Which series is better?
>inb4 neither, I like to read them before I move on to the subject's own work
>>7536142
"Very Short Introductions" are quite reputable in most subjects they are written about, generally speaking.
>>7536171
This is absolutely false.
>>7537417
I've only ever heard good things about them. What's your beef?
>>7537469
I read a few of them before I went to university, looking back on them the content is either not enough to equip you to read the original source texts or even to move onto other secondary reading. Sometimes they're very, very wrong (see: Wittgenstein, Hegel, Nietzsche introductions).
I would avoid them for philosophy.
>>7537574
I don't know, I've found Very Short Introduction to Machiavelli to be more than enough to fully understand "The Prince" and his other works, and Very Short Introduction to Logic was quite an informative read, too.
>>7536142
OP can't inb4 you twat.
>>7537574
Shit, Wittgenstein's is on my list. Know of any good alternatives?
>>7537863
The man is incredibly decisive. The best thing to do is read a lot (from both analytic and continental readings, though you will find mainly the analytic readings are orthodox) while keeping open minded and fully prepared to realise that the reading you've held is completely false. I started with the Pears introduction but I haven't gone back to it in years, it might be awful. I do hold the "Modern Studies in Philosophy" collection of essays as highly useful once you've got a reasonable grasp of his work. Go back to the original texts a lot.
Would be interested to see if anyone has any comments on this matter, but that's what I did.
>>7537676
https://youtu.be/3A0q36NOgdQ
>>7537574
>Sometimes they're very, very wrong (see: Wittgenstein,
For example...?
What errors can be found in the text?
just found out that wittgenstein was a faggot
