I don't know whether many people are interested in those philosophical topics before they start studying philosophy, and I don't have a strong sense that people ought to show that sort of interest -- I think it takes some effort and time to come to appreciate the philosophical point of celebrated doctrines from the history of philosophy, and I wouldn't expect the sorts of doctrines you mention to be of immediate interest to many. That said, I do think that more people ought to be interested in studying philosophy academically, which of course could cause them to become interested in those doctrines. The reason why I believe this is that studying philosophy is a superb way to gain knowledge, insight, and skills. With respect to knowledge, I think it is useful to understand some of the leading philosophical ideas and doctrines that have played important roles in the development of the cultures in which they were developed. I also believe that reflecting on philosophical topics and texts can help one to...

I think there is no simple or objective way to determine this (say, by counting cites in Google Scholar) for the simple reasons, first, that what counts as a good work of philosophy depends on the exact reasons why you wish to read philosophy in the first place and, second, that there are many, many different reasons why someone might want to study philosophy in a serious way. As an example, let's consider the value of historical texts. One way to understand the value of a particular thinker or of a particular work is to understand its historical context (was the thinker or text addressing problems that it was important to answer at that time, and in a manner that engaged other significant thinkers and texts in important ways?) and historical legacy (did the thinker or text influence significantly future work on important philosophical issues). If you, as a reader, are especially interested in the "local history" of a particular philosophical concept or question or problem as it was understood at a...

One more thought: if you are interested in twentieth century analytic philosophy, Scott Soames' two-volume history provides clear and reasonably reliable interpretations of the history of some of the movements within that tradition. Even though Soames does not provide a full or completely satisfactory history of analytic philosophy--his central narrative focuses narrowly on those treatments of the analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent, and apriori/aposteriori distinctions that are most closely connected to Saul Kripke's celebrated work in Naming and Necessity , and the emphasis he places on the historical significance of Kripke's achievements creates some some significant gaps and oversimplifications--these texts are extremely engaging and reading them can be a good way to gain sophisticated introductory knowledge about some vital figures in recent philosophical history: Soames, Scott, Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume 1: The Dawn of Analysis . (Princeton, NJ:...

Russell's book is lively, but not that reliable. The best one-volume history of philosophy I've found is A Brief History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny, which is accessible but sophisticated and concise yet comprehensive. Unlike Russell, Kenny develops develop a sophisticated historiography that draws helpfully from wider cultural and historical events and trends. This gives his text a much more interestingly nuanced view than is normal in introductory histories of philosophy. The book is entertaining and deeply informative -- and I consider it the very best of its genre! Here's an Amazon link (note -- the text I have mind is the one published by Blackwell in 1998; Kenny has published other histories of philosophy since then that I don't like as much): http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Western-Philosophy/dp/0631201327

Your question raises interesting issues about philosophical methodology and also about some specific content areas. With respect to the methodology, yourquestion may falsely assume that using the tools of logic throughreasoning means paying no attention to your intellectual or moralintuitions and to your emotional responses to specific situations andproblems. I don't think that is the case, however, because thoseintuitions and those emotional responses can be included among thethings that you reason logically about. At least, I don't see anyreason to include them from the "deliberative mix" and I do note thatphilosophers frequently appeal to intuitions in rational argumentseven in some of the most abstruse corners of philosophy like thephilosophy of language. With respect to the primacy of logic, itstrikes me that to affirm logic as "primary" means, in part, thatstrongly-held gut feelings are amenable to rational discussion,assessment, and, potentially, overturning. If there truly is...

To add to Kalynne's answer, once you have identified a work of philosophy "broadly speaking," a useful thing to do is to reflect on whether or not that specific work is likely to meet your specific objectives for engaging with philosophy -- that question can be much more useful, I think, than simply understanding whether a given work can rightly be categorized as a work of philosophy. Reading and reflecting on Pirsig, working your way through an introductory text, browsing within the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and reading a set of specialized journal articles on a narrow topic each involve engagement with philosophy under one or another conception of what philosophy is, and each offer different opportunities for learning and growth. As you read around, you will get a sense of which types of texts offer which kinds of opportunities, and you may also get a better sense of which opportunities matter the most to you.

As Question 2110 makes clear, the value of studying philosophy extends far beyond "career-oriented" preparation. Iwould also emphasize, however, that studying philosophy constitutes extremely strong preparation for many careers because itprovides you with superb opportunities for skill development, includinganalytical and creative thinking skills, analytical and creative oral and written communication skills, and, more generally, skills related to self-directed learning. Theseare extremely valuable skills in business and in other professions, and, since you also enjoy studying philosophy for its own sake, it strikes methat you have a lot to gain by working in this field. To be sure,every college course and each subject of study claims to contribute tocritical thinking and communication skills, and to some extent this istrue. Perhaps, therefore, it is mainly my own parochialism that leadsme to assert the following, although I do not think so: Workingintensively in philosophy is a...

My experience is that manybeginning students can learn and grow a lot by engaging intensively with primary texts. This engagement is difficult for students and their instructors, but when it occurs it is extremely intellectually rewarding. One of my earliest memories of a student was sitting alone in my college's library reading Hobbes. At one point, I "got it" and began to slow down and think hard and gain a lot from thinking about his ideas and arguments. Another was spending most of a semester discussing one single article--Quine's "Two Dogmas"--with an instrutor who was willing to throw the course syllabus out of the window and discuss those ideas as deeply and for as long as his students wanted. These were both extremely powerful experiences to me, and to my they represent a form of of "deep enagement" that still means a lot of me two decades later. As an eductator, it excites me to help students to learn how to achieve this kind of philosophical engagement, and I think that many...

My sense is that distrust of online learning has faded signficantly overall, andthat suspicion about this type of education ("loathing" seems toostrong, at least in my experience) among philosophers has eased somewhat in recent years. Thatsaid, I think you are right to suggest that relatively few philosophers areinterested in teaching exclusively online courses; there is, however,increasing interest among philospohers I talk to aobut "blended" modalities that combine face-to-faceand online learning. I agree with you and with Allen that there is no good reason whymore philospohy courses could not be taught online. I would also arguethat there is great benefit in doing so: as you suggest, online coursesprovide an excellent opportunity toextend the benefits of higher education to folks who are not wellserved by traditional classes. So, I hope that morephilosophers will be willing to "try out" online courses so that those(potential) students can benefit from all the benefits that accrue...

Perhaps this is the answer: Young children and philosophers can both discuss the world in unconventional ways, children because they have not yet learned to think conventionally and philosophers because they have unlearned this. Sometimes children will discuss the world in ways that also interest philosophers; philosophers, however, will address these issues in much more sophisticated ways, and the added complexity of their perspectives makes them much less likely to match a young child's confident assertiveness about the way the world is.

Some philosophers revel in ambiguity or metaphor, but most do not;somephilosophers do not take the time to write clearly, but must takereasonable care about this. So, these factors don't get to the heart ofthe matter of why so much philosophicalwriting is so difficult to understand. I think the most important point is simply that philosophicaltopics are difficult to discuss clearly in the first place, andespecially so when they are first developed or when new types ofarguments are put forward. Given this, I'm not at all surprised that alot of exegetical work needs to be done before one can assess thestrengths of the arguments even of the best philosophical writers likeHume.