The TOP 10 Most Difficult Philosophical Book to Read

[Veritas Aequitas]

From ChatGpt [with reservation].
The listings below are with reference to the average reader.

Top 5 Toughest Western Philosophy Books:
(not in any particular order]

"Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger - Heidegger's dense prose and complex concepts, such as his treatment of Being and ontology, make this a notoriously difficult work.

"Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant - Kant's exploration of metaphysics and epistemology, including his transcendental idealism, is notorious for its intricate arguments and terminology.

"Phenomenology of Spirit" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Hegel's dialectical method and intricate system of philosophy make this work a challenge, requiring a deep understanding of his thought.

"Being and Nothingness" by Jean-Paul Sartre - Sartre's existentialist masterpiece delves into complex ideas about existence, consciousness, and freedom, often presented in dense and difficult prose.

"The Critique of Judgment" by Immanuel Kant - Kant's exploration of aesthetics and teleology, along with his complex treatment of judgment, makes this work a challenging read.



Next 5:

"The Phenomenology of Perception" by Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Merleau-Ponty's examination of perception, embodiment, and intersubjectivity is highly complex and requires a nuanced understanding of phenomenology.

"Difference and Repetition" by Gilles Deleuze - Deleuze's exploration of difference, repetition, and becoming is known for its challenging style and innovative philosophical concepts.

"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche - Nietzsche's poetic and aphoristic style, combined with his radical ideas about morality, nihilism, and the Übermensch, make this work a difficult but rewarding read.

"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper - Popper's groundbreaking work on the philosophy of science presents complex ideas about falsifiability, the nature of scientific theories, and the demarcation problem.

"The Phenomenology of Mind" (also translated as "The Phenomenology of Spirit") by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Hegel's examination of consciousness, self-consciousness, and the development of Spirit is notoriously dense and requires careful study to grasp its intricacies.
................

In principle, tough to read and grasp does not not necessary mean good or reasonable philosophy but I believe the above represent good or reasonable philosophy.

Are there any other tougher reasonable philosophical books not included in the above listing?

How many of the above have you read 1. seriously and understood and 2. casually.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Comments from AI:

Why Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is difficult for the average reader:

Technical Language: Kant uses technical terms and a complex writing style that can be challenging for non-philosophers. Kant uses a dense and technical vocabulary that requires familiarization. Terms like "transcendental" and "a priori" have specific meanings within his system.

Abstract Concepts: The book deals with highly abstract ideas like the limits of human knowledge, the nature of reality, and the a priori (innate) forms of experience. These are not easy concepts to grasp for anyone.

Complex Arguments: The book is filled with intricate arguments and distinctions. Grasping the flow of his reasoning takes effort and concentration.

Historical Context: Understanding Kant requires some knowledge of the philosophical debates he was responding to, particularly those of Descartes and Hume.

Kant writing style: Kant writing style is terrible. On single statement can take half a page. [my comment]

Hegel
While Kant is challenging, philosophers like Hegel are often considered even more difficult due to their even denser prose, complex systems of thought, and extensive use of historical and cultural references.
His dialectical method and highly abstract concepts can be even harder to grasp.

[Gary Childress]

I tried delving into most of those but inevitably ended up turning to secondary sources from scholars commenting on the texts. About the only noteworthy person I've solidly read first hand is Noam Chomsky's political writings.

That was a number of years ago. Since then I haven't read much. I have a deficit in interest these days. I'd much rather play video games. As far as I can tell, not a single one of those books is the last word on matters. Every single one of them can be debated back and forth ad infinitum. In a sense, life is finite and at the end of it we die. Everything in between seems like unimportant trivia anymore.

[phyllo]

In a sense, life is finite and at the end of it we die. Everything in between seems like unimportant trivia anymore.

Between birth and death is the important part.

[Walker]

From ChatGpt [with reservation].
The listings below are with reference to the average reader.

Top 5 Toughest Western Philosophy Books:
(not in any particular order]
Views??

- I've heard the view proposed ... that if the reader does not understand the writing, then maybe that's what the writer intended.
- Maybe that applies to the Icons.
- Maybe not.

[Impenitent]

what is the most published book in the world?



-Imp

[Peter Kropotkin]

From ChatGpt [with reservation].
The listings below are with reference to the average reader.

Top 5 Toughest Western Philosophy Books:
(not in any particular order]

"Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger - Heidegger's dense prose and complex concepts, such as his treatment of Being and ontology, make this a notoriously difficult work.

"Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant - Kant's exploration of metaphysics and epistemology, including his transcendental idealism, is notorious for its intricate arguments and terminology.

"Phenomenology of Spirit" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Hegel's dialectical method and intricate system of philosophy make this work a challenge, requiring a deep understanding of his thought.

"Being and Nothingness" by Jean-Paul Sartre - Sartre's existentialist masterpiece delves into complex ideas about existence, consciousness, and freedom, often presented in dense and difficult prose.

"The Critique of Judgment" by Immanuel Kant - Kant's exploration of aesthetics and teleology, along with his complex treatment of judgment, makes this work a challenging read.



Next 5:

"The Phenomenology of Perception" by Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Merleau-Ponty's examination of perception, embodiment, and intersubjectivity is highly complex and requires a nuanced understanding of phenomenology.

"Difference and Repetition" by Gilles Deleuze - Deleuze's exploration of difference, repetition, and becoming is known for its challenging style and innovative philosophical concepts.

"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche - Nietzsche's poetic and aphoristic style, combined with his radical ideas about morality, nihilism, and the Übermensch, make this work a difficult but rewarding read.

"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper - Popper's groundbreaking work on the philosophy of science presents complex ideas about falsifiability, the nature of scientific theories, and the demarcation problem.

"The Phenomenology of Mind" (also translated as "The Phenomenology of Spirit") by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Hegel's examination of consciousness, self-consciousness, and the development of Spirit is notoriously dense and requires careful study to grasp its intricacies.
................

In principle, tough to read and grasp does not not necessary mean good or reasonable philosophy but I believe the above represent good or reasonable philosophy.

Are there any other tougher reasonable philosophical books not included in the above listing?

How many of the above have you read 1. seriously and understood and 2. casually.

Discuss??
Views??

K: I agree with the list with one exception, Zarathustra.... is actually
a pretty easy read, but putting it into context takes some work and
it really helps to have read much of Nietzsche beforehand...
you could easily have just listed books by Kant or Hegel and still be right...

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

In a sense, life is finite and at the end of it we die. Everything in between seems like unimportant trivia anymore.

Between birth and death is the important part.

For you, but not for me. I'm just one of billions of people on this earth turning finite resources into waste products. I'm mostly superfluous to future generations as there is really nothing of significant value that I can contribute to the world aside from sustaining my own life so that I can continue turning finite resources into waste products. The most noble contribution I can make at this point is to die. I don't like it, I'm scared of death and won't hasten the process, but there's nothing I can do about reality.

[phyllo]

In a sense, life is finite and at the end of it we die. Everything in between seems like unimportant trivia anymore.

Between birth and death is the important part.

For you, but not for me. I'm just one of billions of people on this earth turning finite resources into waste products. I'm mostly superfluous to future generations as there is really nothing of significant value that I can contribute to the world aside from sustaining my own life so that I can continue turning finite resources into waste products. The most noble contribution I can make at this point is to die. I don't like it, I'm scared of death and won't hasten the process, but there's nothing I can do about reality.

Sure. Someone told you that you're supposed "contribute significant value to the world" and now you can't let go of that idea and it poisons your life.

The first step is to examine that idea. You will find that it won't survive scrutiny.

[Gary Childress]

Between birth and death is the important part.

For you, but not for me. I'm just one of billions of people on this earth turning finite resources into waste products. I'm mostly superfluous to future generations as there is really nothing of significant value that I can contribute to the world aside from sustaining my own life so that I can continue turning finite resources into waste products. The most noble contribution I can make at this point is to die. I don't like it, I'm scared of death and won't hasten the process, but there's nothing I can do about reality.

Sure. Someone told you that you're supposed "contribute significant value to the world" and now you can't let go of that idea and it poisons your life.

The first step is to examine that idea. You will find that it won't survive scrutiny.

It's actually not all that bad. I've been wanting to get a medical alert necklace that says "do not resuscitate". So I went ahead and ordered one. When I go, hopefully it will be once and final. I'm not going to drag it out. I only hope that God, nature, fate or whatever will see fit to make it as quick and painless as possible. I'm single, no kids, no loved ones other than my mother and hopefully I won't go before her. It's fine.

[phyllo]

It's actually not all that bad. I've been wanting to get a medical alert necklace that says "do not resuscitate". So I went ahead and ordered one. When I go, hopefully it will be once and final. I'm not going to drag it out. I only hope that God, nature, fate or whatever will see fit to make it as quick and painless as possible. I'm single, no kids, no loved ones other than my mother and hopefully I won't go before her. It's fine.
Top

Okay, so you don't actually want to change anything.

Carry on

[Gary Childress]

It's actually not all that bad. I've been wanting to get a medical alert necklace that says "do not resuscitate". So I went ahead and ordered one. When I go, hopefully it will be once and final. I'm not going to drag it out. I only hope that God, nature, fate or whatever will see fit to make it as quick and painless as possible. I'm single, no kids, no loved ones other than my mother and hopefully I won't go before her. It's fine.
Top

Okay, so you don't actually want to change anything.

Carry on

That's an overstatement. There are plenty of things I change. I change TV channels, seating positions, clothes, and often change my mind about various things. How did you come to the conclusion that I don't want to change "anything"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

K: I agree with the list with one exception, Zarathustra.... is actually
a pretty easy read, but putting it into context takes some work and
it really helps to have read much of Nietzsche beforehand...
you could easily have just listed books by Kant or Hegel and still be right...

Kropotkin

The list refer to the average reader.
Perhaps you have some good association with Nietszhe thus it was easier for you.

Here is AI explanation why it is tough to grasp:

"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" can be a challenging read, even for those not familiar with philosophy in general. Here's why:

Style:
Poetic and Aphoristic: Nietzsche uses aphorisms (short, insightful sayings) and poetic language that can be beautiful but also dense and cryptic. It requires more effort than a straightforward, logical argument.

Non-Linear: The book isn't a structured treatise. It unfolds through speeches by Zarathustra, a prophet-like figure, with metaphors, allegories, and symbols that take time to unpack.

Content:
Radical Ideas: Nietzsche challenges traditional morality and religious beliefs. Concepts like the "Übermensch" (superman) and overcoming nihilism can be difficult to grasp without background in philosophy.

Open to Interpretation: The book is deliberately ambiguous. Nietzsche often doesn't provide clear answers, inviting the reader to ponder and interpret the ideas for themselves. This can be frustrating for those seeking definitive answers.

Misinterpretations:
Oversimplification: Nietzsche's ideas are nuanced. Readers might oversimplify complex concepts like "Übermensch" as simply advocating brute strength, missing the emphasis on self-creation and overcoming limitations.

Literal Reading: The book uses metaphors and shouldn't be taken entirely literally. Readers might miss the deeper meaning behind the poetic imagery.

Tips to Avoid Misinterpretation:
Background Knowledge: A basic understanding of Western philosophy, especially 19th-century thinkers like Schopenhauer, can be helpful.

Secondary Sources: Reading summaries, commentaries, or watching lectures on the book can provide context and clarify interpretations.

Active Reading: Don't just skim. Take notes, pause to reflect on passages, and look up unfamiliar terms. There are many resources available online and in libraries.

While challenging, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" can be a rewarding read for those willing to put in the effort. It grapples with fundamental questions about human existence, morality, and self-overcoming.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is difficult for the average reader:
Comments from AI:
Technical Language: Kant uses technical terms and a complex writing style that can be challenging for non-philosophers. Kant uses a dense and technical vocabulary that requires familiarization. Terms like "transcendental" and "a priori" have specific meanings within his system.

Abstract Concepts: The book deals with highly abstract ideas like the limits of human knowledge, the nature of reality, and the a priori (innate) forms of experience. These are not easy concepts to grasp for anyone.

Complex Arguments: The book is filled with intricate arguments and distinctions. Grasping the flow of his reasoning takes effort and concentration.

Historical Context: Understanding Kant requires some knowledge of the philosophical debates he was responding to, particularly those of Descartes and Hume.

Kant writing style: Kant writing style is terrible. On single statement can take half a page. [my comment]

Hegel
While Kant is challenging, philosophers like Hegel are often considered even more difficult due to their even denser prose, complex systems of thought, and extensive use of historical and cultural references.
His dialectical method and highly abstract concepts can be even harder to grasp.

[caronlynna2]

Can you explain the significance of Kant's technical vocabulary and complex writing style in his Critique of Pure Reason, and how it contributes to the difficulty of the average reader in understanding the concepts presented?