
Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books? - dbz
Hello HN!<p>I was wondering, what are the best books which have been eye-opening or incredibly interesting about philosophy that you all have read?<p>Two examples of books:
Common Sense (I'm reading it for school)
&#38;
On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (I've been wanting to read this)
======
mbateman
Hi, I'm an ABD philosopher.

The deepest and most interesting philosophical books are generally difficult
and best accompanied by some form of instruction. This is true regardless of
how clearly (e.g. Plato) or esoterically (e.g. Kant) written they are. There
are some good secondary sources that can help but it's far preferable to be
able to talk to an expert in a one-on-one or smallish setting. It would take a
long time to explain why this is the case, so I'll just leave it as an
assertion here.

Okay, that being said, I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from reading
philosophy on their own. Here are some recommendations for books and articles
that can be (more) fruitfully read on one's own. Anything marked with a + is a
secondary source. Ideally I'd be giving you excerpts from each of these in a
reader for a course. I'm going to skip some people like Aristotle who should
be approached in carefully selected excerpts or with a guide, and also some
more obvious things that almost everyone with a college education has read,
like Descartes' _Meditations_ or Plato's _Republic_.

 _On Fate_ , Alexander of Aphrodisias

\+ _Problems from Locke_ , Mackie

 _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , Spinoza

\+ _The Courtier and the Heretic_ , Stewart (on Spinoza and Leibniz)

 _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ , Hume

 _Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals_ , Kant

 _Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics_ , Kant

 _On Liberty_ , Mill

"Modern Moral Philosophy", Anscombe

"What is Capitalism?", Rand

 _The Bounds of Sense_ , Strawson

\+ "Rawls on Justice", Nagel

"The Naturalists Return", Kitcher

 _Sources of Normativity_ , Korsgaard

This crowd in particular might be interested in some of Frege's work as well,
e.g. "What is a Function?" and "Sense and Reference."

~~~
samd
The above books are great, but unless you are really into philosophy I don't
think you'd gain much from reading primary sources. (With the exception of
Hume, he's brief and brilliant.) I think someone casually interested in
philosophy would be better off reading articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu); and if a subject is particularly
interesting then they can always go read some related primary sources.

If you do start reading primary sources, particularly the early modern
philosophers, I recommend visiting www.earlymoderntexts.com. Jonathan Bennett
has done a great job "translating" the works of Hume, Kant, Locke, Berkley,
etc. from old-English (or German, French...) into modern-English so that their
philosophical arguments can be understood without being obfuscated by language
quirks.

~~~
telemachos
I respectfully disagree. In many cases, reading secondary sources is pointless
without also reading the originals. (It's a bit like reading a review of a
meal, rather than eating any of it.)

That said, the quality of secondary works varies a lot. Some things, like
Mackie's _Problems from Locke_ , are now primary sources in their own right,
albeit in a secondary way.

~~~
samd
But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything
out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they
were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical
background who can pick up _A Critique of Pure Reason_ or the _Tractatus_ and
actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or
Wittgenstein reborn.

That's why the parent commenter said you need a guide/instructor to properly
understand what is going on in these books, and I agree with that. But for
people without such a luxury, secondary sources and articles are a good method
for gaining some rudimentary understanding of the philosophical topics.

~~~
telemachos
I don't disagree with some of your larger point. Most people will get the
fullest benefit out of a classroom setting, with an engaging and well-read
class leader and an engaged and thoughtful group of students to argue with.

However, I still believe that a determined outsider can get real benefit out
of philosophy on his or her own. (Not the fullest benefit, but significant
benefit.) I completely agree with you about cultural/historical/philosophical
background, which is why in my answer I made a point of recommending not just
titles but specific editions for classical works. Maybe we could call this the
best of both worlds: good primary sources, filled out with enriching secondary
material, all in one edition? (It does tend to make those editions more costly
than some, and also heavier.)

------
jrp
I don't know if it counts as a serious philosophy book, but I really enjoyed
Godel, Escher, Bach. Math, computers, consciousness, etc.

I'm currently reading Reasons and Persons. Thought experiments and discussion
about how personal identity works under, eg, transporter copies.

~~~
baddox
I think many readers will be surprised at how accessible "Gödel, Escher, Bach"
actually is. I'm not an expert at anything: I have no work experience and
maybe two serious computer science courses under my belt, but GEB really
satisfies an intellectual curiosity I've had for years. I'm 550 pages in (out
of about 750 pages) and with the exception of the two chapters discussing the
anatomy of the human brain (a subject I'm just not that interested in), I've
torn through this book—I only started reading about three months ago, which
means I've been reading GEB much faster than any other book I've ever opened.
I highly recommend "Gödel, Escher, Bach" even to those who have seen other
people recommend it yet have been reluctant to try it out.

~~~
kleevr
> (out of about 750 pages)

Come on, it's 777 pages for a reason! :)

When I realized the page count (purposefully) included the index I was quite
tickled. So many gems, little and large...

------
ulvund
I would not recommend any compilations of philosophy. The great thing about
philosophy is reading the rationales and the results, not only the results.

"Ricard+Revel - The Monk and the Philosopher" [http://www.amazon.com/Monk-
Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meanin...](http://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher-
Father-Discuss-Meaning/dp/0805211039)

"Socrates(/Plato) - The Allegory of the Cave"
<http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html>

"Plato(/Socrates/others) - Symposium" <http://www.amazon.com/Symposium-
Plato/dp/0872200760>

"Bertrand Russell - The Conquest of Happiness"
[http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand-
Russell/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand-
Russell/dp/0871401622)

~~~
hh
I absolutely agree that The Monk and the Philosopher is one of the best book.
A frank discussion between a father and son who both have PhD. Every
interesting book.

~~~
jsc
Actually Jean-Francois Revel did not have a PhD (he explains why in his
autobiography "Le voleur dans la maison vide").

------
ganjianwei
I really enjoyed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.
It's not quite a philosophy book but I found his take on the concept of
'quality' very useful. To me it's a story of how a westerner discovers eastern
philosophy, which is great to read coming from a western perspective.

~~~
pavs
I never leave a book unfinished, if I start a book I feel like have to finish
the book (I finished Dan Brown's book with disgust, imagine that), but I just
couldn't finish this book. I have absolutely no idea why people like this book
and I have got recommendations from quite a few people.

~~~
pavelludiq
I had the opposite reaction. I almost never finish books, this book is the
first one bigger than a 100 pages that i finished front to cover. I'm
currently re-reading it.

Here are a few reasons why i liked it:

-It was the first book on philosophy i actually read. The closest book on philosophy i ever had contact with before was a high school textbook and it was more than horrible.

-I read it with a deliberate reason, i was interested specifically in why some people are bad with tech, actually not just bad but horrible with it. Where does this gap come from?

-I read it at a point in my life when i was trying to figure out a lot of stuff, and one of them was how to not be an arrogant asshole, i found that it was way too easy to be one towards people who i perceived as less intelligent than me. I approached this book searching for ways to enhance my reasons to be arrogant, but left it with a sort of humility and understanding towards others that i didn't know i was capable of.

-Because of my obsessiveness and extreme rationalism, it was easy for me to connect with the character of Phaedrus.

-It was a novel, not a philosophy book, it was light to read, and at the same time intellectually stimulating.

Maybe you should ask yourself why is it that you don't like it? I'm curious
for the reasons, it certainly has its flaws, and i still have difficulty with
some of the ideas after the second re-read, but i never found it not
entertaining.

~~~
pavs
For the first ~25 page or so the book is nothing but this guy who goes to
biking with his friends and son.

Maybe my expectation was too high, maybe I was hoping to be blown away by some
deep philosophical understanding. Or maybe its the writing style, I felt like
I was reading someone's diary, reading his mundane everyday thoughts.

Absolutely nothing. Just a guy riding his bike for ~25 pages.

I stopped reading where he was yelling at his kid for some stupid reason
during camping. Maybe after that he talks about something interesting.

I will probably give it another shot, most likely not anytime soon.

~~~
jemfinch
> I will probably give it another shot, most likely not anytime soon.

If you stopped reading it after 25 pages, you never gave it a shot in the
first place. It's 464 pages long, for Pete's sake!

~~~
pavs
Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy. 25 pages in to
the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book,
which was a big turn-off for me, I have never read a book that just talks
about random stuff for the first 25 pages or so. I thought it was a very weird
way to start off a book.

I am sure its a decent book, or there wouldn't be so many fans out there, so I
will give it another try.

~~~
zb
_Zen_ is an overrated book. Having said that, to say that "I have absolutely
no idea why people like this book" when you haven't read it (and 25 pages does
_not_ count) sounds completely absurd. I do recommend you actually try reading
it, even if for no other reason then to find out what everyone else is on
about.

~~~
jemfinch
I wouldn't call Zen overrated, at least insofar as it's a relatively easy read
which makes some good points.

Those points, IMO, are not the author's main philosophical contention, but his
presentation of philosophical introspection intertwined with everyday life.
Would that more Americans realized they could contemplate metaphysics even
while going about their everyday lives.

~~~
zb
By "overrated" I don't mean that it's bad. It's overrated in the same way that
_The Mythical Man Month_ is the most overrated software engineering book, or
_Sgt. Pepper_ is the most overrated album. Those are important works, but they
don't live up to the level of hype around them. In fact, I don't think
anything could.

I agree with your point, though. (But not sure why it only applies to
Americans? ;)

~~~
jemfinch
I can only speak authoritatively about Americans, because I've only lived in
America. Residents of other countries may be different :)

------
dmfdmf
"The Virtue of Selfishness" "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" "Philosophy: Who
Needs It" "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"

All by Ayn Rand. Whether you end up agreeing with her or not, she will
definitely will make you think.

~~~
vegai
Good ones. Just make sure these aren't the only ones you study or you'll end
up being a worse amateur philosopher than you were before.

------
telemachos

      Some from the canon:
    

Plato: _Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito_ (translated by David Gallop)

 _The Modes of Scepticism_ by Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes (a beautiful
collection of texts from Pyrrhonian scepticism and analysis of their
arguments; the best way I know to meet ancient scepticism)

Descartes: _Meditations on First Philosophy_ (The Cambridge University Press
edition is very good; it's probably worth buying their _Selected Philosophical
Writings_ for a good basic Descartes text)

David Hume: _An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding_ and _An Enquiry
concerning the Principles of Morals_ (I recommend the Oxford Philosophical
Texts editions)

Wittgenstein: _Philosophical Investigations_ (terribly, terribly difficult,
but very rewarding)

    
    
      A few contemporary things:
    

Gilbert Ryle: _The Concept of Mind_

Willard Van Orman Quine: _From a Logical Point of View_

J. L. Mackie: _Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong_

Thomas Nagel: _Mortal Questions_ (short essays, well-written, very accessible)

Bernard Williams: _Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy_

Michael Smith: _The Moral Problem_

    
    
      Specialist, technical, odd:
    

_The Frege Reader_ by Michael Beaney (for modern logic and the beginnings of
contemporary philosophy in the analytic style)

J. L. Mackie: _The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation_

William Kingdon Clifford: _The Ethics of Belief_ (he argues, oddly but
powerfully, that it's immoral to believe things on insufficient evidence or
irrationally - an offense to morality, not just reason)

~~~
rwl
This is a great list. +1 on the _Philosophical Investigations_.

As an introductory book, I would recommend Russell's _Problems of Philosophy_.

------
rms
<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences>

------
michael_dorfman
I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed.

Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or
Husserl's "Logical Investigations"-- but incredibly difficult to read
unprepared. If you were ready to be reading them, you wouldn't be asking the
question here.

The two books you mention in the question (Common Sense and "On the Fourfold
Root") are both quite readable, as are a few of the primary texts mentioned in
the responses ("Existentialism is a Humanism", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra") but
in general, I'd have to suggest you stay away from primary texts at first.

In other words, begin by reading works _about_ philosophy, rather than works
_of_ philosophy.

A single-volume work on the history of philosophy will give you the broad
scope (for example, Durant, or Russell, or "Sophie's World" if you prefer
fiction), but will tend to turn the philosophers discussed into caricatures of
themselves.

You mention that you are in school; I'd suggest you take a philosophy course
or two, if you are interested in the field. Having an experienced guide will
definitely help.

~~~
yters
Problem with reading secondary material is it'll be colored by the worldview
of said author, and generally people will stick philosophers in easy
categories without trying to actually understand them. For example, often
you'll read modern synopses of Plato saying he thought the physical world is
bad, even though he says no such thing.

~~~
Mentat_Enki
Technically, HE himself, as in Plato, first person, never says 'the physical
world is bad'. However, if you study his work, you will find that this notion
is indeed carried out in the words and actions of his protagonist, Socrates.

For example, and maybe the best example: Socrates, laying on his back as the
numbness and cold from the hemlock worked its way from his legs upward after
willingly drinking it, removed the cloth that had been laid across his face
and said "Oh... don't forget to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius for me...". This
phrase, which was also used by Steinbeck in "The Moon is Down" in a similar
context, is taken to mean "please go an make an offering to the God of
Ailments & Cures, as I have been cured of the curses of the physical world by
death, and am going to a much better place..."

Also, Plato's take wasn't that the physical world was "bad" so much as it was
composed of imperfect instances of the "Forms"; Reality as mere shadows and
projections of purer, more abstract concepts.

I take slight issue, however, with you denigrating "secondary materials" with
a broad stroke. There are some really very good, objective analyses of Plato
(Vlastos, et. al.) that actually provide a great deal of insight from time to
time by explaining some of the idioms and pre-conceived notions of the time
and culture that are necessarily understood to be placed in the proper context
to understand the dialogue.

For my 2¢, I say to the OP: Wittgenstein. The "Brown" and "Blue" books. Very
interesting, modern philosophy that deals with semantic meaning and the
binding of semantics to syntax and lexicon. Very intriguing stuff. Oh, and the
guy was a kindergarden teacher, so you KNOW he had balls of steel. ;)

~~~
telemachos
Btw, the interpretation of Socrates and the sacrifice to Asclepius is highly
controversial. The interpretation you give is a popular one, but note that it
was first offered by Nietzsche. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not a
given. To my mind, "death as a cure for life" is more a product of Nietzsche's
romanticism than Socrates' views, but I admit that the whole thing is very
controversial.

If you're curious, the first page of the following article lists 21
interpretations of that bit from _The Phaedo_. (Naturally, the author then
goes on to offer her own view of the matter. She is an academic, after all.)

<http://www.tc.umn.edu/~peter009/debt.pdf>

------
antoniogarrote
-Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations by Ludvig Wittgenstein

-The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper

-On Liberty John Stuart Mill

-Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and their Computation by Machine by John McCarthy

~~~
igravious
While it is eye-opening I could hardly recommend the Tractatus unless you get
it with a commentary. How about The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to
Wittgenstein and the Tractatus by Michael Morris?

Good call with Karl Popper. On Liberty is archaic somewhat. To recommend just
that book by John McCarthy is too narrow, and besides logic and the theory of
computation are not a part of philosophy per se. Logic is a tool of
philosophers. The theory of computation could possibly be folded into
philosophy of mind but I've never seen it done so, there is a strong argument
that it should be.

------
HSO
Bertrand Russell: A history of western philosophy.

I haven't read it all but what I've read was both informative and witty. Note
that Russell, kind of similar to The Economist, is "opinionated". Must be that
British style...

~~~
mahmud
I read it cover to cover and loved it. But Russel, although a humanist, is
firmly an occidental man. He rushes through Oriental philosophy like it's a
bad neighborhood (he really didn't hide his distaste for mysticism and
metaphysics at all.)

A better read might be Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy". And Durant's
masterpiece, The Story of Civilization is unparalleled in its scope and
lucidity, though not philosophy. I have such a huge attachment to the Durants,
they kept me company on many a long night. I read about seven or eight of
their dozen volumes.

~~~
wheels
Well, it is a history of _western_ philosophy. Also, I wouldn't say that
Russell has a distaste for mysticism; my read of many of his writings on
religion ( _A Free Man's Worship_ , _Mysticism and Logic_ , etc.) would be
that he genuinely sees the value of mysticism and transcendental experience –
though I'm going on memory from reading about a decade ago.

Durant's writing is great too, but _The Story of Philsophy_ doesn't have the
depth of _The History of Western Philosophy_ , and, I actually enjoy Russell's
snark along the way.

~~~
mahmud
The book might be strictly Western in its coverage, but my opinion on his
approach to Oriental thought is extrapolated, and is the sum of everything I
have read of the man. I say this as someone who first discovered Russell as a
logician.

Regarding his mysticism, Whitehead must have passed some of it on, but in the
_History_ , he is nothing but a rational materialist. You see this in his
treatment of Plato and Platonism vis-a-vis, say, Aristotle.

Where others saw Plato's Ideal as a pure goal or experience, obtained only
through sheer effort or total transformation, as evidenced by the various
religious groups who synthesized platonic ideals with mystical beliefs.
Russell saw something a bit more proscriptive, imo. Allegory is open to
interpretation, and I think Russell approached Plato as a fellow Cambridge
gentleman, and not, say, a troubled mind searching for answers in a world with
much less science, and is forced to defer more to the unknown, the perfect
place with all the answers .. where we could go, if only we were perfect
ourselves. Plato's obsession with the Ideal, order, wisdom the perfect
society, etc. is a cry for help; he is desperately seeking full understanding
of his world and is unable to. Only if he could change himself and his society
would the world change to something more tangible!

Russell missed that part and projects his own image on Plato; the fully
informed intellectual royal whose words are heeded by society. He thought
Plato enjoyed a similar luxury, and his calls for perfection, specially in the
Republic, were made out of snobbery.

This is my personal take on it, and I am excited to take a second stab at the
History.

------
mindviews
Given that philosophy as practiced in academia is as much about creating
arguments as about the ideas themselves, I suggest "The Philosopher's Toolkit"
as a useful reference.

For what I'll call "hard philosophy" I put my votes for books by Hilary Putnam
and John Dewey. As a rationalist seeking a solid basis for ethics in the
physical world, I've found both authors quite instructive. Perhaps
"Objectivity" by Nicholas Rescher belongs here as well.

There's a whole other class of what I call "idea books" and I've seen a few of
them listed in the comments, too. Given the reading examples you mentioned,
I'm assuming you're looking more at "hard philosophy" so I'll skip the other
kind of suggestions unless you ask for them.

~~~
cma
What are your Dewey recommendations?

~~~
mindviews
I've read both "Experience and Nature" and "How We Think" and can recommend
both. "How We Think" was published first and is shorter - would make for a
good introduction to Dewey. "Experience and Nature" is longer and has more
weight but is also more work to read. I haven't read more than excerpts from
his other works so I can't add much. Otherwise, I intend to read "The Public
and its Problems" which is supposed to be a good work on democracy.

------
avdempsey
Check out Charles S. Peirce, American father of pragmaticism (not pragmatism).
Two essays, 'The Fixation of Belief' and 'How to Make Our Ideas Clear' are
particularly inspiring. Google 'peirce how to make our ideas clear', it's
number one.

------
tfh
The ones I've read and find good:

\- Existentialism is a Humanism - Jean Paul Sartre : Very easy to read and is
a very good introduction to existentialism.

\- Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche

\- Siddhartha - Herman Hesse

~~~
jaxn
As I read the comments, I am surprised how little existentialism there is
listed. Maybe not the best place to start, but I think it is the life changing
stuff.

------
deltapoint
The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathon Haidt is great. It intertwines philosophy
and psychology while providing a lot of insight on how a life is well lived.

[http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern-
An...](http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern-
Ancient/dp/0465028020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278744811&sr=8-1)

------
carid
A couple by Stanley Cavell:

Must We Mean What We Say? (1969) The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein,
Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy (1979) New York: Oxford University Press.

I would also second Russell's A Brief History of Western Philosophy. It's
biased and weirdly shallow in some places, but written by a philosopher, so
not a toothless compilation.

Obscure but made an impression on me: Ways of Worldmaking by Nelson Goodman.

If you can get through it: John Rawls's A Theory of Justice...an important
book with a few very important ideas.

Stuff by Amartya Sen.

On philosophy of science, the historical narratives do the job I think, like
The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler (a great read once you get through the
Greeks). You could read Thomas Kuhn, Feyerabend's autobiography "Killing Time"
which is great, and if you're really serious read Peter Galison's stuff.

Finally, again, more history that pure philosophy but I really liked
Wittgenstein's Vienna by Toulmin.

------
ionfish
Most of the "eye-opening or incredibly interesting" philosophical material
that I've read has been in individual articles rather than books. That said,
here are a few favourites from various areas. It's a bit heavily weighted
towards recent material; Kant and Plato ought to be on there, but I can't
stand Kant as a writer, even if his ideas are profound, and Plato's style has
always irritated me for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. I could
probably keep tying titles all day, so I'll stop with those that first popped
into my head.

Aristotle, _Nicomachean Ethics_

David Chalmers, _The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory_

Gottlob Frege, _Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik_

Thomas Hobbes, _Leviathan_

David Hume, _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_

J.S. Mill, _On Liberty_

John Rawls, _A Theory of Justice_

Stewart Shapiro, _Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology_

------
sdave
" _Siddhartha_ ", " _Steppenwolf_ " - by Herman Hesse.

" _Atlas Shrugged_ " - by Ayn Rand.

" _Mrityunjay_ " - by Sivaji savant (originally in marathi/hindi language..
based on the character of Karna from Mahabharata.Not very sure how good the
english translation is though.The title means - he who has conquered Death.)

------
harscoat
It depends if you want to be knowledgeable "about" philosophy and knowledge or
if you want to apply it to you life.

* K.Popper (in both cases;): _Open society and its ennemies_ [http://www.archive.org/stream/opensocietyandit033120mbp#page...](http://www.archive.org/stream/opensocietyandit033120mbp#page/n7/mode/2up)

for "Ars Vitae" (applicable to one's life)

* Plato: _Gorgias_

* Marc Aurélius: _Meditations_

* Friedrich Nietzsche: _Beyond good & evil_

I agree with others on Hume, Russell, Husserl. Another great thinker while he
does not pretend to be a philosopher is Dan Sperber, I think of 2 books

* Dan Sperber (with Deirdre Wilson) _Relevance. Communication and Cognition_ (Blackwell, 1986)

* Sperber, Dan (1996) Explaining culture: _A naturalistic approach._ (Oxford: Blackwell)

Finally philosophical literature: * Doistoievski: _The Brothers Karamazov_
(question of God is asked)

------
zephjc
Almost anything by Alan Watts. _Tao: The Watercourse Way_ is good. He also has
a bunch of lectures recorded in audio and available on bittorrent.

------
yters
Some of the best philosophy books I've found for free online:

Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Even though you may not agree with his
conclusions, it is still a remarkable piece of work.
<http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP.html>

David Stove does a good job debunking Hume's problem of induction, which
underlies what I consider wrong in most modern philosophy
<http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html>

Liberty or Equality outlines the potential for tyranny inherent in democracy
<http://blog.mises.org/6326/liberty-or-equality/>

------
steveplace
Sophie's World is _by far_ the best introduction to philosophy that you can
read. It's presented in a narrative and the lessons are in conversation form.
The plot is really good-- it goes very meta at the end.

------
edna_piranha
If you're interested in phenomenology and/or existentialism and works that are
somewhat readable (this is subjective of course), I'd suggest:

1\. Maurice Merleau-Ponty - The Phenomenology of Perception

2\. Simone de Beauvoir - Ethics of Ambiguity

3\. Friedrich Nietzsche - Will to Power

I'd highly recommend NOT reading Being and Time by Heidegger - you'll want to
stab your eyes out ten times.

Outside of pure philosophical texts and more emphasis on fictional works
related to philosophy, I'd suggest indirect material that encourage ideas of
subjective perception and point-of-view. Examples are works by Franz Kafka,
Ryu Murakami and William S. Burroughs.

------
gjm11
Obviously anyone's recommendations are going to tell you as much about that
person's philosophical preferences as about the actual books. We might be able
to do better if you told us more about your own interests and prejudices.
Anyway, here are a few recommendations:

Ethics and (technical questions about) personal identity: "Reasons and
persons", by Derek Parfit. Quite heavy going, but Parfit's an outstandingly
clear thinker and there are some very good ideas here.

Applied ethics: "Living high and letting die", by Peter Unger. Argues for the
counterintuitive conclusion that basically all of us in the affluent West have
an obligation to do (not just somewhat more but) vastly more for the least
well-off.

Philosophy of religion (from a definitely atheist perspective): "The miracle
of theism", by John Mackie. Quite dense, but well written, clear and mostly
fair. Much much more seriously intellectually than any of the recent "New
Atheist" books.

Philosophy of mind, epistemology, ethics, decision theory, philosophy of
physics, many other things: "Good and Real", by Gary Drescher. "A
breathtakingly original assault on all the Big Issues!", says Daniel Dennett,
and he's right.

Recommended on just about any topic: the "Oxford Readings in Philosophy"
series of anthologies. Each volume consists of a lengthy introduction followed
by somewhere on the order of 10 important articles from the primary
literature. Generally very approachable and well selected.

------
hh
These two books change my life:

Tao Te Ching - [http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Skylight-
Illuminations/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Skylight-
Illuminations/dp/1594732043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278761330&sr=8-1)

The Dhammapada - [http://www.amazon.com/Dhammapada-Translation-Buddhist-
Classi...](http://www.amazon.com/Dhammapada-Translation-Buddhist-Classic-
Annotations/dp/1590303806/ref=pd_sim_b_18)

------
darushimo
There seem to be two questions here. First: 'what are some eye-opening reads'?
Second: 'what are some good philosophy books?'

The fact is, "eye-opening reads" really depends on the eye, and without much
context, it's very difficult to give recommendations.

So I'll name two books that were 'eye-opening' for me AND are good philosophy
and another that is just 'good philosophy.'

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. Read it. It's short. It's poignant. Don't not read
this book.

Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche is required reading. if you like it, check
out the viking collection of works by him and read his wikipedia page. You'll
get a sense of what else you'd like to read from these two sources.

The groundwork for a metaphysics of morals by Kant is a great introduction to
his way of thinking/reasoning and deals with an important matter--the
possibility of a moral system. This book is a good introduction to a way of
philosophizing very different from the others--Kant aims to be deeply
systematic and specific. While not eye-opening, 'sexy philosophy' or quite
'enjoyable,' GMM is a relatively short read and a worthwhile thought-journey.

~~~
jemfinch
> While not eye-opening, 'sexy philosophy' or quite 'enjoyable,' GMM is a
> relatively short read and a worthwhile thought-journey.

For the majority of extremely utilitarian American readers, GMM will most
definitely be eye-opening.

~~~
darushimo
Right. Sorry for the conflation of editorial and description in that sentence.

------
Entlin
I wholeheartedly recommend "Action Philosophers".
<http://www.eviltwincomics.com/ap.html>

Especially the Ain Rand section, which made it clear to me that you need to
know how a person grew up to understand how they formed their philosophy.

Yes, it's a comic, but that makes it all the more accessible. Fantastic for
philosophy beginners.

------
SkyMarshal
_Sophie's World_ is a fun novel and a map of the historical development of
philosophy.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophies_World>

The first book on philosophy that both blew my hair back and made me realize
philosophy is alot more than just academic was _You Can Trust the Communists
(to be Communists)_.

[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schwarz-
cover.htm...](http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schwarz-cover.html)

My best friend in college was a Russian Jew whose family immigrated to US
during the Cold War, and he kept that book on his coffee table.

It's the Yin to Howard Zinn's Yang - _A People's History of the United States_
\- which even though it's not philosophy is worth reading too.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peoples_History_of_the_United...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peoples_History_of_the_United_States)

~~~
darushimo
not to sound like an ass, but if you want to seriously deal with philosophy,
don't waste your time with sophies world. or 'zen and the art of...' for that
matter.

~~~
danohuiginn
Why not? Do you consider it misleading, or just too simplistic? If the former,
fair enough (though I'd love to hear details; I quite enjoyed Sophie). If the
latter: I'm a big fan of light overviews. You can always go deeper into the
areas you find interesting, whereas it's easy to get lost if you dive straight
into the in-depth stuff.

------
rmk
Sophie's world. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophies_World>

It's a great book that takes you on a whirlwind tour of the most famous
philosophers and their thoughts. What's more, it's woven into a suspense
novel, so it keeps you reading!

~~~
escanda
Read it some years ago, definitively a good book to get some background in the
history of philosophy.

------
billywayne
I would suggest "Man and His Symbols", which is an introduction to Jungian
psychology. Jung took a unique view on the psyche, which I believe is helpful
in forming an objective opinion about humankind 'in itself', a necessary
vantage point if you desire anything "eye-opening".

------
zppx
My list:

\- Pirkei Avot, it's a section of the Mishnah (a part of the Talmud), it
summarizes the jewish moral thought (well, not for the Karaites Jews, they did
not believe in the Talmud), I was born in a Orthodox Jewish family so it was
important on my beliefs, even though I am an Atheist now.

\- Organon, it's a compilation of Aristotle's logic works, they are the basis
for the logical thought of the Western civilization, I think it's easier to
read the originals than compendiums.

\- Philosophical Investigations, the second book of Wittgenstein, it's dense,
and obscure to some extent, but it's really eye-opener, some ideas that
influenced the last century are introduced there.

\- Proofs and Refutations, a posthumous work by Imre Lakatos, it defied much
of my established view on how Mathematics works.

\- Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a powerful book, it's dense and you can only drag
many conclusions from it when you read other works from Nietzsche, which lead
to my next book.

\- On the Genealogy of Morality, this is for me the most important of the 5
books that I have read from Nietzsche, in the first essay of the book the
concept of master morality and slave morality is introduced, some people think
that Nietzsche favors the first, I disagree, for me he describes and
criticizes both.

\- Truth and Method, the classic of Gadamer, some people call it a
"postmodern" work, this only serves to show how "modern" some of the
"postmodern" were, the book basically addresses how our current beliefs and
customs, which he calls traditions, plays an important part in our
hermeneutics and how we always are biased to interpret something.

\- Epistemic Justification, this book of William Alston is a good refinement
if you already know some epistemology, although I disagree with the "justified
true belief" definition of knowledge, that is the main theme of the book and
its essays, it introduced some questions about the nature and limitations of
knowledge.

\- Inquiry into the Human Mind, by Thomas Reid is a good read and also a
staunch defense of the common sense.

------
Bishizel
Asking for "Best Philosophical Books" is pretty much like asking for an
opinion, everyone will have a very different view. That being said, here's my
view!

John Stuart Mill - "Utilitarianism" (Kant be damned.)

Thomas Nagel - "Moral Luck"

David Lewis - "On the Plurality of Worlds"

Plato - "The Republic"

Aristotle - "The Metaphysics"

------
aspirant
Surprised no one has mentioned Paul Graham's _How to do Philosophy_. We are
after all hanging out in his living room.
<http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>

------
joshuacc
Since it looks like skeptical philosophy is covered pretty well, here are some
books from religious philosophy that you'd probably do well to read:

The Tao te Ching

The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas

An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent by John Henry Newman

Either/Or by Kierkegaard

------
MWinther
I took a course in philosophy during my Cognitive Science studies, and our
course book ([http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Anthology-John-
Heil/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Anthology-John-
Heil/dp/0199253838/)) was really useful, since they had an original text and a
couple of criticisms of that text, sometimes followed by a retort on that
criticism. That was really good to get a grasp of the subject, even though I
agree with others here that having an excellent teacher did a lot more to get
the subject than any book would have.

------
anonman1
"History of Sexuality: Volume I" -Michel Foucault

"Discipline and Punish" -Michel Foucault

"Philosophy in the Flesh" -George Lakoff

"Metaphors We Live By" -George Lakoff

"Civilization and its Discontents" -Sigmund Freud

These books allowed me to look at reality in a completely different manner.

------
helwr
Hirshman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

Camus, the myth of Sisyphus

Borges, the Aleph

Chomsky, on Language

Cicero, On Invention

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Wiener, Cybernetics

James, Pragmatism

Tzara, Dada manifesto

~~~
10ren
Cicero, _On Invention_ <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_invention>

------
ghb
_The Coming Community_ , Giorgio Agamben: A series of reflections on medieval
philosophy and language that culminates in a notion of community that isn't
grounded in any kind of commonality. It's a brilliant work that still serves
as the terra firma for understanding the rest of Agamben's more popular works
such as _Homo Sacer_ and _Means without Ends_. This is one of the most
influential and brilliantly conceived books I've ever read.

------
iterationx
I like Jean Baudrillard
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>

------
shachaf
_The Tao is Silent_, by Raymond Smullyan, comes to mind.

~~~
hh
I like this book also. Every well written by a Western logician.

------
mfukar
Naming and Necessity, by Saul A. Kripke

It's a series of Kripke's lectures from 1970 if I'm not mistaken, republished,
but without significant changes/corrections. Note Kripke's age of 29 at that
point. In them, he develops his theory of direct reference in a highly
interesting and controversial way. He didn't leave the philosophers of that
time indifferent, and neither will you. Enjoy.

------
SHOwnsYou
If you enjoy debating philosophy (especially value based/govt philosophy),
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice by Michael Sandel builds up and
absolutely destroys around 10 of the most common premises for these types of
debates. A hundred other issues are dealt with along the way and this will
change the way you think about this type of philosophy.

~~~
randxx
since reading "buddhism without beliefs", i've kind of lost interest in these
things. which is, indeed, a recommendation.

~~~
SHOwnsYou
I couldn't agree more about the frivolity of these debates, but judging from
what he listed I figured govt/value debates might be somewhat frequent
(especially since he is reading Common Sense for school).

On the other hand, not taking part in the debates can be bad for you also. The
debating process allows you to expose your ideas to the light of free
discussion and allows you to exchange error for truth (JSM). Even if you
aren't debating people with a clue on the topic, the debate and your
subsequent internal dialog will be beneficial.

------
tmsh
My favorites from college are: early dialogues of Plato (the most Socratic /
least Platonic -- The Apology is a good start), Immanuel Kant's Critique of
Pure Reason (on how deeply the very ideas about how we perceive things affect
our understanding), and Aristotle's Nico. Ethics (the importance of habits,
moderation, and the idea of the good).

------
jashmenn
Irrational Man is a good introduction to existentialism and he has a very
readable overview of philosophy from the Greeks until now.

This is will largely be ignored on this tread, but The Bible is a source of
philosophical thought for millions of people. You can get a clear picture of
the central theme by reading the book of John.

------
ivanzhao
surprised nobody mentioned "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant, which not
only talks about philosophy, but the lives of the philosophers and the
historical backgrounds. philosophy is gradually becoming more literature-like,
which is hard to appreciate without the context. ps. it is also a 1930s best
sellers.

------
lg
Quantum Mechanics and Experience, by David Z. Albert, is the most interesting
book I read as a philosophy major.

------
jorangreef
Philosophy is not always wisdom. Of reading many books there is no end. But if
it's wisdom, you can read it in an hour and spend a life-time understanding
and applying it. Read Solomon's Proverbs (<http://bit.ly/aJpmva>) and
Ecclesiastes.

------
DanielBMarkham
Some great recommendations here! All I can add is the quote "All of Science is
footnotes to Plato" -- no matter how far we come, the ancient Greeks still
have relevance. So I'd get a good introductory good to at least the top 3:
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. (I could list a few more)

~~~
cromulent
> "All of Science is footnotes to Plato"

Science? Wasn't Whitehead talking about Western philosophy?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Isn't philosophy the mother of science?

~~~
danielford
Yes, but you still dicked up the quote. Footnotes and mothers are not
synonymous, much to the relief of both.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
For the anal-retentive among you. It would be footnotes and children are not
synonymous. Not footnotes and mothers. Philosophy generates science. Western
philosophy is a footnote. Your transitives are mixed up.

You can generalize and say "philosophy and science are derived from Greek
works, which are still relevant" and help this guy out, or we can play word
games. I could give a shit what the actual quote was. My goal wasn't to
impress the guy with my knowledge of quotes, it was to offer a recommendation.

~~~
danielford
Sorry, I really didn't need to be so rude. That said, I think getting quotes
right is important if you're going to use them. Otherwise you're contributing
to sum total of misinformation in the world.

------
agconway
Read "Simulacrum and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard, then question everything
that technology provides.

------
vsthesquares
Logical Investigations, Vols 1 & 2, by Edmund Husserl. Truly a great
philosopher.

------
kpich
I highly recommend "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" by Quine. It's just a short
little essay, but it's quite accessible (as far as these things go) and was
highly influential (and is really fun to read too).

------
zb
I don't know if you would strictly call this a philosophy book, but one that
is particularly relevant to engineers is _Discussion of the Method_ by Billy
Vaughn Koen.

------
grendel
\+ Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility James
P. Carse \+ Thus Spoke Zarathrusta Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

------
kkshin
It really depends on what you're looking for, but Philosophy is a field where
one philosopher's work is built on top of the other's going all the way back
to the ancient Greek's. Its important (I think anyways) to read the raw texts
before you read philosophical commentary so that you have a chance to form
your own opinions. That being said, here's some recommendations of mine that
cover a breadth of philosophical subjects and time periods. Its always good to
see someone else want to learn more philsophy, especially if its of their own
volition.

Plato. Strangely enough, Plato is probably one of the best introductions to
philosophy, not only because he was one of the first whose writings survive to
modern time, but also because its relatively simple to read and understand.
Some of my personal favorite are 'The Apology', 'The Symposium', and 'The
Phaedrus', and of course 'The Republic'. The weird thing with Plato is you'll
never know how much of his writings are his thinking as opposed to Socrates
teaching. I still reread Plato because the stories (most of his writing is in
narrative form) are so damn entertaining.

Aristotle. This is a natural progression from reading Plato. The 'Nichomachean
Ethics' is a cornerstone of ancient philosophy and is a relative simple read.

John Locke/Gottfried Leibniz. I'll admit, I struggled through 'An Essay of
Human Understanding' but this title and Leibniz's rebuttal 'New Essays on
Human Understanding' illustrate a historically important philosophical debate
between empiricists and rationalists. Since you're reading 'Common Sense' you
might also want to give Locke's 'Second Treatise on Civil Government' a
gander.

Immaneul Kant. Since you're reading Schopenhauer you should read Kant as he
was heavily influenced by him. You'll hear him referenced a lot if you
continue to read philosophy so you should familiarize yourself with his
thinking, especially on his thoughts in epistemology.

Bertrand Russell. People have already recommended him and he's one of the most
popular philosopher's of modern times, mostly because he's so easy to read and
was somewhat of a cultural icon during his time. I have a particular fondness
for his work because when I had doubts about my faith, "Why I Am not A
Christian" helped me find words to communicate my break with Catholocism. His
"History of Western Philosophy" is considered a cornerstone history of
philosophy book (although it is somewhat dated now). His writings are usually
rather short and concise.

Jacques Derrida/Gilles Deleuze. Now we're getting into some wacky shit. To be
fair, I shouldn't even be commenting on it because I have no idea what these
guys are talking about half the time. These are the philosophers that people
read and pretend to understand because they want to sound smart. You know the
stereotypical "philosophy" students that you see in movies. Maybe you'll find
something of substance in their work although many philsopher's believe these
guys are/were hacks and purposefully obfuscate their writing to hide the fact
that there's no substance in it.

One of the best ways to read philosophy is to start with a philosopher who
truly changed the game with their work (such as Kant) and work your way out
reading the work of his supporters as well as the work of those that disagree
with him. This way you'll get a worldy view on 'important' philosophical
issues while starting to formulate your own opinions on th ematter.

------
jaxn
A Brief History of Everything - Ken Wilber

I think Wilber's inclusion of physics would resonate with HNers.

~~~
jaxn
Downvoted a recommendation of a philosophy book? WTF

------
gmaster1440
The Stranger - Albert Camus

------
halojones
"The Bible", "Notes From Underground" (Dostoevsky)

~~~
joubert
The bible is a horrible suggestion for a philosophy book. Isn't this a work
that prescribes genocide, builds myth, promote the irrational?

~~~
halojones
(Your reply brings to mind another book I should have mentioned - The Order of
Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) by Michel Foucault.)

If philosophy is the drive to understand the human condition, I don't think
any philosopher can or should ignore the Bible. Athens, Rome and Jerusalem are
where the Western mind was born it has been said. And there is nothing to stop
you approaching the Bible as it were hermeneutically, ie. in the same way you
might treat the Greek Myths. I find it fascinating myself - from the "ex
nihilo" of Genesis, through the "de profundis" of the Psalms, to Job's
"Why?!", not to mention the Christian New Testament - and I think it will be
read (by philosophers) long after many books in "The Philosophy Section" have
been forgotten.

~~~
joubert
But the bible _itself_ isn't a good philosophy book. Meta-bible discussions,
including those by Christian scholars, might form a good corpus of philosophy,
however.

~~~
halojones
> But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book

Well I just interpret "philosophy" more broadly. Before we can act, and indeed
before we can think, we must somehow plant our feet - we can't stand "nowhere"
in a sense. And philosophy is just the search for a good place to stand, a
"will to locate oneself" perhaps. And if we habitually stand in the same
place, we're religious! We can no more be beyond (super) philosophy than we
can be beyond (super) religion than we can be beyond (super) man. In this
sense, the authors of the books of the bible are philosophers like the rest of
us. If it's dissimilar in style to Plato, Aristotle and so on, there you go.
So when you say it isn't a good philosophy book, to my mind you're just saying
you don't like the philosophy it evinces, which of course is your prerogative.

------
ashutoshm
Beyond Good and Evil - Nietzsche

Ashtavakra Gita - Ashtavakra

The Prophet - Gibran

------
vlorch
being and time - Martin Heidegger

------
damoncali
Anything by Hunter S Thompson.

------
igravious
It is with joy that I answer your question. And if I may be allowed to answer
it philosophically. The books you find incredibly interesting may be the books
the validate your worldview. There are many of these. The book you find eye-
opening may be the books that open the door into the world of philosophy
proper for you. There are not many of these because you only need to go
through that door once I feel.

Also, I would observe that besides Ayn Rand (who for many is not a
philosopher) not a single female philosopher has been mentioned here which I
find is a damning indictment on the state of affairs of the world of ideas. To
remedy that I would recommend to you read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
by Mary Wollstonecraft or anything by De Beauvoir (and do ignore her
contemporary Sartre for he was nothing but a windbag).

I am delighted that you singled out Thomas Paine (who again is not a
philosopher as such; must be something in the air in the States) and Arthur
Schopenhauer. They are both tremendous stylists. I've said this many times
before - I don't care how great a philosopher's ideas are, if they can't write
well I don't want to know. Thus we have people here recommending Kripke or
Frege or heck knows who like that who bludgeon you to death with their tedious
logic. Avoid them I say.

Finally I would like to be clichéd and recommend anything by Nietzsche except
for Thus Spake Zarathustra even though he himself considered it his best work
and I would especially recommend Ecce Homo by him because it is a summation of
his previous works by his own hand. Nietzsche was the supreme stylist and
ruthlessly honest and fearless. Also I'd recommend A Short Treatise on the
Great Virtues by a contemporary philosopher André Comte-Sponville. This is a
remarkable book on virtue theory that takes in Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche
and Woody Allen among others and is divided up by virtue which is extremely
novel. It is fantastically written. Anything by Cioran as well such as The
Trouble with Being Born. I'm trying not to typecast myself here! :)

And finally finally Sophie's World and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance while
nice cute books are not true philosophy books. This is also why I wouldn't
recommend Camus' The Outsider though someone did mention The Myth of Sisyphus.
Borges falls into this category. Sophie's world is really a kid's book as well
and one that I would perhaps recommend to children though I'd recommend Borges
or Camus or Kafka first.

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vindication-Rights-Woman-Penguin-
Cla...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vindication-Rights-Woman-Penguin-
Classics/dp/0141441259)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex-Vintage-
classics/dp/00997...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex-Vintage-
classics/dp/009974421X)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-Great-Ideas-Suffering-
World/...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-Great-Ideas-Suffering-
World/dp/0141018941)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecce-Homo-Becomes-Penguin-
Classics/d...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecce-Homo-Becomes-Penguin-
Classics/dp/0140445153)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-Treatise-Great-Virtues-
Philoso...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-Treatise-Great-Virtues-
Philosophy/dp/0099437988)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Being-Born-E-M-
Cioran/dp/155...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Being-Born-E-M-
Cioran/dp/1559704624)

------
rick_2047
Wow, I was fiddling with the idea of posting exactly that question (with
Philosophy in the title) but was hesitant as to is this the right community
(btw where can I find one?)

I haven't read many books about philosophy but my main interest is Philosophy
of mind and I just love the lectures here[1].

[1][http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=...](http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2010-B-67280&semesterid=2010-B)

~~~
pavs
>but was hesitant as to is this the right community (btw where can I find
one?)

Try reddit.com/r/books

Some HN-ers don't like reddit probably because their impression starts and
ends with the reddit default front page. But the gems are the smaller sub-
reddits with some very high quality communities. My personal favorite
/r/askscience

~~~
rick_2047
I didn't mean about books, I meant about philosophy.

~~~
pavs
<http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/>

~~~
rick_2047
Seems like there is a subreddit for every bloody think.

------
alsomike
_Simulacra and Simulation_ \- Jean Baudrillard

 _Dialectic of Enlightenment_ \- Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno

 _The Sublime Object of Ideology_ \- Slavoj Zizek

 _Sources of the Self_ \- Charles Taylor

------
dtby
_Faith of a Heretic_ - Walter Kaufmann

