Normie here. What are the most important books about philosophy in the last 50 years?
I'm looking to expand my reading philosophy list past Nietzsche, as simplistic as that sounds.
kierkegaard you pleb
>>7867115
start with the greeks
>>7867129
this, desu
>>7867115
Nothing. Philosophy has faced the same crisis all the humanities have had where everyone is on about muh science and disregards anything that can't be tested linearly.
The existentialists are the only thing near that time frame that isn't just atheists giving each other high fives.
>>7867129
I got the Greeks, I have read or studied the most influential philosophers all the way from the Greeks (pretty much all of them, many times), Kant, Descartes, etc, (it helps that for 1200 years the only Philosopher worth of notice was Aquinas). Is Nietzsche really the end of philosophy?
>>7867474
no there's tons past neitzsche
>Wittgenstein
>Derrida
>Foucault
>Jaspers
>Zizek
>Sarte
>De' Beuvoir
>Heidegger
Bet there's more you can find
>>7867485
>Foucalt
>>7867491
you haven't read him, /pol/.
Do you understand Nietzsche? Read more books about him. Unusual ones. Perhaps Heidegger or Deleuze or Jung or Foucault or Klossowski or Lampert or Zupancinc. You've read Nietzsche but now to truly unpack all its secrets.
>>7867485
You seem to know what you are talking about. Recommend me 3 books, they will be the next thing I read.
>>7867126
Please, no religion, just . . . No.
>>7867497
kierkegaard is amazing you fuck
>>7867492
I'm not going to, he sounds like a pseudointellectual hack who didn't understand biology or economics.
>>7867502
Fine, I'll add him to my reading list.
>>7867497
>being this pleb
>using the word normie
straight outta /r9k/
>>7867494
Being and Time
Truth and Method
The Visible and The Invisible
I'd imagine that Structure and Being will be important later on.
The shitlord took my thesis right out of mind. The dastardly man.
>>7867524
Thank you
Making it Explicit
Mind and World
Naming and Necessity
Reasons and Persons
Reason, Truth and History
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
The Claim of Reason
>>7867536
Amazing, thanks.
>>7867527
Tell me more.
>>7867115
'The most important' is a worthless qualification. Important to who or what? Important why?
You are looking for hand-holding when you should be striking out on your own. Why limit yourself to a few books or authors? Why not just pick a topic that interests you/sounds good and go from there? Epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, whatever.
It's trite to say that everything was philosophy until it got spun off into its own specialization but it's true. All the good shit has been chiseled off. What's left is modern philosophy, which is just gobbledy gook masturbation and one-upsmanship. That is to say philosophy, especially at an academic level, is no longer meant for widespread consumption.
The internet is a library. Pick a topic, search for it, dig deep, follow the strands that appeal to you. You'll still encounter the philosophical "giants" through interpretations and derivations. You'll be exposed to the big ideas through the little ones that dangle from them.
tl;dr: think for yourself you insufferable faggot
>>7867597
The reason why I said "important" was because I wanted to be flexible, I am aware that No single book has actually made a change to society since maybe the communist manifesto, but different people have different standards of what is important so I just wanted their opinions really.
All I want is leads to more or less catch up with whatever is new, no reason to rage so hard.
>>7867597
There's always at least one post like this in a thread asking for recommendations. I have to admire the effort to type this shit out day after day. What do you get out of it? A self esteem boost?
>'The most important' is a worthless qualification. Important to who or what? Important why?
You know what he meant, man. Give me a fucking break.
>You are looking for hand-holding when you should be striking out on your own. Why limit yourself to a few books or authors?
Asking for friendly recommendations does not equate to hand-holding. He clearly stated his intention to 'expand his reading' which is the opposite of to 'limit himself'.
>It's trite to say that everything was philosophy until it got spun off into its own specialization but it's true. All the good shit has been chiseled off. What's left is modern philosophy, which is just gobbledy gook masturbation and one-upsmanship. That is to say philosophy, especially at an academic level, is no longer meant for widespread consumption.
This is 100% true.
>>7867536
Good list. Here's my reckoning of the best of the past 50 years:
David Armstrong: "Universals and Scientific Realism" (1978)
Nancy Cartwright: "How the Laws of Physics Lie" (1983)
Paul Churchland: "Matter and Consciousness" (1984)
Donald Davidson: "Essays on Actions and Events" (1980)
Donald Davidson: "Inquiries Into Truth And Interpretation" (1984)
Daniel Dennett: "Consciousness Explained" (1991)
Fred Dretske: "Knowledge and the Flow of Information" (1981)
Michael Dummett: "Frege: Philosophy of Language" (1973)
Jerry Fodor: "The Language of Thought" (1975)
Alvin Goldman: "Epistemology and Cognition" (1986)
Paul Grice: "Studies in the Way of Words" (1989)
Carl Hempel: "Aspects of Scientific Explanation" (1965)
David Kaplan: "Themes From Kaplan" (1989)
Saul Kripke: "Naming and Necessity" (1972)
Saul Kripke: "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language" (1982)
Imre Lakatos: "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes" (1978)
David Lewis: "Counterfactuals" (1973)
David Lewis: "Philosophical Papers, Volume I" (1983)
David Lewis: "Philosophical Papers, Volume II" (1986)
David Lewis: "On the Plurality of Worlds" (1986)
David Lewis: "Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology" (1999)
JL Mackie: "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong" (1977)
Thomas Nagel: "The View From Nowhere" (1986)
Robert Nozick: "Philosophical Explanations" (1981)
Darek Parfit: "Reasons and Persons" (1984)
Hilary Putnam: "Mind, Language and Reality" (1975)
Hilary Putnam: "Reason, Truth, and History" (1981)
W.V.O. Quine: "Quintessence" (2008)
John Rawls: "A Theory of Justice" (1971)
John Searle: "Intentionality" (1983)
Ted Sider: "Four-Dimensionalism" (2001)
Bas van Fraassen: "The Scientific Image" (1980)
Bernard Williams: "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" (1985)
Timothy Williamson: "Knowledge and Its Limits" (2000)
>>7867671
Thank you. I know I sound autistic giving thanks to everybody, but this is what I was looking for.
>>7867115
just read the ego and it's own my property
>>7867497
>No religion
If that's the case you should probably not read any philosopher except for the modern Atheists seeing as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Hume etc were all religious
>>7867474
>I got the Greeks, I have read or studied the most influential philosophers all the way from the Greeks (pretty much all of them, many times), Kant, Descartes, etc
How old are you? Unless you're in your 40s (at least) I call this bullshit.
>>7867671
Fair warning to OP, all these philosophers are of the analytic school. We could go on about the idiocy of an analytic/ continental distinction but I'll just leave that he and say that they read very differently than Nietzsche.
>>7867485
All are pleb-tier aside from Wittgenstein and Heidegger, and heidy was the guy who called Nietzsche the last philosopher
Sarkar & Neohumanism
>>7867126
>past 50 years
Anyways philosophy is a field where the biggest, newest thing is not necessarily the best thing. Philosophy has to stand the test of time. We can't know if something is good or not for decades or even centuries after its publication.
I agree with Rawls as a recommendation simply because he's so influential. Rawls is basically the polar opposite of Nietzsche though.
>>7867671
>Searle
dropped
>>7867505
You seem like an idiot.
Foucault is very interesting to read, and thought-provoking, even if you don't agree with him.
Start with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Pick out thinkers which interest you and read their most famous works. Be sure you don't neglect the necessary stuff - Plato, Jesus, Hobbes - just because it's not as interesting as Nietzsche.
>>7868343
Not OP, but I have a question on this. I majored in philosophy (graduated a few years ago) and I was considering using this book to fill in the gaps of what I missed as well as to get an overarching narrative of how philosophy progressed from pre-socratics to today.
Should I read this or is it too subjective?
>>7868623
How the fuck someone who majored in philosophy even needs to ask this sort of question?
>>7868688
This
>>7867671
>good list
>why kripkenstein
>>7867972
Just because they were religious doesn't mean that they writings were about religion.
>>7867974
I'm in my mid 20s, yeah maybe "all of them" was an overstatement. But Since I was a little kid I used to read the main three (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and from then on I expanded to other ones, My favorite is Diogenes.
>>7868273
There is no reason for me to reply to your condescending comment, but if you really want to know I love to read human history and from there I branch out to philosophy, that's usually how I got to read the main philosophers and then some. But after Nietzche there really doesn't seem to be a new way of thinking, or at least that's what I am looking for in this thread.
>>7867212
What the fuck am I reading? It's so untrue it hurts.
>>7868739
>Since I was a little kid I used to read the main three (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and from then on I expanded to other ones, My favorite is Diogenes.
Do you possess secret manuscripts of Socrates and Diogenes that no one else has? How on earth have you "read" thinkers that left no writings behind?
>>7868739
>But after Nietzche there really doesn't seem to be a new way of thinking, or at least that's what I am looking for in this thread.
First you said you were looking for works in the past 50 years, and now you want recommendations for the past 115 years (since death of Nietzsche)?
Here, this survey covers all the classics of the 20th century, both analytic and continental:
http://www.stephanwetzels.nl/wordpress/docs/Lackey-What-are-the-modern-classics.pdf
>>7867115
Why is it the only thing towards philosophy normies know are Socrates, Plato & Nietzsche?
Either way read Being & Time along with Capitalism & Schizophrenia, Roland Barthes is important too.
>>7868989
I won't crucify you for not reading it because for me it's not a worth reading book, I'm just surprised that you are clueless about Russell's tradition and philosophy to even ask this.
By the way, what does 'subjective' here even means? Every idea is 'subjective', as in being conceived out of a thinking individual which is the formal activity of any given concept, it's up to you to know how much the resultant content is actually substantial or not.
Anyway, I can't give you a better book on the analytic tradition, but if you take the other side of the Atlantic in consideration I suggest Hegel's History of Philosophy, which you can read here: https://archive.org/details/lecturesonthehis01hegeuoft
>>7869129
>I'm just surprised that you are clueless about Russell's tradition and philosophy to even ask this.
I know vaguely who he is but I've never personally looked into him. Never had a professor mention him even once.
>By the way, what does 'subjective' here even means?
I've heard he treats certain philosophers unfairly because he does not personally agree with them (i.e. the book is not an objective 'history' of philosophy as his personal beliefs heavily inform the book).
>I won't crucify you for not reading it because for me it's not a worth reading book
>I suggest Hegel's History of Philosophy, which you can read here
Cheers!
>>7869210
In what country did you went to college? This is important.
>>7869226
Arkansas Community College for Auto Repair 'N Stuff (ACCARNS).
>>7869315
If you were an European or South American it would help to explain why you were unknowing about Russell. But maybe I'm exaggerating.
>7869315
I call bullshit.
>>7869325
Ah. Anything post-Kant was rarely if ever included in assigned readings or discussed. I was actually pretty dissatisfied with the selection of courses that were offered.
>>7869339
Why would I lie on a chinese cartoon image board? Is it because of the Eliot Rodgers meme? That happened after I graduated but his spree went right past a couple of places I used to live... Also, he was not a UCSB student, he went to the local community college.
>>7869365
>Anything post-Kant was rarely if ever included in assigned readings or discussed
I don't think that's wrong per se, you need to master the Greeks and pre-Kantian moderns first. It depends on a lot of factors, which I assume maybe I'm not qualified to talk about.
>>7869365
The reason I call bullshit is, UCSB is not some backwater department that is stuck in the past. It may not be a top-tier philosophy department, but it has some decent people -- e.g., Nathan Salmon. There's no way you could have gotten through a degree there without a solid grounding in Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Putnam, Rawls, Kripke, Lewis, Parfit, et. al.
>>7869437
Of names you mentioned, I only had to read Frege and Kripke for a philosophy of language class. Sorry to disappoint.
>>7869504
Bullshit. No one teaches a course on Frege and Kripke that doesn't also cover at least Russell (specifically, "On Denoting") and other prominent 20th century philosophers of language/logic.
>>7868952
ABOUT*
holy shit aren't you one little fucking pedant.
>>7869570
You're a fraud, son.
>>7869543
>No one teaches a course on Frege and Kripke that doesn't also cover at least Russell (specifically, "On Denoting")
Gave 'On Denoting' a quick google andyeah I totally remember reading this now..
>>7869611
How?
>>7867497
>not reading philosophy because you're triggered by someone's different opinions
wew lad
>>7868757
How so?
