I was a philosophy major in college, and read this book after having read a lot of the works it references. They weren't required to read Euclid for philosophy, but they were required to take symbolic logic in the philosophy department. So if you just want to read philosophy more casually I'd read some of the more fictitious work.
If you read even half of that, you'd be better read in the history of philosophy than many philosopher professors.
Even though I usually resell most my college books, I kept my philosophy and biology books. Only a lowly bachelor here, but we all know better than that mattering ;) I'd say it's not a problem if someone wants to read philosophy books. Here are a few books or articles I would consider "must read," but obviously what is must read depends on your interests. If you're just getting started, you need some intro books: These are some good ones that I've read: "What does it all mean? It's also a good read for people who've spent a lot of time in the dense books it's about. Finally someone mentioned Thomas Nagel's short introduction to philosophy book, which in my opinion is the perfect start to learning about philosophy.
I personally find a lot of philosophy books are painful reads unless I think it's relevant to a direction of thought I'm already on. I have a degree in philosophy, and it took me a day to read one page of Kant. Jesus Christ, I would recommend that nobody try and read this unassisted if you aren't familiar with philosophy. Didn't turn out to give half the fuck about philosophy I thought I might but it was a valuable experience. Not philosophy books per se, but these made me think of bigger things: Wisdom of Insecurity- Alan Watts.
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a must read for any serious undertakings of philosophy. Western philosophy undergrad here, here are the major readings my program has us read. They're not hard to read , and they introduce a lot of the major themes of Western philosophy.
Most people don't know there is more to philosophy than just "philosophy". If you got pushed into Atheism by Kierkegaard, I think you may have read it wrong. I think that its very helpful, if not essential, to learn about philosophy with someone else. Calling philosopher wrong, is equal with believing in progress in philosophy, which is ridiculous considering you have a master's degree. I would say, get some general book up to spinozza, read some critics, then go for Kant.
I'm a little late to this party, but I agree wholeheartedly with The Republic as the first book OP should read. Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky Not really philosophy philsophy but I think the best sort of primer to existentialism out there. Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra If you're going to read Nietzsche, I think Beyond Good and Evil is a better place to start. If you're completely new to philosophy, I suggest starting with an accessible introductory-level book like Simon Blackburn's Think. TLDR: A guy who was wrong about almost everything had a disproportionate influence on the history of western ideas and philosophy.
I would take him with a pinch of salt at times depending upon which of his stuff you read. If you are just getting your feet wet in philosophy, there is no better place to start than Plato and Aristotle.
Plato's Meno is a very good stepping stone towards the analytical, logical thought that is prevalent in almost all western philosophy. But philosophy is about the questions; not the answers but the paths we take to get to them. It's one of the best books I've read. But saying that a philosopher is worthless because his conclusions aren't true is, IMO, to misunderstand the project of philosophy in general. And, if you want a good contemporary take on why the past few thousand years of philosophy was so messed up and confused , read Glibert Ryle's "Concept of Mind". Starting off with something like Plato, or 97% of primary sources for that matter, will put most people off philosophy pretty quickly. I can also think of pop philosophy works by those like Russell, but I'm not a huge fan. I read that book when I was about 9. I personally like Nietzsche, as he was one of first philosophers I read. In terms of philosophical standards, one which almost every student of philosophy is familiar with is Plato's The Republic.
Plato's mind touched such a wide variety of subjects that Alfred Whitehead, proponent of analytic philosophy regarded "Philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato".
But if it were to be grouped with another, it would be philosophy, for they are both ultimately applied logic. It's less a straight philosophy book and more of a story about a guy. If you insist on reading it first, I suggest buying a good, accessible commentary to read alongside.
A used philosophy textbook will give info about dozens of philosophers, epistemology, metaphysics, and possibly touch into ethics. What point is there stopping in keeping up with philosophy? Get lost on Stanford's online philosophy library: You don't need any books. I had to laugh so badly because I had to read over a couple of things like 20 times until I got them. I'm sorry, I took plenty of philosophy in College, and I don't endorse this. It's a very easy, entertaining read and it's a great intro to some of the major ideas for beginners. And yeah, in case you didn't already guess, I did not do well in my Community College philosophy class. If I would have to read only one philosopher, I would take Plato over anything. It's nice to see a lighthearted take on philosophy by someone who clearly loves and enjoys ideas for their own sake. Personally I found the text books on metaphysics really dull and it didn't do anything for me. That being said, he contributed what I consider one of the most influential notions into philosophy: the difference between cause and ground-of-sufficient-reason.
These are also some classics, that I know of, but I haven't read them myself so I can't really tell you much about them. I wonder if anyone else has felt the same, because it's just so much easier for me to read doctrines and treatises. I agree with others that while The Republic is amazing, it is a more difficult work to start with when beginning with philosophy. But if you have a specific interest, such as philosophy of language for instance, maybe we could help you. ? I have to agree it is amazing and I would recommend as a good starting place for people who want to get into philosophy.
As a beginning philosophy student, I found that the Gorgias caused me to "click" with Plato's thinking when I was having trouble with The Republic. The books that have really spoken to me: The Prince - Machiavelli Meditations - Descartes Utopia - Thomas More I could name a tonnes more, but to me, philosophy is all about what speaks to you. This is dangerously close to the idea that "nothing is wrong" which gets far too much attention in everyday life, and even worse in philosophy. Anyway but On Liberty really is just a must read because it's so clear and straightforward and powerful. Philosophy's a weird subject to recommend books, it's a huge field with lots of, for lack of a better words, genres. FUCK YOU GUYS PLATO IS A PLANET My degree forced me to read too much Descartes.
Many controversial aspects of philosophy were either misinterpreted, or just pulled out of context. Do you realize how hard it is for the layperson to read his work? Why would you even go into philosophy if you think that everything is relative? Provides an interesting counterpoint to more formal philosophical systems, and is a far more satisfying read intellectually than the empty-sounding aphorisms of Lao zi. yea if you're in some continental grad school focusing on existentialism I was a philosophy major and yes, the existentialists were my focus. Naturally, it isn't the theoretical books themselves but it's like reading a very well written manual before actually practicing an activity. It might be that I had his basic moral philosophy explained in a class, so part of this was decently readable for me. My contact with modern philosophy curricula is pretty scant, so I have no real context for the why and how of what is being taught.
He is, to this day, much of the foundation for modern Western thought, and you see Aristotelian lines of reasoning all the time in contemporary philosophy. Are you comparing it to science or another, more modern school of philosophy. ? Descartes is another good philosopher and often considered the father of modern philosophy. Another approach would be to buy and read a good anthology aimed at intro students.
It's based in stoic philosophy and is all about accepting that which you can't change and making the best of what you can change. Once finished, you may conclude that all of what we call 'philosophy' is one giant linguistic confusion. Nausea by Sartre So far I read about 100 of 200 pages. I haven't read it in a long time, so the description of the plot I have might not be completely accurate, but that's the gist.
But there are some standout popular books floating around: Anthony Appiah's Experiments in Ethics , Simon Blackburn's Truth , almost anything by Daniel Dennett. It's less dense and incomprehensible as other books and more uplifting with less viotriol than others. A good introductory book to start with is "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels. :P But I think claims about the nature of meaning, language, metaphysics and the mind have some truth conditions suitable for this context. The thing that intrigues me most about Plato is the question of virtue, what it is and can it be taught. I'm surprised to here a person with a masters in philosophy say this.
It's a difficult read, but it'll make you a better reader and understander of the written word, even if you don't agree with his dialectic. As an undergrad I was lucky enough to have a professor make us read a lot of his non-major works like A System of Logic. It was really a good book as it gave brief overviews of philosophy through the ages and was a starting point to dig deeper into many of them.
Disclaimer: I am an English/Creative Writing bachelors graduate, and am not schooled in philosophy. It's also, just in general, a thoroughly enjoyable read, IMO.
DO NOT GO HERE! In the interest of being helpful instead of just negative, if you really want to read Kant, maybe Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. If you've never read his writings before, the moment you begin reading them you will most likely realize that much of what is written is what you believe.
Also, The Brother koromosov by dostoevsky is amazing and, I think, better, but longer and more dense.
Yeah, I'm not talking about his work on ethics when I say he was simply "wrong" about some things. Plato wasnt afraid of that, he wanted to actually fullfill rules he believed to be right to whole extent. I too recommend this for those interested in getting a flavor for philosophy. He explains the importance of mythology in respect to religion, culture, society, and everything in between Nobody ever talks about aesthetics in these philosophy threads. I'd disagree- I think even before touching a textbook, start with Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. David Hume is always a great read-- clear, comprehensive, and quite enlightening. You can also try the third policeman by flann o'brien, which isn't strictly philosophy. Also, his idea that words and concepts automatically have real referents set up major confusions in philosophy that were really only dispelled by the beginning of the 20th century.
I love philosophy delivered by fictional tale as opposed to lecture. Yet his views on morals and the like actually caused a paradigm shift in Europe but is not widely spoke of. It's a must-read in terms of political philosophy. In fact, the very reasons that we know Plato was wrong rely on the soundness of his approach to problems in general. I am, of course, implying that ancient greek and modern western philosophy are in some ways not comparable, because their ways of thinking and understandig of phenomena are fundamentally different. I don't want to give it away, but it's an amazing intro to the subject with a captivating storyline. Also Plato didnt say that about language, I suggest you check out Cratylus, where he discusses this issue with such a sober approach. Nietzsche is another one I think you can pick up a good study note-including version of and have a whale of a time.
There are obviously many more to read and many different concepts. It's not too long of a read either, for that matter.
Assuming you're earnest: It's phonically similar to "I can't," as in "this is so difficult, I can't understand it.
" I wouldn't recommend reading the Critique of Pure Reasoning, because it's very hard to start off philosophy with one of the most complex philosophers and his incredibly hard to understand book.
To be clear, I have just had a few philosophy classes. Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts Contrary to some in this thread, I'd say Plato's writings are great places to start.
Although, he based is views on rationality he also was unsure if the world existing beyond your view of it. I'm going to stick to things I think a lay reader would get a lot out of. This is the first list in here I didn't dislike, so props to you Propes A very superb list! The Greeks in general were credited with being the first to question why something is, rather than just how. How do folks with more education in philosophy place that work, I'm curious? Contemporary philosophy largely has to be approached slowly and guided by an expert. His ideas almost read like teachings and are almost Buddhist in their nature. Get yourself some good booze, put on a record, read "Geneology of Morality," take a break every page and just let it sink in and enjoy it. I've read a bit of him on the topic of sex and how sexual attraction was a metaphysical force to make us have better and better babies. Great read! To this day, we're wrong about a great many things, we just haven't been able to prove it so the project continues.
If all worldviews are relative and none of them are wrong, why did you even bother writing this? James Rachels was well known for being able to explain complicated concepts and ideas in a simple, easy to understand manner. It's really easy to read. Also it has a relatively modern interpretation, do not fear however, it is bearably modern in terms of historical books and has the benefit of hindsight.
It's funny that Aristotle and Plato are both so well know and Democritus and Epicurus are not. For a more modern perspective, Bachelard's Poetics of Space is a great read on how the visual world we live in is essential to understanding our minds. I've always favored atheistic readings of Kierkegaard, but I don't see how he could turn you to atheism. as the first book OP should read. The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant Pragmatism by William James and Contingency, Irony, Solidarity by Richard Rorty.
In fact mostly we only focus on the tractatus as an example in the history of the Logicist project and of the foundation of contemporary analytic philosophy.
The central claim is something like this: Being happy is having what you want and what you get match up. If you are unfamiliar with textual or argument analysis these works will most likely put you off philosophy and you will learn nothing of the arguments and issues themselves.
Have you considered taking a community college class or one of the various online courses, some of which are even free? We used that as one of our textbooks in a philosophy class. Start by reading entries on those figures or topics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , and then read the texts mentioned in those articles that interest you most. Having that said, I found W's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" to fascinating, stimulating and even sort of comforting in an odd way.
Pretty sure may life turned out different without that book This was my assigned reading before entering AP European History. Euclid starts with five propositions and five 'common notions' and after 47 steps, has logically proven the Pythagorean Theorem. I assume you're familiar with the "joke" about how he's not referred to as "I. Kant" for nothin' No, I'm not. With Aristotle as one of his students, you could do a lot worse than to familiarise yourself with this work. One of the last of the so-called worldview philosophers, he drew a distinct difference between knowing causes and understanding them.
Sometimes knew ideas and arguments surface later on that show a particular philosopher was just plain incorrect. I'd have to argue that the foundation of Western thought changed dramatically in the 18th-19th century away from Aristotle and towards Immanuel Kant. I am not a philosophy major or minor. He famously said "I think therefore I am ". If you don't know much about philosophy, I'd look into something that'd give you a general history, and then pick up philosopher's that strike your fancy from there. Hahahah Jesus, it's been like two and a half years and no one pointed that out to me. Not all philosophy has to be about the nature of truth. And if you read it enough, you can see his point. In particular, Classics of Moral and Political Theory, Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy, and Classics of Western Philosophy. I would recommend reading the Tao Te Jing, by Lao Tzu, but make sure to compare with several translations. I mean, if you want a "wrong" philosopher, I take Descartes FTW any day of the week, but that would hardly justify his being fucked.
Find a book or videos that briefly go over them and find the one that you like. You recommend everyone read Kant? Disclaimer: sorry if any of that sounds uninformed to philosophy buffs. Now I've read all of his work in English and German. A note for the curious, it's a novel about a girl who starts receiving letters that walk her through a lot of the significant works in Western philosophy. Human all too human sees a critical but almost positive view on the human condition and bettering yourself. Buying some of Leo Strauss' commentaries is also good for them if you plan on studying alone. However, this book is 'lighter' compared to Sophie's World as it's filled with jokes and doesn't follow a storyline. Masters graduate here, studied philosophy for six years.
The book is almost a novel as it revolves around Zarathustra journey. I count that distinction as a huge leap from the tangled mess that "cause" becomes when you take it at face value.
The arguments are often quite simple and story-like, and I didn't quite understand the implications at first, but it really is an exceptional work. Descartes' skepticism was pretty good. it was just how he dug himself out of it that was suspect :P You're a continental Philosophy major, aren't you. Lastly, better add The Wretched Of The Earth by Frantz Fanon and Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. If you are new to philosophy, this is your guide.
Also he is an easier read for a lay person.
I picked up Simon Blackburn's Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy and loved it! Each of these books is influential in some major way throughout history.
What text book would you recommend? Those I would consider the "must reads," but really all of these things are must reads.
Euclid, as far as I remember, was the first textbook to use an explicitly axiomatic system.
While I was just a math major, quite a few in my year were math/philosophy dual. In addition they believed that actions should benefit the most amount of people and not the individual. Phenomenology Of Spirit is a book I could probably spend my entire life studying. On top of that, I recommend The Geneology Of Morals by Nietzsche, The Sickness Unto Death by Kierkegaard and Simulacra And Simulation by Baudrillard.
Ergo: Don't deify philosophers and read what you want.
Alain de Botton's Essays in Love is a good read for something a bit different and if you're up for a bit of hating yourself after being walked through why we fall in love.
Bertrand Russell - history of western philosophy. And, the way he is exposing his thought, mainly by discussion, is engaging and will make yourself question your own thought. If not because Wittgenstein says it outright, then because through those three works he changes his own position so many times. I'll have to look into the later two Well - sort of depends on your definition of 'wrong'. It offers a viable explanation and history of many philosophical schools of thought in a concise and versatile manner. It is readable, but the first time reader without the aid of a course might not find it the best way to get a sense of what philosophy is about. Either they revolutionized the way that we think about things, or they were instrumental in the progression of certain ideas and fields. Ok, firstly Schopenhauer had no real friends and was a dick to pretty much everyone who knew him besides his adoring fans. I'm just wondering: if you're saying that they are "wrong" about pretty much everything, what criteria or standard for right and wrong are you using? However, he was unfortunately tuned out as his ideas were opposed by the church which he criticized quite strongly for going against their own ideals. He was the one who defined the freedom we strive for today and was probably one of the last incredibly influential philosophers on the planet. the origin of resultant effects, which we know when we analyze cause, and the understanding of such effects. Just because it is very hard to convince someone doesn't make it any less wrong. My philosophy/math friends would tell me often that Math isn't a science, that it is its own discipline. A great pop-philosophical read. Better yet, read Kant's "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. " Then go read some fiction, because it's more important. I recommend the works of another utilitarian who is, in my opinion, even more underrated: Henry Sidgwick. 'PHILOSOPHY 300: QUESTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG' appears to have a bunch of broken links/missing content. It can be hard to interpret, and you miss out on professional critiques of the theories. It's about Tearing down that which is useless and replacing it with beauty and life and laughter. I guess I'll just reread that section like an infinite amount of times til I do. Edit to add: And then you'd be reading whatever book the class was reading, obv. I just bought a hardcover copy of it which included several other works by Plato. Instead, I would suggest starting with the Gorgias, which touches on many of the themes of The Republic in a much more straightforward manner. Frankl was a survivor of the concentration camps and through that experience came to realize the importance of purpose in people's lives. Somewhere along the way an old man rejoices in his dead body's potential to be transformed into a rat's liver some day.
It sort of serves as an intro and stroll through absurdism and absurdist interpretations of some existing works.
Since you can't control what you get, you better just try to want whatever it is you get. His meditation involves a radical "suspension" of all learned and experiential knowledge, as he seeks to establish reality on a firm basis. Wittgensteins Tractatus is a really neat book, but is widely rejected in terms of it's conclusions now. I would think that's the best way to get your feet wet.
Classics: Euclid's Elements Plato - Gorgias, Meno, Theatetus, Sophist, Symposium, Phaedrus, Timaeus, The Republic.
But I think most people have a really terrible idea of Mill. On another note, one of the dangers of Plato is how open to interpretation he is. A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell I enjoyed the bias and occasional irreverence. Philosophy is an experience and unless you connect to it you won't learn much.
Could I request that people give a brief explanation about the book.
That way, you are in discussion with Socrates, and he will make you change your point of view. It simplifies the ideas and makes them accessible to casual readers, but they retain the important points and aren't really dumbed down. Kuhn: Structure of scientific revolutions Lewis: On the plurality of worlds I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot. I also think he blew the Cogito argument because he introduced theology. Aristotle I can understand because we are mostly confident all the works of Aristotle are just notes from students not the man himself. Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza use the term "cause" in a very general sense compared to Schopenhauer, who understood that there was cause, i. e. In fact, it's pretty against the grain to say something strongly opposed to Aristotle. Platos radicalism is just the vivid hope, uncontaminated by pragmaticism and historical blocades, that tell you that we shouldnt try to bring our ideals to life.
You no longer immediately apprehend and understand the effects of that chair on your eye, now you have to reason through it all! you should read the Chomsky foucault debate. I started to look for something more subtle and that's why I missed the obvious. Convince me to read Schopenhauer, GO! Read The Grand Inquisitor, which is a chapter in it and you'll be better for it.
It's not cheap new, but you can find it used for just a few bucks on Amazon because it's often assigned as a textbook. There are different types of philosophies, and some are similar, some are almost completely opposite. Definitely worth the time to read it. In the book, Plato discusses a huge variety of philosophical themes such as epistemology, metaphysics and morality in relation to his political theory and the ideal state. Who am I to say that philosophers would not make awesome kings? I sure hope Heidegger slaps you in the face for this ignorance. What place does it fill in the education? The payoff will be quicker , and you can get used to the dialectic style so that you have a frame of reference for The Republic. If you do take it too seriously, please avoid becoming chancellor of any countries in your future. However, I cannot emphasize Phenomenology Of Spirit as a paramount philosophical discourse even close to enough. Thats my night set Shit dude, I love you Thank you so much. The problem was, they both managed to be wrong about pretty much everything.
I think that's a crock of shit and poor reasoning.
Jean Paul Sartre - Being and Nothingness Martin Heidegger - Being and Time So very difficult Nausea and Existentialism is a humanism are more accessible works by Sartre in my opinion "must read".
Which are important because even untenable philosophical concepts can sound good at first. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - The wonderful thing about Hume, to my mind at least, isn't really his views but his problems. There's a book called Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar by Daniel B. Klein, and the general content is quite similar as they give you brief overview of different philosophy ideas. It discusses main points pertaining to existentialism I don't know if it counts or not, but ishmael by daniel quinn was pretty neat. Democritus and Eucippus are very interesting chaps indeed, it's worth reading up on them alone. Once you know more about what interests you, you can delve into specific historical figures or topics. I also can't believe you thought Plato was sleep inducing as a English/Creative Writer. Avoid Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy! It's at most 200 pages, depending on the copy you get, but when it comes to Kant, such concision is few and far between.
Short-form philosophy podcasts: Medium-length philosophy podcasts: Long-form philosophy podcasts: The above is taken from my recent blog entry on my favorite podcasts. Also, although it's not strictly a philosophy podcast, I'm also going to recommend BBC's The Forum. I used to follow the History of Philosophy Podcasts, and now this post introduced me to Partially Examined Life.
I had mentally compartmentalized it as a history podcast and so didn't think of it when listing the philosophy podcasts I regularly listen to. The field of philosophy is blessed to have so many exceedingly good podcasts available to choose from.
Commenters have rightly brought up a few additional podcasts: I really appreciate your taking the time to put this list together. In any case, feel free to point out any philosophy podcasts I've neglected to mention in the comments. In the past, I've also worked my way through the John Locke lectures on philosophy , the Munich Center for Matematical Philosophy , and several others. I like The Partially Examined Life as well, I recommend it! I'm hopeful that this admittedly subjective list of the best philosophy podcasts will be useful to some of you. Also Michael Sandel's: The Public Philosopher This is a great resource, and I'd love to see it added to the side bar. Decide for yourself The Story of Your Enslavement The Sunset of the State True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix at 0:13s of "The Story of your Enslavement" Like all animals, human beings want to dominate and exploit the resources around them.
I would also include the BBC 4 In Our Time podcast series on Philosophy that can be found here you so much for compiling this list. I love getting on the treadmill and throwing a philosophy podcast on and basically wandering to my thoughts until it's over. While it's possibly a little on the more general side, I would also add the in our time archive on philosophy. When I googled "free university courses online", I also got this: DAMN. Not sure how I missed that one. I love philosophy podcasts! While I personally subscribe to and listen to every episode of each of the above, your personal experience might vary. Seconding The Partially Examined Life, those guys are great. To add to it, The Thirst is also very good.
At the moment, I'm working my way through three courses by John Searle on the philosophy of language, mind, and society. There are so many great philosophy podcasts in French from "France Culture". These lectures are more aimed at those who really want to delve into the philosophy deeply. I find The Thirst Podcast to be particularly engaging. Every week they get a panel of interesting people in to discuss some of the world's pressing issues. You should also check out the BBC's Analysis podcast - they also put out philosophy stuff from time to time. I have by now listened to every episode of the Partially Examined Life, and I have been on the look out for more. As a small token of appreciation I upvoted an older submission of yours to get you some sweet sweet karma Just want to throw in my support for - The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps.
I would also consider Joe Rogan a pretty important modern-day Philosopher, and read his book at least once a year.
As someone with no prior knowledge of philosophy - but is interested in the subject - this is extremely informative and entertaining.
Stefan Molynuex has a pretty distinct point of view that should be heard considered/heard even if yo don't personally like him! I've been listening to those Oxford lectures on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason , but I haven't found many others that look promising.
"They called _ crazy, too" just means that, in history, the adjective is used willy-nilly and may not always be true. I was looking for some podcasts to enrich my newly increased time driving, and these will do admirably. I know West is a philosopher, but in that show he tends to talk mostly about politics and culture.
Not strictly about academic philosophy, but it's the deepest and most philosophical discussion of culture and contemporary social questions I've heard anywhere.
Melvyn Bragg is a great host, and In Our Time is definitely worth listening to. is the website, but I get all the episodes from iTunes Thank you for the time you spent setting this up! I'm pointing out that you're using a commonly misused argument in exactly the way that it's commonly misused. The show is hosted by Travis Smiley and Cornell West. Note that all of the above are not the kind of thing you can really breeze through, like most of the podcasts I recommended in the original post.
I do second your recommendation, though, if anyone is interested in listening to a far left politics show. Found This, but it hasn't been updated since July so I am not sure if it is correct. I'm doing three episodes a week from each, and it's really engaging so far.
I also like Smiley & West, but I wouldn't exactly classify it as on philosophy. Is there an RSS for The Big Ideas anywhere? I know a lot of people here might not like it, but the Joe Rogan podcast has quite a bit of philosophy on it. iTunes TONS of courses in a lot of different subjects, the history ones look especially good! Be aware that sometimes these podcasts have large breaks in between updates, mostly due to inconsistent funding. Sandel's Public Philosopher podcast, for example, didn't update for nearly a year, and yet they just did a new episode earlier last week. Other great resources on which philosophy podcasts are worth looking into include Philosopher's Pipe and some old r/philosophy posts from six months ago, one year ago, and two years ago. Another interesting podcast that is a little related to philosophy is Smiley and West.
I can't believe I forgot this. They remain down to earth while talking about really esoteric stuff.
"Marginalize yourself or the rest of us will have to do it for you!" I have been thinking about this and wanting different length casts for my workouts. Freedomainradio is the largest philosophy podcast in the world! Some are short bite-sized chunks while others go moderately in-depth on philosophical topics. I just finished Camus and the Absurd episode and really liked it. I know it's pretty unpopular among you guys but. There is a save button right beneath the post, along with share, hide, report etc. Sefan Molynuex wouldn't know philosophy if it shat on his face. There are a LOT out there, many of which are surprisingly good. barely like it's work and I'm giving my mind a workout too. It's an empty argument if you use it to try and vindicate someone.
I guess this story is purely metaphorical with no relation to reality? I've edited the post to reflect this.