Reddit mentions: The best philosophy movements books

> The free market is supposed to be...

I smell a strawman, but let's proceed anyway.

> Competition ensues, which leads to a range of prices for goods ensuring that all society can afford them.

Well, 2 sentences in and we're departing from free market analysis and toward normative views. Competition doesn't necessarily lead to "a range of prices" and certainly doesn't ensure "that all society can afford them". It does, generally, place a natural soft-cap on prices, but that says nothing about affordability. There is competition in boats and airplane manufacturers. Does that mean that "all society can afford" boats and planes? Of course not.

> Even if it seems some people are becoming much richer than the rest, this is good because it will eventually lead to them spending more and providing more jobs. In this way wealth ‘trickles down' to the rest of society.

Yep, straw man. This has nothing to do with free market economics.

> free market theory was developed for the small regional economies that existed under feudalism in the European late middle ages. Consequently, it is ill-matched to the current reality of globally integrated corporations and modern marketing techniques.

Old, therefore invalid? This is a form of chronological snobbery (a kind of genetic fallacy). It's the same kind of argument used by people who claim the US Constitution was never designed to handle modern machine guns or the internet, therefore "common sense" controls over guns or on speech are necessary.

> In the made-up world of perfect competition, it is the consumer who rules.

Actual free market theory doesn't assume perfect competition. That is a creation of various neoclassical economists as a theoretical market (with tons of nuance simplified away to reduce complexity) to reflect idealized efficiency. But free market advocates and theorists don't actually ascribe to the concept of perfect competition because it doesn't exist. It's simply an academic construct that has more often been used to justify intervention (a non-perfect market suffers from X or Y failing, thus requiring intervention) than to defend free markets.

> The pretence that we live in a free market system regulated by competition and ruled by the consumer is continued only because it benefits the world's elite.

I absolutely and completely agree with this statement. So why is he attacking free markets if he recognizes we don't actually live in one?

> It suggests that capitalism is “democratic” economically as well as politically. Just as we cast our vote in elections, by buying good “A” instead of good “B”, we are casting our vote in the economy. Since, as the theory goes, the consumer is king, each individual purchase we make contributes to society's collective decisions as to how scarce resources and labour are best utilised.

That's generally accurate.

> competition does the opposite of what the theory claims. ... Once they reach this position, they not only wield power within their sector, they also act together with other dominant monopolies to wield their joint power in all aspects of society.

He recognizes that we don't live in a free market, but then attributes the centralization due to cronyism - govt protection and insulation of established or politically connected firms - to the free market!? These things are not the result of competition, but the lack thereof.

> Through advertising, companies create markets for their products

Well, yes and no. They try to alert consumers of their products and to distinguish their offerings from others. In that sense, yes, they are trying to create markets. However, if this is suggesting - as I've heard some claim - that marketing and advertising somehow coerces helpless people into buying their products, regardless of whether they truly want to or not, then that's a bit of an exaggeration.

> The single aim of companies is to create demand in order to ensure ever-greater profit. The logic of capitalism is that companies must constantly reinvest profits or go under. Companies cannot stand still.

I will agree with this with one caveat. The goal is profit, yes. However, inflation is a large part of the driver for "ever-greater profit".

> Companies must constantly create new markets for new goods and services, whether it is the latest generation internet superhighway technology, or a new flavour of potato crisps.

Yes, and this is a GOOD thing. This is the driver of innovation and increased efficiency.

> Since environmental damage is not generally directly borne by companies, it does not impact on profit, at least in the short term. ... The winners will generally be those who care the least about the environment

This is part of a larger conversation about how the corporate protections from govt have insulated companies from their externalities at the expense of weakened private property protections. Most free market advocates push for private property protections that allow individual property owners (or as a group) to sue companies that expose their (the individual's) property to pollution.

> as the global environmental destruction continues apace, capitalism is spending more on bribing governments and running slick greenwash advertising campaigns, aimed at undermining protest. They plough ...

Again, they're not describing free markets anymore but just ranting about the current situation. And I don't completely disagree with their gripes with the current system.

> The need to constantly expand and get ahead is a key factor in making capitalism inherently unstable. Historically...

As I said before, inflation and central banks (very much not free markets) contribute largely to this "need to constantly expand". This article talks about the difference between the concept of consumerism (push to buy, buy, buy, and more and more and more profits) and capitalism (free markets). I haven't read it myself, but I've heard that this book speaks well to that idea.

> The single-minded drive for profit means companies inevitably must create unwanted need to stimulate ever-more demand, hence the massive advertising budgets they all have.

Wait, companies can use advertising and make people buy things that they do not want? So free will (in even the most loose sense) doesn't exist and people are easily and simply brainwashed and can be compelled to purchase even things they do not want?

> Capitalism does not produce for the poor, as they have no income and are therefore not a source of profit.

What nonsense is this? Why in the world does Wal-Mart, Goodwill, Aldis, etc exist if not specifically to provide for low-income individuals?

> of all the ridiculous claims of free market theory, perhaps the most obscene one is the boast that it is able to allocate resources equitably. While we have unwanted computers piling up in one part of the world, we have children dying of starvation in others.

Again, current system vs free markets. But even ignoring that, consider how difficult it is in the current system to import/export/trade goods between countries without inspections, regulations, quotas, tariffs, etc. That is certainly not the free market. Nor is the general circumstances in countries wallowing in poverty very free market. Usually these countries not only have repressive human rights, but almost non-existent private property rights, and in many places, the only free markets are black markets. So I'd challenge the author to find a country generally agreed to have a fairly free market and private property rights, but has more children dying of starvation than computers.

Ok. If you can't show that the joke is sexist, then you're basically admitting that you haven't even tried to understand the joke. Trying to understand jokes, though difficult, is not "fucking theoretical mathematics". Perhaps more importantly, there's a reason I don't post in threads about theoretical mathematics. I don't understand it. If you don't understand how jokes work, you shouldn't really be getting shouty about them.

Your personal experience of what jokes would and wouldn't offend the women you know is irrelevant here.The reason you or I would be uncomfortable telling this joke in public is that people are silly; they hear something like this, and without knowing why, decide it's sexist and get offended. Exhibit A: You. This does mean it would be unwise to risk offending someone you actually knew. This does not mean the joke is actually sexist or harmful.

If you'd genuinely be interested in finding out more about how jokes work, and the difference between genuinely offensive jokes and the above joke, here are some interesting resources to get to grips with the basics of the topic. The first is a seminal essay on why people laugh, and will give some good solid basics on looking at a joke and deciphering what it is about it that makes it funny. The second is a glorious defense of the art of "shock comedy" by one of its practitioners, Brendon Burns. It won the Edinburgh comedy award, and remains one of the most important hours of stand-up ever performed.

Bergson on the Meaning of the Comic

Brendon Burns' seminal show, "So I suppose this is offensive now?"

I'd also reccommend looking at Jenny Eclair; pioneer of women's comedy in Britain, utterly filthy, and tells the funniest jokes about sucking dick that I've ever heard.

You don't just get to declare that something is sexist, period. If you want to get haughty and offended up on your moral high ground, you have to show that there's a good reason that the joke can't be enjoyed unless you have a sexist attitude. You have no obligation to buy either of the above resources, or find any other way become educated about this topic. However, I would strongly suggest that you refrain from wading in and denouncing perfectly good jokes as "sexist" without any knowledge whatsoever. That you consider this not only morally acceptable, but morally superior, is quite funny really.

I frequently have to stop a discussion and explain to a friend why a joke they've told is offensive and unnacceptable. It pisses me off that people who don't really know what's going on are so happy to plunge in in situations just because they want to feel this snooty sense of superiority.

Again, I don't know you, so the extent to which what I'm saying has any real basis in truth is perhaps limited. The real purpose is perhaps more polemic than considered, the better to provide food for thought.

Thanks for the enormous compliment! Here's the one that strikes me as the strongest argument for compatibilism: we've all had the feeling of free choice at some time or another. If determinism is true, then that feeling was a feeling of something other than "breaking the laws of nature" or actually choosing otherwise. In fact, if determinism is true, then no one has ever had a genuine feeling of what a libertarian freedom is like. So what freedom actually is, in all the acts that we've felt it in, must be something compatible with determinism.

My favorite source that I've cited a couple of times in the thread is Harry Frankfurt's essays in The Importance of What We Care About. Or Daniel Dennett's Elbow Room: The Varieties of Freedom Worth Wanting.

Sartre presented a lecture called "Existentialism and Humanism," which can now be found in print as Existentialism is a Humanism. It's almost like an Existentialism manefesto, per se. The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus is a good treatise on existentialism (Absurdism, really, but it'll do).

I would not hesitate to start reading fiction novels that have Existentialist themes. Camus' The Stranger, Sartre's Nausea, and Dostyevsky's Notes From the Underground are just a few that will find your studies well.

As for secondary literature, the only text I can knowledgeably recommend is Existentialism For Dummies, as I'm currently working my way through it. It's actually not as bad as you might think coming from the "For Dummies" series. It doesn't go too in-depth, and ideas are very concise and oftentimes humorous.

I have also heard good things about David Cogswell's Existentialism For Beginners, though I have never read it myself.

If your niece feels comfortable with this level of writing and philosophical examination, it is almost imperative to read Kierkegaard's Either/Or and Fear and Trembling, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, and Sartre's Being and Nothingness, among others. It is good to have some background understanding of Kant and perhaps have a few essays by Schopenhauer under your belt leading up to the more rigorous academics like Heidegger and Hegel.

Good luck, and happy reading!

I appreciate the tangential benefits that ethical veganism provide to the environment by attacking industrialized farming practices, I believe it's a necessary discussion that is to be held. The problem I see with veganism - and I realize that this here is the irreconciliable difference between my ideas and those of veganism - is that anti-speciesism is at the heart of the lifestyle and the moral frameworks that support it. I that veganism's reliance on speciesism is counterproductive in our understanding of how to better confront pressing environmental issues that we are facing right now and to me, becomes a reductionist idea that pretends, inadequately, to explain every single facet of the relationship between humans and animals as the exclusive result of discriminations from the former towards the later. In fact, some vegans will say that veganism should be all about anti-speciesism (take a look at my exchange with gurduloo in another thread of this post).

A common vegan talking point against meat consumption is that we, as humans, have no innate desire to hunt, kill, or exploit other living beings for personal gain, but that those are learned traits that are not present in the vast majority of people, for which most prefer to pay others (farmers and the food industry) to do these acts for us. This vegan talking point says paying others to butcher animals for us is carnist and speciesist.

While at first it might make sense, this oversimplified explanation misses a profound discussion on division of labour, which as an economic concept has been approached and discussed since Plato's Republic but has much more recently been identified by Donald E. Brown as a "human universal": "those (empirically determined) features of culture, society, language, behavior, and psyche found in all ethnographically or historically recorded human societies [emphasis mine]".

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Humans-Anthropological-Particularity-Transdisciplinary/dp/3110169746

Brown states that the explanation for human universals might be probabilistic, however "the greater the number of societies that possess the pattern, and the more complex the pattern, the less the likelihood that the distribution of the pattern results from mere coincidence" and he details a few possible explanations for these universals, including them being being features of human nature itself:

>Ethology provides inspiration for the identification of species-typical behaviours and the study of the developmental processes (combining innateness and learning) that produce them (see, e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989; Seligman/Hager 1972; Tiger/Fox 1971). Sociobiology provides ultimate (i.e. evolutionary) explanations for such universals as kin altruism and the norm of reciprocity (Hamilton 1964; Trivers 1971).

Other philosophers expand on these ideas (see for instance August John Hoffman's "Philosophical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology").

There might or not be evolutionary explanations for the division of labor, but discarding the cultural motivations and consequences of specialization that have brought along the delegating food production and distribution system to third parties, including those that allow the present socio-economic conditions for veganism to exist in the first place - increase in productivity and efficiency, development of technological innovations - seems completely inappropriate.

So a vegan says that we pay farmers of the food industry to do acts of killing for us to eat, and that is a proof of speciesism. I ask you, how can we even come up with sustainable alternatives to production of food and else (even vegan alternatives in this case) if we don't even understand the underlying elements that motivate why we humans act a certain way and how basic economy works?

Factory farming, which is a relatively recent phenomenom, has come to be as a natural consequence of the paradigms of classic economy: Needs are infinite and resources are scarce, economic entities are "rational", rational entities increase profits and reduce costs, the system will balance itself out. The consumerist model and the economic assumptions of classic liberal economy are the elements that we would really have to confront, and we are only going to be able to do that through a true understanding of concepts like "division of labor" and how it affects common used benchmarks that we use to measure economic value: productivity, efficiency, cost reduction, etc.

That's why within veganism you often see discussions about economy and lifestyle issues that people don't agree upon and they are going to give you contradicting answers.

Take for instance plastic and veganism, some vegans defending palm oil (I participated in that thread too countering OP's arguments), veganism and air-flight, almond milk as a substitute for dairy milk, etc.

You've covered a large amount of ground here, from a bunch of angles, which explains the lukewarm response. You've also not really asked a question - generally this sub is better suited for philosophical questions which have a relatively clear answer to give.

I feel like you've asked for intelligent speakers with which to continue the discussion and ideas you're having internally. Now, I'm not claiming to be one of them, but I know some good places you can start looking.

I think that you might be interested in:

• Bertrand Russell - in praise of idleness
  
• communitarianism
  
• Zizek on ideology
  
• Famine, Affluence & Morality - not directly relevant to your concerns re: mediocrity and your place in society, but very relevant to your concerns about what you could be doing other than work, very relevant to what one might feel motivated to do
  
• Marx on alienation
  
• Foucault - Discipline & Punish and Madness & Civilization, but more generally look into his ideas.
  
  I could be way off here, but I didn't want you to go away feeling like no-one cares about these issues in philosophy.
  
  edit:
  
  In response to the question you've now asked, I would still recommend the thinkers I've listed.
  
  As to why mediocrity/averageness is particularly unloved specifically now, I'm a bit drunk rn, but here are a few reasons that relate to the philosophers I pulled up:
  
  
• An increasingly atomised society that emphasises individuality and de-emphasises the role of the individual as part of a larger whole (hence my links to communitarianism, and also Foucault who was at times a Structuralist and had a sophisticated view of what an 'individual' was at all times in his career - GE Moore also had some things to say about the inherent value of friendship, which might be a less dramatic or controversial thing to consider than communitarianism but also decreases the importance of the individual).
  
• An unquestioned (liberal, capitalist) ideology that assumes particular things about what an individual person is and what their role should be (hence Zizek, Marx). 'Mediocrity' doesn't live 'up' to these inhuman goals.
  
• An entirely selfish conception of what persons are and what our duties to those persons might be (hence Singer, who is the most direct and immediately convincing though not the most subtle ethicist working today). I personally consider modern utilitarianism to be associated with some deeply disturbing trends but I like most utilitarians I've met, it's a great way to enter into ethics, and you don't need to be utilitarian to find Famine, Affluence & Morality convincing.

I think it might be best to get a 'reader' that has selections from many different philosophers and, ideally, solid introductions to each to help put them in context and distill a few of their major ideas. This will help you get a sense of what you're interested in and what you'd like to pursue deeper.

As an example the book Existentialism provides a great overview of existentialist thinkers with outstanding introductions to each. And that's an area that tends to be appealing to newcomers and also to younger people That's not to put it down to say it's a lesser area of philosophy. It's as rich, deep, challenging and diverse as any other.

Massimo Pigliucci is fine from what I've seen. He's also an academic philosopher, but writes a lot of public stuff.

Nigel Warburton and David Emonds are now full-time public philosophers and I enjoy the things they do: from their short books to the Philosophy Bites podcasts and so on.

There are also a number of academic philosophers who have written public pieces, even if that's not the majority of what they do. Al Mele has a recent book on free will, Michael Lynch has one on epistemology in the internet age and the role of reason in democracy. There are certainly others I'm forgetting.

You can also check out Aeon's essays for dozens of good, ~3000 word pieces by professional philosophers aimed at a wide audience and on a variety of subjects.

EDIT: looking at your specific topics I would suggest checking out Lynch's In Praise of Reason and Pigliccui's A Short History of Truth. The former is very good; I haven't read the latter, but there's not a ton of good books on truth that are easy. You might also look at Simon Blackburn's Truth: A Guide.

I've been working through and with Deleuze's work for a while now so here is my two cents. To be honest I think the biggest thing you will be missing here is discussion with other people reading the same works (assuming that you are a good self-motivator, create a 'syllabus' and stick to it). This type of philosophy, perhaps more than any other, is best read together and in discourse. I have seen a couple 'reading group' subreddits around in the past so maybe you could try that. Example.

That said, while it will greatly help you to read the other authors you list, I don't think it is entirely necessary and you run the risk of running out of steam (that is a very difficult list). Also, according to Deleuze himself it can be very productive to read him from various angles and without background (see the last few sentences of the first section here ). Diving in cold might produce something interesting.

Instead of trying to read a 'canonical' list of continental thought, I would recommend reading some of Deleuze's early work where he writes on other philosophers and maybe some Bergson. In particular I would take a look at Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life. It is short, relatively digestible and gives insight into his thought in broad strokes. You can get a pdf online if you google the title. Read that book twice. Then jump into A Thousand Plateaus. Read it at least three times. The first time read the first chapter and then jump through the remaining chapters in order of interest, saving the last chapter in the book for the end. The second time read it from cover to cover. The third time go back to 'randomized' reading, again reading the first and last chapters first and last.
Don't expect to understand everything he is saying and do not get hung up or discouraged when things don't gel together for you. Just keep working through the text and dialogue with it. Write about your experience with the book often. In fact, I suggest you keep a 'reading journal' where you reflect on your thoughts after each time you read. Record the date and page number(s) each time you write. Reading back through will help you see what in the text is speaking to you and what is really confusing you. Be prepared to destroy the book. Write notes to yourself all over it. Record page numbers and interesting passages either in the back of the book or on a piece of paper. You can use this when writing and identifying themes/strands that glow with you.

That is about all the advice I can think of right now. Hopefully some of it will be helpful to you. Most of all just enjoy the process. ATP in particular is not necessarily a book that attempts to 'bestow' Knowledge the way traditional texts do. It is more like an interactive 'art' piece. The point is to create with it.

I took a course on this very subject a couple of years ago. I highly recommend this book for a nice collection of writings on laughter. One of the most interesting and basic ways to define humor is as an incongruence of what we consider to be "normal" or part of reality. That is, we laugh at something that seems unexpected or absurd.

There's also the big factor of expecting something to be funny because it is presented in a way that tells you it's funny. I don't think that sentence made much sense, but give this episode of Radio Lab a listen. It starts out with exploring an anti-joke that comedians Kristen Schaal and Kurt Braunohler use in their performance: Schaal dances around the stage as Braunohler screams for 5-10 minutes, "Kristen Schaal is a horse! Kristen Schaal is a horse! Look at her dance, and look at her go, look at her dance like a horse!" There is absolutely no joke given and there's nothing inherently funny about it (in fact it starts to seem a bit creepy the longer they do it), but the bit receives a flipped bell curve of laughter the longer as the minutes pass. At first it's funny because of its absurdity, then the laughs die out as they audience realizes that they are now outside of the traditional paradigm of a "joke," which is then followed by the realization that the entire thing is supposed to be a joke and thus it elicits laughter again. The audience expects it to have some kind of associated humor since they're at a "comedy" show.

Nobody has mentioned Kierkegaard yet, whom you should definitely read, especially Either/Or and Fear and Trembling. He is often cited as the founder of the "movement." As with other existentialist texts, they tread the line between philosophy and literature and hence raise numerous interpretative problems. I'd also say that you can understand more where Kierkegaard is coming from if you see how he's responding to Hegel - but I still got a lot out of him before reading any Hegel, so don't worry too much about it.

Existentialism as such rather fell out of favour in the academy in the '70s (I mean of course in departments of literature and continental philosophy). As the generation of post-structural theory swept in, committed to anti-humanism, existentialism was washed away as old-fashioned, conservative and too focused on individuals, rather than systems. People criticised Sartre for being the 'wrong kind' of public intellectual, ie. setting himself up as an authority. The dominant approach within literary studies today still has little time for existentialism, which I think is a shame, given that a lot of students come to literature as adolescents when reading these texts (being naive enough to think literature can tell them some about their life, etc).

There's a good "reconstruction" of the philosophical aspects of existentialism here:
http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-Reconstruction-David-E-Cooper/dp/0631213236
That may be a good primer for you, before you think about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, (early) Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, et al.

Would also add Cioran to that list. The bleakest of the lot - though again more a kind of essayist than a philosopher.

In terms of literature, there's the obvious stuff like Dostoevsky (Devils, Brothers Katamazov, Notes from the Underground) and Sartre/Camus's own texts. Absurdism is also strongly related - Ionesco, for example. Mid-period Beckett can also be read as an absurdist and existentialist: the famous plays like Godot and Endgame, but also look at Krapp's Last Tape, which I think is his best theatrical work. Even better than these is his "Trilogy" of novels: Molly, Malone Dies and The Unnamable. The first two, and especially Malone Dies, are amongst my very favourite books.

Gide's "The Immoralist" is in some ways an interesting precursor to Camus, I think. And there are other "existential" first-person narratives like Rilke's Maurids Brigg (I actually hate this) or Knut Hamsun's Hunger.

I would hesitate before characterising Kafka as existentialist - I think there's a lot more going on with him - but there's a lot of resonance. Read the Trial, but better still the short stories - Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, Investigations of a Dog, the Burrow.

It's possibly also worth considering the relationship between existentialism and other movements within other media, eg. expressionism in the visual arts and cinema. But I'm not knowledgable enough to say anything good about this. Look at some Egon Schiele paintings though.

I would give her "The God Delusion", I didn't think it was extreme at all, as I've read in so many places.

Otherwise I loved all the books by German philosopher and chief atheist Michael Schmidt-Salomon, he's basically the German Sam Harris, but without all the baggage. But the same opinions about determinism, Islam ... he's heavily influenced by Dawkins (and Harris as well I think) and has a humorous style ...

I loved all his books, they're very readable, interesting, well explained, clear and concise, and this one is translated into English on Amazon (but requires a Kindle or free app on the computer):

>Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism: Plea for a mainstream culture appropriate to our times
>
>We are living in a time of asynchrony: While technologically we are firmly in the 21st century, our world views are still characterized by ancient legends which are thousands of years old. This combination of high-level technical ability and highly naïve child-like beliefs could have disastrous consequences in the long run. We are behaving like five-year-olds who have been given responsibility for a jumbo jet.
>
>One of the most depressing problems of our time lies in religious fundamentalists of all stripes casually making use of the fruits of the Enlightenment (freedom of expression, constitutionality, science, technology) in order to prevent its principles being applied to the domain of their own belief. For example, to further their beliefs, the 9/11 terrorists used airplanes constructed on the basis of scientific principles; principles to which their beliefs could never stand up. In return, the "fundamentalist with other means", George W. Bush, led the world into a devastating "crusade" against "terror" and the "axis of evil" making use of a technology which could never have been developed if scientists had contented themselves with the American President's child-like faith that the Bible's creation account is true.
>
>In the face of the dangers arising from the renaissance of unenlightened thinking in a technologically highly developed era, it is a matter of intellectual integrity to speak out clearly - especially where religion is concerned. Anyone who is capable of splitting the atom and communicating via satellites must possess intellectual and emotional maturity. That certain people or groups of persons avoid exposure to criticism by establishing "holy" (i.e. untouchable) rules and uphold their fallacies as mandatory for all time, may and can no longer be accepted practice in a modern society.

This is Stroud's book on dealing with metaphysical subjects. It doesn't directly deal with the problem of free will, but I HIGHLY recommend you read this book because it allows you to gain insight into what a lot of books and papers are missing, namely, what I was talking about 'coherence' or an 'unmasking explanation' (his terminology, actually):
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Reality-Subjectivism-Metaphysics-Colour/dp/0195151887

Searle's book on Rationality. What I had paraphrased is actually in this book (... I think, it's been a little while since I read it), but I know he addresses the problem of free will since it's important to him in tackling rationality:
http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Action-Jean-Nicod-Lectures/dp/0262692821

Here's a book that has a ton of papers from prominent philosophers in the field. This actually gives a good overview of the whole debate. I recommend P.F. Strawson's Essay, Wallace's Essay, and ... I forget the other one. IIRC, there are essays by Lewis and van Inwagen if you're really into logic approaches:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

It's only a few but I hope that helps~

I think that's a fair assessment of 'the Absurd'. There isn't really a wrong answer here! In this game it's all about interpretation and supporting yourself logically and coherently. My suggestion to you then, is to take a look at The Myth of Sysiphus (and the [sparknotes won't you here hurt either] (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sisyphus/summary/)). Find yourself a breakdown of Camus' philosophy somewhere that you can understand. This is sprawling, complicated stuff, and no one in their right mind would expect someone in high school to write a comprehensive paper covering all of Camus' philosophy from source texts. Solomon's 'Existentialism' really is gold. I tried to find a pdf online for you, but it doesn't seem to exist. Since you seem to have an interest in the topic, I'd suggest picking this up at some point (maybe a birthday or Xmas gift?). Solomon also has a short little paperback called 'Introducing The Existentialists' which is worth picking up. Any more questions, ask away! Good luck!

I'm in the same boat as you. I think about that a lot, and it has been affecting my life in a lot of ways, unfortunately...

I'm not really in a position to help, but I'll tell you how I've been dealing with it so far. There are two books that I've been reading that I find helpful with this subject: "A Confession", by Leo Tolstoy, and "How to be an Existentialist", by Gary Cox.

I just finished first and am going through the second right now. It was helpful to read Tolstoys educated and well thought-out opinions and experiences on the matter. Hard to say about the second book, but so far it's pretty good.

To my dismay, it seems like most answers point to "deal with it," which I find frustrating.

If you only cover ancient philosophy, you are going to teach these children a brief part of the history of philosophy, not a brief overview of philosophy itself. Many children will probably leave thinking philosophy is something that only pertains to silly Greek men.

This book was put together wonderfully by a professor, and spoke to me like nothing else had as a youth. You must read it, and teach the younglings. The second chapter which is on freedom will appeal to them immensely.

What you're doing is great, it's about time we brought philosophy back into school. Even if it is only for the first third of a class.

Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction by Thomas Flynn. I really love these "A Short Introduction" books. I have read many of them on different philosophers. The authors of these books are writing to appeal to people who are not well versed in philosophy, religion, etc. I think you should understand what existentialism is to see if that is similar to your anxiety. Even better, perhaps you would enjoy a book on meditation, like this book, which has a five-star rating on Amazon.

If you want to improve you must learn and do, advice only gives guidance, you will see I mentioned I researched health.
Health as in how to exercise, how to eat well.
Health as in how to have a healthy social life.
Here are the resources I used:

• *Self-Esteem http://www.thedatingspecialist.com/blog/how-to-liberate-yourself-from-low-self-esteem/
  
• Health http://www.thedatingspecialist.com/blog/the-newbies-guide-to-losing-weight-feeling-great/
  
• Mental Health http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Existentialist-Making-Excuses/dp/1441139877 (please read the reviews section for proof of happiness making abilities!)
  
  That's a lot of good stuff right there. Now you have no excuses!
  

I don't have the heart to go point by point. The reason I brought up John Dewey was because he is an example of someone who held postmodern like views, but was obviously not a "postmodernist" in the Peterson sense. Richard Rorty, one of the people you quoted as a postmodernist, holds almost the same views as John Dewey; he even wrote a whole book about wanting to go back to a Dewey like left wing party. Rorty even considers himself a Neo-pragmatist, not a postmodernist. I brought up other traditions having "postmodern" thoughts to show that there is nothing actually malicious inherently in postmodern thought.

>The chain of signifier -> signifier -> signifier -> ... doesn't end. We never reach the signified. We never reach meaning. Truth doesn't exist, or if it does, we are permanently cut off from it. Why would you try to be rigorous in finding out what's true, if there's no such truth to find? Why would you be rigorous with anything, when rigor is just a meaningless set of meaningless standards that don't go anywhere?

The critique doesn't stop there. The point of the critique is not to say "oh, I guess we can never get past words." It is to point out that there is a fundamental problem with the signified-signifier relationship. One solution of the postmodernists: Think of words as part of the fabric of reality itself; Derrida said, the grammatical is the ontological. The problem of reaching reality, after deconstruction, is a kind of false problem: saying, "I have pain" doesn't describe pain behavior, it replaces it, so there is no intractable signifier-signified problem.

>You can analyze one language from within another language. This 'ultimate context', outside of any language, either doesn't exist or is something people can't access. How is any of this a problem?

So, you agree with postmodernists. Postmodernists aren't epistemic nihilists. Everything you think is nihilism is typically a first step in a critique that leaves the world uncertain, but not unmeaningful.

>"It is meaningless to speak in the name of -- or against -- Reason, Truth, or Knowledge." -Michel Foucault

"Reason," "Truth," and "Knowledge" have special meanings in this instance. He is referring to the transcendental versions of these. It is pointless to affirm of deny these because they are eternally reaffirming. Ex: I can always say "Being is" and say something entirely true 100% of the time, no matter what is in front of me. Foucault probably followed this line by showing how what we mean by these transcendental terms is in fact contingent upon power structures, and useful to authorities in affirming the status quo, and that they often actually has nothing to do with rigorous thinking.

What boggles my mind is that Postmodernism, a tradition that critiques those that are blinded by Idealism, is so often portrayed as being anti-reason.

>Why would you be rigorous with anything, when rigor is just a meaningless set of meaningless standards that don't go anywhere?

Rorty, after his critique in Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature, was more concerned than anyone about our values, since he understood that there is nothing immutable in them, that they were ultimately contingent. Contingent does not equal meaningless. You are the one conflating meaningful and contingent, not Rorty, not the postmodernists.

I am going to finish with a Nietzsche quote because Nietzsche is surprisingly postmodern. This dialectical move is at the heart of a good deconstruction:
>6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

By proving things like there is no "true world" postmodernists are not advocating that all things arbitrary. What they are saying is that we must reevaluate what we mean by "true world" since certain conceptions of the "true world" have intractable problems. They are trying to show how we actually use language, what we could possibly mean.

Applied Ethics:

"A Defense of Abortion" - Judith Jarvis Thomson

Assisted Suicide: The Philosopher's Brief - Various

Normative Ethics:

"Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem" - Judith Jarvis Thomson

A Theory of Justice - John Rawls

Utilitarianism: For and Against - J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams

Meta-ethics:

Being For - Mark Schroeder

Normativity - Judith Jarvis Thomson

Michael Smith's The Moral Problem and Bernard Williams' "Internal and External Reasons" deserve honorable mention because they are simply better philosophical works than Schroeder's and Thomson's, it's just that the Schroeder and Thomson are my favorite due to their excellent writing style and clear dedication.

I recommend Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. It's an easy-to-read overview and history of existentialism and its major figures. It would be perfect for someone in high school, instead of immediately tackling a work by any one particular author.

Well, ultimately, your feelings about death are totally irrelevant.
So... maybe it's best to decide to have more pleasant feelings about it.

Or.. maybe you should look into Existentialism? http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804286/

excellent !

Se lie parfaitement avec ce livre un peu vieux mais n'a jamais été autant d'actualité.

Gonick also has a History of The U.S., by the way.

Van Lente and Dunlavey's Action Philosophers is also a candidate if you're into the history of philosophy. In fact, while I'm at it, let me recommend the "For beginners" series about different philosophers and philosophic traditions. Examples: Marx, Freud, Existensialism etc. For a preview of the series, check out Philosophy for beginners at Google Books.

Edit: They even have reddit favourite Noam Chomsky for beginners!

This is a good volume for both a defense and a critique:

http://www.amazon.com/Utilitarianism-Against-J-C-Smart/dp/052109822X

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

Amazon Smile Link: A Very Short Introduction


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




This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

Just to play um..devil's advocate there was an existentialist theory that a utopian paradise free of violence couldn't exist, and God made the world this way because this is the best he can manage to minimize pain and suffering. It's just a theory that was later mostly discredited by the big existentialist boys.
source: http://www.amazon.com/Existentialism-Beginners-Guide-Guides/dp/1851685936
In Soviet Union at the time there were a lot of existentialists who also believed in God.

I read this great book called "How to be an Existentialist" by Gary Cox and it gives an easy to understand review of what existentialism means both as a philosophy and practically
http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Existentialist-Making-Excuses/dp/1441188436

edit: too many greats doth not a greater make

How to Be an Existentialist: or How to Get Real, Get a Grip and Stop Making Excuses https://www.amazon.com/dp/1441139877/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_xz7azb48VBEAK

This book was an entertaining and informative read. I highly suggest it.

Sounds like you're stuck in negative feedback loops. You feel bad because you feel bad because you feel bad... etc...

I recommend starting slowly, get exercise, eat right, try to take care of your body best you can. Taking care of the body will help boost mood and motivation. Success builds upon success but it's really really hard to get those initial successes. Try to keep your mood up and starting putting in the bitch work.

This book really helped me start to get my shit together:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Be-Existentialist-Making-Excuses/dp/1441188436

I think you're referring to Existentialism? A Beginners Guide

> M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

>At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

>One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Credit to Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country

Start with Fear and Trembling. It's really something else, as much concerned with its aesthetic as with its philosophy.

I would also suggest perhaps picking up the Existentialism anthology by Solomon (http://amzn.to/qSR7f9), which has a broad selection of short excerpts from different of Kierkegaard's texts. Also, you'll then be able to read other existentialists to get a feel for just how widely varied this branch of philosophy is.

The Sickness Unto Death is also a good choice for after Fear and Trembling-- a lot of what Kierkegaard writes in the Sickness is very similar to what Heidegger has to say, but Kierkegaard makes much more sense.

The beautiful thing and the very modern thing about Kierkegaard is that he doesn't have a systematic philosophy-- instead, he has a series of personas in his different books that can be at odds with the others. He's very much so anti-systematizing- the Preface to Fear and Trembling will make this abundantly clear.

Having a firm grasp on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche will make learning your 20th century philosophy, especially the Continental (and in particular the French) kind massively easier.