(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best philosophy history books

I don't study philosophy academically at the moment although I did take a course in A-level philosophy which I have just finished. I currently and previously only studied out of interest (I'm also 19). And I haven't been doing so "properly" for that long but perhaps that will help my answer a little bit.

Argumentation

As for the first question, it is fairly important to understand the basics of argumentation. In reading philosophical texts you want to be able to "extract" an argument because most don't provide or describe arguments in simple syllogistic form (that is, with premises and conclusions clearly laid out in a list). Most arguments are 'within' the text, often mixed in with lengthy defences of certain premises or elaboration on the meanings of key words used in the argument itself. Learning a little bit of propositional logic might be helpful. It's fairly straight forward and intuitive to learn about the different kind of argument structures you'll be encountering. Being able to look at a text and then reconstruct the text as a kind of structured argument is a learning technique I've seen used a lot.

Reading Recommendations

As for reading, it really depends on what you're interested in. I can't really give you recommendations based on the information you've given because philosophy is a gigantic field. Like, gigantic. If you can think of a thing, there is probably a "philosophy of" that thing. Case in point. But that's not particularly a problem. What you should probably do if you're not so sure of what areas of philosophy you're interested in is read some introductory texts that take you through many areas and see which catch your attention. These texts will often point you towards the key ideas in those areas of philosophy and recommend further reading of the big players in those areas.

Frequently I've seen recommended, Think by Simon Blackburn. You may also consider An Introduction to Philosophy by Paul Nuttall or Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton. The first real read I had in philosophy when I was younger was A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton also. None of these texts are exhaustive, of course. They simply open doors.

I might be able to recommend other reading if you say you have some particular interest in philosophy. Otherwise, those are good introductory texts to philosophy as a whole.

What do I wish I was told when starting to read about philosophy?

To be honest, I wish that it was made clear how important our intuitions are in philosophy. I came from a 'background' in enjoying sciences. (Background maybe isn't the right word since I was fairly young but I liked science). My interest in philosophy was perhaps mostly spurred on by my growing interest in the sciences. They grew up together, lets say. I liked science because I liked having good reasons for beliefs about profound things. Since I didn't see the use of intuitions in the sciences, I believed out-right that intuition should be avoided as a basis for reasoning. Now I see how absurd this is. Philosophers spend a lot of time considering what makes something rational or what kind of justification for our beliefs are good and which are bad. Intuition is something we come equipped to these discussions with and is something we are forced to work with and you should make friends with it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the processes of science should be heavily relying on intuitions. But intuitions are very much required to 'kick-start' philosophical inquiry. And it took a while for me to really deal with this.

Maybe there's other stuff I would say too, but that's the big one. I have unambiguously thought to myself before that I wish I was told this and forced to deal with it earlier on in the process.

Edit: Added in the advice section.

It's not cheap, but Kearney and Rasmussen's anthology is one of the best I've encountered (though I'm quite partial to the more continental side of things). Amazon link & publisher link. It's pricey, but a great deal for all the content - looking through the selections included might lead to the essay's of interest for cheaper (for example - Kant's Critique of Judgement and Merleau-Ponty's "Eye and Mind" can both be found relatively cheap).

I'd also suggest the far less expensive anthology by Hofstadter and Kuhn's Philosophies of Art and Beauty anthology. It's pretty comprehensive (and massively sized) for it's price - covering Plato to Heidegger. Amazon link & publisher link.

I've heard great things about Lamarque & Olsen's anthology on the more anglophonic side of things, though it's not cheap either. Amazon link & publisher link. I'd give the same advice as above, look through the table of contents and select essays of particular interest.

On a cheaper/lower key level Aesthetics: A Beginner's Guide is a far easier and cheaper read - it's pretty good for getting your feet wet.

Finally, as a way to do your own book finding, why not look through this google search, look through any SEP page that catches your interest, and then check out the bibliographies!

Hope any of these help!

he is saying both sort of. life has no meaning, but meaning isn't found within the struggle exactly, rather we exist in between the struggle and we create our own meaning. we are free, we have only to realize that the rules don't apply.

I can give you some advice for reading existentialism and also some places to start.

just curious, tho, how old are you?

there's several ways to approach reading philosophy.

method 1:
when reading philosophy of any kind you can get bogged down in the references and footnotes. when I was just starting out I would get so overwhelmed by things I didn't understand I would give up. don't give up. and don't worry about what you don't understand, just keep reading and see what you get out of it.

method 2:
BEFORE you read a book, read the Wikipedia page on it. back in the day I had to collect Coppleston's history of philosophy volumes to read commentary, but now it's online. so before you read, do some quick background reading so you know a) where the author is coming from/their general point of view/any important details about their life that pertain to understanding the book B) the author's main argument in the book - this will help you pick out his argument and understand it better.

3) some tips: a) read for pleasure. don't feel bad if you hate a book and just can't read it or make sense of it. sometimes later it makes more sense, but it's ok to hate a writer even if everyone else says they're amazing b) read with a pen or pencil in hand - underline things you like, write "I disagree" if you do, sometimes I even write "LOL" if it made me laugh and related to that B) take some notes as you go along whatever you think is important.. a sentence, a point, I use notes to restate in my own words the argument I just read... it helps me get it better and I have a reference in my own lingo that makes sense to me

where to start I would start with two books:

1. Donald Palmer "does the center hold? an intro to western philosophy"
   Amazon price ~2$
   
   get this book if you get no others!
   
   http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0073535753/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1462783700&sr=8-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=does+the+center+hold&dpPl=1&dpID=51hxbBbmgzL&ref=plSrch
   
   
   2.Walter Kaufmann "existentialism: from Dostoyevsky to Sartre"
   Amazon price 11$
   
   http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0452009308/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1462783302&sr=8-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=walter+kaufmann&dpPl=1&dpID=41lkh1kWkeL&ref=plSrch
   
   after that, depends on what you want to learn, but after the above I would read "Notes from Underground" by Dostoyevsky
   
   then maybe: JD Salinger "Catcher in the Rye"
   
   this was how I learned... after those two I went back chronologically and read Plato(he's foundational and easy enough to grasp), Kierkegaard, Dostoyesky, Camus and Sartre, then I started skipping around once I had a foundation.
   
   with existentialism the important thing to remember is that it isn't an exact philosophy. it was at first a reaction against exact philosophies with prescriptive definitions to how we should live. existentialism, rather, is a shared angst (Wikipedia Kierkegaard Angst) about life, an anxiety in the face of the meaninglessness of life. life has no meaning. now what? if life has no meaning, then all the rules are arbitrary, and you are truly free. free to do and be whatever you want.
   
   good luck on your quest, it's a worthy one.
   
   and my last piece of advice is this: there's no hurry... if a book takes you a year to digest, that's fine! if another takes you a week, ok! another might require 2 months. don't rush, digest the argument and internalize it.
   
   and I'm around on Reddit all the time if you have questions. and don't let philosophy snobs tells you you have to blah blah blah... philosophy should be accessible to all, otherwise it's a stupid endeavor.
   
   again.. good luck.
   

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!

In addition to the Yale course, there's also this Lecture Course in Ethical and Political Philosophy from Richard Dien Winfield, dealing with Aristotle, Rousseau, and Kant.

Winfield also has a Lecture Course In Social and Political Philosophy, dealing with what relation the economy should have to the state.

The Moral Foundations of Politics with Ian Shapiro, is also from Yale.

Lecture Course on Political Science (iTunes) with Wendy L. Brown also looks at the history of political philosophy.

Then there's Charles W. Anderson's Western Culture: Political, Economic & Social Thought, which is probably the best first lecture course in historical political thought.

There are many good textbooks, but regardless of which you choose, I recommend supplementing with another one. Political philosophy is one field where the author's bias tend to shine through, though you might need a different perspective to recognise it. A supplemental book (or ten) could give you that. The same goes for the different lecture courses, of course.

As regards sourcebooks, these two books constitute a broad selection of excerpts from original texts:
Great Political Theories V.1: A Comprehensive Selection of the Crucial Ideas in Political Philosophy from the Greeks to the Enlightenment and
Great Political Theories V.2: A Comprehensive Selection of the Crucial Ideas in Political Philosophy from the French Revolution to Modern Times.

Classics in Moral and Political Philosophy doesn't feature as many different thinkers as the two books just mentioned, but rather longer excerpts in stead.

You should also be aware that many of the classic works in political philosophy is available as audiobooks. Although their quality may vary, and you'll discover that not all works of philosophy are digestible in audiobook format, they're at least free! Commuters rejoice! :)

The links to the audiobooks also include a link to an e-text, by the way.

Also, don't start with Nietzsche.

Critical thinking is something that we stomp early, and that stays pretty well stamped out without some care and attention.

In his AMA earlier today, Neil Degrasse Tyson suggested that children are born scientists, who bring a sense of curiosity and wonder to everything they do. Adults are usually the ones whose minds slam shut.

Our schools, our churches, our upbringing in general teaches us precisely how to be accepting and uncritical. Those systems simply demand belief in what is being offered as though it were indicative of some capital-T "Truth".

So, your job needs to be to start thinking like a child again. Everything you encounter needs to be questioned and interrogated. Remember: You've been raised to do precisely the opposite, so this won't be easy. You need to continually remind yourself to look for the holes, the flaws, the shortcomings in the arguments that are put forward.

I would recommend the following things:

1. Start by examining Op-Ed pieces in newspapers. Look for the biases of the author. Figure out which side they're on. I recommend the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times op-ed pages. That's a fairly easy way to start looking at the arguments offered by the political left, and the political right in the US.
   
2. Pick up the following two books: The Philosopher's Toolkit and Thank You for Arguing They're excellent books that will offer you a set of tools to evaluate arguments from a reasoned perspective. They demonstrate the tools of good argument, informal logical fallacies, and rhetorical tropes that are commonly used to persuade. They are very handy books that everybody should have on their shelf.
   
3. If something seems off, then it demands further investigation. Evaluate the source of any and all information. Figure out where the data comes from, who funded the research, whether or not the numbers being presented are legitimate, etc. How to Lie With Statistics is a great tool for learning how people commonly fudge numbers to represent their positions. Knowing how it's done can help you see where people misrepresent data, whether maliciously or not.
   
4. Recognize your own biases and preconceptions. Make sure you're clear on where your own privileges and understandings come from. Interrogate your own position thoroughly.
   
5. Remember always that this will not be easy. Sometimes you will fall victim to the same biases and shortcomings as those with whom you are engaged in debate. Go easy on yourself, but remind yourself that you do not have all of the answers.
   
   The more you practice, the easier you'll find it to keep an open mind, and be willing to entertain evidence which challenges your beliefs and opinions. You'll even welcome those challenges, because they help you advance your knowledge and understanding.
   
   Do those things, and you'll find that all of the questions you pose here become much easier to deal with over time.

I'm going to make a few suggestions and I may ramble a bit about my own experiences a few times while I answer.

My first suggestion is to start with introductory texts. Don't just leap into Kierkegaard, or Kant, or anybody. If you find yourself interested in a writer, see if you can't find something like the Short Introduction to series (for Kierkegaard). Some may disagree with the choice of book, but there are others. This is an example. I've done this a few times. It doesn't get you super prepared for everything you'll encounter in these dense books, but it gives you some ideas to look for and what not.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is also a good starting point. The entries are often written by (I think only wirtten by) serious philosophers with experience in the subject. When I'm starting research, I'll often start here. They summarize key ideas and, if possible, highlight contemporary happenings.

A second suggestion is read to re-read. What I mean by that is, read a chapter or section once just getting through it, don't worry about all of the details on this go. That's for the second or re-read. A second read always helps me put together key points. A related strategy is to take notes on what you read. Re-write key ideas in your own words. That helps you retain the idea and helps you understand what's going on. Both of these things are time consuming, but philosophy is time consuming if you're "in it to win it." I'd say it's worth it for all types of readers.

My third suggestion is to rid yourself of the idea that there are always layers and layers of meaning. I'm more of an analytic philosopher, so maybe, in regards to Kierkegaard, I'm out of my element. But, you should be able to look at a sentence or paragraph and get what's going on without worrying too much about deeper things at play. Sometimes authors are tricky and there's simply a lot going on. This is where re-reading comes into play. You'll pick up arguments and the broad picture of things when you're reading and taking notes. Sometimes, in order to get clear, it will be triple reads.

Lastly, make sure that you have some kind of passion for the topic you're reading about. That makes the effort worthwhile. I have trouble reading Kierkegaard and authors of the continental tradition, because I only have a passing interest the subject. Same with normative ethics. I just find the discussion almost boring. So, I find I miss a lot when I read those things, I get confused. But, I plug on not really caring. For me, analytic epistemology gets me "rock hard", same with discussions of consciousness and identity. I'll go nuts on those topics.

I agree with /u/mapthealmighty4841 - might need more information as to what you are interested in particularly (the subject is very large).

Part of the problem with philosophy education is that it takes some level of guidance to really get the most out of the material. You could try to find courses on itunesU or youtube to really help.

If you want book recommendations, it depends on what you are interested in. If you are looking for "one book to rule them all" though, I would highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Classics-Western-Philosophy-Steven-Cahn/dp/160384743X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486491902&sr=8-2 (pretty much a 1 stop anthology for anyone interested in philosophy, but (at least in my earlier addition) it didn't include many 20th century philosophers).

Again, I would recommend trying to find some guidance while reading parts of the book. It is easy to overlook the importance of certain sections of, say, Plato's Republic without someone pointing them out or helping them make sense.

Unfortunately I can't help with links to youtube or iTunesU because my education in philosophy was very formal. If you can be more specific about what you are looking for, I am sure this community can absolutely give you some great links though!

>I'm not sure about reading secondary texts, I know that would help, but for some reason, I would like to try and read this text itself, after all one has to start reading philosophy somewhere...I want to read it slowly, I have all the time(years and years, barring mortality of course), and carefully, but I want to read the text itself...

I'm confused by this. Secondary texts would definitely help. Della Rocca has an overview book by Routledge, there's a very short introduction by Scruton, and Jarrett has a guide for the perplexed on Spinoza.

Wanting to read the text itself is not mutually exclusive from reading secondary literature, especially literature that'll help you read the text itself. Reading historical figures is particularly difficult because just like all other philosophers, they're situated in a place and time where certain ideas were in vogue and they're responding to certain thinkers of that time. Unlike contemporary philosophers (and this is what makes them difficult), they don't really tell you who they're responding to or give a full bibliography of what they've read. Secondary literature, especially the kind I tried to recommend you, makes these connections for you so that when you read the text yourself, you can actually understand, as best as possible, the philosopher's intent and position. Considering this is basically the way all graduate students and professional philosophers approach reading historical figures, it seems odd that you, a non-philosophers with no training, want to try and do it all yourself.

You, of course, can just slog through reading an incredibly complex historical philosophical text by yourself, take an extremely long time to do so, and probably get a horrible off the mark understanding of the view, OR you can avail yourself of the experts who have spent significant portions of their career on Spinoza and let them teach you how to read his work, so you actually get something like a good understanding out of it.

Considering that you don't find time to be an issue, this seems like an obvious route to take.

In my opinion the best intruduction to philosophy is Palmer's Does the Center hold? In it, the author explains various philosophical problems through the thoughts of major philosophers. And the book has great illustrations.

I gave this book to a friend who wanted to learn something about philosophical thought (problems and history). He read some of it, because the book is problematicaly oriented and so you do not have to read it from page 1 to the end, and he was very pleased.

Also, I woudl say that it has done a great deal for me as a philosophy student and I would say it is a must read for all who are philosophically curious.

Hey there. I see this thread is a day old, so you may not still be active here, but your project is an interesting one (though I sincerely hope you some day find a philosopher or three who interests you enough to explore more than a surface-level caricature). That being said, you might be interested in Just the Arguments. It's a book compiling 100 of the most famous arguments in Western philosophy, giving each topic no more than a couple pages. So you aren't the first person to be interested in a stripped-down version of philosophical discourse. And reading through that book might help you round out some of your mistakes.

Hi there! There's a lot of different types of philosophy, so it really depends on what you're interested in.

There's two big camps - analytic and continental - but they really boil down to logic and classical reasoning vs. more existential material. Analytic philosophy would try to prove the existence of god, while continental philosophy would talk about how the existence (or non-existence!) of god would impact your life.

All that being said, I would recommend an intro to philosophy book like this. A lot of classic philosophical writers tend to be hard to read and convoluted. I'd recommend getting an intro to phil book and finding what interests you, then going from there.

Studying anything by yourself is fucking difficult. First, it's just hard motivationally. You have to be somewhat obsessed to keep slogging through things. Second, it's hard to keep from developing strange opinions, as /u/autopoetic mentioned below.

That said, I think you could do a fair amount by yourself, and here's how.

• Work your way through German philosophy, starting with Kant (only because that's your interest).
  
  
• Make sure to constantly consult and read entries from things like the Cambridge Companion to Kant and The Oxford Handbook to German Philosophy of the 19th Century. Definitely stay close to Oxford, Cambridge, Blackwell, and Routledge for mainline philosophical views. If you get into the continental, very loose and creative readings, a press like Bloomsbury might be okay.
  
  
• When possible, see if you can find lectures online via YouTube or OpenCourseware at other universities. That will help.
  
  All this is to say that, no, you can't do philosophy alone in a rigorous manner. But we have the internet and books, so you don't have to. As long as you're reading along with commentaries, listening to lectures, etc., you'll probably be okay. Best of luck!
  
  You should PM me with your city, and I'll see if I can find any notable universities in the area.

I appreciate your post. I'm in my mid-thirties now, and think we share some similarities (as, likely, do many people reading an Epicurus board on Reddit), and I wanted to affirm that yes, I too have really struggled with trying to adhere to Buddhism and being raised in a very modern, consumerist society. I also came to Buddhism through seeking wisdom, and if it's helpful as an indication of that, I've read almost everything Marx has written and almost everything Ayn Rand has written.

One of the things that really spurred me on the path of wisdom was Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius. Shortly after that was reading Epicurus, what was left of his writings, anyway, and then about Epicureanism in general. I've reread Meditations a number of times, and also given it as a gift to people. When I was 19 and asked for only book store gift cards for my birthday, I was stoked to buy the Oxford Classics of Philosophy, largely because of the Epicureanism and Stoicism sections.

Ultimately nothing is as powerful to me as Buddhism, Zen, mindfulness, or whatever you prefer to think of it as. The struggle through the practice of living a more mindful life, that is, to be mindful of the present moment and not future-tripping or monkey-braining, feels more visceral to me than the more theoretical pleasures of Stoicism/western philosophy in general. Part of this comes from my understanding of how and why our brains act the way they do, from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.

There is a path, it is not a secret, and it is difficult. And I believe it works. But I am very imperfect and sometimes have doubts, and so I wanted to share.

For stuff by Schopenhauer, start with Essays and Aphorisms. It's a good starter because it presents Schopenhauer's thoughts on a wide variety of topics, and it also has a solid Introduction by R.J. Hollingdale.

For stuff about Schopenhauer, start with Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction. In addition to being a great short reference, the VSI books have good "Further Reading" sections at the end with more scholarly books that delve further into the topic.

Happy reading!

No I am not using it wrong. Behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Prejudice or discrimination based on sex.

If two men had made the statements they wanted to win for men all over the country to prove a point wouldn't that be a sexist statement to make? Two women who are friends who say they are racing to see the world and have wonderful adventures together and hey, maybe win a million dollars doing it, shouldn't so difficult to say. When you have to make it a point that you are racing for women to prove a point then you are sexist.

You are no different than the girls on Survivor that huddle together and say "we need to stick together as women and get rid of the men so a woman wins". You are no different than minorities grouping together and saying they need to get rid of white people so a minority wins.

Racing on AR should not be about proving points to the world. It should be about proving something to yourself and having amazing experiences.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

https://lithub.com/mia-the-liberal-men-we-love/

If you're just starting out, things will get confusing quickly. I found that Sparknotes - Philosophy can really help in giving plain-worded insight towards what a text may be getting at, and a nice study guide to encourage thought about whatever you may be reading.


I also started out by reading through A Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy. It gives a quick summary of pretty much all-things philosophy, which can give you an idea of what you might find interesting to start out with in your studies.

Study philosophy. Losing your religion will leave a hole in your understanding of how the world works. Luckily there are many great thinkers that were wrestling with these fundamental questions thousands of years ago, and we have most of it written down.

Study Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy to learn how to doubt your way to certainty, since you've been blindly accepting truths without question your whole life so far.

It sucks, but keep in mind there are many people who have gone through the same thing and that it is not wrong to trust yourself and your own judgement. Plus there's a great support community right here!

That book is more about the history of the Enlightenment. There is also Spinoza: A Very Short Introduction, which is short and rates pretty well. Here are some others:

• A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age.
  
• The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World. I'm halfway done with this one now, and frankly I wished it covered more philosophy and less biography.
  
• Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity
  
  My (tentative) understanding is that Spinoza's arguments have not held up all that well, but he had some interesting and fruitful ideas. His reputation comes from his historical significance, and the courage he displayed in saying what he did when he said it. Here is a short video by Rebecca Goldstein, the author of the last book on the above list.

John Richardson wrote a lot on the subject. https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3071129?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


And the Origin of Species is still a great read despite its age. It's amazing how much insight Darwin had so long ago. He was not wrong about almost anything.

You are painting both "feminists" and "MRAs" with a very broad brush. Feminist thinking is not simple, there are classic feminists like Wollstonecraft, Mill & Taylor, moving to Friedan, Gloria Steinam, and more of the third-wave feminists who are (arguably) more essentialist about gender - but even there, there is a range. MRA and feminists on the most attention-getting parts internet are often reactionary and insular, but that does not mean the whole movement is.

I'm less convinced that the MRA has much of an intellectual wing, but here is one example.

Further, here is an explicit feminist writer on how gender equality hasn't gotten there yet in the US

This set of lectures on the History of Western Philosophy by Greg Bahnsen is absolutely fantastic. The lectures are given from a Christian perspective, but even if you're not Christian I think you'd benefit from his perspective because it gives a unified focus to his critiques.

Also, Bertrand Russel's The Problems of Philosophy is an excellent, short book covering a lot of the unifying problems that underly philosophy, like the "one and many" problem.

No. Just use r/askphilosophy if you have any questions.

Or, if you're really interested, get an introduction to philosophy book. As introductions, I think the The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law and Think by Simon Blackburn are quite good. For a bit of a more in-depth introduction, The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy is very good.

Your words are unclear and you know not what you speak of.

I encourage you to learn Philosophy, which uses reason and evidence, rather than Religion which uses superstition.

Here is a good book on philosophy:

Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton

The first chapter is on whether God exists, and gives several arguments for and against the existence of God. Interesting stuff.

Baggini's The Pig That Wants to be eaten is an excellent and fun start for thinking about general philosophical problems, which is, naturally, an excellent introduction to philosophy.

If you're looking for something more rigorous, Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a tiny and very well-written guide to philosophy almost up to the modern day by arguably the greatest thinker in analytical philosophy of the last century.

Does the Center Hold
The writing is witty, the author peppers the book with cartoons which do more than entertain. I very much appreciated the layout and topics covered.

This is a good read: Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction

Here are some essays.

Enjoy.

I've found this book incredibly useful in my undergraduate studies - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-Philosophical-CourseSmart/dp/0631228748

Also, be sure to check the reading list for this subreddit - http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/i9kz8/amateur_hour/

I also recommend The Cambridge Companion to Kant to anybody interested in the topic.

Just humor them for the time being. Here are some good books.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-Literature-Why-Difference/dp/0195383303

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192802836

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0199295514

http://www.amazon.com/Kierkegaard-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192802569

Theorem. Yes, it can and it should.

Case 1. It can.

Proof.

Just the Arguments is a book which distills philosophical arguments into explicit premises, conclusions and rules of inference. You can conceive this into a theorem-proof by simply chucking all the premises into the IF part of your theorem and chucking the final conclusion into the THEN part, and chucking all intermediary conclusions and rules of inference into the PROOF.

Computational Metaphysics is a research program which axiomatises philosophy and uses automated reasoning to prove theorems, prove consistency of premises, and prove validity of arguments. We are still at the embryonic stage of philosophy being done by artificial intelligence (also envisioned by Leibniz). One day, gone with error-prone humans in philosophy!

Examples of automated philosophy.

• Anslem's Ontological Argument
  
• Leibniz's Theory of Concepts
  
• Gödel's Ontological Argument
  
  Case 2. It should.
  
  Proof.
  
  
• Philosophical ideas should be expressed clearly and precisely.
  
• Natural, non-mathematical language is full of ambiguity and reasoning with it is error-prone.
  
• Mathematical/logical language is clear and precise.
  
• Philosophy has a long history of unproductive arguments which result from people not even agreeing on the same definitions in the first place. That is just boring semantic tomfoolery! That does not happen in math since there is consensus about definitions (up to logical equivalence).
  
  Objection. "Mathematical language is overly symbolic and tedious."
  
  Reply. You get used to it. Also, you need not be completely symbolic. Most math papers are not written in logical symbols either. But that's okay for math since there's consensus over definitions and usually rules of inference are obvious. Philosophy ought to become more mathematical.
  
  Objection. "You're just gonna have a TON of premises."
  
  Reply. Good. Let's make those suckers explicit. Let's also make how and what we derive from them explicit.
  
  ​

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.

Or you know science.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765552031/The-war-on-boys-young-men-are-facing-a-new-crisis.html?pg=all

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/discrimination-against-boys-in-education-and-elsewhere/

http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2014/05/05/female-teachers-marking-down-boys/

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds

http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/students-can-detect-teachers-gender-bias-boys-suffer-most/

You are right about one thing it is a bad plot line from a dystopian film that would never ever get made by Hollywood.

From cradle to grave men are systematically discriminated against because like it or not Hillary was right.

We are hardwired to prefer girls, to favor girls, to treat them like children, and to view boys as expendable.

You are caught in a false reality bubble.

>As someone within an evolutionary field, Nietzsche has never been discussed meaningfully to my knowledge within the purview of evolution.

If you mean that no evolutionary biologists have talked about Nietzsche's thoughts on evolution, I don't know whether that's true or not. But lots of philosophers definitely have talked about Nietzsche's thoughts on evolution. Here are a few:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/517309

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/517310/pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Biology-Metaphor-Gregory-Moore/dp/0521812305

http://www.counsellingeastlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/The-Blackwell-Companion-to-Nietzsche.pdf#page=524

http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.de/2009/02/nietzsche-and-lamarck.html

>And I think my next pick up will be something by Benatar.

I guess you'll enjoy this.

Since this was front-paged I'm gonna hijack the top post and link to the work of Karen Straughan. She posts here occasionally and will hopefully chime in on this thread.

Me a feminist? No way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

Is Feminism hate? [skip to the 20 min. mark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDYAVROaIcs

How Feminism conned society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozEFVPDxeg

Benevolent sexism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VupEC0cAWo

The Tyranny of Female Hypoagency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

Feminism and the Disposable Male.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

-----

A few good videos by Lindy Beige on female power in history:

Women power in the past

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

Sex Power: when women were different and men were disposable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

---------

Nice summary of Issues here: Why we need a men's rights movement

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2xmm3p/i_cant_believe_people_think_we_dont_need_a_mens/

------

Good reading:

The Myth of Male Power

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell-ebook/dp/B00IDHV5EM

The Privileged Sex

http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Sex-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00EX5PJC2/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403378&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=privilged+sex

No More Sex War

http://www.amazon.com/More-Sex-War-Neil-Lyndon/dp/1856191915/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403395&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=no+more+sex+war

The Second Sexism

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403501&sr=1-1&keywords=second+sexism

The War Against Boys

http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Boys-Misguided-Policies/dp/1451644183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427403440&sr=1-1&keywords=war+against+boys

John Cottingham's translation is very good. You can find it in these volumes.

http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Meditations-Philosophy-Selections-Objections/dp/0521558182

http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Selected-Philosophical-Writings-Ren%C3%A9/dp/0521358124/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416963798&sr=1-1&keywords=descartes+selected+philosophical+writings

I'm reading the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy right now. I like it so far but I'm not that far in. Something worth looking into.

The Privileged Sex

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance

Female Power in the Past

The Myth of Male Power

The Second Sexism

Legalizing Misandry

If you're interested, this book discusses Nietzsche's ideas regarding his conception of Darwinism:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsches-New-Darwinism-John-Richardson/dp/0195380290/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=

It wasn't a series, sorry if I gave that impression. I was referring to two separate books, although they may in fact be a part of a series:

Western Philosophy

And the one on Derrida which I wouldn't recommend to a 13 year old for obvious reasons. But a little web searching and you might find it's part of a series or something.

It's been well over a decade since I read either book, so you might take my recommendation with a grain of salt.

For an accessible overview I'd recommend The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy.

Here's another one: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-female-power-masculinist-dissection/dp/9782651052

I haven't read it though. It seems like quite the meme.

Also: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

[Classics of Philosophy] (http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Philosophy-Louis-P-Pojman/dp/0199737290/ref=dp_ob_title_bk) edited by Louis Pojman. Has everything from the pre-socratics to contemporary stuff like Husserl and Rawls

These books look solid. There are 2 volumes. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Political-Theories-Comprehensive-Enlightenment/dp/0061351369/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=the+great+political+theories&qid=1570225402&sprefix=the+great+pol&sr=8-1

I took a course on aesthetics early in my undergrad and this was our de facto "textbook" that we referred to throughout: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Art-Beauty-Aesthetics-Heidegger/dp/0226348121

It's a broad, if somewhat disconnected, anthology of a number of philosopher's thoughts on aesthetics, including lots of Germans Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, and Heidegger.

Just the Arguments

Because you need to star somewhere and this is pretty accessible and short:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-Basics-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415693160

http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512

The Second Sexism.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Philosophy/dp/0470674512

The Decline Of Males

http://www.amazon.com/The-Decline-Males-First-Unexpected/dp/0312263112/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

I chose the title to the second sexism https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512.

The simpliest yet a complete definition at from (PhilosophyBasics.com - Existentialism)(http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_existentialism.html)

Beginners books guides for reference:

• Complete Idiots Guide to Philosophy
  
• A Beginner's Guide to Philosophy

this or this

I haven't read it, but I think people have pointed to David Benatar's The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys as an example of something you're looking for.

Woah looks like someone's falling victim to the second sexism https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against-Boys/dp/0470674512

You might check out The Second Sexism, by David Benatar. He has expanded the arguments into a forthcoming book too.

Outside of regular feminist literature (feminists usually acknowledge that the patriarchy is bad for men in various ways) I think David Benatar has a new book that might have some relevant stuff, though I haven't read it myself. Edit: here it is - http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512

I didn't know Pat had a scholar brother.

/s

Here's the full link: http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Sexism-Discrimination-Against/dp/0470674512 - for those of us that hate the mobile version.

Philosophy: The Basics by Nigel Warburton

It's an excellent book intended for laymen that explains a lot of philosophy in an easy-to-read format. If you look a the reviews, the only ones that are low are from angry theists who whine that he's presenting arguments against the existence of God.

A Reference book of men's issues is probably your best bet for finding relevant studies.

[MRRef] (https://www.reddit.com/r/MRRef/) is more extensive but will require more digging.

Videos:

The Red Pill (NYA)

Everything by Karen Straughan

Everything by Janice Fiamengo

Books:

[Is There Anything Good About Men?] (https://gendertruce.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/baumeister-roy-is-there-anything-good-about-men.pdf) (full book online) by Roy Baumeister

The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex by Warren Farrell

The Privileged Sex by Martin Van Creveld

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benetar

The Fraud of Feminism (full book online) by Earnest Belford Bax

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers

The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

No More Sex War by Neil Lyndon

A few works that I think deserve more attention. Some are directly related to Men's Rights, others tangentially.

Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm

War, Peace, Human Nature: Converging Evolutionary & Cultural Views by Douglas Fry et. al

Female Forms of Power and the Myth of Male Dominance: A Model of Female/Male Interaction in Peasant Society (paper online) by Susan Carol Rogers

Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800 (paper online) by J. Bailey

The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions (full book online) by Robert Briffault

Gynocentrism: From Feudalism to the Modern Disney Princess by Peter Wright

Sex and Culture (full book online) by J.D. Unwin

The Manipulated Man (full book online) by Esther Villar

Unknown Misandry (website)

Real Sexism (website)