Ask HN: Best Philosophical Books? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN!
I was wondering, what are the best books which have been eye-opening or incredibly interesting about philosophy that you all have read?
Two examples of books: Common Sense (I'm reading it for school) & On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (I've been wanting to read this) <comment><USER6> Hi, I'm an ABD philosopher.

The deepest and most interesting philosophical books are generally difficult and best accompanied by some form of instruction. This is true regardless of how clearly (e.g. Plato) or esoterically (e.g. Kant) written they are. There are some good secondary sources that can help but it's far preferable to be able to talk to an expert in a one-on-one or smallish setting. It would take a long time to explain why this is the case, so I'll just leave it as an assertion here.

Okay, that being said, I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from reading philosophy on their own. Here are some recommendations for books and articles that can be (more) fruitfully read on one's own. Anything marked with a + is a secondary source. Ideally I'd be giving you excerpts from each of these in a reader for a course. I'm going to skip some people like Aristotle who should be approached in carefully selected excerpts or with a guide, and also some more obvious things that almost everyone with a college education has read, like Descartes' _Meditations_ or Plato's _Republic_.

 _On Fate_ , Alexander of Aphrodisias

\+ _Problems from Locke_ , Mackie

 _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_ , Spinoza

\+ _The Courtier and the Heretic_ , Stewart (on Spinoza and Leibniz)

 _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ , Hume

 _Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals_ , Kant

 _Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics_ , Kant

 _On Liberty_ , Mill

"Modern Moral Philosophy", Anscombe

"What is Capitalism?", Rand

 _The Bounds of Sense_ , Strawson

\+ "Rawls on Justice", Nagel

"The Naturalists Return", Kitcher

 _Sources of Normativity_ , Korsgaard

This crowd in particular might be interested in some of Frege's work as well, e.g. "What is a Function?" and "Sense and Reference."

<comment><USER7> The above books are great, but unless you are really into philosophy I don't think you'd gain much from reading primary sources. (With the exception of Hume, he's brief and brilliant.) I think someone casually interested in philosophy would be better off reading articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu); and if a subject is particularly interesting then they can always go read some related primary sources.

If you do start reading primary sources, particularly the early modern philosophers, I recommend visiting www.earlymoderntexts.com. Jonathan Bennett has done a great job "translating" the works of Hume, Kant, Locke, Berkley, etc. from old-English (or German, French...) into modern-English so that their philosophical arguments can be understood without being obfuscated by language quirks.

<comment><USER8> I respectfully disagree. In many cases, reading secondary sources is pointless without also reading the originals. (It's a bit like reading a review of a meal, rather than eating any of it.)

That said, the quality of secondary works varies a lot. Some things, like Mackie's _Problems from Locke_ , are now primary sources in their own right, albeit in a secondary way.

<comment><USER7> But you can't really pick up most primary sources and actually get anything out of them without understanding the historical/philosophical context they were written in. If you can find someone with little to no philosophical background who can pick up _A Critique of Pure Reason_ or the _Tractatus_ and actually get anything out of it then you've probably found Kant or Wittgenstein reborn.

That's why the parent commenter said you need a guide/instructor to properly understand what is going on in these books, and I agree with that. But for people without such a luxury, secondary sources and articles are a good method for gaining some rudimentary understanding of the philosophical topics.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree with some of your larger point. Most people will get the fullest benefit out of a classroom setting, with an engaging and well-read class leader and an engaged and thoughtful group of students to argue with.

However, I still believe that a determined outsider can get real benefit out of philosophy on his or her own. (Not the fullest benefit, but significant benefit.) I completely agree with you about cultural/historical/philosophical background, which is why in my answer I made a point of recommending not just titles but specific editions for classical works. Maybe we could call this the best of both worlds: good primary sources, filled out with enriching secondary material, all in one edition? (It does tend to make those editions more costly than some, and also heavier.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know if it counts as a serious philosophy book, but I really enjoyed Godel, Escher, Bach. Math, computers, consciousness, etc.

I'm currently reading Reasons and Persons. Thought experiments and discussion about how personal identity works under, eg, transporter copies.

<comment><USER10> I think many readers will be surprised at how accessible "Gödel, Escher, Bach" actually is. I'm not an expert at anything: I have no work experience and maybe two serious computer science courses under my belt, but GEB really satisfies an intellectual curiosity I've had for years. I'm 550 pages in (out of about 750 pages) and with the exception of the two chapters discussing the anatomy of the human brain (a subject I'm just not that interested in), I've torn through this book—I only started reading about three months ago, which means I've been reading GEB much faster than any other book I've ever opened. I highly recommend "Gödel, Escher, Bach" even to those who have seen other people recommend it yet have been reluctant to try it out.

<comment><USER11> > (out of about 750 pages)

Come on, it's 777 pages for a reason! :)

When I realized the page count (purposefully) included the index I was quite tickled. So many gems, little and large...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would not recommend any compilations of philosophy. The great thing about philosophy is reading the rationales and the results, not only the results.

"Ricard+Revel - The Monk and the Philosopher" [http://www.amazon.com/Monk- Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meanin...](http://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher- Father-Discuss-Meaning/dp/0805211039)

"Socrates(/Plato) - The Allegory of the Cave" <http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html>

"Plato(/Socrates/others) - Symposium" <http://www.amazon.com/Symposium- Plato/dp/0872200760>

"Bertrand Russell - The Conquest of Happiness" [http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand- Russell/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand- Russell/dp/0871401622)

<comment><USER13> I absolutely agree that The Monk and the Philosopher is one of the best book. A frank discussion between a father and son who both have PhD. Every interesting book.

<comment><USER14> Actually Jean-Francois Revel did not have a PhD (he explains why in his autobiography "Le voleur dans la maison vide").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really enjoyed Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. It's not quite a philosophy book but I found his take on the concept of 'quality' very useful. To me it's a story of how a westerner discovers eastern philosophy, which is great to read coming from a western perspective.

<comment><USER16> I never leave a book unfinished, if I start a book I feel like have to finish the book (I finished Dan Brown's book with disgust, imagine that), but I just couldn't finish this book. I have absolutely no idea why people like this book and I have got recommendations from quite a few people.

<comment><USER17> I had the opposite reaction. I almost never finish books, this book is the first one bigger than a 100 pages that i finished front to cover. I'm currently re-reading it.

Here are a few reasons why i liked it:

-It was the first book on philosophy i actually read. The closest book on philosophy i ever had contact with before was a high school textbook and it was more than horrible.

-I read it with a deliberate reason, i was interested specifically in why some people are bad with tech, actually not just bad but horrible with it. Where does this gap come from?

-I read it at a point in my life when i was trying to figure out a lot of stuff, and one of them was how to not be an arrogant asshole, i found that it was way too easy to be one towards people who i perceived as less intelligent than me. I approached this book searching for ways to enhance my reasons to be arrogant, but left it with a sort of humility and understanding towards others that i didn't know i was capable of.

-Because of my obsessiveness and extreme rationalism, it was easy for me to connect with the character of Phaedrus.

-It was a novel, not a philosophy book, it was light to read, and at the same time intellectually stimulating.

Maybe you should ask yourself why is it that you don't like it? I'm curious for the reasons, it certainly has its flaws, and i still have difficulty with some of the ideas after the second re-read, but i never found it not entertaining.

<comment><USER16> For the first ~25 page or so the book is nothing but this guy who goes to biking with his friends and son.

Maybe my expectation was too high, maybe I was hoping to be blown away by some deep philosophical understanding. Or maybe its the writing style, I felt like I was reading someone's diary, reading his mundane everyday thoughts.

Absolutely nothing. Just a guy riding his bike for ~25 pages.

I stopped reading where he was yelling at his kid for some stupid reason during camping. Maybe after that he talks about something interesting.

I will probably give it another shot, most likely not anytime soon.

<comment><USER18> > I will probably give it another shot, most likely not anytime soon.

If you stopped reading it after 25 pages, you never gave it a shot in the first place. It's 464 pages long, for Pete's sake!

<comment><USER16> Reading a non-fiction book is an investment of time and energy. 25 pages in to the book and the author didn't even begin to address the point of the book, which was a big turn-off for me, I have never read a book that just talks about random stuff for the first 25 pages or so. I thought it was a very weird way to start off a book.

I am sure its a decent book, or there wouldn't be so many fans out there, so I will give it another try.

<comment><USER19> _Zen_ is an overrated book. Having said that, to say that "I have absolutely no idea why people like this book" when you haven't read it (and 25 pages does _not_ count) sounds completely absurd. I do recommend you actually try reading it, even if for no other reason then to find out what everyone else is on about.

<comment><USER18> I wouldn't call Zen overrated, at least insofar as it's a relatively easy read which makes some good points.

Those points, IMO, are not the author's main philosophical contention, but his presentation of philosophical introspection intertwined with everyday life. Would that more Americans realized they could contemplate metaphysics even while going about their everyday lives.

<comment><USER19> By "overrated" I don't mean that it's bad. It's overrated in the same way that _The Mythical Man Month_ is the most overrated software engineering book, or _Sgt. Pepper_ is the most overrated album. Those are important works, but they don't live up to the level of hype around them. In fact, I don't think anything could.

I agree with your point, though. (But not sure why it only applies to Americans? ;)

<comment><USER18> I can only speak authoritatively about Americans, because I've only lived in America. Residents of other countries may be different :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The Virtue of Selfishness" "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" "Philosophy: Who Needs It" "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"

All by Ayn Rand. Whether you end up agreeing with her or not, she will definitely will make you think.

<comment><USER21> Good ones. Just make sure these aren't the only ones you study or you'll end up being a worse amateur philosopher than you were before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      Some from the canon:

Plato: _Defence of Socrates, Euthyphro, Crito_ (translated by David Gallop)

 _The Modes of Scepticism_ by Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes (a beautiful collection of texts from Pyrrhonian scepticism and analysis of their arguments; the best way I know to meet ancient scepticism)

Descartes: _Meditations on First Philosophy_ (The Cambridge University Press edition is very good; it's probably worth buying their _Selected Philosophical Writings_ for a good basic Descartes text)

David Hume: _An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding_ and _An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals_ (I recommend the Oxford Philosophical Texts editions)

Wittgenstein: _Philosophical Investigations_ (terribly, terribly difficult, but very rewarding)

      A few contemporary things:

Gilbert Ryle: _The Concept of Mind_

Willard Van Orman Quine: _From a Logical Point of View_

J. L. Mackie: _Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong_

Thomas Nagel: _Mortal Questions_ (short essays, well-written, very accessible)

Bernard Williams: _Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy_

Michael Smith: _The Moral Problem_

      Specialist, technical, odd:

_The Frege Reader_ by Michael Beaney (for modern logic and the beginnings of contemporary philosophy in the analytic style)

J. L. Mackie: _The Cement of the Universe: A Study of Causation_

William Kingdon Clifford: _The Ethics of Belief_ (he argues, oddly but powerfully, that it's immoral to believe things on insufficient evidence or irrationally - an offense to morality, not just reason)

<comment><USER22> This is a great list. +1 on the _Philosophical Investigations_.

As an introductory book, I would recommend Russell's _Problems of Philosophy_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences>

</comment><comment><USER24> I think the quality of advice you're getting on this thread is very mixed.

Some of the books mentioned are absolutely great-- like "Being and Time", or Husserl's "Logical Investigations"-- but incredibly difficult to read unprepared. If you were ready to be reading them, you wouldn't be asking the question here.

The two books you mention in the question (Common Sense and "On the Fourfold Root") are both quite readable, as are a few of the primary texts mentioned in the responses ("Existentialism is a Humanism", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra") but in general, I'd have to suggest you stay away from primary texts at first.

In other words, begin by reading works _about_ philosophy, rather than works _of_ philosophy.

A single-volume work on the history of philosophy will give you the broad scope (for example, Durant, or Russell, or "Sophie's World" if you prefer fiction), but will tend to turn the philosophers discussed into caricatures of themselves.

You mention that you are in school; I'd suggest you take a philosophy course or two, if you are interested in the field. Having an experienced guide will definitely help.

<comment><USER25> Problem with reading secondary material is it'll be colored by the worldview of said author, and generally people will stick philosophers in easy categories without trying to actually understand them. For example, often you'll read modern synopses of Plato saying he thought the physical world is bad, even though he says no such thing.

<comment><USER26> Technically, HE himself, as in Plato, first person, never says 'the physical world is bad'. However, if you study his work, you will find that this notion is indeed carried out in the words and actions of his protagonist, Socrates.

For example, and maybe the best example: Socrates, laying on his back as the numbness and cold from the hemlock worked its way from his legs upward after willingly drinking it, removed the cloth that had been laid across his face and said "Oh... don't forget to sacrifice a cock to Asclepius for me...". This phrase, which was also used by Steinbeck in "The Moon is Down" in a similar context, is taken to mean "please go an make an offering to the God of Ailments & Cures, as I have been cured of the curses of the physical world by death, and am going to a much better place..."

Also, Plato's take wasn't that the physical world was "bad" so much as it was composed of imperfect instances of the "Forms"; Reality as mere shadows and projections of purer, more abstract concepts.

I take slight issue, however, with you denigrating "secondary materials" with a broad stroke. There are some really very good, objective analyses of Plato (Vlastos, et. al.) that actually provide a great deal of insight from time to time by explaining some of the idioms and pre-conceived notions of the time and culture that are necessarily understood to be placed in the proper context to understand the dialogue.

For my 2¢, I say to the OP: Wittgenstein. The "Brown" and "Blue" books. Very interesting, modern philosophy that deals with semantic meaning and the binding of semantics to syntax and lexicon. Very intriguing stuff. Oh, and the guy was a kindergarden teacher, so you KNOW he had balls of steel. ;)

<comment><USER8> Btw, the interpretation of Socrates and the sacrifice to Asclepius is highly controversial. The interpretation you give is a popular one, but note that it was first offered by Nietzsche. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not a given. To my mind, "death as a cure for life" is more a product of Nietzsche's romanticism than Socrates' views, but I admit that the whole thing is very controversial.

If you're curious, the first page of the following article lists 21 interpretations of that bit from _The Phaedo_. (Naturally, the author then goes on to offer her own view of the matter. She is an academic, after all.)

<http://www.tc.umn.edu/~peter009/debt.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> -Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations by Ludvig Wittgenstein

-The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper

-On Liberty John Stuart Mill

-Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and their Computation by Machine by John McCarthy

<comment><USER28> While it is eye-opening I could hardly recommend the Tractatus unless you get it with a commentary. How about The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and the Tractatus by Michael Morris?

Good call with Karl Popper. On Liberty is archaic somewhat. To recommend just that book by John McCarthy is too narrow, and besides logic and the theory of computation are not a part of philosophy per se. Logic is a tool of philosophers. The theory of computation could possibly be folded into philosophy of mind but I've never seen it done so, there is a strong argument that it should be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Bertrand Russell: A history of western philosophy.

I haven't read it all but what I've read was both informative and witty. Note that Russell, kind of similar to The Economist, is "opinionated". Must be that British style...

<comment><USER30> I read it cover to cover and loved it. But Russel, although a humanist, is firmly an occidental man. He rushes through Oriental philosophy like it's a bad neighborhood (he really didn't hide his distaste for mysticism and metaphysics at all.)

A better read might be Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy". And Durant's masterpiece, The Story of Civilization is unparalleled in its scope and lucidity, though not philosophy. I have such a huge attachment to the Durants, they kept me company on many a long night. I read about seven or eight of their dozen volumes.

<comment><USER31> Well, it is a history of _western_ philosophy. Also, I wouldn't say that Russell has a distaste for mysticism; my read of many of his writings on religion ( _A Free Man's Worship_ , _Mysticism and Logic_ , etc.) would be that he genuinely sees the value of mysticism and transcendental experience – though I'm going on memory from reading about a decade ago.

Durant's writing is great too, but _The Story of Philsophy_ doesn't have the depth of _The History of Western Philosophy_ , and, I actually enjoy Russell's snark along the way.

<comment><USER30> The book might be strictly Western in its coverage, but my opinion on his approach to Oriental thought is extrapolated, and is the sum of everything I have read of the man. I say this as someone who first discovered Russell as a logician.

Regarding his mysticism, Whitehead must have passed some of it on, but in the _History_ , he is nothing but a rational materialist. You see this in his treatment of Plato and Platonism vis-a-vis, say, Aristotle.

Where others saw Plato's Ideal as a pure goal or experience, obtained only through sheer effort or total transformation, as evidenced by the various religious groups who synthesized platonic ideals with mystical beliefs. Russell saw something a bit more proscriptive, imo. Allegory is open to interpretation, and I think Russell approached Plato as a fellow Cambridge gentleman, and not, say, a troubled mind searching for answers in a world with much less science, and is forced to defer more to the unknown, the perfect place with all the answers .. where we could go, if only we were perfect ourselves. Plato's obsession with the Ideal, order, wisdom the perfect society, etc. is a cry for help; he is desperately seeking full understanding of his world and is unable to. Only if he could change himself and his society would the world change to something more tangible!

Russell missed that part and projects his own image on Plato; the fully informed intellectual royal whose words are heeded by society. He thought Plato enjoyed a similar luxury, and his calls for perfection, specially in the Republic, were made out of snobbery.

This is my personal take on it, and I am excited to take a second stab at the History.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Given that philosophy as practiced in academia is as much about creating arguments as about the ideas themselves, I suggest "The Philosopher's Toolkit" as a useful reference.

For what I'll call "hard philosophy" I put my votes for books by Hilary Putnam and John Dewey. As a rationalist seeking a solid basis for ethics in the physical world, I've found both authors quite instructive. Perhaps "Objectivity" by Nicholas Rescher belongs here as well.

There's a whole other class of what I call "idea books" and I've seen a few of them listed in the comments, too. Given the reading examples you mentioned, I'm assuming you're looking more at "hard philosophy" so I'll skip the other kind of suggestions unless you ask for them.

<comment><USER33> What are your Dewey recommendations?

<comment><USER32> I've read both "Experience and Nature" and "How We Think" and can recommend both. "How We Think" was published first and is shorter - would make for a good introduction to Dewey. "Experience and Nature" is longer and has more weight but is also more work to read. I haven't read more than excerpts from his other works so I can't add much. Otherwise, I intend to read "The Public and its Problems" which is supposed to be a good work on democracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Check out Charles S. Peirce, American father of pragmaticism (not pragmatism). Two essays, 'The Fixation of Belief' and 'How to Make Our Ideas Clear' are particularly inspiring. Google 'peirce how to make our ideas clear', it's number one.

</comment><comment><USER35> The ones I've read and find good:

\- Existentialism is a Humanism - Jean Paul Sartre : Very easy to read and is a very good introduction to existentialism.

\- Thus Spoke Zarathustra - <USER3>

\- Siddhartha - Herman Hesse

<comment><USER36> As I read the comments, I am surprised how little existentialism there is listed. Maybe not the best place to start, but I think it is the life changing stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathon Haidt is great. It intertwines philosophy and psychology while providing a lot of insight on how a life is well lived.

[http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern- An...](http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Modern- Ancient/dp/0465028020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278744811&sr=8-1)

</comment><comment><USER38> A couple by Stanley Cavell:

Must We Mean What We Say? (1969) The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy (1979) New York: Oxford University Press.

I would also second Russell's A Brief History of Western Philosophy. It's biased and weirdly shallow in some places, but written by a philosopher, so not a toothless compilation.

Obscure but made an impression on me: Ways of Worldmaking by Nelson Goodman.

If you can get through it: John Rawls's A Theory of Justice...an important book with a few very important ideas.

Stuff by Amartya Sen.

On philosophy of science, the historical narratives do the job I think, like The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler (a great read once you get through the Greeks). You could read Thomas Kuhn, Feyerabend's autobiography "Killing Time" which is great, and if you're really serious read Peter Galison's stuff.

Finally, again, more history that pure philosophy but I really liked Wittgenstein's Vienna by Toulmin.

</comment><comment><USER39> Most of the "eye-opening or incredibly interesting" philosophical material that I've read has been in individual articles rather than books. That said, here are a few favourites from various areas. It's a bit heavily weighted towards recent material; Kant and Plato ought to be on there, but I can't stand Kant as a writer, even if his ideas are profound, and Plato's style has always irritated me for some reason I can't quite put my finger on. I could probably keep tying titles all day, so I'll stop with those that first popped into my head.

Aristotle, _Nicomachean Ethics_

David Chalmers, _The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory_

Gottlob Frege, _Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik_

Thomas Hobbes, _Leviathan_

David Hume, _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_

J.S. Mill, _On Liberty_

John Rawls, _A Theory of Justice_

Stewart Shapiro, _Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology_

</comment><comment><USER40> " _Siddhartha_ ", " _Steppenwolf_ " - by Herman Hesse.

" _Atlas Shrugged_ " - by Ayn Rand.

" _Mrityunjay_ " - by Sivaji savant (originally in marathi/hindi language.. based on the character of Karna from Mahabharata.Not very sure how good the english translation is though.The title means - he who has conquered Death.)

</comment><comment><USER41> It depends if you want to be knowledgeable "about" philosophy and knowledge or if you want to apply it to you life.

* K.Popper (in both cases;): _Open society and its ennemies_ [http://www.archive.org/stream/opensocietyandit033120mbp#page...](http://www.archive.org/stream/opensocietyandit033120mbp#page/n7/mode/2up)

for "Ars Vitae" (applicable to one's life)

* Plato: _Gorgias_

* Marc Aurélius: _Meditations_

* Friedrich Nietzsche: _Beyond good & evil_

I agree with others on Hume, Russell, Husserl. Another great thinker while he does not pretend to be a philosopher is Dan Sperber, I think of 2 books

* Dan Sperber (with Deirdre Wilson) _Relevance. Communication and Cognition_ (Blackwell, 1986)

* Sperber, Dan (1996) Explaining culture: _A naturalistic approach._ (Oxford: Blackwell)

Finally philosophical literature: * Doistoievski: _The Brothers Karamazov_ (question of God is asked)

</comment><comment><USER42> Almost anything by Alan Watts. _Tao: The Watercourse Way_ is good. He also has a bunch of lectures recorded in audio and available on bittorrent.

</comment><comment><USER25> Some of the best philosophy books I've found for free online:

Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Even though you may not agree with his conclusions, it is still a remarkable piece of work. <http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP.html>

David Stove does a good job debunking Hume's problem of induction, which underlies what I consider wrong in most modern philosophy <http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/davidstove.html>

Liberty or Equality outlines the potential for tyranny inherent in democracy <http://blog.mises.org/6326/liberty-or-equality/>

</comment><comment><USER43> Sophie's World is _by far_ the best introduction to philosophy that you can read. It's presented in a narrative and the lessons are in conversation form. The plot is really good-- it goes very meta at the end.

</comment><comment><USER44> If you're interested in phenomenology and/or existentialism and works that are somewhat readable (this is subjective of course), I'd suggest:

1\. Maurice Merleau-Ponty - The Phenomenology of Perception

2\. Simone de Beauvoir - Ethics of Ambiguity

3\. Friedrich Nietzsche - Will to Power

I'd highly recommend NOT reading Being and Time by Heidegger - you'll want to stab your eyes out ten times.

Outside of pure philosophical texts and more emphasis on fictional works related to philosophy, I'd suggest indirect material that encourage ideas of subjective perception and point-of-view. Examples are works by Franz Kafka, Ryu Murakami and William S. Burroughs.

</comment><comment><USER45> Obviously anyone's recommendations are going to tell you as much about that person's philosophical preferences as about the actual books. We might be able to do better if you told us more about your own interests and prejudices. Anyway, here are a few recommendations:

Ethics and (technical questions about) personal identity: "Reasons and persons", by Derek Parfit. Quite heavy going, but Parfit's an outstandingly clear thinker and there are some very good ideas here.

Applied ethics: "Living high and letting die", by Peter Unger. Argues for the counterintuitive conclusion that basically all of us in the affluent West have an obligation to do (not just somewhat more but) vastly more for the least well-off.

Philosophy of religion (from a definitely atheist perspective): "The miracle of theism", by John Mackie. Quite dense, but well written, clear and mostly fair. Much much more seriously intellectually than any of the recent "New Atheist" books.

Philosophy of mind, epistemology, ethics, decision theory, philosophy of physics, many other things: "Good and Real", by Gary Drescher. "A breathtakingly original assault on all the Big Issues!", says Daniel Dennett, and he's right.

Recommended on just about any topic: the "Oxford Readings in Philosophy" series of anthologies. Each volume consists of a lengthy introduction followed by somewhere on the order of 10 important articles from the primary literature. Generally very approachable and well selected.

</comment><comment><USER13> These two books change my life:

Tao Te Ching - [http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Skylight- Illuminations/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Te-Ching-Skylight- Illuminations/dp/1594732043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278761330&sr=8-1)

The Dhammapada - [http://www.amazon.com/Dhammapada-Translation-Buddhist- Classi...](http://www.amazon.com/Dhammapada-Translation-Buddhist-Classic- Annotations/dp/1590303806/ref=pd_sim_b_18)

</comment><comment><USER46> There seem to be two questions here. First: 'what are some eye-opening reads'? Second: 'what are some good philosophy books?'

The fact is, "eye-opening reads" really depends on the eye, and without much context, it's very difficult to give recommendations.

So I'll name two books that were 'eye-opening' for me AND are good philosophy and another that is just 'good philosophy.'

J. S. Mill's On Liberty. Read it. It's short. It's poignant. Don't not read this book.

Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche is required reading. if you like it, check out the viking collection of works by him and read his wikipedia page. You'll get a sense of what else you'd like to read from these two sources.

The groundwork for a metaphysics of morals by Kant is a great introduction to his way of thinking/reasoning and deals with an important matter--the possibility of a moral system. This book is a good introduction to a way of philosophizing very different from the others--Kant aims to be deeply systematic and specific. While not eye-opening, 'sexy philosophy' or quite 'enjoyable,' GMM is a relatively short read and a worthwhile thought-journey.

<comment><USER18> > While not eye-opening, 'sexy philosophy' or quite 'enjoyable,' GMM is a > relatively short read and a worthwhile thought-journey.

For the majority of extremely utilitarian American readers, GMM will most definitely be eye-opening.

<comment><USER46> Right. Sorry for the conflation of editorial and description in that sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I wholeheartedly recommend "Action Philosophers". <http://www.eviltwincomics.com/ap.html>

Especially the Ain Rand section, which made it clear to me that you need to know how a person grew up to understand how they formed their philosophy.

Yes, it's a comic, but that makes it all the more accessible. Fantastic for philosophy beginners.

</comment><comment><USER48> _Sophie's World_ is a fun novel and a map of the historical development of philosophy.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophies_World>

The first book on philosophy that both blew my hair back and made me realize philosophy is alot more than just academic was _You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists)_.

[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schwarz- cover.htm...](http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schwarz-cover.html)

My best friend in college was a Russian Jew whose family immigrated to US during the Cold War, and he kept that book on his coffee table.

It's the Yin to Howard Zinn's Yang - _A People's History of the United States_ \- which even though it's not philosophy is worth reading too.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peoples_History_of_the_United...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peoples_History_of_the_United_States)

<comment><USER46> not to sound like an ass, but if you want to seriously deal with philosophy, don't waste your time with sophies world. or 'zen and the art of...' for that matter.

<comment><USER49> Why not? Do you consider it misleading, or just too simplistic? If the former, fair enough (though I'd love to hear details; I quite enjoyed Sophie). If the latter: I'm a big fan of light overviews. You can always go deeper into the areas you find interesting, whereas it's easy to get lost if you dive straight into the in-depth stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Sophie's world. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophies_World>

It's a great book that takes you on a whirlwind tour of the most famous philosophers and their thoughts. What's more, it's woven into a suspense novel, so it keeps you reading!

<comment><USER51> Read it some years ago, definitively a good book to get some background in the history of philosophy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I would suggest "Man and His Symbols", which is an introduction to Jungian psychology. Jung took a unique view on the psyche, which I believe is helpful in forming an objective opinion about humankind 'in itself', a necessary vantage point if you desire anything "eye-opening".

</comment><comment><USER53> My list:

\- Pirkei Avot, it's a section of the Mishnah (a part of the Talmud), it summarizes the jewish moral thought (well, not for the Karaites Jews, they did not believe in the Talmud), I was born in a Orthodox Jewish family so it was important on my beliefs, even though I am an Atheist now.

\- Organon, it's a compilation of Aristotle's logic works, they are the basis for the logical thought of the Western civilization, I think it's easier to read the originals than compendiums.

\- Philosophical Investigations, the second book of Wittgenstein, it's dense, and obscure to some extent, but it's really eye-opener, some ideas that influenced the last century are introduced there.

\- Proofs and Refutations, a posthumous work by Imre Lakatos, it defied much of my established view on how Mathematics works.

\- Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a powerful book, it's dense and you can only drag many conclusions from it when you read other works from Nietzsche, which lead to my next book.

\- On the Genealogy of Morality, this is for me the most important of the 5 books that I have read from Nietzsche, in the first essay of the book the concept of master morality and slave morality is introduced, some people think that Nietzsche favors the first, I disagree, for me he describes and criticizes both.

\- Truth and Method, the classic of Gadamer, some people call it a "postmodern" work, this only serves to show how "modern" some of the "postmodern" were, the book basically addresses how our current beliefs and customs, which he calls traditions, plays an important part in our hermeneutics and how we always are biased to interpret something.

\- Epistemic Justification, this book of William Alston is a good refinement if you already know some epistemology, although I disagree with the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge, that is the main theme of the book and its essays, it introduced some questions about the nature and limitations of knowledge.

\- Inquiry into the Human Mind, by Thomas Reid is a good read and also a staunch defense of the common sense.

</comment><comment><USER54> Asking for "Best Philosophical Books" is pretty much like asking for an opinion, everyone will have a very different view. That being said, here's my view!

John Stuart Mill - "Utilitarianism" (Kant be damned.)

Thomas Nagel - "Moral Luck"

David Lewis - "On the Plurality of Worlds"

Plato - "The Republic"

Aristotle - "The Metaphysics"

</comment><comment><USER55> Surprised no one has mentioned Paul Graham's _How to do Philosophy_. We are after all hanging out in his living room. <http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html>

</comment><comment><USER56> Since it looks like skeptical philosophy is covered pretty well, here are some books from religious philosophy that you'd probably do well to read:

The Tao te Ching

The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas

An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent by John Henry Newman

Either/Or by Kierkegaard

</comment><comment><USER57> I took a course in philosophy during my Cognitive Science studies, and our course book ([http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Anthology-John- Heil/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mind-Anthology-John- Heil/dp/0199253838/)) was really useful, since they had an original text and a couple of criticisms of that text, sometimes followed by a retort on that criticism. That was really good to get a grasp of the subject, even though I agree with others here that having an excellent teacher did a lot more to get the subject than any book would have.

</comment><comment><USER58> "History of Sexuality: Volume I" -Michel Foucault

"Discipline and Punish" -Michel Foucault

"Philosophy in the Flesh" -George Lakoff

"Metaphors We Live By" -George Lakoff

"Civilization and its Discontents" -Sigmund Freud

These books allowed me to look at reality in a completely different manner.

</comment><comment><USER59> Hirshman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

Camus, the myth of Sisyphus

Borges, the Aleph

Chomsky, on Language

Cicero, On Invention

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Wiener, Cybernetics

James, Pragmatism

Tzara, Dada manifesto

<comment><USER60> Cicero, _On Invention_ <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_invention>

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> _The Coming Community_ , Giorgio Agamben: A series of reflections on medieval philosophy and language that culminates in a notion of community that isn't grounded in any kind of commonality. It's a brilliant work that still serves as the terra firma for understanding the rest of Agamben's more popular works such as _Homo Sacer_ and _Means without Ends_. This is one of the most influential and brilliantly conceived books I've ever read.

</comment><comment><USER62> I like Jean Baudrillard <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>

</comment><comment><USER63> _The Tao is Silent_, by Raymond Smullyan, comes to mind.

<comment><USER13> I like this book also. Every well written by a Western logician.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Naming and Necessity, by Saul A. Kripke

It's a series of Kripke's lectures from 1970 if I'm not mistaken, republished, but without significant changes/corrections. Note Kripke's age of 29 at that point. In them, he develops his theory of direct reference in a highly interesting and controversial way. He didn't leave the philosophers of that time indifferent, and neither will you. Enjoy.

</comment><comment><USER65> If you enjoy debating philosophy (especially value based/govt philosophy), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice by Michael Sandel builds up and absolutely destroys around 10 of the most common premises for these types of debates. A hundred other issues are dealt with along the way and this will change the way you think about this type of philosophy.

<comment><USER66> since reading "buddhism without beliefs", i've kind of lost interest in these things. which is, indeed, a recommendation.

<comment><USER65> I couldn't agree more about the frivolity of these debates, but judging from what he listed I figured govt/value debates might be somewhat frequent (especially since he is reading Common Sense for school).

On the other hand, not taking part in the debates can be bad for you also. The debating process allows you to expose your ideas to the light of free discussion and allows you to exchange error for truth (JSM). Even if you aren't debating people with a clue on the topic, the debate and your subsequent internal dialog will be beneficial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> My favorites from college are: early dialogues of Plato (the most Socratic / least Platonic -- The Apology is a good start), Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (on how deeply the very ideas about how we perceive things affect our understanding), and Aristotle's Nico. Ethics (the importance of habits, moderation, and the idea of the good).

</comment><comment><USER68> Irrational Man is a good introduction to existentialism and he has a very readable overview of philosophy from the Greeks until now.

This is will largely be ignored on this tread, but The Bible is a source of philosophical thought for millions of people. You can get a clear picture of the central theme by reading the book of John.

</comment><comment><USER69> surprised nobody mentioned "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant, which not only talks about philosophy, but the lives of the philosophers and the historical backgrounds. philosophy is gradually becoming more literature-like, which is hard to appreciate without the context. ps. it is also a 1930s best sellers.

</comment><comment><USER70> Quantum Mechanics and Experience, by David Z. Albert, is the most interesting book I read as a philosophy major.

</comment><comment><USER71> Philosophy is not always wisdom. Of reading many books there is no end. But if it's wisdom, you can read it in an hour and spend a life-time understanding and applying it. Read Solomon's Proverbs (<http://bit.ly/aJpmva>) and Ecclesiastes.

</comment><comment><USER72> Some great recommendations here! All I can add is the quote "All of Science is footnotes to Plato" -- no matter how far we come, the ancient Greeks still have relevance. So I'd get a good introductory good to at least the top 3: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. (I could list a few more)

<comment><USER73> > "All of Science is footnotes to Plato"

Science? Wasn't Whitehead talking about Western philosophy?

<comment><USER72> Isn't philosophy the mother of science?

<comment><USER74> Yes, but you still dicked up the quote. Footnotes and mothers are not synonymous, much to the relief of both.

<comment><USER72> For the anal-retentive among you. It would be footnotes and children are not synonymous. Not footnotes and mothers. Philosophy generates science. Western philosophy is a footnote. Your transitives are mixed up.

You can generalize and say "philosophy and science are derived from Greek works, which are still relevant" and help this guy out, or we can play word games. I could give a shit what the actual quote was. My goal wasn't to impress the guy with my knowledge of quotes, it was to offer a recommendation.

<comment><USER74> Sorry, I really didn't need to be so rude. That said, I think getting quotes right is important if you're going to use them. Otherwise you're contributing to sum total of misinformation in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Read "Simulacrum and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard, then question everything that technology provides.

</comment><comment><USER76> Logical Investigations, Vols 1 & 2, by Edmund Husserl. Truly a great philosopher.

</comment><comment><USER77> I highly recommend "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" by Quine. It's just a short little essay, but it's quite accessible (as far as these things go) and was highly influential (and is really fun to read too).

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know if you would strictly call this a philosophy book, but one that is particularly relevant to engineers is _Discussion of the Method_ by Billy Vaughn Koen.

</comment><comment><USER78> \+ Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility James P. Carse \+ Thus Spoke Zarathrusta Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

</comment><comment><USER79> It really depends on what you're looking for, but Philosophy is a field where one philosopher's work is built on top of the other's going all the way back to the ancient Greek's. Its important (I think anyways) to read the raw texts before you read philosophical commentary so that you have a chance to form your own opinions. That being said, here's some recommendations of mine that cover a breadth of philosophical subjects and time periods. Its always good to see someone else want to learn more philsophy, especially if its of their own volition.

Plato. Strangely enough, Plato is probably one of the best introductions to philosophy, not only because he was one of the first whose writings survive to modern time, but also because its relatively simple to read and understand. Some of my personal favorite are 'The Apology', 'The Symposium', and 'The Phaedrus', and of course 'The Republic'. The weird thing with Plato is you'll never know how much of his writings are his thinking as opposed to Socrates teaching. I still reread Plato because the stories (most of his writing is in narrative form) are so damn entertaining.

Aristotle. This is a natural progression from reading Plato. The 'Nichomachean Ethics' is a cornerstone of ancient philosophy and is a relative simple read.

John Locke/Gottfried Leibniz. I'll admit, I struggled through 'An Essay of Human Understanding' but this title and Leibniz's rebuttal 'New Essays on Human Understanding' illustrate a historically important philosophical debate between empiricists and rationalists. Since you're reading 'Common Sense' you might also want to give Locke's 'Second Treatise on Civil Government' a gander.

Immaneul Kant. Since you're reading Schopenhauer you should read Kant as he was heavily influenced by him. You'll hear him referenced a lot if you continue to read philosophy so you should familiarize yourself with his thinking, especially on his thoughts in epistemology.

Bertrand Russell. People have already recommended him and he's one of the most popular philosopher's of modern times, mostly because he's so easy to read and was somewhat of a cultural icon during his time. I have a particular fondness for his work because when I had doubts about my faith, "Why I Am not A Christian" helped me find words to communicate my break with Catholocism. His "History of Western Philosophy" is considered a cornerstone history of philosophy book (although it is somewhat dated now). His writings are usually rather short and concise.

Jacques Derrida/Gilles Deleuze. Now we're getting into some wacky shit. To be fair, I shouldn't even be commenting on it because I have no idea what these guys are talking about half the time. These are the philosophers that people read and pretend to understand because they want to sound smart. You know the stereotypical "philosophy" students that you see in movies. Maybe you'll find something of substance in their work although many philsopher's believe these guys are/were hacks and purposefully obfuscate their writing to hide the fact that there's no substance in it.

One of the best ways to read philosophy is to start with a philosopher who truly changed the game with their work (such as Kant) and work your way out reading the work of his supporters as well as the work of those that disagree with him. This way you'll get a worldy view on 'important' philosophical issues while starting to formulate your own opinions on th ematter.

</comment><comment><USER36> A Brief History of Everything - Ken Wilber

I think Wilber's inclusion of physics would resonate with HNers.

<comment><USER36> Downvoted a recommendation of a philosophy book? WTF

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> The Stranger - Albert Camus

</comment><comment><USER81> "The Bible", "Notes From Underground" (Dostoevsky)

<comment><USER82> The bible is a horrible suggestion for a philosophy book. Isn't this a work that prescribes genocide, builds myth, promote the irrational?

<comment><USER81> (Your reply brings to mind another book I should have mentioned - The Order of Things (Les Mots et Les Choses) by Michel Foucault.)

If philosophy is the drive to understand the human condition, I don't think any philosopher can or should ignore the Bible. Athens, Rome and Jerusalem are where the Western mind was born it has been said. And there is nothing to stop you approaching the Bible as it were hermeneutically, ie. in the same way you might treat the Greek Myths. I find it fascinating myself - from the "ex nihilo" of Genesis, through the "de profundis" of the Psalms, to Job's "Why?!", not to mention the Christian New Testament - and I think it will be read (by philosophers) long after many books in "The Philosophy Section" have been forgotten.

<comment><USER82> But the bible _itself_ isn't a good philosophy book. Meta-bible discussions, including those by Christian scholars, might form a good corpus of philosophy, however.

<comment><USER81> > But the bible itself isn't a good philosophy book

Well I just interpret "philosophy" more broadly. Before we can act, and indeed before we can think, we must somehow plant our feet - we can't stand "nowhere" in a sense. And philosophy is just the search for a good place to stand, a "will to locate oneself" perhaps. And if we habitually stand in the same place, we're religious! We can no more be beyond (super) philosophy than we can be beyond (super) religion than we can be beyond (super) man. In this sense, the authors of the books of the bible are philosophers like the rest of us. If it's dissimilar in style to Plato, Aristotle and so on, there you go. So when you say it isn't a good philosophy book, to my mind you're just saying you don't like the philosophy it evinces, which of course is your prerogative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Beyond Good and Evil - <USER3>

Ashtavakra Gita - <USER4>

The Prophet - <USER5>

</comment><comment><USER84> being and time - Martin Heidegger

</comment><comment><USER85> Anything by Hunter S Thompson.

</comment><comment><USER28> It is with joy that I answer your question. And if I may be allowed to answer it philosophically. The books you find incredibly interesting may be the books the validate your worldview. There are many of these. The book you find eye- opening may be the books that open the door into the world of philosophy proper for you. There are not many of these because you only need to go through that door once I feel.

Also, I would observe that besides Ayn Rand (who for many is not a philosopher) not a single female philosopher has been mentioned here which I find is a damning indictment on the state of affairs of the world of ideas. To remedy that I would recommend to you read A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft or anything by De Beauvoir (and do ignore her contemporary Sartre for he was nothing but a windbag).

I am delighted that you singled out Thomas Paine (who again is not a philosopher as such; must be something in the air in the States) and Arthur Schopenhauer. They are both tremendous stylists. I've said this many times before - I don't care how great a philosopher's ideas are, if they can't write well I don't want to know. Thus we have people here recommending Kripke or Frege or heck knows who like that who bludgeon you to death with their tedious logic. Avoid them I say.

Finally I would like to be clichéd and recommend anything by Nietzsche except for Thus Spake Zarathustra even though he himself considered it his best work and I would especially recommend Ecce Homo by him because it is a summation of his previous works by his own hand. Nietzsche was the supreme stylist and ruthlessly honest and fearless. Also I'd recommend A Short Treatise on the Great Virtues by a contemporary philosopher André Comte-Sponville. This is a remarkable book on virtue theory that takes in Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Woody Allen among others and is divided up by virtue which is extremely novel. It is fantastically written. Anything by Cioran as well such as The Trouble with Being Born. I'm trying not to typecast myself here! :)

And finally finally Sophie's World and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance while nice cute books are not true philosophy books. This is also why I wouldn't recommend Camus' The Outsider though someone did mention The Myth of Sisyphus. Borges falls into this category. Sophie's world is really a kid's book as well and one that I would perhaps recommend to children though I'd recommend Borges or Camus or Kafka first.

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vindication-Rights-Woman-Penguin- Cla...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vindication-Rights-Woman-Penguin- Classics/dp/0141441259)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex-Vintage- classics/dp/00997...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Sex-Vintage- classics/dp/009974421X)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-Great-Ideas-Suffering- World/...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-Great-Ideas-Suffering- World/dp/0141018941)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecce-Homo-Becomes-Penguin- Classics/d...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ecce-Homo-Becomes-Penguin- Classics/dp/0140445153)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-Treatise-Great-Virtues- Philoso...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-Treatise-Great-Virtues- Philosophy/dp/0099437988)

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Being-Born-E-M- Cioran/dp/155...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Being-Born-E-M- Cioran/dp/1559704624)

</comment><comment><USER86> Wow, I was fiddling with the idea of posting exactly that question (with Philosophy in the title) but was hesitant as to is this the right community (btw where can I find one?)

I haven't read many books about philosophy but my main interest is Philosophy of mind and I just love the lectures here[1].

[1][http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=...](http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2010-B-67280&semesterid=2010-B)

<comment><USER16> >but was hesitant as to is this the right community (btw where can I find one?)

Try reddit.com/r/books

Some HN-ers don't like reddit probably because their impression starts and ends with the reddit default front page. But the gems are the smaller sub- reddits with some very high quality communities. My personal favorite /r/askscience

<comment><USER86> I didn't mean about books, I meant about philosophy.

<comment><USER16> <http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/>

<http://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/>

<comment><USER86> Seems like there is a subreddit for every bloody think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> _Simulacra and Simulation_ \- Jean Baudrillard

 _Dialectic of Enlightenment_ \- Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno

 _The Sublime Object of Ideology_ \- Slavoj Zizek

 _Sources of the Self_ \- Charles Taylor

</comment><comment><USER88> _Faith of a Heretic_ - Walter Kaufmann</comment>


Ask HN: Is this hosting setup 'unhackable'? - <AUTHOR>

Static site hosted on S3 + route 53 DNS mngmnt. Provided that: 1. Permissions on the bucket are properly setup. 2. Registrar and AWS password is not compromised. <comment><USER2> 1) Nothing can be proven to be "unhackable". Some programs (e.g. OpenSSH) have turned out to be hackable after as much as several decades in production on hundreds of millions of machines.

2) "Properly set up" is too ambiguous. Is the whole bucket public? Is the whole bucket private? Are the permissions more fine-grained?

3) Some registrars, like GoDaddy, have been hacked with social engineering. Are you using a registrar that allows password resets over the phone?

4) A password is not enough. You need to enable two-factor authentication on AWS.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Agree. Let's say 99,99% "unhackable", meaning known threats, meankng AWS would need to be hacked. 2) The whole bucket is public for open/download, all files are static resources (html, js and css). So hacking in this case means defacing or taking the site down. 3) and 4) Will double check but let's assume pwds cannot be broken.

<comment><USER2> That sounds fine as far as what you have control over. After that, you're relying on the security of AWS. That means 2FA is your only line of defense in this case.

Your main points of failure are: AWS, your password manager (if you use one), your OS (if you have malware), and your internet connection.

For AWS, you can enable 2FA and optionally get a physical device that is not your phone. That would help, since your phone is something you carry around a lot and possibly lose.

For your password manager, if you're using a cloud-based manager, you could easily be vulnerable. Who knows if those services are really as secure as they say.

For your OS, you certainly need to have excellent anti-malware software, as well as good security practices (no Java enabled in your browser, up-to-date plugins, no running of unknown/pirated programs or games).

For your internet connection, you should get an HTTP Everywhere-like plugin for your browser. You can't do a whole lot else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx, you helped me see a broader picture!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Remove all the executables on your servers that don't actually need to be there.

Any executable at all is a potential toehold for an intruder.

Especially remove your compilers. Consider that the Morris worm, as well as lots of malware, enables portability by distributing itself in source code form.

<comment><USER4> But if OP use S3, he's not running the OS himself, right?

Otherwise it sounds reasonable to keep compilers away from the production servers.

On that note, what are some good schemes for installing self-compiled software to a server? For example, let's say I run Ubuntu on my servers. On dev host X I have compiled a specific version of Ruby on Rails. Then I want to install that version of Rails to production server Y. I could make a .deb package, but I get a feeling there are other good alternatives as well?

<comment><USER5> Containers of some kind. Once you have a working system on your dev machine, copy the whole setup from your dev machine to your production machine. This way you are absolutely sure that everything is identical and that you aren't accidentally running different versions of some binary and end up with a situation where you have a bug on your production machines that you cannot reproduce on your test machine.

I learnt that lesson the hard way once when I was running python 2.7.3 on my test machine and python 2.7.2 in production.

<comment><USER4> So something like Docker?

<comment><USER5> Docker works, but there are lots of ways to get the same result. I'm not trying preach any specific method.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it harder getting a tech job now vs. 5 years ago? - <AUTHOR> I've been self-employed for the last 5 years. I created several SaaS apps that have collectively made $1.5M pretax during that time. I also have a semi-popular open source project, prior experience moving from a senior role into a management, and have kept my skills current learning things like Sass, Bootstrap, Angular and Flask.
I don't necessarily need a job right now, but I wouldn't mind taking one because my income is 100% passive. However, I haven't been getting any e-mails back.
What I remember about applying in the past was how easy it was to get an e-mail requesting a phone interview. Probably 1 out of every 3 jobs I applied for would yield one. Over the last week, I've applied to 25 jobs and only one yielded a phone screen.
Am I out of the loop already? Is my experience that much of a commodity nowadays? What does it take to differentiate yourself in 2017? <comment><USER2> A major difference between now and 5 years ago is that you have been self- employed for 5 years. From an employer's perspective, you have tasted the forbidden fruit of independence. You no longer fit in a nice box, guaranteed to obey your manager and believe in the corporate mission statement. You can think for yourself.

There are companies that value your new skills. But more companies will find those new skills scary.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a throwaway account, so I'm going to be straight up. My business has been declining for the last three years. It's still very good though and pays out more than an employer would.

But, boy, you hit the nail on the head. I don't ever want to go back to employment. I really only want a remote job as a buffer to continue working on my own.

I don't have FU money, so even though I have free time, I spend a lot of it worrying. I think that's why people are so easy to reach for VC. They feel comfortable when others have skin in the game. They don't feel so alone -- like I do.

Just wish it would last forever, but these headwinds are good for me. I need a kick in the ass. I've wasted a lot of time.

<comment><USER3> The honesty in this post is really refreshing and insightful. There are a lot of people in tech who would kill to be in your position (see every monthly-ish thread about how to make passive income or how to make money off of an app). It's interesting to think about what proportion of those such people who achieve their goal would end up feeling like how you feel - having a lot of free time, and spending a large chunk of it worrying instead of being as hyper-productive as they imagined they could be.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yeah, it's definitely been great, but challenging in some regards.

For the first two years I mostly spent time worrying about an older brother who unfortunately won't speak with me anymore. He was really pissed that my app took off and the side work he was doing didn't pan out.

I got over him, and spent most of my time reading books, which feels healthy at first, but then starts feeling counterproductive. Why read all this crap if you're not _doing_ anything with what you're learning?

So, about a year or so ago, I finally got around to realizing that all the stuff I was reading could be distilled into a 2 things: Focus and hard work. The people who are successful do the work. Working hard is what originally put me in this position, and along the way, I lost myself and started thinking I got here because I'm smart. The biggest mistake I've made is wasting time, and it doesn't matter how smart you are when you do that.

Started reading books like "Flow" which gives me a lot of motivation and I've been on a solid hard-work streak for some time. Hoping I can build something else before it all comes crashing down around me.

Fun stuff...

<comment><USER4> Why don't you start another business, but this time with other people, as part of a team?

I am starting in this path (of creating a bootstrapping business) and being alone is both a bless (no sharing of the revenue, I make all decisions and most outcome depends solely on my work) and a curse (isolate me from other people, limit the size of the problems I can solve, is lonely).

If I reach your position in a couple of years, I will surely reach out other people to build a business together. I would do it now even, but it is hard to convince people to join me without a track record.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not being snarky, but that's like asking, "Why don't you just find someone and get married?"

Even though you hear about cofounders starting businesses together and succeeding, you hear less about the problems they immediately or eventually have.

It pays to be super selective, and I haven't found anyone who thinks along the same lines I do. Part of it might be locale. I don't live in SV, and I just haven't run into that many tech entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but if you are actively looking, it helps. A job might be a great place to find a co-founder :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You might want to read "The Google Résumé" by Gayle McDowell. It changed the way I apply to jobs, and it made a difference like day and night.

I'm surprised to learn that there are people working in Tech currently finding it hard to apply. Where are you located?

Here in Europe, at least in my experience, it's getting easier every day. Tech is incredibly popular, but demand is still even higher.

You might be viewed as overqualified because of your business experience if you apply to startups.

You might just make basic mistakes that the book will teach you not to do.

<comment><USER6> Do you think you could give a few examples of things taught in the book that you (or a general person) may not have thought to do?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get a feeling that the tech job market is oversaturated right now, and there are plenty of people running around with all the "achievements" (diplomas, certifications, etc) and no actual knowledge.

On my last job i sat right next to the corner where we interviewed candidates, so i could hear everything and would occasionally pop in to participate. There was a scary amount of people like that - boasting a big resume but unable to tell a mutex from a semaphore.

So, i suspect you failed to pass some initial HR-level filters designed to filter out the sludge so that the actual programmers would be able to cope with the amount of candidates left to interview.

<comment><USER8> >boasting a big resume but unable to tell a mutex from a semaphore

Is it bad that I have no idea what either of those are?

<comment><USER9> No. The example is entirely arbitrary. A web JavaScript developer probably doesn't need to ever know the difference between those two...

<comment><USER10> A programmer must have heard of them and know at least some superficial difference. A cardiologist probably knows the different parts of a kidney and how they work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In case people missed this buried in the comments: throwawayhtgatj is looking for remote work, which is notably more difficult to get than local work.

<comment><AUTHOR> I should have named the post "is it harder getting a remote tech job now..." because that's all I'm after. I remember a few years ago, about 1 in 3 applications would result in a phone call - now it seems like its super competitive, maybe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I go in and out of work. The only time I've applied for jobs is when I currently don't have one. And I do also feel like it has gotten more difficult.

First job out of college took about three months of applying.

Second job, six month.

Third job was a wash, went 8 months freelancing for bits of cash before I went to company at job no. 1 to consult for them. But the pay was terrible.

Fourth job I took after 6 months of applying. Then I got laid off late 2014.

And I couldn't get a full time job since.

I am not so naive to think I'm the only one like this. But for at least a few, the job market has gotten less forgiving. My experience is not helping balance that out.

</comment><comment><USER12> Find the HR person on LinkedIn, or senior technical person. Phone the company and ask to be put through to them.

Explain to them you've applied, and you've not heard back, but you're interested.

You're a person then, not an email/CV-to-be-dealt-with, and people generally want to help people. They'll often commit there on the phone to setting up an interview with you.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't have ton of experience, but I've gotten about an interview a week since I started looking for a job. I started by applying to 20 or 30 jobs a day, once I got a few interviews I slowed down.

I'm currently interviewing with a small company and I'll be doing a face-to- face with them next week.

I know it's hard to get feedback when you don't get an interview in the first place, but how does your resume look? You can have a lot of great stuff on there without giving enough specific points to generate interest. Or, you could not be applying to enough jobs.

Job searching is tough and un-fun, good luck out there!

</comment><comment><USER14> Its probably harder getting the job - but the actual jobs arent harder. I blame the "programmers interview" as an unnecessary side show

</comment><comment><USER15> I just started applying to junior positions last week coming from freelancing. I'v applied probably the same number of jobs as the OP with no interview requests and only one reply from a recruiter that seems to be going nowhere atm (I have not heard from him since last friday)

Of course there are not too many jobs where I am. Where are you located and where are you applying?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been applying to remote jobs. I'm in Southern California.

<comment><USER16> Remote jobs certainly are more popular these days. I've been full time remote for the last 3 years and I've interviewed and resume screened a lot of candidates.

I'd be more than happy to check out your resume and give you some feedback if you wanted? You can DM me via Twitter (link in bio) or if you don't have it just let me know and we'll sort out an email.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think so. Ten years ago I worked at a startup doing entry level support but I did not have programming skills. I dont use to apply for jobs because I'm not graduated. But I did apply for a job that required some excel skills so it was not very hard for me ad I now have medium programming skills. But the HR responded that there were candidates better qualified than me. I didnt want to apply to that job I just asked her if Im overqualified for the job and she called me and begged me to send a CV. I will never ever again apply to HR.

</comment><comment><USER18> Get in touch with me, we're looking for remote folks: [https://www.arkhaios.net/](https://www.arkhaios.net/)

</comment><comment><USER19> I work remotely from Orange County for a big company that 'doesn't do remote'. I contributed to open source projects that were already in use by the company, and I had to start out on a '3 month contract' (working remote) before they were ok with hiring remote.

</comment><comment><USER20> You _might_ be over-qualified, and people would be turning you away because they think they can't afford you right off the bat.

I always tell people (that ask): The hardest part is getting the first interview. Stand out (seriously, just be yourself) but don't be loud in doing so.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was a network engineer for 2.5 years, started out right from college. Recently went to two interviews, devops and full stack engineer and got offers from both. This was in Stockholm.

</comment><comment><USER22> Dude, create several new SaaS apps and go another 5 years. You've got the skills. Just have to dust off the cobwebs on the drive and the skills :)

</comment><comment><USER23> Apply through a recruiter, you'll get some interviews.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good idea, although I'd rather work with companies direct. Recruiters can be shady.

<comment><USER24> Recruiters can get you back to work in no time. This is their job. Here in UK I love to work with recruiters (found last 3 jobs trough them). The only thing that I have to do is to send 10 emails to top 10 recruitment agencies in a region and next week I will have at least couple interviews. A lot of companies have their favourite recruitment agencies and they trust them. It's kind of like having "your guy" inside the company. Recruiter will always do initial interview with you and then he will nag the company to schedule interview. You are not risking being annoying to your potential employer, recruiter is doing it for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's either ALOT harder or very different now-a-days. Anything that you could run on a consistent basis as a bread-winning norm is already or quickly in the process of *aaS or being integrated into one or other.

One way to sell a remote-style work is to make it part of a perk you want in the position or job. There is a ton of talent and skill already willing to move right into the company's parking lot and LIVE ( literally ) there: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG0_KiM9Mv8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG0_KiM9Mv8)

You're not competitive with them at all if it comes to just comparing apples and oranges. The way the market is, offering remote-work can be sold as a perk by the company, or something you need to negotiate for. But expect to either fly to the office or meet them atleast once a week, maybe less or more depending... most likely more than once a week.</comment>


Strlen.c - <AUTHOR> http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/strlen.c.html <comment><USER2> It's a very clever optimization (could it be categorized as vectorization?) in a very used part of the C library. In some cases these optimizations very justified.</comment>


Show HN: A wiki to slay data jargon - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.atlan.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! The world of data is unique, complex and ever-changing. And full of jargon. That makes it challenging for someone who's starting out in the data universe.

Our team started an internal initiative to serve as a knowledge base for data teams and professionals (aka the humans of data) everywhere—explaining topics in the data universe in the simplest possible manner. The goal was to make learning about the data universe fun and easy.

And that's how The Data Wiki was born! (Shout out to the folks at Gitbook for building the incredible tool that hosts the wiki.)</comment>


Show HN: never forget the options to tar again - <AUTHOR> http://tarbz2.com/

<comment><USER2> I have never understood why it has to be that complicated. when you can use dtrx for example

<http://brettcsmith.org/2007/dtrx/></comment>


The hazards of too much stuff - m-i-l http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30849473 <comment><USER2> I really enjoyed this related post from a few years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5371253](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5371253)

"Poor people don't have clutter because they're too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. When rich people present the idea that they've learned to live lightly as a paradoxical insight, they have the idea of wealth backwards. You can only have that kind of lightness through wealth."

Edit (additional thought): the privilege is the ability to move about as unencumbered as one pleases, (re)acquiring anything they need at their discretion.

<comment><USER3> So true. After you pass a certain income level, discounts and such stop being as attractive as they would be, because the utility that you get from saving money but keeping stuff around is probably less than not having stuff until you need it, albeit paying more for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> By choice I've been living out of a suitcase for 19 months now. As a stuffoholic and someone that kind of likes fashion it's been an interesting experience.

Dumb stuffoholic examples. I hate that I can't have more than 2 pairs of shoes. I need one dress pair for when I go to a wedding etc and I need one pair I can hike in, exercise in etc. I'd really prefer 2 or 3 more but there's no room.

I can't buy anything without throwing something away except software, ebooks... I'd prefer more computers (had 6 before this episode) all of which I used (Windows, OSX, & Linux). I run VMs on my laptop but the perf isn't there to be able to run various apps I'd like to run (games and other graphically intensive apps). Similarly I can't own an XBoxOne or PS4 as much as I would like to play.

Another interesting thing when preparing to do this and getting rid of lots of my stuff was just how much stuff is probably actually useful but only seldomly. An obvious sample might be a winter coat. You only need it in winter so it stays in storage for 9 months of the year. But, there's plenty of things I use less often. A paper cutter. A mac screw driver. A drill. An xacto knife. A hole punch. A pizza stone. A casserole dish. A printer. A scanner. I could list 1000s things. I don't know if having them is really having too much stuff. It seems rather it's semi freeing. If I want to make some crafts today I don't need several days of running around acquiring the stuff as I have it and can start immediately. If I want to cook something I most likely have all the utensils even if I only use them a couple of times a year. If I want to make something or repair something I have several drawers of tools.

So sure, we can have too much stuff (I had 44 pair of shoes of which I only ever used 5 or 6) but it's hard to say where the balance is.

<comment><USER5> Somewhere between 5 or 6 and 44 I'm guessing.

I find I very rarely mind not having lots of things. I moved country a year or so ago, planned to spend around 10k at IKEA, ended up getting tired and leaving after spending 3. Planned to get all those little things I "need" on another big trip. I never went back. Apparently I didn't need that pizza cutter after all.

I suspect most of us have much more than we really need. I suspect most of us do just fine with that. Some people it can be an improvement to remove some clutter, others it doesn't really matter.

I'd love to live out of a suitcase again, it really sets your priorities straight when you have to choose what to remove when you "need" something new.

Out of curiosity, what do you do in winter? Follow summer? or simply get a larger suitcase? (re the jacket conundrum)

<comment><USER4> I moved countries a couple of times too and it was educational how much stuff I didn't miss, all my books for example, all my memorabilia as well.

At the same time over time I did replace tons of stuff. Examples: Had to buy scissors, a tape dispenser, knives, pots and pans, lots of tools, serving dishes, cupcake sheets, cookie sheets, craft utensils, etc... All stuff I already had before I moved.

As for the jacket I've just been carrying it the last 19 months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> George Carlin on stuff: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac)

Dylan Moran on stuff: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmkRR2oGUA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmkRR2oGUA)

I now feel obligated to contribute more to the conversation than some YouTube videos.

I've been a kind of move-around-a-lot person for about 6 years now. I've lived in 4 cities. I guarantee you, if it's going to cost several thousand dollars to move your stuff, it's much easier to purge. I'm also glad that moving forced me to have a purge occasionally. I think you'd be surprised how many things you hold onto just in case. I've had a rare pang of lost nostalgia, but in general, I haven't missed anything.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you have a problem with stuff you could do worse than reading up on Mari Kondo - [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/garden/home- organization-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/garden/home-organization- advice-from-marie-kondo.html)

Never did I think I would be interesting in house tidying, but her techniques are effective.

<comment><USER8> I believe her technique is effective because it tries to combat hoarding using the same kind of emotional response that gets us to stockpile on stuff in the first place.

Others will suggest attacking the problem with logic: "Do you need this now? No? Get rid of it." But stuffocation is as much a problem with our emotional attachment to things as it is to our evolutionary hardwiring. In my case I was finding it easier to find reasons not to keep something by doing what Mari suggests: take items into your hands and ask yourself if it actually brings you joy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One anti-stuffocation tip: Invest in a good camera. Get one that can take decent close-ups.

Why? So when you have something you don't want to get rid of for one sentimental reason or another, you can just take a few pictures of it for archival purposes, then toss it. Years later you can still look through the photos for a trip down memory lane.

<comment><USER10> This is my preferred method of ditching old junk I'm attached to but that serves no other purpose than to connect me to the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder to what extent a lifetime of exposure to advertising contributes to our craving for stuff. The article claims an evolutionary psychological explanation: anyone know of any research to back that up? Our ancestors were nomadic, so acquiring a lot of stuff wouldn't have made sense, would it?

I wonder whether the super rich of the 17-century wanted to acquire stuff as much as we do. They would have had the means to buy a lot, but would not have been exposed to as much marketing as us. I concede there would have been a lot less stuff to buy then.

<comment><USER12> Interesting thought! However, I think in the case of the super rich of earlier times, the amassing of 'stuff' was a sign of material wealth. Hoarding fine linens, brilliant jewels, and the like would've served a different purpose.

I think a parallel between the "middle class" (in quotes as I am unsure that term makes much sense depending on the period) of a time gone by and our era makes more sense. For them, I'd say the issue of stockpiling stuff would've been less problematic. Perhaps a large supply of tools or other utilitarian objects, but beyond that nothing of excess. They didn't have Billy Mays back then to sell them "As Seen On TV" goods.

<comment><USER11> The reason I mentioned the super rich of the past, is that they had enough money to buy whatever was available. Most other people couldn't afford to buy much at all, I imagine.

So the question is, were the super rich then as acquisitive as we are today? Were there rooms in their mansions filled with pointless things? Or were they surprisingly spartan by the standards of today?

I'm trying to figure out whether our insatiable appetite for more and more stuff is a modern thing, or whether it's always been there. And if it is largely a modern thing, what caused it? Non-stop advertising?

Your point about amassing wealth in the form of jewels etc. is a good one.

<comment><USER13> Well, when you have a rococo interior, the house looks filled even when it's empty :)

I'm hardly an expert, but from what I've read about the 18th century, the idea of filling your house with bric-a-brac and bibelots was very common - <AUTHOR> probably more among the bourgeoisie than the aristocrats.

An example:

 _Victorian interior design was characterized by three words: gaudy, ornate and formidable. Following fashion, private and public rooms were stuffed with objets d'art, bric-a-brac, heavy velvet drapery, tables, chairs, paneled walls, Oriental rugs, potted plants, gilded reproductions of Louis XVI furniture—intricately carved, fragile sofas and chairs—Chinese ivory figures, German porcelain vases, ormolu clocks, and miniatures lined the fireplace mantle, the mantle itself shaded by heavy, ornamental fire-shades, and all was overlooked by wall to wall portraits and priceless paintings, richly framed in gold._

[http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/marriage/the-twin- bed/](http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/marriage/the-twin-bed/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I read somewhere once that the average estate sale yields just $900. That made an impact on me as for all the personal value that we put on our stuff - be it jewelry, electronics, motorcycles, boats - whatever your toys might be, in the end aren't worth much to anyone else. The _stuff_ that really bothers me is consumer packaging. I'm shocked each week when I take out the trash and recycling how much of it is redundant - a cardboard wrapper with a plastic wrapper or two beneath, only parts of which are recyclable locally. I really wish manufacturers, especially of high-volume consumables, would come up with less energy-intensive packaging. Stick it in a brown cardboard box with black ink and I'll still buy it, but will feel a whole lot better to not see so much waste.

<comment><USER13> Amazon has been working on it: [http://www.amazon.com/b/?&node=5521637011](http://www.amazon.com/b/?&node=5521637011)

Alas, they don't always get it right: [http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1d3il7/so_i_ordered_a_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1d3il7/so_i_ordered_a_battery/)

<comment><USER15> Large cardboard boxes don't especially bother me - they're generally useful to have around and cardboard can be repurposed in a number of ways anyway.

More annoying are multiple layers of completely wasted plastic wrap. Or the notorious blister pack which is essentially designed to be _useless_ once opened.

<comment><USER14> Yes, that's exactly what I mean - you are right, cardboard or really any paper I'm fine with because its reusable, recyclable, and a renewable resource. But all the endless layers of cellophane, plastic wrap etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Also worth reading: [http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html)

<comment><USER17> The only part I disagree with a bit is the one where he exempts books. I think it is possible to buy too many. I've probably engaged in this behavior myself. I find it hard to resist buying a good book, but I have a bunch of them now piling up physically and electronically which I find it hard to find time for.

Books piling up exert pressure to be read, but simply succumbing to the pressure to read them all might result in falling victim to what Einstein talked about:

"Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."

<comment><USER18> Easy, just buy a book when you have finished reading the previous one

<comment><USER19> It is difficult for me to imagine, reading only one book at a time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Makes me wonder if the world will turn out like wall-e in the future or if we will recycle. It also makes me wonder if the central banks outcries that we need to consume more to boost economics is good for the environment?

You don't own stuff your stuff owns you. That's why you need a larger home when you can't fit your stuff anymore. You also worry about your stuff, home burglary somebody taking it's, car some taking it or damaging it, dropping your phone or computer etc.

<comment><USER21> I think the future depends on whether energy continues to get cheaper or not (cheaper energy probably leads to increased consumption, but it also makes it cheaper to clean stuff up, and gives people more time to worry about cleaning up, etc.).

I also think that one of the many factors involved with the fall off of crime is that (the typical) stuff (found in a house) isn't worth as much anymore.

In 1990, a "nice" TV might have cost $1,000 (inflation adjusted, $1,800). Today, a fantastic TV costs $400.

<comment><USER22> I feel bad for criminals who had to team up to haul 36" televisions out of a house during a burglary. These days one robber could haul out a pair of 60" thin LED televisions by themselves.

<comment><USER23> Man, I'm having flashbacks of when my friend's mom bought a 36" Sony trinitron. 4 skinny teenagers trying to move this behemoth up a flight of stairs and position it into it's cabinet. I think we aged our backs a few years on that one project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> We live in a four unit building and one of the units just went on the market. The former tenants cleared out everything for their open house and just brought in some minimal, modern "staging" furniture. It was astonishing to see essentially the same apartment layout but with none of the stuff — a kind of bizarre alternate reality. It prompted our new year's resolution: we will get rid of (at least) 5 things a day for a year. So far so good, and we've cleared off and removed an entire set of shelves.

<comment><USER25> You really have thousands of things you can get rid of? My house is a mess because my wife won't stop buying things for the kids but even so, I'm sure there's not 365x5 things in here I could get rid of, unless I could every sticker and crayon separately.

<comment><USER26> The goal is just 5 * 365 = 1825 things. I'd wager that most of us over the age of 30 have/had at least that many things we could get rid of before our first experience in purging.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> We don't have to go back to 1750 as they mention in the article... In 2000 earning much less CDs cost over £15 and I am still surprised to find price tags on old things like that...

</comment><comment><USER28> I recently moved and made a decision to only take with me what I could fit in my car. I have a cot, small 3-drawer chest, collapsable desk & chair, computer, a box of office supplies, a box of dishes, and not much else.

In fact, I've been pretty happy with this arrangement, so I don't really feel the need for anything more. It was easy to commit to, since I had deployed in the military with far less and when I would return, I would see a big pile of stuff that I didn't even miss.

</comment><comment><USER29> I would love to own absolutely nothing, but have a portal follow me around, and anything I needed appeared through the portal, then disappeared as soon as I didn't need it anymore.

I bet something like this is one day possible and it happens.

People hoard for the same reason they overeat. Because scarcity has been the rule until very recently. When scarcity hasn't been the rule for for a long time I think these things won't be a problem anymore.

<comment><USER30> When there'll be drone delivery, you could imagine a service where you rent for example a hammer for one hour, when you need one, for a few cents it'd fly to your window, then you send it back.

<comment><USER31> Definitely waiting till the tech is a tiny bit better before I request drones fly at my windows with hammers...

;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Jerry Seinfeld on stuff (new): [http://youtu.be/HfYzlSNHapA?t=1m15s](http://youtu.be/HfYzlSNHapA?t=1m15s)

edit: start time

</comment><comment><USER33> I have a large collection of auto repair tools, gardening equipment, etc, that have an insanely low utilization. And my neighbours are the same.

A large community shed where we could all pool our stuff would make so much sense. But alas most communities are not organized to make this happen.

</comment><comment><USER34> Not only have we too much stuff, a big part of it is crap: low quality but cheap, often produced with obsolescence in mind. If you focus on quality items you automatically buy less. An excellent example is clothing.

</comment><comment><USER35> To have or to be?:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F)</comment>


Show HN: One new interesting fact/story emailed to you daily - <AUTHOR> http://lettergram.net/learning/

<comment><USER2> This is really, really confusing. Having signed up I get taken to a page to select a list. So I select a list, only be be taken to the registration page. I resubmit my email address, and then get _another_ confirmation email with a link to update my profile.

I don't get it. Am I signed up to a list? Which one? Why was I given a choice when I then got taken to registration?

Have you done _any_ usability testing?

I'm glad I used a throw-away address for this - I don't have high hopes for it.</comment>


An open source deep learning curriculum - <AUTHOR> http://www.deeplearningweekly.com/pages/open_source_deep_learning_curriculum <comment><USER2> +1 for Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. A fantastic book by the late David C Mackay. Part V has an interesting presentation of neural networks, but really this book is about information theory and Bayesian probability.

[http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itila/](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itila/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, and quite different from other such lists that I've seen:

[https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-learn-machine- learning-1](https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-learn-machine-learning-1)

</comment><comment><USER4> If there was a way to organize a group and work through the classes - it would be awesome!

<comment><USER3> I'm thinking of setting up a Slack (or similar, like Ryver) team for this, as opposed to pairing. Any interest?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I had the same thought and set up a group. Sign up here and an invite will be send out [http://www.deeplearningweekly.com/slack_invitations/new](http://www.deeplearningweekly.com/slack_invitations/new) cheers</comment></comment></comment>