views on and practice of transcendental meditation and especially the importance of transcending, has someone tried to delve deeper into that aspect and apply this to his works, Twin Peaks in particular?


I did:

David Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE a metaphor for meditation and enlightenment?

Still watching the first season of Twin Peaks, but I've already seen a few scenes that might have a TM interpretation (whether Lynch intended them to be interpreted that way or not is another question).

However, with INLAND EMPIRE, I think came pretty close to what Lynch had in mind as THIS is something he HAS said in public about it:

"We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."

(this isn't actually a direct quote from the Upanishads, but from a book about the Upanishads by a friend of his who put the text of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad into short story form: Eternal Stories from the Upanishads)

I'm glad it was useful! I've spent a long time following internet rabbit holes and searching dusty library corners for these folks, so I'm glad to pass it along. There are, regrettably, not very many books collecting all these fascinating figures, but I know of a couple. Copleston's famous history of philosophy includes a volume on them. There's a several volume set which serves as kind of an anthology of writings from a variety of schools in that period (here's the link to the second volume, which contains stuff on nihilism and populism). There's also a good biography in English on Pavel Florensky, which digs a bit into the details of this time (and Florensky is worth taking the time to read--just ask /u/blazingtruth).

A few of the Russians who made it to Paris wrote their own surveys, histories, and reflections, but they are of course quite biased (most of these guys are from the Solovyov strand, though, so you'll get a lot of good stuff on his lineage). On this, see Berdyaev's The Russian Idea, Dream and Reality (which is his autobiography), Lossky's History of Russian Philosophy, and others.

As for Solovyov's stuff, Eerdmans publishing has been putting out some of his material in English over the years (they've also translated Bulgakov's works). I know of only two in print right now (find them here). I've read the book on the Good which is nice because you don't have to commit from start to finish--you can sort of skip around--and it introduces Solovyov's metaphysics and his social thought. The second half of it is more practical application of his philosophy/theology.

As you can see, the field is a bit sparse in terms of secondary engagement. You can find articles here and there if you have access to library databases. For anyone looking for research interests or grad school work, learning Russian could be a ticket to a niche area of reading and thinking (it's one I'm thinking of pursuing in Ph.D. work).

While I can understand reading Plato's and Aristotle's complete works, there's no point in doing the same for Cicero or Seneca. It's simply a waste of time. If you truly decided to go through with this plan, you'd be dead by the time you reached Plutarch.

If you're at all interested in modern philosophy, you need to get to Kant as quickly as possible. You don't need to have read the entire corpus of ancient and medieval philosophy to understand what's going on today. Also, primary texts alone won't cut it. Don't underestimate the complexity of these ancient texts simply because they're so old.

With that, here's what I would suggest:

1. The magnificent Leo Strauss recorded a bunch of lectures on different texts by Plato and Aristotle. Some of these recordings are incomplete but for Plato you can find the complete recordings of his lectures on The Republic, Gorgias, Protagoras, Laws, Thucydides and Meno. For Aristotle, you'll find his recordings on his Ethics, his Politics and his Rhetoric. Listen to them while you read these texts.
   
   
2. Put Seneca and Cicero aside for a while, they'll only slow you down right now. You can come back to them later.
   
   
3. You'll need some background to understand what Kant is doing. For that purpose, read Descartes mediations, Locke's Essay concerning human understanding and Hume's Enquiry concerning human understanding. The one philosopher missing in this list is Leibniz. It's not easy to point to one particular work of his, since he published mostly essays. Also, his thinking is much "wackier" and harder to get than the other one's here. With that in mind, get his collected essays and a secondary text on Leibniz. The routledge books are usually fine although I've heard very high praise for Bertrand Russel's A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz.
   
   
4. You'll now have the necessary background to get into Kant. I suggest you read at the very least his Critique of pure reason, Prolegemona, Grounding for the metaphysics of morals and critique of practical reason. All of these are tricky but absolutely crucial texts. WIthout them, nothing that comes after Kant will make much sense. For the CPR, get Gardner's Guidebook to the CPR. Also, here are two really great recorded courses on the CPR. The first is by J. Bernsetin and the second by Richard D. Winfield. Once you feel comfortable with Kant, go for the ultimate secondary text, Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism. For Kant's works on ethics, consider Allison's Commentary on Kant's Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Also, get Allen Wood's magnificent book Kantian Ethics.
   
   ------------
   
   You now have a solid foundation in the three fundamental thinkers of western philosophy. Now, all the doors are open. You could go further and either start reading Hegel and Adorno or alternatively you could just straight to Husserl and Heidegger. All these four thinkers require Kant as a basis but with Heidegger, the background reading in Aristotle will start to pay off. You could also go for Kierkegaard and Nietzsche if you're into existentialism.
   
   
   Alternatively, if you want to specialize in medieval thinking, refocus your studies on Aristotle, read Plotin and Augustine, get Edward Feser's books on Thomas Aquinas, learn Latin and get to work reading the Summa.
   
   One more thing: If you're really serious about reading basically the complete works of Plato, Aristotle and other greek thinkers, you'll need to learn Attic Greek. My favourite textbook is Mastronarde's, although if you want to go straight to reading texts, consider Reading Greek.

If you are looking for actual "modern" eastern philosophy and not the traditional religious-tinted texts, I recommend the various Japanese philosophers of the Kyoto School (Nishida, Tanabe, and others). And while you could argue that he wasn't really part of that "school", I recommend Watsuji Tetsuro, especially if you like Ethics (admission: my Masters Thesis was partly about him and his Ethics of Trust. Good stuff but his "Rinrigaku" hasn't fully been translated AFAIK so finding it in English is possible(http://www.amazon.com/Watsuji-Tetsuros-Rinrigaku-Japanese-Philosophy/dp/0791430944), but not complete.).

You can get a great overview in books by James Heisig and John Maraldo, of which I strongly recommend http://www.amazon.com/Japanese-Philosophy-Sourcebook-James-Heisig/dp/0824835522 (though their Rude Awakenings was nice too).

As for the other Asian countries, I second some of the suggestions such as the Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Upanishads, Ramayana, the Gita, the Analects and so forth. They are rich and relevant even in the limited modern philosophical schools in those countries. Skip Alan Watts though...unless you like your Philosophy through the lens of the late 60s.

Wow, that was an awesome reply, in terms of content and presentation. You've convinced me that I need to widen my conception of aesthetics. Hume's Enquiry is also one of my all-time favorites, and I have to admit, I really do enjoy his writing. In the preface to my edition of the Enquiry Hume says it might be the most edited work in the English language and that bit inspired me to be a compulsive editor.

I loved this bit from your reply:

>Well I could finish off a section of the Enquiry and then step out onto the veranda attached to my apartment building and have a cigarette and everything I experienced would be touched by this new idea I was playing with.

I know that feeling - it's addictive! I think that's what made me really want to pursue philosophy as a major, though like any addictive rush, I found that it has diminishing returns in the long run. Not much philosophy has that effect on me anymore, though I suppose I don't read as much straight-up philosophy as I used to. I think part of it, for me, has to do with reading a particular book when I'm in the right place in my life to appreciate it. The last works that had that effect on me were Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising and The New Inquisition. A significant portion of what he says is bullshit (he also says he does this intentionally to fuck with the reader), but his prose is just so irresistibly awesome that I can't help but get swept away in it. Interestingly, Wilson is also a compulsive editor of his own work. He says somewhere that his usual method is: write stoned, edit sober, edit stoned, edit sober. I've had some success with this method, but you know, different strokes...

One of my gripes about much of analytic philosophy in the last century or so is that it doesn't give me much that I feel applies to my life. Much of it can be caricatured with minimal injustice as a bunch of old white men locked in an ivory tower refusing to speak or listen to anyone who isn't in the tower. That said, there are some good apples in the bunch. /tangent.

>I often use Hume when talking about my notion of aesthetics, because I think his (at least from my perspective) rather damming criticisms of what people regard typically as rational really demonstrated quite nicely that we can't rely on rational reasons alone to tell us why certain thinkers stick with us so hard while others just go into the pile of "yeah I read that once" and I think my odd sense of aesthetics can help us fill that gap a bit.

Yeah, I think you may be onto something here! I don't usually put too much time into my reddit posts, but when I'm writing a paper with the intention of publishing it, I totally obsess on finding just the right words to express an idea, or just enough hyperbole to get the reader's attention without going totally overboard.

I never actually read the Prolegomena. That might have helped a lot. I TAed quite a few classes and that was the only one where I felt totally incompetent (the prof was a really nice guy but often nearly as difficult to follow as Kant). The other thing that really would have helped was Henry Allison's book on the first Critique but I didn't have time for extracurricular reading.

Here is your book: Aghora by Robert Svaboda. Why? After looking at some of your comments, I gather that you are interested in the practice of meditation as taught by one of the Buddhist schools, and you are interested in psychedelic experiences, e.g., tripping on 'shrooms until you end up in the hospital. While I am completing a masters in the area of roughly "medieval aesthetics in India" - which will open up new areas of experience for you - if you are willing to work very hard for a while. wikipedia "abhinavagupta" and see what you think as his path included the ritual use of intoxicants. The sufi traditions may have something for you too here are some books.
Probably as well to deconstruct terms like "Eastern philosophy/ers" - Indian Theravada thinkers like Dharmakirti and Nargajuna will be worlds apart from the Mahaayaana views of Chinese let alone Japanese lineages. In fact, Dharmakirti and Nargajuna will have more in common with Hindu Nyaaya philosophy and the theistic idealism of Abhinavagupta than with Chinese Mahaayaana. On that note the book "Perception" by BK Matilal is excellent.

Otherwise smoke a bone, read Alan Watts, TD Suzuki, Robert Persig, Deepak and think you're learning Eastern philosophy - chicks dig guys who know Eastern philosophy.

I would be delighted! He is my favorite living scholar. His first breakout work was on the relationship between Leo Strauss and Carl Schmitt. He has since then worked extensively in the field of Straussianism, particularly in revitalizing the academic legacy of Carl Schmitt. He focuses primarily on Strauss's distinction between revealed religion and philosophy and how that informs the role of the philosopher within society. Most of his books tend to be succinct and brief, bordering on laconic.
The top three I would reccomend are "The Lesson of Carl Schmitt", "Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue" , "Leo Strauss and the Theological-Political Problem".

If you have any further questions or want to discuss any of his work I am always happy to do so.

here are links on amazon to the referenced texts:

https://www.amazon.com/Lesson-Carl-Schmitt-Distinction-Philosophy/dp/0226518906/ref=la_B001HCW6QQ_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512083591&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Schmitt-Leo-Strauss-Dialogue/dp/0226518884/ref=la_B001HCW6QQ_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF

https://www.amazon.com/Strauss-Theologico-Political-Problem-European-Philosophy/dp/0521699452/ref=la_B001HCW6QQ_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512083591&sr=1-5

Some more recent releases are:

Deirdre McCloskey - Bourgeois Equality

Jeffrey Tucker - Right Wing Collectivism

William Irwin - The Free Market Existentialist

Tyler Cowen - The Complacent Class

Roderick Long - Rituals of Freedom: Libertarian Themes in Early Confucianism

Peter Boettke - Living Economics

Jacob T. Levy - Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom

Arnold Kling - Specialization and Trade

George H. Smith - Freethought and Freedom

Benjamin Powell -The Economics of Immigration

Michael Munger - Tomorrow 3.0

Lindsey & Teles - The Captured Economy

Brennan & Jaworski - Markets without Limits

Coyne & Hall - Tyranny Comes Home

Douma & Magness - What Is Classical Liberal History?

Hart et al. - Social Class and State Power

This may not quite be what you are looking for, but Hinduism has two great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. I recommend the translations by C. Rajagopalachari: (link). There may be a few words that you may not understand, and will have to google.

Start with the Ramayana - the story is simpler. Mahabharata is a more complex story, and is the context in which the Bhagavad Gita is delivered.

One contemporary defense of this kind is David Cummiskey's "Kantian Consequentialism"
From the Amazon explanation.
" The central problem for normative ethics is the conflict between a consequentialist view--that morality requires promoting the good of all--and a belief that the rights of the individual place significant constraints on what may be done to help others. Standard interpretations see Kant as rejecting all forms of consequentialism, and defending a theory which is fundamentally duty-based and agent-centered. Certain actions, like sacrificing the innocent, are categorically forbidden. In this original and controversial work, Cummiskey argues that there is no defensible basis for this view, that Kant's own arguments actually entail a consequentialist conclusion. But this new form of consequentialism which follows from Kant's theories has a distinctly Kantian tone. The capacity of rational action is prior to the value of happiness; thus providing justification for the view that rational nature is more important than mere pleasures and pains."

http://www.amazon.com/Kantian-Consequentialism-David-Cummiskey/dp/0195094530#

Hey, TBM.

I happened to be exploring a particular website, and when I searched "Altizer", this appeared as the first result (of two): Japanese and Continental Philosophy: Conversations with the Kyoto School. Thomas Altizer is certainly the Altizer involved, but I don't know what his relation to the book is. The book seems pertinent to your interests so I figured I'd run it by you.

By the way, and I don't know how to say this without it seeming creepy, but, through knowing some about your interests and, sharing some of them, having subscribed to the same groups, I think that I've figured out who you are on Facebook.

Ok, so assuming I'm mainly interested in viewing this from a more Confucian perspective rather than Buddhist atm, and that I want to firmly start with one book and then either leave it at that or maybe move on to the first more advanced modern suggestion, which one should I read? It sounds like either Van Norden or Philip Ivanhoe just based on the order that you suggested it in.

> 3) Finally, would you be able to recommend any references on the history of logic, semantics, and dialectics in ancient Chinese philosophy (or their closest analogues)?

Alexus McLeod has a recent book on Chinese theories of truth, called Theories of Truth in Chinese Philosophy: A Comparative Approach. That may be of interest to you.

>i'm doing a seminar class on it

Yikes. Did you volunteer for this?

If you're determined to lecture from the primary text you'll want to read Henry E. Allison's 'Kant's Transcendental Idealism' alongside it.

In all honesty though you're probably going to have to fudge this. It took me six months of pretty intense study before I understand that book well enough to give a lecture on it, and even then I had trouble articulating the ideas in non-Kant speak (which will infect your brain if you're not careful).

For medieval Islamic philosophy, you might consider Classical Arabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources.

The introduction gives a solid history of Islamic philosophy written in Arabic, and it contains many good translations. One important thing to remember when studying Islamic philosophy (and especially the thinkers in this anthology) is that the Islamic philosophers were heavily influenced by Aristotle. Much of their thinking and writing engaged and influenced the various major Christian European and Jewish traditions of philosophy. As such, classical Islamic philosophy is sometimes considered part of the Western canon.

The classic contemporary defense of transcendental idealism, and exegesis of Kant's CPR, is Henry Allison's *Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense".

141 is my number. I recently found out about Ramayana and would love to read it. Here are some used ones under $5.

No problem at all.

The texts I have are Moss Roberts' translation of the Daodejing, Ziporyn's translation of Zhuangzi, and then Ivanhoe and Van Norden's Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy.

The Ivanhoe/Van Norden book has the Daodejing and other works in it so it's probably not worth the money until you've gone through the Daodejing maybe (and want to compare translations), but if you're mostly just interested in the Zhuangzi strain of Daoism the Zhuangzi texts are probably more than enough. Though confusing, they're not quite as abstract as the Daodejing itself (and the commentary in Ziporyn's text helps a lot).


http://www.amazon.com/Dao-Jing-Book-Way-Laozi/dp/0520242211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301237538&sr=1-1 and


http://www.amazon.com/Zhuangzi-Essential-Selections-Traditional-Commentaries/dp/0872209113/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301237406&sr=8-1


http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Classical-Chinese-Philosophy-Ivanhoe/dp/0872207803/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301237612&sr=1-1

Ramayana by C. Rajagopalachari if you want to start out simple. It was written for the younger generation and the English is quite unique.


Sita: An Illustrated Retelling of the Ramayana if you want a modern retelling of The Ramayana.


The Immortals of Meluha if you want a twisted take on some myths(this is not mythology of old but a reimagination using some concepts and characters. Another unique English warning would probably do good here).

Roderick Long argues in his book Rituals of Freedom that the early Confucians would have pursued these kinds of libertarian policies. He considers the Taoists too primitivist for his taste, but I think the anarchism implied in Laozi and Zhuangzi is a fuller expression of libertarianism than the limited government/social tolerance of Kongzi (Confucius) and Menzi (Mencius).

I might suggest taking a look at Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy by Bryan Van Norden He's sort of a controversial figure himself because he comes at academia from the perspective of wanting to tear down the biased western institution that prevents proper study of "Eastern" thought. However, he is an expert in his field and keeps that stuff in other books. The one I've linked was one of the most useful introductory texts I found for studying the traditions native to China and those from elsewhere that were integrated into Chinese culture. Many other texts begin by talking about ancient divination practices that are only kind of relevant to the philosophical traditions that sprang up later and are frankly some of the most boring things I've ever read.

Likewise, I've suggested Seven Taoist Masters countless times. It's a narrative and technically only focuses on a specific school of Daoist thought, but it's much more accessible than reading something like the Dao De Jing. It'll teach you about Daoist ideas such as immortality, internal alchemy, and meditation. It's also less likely to make you into an arrogant fortune cookie, as is unfortunately the case with people who start with the DDJ.

Buddhism in China is different than Buddhism in India is different than Buddhism in Tibet. I'd suggest taking a look at the recommended reading on the /r/buddhism subreddit for this and going from there.

Avoid blogs, avoid "spiritualists" like Alan Watts and Eckhart Tolle. They are not good introductions to these topics if what you're looking for is accurate descriptions of how they developed and have been practiced for thousands of years. You might like what they're selling, but what they're selling is tangentially influenced by these traditions, but they're far from the same.

sigh

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Classical-Chinese-Philosophy-Ivanhoe/dp/0872207803/ref=sr_1_1


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|




This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).

It looks like this is the companion book to their Pre-Qin book, which I used to teach an intro class on classical Chinese philosophy. That book is the most complete/convenient book on Warring States thought, so it looks like this would fulfill the same need with Dynastic thought. Although, based on the table of contents, it doesn't look like the 20th century chapter would be that complete or critical of the CCP.