Reddit mentions: The best greek & roman philosophy books

I'm very happy that I was able to help :)

And yes, a lot of people will blame everything around them for the misery of themselves. This seems to be the easy way out, but you must ask yourself what good it does in the end. There are things which are outside of your control. What people might do to you, say to you, and so on. However no matter what harsh things you go through in life it is ultimately you that decide how to respond to them. You decide what to do with it. It is as Epictetus once said:

> "Man is affected not by events, but by the view he takes of them."

Usually I do not actually like to talk openly about the philosophy I follow, for the simple reason that I just try to live by it. Use actions, not words. Also for many people it might seem that you try to push something on to them. However I felt in this case I was justified to give an explanation of what exactly helped me :-)

Anyways, if you are interested in the principles I explained, then what you seek is reading on Stoicism. The book that has especially helped me is this one:
Stoicism and the art of happiness

It has eye-opening/life-changing wisdoms and perspectives on everything that has to do with you. How to deal with emotions, what they are, and what is essential to life a good life. Another interesting fact is that many of the mental exercises and perspectives the stoics used is now today amongst some of the most scientifically well-documented practices used by cognitive behavioural therapy (also with a quick google search, you will find that even the founder of CBT was inspired by the stoic teachings), which deals with practically all kinds of mental sufferings you can imagine.

It's a practical book on the life philosophy of Stoicism, and it is written by a credible psychotherapist who also takes interest in the study of Stoicism (hence the book!). It's not academic in any way, it's meant to be easily approachable and easy to implement into your life. Here's a quick breakdown of it all:

Stoicism is a life philosophy that was founded by the ancient greeks around 301 BCE. It's not a religion, or any kind of weird cult. It is a collection of principles that is meant to guide you towards happiness (in greek context meaning something more along the lines of inner well-being and tranquility).

I would suggest you read the book :-) Maybe you will come to pick up on everything stoicism has to offer, maybe you will only pick up whatever principles and wisdoms that you think are right, or maybe you won't find much agreement with it at all, all which is fine. However I think you will find some wisdoms you will definitely find to your liking, as you sound intrigued by the principles. The important thing is that no matter what, it will most certainly set you out on your way to think more about yourself and how to control your life and achieve your own understanding of well-being.

If Stoicism comes to your liking (start with the above book first, though), I could recommend books by some of the most famous ancient Stoics through time. I will leave some here for future reference for you:

Meditations - Marcus Aurelius - This is one of the most famous stoic texts.

Enchiridion - Epictetus

Dialogues and Essays - Seneca

These books read as manuals, not to be read in one sitting. They are huge collections of letters, essays and short passages from these excellent people about everything that has to do with achieving inner well-being, and how to view the world around you. They are remarkable ancient works, and it is truly inspiring and motivating to open them and just read a few of the lines from time to time.

As with anything, it's a learning process to change mindset. But it slowly comes when you study it. You learn the wisdoms and principles they had, you think about them and if they make sense, you apply them and live them, revisit them and so on, until they really become a part of you. It is truly worth the time though, and I think you see that too from what I could understand in your reply.

Best of luck to you! If you have any questions feel free to PM me as well, I'd be happy to help.

The FAQ has a question (and answer) on recommended starting points from newcomers.

Summarizing the FAQ (cut-and-pasting from previous posts of mine summarizing the FAQ), there are a few approaches, depending on whether you prefer modern or ancient sources. For modern sources in the style of self-help books, some good options are:

• Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson. A practical, readable introduction to Stoicism intended for modern practice, readable independent of historical sources, in the style of modern "self-help" books.
  
• A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William Irvine. Irvine's book is controversial among readers of /r/Stoicism. It is one of the most clear, easy to read, and practical accounts of Stoicism available, but critics feel it waters down and distorts many central elements of the philosophy. Additional discussion of Irvine's book can be found here, here and here.
  
• The Stoics: A Guide for the Perplexed by Andrew Holowchak. Holowchak's book is a short, stand-alone account of Stoic philosophy. It quotes classical authors extensively, and provides many references for follow-up reading, but does not use the classical sources as its primary vehicle, and works as a stand-alone source. A longer review can be found here.
  
  Stoic Week's 2014 Handbook, 2013 Handbook and 2012 Living the Stoic Life booklet may also be of interest. They are free online, and much shorter.
  
  The FAQ also lists more theoretical, academic modern accounts, which you might prefer depending on taste.
  
  For ancient sources, commonly recommended starting points are:
  
  
• The Enchiridion of Epictetus is short and easy to read. It was written as a "cheat sheet" of sorts for Epictetus's Discourses, reading the Discourses as well can be very helpful for clarifying what is being said.
  
• Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, a personal journal. There are several out-of-copyright translations online, none of which are very good. Hard and Hays both have much better translations popular with readers here.
  
• Selected essays and letters by Seneca the Younger, particularly De Tranquillitate (On Tranquility of Mind) and De Brevitate Vitae (On the Shortness of Life).
  Moses Hadas's The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca is a good printed source for these and other writing by Seneca.
  
  I think any of these can be a good starting point, and any of them can be valuable on its own, but each only offers a partial glimpse of Stoicism as a whole.
  
  Most of the ancient sources above are good for browsing, picking random pages and reading a little bit here and there. Each has its own distinct character. A good approach may be to find copies of the Enchiridion, Meditations, and a selections of Seneca, and spend a little time browsing through each, and then focusing on the one that appeals most. Then, pursue supporting material to help give context, unpack references, and otherwise improve interpretation. For the Enchiridion, the best source for this would be the Discourses, and Long's Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life is also helpful, in different ways. For the Meditations, Stephens' Marcus Aurelius does a good job of explaining context, references, and interpretation.

Great question. I think finding stoic thoughts/words to share at funerals would be easier than for weddings - although the audience at a funeral might not be very receptive, at least at first!

Cynthia King's translation of Musonius Rufus's lectures and sayings includes good stuff about marriage in Lectures 13 and 14. A few quotes:

> In marriage there must be, above all, companionship and care of husband and wife for each other, both in sickness and in health and on every occasion. Each party entering into a marriage desires this, after all, just as they desire children. When this mutual care is complete and those who live together provide it to each other completely, each competes to surpass the other in giving such care. Such a marriage is admirable and deserves emulation; such a partnership is beautiful.... Neither wealth nor beauty nor noble birth have been able to increase a sense of partnership, let alone increase harmony; nor do they aid in the creation of children.... Souls that are naturally disposed towards self-control and justice - in a word, towards virtue - are obviously most suitable for marriage. Could a marriage be good without harmony? Could such a union be noble? Could wicked people be in harmony with each other? Could a good person be in harmony with a bad one? This could not happen, [as] a crooked piece of wood could not fit together with another crooked piece, and would fit even worse with its opposite, a straight piece.

To conorohiggins's excellent points, I would only tweak the third item on the list: that as a good spouse, I would aim to "give" to my partner my own virtue / arete / excellence of character, as a gift without expected reciprocation, in addition to trying to help my partner develop his/her own virtue.

edit: link format

Personal research, mostly. I'm a big history nerd with a slant toward religion and other macabre subject matter. I'm actually not as well read as I'd like to be on these subjects, and I basically blend different sources into a knowledge smoothie and pour it out onto a page and see what works for me and what doesn't.

I'll list a few books I've read that I enjoyed. There are certainly more here and there, but these are the "big ones" I was citing when writing all the comments in this thread. I typically know more about Christianity than the other major faiths because of the culture around me.

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years - Diarmaid MacCulloch

A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong

The next two balance each other out quite well. Hardline anti-theism contrasted with "You know, maybe we can make this work".

The Case for God - Karen Armstrong

The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins



Lately, I have been reading the Stoics, which like Buddhism, I find to be one of the more personally palatable philosophies of mind I have come across, although I find rational contemplation a bit more accessible to my Westernized nature.

Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Essays and Letters - Translated by Moses Hadas

Discourses and Selected Writings (of Epictetus) - Translated by Robert Dobbin

The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Translated by George Long

I'm still waiting on Fed Ex to deliver this one:

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine

Also, if you're into history in general, a nice primer for what sorts of things to dive into when poking around history is this fun series on YouTube. I usually watch a video then spend a while reading more in depth about whatever subject is covered that week in order to fill the gaps. Plus, John and Hank are super awesome. The writing is superb and I think, most importantly, he presents an overall argument for why studying history is so important because of its relevance to current events.

Crash Course: World History - John Green

I would say yes, but with a few caveats. I myself am a bit of an autodidact, and I study philosophy as a hobby in my free time. I am currently a university student who works part time, so I sympathize with your concerns about limited time and energy. Some things I think you should be aware of:

• Studying on your own will be slower and generally less efficient than getting a degree. You won’t have the same obligations or motivators that university students have.

• You will lack access to resources that university students have. This includes both academic material (journals, essays, books) but also an environment with instructors and fellow students to consult when you’re confused.

• You will not have the benefit of writing essays and having them graded by an instructor.

Despite this, I still think there is a lot to be gained from self study. You have the freedom to pursue whatever you want, and you can go at a pace that’s comfortable to you. Plus there’s something to be said about challenging yourself and doing constructive things in your free time.

It may be best to start with introductory texts like Copleston’s history to get a general idea for each philosopher and to find what interests you. If you are still interested in the thinkers you mentioned, you should move on to primary sources. I’d recommend the following reading plan which should cover some of the “essentials” and has a sort of progression from one thinker to the next:

1. Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle
   
2. Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings by Descartes
   
3. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals by Hume
   
4. Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
   
   These four books will give you a solid foundation in western philosophy. You have the fundamental ideas and questions from the Pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle, rationalism from Descartes, empiricism from Hume, and the synthesis of the two in Kant. Moving on:
   
   
5. Logical Investigations by Husserl
   
   
6. Being and Time by Heidegger
   
   
7. Being and Nothingness by Sartre
   
   These three cover your interests in phenomenology, from its foundations in Husserl, to Heidegger’s magnum opus, to Sartre’s interpretation and his development of existentialism. Finally we have:
   
   
8. Dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkheimer & Adorno
   
   
9. Speech and Phenomenon by Derrida
   
   These two cover Horkheimer & Adorno’s critical take on enlightenment rationality and Derrida’s deconstruction of Husserlian phenomenology.
   
   None of these books are particularly easy (especially Husserl and Heidegger), but I encourage you to try! Take it one book at a time, read slow and take notes, and consult the IEP and SEP if you’re confused, watch YouTube lectures, or ask on this subreddit.
   
   Good luck!

First of all, I want to say that it speaks very well of you that you are looking to use your time in prison to your advantage. Most people would see this as a catastrophe, but you see it as an opportunity. If you want to make this a full-time, in-depth study, this is the plan I recommend.

I would first start with a good introduction to the entire Stoic system. A great one is Stoicism by John Sellars.

Then I would start reading the source material. We are fortunate enough to have the lectures of one of the great teachers of Stoicism, Epictetus. I would go with Epictetus - Discourses, Fragments, Handbook translated by Robin Hard.

After reading Epictetus, you can move on to Marcus Aurelius, who was directly influenced by the Discourses. Robin Hard has also done a translation of the Meditations.

To fully appreciate the Meditations (and to better appreciate Epictetus), next read The Inner Citadel by Pierre Hadot. This is an incredible analysis of the Meditations which explains Epictetus' influence on Marcus Aurelius and his work.

Finally, you must of course read Seneca. Two good sources are this book of his essays and this book of his letters.

Between the footnotes in these translations and the detail given by Sellars and Hadot, you won't need Wikipedia to get clarification on any points. You'll have the expert knowledge in your hands.

I don't think it's necessary to read one of the modern how-to type books before you begin reading these, but if you think it would help to read something lighter first to become acquainted with the core concepts ahead of time, I recommend Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson.

There are other sources, such as Musonius Rufus and Cicero, but these are the three most people start with and the three that I recommend first. You can look at the FAQ for more ideas if you'd like.

Find out how many books you are allowed to have at one time, as this may be an issue in prison.

As others have said, it's a very good idea to keep a journal of your thoughts, both on what you are reading and how you relate what you are reading to your life.

These excerpts are from probably the best Musonius Rufus translation, there are a bunch more, including how he ties marriage and relationships into Stoic philanthropy, but I can only type so much ;-):

> Would not a woman who studies philosophy be just? Would she not be a blameless partner in life, a good co-worker and likeminded one, a careful guardian of husband and children, entirely free from the love of gain or grasping for too much?


> Husband and wife should come together for the following reasons: to live with each other, to have children, and to consider all things as common possessions and nothing as private--not even the body itself.


> In marriage there must be, above all, companionship and care of the husband and wife for each other, both in sickness and in health and on every occasion. Each party entering a marriage desires this, after all, just as they desire children. When this mutual care is complete and those who live together provide it to each other completely, each compete to surpass the other in giving such care. Such a marriage is admirable and deserves emulation; such a partnership is beautiful.

Well, there are a lot of different ways to tackle philosophy. Here are two: you can approach it by topic or you can approach it historically. I prefer the topical approach, but it seems like you want a historical understanding, so I'll base my recommendation on that.

Also, the readings you choose can either be primary or secondary. Purists will tell you to stick with primary readings. I strongly disagree; especially for ancient philosophy. Secondary texts help in a number of ways: they provide social, cultural, and historical context; they can summarize vast quantities of scholarship; they can point out translation difficulties; they can indicate where a fragmentary record might be misleading; they can provide valuable comparisons and contrasts to contemporary background knowledge; and so on. Yes, they're biased, but most of my students get more out of a secondary text that has some bias than out of a primary text they can't understand. The value of secondary is especially great if you're studying on your own. I'll provide both primary and secondary recommendations and leave it up to you how to proceed.

As it's usually taught, the Presocratics are at the beginning of Western philosophy -- people like Thales, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides.

I like the presocratics, but I wouldn't blame you for skipping them and starting with Plato. There are a lot of dialogues, so you might want to be selective. Choose something from his early period: The Apology. Some dialogues from his middle period: The Meno and Phaedo. And something from his later period: The Republic. There are a lot of decent translations out there; however, avoid Jowett at all costs.

Now for Aristotle. There are a number of worthwhile works, but whatever else you do, you should read Nicomachean Ethics. Also, if you have time, read Topics, Physics, Metaphysics, and De Anima; however, I warn you that I don't think these works are as accessible as the Nicomachean Ethics. And since you're studying biology, so you might get a kick out or reading Parts of Animals.

For all of the above you could get one primary text, Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, (Fourth Edition): from Thales to Aristotle. This is a great reader; it has selections from the presocratics and sophists, it has the Plato dialogues I recommended, it has several works from Aristotle too.

Let me also suggest some secondary texts. For the Presocratics I suggest something like Philosophy Before Socrates (Second Edition): An Introduction with Texts and Commentary. For Socrates I recommend Vlastos' Socratic Studies. For Aristotle I recommend two books: first, Ackrill's Aristotle the Philosopher; second, Urmson's Aristotle's Ethics.

Next up: the Hellenistic philosophers, which includes the Epicureans, Stoics, Academics, and Pyrrhonists. Long and Sedley's collection The Hellenistic Philosopher's, Volume 1 is very good. It has a well organized selection of primary readings with some commentary. But don't get volume 2 unless you speak Greek and Latin. For a secondary text, the Sedley and Long could be paired with Long's Hellenistic Philosophy.

For comprehensive collection of helpful secondary sources, you might want to try the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

• Meditations: Either get the one by Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. I have both. Hays uses more modern English and is easier to understand, but he can be pretty liberal with his translation. Hard is a little more straight laced in his translation it seems but still uses pretty modern English. Also the Hard translation contains Letter from Marcus to his Rhetoric teacher Fronto which are cool to read. Other versions of Meditations do not have this in them afaik.
  
• Epictetus, Enchiridion + Discourses: Epictetus's Discourses, Fragments, Handbook by Robin Hard. Best translation of Epictetus I have found ( I like more modern English). Lots of good footnotes in this one.
  
• Seneca's Letters: Either Letters from a Stoic to get a taste of what Seneca is like, or go all the way in and get Letters on Ethics which contains all 124 letters to Lucillius. Hardcover book is awesome, high quality, great foot notes throughout.
  
• Seneca's Moral Essays: There are a bunch of these, I haven't found a favorite translation yet. If you only read one, read On the Shortness of Life

Been a while since I commented around these parts (reddit generally I think), but I figured I'd give a go at answering your question since I'm currently doing a seminar on the Presocratics. Hopefully something that follows will be of use to you.

First, we have to determine what you mean by "other Greek philosophers". Let's just say we're talking about the Presocratics, the Sophists (a controversial choice, I know), and Aristotle. How many of these people can be said to have lived their philosophy, by which I assume you mean that there is no sharp distinction between the theory and the practice of said philosophical system?

Well, we're not in a good position to say whether or not any of the Milesian or Ionian philosophers lived or did not live their philosophy, simply because of the sparsity of extant fragments. The farther back we go in time, the less we have, until finally we have no direct quotations from Thales at all (that are reliable, at any rate).

But even if we were to press on with the claim that none of the Presocratics/Sophists/Aristotle lived their philosophy, we'd be wrong. Pythagoras, for instance, clearly fits the description of someone who lived his philosophy (assuming the fragments we have are reliable). I doubt one could construct a religious cult around a philosophical system without some aspect of it being "lived". But even if we discount Pythagoras, we still have ethical accounts in Empedocles and Democritus. Empedocles supposedly jumped into a volcano because he had to test whether or not he was truly a god (an unfortunate result of his unique blend of religion and philosophy, but probably an unreliable story anyway). And Democritus had a rich ethical account that accompanied his epistemological and metaphysical theories (most of what we have fragment-wise are his fragments of ethics). Even if that doesn't convince you, one can still appeal to the Sophists, who did nothing except live according to their beliefs (though we're not in a very good position to evaluate whether or not they truly believed the things that are in the fragments for somewhat complicated reasons).

So, maybe it's something else? /u/Lanvc suggests that perhaps it's the fact that Socrates is the only Ancient Greek (barring Aristotle) to have a full account of all areas of what we might consider philosophy proper, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. That's not true though. As far back as Xenophanes we have people who have philosophical fragments dealing with epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, though obviously in smaller quantities. /u/GWFKegel suggests it's just that Plato's dialogues survived while the fragments of the Presocratics did not. That's one way of distinguishing between Socrates and the Presocratics, albeit a philosophically uninteresting way (but obviously true).

Frankly, I'm not sure there is a helpful way of distinguishing Socrates from other Greek philosophers. Nietzsche in his lectures on the Presocratics here suggests that each Presocratic represents a particular and unique philosophical type, with Plato being the final philosophical type that we're familiar with, an individual who comes along and synthesizes the various philosophical types of those before him. Not sure whether that's a helpful way of making a distinction or not. I suppose it depends on whether or not you buy Nietzsche's account of Presocratic philosophy.

For myself, I'd say it's not really worth your time trying to draw a line around Socrates. It might simply be the case that there is nothing that makes him distinct in any meaningful way, and we only feel that there might be something because he's seen as the first real philosopher, or because we're all taught that he's very important. I'm not really sure.

As an afterthought, /u/confusedrone suggests you read Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. I wouldn't. It's a historical curiosity unless you're really interested in Greek thought. Even then, Diogenes Laertius isn't a reliable source because he isn't very careful about where he gets his information from. He just throws every story he picks up into one book and leaves the reader to sort through it. Instead, if you're interested in Presocratic thought, I'd read Richard McKirahan's Philosophy Before Socrates. McKirahan gives a pretty thorough account of Presocratic thought, and even devotes some space to the Sophists, which is nice. You can find it here if you're interested.

Wow ... yes, with the caveat that I'm far from the best historian on these boards. Maybe /u/wokeupabug or /u/Son_of_Sophroniscus can do better. Many students find the Nicomachean Ethics clear, philosophically informative, and stimulating for advice about how to live your life. But there are accessible and interesting passages from most of his works. One good approach is to use an Aristotle reader, since the editor will have selected appropriate texts already. I read Ackrill's A new Aristotle reader as an undergraduate and liked it, but you should shop around for more informed suggestions.

I like the idea of reading Aristotle alongside contemporary commentary. Here I'm even more hesitant to make my own recommendations, but I found Lear's Aristotle: The desire to understand extremely interesting and easy to follow.

One thing to bear in mind is that there are many good contemporary philosophers from whom you can learn as well. David Lewis, Saul Kripke, Judy Thompson, and David Kaplan are a few known for admirable clarity and depth of thought. It's hard to go wrong with their articles, with the exception that some are on technical or esoteric topics, so if it looks foreboding just skip it.

I recommend the Wadsworth website. This link is to their timeline series:
http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/special_features/timeline/timeline.html
They also have by topic and by philosopher.
Another good website, mentioned by others, is Squashed Philosophers, but it has a different purpose (to skim original works).

If you prefer audiobooks, there's a good lecture series, Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition:
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=470
You probably don't need the whole 84 lectures, just a few of the bigger names like Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein will give you a solid foundation.

For books, Philosophy Made Simple is a solid entry level intro,
http://www.amazon.ca/Philosophy-Made-Simple-Richard-Popkin/dp/0385425333

I also like from Socrates to Satre
http://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Sartre-Philosophic-Quest/dp/0553251619
Which goes in for just a few big names, and has a companion tv show.

There's no definitive anything, and probably better than these that I'm not aware of, but a good approach is to graze a little from a few different introductory books, aiming to familiarise yourself with terms and names - and then graze again to get a slightly deeper insight into how they connect etc.

I haven't studied enough history of philosophy to have an answer to the following, but I'd be interested to know how much they studied each other. I also don't know how much of this era of Roman stoicism was tied to Stoic physics. Stoic ethics (what is called Stoicism today is properly a branch of ethics; that is, it is concerned with how one can live a good life (being moral is a large part of living a good life, that is why there is less distinction in non-philosophical discourse between ethics and morals)) was highly, highly based off their physics. Stoic physics was the 'foundation' of their philosophy, so to speak, and literally everything else followed from it. I do not know how true this was for these later Stoics, though.

I do know, though, for example, that when you see them say things like "act/live in accordance with nature", this is a conclusion from their physical conception of the world. Explaining this is far outside the scope of a reddit comment reply like this, though. If you are interested in something more academic on the topic, I can highly recommend A. A. Long's The Hellenistic Philosophers. I also recommend the parts on Epicureanism as well if you like Stoicism. Don't feel intimidated by it, either; this shit is old and all of their physics is wrong. If you don't understand something, take the time to understand it just out of interest if you want to, but feel no guilt in skipping stuff.

I'm honestly not sure how relevant this is going to be, but I took a Philosophy course in college just last semester for this exact reason (to get the "essentials"). I guess the "right" place to start would be with the ancient philosophers and see which ideas you like and then look for those similar ideas in later philosophers. As I find that sometimes the later philosophers either prove, disprove, or add something to the original ideas. Not that there's anything wrong with original ideas but it's pretty interesting watching the evolution and gives a good idea where it originated.

The text we used was: Questions that matter The only thing I really got out of this text was an introduction to Descartes. I am enthralled by the mind-body duality that he proposed.

This book was my initial exposure to philosophy when I was a teenager. I probably need to read it again as it has been quite a while.

I have also found wikipedia to be a very good source for looking up different schools of philosophy. Like, for example you want something on Existentialism. I would also recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• As a man thinketh - A good starting point to reflect on life situations. This is a quick 35 page read.
  
  
• On Liberty - A classic on the theory of liberty, especially freedom of speech
  
  
• Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle's book on ethics
  
  
• The Art of Power - This is the best intro book on Buddhist ideas that I've read. The word power in the title doesn't refer to political or monetary power, but instead the power of clear thought.
  
  
• A Theory of Justice - John Rawls theory of justice.
  
  
• Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: from Thales to Aristotle - This will cover most of the classics of ancient greek philosophy. Best intro to that topic, I've read pretty much everything in there.

Alain Badiou recently wrote this article on Hegel's master/slave dialectic, but did so asking the question as to it's relation to real slavery. It answers the question quite nicely while also providing an extremely clear reading of Hegel's argument.

Frederick Beiser also wrote a book on Hegel (there are ways to get the PDF version of this if you look in the right places) that is clear and does a good job dispelling the common misreadings of Hegel.

Peter Singer's Very Short Introduction to Hegel (again, available as a PDF in the right places) is also extremely clear and well written.

If you're serious about reading Hegel, pick yourself up a copy of Phenomenology of Spirit and read through it with Gregory Sadler's Lecture series. He goes through paragraph by paragraph explaining the whole text. He's extremely engaging and extremely insightful.

If you can't get enough Hegel and you want to go all in, I'd recommend The Hegel Variations by Fredric Jameson, Hegel: Three Studies by Theodore Adorno, and Less Than Nothing by some Slovenian guy.

Sorry if that's overkill, hope it helps!

My preferred version is Terence Irwin's Second Edition (2000). Note that this is not to everybody's preference; it's accessible, straightforward and it flows well, but it does translate a few Greek terms that would have been worth keeping! As always, reading around the subject will add these terms to your vocab.

I stumbled across this r/philosophy thread - Joe Sachs' Edition and Lord's Edition are amongst the most popular. Does anybody else have a preferred translation?

In terms of Aristotle's great-souled man and his understanding of friendship, we unpack these concepts in Part IV of this podcast series! I hope you enjoy the show enough to stick around until Part IV!

Sincerely,
Jack

I would say 100 times yes, most people never read the Presocratics as their ideas are mentioned frequently by Plato and Aristotle (Zeno for example, is known primarily thru Aristotle), but the fragments they left us are too fascinating not to read imo, basically everything in metaphysics begins with them, especially Heraclitus and Parmenides. Nietzsche lectured on the Presocratics and wrote a (sadly, unfinished) book about them http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Friedrich%20Nietzsche/Friedrich_Nietzsche%20-%20Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks_(tr._Marianne_Cowan_1996).pdf

As far as I know this is the best book on the Presocratics. Imo, Plato will be far more enjoyable after reading the Presocratics and sophists, here are the surviving Parmenides fragments. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy is a big help with understanding them, particularly with concepts that don't translate exactly into English.

Like the others on this thread I agree the idea doesn't make a lot of sense. Atheists have only one shared premise; beyond that we differ broadly on our philosophies of life.

I think there are lots of good things written by secular folks, but they are generally under other positive philosophical banners, like 'stoicism'. (Not that all stoics are atheists.) If you are interested in what such a thing would look like Stoicism Today is a good collection.

I would also like to volunteer to being an external resource/pal. Please DM me.

As for reading, you can start with holiday right now. It is "pop"-y but a super easy read. After that Irvine, which is more legit stoicism.

After that, I've got some ideas for you.

Right before prison, consider "Thoughts of a philosophical fighter pilot", or perhaps right after. It is the story of an American POW in Vietnam for seven years. You will probably think "wow, I have it easy" - at least I hope so.

"Rome's Last Citizen" is the story of Cato and a great read.

When it comes time to study the ancients, I'm going to suggest the lectures of Musonius Rufus:

https://www.amazon.com/Musonius-Rufus-Lectures-Cynthia-King/dp/145645966X/

and seneca's selected dialogs:

https://www.amazon.com/Seneca-Selected-Dialogues-Consolations-Classics-ebook/dp/B00UCODE1G

I found those FAR more approachable than Marcus or Epectitus. But that's just me. Read those first, then read the popular ones. :-)

Next, I'd think about denying yourself BEFORE you get into prison, along with creating a diet and exercise program. Find out what they have in prison and feed yourself food for the next few months that is wholesome yet MORE bland and restrictive in variety.

Sleep on a sleeping bag on a board, with a pillow that is just a laundry bad with some clothes in it. Wear remarkably similar bland outfits each day. Find out what kind of strength training is available in prison, and begin a weight and cardio training program. I suggest stronglift 5x5. It is super easy.

Turn down your internet access - in fact, everything you will lose. Yes, fine, give yourself a cheat day once a week to appreciate what you have while you have it, and learn to appreciate a sunrise. The point is, get used to hardship while it is optional, so you won't have to get used to it when it is required. Your system will have ENOUGH jolts when you surrender. No need to give it more.

Let us know how it goes, at least before you report.

Take a look at Jonathan Lear's introduction to Arsitotle, Aristotle: The Desire to Understand CLICK HERE. It is written in plain and claer langauge - there is no better intro imho and he has a chapter on A's ethics and a short but extreamly helpful section on "Happiness" or flourishing (eudaimonia is the Greek word). Having said that, you are very close; the only think I would say is that the virtuous person would do what is right, after much practice, without having to really think it through; and not out of fear of consequences, but because it is good/right in and of itself. Also, that little voice usually tells you then it would be wrong (Socrates said he had such a little voice, he called it his daimon), but that is not the same as knowing what is actually right. The practice of virtue is positive, meant to build up character in such a way that flourishing ("happiness") continues. Hope this helps!

Well, first read the SEP article on stoicism. This book was my introduction to Seneca, although it's been a few years since I read it. I can't say I'm well versed in stoicism, but I do recommend reading some other ancient philosophy alongside the stoics at first, if only to get a feel for the general philosophical style of the times and the competing schools of thought. For this I recommend Lucretius, a Roman Epicurean, and Plotinus, an important figure in Neoplatonism. I think you'll find some interesting common ground between the different schools of thought. The three books I've linked to were essentially my introduction to ancient Roman philosophy in a broader course I took on ancient Rome. I trust my school's classics department can pick good translations.

> of which I'm having a hard time finding the essential works of

This is because we just don't have them. We have mainly collections of fragments and testimonia. The Kirk and Raven that /u/varro-reatinus suggests is a good text, but I would also recommend Graham's book.

Contrary to the other position, though, I don't think it's actually necessary to start with the pre-socratics since they are so incredibly piecemeal that to think of them as putting together coherent project and reading them as such involves quite a bit of speculation which might be dangerous if you're jumping into philosophy; whereas one can get a great deal of Hellenic Greek philosophy without extensive knowledge of the pre-socratics (and, indeed, this is the route that most intro level courses at the undergrad level go). Making matters worse, much of the presocratics wrote in a way that's not altogether clear (in poetry for instance). If you're intent on getting into it, I would read up on the figures in SEP, but, while helpful, it is absolutely NOT necessary to read up on pre-socs prior to engaging with Hellenic Greek philosophy; or, alternatively, Aristotle's Metaphysics I (which while not necessarily faithful, gives a glimpse of how the Hellenic Greek's would have understood the pre-socratics). While reading pre-socs will give you context, it's going to give you a very incomplete one that I'm not sure a neophyte would have the historical or philosophical background to understand adequately.

To put things in perspective, while the Greek tradition is viewed somewhat homogenously, someone like Thales (one of the earliest pre-socratic figure) and Plato would have been separated by 300 years. This is not a perfect analogy, but at least temporally, while there is a relatively persistent cultural lineage there, this means that their relation is something more analogous to our relation with, say, Kant than our contemporaries.

tl;dr: feel free to start with the Hellenic Greek philosophers: it's what most intro to philosophy teaches anyways :)

For original texts this reader might be a good place to start. Oxford has a handbook out on presocratic philosophy. And this book by Waterfield seems like a good place to look as well. A nice place to start is almost always the SEP, the bibliography there would be a nice place to look

It sounds like you are interested in learning more about various philosophers and their ideas, but don't really have a good starting point right now.

This isn't really the place to conduct an entire overview of the history of philosophic thought, because we could get lost in the weeds very quickly.

But, I have found this book to be a very accessible starting point to introduce the history of philosophy. I would recommend reading it (or another overview style book like it). I bet you will find at least one philosophic idea in the book that makes you think "Yeah man, I've thought this before!" and that would be a great starting place for a deeper dive.

I would try to find syllabus by college professors to help you along with this. MIT puts all their material online. These are deep questions and a lot of the information I've gleaned on them is by virtue of podcasts and other various media.

When it comes to philosophy, I'd start with the Greeks. Plato's Republic, Aristotle, Socrates. The pre-Socratics like Anaxagoras and Thales, Pythagoras and Heraclitus all have very interesting things to say that really lay the foundation for the rest of Western philosophy. I have a textbook called Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle that I read early in college and another called The Continental Philosophy Reader that were both instructive to me. The second book takes you though Modernist and Post-Modernist thinkers, though I believe the philosophy is distinct from the literary movement. No joke, you will probably need help understanding a lot of this stuff. I know I did. I never read Sophie's World and so it may be useful, but I can't speak to that.

Much of American politics comes from philosophy. In particular, reading David Hume, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill will be instructive in understanding a great deal of the modern American political landscape. Difficult texts as well.

This will probably be enough to point you in the direction of all your other inquiries. They all intertwine.

From Socrates to Sartre gives a pretty good overview. Yes, there are many gaps, but by the end of the book you should have a pretty good framework that you can work off of.

Lately, I'm suggesting Frederick Beiser's Hegel to people who ask me for introductions to Hegel. In this little introduction Beiser manages to give a much better overview of Hegel's philosophy, in its proper context. He knows very well classical German philosophy (he has some good books about it also) and writes very clearly. It's much much better than Peter Singer.

But I've copied a part of his commentary on dialects here, take a look: http://pastebin.com/bUi8CTNp

I know I'm tardy to the party, but I found that it's best to start with general surveys of philosophy, so you're exposed to a wide range of thought, then narrowing down your interests.

Personally, I found the following to be the most helpful:

From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest

Think

What Does It All Mean?

The Problems of Philosophy

Pyrrho never wrote anything that, as far as classicists or historians of philosophy are aware, survived. Reading Pyrrho may therefore be difficult.

When talking about Pyrrhonism, or, more broadly, ancient skepticism, a lot of it is in reaction to Stoic epistemology and metaphysics (this is particularly evident in Cicero's On Academic Scepticism). Thus, in order to understand (what is really Hellenistic) skepticism, it's helpful to have a good grasp of Stoic epistemology.

More speculatively on my part, as I've never studied the Cynics is any detail, Cynics were influential on Stoic ethics, but I'm not sure you need to read the Cynics to properly understand the Stoics.

The best thing to do is probably not to read everything in chronological order, but pick up one of these collections:

- Hellenistic Philosophy

- The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol 1

Peter Adamson's podcast or books may also be helpful in directing you to primary sources (A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps)

From Socrates to Sartre: A Philosophic Quest Its a pretty good starting point. Its basically just an overview of major philosophers. Also for some fiction try Genesis by Bernard Beckett. Its a pretty easy read and deals with what it means to be human.

I don't think that the author's definition of reason holds up. He would have been much better off talking about natural philosophy instead of reason. After all, that is what Thales is known for, he is the father of natural philosophy. Do you really want to argue that there was no reason before Thales? After all it is thought that Thales got his "monist principle" from the Egyptians (and why can't we just be more rigorous and call it archē?). What is unique with Thales and the ancient Greeks is the separation of reason from religious dogma, not reason itself (for a short and sweet treatment of these standard positions you could refer to the intro to Thales in this book.

The other thing that irks me is that in order to say something grand, the author feels like he has to sweep under the rug the entire history of summodeisms, henotheisms, monolatry, and frankly, if we are honest, monotheisms before the Greeks. Anyway, I want to leave this reference. I think this is a much more sophisticated argument for why monotheism: "Holy Resilience: The Bible's Traumatic Origins," by David M. Carr.

The Dream of Reason by Anthony Gottleib is an excellent introduction to philosophy from ancient Greece to the Renaissance.

That's one great way to start.

Alternatively, you could start with who I think the greatest philosopher is, Ayn Rand, who is basically the philosopher who resolved Aristotle's few errors.

But starting with the questions of philosophy as they arose, which is what Dream of Reason does, is the more advisable route.

Modern philosophy, which was the subject of debate that the I was engaged in with the other poster, is badly mistaken phoniness, which you'll see emerge if you follow the conversation. The other poster essentially gave up when he realized that his premises lead him to believe in things that are impossible.

Thank you.
I've listened to this 2011 version of MA's Meditations multiple time and I love it. I just thought it's a good time to expand my Stoic education...

If however you want to start with (comparatively) easy Aristotle text, you're best bet is probably the Nicomachean Ethics. (And if for some reason you want a comprehensible survey book on Aristotle's work this one is quite good: https://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Desire-Understand-Jonathan-Lear/dp/0521347629 )

Stoicism, like other ancient Greco-Roman philosophies, is a way of life that pursues its own purpose. And it's value has been rediscovered in recent decades. Hence the various attempts to revive it in a relevant way. A very good overview of the various philosophies and how they seek to give purpose to life can be found in Pierre Hadot's book, "What is Ancient Philosophy?" -- https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0674013735/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1500073573&sr=8-3&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Pierre+Hadot&dpPl=1&dpID=517WP0RX1JL&ref=plSrch

I am not sure if this is the place to post recommendations, but as far as ancient philosophy, Pierre Hadot's What Is Ancient Philosophy is a fantastic introduction. Thanks for the list and hard work!

Karl Popper agrees enthusiastically with you:

>In order to discourage the reader beforehand from taking Hegel's bombastic and mystifying cant too seriously, I shall quote some of the amazing details which he discovered about sound, and especially about the relations between sound and heat. I have tried hard to translate this gibberish from Hegel's Philosophy of Nature as faithfully as possible; he writes: '§ 302. Sound is the change in the specific condition of segregation of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition; -- merely an abstract or an ideal ideality, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, i.e. -- heat. The heating up of sounding bodies, just as beaten or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound.'

>There are some who still believe in Hegel's sincerity, or who still doubt whether his secret might not be profundity, fullness of thought, rather than emptiness. I should like them to read carefully the last sentence -- the only intelligible one -- of this quotation, because in this sentence, Hegel gives himself away. For clearly it means nothing but: 'The heating up of sounding bodies...is heat...together with sound.'

Read this book: [Jonathan Lear's The Desire to Understand] (http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Desire-Understand-Jonathan-Lear/dp/0521347629)

It is exactly what you want, and a great book.

Aristotle was not one of the original philosophers; far from it in fact.

McKirahan's Philosophy Before Socrates is a really good source for the original thinkers that lay claim to the title philosophers, and contains their writings (what little has survived).

Thanks for the reply.

> modern commentary, or perhaps even some sort of guide to reading Plato?

This, really. I've read some dialogues, and I find it helpful to read other people's take on them afterwards. It often brings forth things and aspects I didn't see in my initial reading, and makes it easier to question my own thoughts and interpretations. I was just wondering if anyone could recommend some sort of collection of interpretations or commentary, preferably in book form.

I know there's The Cambridge Companion. Have you read/used it? Also, I've found this pdf, which is interesting, but I prefer printed books.

I've read and re-read this far and away more than any other stoic text.

I can also highly recommend the audiobook by Duncan Steen. Such a perfect voice for the book.

https://www.amazon.com/Meditations/dp/B004INMVDY

The Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic philosophers. Reading everything would be good - if you want to read less than everything we'll probably have to know what sorts of stuff you're looking for. Just saying "I want to go back to the basics" doesn't tell us whether we should recommend metaphysics or ethics or what.

> Can you point me towards any supporting texts in Stoicism?

My go-to guide to start on any topic is the SEP, so here's the entry on Stoicism. The SEP also has entries on Seneca, Marcus Aurelis, and Epictetus.

For other sources, I bought a used copy of Long and Sedley many years ago and it has been quite helpful.

Edited for grammar.

Socrates wrote no books himself, and our sources (dialogues by Plato and Xenophon, a comic play by Aristophanes, and some statements of Aristotle) diverge wildly, so the exact content of Socrates' teaching is disputed. Frederick Copleston discusses some different interpretations on pp. 99–104 of A History of Philosophy, vol. I—a work I recommend starting study of Plato and Socrates with, because I found it much easier to appreciate Plato's metaphysics once I understood how his predecessors had dealt with the same questions. For a more direct and in-depth answer to your question, see Terry Penner's chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Plato.

Have you considered the Robin Hard one? I like it better. The US Amazon has a Kindle copy, perhaps then the Canada one does to: http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-selected-correspondence-Oxford-Classics-ebook/dp/B006QV7YN8/

I read this one recently and would recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Epicurus-Reader-Selected-Writings-Testimonia/dp/0872202410/ref=mp_s_a_1_11?keywords=epicurus&qid=1564757535&s=gateway&sr=8-11

It’s a short collection of his texts, letters and other fragments. The introduction is really good.

Hey, political science / philosophy majors of the DT, I have a question.

Suppose I wanted to take a bog-standard course in liberal political philosophy. Sure, I could read all the primary works: Hobbes, Locke, Mill, etc. But if I wanted to read a textbook, what textbook would I read?

For comparison, if I wanted to learn about pre-Socratic philosophy, I could read something like this. If I wanted to learn about modern philosophy (Descartes to Kant), I could read this.

If I wanted to learn about political philosophy, what would I read? Is it this book?

Bonus: what about moral philosophy and ethics? I could read Parfit and work backwards, but that is a bit too difficult to recommend to other people.

The two best translations in my opinion are
Robin Hard & Gregory Hays.

Also look into the Hard/Gill translation. I find it to be perfectly readable while being more precise in translation than Hays.

Get the audiobook of this:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dream-Reason-Philosophy-Renaissance/dp/0393049515

It presents a great overview of classical Western philosophy, and the audiobook version can be absorbed while you are driving, walking, etc.

Here are some links to those you mentioned and some additional.

• Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
  
• Seneca - Letters from a Stoic
  
• Epictetus - Discourses and Selected Writings
  
• Epicurus - Essential Epicurus
  
• Pierre Hadot - Philosophy as a Way of Life
  
• William B. Irvine - A Guide to the Good Life
  
• Musonius Rufus - Lectures and Sayings

"dead" isn't really the best way to put it; non-existent is better. before we were born, we didn't exist and after we die we will re-enter that state of non-existence. read some epicurus if you're interested. he's the awesome philosopher that came up with this way of thinking.

I would suggest that the best (most literal) translation available right now is the Joe Sachs' edition. There are some disputes over some of the terms he translates that people argue loses the original Greek sense of the word ("active condition" where others have used "habit" or merely "beautiful" for "kalon," which has the triple sense of the beautiful/noble/fine). There is a Claremont Institute book review about the difficulty of translating Aristotle into English, too.

Since studying Aristotle's Politics is the natural follow-up to the Ethics, I would recommend the Lord's translation as being the most literal.

Lastly, for additional reading on The Ethics, check out Ronna Burger's Aristotle's Dialogue with Socrates: On the Nicomachean Ethics.

I found this to be a decent resource that goes into much of what Marx covers in his book Capital:
https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/law-of-value-the-series/

If you want a more general philosophical overview I recommend From Socrates to Sartre and reading the sections on Hegel and then Marx. A lot of the basis for dialectical materialism and Marx's thought is off the back of Hegel.

when you feel up to it [I'd suggest giving this book a read] (http://www.amazon.com/Stoic-Philosophy-Seneca-Essays-Letters/dp/0393004597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408396798&sr=8-1&keywords=the+stoic+philosophy+of+seneca).

It's over 2,000 years old and deals a lot with coping and dealing with the harshness that can be life.

It is not accurate to portray the history of Western philosophy as "just thinking," even if this might describe most modern approaches to philosophy. The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers placed heavy emphasis on performing practices that would allow them to actually live their philosophies, not just think about them.

See for instance:

The Art of Living: The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy by John Sellars

What Is Ancient Philosophy? by Pierre Hadot

Well, you can read the reviews of the first volume:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stoicism-Today-Selected-Writings-1/dp/1502401924/

If you want to discuss this intelligently you should start with an understanding of the actual scholarly position you're challenging instead of haphazardly constructing it out of incomplete shreds from some random man you talked to. Read this: The First Philosophers: the presocratics and the sophists. Then attempt to formulate what you mean to say.

Jim?

Hays tr.: https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-New-Translation-Marcus-Aurelius/dp/0812968255

Hard tr.: https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-selected-correspondence-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199573204

Links go to the American Amazon store.

The speeches and fragments that survived are collected in this little book. I might be wrong, but I don't think there's more.

For more reading, try Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1, and vol. 2.

Try Jacob Bronowski's Science and Human Values.

Also, try Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. While this isn't strictly about fallibilism, it describes how memes are an example of the problem-solving method.

https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-selected-correspondence-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199573204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542245874&sr=8-1&keywords=meditations+marcus+aurelius+oxford+press

The First Philosophers