You are in luck: the internet is densely populated with philosophical texts. Good places to start are: www.earlymoderntexts.com www.gutenberg.org (also, they have a small set of recommendations in their 'philosophy bookshelf' but it represents only the tip of an iceberg!) https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/ and Google books has hundreds of pdf scans of old volumes. Now, there are three problems with these sites: for the most part, they present texts without commentary or explanation; often they use old editions or translations (because they are out of copyright); and finally, for the same reason, they tend to emphasize philosophy from times past. Recent philosophy is more difficult to come by, but not impossible. Certainly useful introductions can be found at the Internet or Stanford Encyclopedias; also, university teachers often put their lecture notes up on the web.

If one thought that the only true goal of philosophy was to describe, as precisely and accurately as possible, using the very latest scientific findings, the nature of the universe or of the human mind, then indeed there would be no need to read the 'classics' of philosophy. In that case, however, I wonder whether one needs philosophy at all, since what was just described is not in essence different from physics or psychology themselves. So, there would also be little point in reading contemporary philosophy. Within the history of philosophy, of course, many have seen their work, or a substantial part of it, in just this way, in part because science and philosophy had not yet fully branched off from one another. Very often, these were first class scientific minds (Aristotle or Leibniz, for example). But their primary interest today is not as scientists. Here are the main ways that I try to 'sell' my students on reading the history of philosophy: 1. The philosopher is not there to tell us...

Please see question 5488.

What a lovely question! Thank you! I'm going to punt for Kant's account of the beautiful as that which brings harmony among the cognitive faculties and 'enlivens' their mutual functioning. Now, why does this bring me joy? First of all, because I have found the idea enormously philosophically fertile (for example, it is important to my and Ole Martin Skilleas' work on the aesthetics of wine, and also to my way of interpreting the concept of affirmation in Nietzsche). Second, it still maps onto my experience of art and nature, despite my having subjected both the idea and my experiences to relentless self criticism. Third, as an idea, it is itself about beauty, pleasure and life. What more do you want?

I suppose I count as a'continental' philosopher. It is worth pointing out that thisanalytic/ continental distinction, however you want to draw it, andfor whatever it is worth, is mainly internal to philosophy. 'Mostpeople' would not be aware of the distinction. Heck, there are signsin businesses that say 'Our philosophy is to provide an excellentcustomer experience'. So, I fully support the need for publiceducation and some kind of large-scale PR exercise. However, thereare hopeful signs. The book market is virtually flooded withintroductions to this or that philosophy, theme or topic, most aimedat a general audience. Experts at judging their markets, publishers clearly see a wide interest in philosophy. This is not an entirely new phenomenon, ofcourse, but its scale is unprecedented. Also there are a very fineset of materials for doing philosophy with children (indeed, even mydaughter's school uses them), and this could be encouraged much more.

Not an easy question to answer since(i) both terms are used in a variety of different ways, and not veryoften by the various philosophers who are categorised in these ways;and (ii) these terms cross boundaries (and peryhaps even originate there) well beyond philosophy(literary studies, music, visual arts, cultural theory, etc.). Anyway, try this out as a startingpoint: let us define a 'critique' as an analysis of X (presumably inthis case a negative evaluation, but it needn't be) but in terms thatX would recognise. A critique of a argument in economics, forexample, would employ economic concepts that are also the horizon ofthe original argument. 'Critique', then, is an operation that one canperform WITHIN a certain type of intellectual milieu, an ordinaryform of debate. In this sense, a critique of modernism (whatever thatis) is still modernism. 'Post-modernism' (whatever that is) would bean attempt (perhaps successful) to move beyond the horizon ofconcepts, forms of analysis or what-have-you that...

I really do not believe that any of the philosophers you mentionseek to 'bully' others in their writing, or to achieve the submissionof their readers. We are all human, so no doubt there areoccasionally misjudged attacks to be found in everyone, but I don'tbelieve these philosophers make it a habit. Although that does notrule out that there may be other philosophers who do this. And itcertainly does not rule out that I often find Derrida in particularexasperating for other reasons. There is a ratio of effort needed toinsight gained that, in many of Derrida's books of the mid or late70s in particular, gets way too high for me. I have had a go atgiving one reason for this difficulty here: http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1593 There are other reasons, too, not least that a philosopher willnaturally tend to write for his or her colleagues, especially whenthey see themselves working on a particular problem together. Alanguage game can become severely 'denaturalised' in such a case.

I'm not sure exactly what your Unclemay have had in mind (although it's possible that I'm being a bitthick, and one of the other panelists will see it straight away). Ican think of several possible 'paradoxes', though (not all of whichare, technically, paradoxes). One is that philosophy is its ownundoing; in other words, if philosophy ever achieved the knowledgethat it pursues, then it would cease to exist. Oddly, this has neverhappened... However, such an undoing need not be a big problem, andindeed philosophers such as Schelling or Hegel explicitly embracedsomething like this end of philosophy. Another is that everydescription of something (e.g. a metaphysical account of the real) isonly a description, and thus requires an investigation of itsadequacy as description; and the result of that investigation is,itself, only a description; and so forth. A third (which can be foundin Hume's scepticism and Kant's critical philosophy) is thatphilosophy investigates the conditions of its own possibility...

It is certainly true that all philosophers are influenced by the place and time in which they live, by their personalities, and by the interests they have as individuals. Philosophers are human beings, after all! But what happens as a result of this ‘influence’? Does it mean the adoption of certain styles of writing, the use of particular forms of argumentation, tendency to use this type of example rather than that, more or less frequent reference to certain other philosophers or traditions, choice of topic (since some topics will appear more urgent to me than to others by virtue of who I am and where and when I live), even choice of methods (I may have a predisposition to skepticism, empiricism, idealism, etc.)? All of these effects, however, do not have any necessary (or even likely) effect upon the value of the philosophical work, either to contemporary philosophy or to a previous era, provided they remain either at the level of ornamentation, or are employed undogmatically. The assumption...

It would be great if the answer to your second question was 'yes'! But, despite the authority of Plato, I doubt that it is. Let us distinguish between knowing why, knowing that, andcharacter. 'Knowing why' is the moral theorist: he or she understandsthe relationship among principles, the various avenues ofjustification, the standard arguments and objections, and so forth.'Knowing that' is someone who has an accurate grasp of what is good,although he or she might not be able to explain 'why', or evenrecognise the need to do so. (I won't dwell on what 'accurate' mightmean here, for the same reason presumably as you put 'better' intoscare-quotes!) 'Character' is the capacity (the will, the strength,whatever) to turn moral knowledge into action. Clearly, neither ofthe first two is any good without the last. Moreover, I can see nogood reason why the 'knowing why' individual is any more likely tohave a virtuous character than a 'knowing that' – indeed, it mightbe the reverse. However...