"Fuzzy Logic" by Bart Kosko set me on a path that deeply changed how I think about truth, logic, and language. It makes very compelling arguments for the fuzziness (partial truth) of natural language. It also plants the seeds for the idea that the value of a logical system or a linguistic utterance is how well it works for some engineering application. It is not primarily a philosophy book, but I've gotten more philosophy out of it than any other book.

@causative should we be using these comments to build out a list of recommendations for the question author? Or should each of these be moved into a community answer?

This question is similar to: Philosophy books for STEM people. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.

This isn't remotely like the other question other than it's a comprehensive list request. The other post is looking for philosophy complementary to STEM, which I would suggest is largely modern and post-modern philosophy in the analytic tradition since it is strongly tied to STEM development. This request should be satisified with Classical, Scholastic, and Continental Philosophy.

@jd methinks the best way of dealing with the VTC gang is not to discuss, plead... but to as aggressively cast reopen votes in the opposite direction.

@causative do you mean Fuzzy Thinking by Kosko?

@WeatherVane Ah, yes that's it.

I made a list of major areas of study for a student, & links to resources: 'A newbie's highly thought-upon plan for starting philosophy' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99829/…

@causative I've already ordered a used copy! It seems to be from the same era as Edward de Bono, Tony Buzan etc.

Voting to close, while I think it's very fun to give recommendations it's the classic "opinion-based" question. sorry for being No Fun Gang.

(I will say that I don't think making a list of 100 books prior to reading any philosophy and then deciding to grind through them is the best way. E.g. maybe you read some philosopher and go "wow, I really need more context, let me read some philosophers that this book was in dialogue with/more by this author!" Or maybe you read some philosopher and go "ugh i cannot STAND this guy" and then you see that they appear 5 more times on your list. I'd maybe suggest choosing 5 books at a time based on some theme, then repeat)

Edited the question to one requesting a fact to support re-opening. Professional philosophers may argue over the canon, but there certainly is a canon starting with Thales, moving through Plato and Aristotle, and usually including a few dozen contributors like Aquinas, Hume, Locke, Kant, and others. Anyone who claims otherwise is a crank.

@JD I'm unsure that that's the same question that was originally asked (does the canon include Confucius?), though I was surprised we don't have an outright "what is the western philosophical canon" question

@Kaia Salve! zoomer. An edit by definition is a change, so how 'no'?. Let's observe Quine's call to cognitive synonymy and banish thinking any change in syntax doesn't alter a question. So, we are at 'is the shift permissible?' My appeal: "Western canon" is inherently controversial giving us play to keep all answers relevant. It's pragmatic to maximize contributions to fill gaps in the knowledge base. It's kind to the OP to their interests and maximize discourse. ..

Plus, the fact-opinion dichotomy dissolves as objective theory is merely effaced normativity masquerading in the same style as passive voice such that agency is only hidden by elision and not eliminated. See theory-ladeness and Searle's 'How to Derive "Ought" from "Is". Of course, feel free to grind another human's aspirations, but why not aspire to the spirit of illegitimi non carborundum?

@JD I guess my point is that there's a balance to be struck between "I want this question to be reopened and I can see a way to edit it" vs not stepping on the toes of OP or existing answers, since this question already has answers that answered the old question, not the new one. Sometimes it's best to ask a new question or @ OP and suggest a change.

@Kaia I dispute the old answers don't answer the question. Which recommended books are not canonical philosophical texts frequently used? Plato? Aristotle? Sapir? Dennett? Anslem? Science and Civilization in China? Has its own WP entry. As for the OP's wishes, they're free to roll back or object. Make an argument the answers don't answer the revised question? If you can't you're feeling, and not thinking.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Kaia »Does the canon include Confucius?« Touche! There will be some some versions of the canon that replace Plato-Aristotle-Kant with Ghazali-Avicenna-Averoes-Farabi. Or Shankara-Ramanuja-Aurobindo. Or Confucius-Lao Tzu-Chuang Tzu. etc etc. And note we are talking populations in billions. See Canonicity and Parochialism