The Four Agreements, The Secret, Sophie's World, The Alchemist, Ishmael

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

The Four Agreements, The Secret, Sophie's World, The Alchemist, Ishmael

Post by Advocate »

Each of these examples provides a good conversation primer for the material but even the ones that aren't purest bullshit are terrible reading and not very good philosophy. What does it take to get a "popular philosophy" book published that isn't quantum blah-blah checkmate or a middle-school philosophy teacher with pretentions of authorship?
PeteJ
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Re: The Four Agreements, The Secret, Sophie's World, The Alchemist, Ishmael

Post by PeteJ »

Advocate wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:03 pm Each of these examples provides a good conversation primer for the material but even the ones that aren't purest bullshit are terrible reading and not very good philosophy. What does it take to get a "popular philosophy" book published that isn't quantum blah-blah checkmate or a middle-school philosophy teacher with pretentions of authorship?
You would need to be able to explain philosophy in a simple way. Otherwise it'll be just another unnecessary book. The world has plenty of books that fail to explain philosophy and I see no point i writing another one.

Of these books I only know the Alchemist, which I rate highly as a book for young people.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: The Four Agreements, The Secret, Sophie's World, The Alchemist, Ishmael

Post by Advocate »

[quote=PeteJ post_id=474865 time=1602231314 user_id=11479]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469322 time=1599253397 user_id=15238]
Each of these examples provides a good conversation primer for the material but even the ones that aren't purest bullshit are terrible reading and not very good philosophy. What does it take to get a "popular philosophy" book published that isn't quantum blah-blah checkmate or a middle-school philosophy teacher with pretentions of authorship?
[/quote]

You would need to be able to explain philosophy in a simple way. Otherwise it'll be just another unnecessary book. The world has plenty of books that fail to explain philosophy and I see no point i writing another one.

Of these books I only know the Alchemist, which I rate highly as a book for young people.
[/quote]

What do you think would count as explaining it in a simple way? There are certainly many "philosophers" who will nay-say literally anything. How could "simple enough" be properly vetted?
Post Reply