Home Study in Philosophy

[jbelokur]

The more I study and listen to good podcasts and youtube videos on the faith, as well as reading good Catholic books, I see how important a solid foundation in Philosophy is. Ideally, I would attend a reputable Catholic university to get a degree in Philosophy, but that isn’t in the cards. I’ve looked at several schools’ curriculum to get an Idea of what they cover. Below I will list the general topics they cover. I am hoping that there are more than a few out there here on the forum that have a background in Philosophy and would be willing to offer a few suggestions for books to read under each heading. Also if there is a heading I’m missing I would like to know that too. Thank you very much for your willingness to help in advance!

Logic:

Nature and Person:

Ethics:

Metaphysics:

Ancient Philosophy:

Medieval Philosophy:

Modern/Contemporary Philosophy:

Philosophy of Natural Law:

 

[Magnanimity]

Hi there! Good on you for recognizing the crucially important role of philosophy—it really is the handmaiden of theology (and also just really interesting in itself!) I have a BA in philosophy from a major secular school, and though I’m many many years removed from that program (late 90’s), I’m so utterly grateful that I studied it! It’s been a lifetime of rewards, imho.

So, on to your categories. First, I have to admit that listening to Jay Budziszewski speak as a guest-lecturer when I was in undergrad was a central impetus behind me pursuing a philosophy degree.

Philosophy of Natural Law:

Anything by Jay Budziszewski, he’s so good in this area. Robert George and Frank Beckwith are great too.

Logic

There are many good texts. Two in particular that are Catholic-friendly (i.e., not hung up in contemporary analytical problems of philosophy) and that I got a lot out of are Norman Geisler (Come, Let Us Reason) as a very beginner text and Henry Veatch for more advanced stuff (see his Two Logics).

Ethics

You should start with Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics It’s very approachable—you’ll probably be shocked to learn just how easy to follow and chock full of common-sense that text is. Frank Beckwith also has good stuff in ethics. And Aquinas’ portions in the ST concerned with virtue are excellent! If you want something contemporary, check out Linda Zagzebski—her virtue writings are top notch!

Metaphysics

So much good Thomistic stuff out there these days that explores the topic in a sophisticated way. John Wippel has a great text. Edward Feser also has a lot of good stuff. I’d start with them.

Ancient Philosophy

Frederick Copleston had a good series on the history of philosophy, particularly good (so I think) was his volume on ancient philosophy. After a survey book like that, you would do well to read the primary sources—Plato’s dialogues and Aristotle’s writings, mostly. All of the dialogues that deal with the “last days of Socrates” (Euthyphro, Crito…) are very digestible even for a beginner. So is Plato’s Symposium. And for Aristotle, start with the NE that I mentioned above.

Medieval Phil and Modern Phil

Also, continue with Copleston for a good overview. A very good text here is Etienne Gilson’s small volume God and Philosophy. it does a great job at offering a sketch of major differences between ancient, medieval and modern philosophy, comparisons and contrasts in important areas. Also, if you’d like something contemporary, I’d check out Eleonore Stump. She’s Thomistic and fantastically clear.

I’m so excited for you! You have a long journey ahead but it’ll be so rewarding. Keep us posted on your explorations, if you feel so inclined.

 

[Magnanimity]

Also if there is a heading I’m missing I would like to know that too.

Philosophy is such a broad heading, so I would say that, in addition to the categories you list below, some other very important ones to at least become conversant in would be:

Epistemology

Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Art (or Aesthetics)

 

[jbelokur]

You’re the man! Thank you. I figure that I will just set up a 2-3 year reading list with “semesters” just as if I’m in a program and work my way through. Thank you for your time and thoughtfulness. Prior to my conversion I earned a degree in theology from a protestant university. I was young and naïve about the importance of philosophy. Cart before the horse.

Josh

 

[Nihilo]

jbelokur:

Also if there is a heading I’m missing I would like to know that too.

Philosophy is such a broad heading, so I would say that, in addition to the categories you list below, some other very important ones to at least become conversant in would be:

Epistemology

Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Art (or Aesthetics)

Also Wittgenstein.

 

[Magnanimity]

Prior to my conversion I earned a degree in theology from a protestant university. I was young and naïve about the importance of philosophy. Cart before the horse.

Our paths must’ve had some similarity. When I got my undergraduate degree, I then went off to a graduate school of theology/seminary. I studied at a protestant school. Luckily for me though it was a school heavily invested in the thinking of Sts Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, but especially Aquinas. From there I got acquainted with many Catholic philosophers and philosophical theologians. It was really through that program that I also got familiar with the Catholic Church and entered it a year after my graduate studies.

The odd thing about secular philosophy education is that it pretty much covers ancient philosophy well and then skips almost 2 thousand years and picks back up with Descartes (as of nothing happened between Aristotle and Descartes!). Very bizarre, but I would not have known what I was missing out on if not for that protestant school I attended after university. So I’m well acquainted with confusing carts and horses myself.

 

[Wozza]

The more I study and listen to good podcasts and youtube videos on the faith, as well as reading good Catholic books, I see how important a solid foundation in Philosophy is. Ideally, I would attend a reputable Catholic university to get a degree in Philosophy, but that isn’t in the cards. I’ve looked at several schools’ curriculum to get an Idea of what they cover. Below I will list the general topics they cover. I am hoping that there are more than a few out there here on the forum that have a background in Philosophy and would be willing to offer a few suggestions for books to read under each heading. Also if there is a heading I’m missing I would like to know that too. Thank you very much for your willingness to help in advance!

Logic:

Nature and Person:

Ethics:

Metaphysics:

Ancient Philosophy:

Medieval Philosophy:

Modern/Contemporary Philosophy:

Philosophy of Natural Law:

Excellent idea, Josh. Although I think the problem may be what to leave out as opposed to what to put in.

I was thinking of doing a course on political philosophy in the evenings. But it was close to $300 for a few evenings. This was the course content:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So I thought along the same lines as you and wondered if I could formulate the course myself. There is a galactic amount of information on the internet. Which is great…but how does one sift through it all and develop a course that remains focussed and achievable…

I started with Plato (just from wiki) and the problem is getting constantly sidetracked. I’ve got a copy of The Republic (thanks Amazon) so maybe after the ‘life and times’ of Plato I’ll read that and see where I go from there.

 

[Magnanimity]

Also Wittgenstein.

And Hegel

 

[Michael16]

You’ve picked a subject close to my heart, OP. Philosophy has so much to teach us; especially classical philosophy.

I would recommend starting off with Aristotle and go into Plato. As a side course, I’d take up Heraclitus and the Stoics. Avoid Epicurus.

Just remember: Plato never systematized his doctrines into writing. What he did write; he wrote as thought experiments.

After the intro, I’d recommend reading Cicero and Plutarch and Philo of Ascalon and then go into Plotinus. For early medieval; I’d recommend reading Saint Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. Then: I’d tackle Saint Thomas Aquinas. He wrote the book on Catholic philosophy and theology. I’m not kidding; he really did with the ST.

Then, I’d read Saint Peter Faber and Saint Robert Bellarmine. Descartes is an interesting read. I’d avoid Kant or any of the other Enlightenment thinkers. Shiver.

I’d avoid the Analytical philosophers and the Continentals too.

As an interesting side; I also recommend reading the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

Also Wittgenstein.

And Hegel

You don’t have to know Hegel, just Marx. Russell after L.W.'s death said that Marx was the most influential philosopher mid-20th century. The best philosophers are the most influential philosophers, and the real value in studying philosophy is in finding a philosopher, like L.W., or Nietzsche, or St. Thomas, or Aristotle, or Hegel, or Hume, etc. ad nauseum, who speaks your language, and therefore they are the most influential philosopher for you, personally. You can then compare notes with other philosophers who in some way reference your own personal most influential philosopher, and in this way interpret what other philosophers are saying, because it’s pure hubris to think that a bachelors or even a doctorate in philosophy authenticates that a person is capable of literally fully understanding every great philosopher who’s ever lived. If anybody alive today is that smart, we’d know about it because we’d have a definitive philosophy book by now, but we don’t have anything approaching that and probably never will. So rather than hoping against hope that we’ll understand philosophy, I like trying to find a famous and accomplished philosopher who speaks right to me, in my own admittedly subjective experience of reading them.

There are lots of Catholics who find that Aquinas is that philosopher for them. For me it was L.W. So it didn’t look like analytic philosophy or linguistic philosophy was getting any notice except for a vague threat I think in one response, and I ‘wrote in’ L.W., who is my favorite analytic philosopher.

I come in peace.

 

[Magnanimity]

Apologies @Nihilo, I thought you were perhaps being tongue-in-cheek with the addition of Wittgenstein. So I threw in an equally enigmatic (and systematic) philosopher in Hegel. But it was in jest, on my part.

We know the etymology of the word philosophy—it is the “love of wisdom.” Wisdom. If one is not embarking on a path edging ever toward universal, human wisdom then (for my money) one is not doing philosophy. One may be doing something very interesting, but it isn’t philosophy. It’s something else—language games maybe.

There is something peculiarly unique about wisdom in that the human race does not seem to grow in wisdom—rather, wisdom just is, and anyone who wants to enter into wisdom and participate in it is free to do so at any time. Maybe L.W. made substantial contributions to this millennia-old discourse. Maybe not.

But, all the best to you in your explorations! Thanks for the peaceable contribution. Right back atcha!

 

[HeDa]

Where I live, one of the University Colleges teaching Theology started with teaching Philosophy only a couple of years ago to priests and pastors in the protestant denominations. 1/4 of a school year is Philosophy studies.

Remember that the older you get, the easier it is to connect A with B and C and so on. On the other hand it is usually harder to remember details as well as memorising lists and lists and some more lists. Those grammar rules are way harder to learn…

 

[jbelokur]

For metaphysics, would you go with Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction?
What if also I went with the complete works of Plato and Aristotle? I’ll read the books on logic and metaphysics first, but would you recommend I just read through those two complete works volumes? Or is there other foundational stuff I should be studying first?

 

[Magnanimity]

For metaphysics, would you go with Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction?
What if also I went with the complete works of Plato and Aristotle? I’ll read the books on logic and metaphysics first, but would you recommend I just read through those two complete works volumes? Or is there other foundational stuff I should be studying first?

Feser is great and totally reliable, in my estimation. I haven’t read that particular book, but his book on proofs for the existence of God (which is heavy in metaphysics) is awesome. You probably can’t go wrong with that text you mention. But, you may also want to check out John Wippel’s The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite Being to Uncreated Being. I can vouch for that one–really good stuff. Dense, but good.

Getting original writings (like complete works) for either Plato or Aristotle is a good idea. But, I’ll just tell you right now that not all of their writings are equally digestible. So, I’d start with the Platonic dialogues dealing with the “last days of Socrates” (I think there are four of those), and only later work my way to the Republic. Also, for Aristotle, start with the Nicomachean Ethics and slowly work your way to some of his more dense writings that will be tough to get through–like his Metaphysics. Also, have a summative text that you’re reading prior to, or alongside of, the original writings–like the F. Copleston book (History of Philosophy, Vol 1). This will just help to orient you with the “big ideas” that both Plato and Aristotle are bringing to the table, without getting lost in the weeds of their original writings.

 

[Donald_S]

What would you recommend as a general one book overview? I am interested in philosophy but not quite as in depth as above, at least not yet. Something that might link philosophy with Catholic theology, possibly

 

[Rhubarb]

The Crash Course Philosophy series is really good.

But it approaches the subject as a philosophy student might in a college today. It’s a good brief overview of what philosophy is all about.

I’ll leave it to other posters to suggest Catholic sources. As someone who took an education in philosophy, I have learned that to study it, you need to understand the points in a discussion - even the parts and arguments you don’t agree with - before being equipped to focus on one line of thinking.

 

[Nihilo]

Apologies @Nihilo, I thought you were perhaps being tongue-in-cheek with the addition of Wittgenstein. So I threw in an equally enigmatic (and systematic) philosopher in Hegel. But it was in jest, on my part.

The difference being that every PhD in philosophy shares the same view of what Hegel thought, but if you ask 10 philosophers what L.W. thought, you’ll get at least five different answers.

The significance concerns the appeal to authority. For the proposition concerning “what L.W. thought,” there is no valid appeal to authority possible because the field /discipline of philosophy itself is not in basic agreement on the matter.

We know the etymology of the word philosophy—it is the “love of wisdom.” Wisdom. If one is not embarking on a path edging ever toward universal, human wisdom then (for my money) one is not doing philosophy. One may be doing something very interesting, but it isn’t philosophy. It’s something else—language games maybe.

L.W. showed what logic is, and that logic unites with the physical world at ostensive definitions of words (the foundation of language), and that words whose referents cannot be demonstrated or shown, can only therefore signify themselves whenever they are encountered in language.

In inventing “language games,” L.W. added superfluity to the previously identified idea of homonymy, but he thought out a lot of literary patterns to show or demonstrate how fraught our supposed communication with language is in reality. If a person intends to communicate A but a second person thinks that B is intended, then no real communication has actually occurred.

There is something peculiarly unique about wisdom in that the human race does not seem to grow in wisdom—rather, wisdom just is, and anyone who wants to enter into wisdom and participate in it is free to do so at any time. Maybe L.W. made substantial contributions to this millennia-old discourse. Maybe not.

What is wisdom? For me, the only way to define wisdom is to demonstrate it, which means pointing to examples of wise things done, and I don’t think it’s possible to talk about wisdom without restating what our political, legal, moral, and philosophical theories are. iow, what we think of as wise is something like a facet of our politics, theology, philosophy, etc.

But, all the best to you in your explorations! Thanks for the peaceable contribution. Right back atcha!

Thank you. L.W. “speaks to me,” and I just wanted to introduce him to the thread, on the off chance that someone else out there might also glean a lot from reading him.