|
re: Philosophy texts in general
Without a background in philosophy--a survey course, at least--I'm not sure how people can jump into a text and expect to get much out of it. With precious few exceptions, these are specialized books loaded with jargon and constant references to other philosophers/movements.
It's like picking up a book on advanced neurology without having a firm grasp of the parts of the brain. Might get something out of it, but a lot more will be missed.
There's no shame whatsoever in starting with secondary sources. If a reader doesn't know what "epistemology" is (and there's no reason why the average person should) and isn't aware of the history of that branch of philosophy, then reading, say, Kant is treading close to pointlessness.
Yes, I know one wants to read what the philosopher himself said (yes, "himself;" 99.99% of the time it will be a male author), and one is suspicious of being tainted by another author's interpretation. Good. But a decent secondary source will highlight common areas of contention. At the very least, a good secondary source will provide a framework for understanding why the philosopher felt the need to write the book in the first place.
Of course, there are plenty of crap secondary sources. But there are a lot of good ones out there which have no other purpose than to make philosophy accessible to the non-initiated.
To get the most out of the time one devotes to a philosophic text, I insist a little homework beforehand will make the experience far richer.
|