In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

What are some classic papers that every analytic philosopher should read, regardless of their specific area? I mean, for example, Frege’s “On Sense and Reference” and Russell’s “On Denoting” seem like papers one should have read even if one does not work in philosophy of language. If a metaphysics/epistemology professor had never read them, it might seem a little surprising. What other papers have a similar status?

I also have a related question. Some papers seem to have been canonical in the past, but are no longer regarded as required reading for everyone. For example, one of my professors told me that in his generation, everyone read Davidson, but for my generation this no longer seems necessary. Do people agree with this? And are there other texts that have this kind of status?

Thoughts from readers?

Posted in ,

2 responses to “Classic papers every analytic philosopher should read? (and have they changed?)”

  1. Anonymous

    Grice, “Logic and Conversation”

    Kripke, Naming and Necessity

    Strawson, “On Referring” (esp. if one is going to read Russell’s “On Denoting”)

    Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”

    Goldman, “What is Justified Belief?”

    Maybe also: Lewis, “Causation” or “New Work for a Theory of Universals” or parts of *On the Plurality of Worlds*

    Nagel, “What is it Like to be a Bat?”

  2. I don’t think there are any papers that ever analytic philosopher needs to read. I would worry that any list of classical papers will focus on papers by white males, reinforce a narrow viewpoint, and exclude voices that are excellent but have been undervalued.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading