GOOD PHILOSOPHY BOOKS?
John Tsutsui
Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
what good "survey" books are available.
Please post or e-mail me at tsu...@ocf.berkeley.edu
Thanks for your time,
John
Julian Smith
May I humbly suggest that you have a look at Frederic Copleston's
History of Philosophy? It's a wonderful survey of philosophical
thought, spanning centuries, in several volumes, all available in
paperback. It's a great way to get acquainted with the larger context
of the texts. No doubt many readers here will suggest original works
or secondary philosophy surveys, which is why I thought that an
explicitly historical work would be a worthy addition to your list.
If you don't have time to read all the originals, I must admit that I
enjoyed the old Mentor series "The Age of..." (in 6 volumes; but it's
rather old now, so haunt your second hand bookstores!)
_____________________________________________________________
(_)___________________________________________________________)
| |
| Julian A. H. Smith |
| jsm...@epas.utoronto.ca or ih...@epas.utoronto.ca |
| |
| Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science |
| and Technology (IHPST), University of Toronto |
| voice: (416) 978-5047 fax: (416) 978-3003 |
| Department of History, Ryerson Polytechnical University |
| 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario |
| voice: (416) 979-6203 |
| Editor _HOST: History of Science and Technology Journal_ |
| |
| "Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est." |
| "Knowledge itself is power." |
| -Francis Bacon (1561-1626), _Religious Meditations_ |
|___________________________________________________________|_
Object Oriented
>Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
>to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
>novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
>Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
>Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
>philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
>what good "survey" books are available.
My humble opinion may not be shared by many, but here it is:
do not, I repeat, do not waste time on books ON philosophy!
If you are serious, start reading something philosphical instead.
Think about the problems discussed there. This should keep you busy!
The presocratics and Platonian dialogs are one of good starting points.
Kant, Hegel, Heidegger are definitely not a good place to start from.
The next best choice are books on history of philosophy by philosophers
( and not historians), eg. Collingwood's Idea of Nature or Idea of History,
or the like.
Justification of the above opinion (for curious ones):
philosophy is about thinking, so do it yourself in the first place!
If you can do it yourself, why should you let someone else talk to you about it?
Cheers,
Piotr Palacz
Frank Casper
|> tsu...@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Tsutsui) writes:
|>
|>
|>
|> My humble opinion may not be shared by many, but here it is:
|> do not, I repeat, do not waste time on books ON philosophy!
|> If you are serious, start reading something philosphical instead.
|> Think about the problems discussed there. This should keep you busy!
|>
|> The presocratics and Platonian dialogs are one of good starting points.
|> Kant, Hegel, Heidegger are definitely not a good place to start from.
|>
|> The next best choice are books on history of philosophy by philosophers
|> ( and not historians), eg. Collingwood's Idea of Nature or Idea of History,
|> or the like.
|>
|> Justification of the above opinion (for curious ones):
|> philosophy is about thinking, so do it yourself in the first place!
|> If you can do it yourself, why should you let someone else talk to you about it?
|>
|> Cheers,
|>
|> Piotr Palacz
|>
counts. The Platonic Dialogues are probably the best place to
start for reasons of both classical content and style. The
style of the dialogue makes the ideas so much more available
to those who are unfamiliar with reading the more "critical"
argumentation of most philosophical material. And Collingwood,
as I recall, wrote a superb essay on the definition, function,
and meaning and philosophy.
fjc
Mark S. Gordon
writes:
> I just thought it was worth seconding this suggestion on both
> counts. The Platonic Dialogues are probably the best place to
> start for reasons of both classical content and style. The
> style of the dialogue makes the ideas so much more available
> to those who are unfamiliar with reading the more "critical"
> argumentation of most philosophical material. And Collingwood,
> as I recall, wrote a superb essay on the definition, function,
> and meaning and philosophy.
The best suggestion. In Plato's Dialogues you'll find the genesis of
almost all of the philosophic "questions" that the West has grappled with
through the ages. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political
philosophy, they're all there in their original forms. It's been said
that all subsequent Western philosophy has really been commentary on
Plato. I think that's a bit overstated, but there's no question that
Plato is where one should begin. Good reading!!!
Mark S. Gordon
The MathWorks, Inc.
gor...@mathworks.com
"Fides querens intellectum"
Gary Merrill
Some (negative) comments on the suggestions so far:
1. Try Frederic Copleston's _History of Philosophy_.
Perhaps under threat of death ... Or as required reading in
an undergraduate course (though even then I don't think I managed
to read much of it). Very dry. Somewhat slanted perspective.
2. Start by reading original sources.
Maybe, but depending upon what you pick this can be *very*
difficult. I don't think anyone would suggest that you start
to learn quantum mechanics by starting to read the original journal
articles. But a lot of people think that philosophy is easy to
understand and that you should just be able to jump in anywhere with
little or no help. Sometimes, depending upon the author and the
work, you can do this. Usually not.
Of course you want to read original sources, but you almost
certainly will need (and certainly will profit from) some aid
in understanding the jargon you encounter and historical contexts
that are assumed.
3. Read Plato.
Sure, get to it some time. But you don't have to *start* with
it. The suggestion that the works of Plato contain the "genesis"
of "almost all of the philosophic 'questions'" is very much like
saying that the works of Archimedes contain the "genesis" of all
of physics.
Plato is not to everyone's taste (not to mine, though I've
certainly read -- had to read -- enough of it). There are many
interesting problems that are not dealt with in Plato. There
are many problems that are dealt with poorly in Plato. Philosophy
*has* made advances since the ancient greeks. You might prefer
more recent sources.
Some positive suggestions:
A. If you currently have *no* knowledge or specific interests in
philosophy, go to a library and leaf through the _Encyclopedia
of Philosophy_. Read through or at least glance at some of
the articles until you spot an area, time period, movement,
person, or whatever that strikes your fancy. The articles
all have bibliographies. Start there.
B. Prentice Hall publishes a (generally) excellent series of
short (< 150 pages for the most part) books written by
well known philosophers in their areas of expertise. These
are good introductions to the jargon and concepts of a
variety of "fields" in philosphy. Some of these are:
_Metaphysics_ by Richard Taylor
_Theory of Knowledge_ by Roderick Chisholm
_Philosophy of Natural Science_ by Carl Hempel
_Philosophy of Biological Science_ by David Hull
_Philosophy of Logic_ by W. V. Quine
_Ethics_ by William Frankena
_Aesthetics_ by (I think) Monroe Beardsley
(others as well)
While you can't exactly read these as though they are comic books,
they are at an introductory level and tend to introduce and compare
the "classic" problems and positions. Use them by themselves or in
conjunction with primary sources to establish fundamental background
and context.
--
Gary H. Merrill [Principal Systems Developer, Compiler and Tools Division]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC 27513 / (919) 677-8000
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Charles L. Creegan
start?? At least Copleston's slant is consistent! But he is a bit
scholarly, so the Prentice-Hall series is probably the best. Or go
ask a local phil. prof for intro texts. There are some good ones, and
free copies tend to pile up.
--
Charles Creegan NC Wesleyan College ccre...@uncecs.edu
Stephen Grossman
>
>
>Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
>to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
>novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
>Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
>Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
>philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
>what good "survey" books are available.
For the New Intellectual-Ayn Rand
Philosophy: Who Needs It?-Ayn Rand
Ancilla to Presocratic Philosophers-Kathleen Freeman
Outline of History of Greek Philosophy-Ed Zeller
Existence 2-Daniel Tschaen & Stephen Grossman
Ominous Parallels-Leonard Peikoff
********************************************************************************
Beyond and back of the wind, | Stephen Grossman
Little birds fly into the sea, | pmsc...@umassd.edu
Morning light shine on me. |
|
[Marianne Faithfull & Wally Baderou] |
********************************************************************************
Gary Merrill
In article <1993Jun30.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, ccre...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles L. Creegan) writes:
|> Copleston is "dry" and slanted, but the E. of Phil. is a good place to
|> start?? At least Copleston's slant is consistent! But he is a bit
Absolutely. Any slant you get in the _Encyclopedia_ typically is from
the point of view of an expert looks with some favor on the topic of
his article. The slant is thus article-relative in a particularly
appropriate way rather than uniform across the entire history of
philosophy.
|> scholarly, so the Prentice-Hall series is probably the best. Or go
|> ask a local phil. prof for intro texts. There are some good ones, and
|> free copies tend to pile up.
|> --
|> Charles Creegan NC Wesleyan College ccre...@uncecs.edu
If near a university you could probably pick up used copies of some
anthologies. This would give you a collection of abridged original
sources *with* (usually) some introductory and explanatory material.
Mark S. Gordon
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com writes:
>Some (negative) comments on the suggestions so far:
In a thread like this, why offer negative comments at all unless you're
just being contrary for the sake of it.
>1. Try Frederic Copleston's _History of Philosophy_.
>
> Perhaps under threat of death ... Or as required reading in
>an undergraduate course (though even then I don't think I managed
>to read much of it). Very dry. Somewhat slanted perspective.
Somewhat slanted in that Coppleston was a Catholic priest. Still, he is
remarkably balanced considering his tradition. John, every commentary
on philosophy is slanted by the author's perspective. That's one good
reason to begin with original sources. Degree of aridity, on the other
hand, is a readers opinion. IMHO, for instance, Hegel is arid where
Kierkegaard is not. It's purely subjective.
>2. Start by reading original sources.
>
> Maybe, but depending upon what you pick this can be *very*
>difficult. I don't think anyone would suggest that you start
>to learn quantum mechanics by starting to read the original journal
>articles. But a lot of people think that philosophy is easy to
>understand and that you should just be able to jump in anywhere with
>little or no help. Sometimes, depending upon the author and the
>work, you can do this. Usually not.
>
> Of course you want to read original sources, but you almost
>certainly will need (and certainly will profit from) some aid
>in understanding the jargon you encounter and historical contexts
>that are assumed.
>3. Read Plato.
> Sure, get to it some time. But you don't have to *start* with
>it. The suggestion that the works of Plato contain the "genesis"
>of "almost all of the philosophic 'questions'" is very much like
>saying that the works of Archimedes contain the "genesis" of all
>of physics.
There is a reason why Intro to Philosophy courses invariably begin with
the Greeks. If you are beginning to explore philosophy, John, do like a
philosophy professor does: start with the Greeks, among whom Plato and
Aristotle tower over the others. As Mr. Merrill himself says in a
preceding paragraph, you usually can't just jump in anywhere.
>Some positive suggestions:
Gary, why didn't you just start here?
Mark S. Gordon
gor...@mathworks.com
lee m godfrey nmtr stnt
>Dear John:
>
> May I humbly suggest that you have a look at Frederic Copleston's
>History of Philosophy? It's a wonderful survey of philosophical
>thought, spanning centuries, in several volumes, all available in
>paperback. It's a great way to get acquainted with the larger context
>of the texts. No doubt many readers here will suggest original works
>or secondary philosophy surveys, which is why I thought that an
>explicitly historical work would be a worthy addition to your list.
>If you don't have time to read all the originals, I must admit that I
>enjoyed the old Mentor series "The Age of..." (in 6 volumes; but it's
>rather old now, so haunt your second hand bookstores!)
>
[Elaborate signature deleted]
Yes, Copleston's works are excellent, but if you're not well versed
in Latin and ancient Greek (Presumably, someone just beginning
philosophic studies isn't) a lot will be missed, especially in the
first volume (Books I - III, I think).
His History of Medieval Philosophy is likewise excellent.
Later.
lee m godfrey nmtr stnt
> I just thought it was worth seconding this suggestion on both
> counts. The Platonic Dialogues are probably the best place to
> start for reasons of both classical content and style. The
> style of the dialogue makes the ideas so much more available
> to those who are unfamiliar with reading the more "critical"
> argumentation of most philosophical material. And Collingwood,
> as I recall, wrote a superb essay on the definition, function,
> and meaning and philosophy.
>
> fjc
I agree to a limited extent, but almost all philosophy books are
written in response or as a reaction to other philosophy books.
So time reading interpretations or exegeses may be well spent.
Also, in what sense are you using the work critical: Kantian or
lexical?
Gary Merrill
In article <C9G3t...@MathWorks.COM>, Mark S. Gordon <gor...@mathworks.com> writes:
|> In a thread like this, why offer negative comments at all unless you're
|> just being contrary for the sake of it.
Negative comments serve another and perfectly respectable purpose:
to express the view (supported, in this case, through over 10 years
of teaching philosophy) that a given suggestion is not a particularly
good one, and to discourage the novice from following that suggestion
so as *not* to discourage his interest in the broader topic.
|> Somewhat slanted in that Coppleston was a Catholic priest. Still, he is
|> remarkably balanced considering his tradition. John, every commentary
|> on philosophy is slanted by the author's perspective. That's one good
|> reason to begin with original sources. Degree of aridity, on the other
|> hand, is a readers opinion. IMHO, for instance, Hegel is arid where
|> Kierkegaard is not. It's purely subjective.
Neither of which I would recommend as an introduction to philosophy
-- particularly unaided.
|> There is a reason why Intro to Philosophy courses invariably begin with
|> the Greeks. If you are beginning to explore philosophy, John, do like a
|> philosophy professor does: start with the Greeks, among whom Plato and
That would be a professor of the *history* of philosophy. I do not recall
in any of the introductory courses I taught in philosophy *ever* starting
with the Greeks.
|> Aristotle tower over the others. As Mr. Merrill himself says in a
|> preceding paragraph, you usually can't just jump in anywhere.
If you are going to appeal to an anonymous "philosophy professor", perhaps
you should give a bit more credence to my remarks, though it's not necessary
to address me as "Dr." (I find that no one does that much any more unless
they want money from me).
|> >Some positive suggestions:
|>
|> Gary, why didn't you just start here?
For the reasons given above and based on my experience. What is
*your* experience in teaching philosophy?
Mark S. Gordon
sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com writes:
>|> In a thread like this, why offer negative comments at all unless
you're
>|> just being contrary for the sake of it.
>Negative comments serve another and perfectly respectable purpose:
>to express the view (supported, in this case, through over 10 years
>of teaching philosophy) that a given suggestion is not a particularly
>good one, and to discourage the novice from following that suggestion
>so as *not* to discourage his interest in the broader topic.
I just thought it was gratuitously cheeky in this kind of thread to
review other people's comments negatively. No one was making an
argument, we were just trying to offer the guy some advice on summer
reading. I don't recall that John asked for only those with 10 years
experience teaching philosophy to respond. Perhaps you take yourself a
little too seriously.
>|> There is a reason why Intro to Philosophy courses invariably begin
with
>|> the Greeks. If you are beginning to explore philosophy, John, do
like a
>|> philosophy professor does: start with the Greeks, among whom Plato and
>
>That would be a professor of the *history* of philosophy. I do not
recall
>in any of the introductory courses I taught in philosophy *ever* starting
>with the Greeks.
Are not most Intro to Philosophy courses surveys of the great ideas or
problems of philosophy?
Did not most of the categories of philosophical speculation originate
with the Greeks? Are not Plato and Aristotle the cornerstones of Greek
philosophy? If so, how do you avoid using the Greeks as a starting point
in your courses? That's not a judgement, just a question.
>|> Aristotle tower over the others. As Mr. Merrill himself says in a
>|> preceding paragraph, you usually can't just jump in anywhere.
>If you are going to appeal to an anonymous "philosophy professor",
perhaps
>you should give a bit more credence to my remarks, though it's not
necessary
>to address me as "Dr." (I find that no one does that much any more unless
>they want money from me).
>
>|> >Some positive suggestions:
>|>
>|> Gary, why didn't you just start here?
>
>For the reasons given above and based on my experience. What is
>*your* experience in teaching philosophy?
First, I didn't address you as "Dr." Why did you think I had? If you
have a Ph.D. don't just hint at it, come out and say it. Second, I have
no experience teaching philosophy, just a lowly undergraduate degree in
it and a lifetime reading it. So what? Should I--or anyone--defer to
your credentials in a thread like this? Do your 10 years behind the
lectern illegitimize my contribution? If I go get someone with 25 years
experience in teaching philosophy will you defer to them?
Mark Gordon
gor...@mathworks.com
Joshua Kilroy
Charles Hartshorne, which IMHO is the best book on metaphysics
in the 20th century (challenged only by Process and Reality by
Whitehead.
Or one can read Harthorne's Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes
mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
For a secondary work I guess I'm the only one who likes
C. E. M. Joad, _Guide_to_Philosophy_. Maybe it's a
little dated in ending up with Bergson & Whitehead. But
it's very clearly written, IMO.
Ken
--
mi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu :: opinions expressed are my own
It's turtles all the way up, too.
-- Skywoolix
Ed Cottrill
>In article <20ri0k$g...@agate.berkeley.edu>, tsu...@ocf.berkeley.edu (John Tsutsui) writes:
>>
>>
>>Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
>>to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
>>novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
>>Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
>>Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
>>philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
>>what good "survey" books are available.
>For the New Intellectual-Ayn Rand
>Philosophy: Who Needs It?-Ayn Rand
These are queer suggestions. They do raise the question, though--
what do you have in mind when you say you want to read "philosophy"? Do
you mean you want to understand what have been held to be the essential
problems of epistemology, metaphisics, and maybe ethics, and find out
what the current state of serious scholarship regarding these questions
is? Or are you wondering what the "meaning of life" is, and want advice
about "how to live your life"? If it is the latter, then Ayn Rand, the
place of worship of your choice, or the self-help section of your
bookstore would be good places to start. If it is the former, then by
all means follow the rest of the advice which has been posted here. For
what it's worth, if I were to recommend five philosophy books to someone
looking for a good read (not those which I think are the best ever
written, but those which I found most agreeable, worth reading,
entertaining, etc.) they would be:
_Dilemmas_ by Gilbert Ryle
_Appearance and Reality_ by P.M.S. Hacker
_Fact, Fiction, and Forecast_ by Nelson Goodman
_Mutual Misunderstandings_ by Talbot Taylor
_The Problems of Philosophy_ by Bertrand Russell
All but the third provide a "survey" in that they cover either a
number of different questions or the history of the answers given to a
particular question.
Frank Casper
Let me suggest _Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method_ by
Charles Hartshorne, which IMHO is the best book on metaphysics
in the 20th century (challenged only by Process and Reality by
Whitehead.
Never read Hartshorne but I think you have an appropriately high
assessment of Whitehead, though neither is probably "summer reading".
The opening pages of Process and Reality are great for anyone
interested in the question "why do philosophy"?
fjc
Gary Merrill
In article <C9GDK...@MathWorks.COM>, Mark S. Gordon <gor...@mathworks.com> writes:
|> I just thought it was gratuitously cheeky in this kind of thread to
|> review other people's comments negatively. No one was making an
|> argument, we were just trying to offer the guy some advice on summer
|> reading. I don't recall that John asked for only those with 10 years
|> experience teaching philosophy to respond. Perhaps you take yourself a
|> little too seriously.
No, but if someone having considerably less experience that I do takes
me to task for pointing out a fundamental flaw in their suggestion I
will respond. In addition, people asking for advice have some right
to know the background and experience of those who would offer it.
|> Are not most Intro to Philosophy courses surveys of the great ideas or
|> problems of philosophy?
^^^^^^^^
Courses tend to be either: (a) Historically oriented, or (b) Problem
oriented. What follows from this?
|> Did not most of the categories of philosophical speculation originate
|> with the Greeks? Are not Plato and Aristotle the cornerstones of Greek
I'm not sure what "categories of philosophical speculation" means, but
you should realize that at best you are treading on the edge of a genetic
fallacy here.
|> philosophy? If so, how do you avoid using the Greeks as a starting point
|> in your courses? That's not a judgement, just a question.
If you teach a problem oriented course it is not necessary *ever* to
use the Greeks. Nor is it necessary to use Russell, Kant, Wittgenstein,
... You pick texts based on the *problems* being dealt with. You
*may* therefore use Plato, but you don't *need* to. This is pretty obvious.
The first course I ever took in philosophy used the following texts:
_The Problems of Philosohpy_ (Russell)
_Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ (Hume)
_The Communist Manifesto_ (Marx)
It was a very good course.
|> First, I didn't address you as "Dr." Why did you think I had? If you
|> have a Ph.D. don't just hint at it, come out and say it. Second, I have
I think you missed the point here -- you seem to be taking things a bit
to seriously yourself.
|> no experience teaching philosophy, just a lowly undergraduate degree in
|> it and a lifetime reading it. So what? Should I--or anyone--defer to
|> your credentials in a thread like this? Do your 10 years behind the
It was *you* who attempted to justify your recommendation by appealing to
professors of philosophy. I merely pointed out that if you felt such
an appeal was justificatory then you ought to give weight to my views. I
think the appropriate phrase here is "hoist on your own petard".
|> lectern illegitimize my contribution? If I go get someone with 25 years
No, but your *lack* of experience may make the value of the contribution
less compelling than it might first appear.
|> experience in teaching philosophy will you defer to them?
Quite possibly. In these matters (as in most) experience counts heavily.
Mark Peterson
Oy...
From article <C9HoI...@unx.sas.com>, by sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill):
>
> In article <C9GDK...@MathWorks.COM>, Mark S. Gordon <gor...@mathworks.com> writes:
>
> |> I just thought it was gratuitously cheeky in this kind of thread to
> |> review other people's comments negatively. No one was making an
> |> argument, we were just trying to offer the guy some advice on summer
> |> reading. I don't recall that John asked for only those with 10 years
> |> experience teaching philosophy to respond. Perhaps you take yourself a
> |> little too seriously.
>
> No, but if someone having considerably less experience that I do takes
> me to task for pointing out a fundamental flaw in their suggestion I
> will respond. In addition, people asking for advice have some right
> to know the background and experience of those who would offer it.
This reminds me, strangely enough, of a line from Hegel [definitely
and under no conditions to be recommended as light summer reading --
the old boy can be toxic]. Anyways, Hegel said once that
(paraphrasing): *nobody* believes that just because they have hands
(sorry Michael), they can make shoes. This takes practice. But --
oddly -- nearly *everybody* believes that just because they have a
brain they can do philosophy.
Always liked that. It's in the Logic somewhere [definitely and under
no conditions to be confused with what Gary means by 'logic'].
Copleston is just fine, if you can get past the number of semi-colons
his sentences seem to require and the dryness Gary -- I thought too
charitably -- described.
> |> Are not most Intro to Philosophy courses surveys of the great ideas or
> |> problems of philosophy?
> ^^^^^^^^
> Courses tend to be either: (a) Historically oriented, or (b) Problem
> oriented. What follows from this?
A dichotomous view of philosophy? On the other hand, I always assumed
I was a historically oriented philosopher -- until I actually met
some. No rigour, (ha, no arguments), casual logic, literary
interpretations of philosophical problems. So I assumed I must be a
problems oriented philosopher -- until I started speaking to them at
conferences. No historical background, a generally narrow of what
counted as philosophy, a priori logical interpretations of
philosophical problems, and a tendency to reinvent the wheel. So I've
given up trying to figure that one out.
But Gary's point here is exact.
> |> philosophy? If so, how do you avoid using the Greeks as a starting point
> |> in your courses? That's not a judgement, just a question.
>
> If you teach a problem oriented course it is not necessary *ever* to
> use the Greeks. Nor is it necessary to use Russell, Kant, Wittgenstein,
> ... You pick texts based on the *problems* being dealt with. You
> *may* therefore use Plato, but you don't *need* to. This is pretty obvious.
>
> The first course I ever took in philosophy used the following texts:
>
> _The Problems of Philosohpy_ (Russell)
> _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ (Hume)
> _The Communist Manifesto_ (Marx)
>
> It was a very good course.
Sounds like a great course. I've been using: Plato (either that set
of Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, or the Gorgias), Descartes'
Meditations, AJ Ayer, and some usually some Kierkegaard. The
interesting philosophical problems tend to rise out of the texts.
Knowledge claims, metaphysics, ethical justifications... that stuff.
> |> experience in teaching philosophy will you defer to them?
>
> Quite possibly. In these matters (as in most) experience counts heavily.
See shoes above.
But to the ORIGINAL POSTER: what sort of philosophical stuff are you
interested in? I note that some of the trained folk here do not share
Whitehead's view about Plato, but it's still an entertaining place to
start and while Gary will disagree with me for a variety of perfectly
good reasons, irony *can* be an instrument of philosophical insight --
and it's more accessible than truth-tables. ;-)
Still, generally speaking, I'd recommend Russell's book on the
Problems of Philosophy if it's your first time out.
Dr. hiho
--
mark ce peterson | uw-washington county | hi...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi. 53095 | (414) 335-5200
The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
youngjae lee
books are for beginners in philosophy. a lot of the books recommended are
claimed to be surveys of major arguments on major philosophical issues, but
does any of them even mention confucius or lao-tzu?
this posting serves two purposes:
1) to raise the issue of what does and what doesn't count as philosophy and
whether our tendency to ignore eastern philosophy is justified.
2) being educated at swarthmore where the phil dept focuses almost
exclusively on western philosophy, i don't know very much about eastern
philosophy, either - does anyone have recommendations on good books to
start with other than _the sourcebook in chinese philosophy_?
jae lee
================================================
Youngjae Lee
Swarthmore College
500 College Avenue
Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397
yl...@cc.swarthmore.edu
Gary Merrill
In article <ylee1-010...@mac5.papazian1.swarthmore.edu>, yl...@cc.swarthmore.edu (youngjae lee) writes:
|> 1) to raise the issue of what does and what doesn't count as philosophy and
I don't have the strength to get into this issue again. (It seems to me
we thrashed around in this area just a few months ago.) The question
is thorny enough if you just restrict it to western philosophy.
|> whether our tendency to ignore eastern philosophy is justified.
It is not obvious that most of eastern philosophy fits very well
under the banner of sci.philosophy.meta. It's both the 'sci' and
the 'meta' parts that don't seem to fit particularly well. In that
sense there may be some direct justification for ignoring it in
this newsgroup (though there have been times when a number of postings
have surfaced.
Thomas Price
You both have a lot to say in this forum, and I enjoy seeing your posts.
It would be a shame if you were to have a falling-out over something
that seems like a simple misunderstanding of each others' tone and intent
... perhaps you'd consider taking this discussion to email, where public
face isn't a concern, or better yet just dropping it?
The upshot of it all is that the original poster has gotten a lot of
detailed advice and suggestions, and that is to the credit of both of you.
Tom Price | heaven and earth regard the 10,000 | tp...@cs.cmu.edu
****************** | things as straw dogs and I feel fine | ******************
Thomas Price
>Hegel said once that
>(paraphrasing): *nobody* believes that just because they have hands
>(sorry Michael), they can make shoes. This takes practice. But --
>oddly -- nearly *everybody* believes that just because they have a
>brain they can do philosophy.
Briefly put, everybody can do philosophy. It's just that very few people
can do it at all well.
"Doing philosophy" is part of what it is to be human. Shoemaking aint.
They're not at all comparable.
Michael Shepanski
>Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
>to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
>novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
>Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
>Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
>philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
>what good "survey" books are available.
I've just had a quick look through the responses, and I'm surprised to see
that no-one mentioned _The_Web_of_Belief_, by W.V. Quine and J.S. Ullian.
This was written as an introductory textbook, but I don't know which
professors have assigned it or with how much success. I always refer to
it when non-philosopher friends ask me what this strange subject is that
I've gotten mixed up in. Then I lend it out and never see it again. So
far I've bought six copies.
It is an original source, in the sense that real philosophers wrote it,
in an effort to persuade readers of their views; but at the same time it
covers a vast amount of ground without requiring previous reading in
philosophy. It avoids aridity by means of a lively style, and also by
linking philosophy with modern concerns.
--- Michael Shepanski
Mark S. Gordon
writes:
>You both have a lot to say in this forum, and I enjoy seeing your posts.
>It would be a shame if you were to have a falling-out over something
>that seems like a simple misunderstanding of each others' tone and
intent
>... perhaps you'd consider taking this discussion to email, where public
>face isn't a concern, or better yet just dropping it?
>
>The upshot of it all is that the original poster has gotten a lot of
>detailed advice and suggestions, and that is to the credit of both of
you.
I'm obviously not a regular poster to this newsgroup, although I am a
regular reader. I usually keep my mouth shut precisely because I can't
hang with a lot of what goes on here. John's request for advice on
summer reading offered, I thought, an opportunity for me to contribute.
Gary decided that in addition to offering his own positive contribution
he would also get in an unsolicited critique of other poster's
suggestions. In his critique of my suggestion that John read some Plato
this summer, Gary pointedly quoted and criticized my brief comments.
After trying to defend myself both he and Dr. Hand shifted their focus to
my credentials, as if it takes a sheet full of degrees to reliably offer
advice on summer reading, and as if the lack of deep credentials
necessarily invalidates the advice given.
I've often found on these newsgroups that there are those who feel they
have some kind of ownership over them, that because they post frequently
they are entitled to exercise a kind of editorial scrutiny over what's
written. In an innocuous thread like this one, I felt it was bad form to
review and dismiss suggestions made solely out of a love for the subject
and an enthusiasm at some else's interest in it. If I enter an argument
I expect to get slammed. I did not think this was an argument. Well,
maybe Gary doesn't get to teach philosophy anymore and he sees this as a
virtual classroom. I'm out of it.
Mark Gordon
gor...@mathworks.com
CAMERMAN FILIP
: Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
: to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
: novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
: Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
: Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
: philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
: what good "survey" books are available.
Ha I think after reading this thread you will already have lost your
interest for philosophy. Still, here is some more advice:
do NOT start with some general book or some book ON a philosopher.
This is the best thing to do only if you have firmly decided to devote
the rest of your life on learning as much about philosophy as possible
and therefore want to do it as efficient as possible from the start.
In all other cases I personally think that the best way to get an idea
of what philosophy is all about, is to find a major work of a major
philosopher which is written in an entertaining form.
Of-course I like all other 'advisors' speak from personal experience.
I started with Nietzsche's 'Thus spoke Zarathustra', because Nietzsche
seemed an entertaining kinda guy to me and because the first page of
the book was already exciting (the famous sunrise which Richard
Strauss put to music). WOW what a book it is. Hi-tech philosophy
combined to ancient mysticism. Of-course there are other books
that qualify as 'a major work of a major philosopher which is written
an entertaining form.' But I cant mention any coz I am still addicted
to Nietzsche :)
FC.
Gary Merrill
|> "Doing philosophy" is part of what it is to be human. Shoemaking aint.
|> They're not at all comparable.
How many non-humans do *you* know who make shoes? And while it's true
that I know *more* philosophers than shoemakers, the shoemakers
seem generally to be a happier and more successful lot.
I do know at least one philosopher who shoes horses. So the
philosopher/shoemaker dichotomy is not clear.
Gary Merrill
|>
|> I've just had a quick look through the responses, and I'm surprised to see
|> that no-one mentioned _The_Web_of_Belief_, by W.V. Quine and J.S. Ullian.
|>
Yes -- an *excellent* book (and also in paperback). I mention it
frequently, but for some reason it didn't come to mind this time.
However, its focus (primarily epistemology with some ontology) might
be considered a bit narrow by some. It is *very* readable. I've
used it in both introductory courses and philosophy of science
courses.
Gary Merrill
In article <C9I5F...@MathWorks.COM>, Mark S. Gordon <gor...@mathworks.com> writes:
|> I'm obviously not a regular poster to this newsgroup, although I am a
|> regular reader. I usually keep my mouth shut precisely because I can't
|> hang with a lot of what goes on here. John's request for advice on
|> summer reading offered, I thought, an opportunity for me to contribute.
|> Gary decided that in addition to offering his own positive contribution
|> he would also get in an unsolicited critique of other poster's
|> suggestions. In his critique of my suggestion that John read some Plato
|> this summer, Gary pointedly quoted and criticized my brief comments.
|> After trying to defend myself both he and Dr. Hand shifted their focus to
|> my credentials, as if it takes a sheet full of degrees to reliably offer
|> advice on summer reading, and as if the lack of deep credentials
|> necessarily invalidates the advice given.
I am constantly astounded by people (particularly those with *any* experience
in philosophy) who:
1. Take a criticism of a view they have advanced as a personal
attack on them.
2. Feel that they are being singled out simply because someone
has offered some observations about such a view of theirs.
In fact, *several* posters made suggestions and my comments were addressed
to this set of suggestions. Only Mark Gordon appears to believe that my
response was directed solely (or primarily) against him and has continued
to whine about such things as "an unsolicited critique" and "trying to
defend myself". Geez, Mark, you made a brief suggestion I thought wasn't
a particularly good one, I said so, and said why. I did not even remotely
suggest that you should not have posted your suggestion (as you in fact
have repeatedly said about my response). Toughen up. I continue to believe
that Copleston is (as one colleague so adroitly put it) "as dry as rat shit".
What a silly thing to be so upset about.
Michael R. Hand
> I did not even remotely suggest that you [Mark] should not
> have posted your suggestion (as you in fact have repeatedly
> said about my response). Toughen up.
I hereby suggest that Mark should not have posted his suggestion.
If I'm asked for advice about what to read in psychology, I should not
give it, despite my bachelor's degree in the subject and my past reading
in the subject. I should say "Gee, I dunno, go ask a specialist."
Similarly for our pal Mark.
B-o} M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237, USA
ha...@tamuts.tamu.edu mh...@tamu.edu
Michael R. Hand
> After trying to defend myself both he and Dr. Hand shifted their focus to
> my credentials, as if it takes a sheet full of degrees to reliably offer
> advice on summer reading, and as if the lack of deep credentials
> necessarily invalidates the advice given.
Hey, enough "Dr." stuff, okay? You are overreacting. Credentials
serve a purpose in a world where people sometimes give advice when
they shouldn't. Nobody asks me for advice on plumbing. Why not?
'Cause I DON'T HAVE ANY CREDENTIALS IN THE AREA. Do you think that
philosophy differs from plumbing, medicine, or astronony in this
respect?
>I've often found on these newsgroups that there are those who feel they
>have some kind of ownership over them, that because they post frequently
>they are entitled to exercise a kind of editorial scrutiny over what's
>written.
This group is unmoderated, and nobody has editorial control over
postings. Nobody's trying to "own" the group. I *enjoy* your
postings. Indeed, I scrutinize them, as do others, but not editorially.
>In an innocuous thread like this one, I felt it was bad form to
>review and dismiss suggestions made solely out of a love for the subject
>and an enthusiasm at some else's interest in it.
Bad form? What are you talking about?
Jim Holman
Much of modern philosophy has taken a very precise, mathematical turn. This
makes for some pretty boring reading, unless you delight in formulae.
Plato is a good place to start. I would also recommend The Trial and Death
of Socrates by I.F. Stone as a good companion piece. Part of the
difficulty in understanding philosophy is that it is often taught in a
vacuum, without any historical context. Stone's book provides some very
interesting context. For Plato I would recommend The Republic, translated
by Alan Bloom.
I would also recommend The Philosophy of Civilization by Albert
Schweitzer, at least the first third or half of the book.
Ruth Ginzberg
> exclusively on western philosophy, i don't know very much about eastern
> philosophy, either - does anyone have recommendations on good books to
> start with other than _the sourcebook in chinese philosophy_?
There are beginning to be a few -- *VERY* few -- texts addressing this. Off
hand I think of Bonevac, Boon & Phillips (eds), BEYOND THE WESTERN TRADITION:
READINGS IN MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY; or Tsenay Serequeberhan (ed.)
AFRICAN PHILOSOPHY: THE ESSENTIAL READINGS, or Gary Kessler (ed) VOICES OF
WISDOM: A MULTICULTURAL READER. These are anthologies, & you can often trace
articles in them back to their original sources if you want to dig deeper.
Also I have used SEVEN ARROWS by Heymeohysts Storm -- about the first 35 pages
is the most *philosophically* important, though the rest is historically and
anthropologically interesting. ETHNIC ETHICS by Anthony Cortese is a
disappointing critique of the Gilligan/Kohlberg axis -- it is disappointing
because one can see how one might wish it to be improved far more clearly than
one can see what there iw to be gotten from it. I have also used the essays of
Audre Lorde (found in SISTER OUTSIDER), including "Poetry Is Not A Luxury" in
which she argues that the sustained argument found in a treatise is a
particular form of communication which required access to writing instruments,
paper, time, lamplight, a space of one's own, etc. which select against a huge
portion of the world's population.
I am interested in knowing what others find helpful, as I am committed to
teaching a new course in Non-Western Ethics beginning Fall '94 and I am still
looking for materials.
------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rgin...@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Gary Merrill
In article <1993Jul1.2...@ohsu.edu>, holm...@ohsu.edu (Jim Holman) writes:
|>
|> Much of modern philosophy has taken a very precise, mathematical turn. This
|> makes for some pretty boring reading, unless you delight in formulae.
I do. But moreover, I delight in what the formulas *mean* and how
they may be used.
|> Plato is a good place to start. I would also recommend The Trial and Death
I, on the other hand, find Plato to be excessively boring (and irritating
in various other ways as well). Taste in philosophy varies quite a bit
among individuals (and this is independent of whether you regard
the philosophy you don't have a taste for as "good" philosophy or as
philosophy at all). In my experience most philosophers who like
Plato don't like Aristotle, and conversely. Among philosophers of
this period I favor Aristotle and think that Plato is "loose",
"sloppy", "too poetic", "lacking in rigor", etc. However, some of
my best friends have been Plato fanatics who think that Aristotle is
a dull nerd.
If one is going into this for *enjoyment* and at least some small
degree of immediate gratification, one should attempt a short survey
of the variety available. I have encountered a number of people who,
upon learning that I was a professor of philosophy, said something
like "Oh, I had a course in that, but I didn't it." Turns out
they had taken a historically oriented course in which only a couple
of philosophers were covered and they didn't care for the style of
these guys. Imagine, for example, if the only philosophy you looked
at was Aristotles _Physics_, Hobbes' _Leviathon_ and Kant's _Critique
of Pure Reason_. Many people would consider these pretty deadly but
would greatly enjoy Hume's _Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion_ or
Descartes' _Meditations_. This is why I originally suggested a look
at the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ in order to get an idea of
subject matter and bibliography.
Charles L. Creegan
priginal poster ain't even reading these groups!)
Anyway, as you will have discovered, wherever two or three are gathered
in the name of philosophy there will be 4 or 5 opinions about what
philosophy is--a metaphilosophical question, eek! (which is why I make
that a central focus when _I_ teach intro). And philosophers tend to be
rather opinionated and defensive. (BTW congrats to the objectivists on
not dominating this one!)
But don't be put off; try any of these suggestions, and if it doesn't
work for you try another. Then you too can make suggestions to the next guy!
--
Charles Creegan NC Wesleyan College ccre...@uncecs.edu
Hakki Kocabas
Books is existence. Within other limits existence is Good Philosophy
Books.
It is up to you to find where it exists :-)
Or ask to Stephen Grossman
|-| /-\ |-< |-< |||
Thomas Price
Chi instructors don't start with the movements and positions but instead
start you out breathing, standing, and relaxing, as a foundation; and
boxers start with conditioning (stamina, strength) before sparring -- is
"temperamental and conversational conditioning" part of any contemporary
philosophy curriculum, in any formal or informal way? Thick-skinnedness
would seem to be an obvious aid to debate, and is in short supply!
I seem to recall reading something by Jacob Needleman (or perhaps it
was just an article which also mentioned Jacob Needleman) which claimed
that absurd scholastic questions such as "how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin" were actually pedagogical tools: the instructors
would shout these questions at the students in high-stress situations,
and they had to answer on the fly, thereby gaining familiarity and
demonstrating ability with the conceptual tools they were trying to master.
(Apparently the same practise has been employed in Buddhist monasteries
up to the present day.) The students learned to think quickly and to not
be afraid to be confrontational.
What if anything teaches these and related skills today? Or does the system
simply weed out all but the most naturally obnoxious souls? :-) Or is
direct confrontation easy to avoid for an entire career?
Thomas Price
>|> They're not at all comparable.
>
>How many non-humans do *you* know who make shoes? And while it's true
Analogously: sniffing things is part of what it is to be a dog. Guiding
blind humans aint. But I don't know any non-dogs that guide blind humans.
Hakki Kocabas
>>(paraphrasing): *nobody* believes that just because they have hands
>>(sorry Michael), they can make shoes. This takes practice. But --
>>oddly -- nearly *everybody* believes that just because they have a
>>brain they can do philosophy.
>
>Briefly put, everybody can do philosophy. It's just that very few people
>can do it at all well.
>
>"Doing philosophy" is part of what it is to be human. Shoemaking aint.
That is NOT what I can buy "Doing philosophy is part of what it is
to be human"...but, perhaps I buy "Doing philosophy is part of the
activities of language using"....therefore every language user
might be philosophizing, most probably...
In language most of the time we are engaged in a transaction, this is
one of these cases, if you modify your product, I may buy it :-)
|-| /-\ |-< |-< |||
Hakki Kocabas
bad Philosophy Books...and it is most likely that you will end up
with a bad one...
|-| /-\ |-< |-< |||
Robert Vienneau
(previous citations lost)
>>|> "Doing philosophy" is part of what it is to be human. Shoemaking aint.
>>|> They're not at all comparable.
>>How many non-humans do *you* know who make shoes? And while it's true
>Analogously: sniffing things is part of what it is to be a dog. Guiding
>blind humans aint. But I don't know any non-dogs that guide blind humans.
Your logic is lacking. I have guided blind humans, namely my grandmother
in her old age. No comments about my ancestory, please.
Of more relevance for the thread, and what I really want to say:
I think history of philosophy books written by philosophers make good
introductory material. Accepting that premise, what do folks think
of Roger Scruton's _From_Descartes_to_Wittgenstein_? I'd recommend
it for the original poster, but I don't even have undergraduate
credentials in philosophy.
How about A. J. Ayer's _History_of_Philosophy_in_the_20th_Century_,
or whatever the correct title is?
Robert Vienneau
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
T Costello
|>
|>
|> Oy...
|>
|>
|>
|> This reminds me, strangely enough, of a line from Hegel [definitely
|> and under no conditions to be recommended as light summer reading --
|> the old boy can be toxic]. Anyways, Hegel said once that
|> (paraphrasing): *nobody* believes that just because they have hands
|> (sorry Michael), they can make shoes. This takes practice. But --
|> oddly -- nearly *everybody* believes that just because they have a
|> brain they can do philosophy.
|>
|> Always liked that. It's in the Logic somewhere [definitely and under
|> no conditions to be confused with what Gary means by 'logic'].
|>
Presumably this is harking back to the Republic. (Socrates going around
asking tradesmen about their trades and finding they don't know
much about them.) Hegel seems to consider that what was lacking
in all the tradesmen was not understanding just practise. Which fits in quite nicely with his dialectic, as they will eventually get the practise.
This just
goes to show if you don't start with Thales you are going to
miss something. And on that note, I know that Thales famous saying was
"Water is Best". Does anyone know any other of the saying of the
"Seven Wise Men of Greece".
|>
|>
|> --
|> mark ce peterson | uw-washington county | hi...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
|> dept of philosophy | west bend, wi. 53095 | (414) 335-5200
|>
|> The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
T
Thomas Price
>>>|> "Doing philosophy" is part of what it is to be human. Shoemaking aint.
>>>|> They're not at all comparable.
>>>How many non-humans do *you* know who make shoes? And while it's true
>>>
>>Analogously: sniffing things is part of what it is to be a dog. Guiding
>>blind humans aint. But I don't know any non-dogs that guide blind humans.
>>
>Your logic is lacking. I have guided blind humans, namely my grandmother
>in her old age. No comments about my ancestory, please.
Your pedantry is showing. I meant "guide" in the specific restrictive way
of an animal companion specially trained for the purpose. So let's try
"... I don't know any non-dogs that guide blind humans in one of those
guide-dog harnesses."
The original point was that everybody has a fundamental human right to
"do philosophy." Their betters have a fundamental right to browbeat them.
But they're their betters because they *can* browbeat them, not because
they can wag credentials at them. (However, in this most recent case,
the credentials and argumentative skill matched up, and in any case the
worsor brought it on himself.)
Anders G|ransson
Congratulations, a new path away from the old criminal stories!
You have a truly original way of thinking about philosophy...
"Lucky Luck" (and why not Lucky Luke).
*What do you mean, Lucky?*
--
If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Hakki Kocabas
>
> Start reading Lucky Luck, a good comics book is better than many
> bad Philosophy Books...and it is most likely that you will end up
> with a bad one...
> |-| /-\ |-< |-< |||
>
>Congratulations, a new path away from the old criminal stories!
Detective stories will come later, they are too complicated at this
stage :-) I am leaving the cream at the end :-)
>You have a truly original way of thinking about philosophy...
>"Lucky Luck" (and why not Lucky Luke).
Because of copy right reasons :-)
>
> *What do you mean, Lucky?*
Didn't I say read the comics :-)
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <1993Jul1.2...@ohsu.edu>, holm...@ohsu.edu (Jim Holman) writes:
>|> Much of modern philosophy has taken a very precise, mathematical turn. This
>|> makes for some pretty boring reading, unless you delight in formulae.
>I do. But moreover, I delight in what the formulas *mean* and how
>they may be used.
Actually, I find that very often the excessive use of symbology and mathematics
is just a way of covering up the fact that the author doesn't have anything
interesting or important to say (and this applies to other areas of academia
as well, from business to economics to computer science to education). This
"turn toward mathematics" seems to be more a turn away from reality than
anything else?
>|> Plato is a good place to start. I would also recommend The Trial and Death
>I, on the other hand, find Plato to be excessively boring (and irritating
>in various other ways as well). Taste in philosophy varies quite a bit
>among individuals (and this is independent of whether you regard
>the philosophy you don't have a taste for as "good" philosophy or as
>philosophy at all). In my experience most philosophers who like
>Plato don't like Aristotle, and conversely. Among philosophers of
>this period I favor Aristotle and think that Plato is "loose",
>"sloppy", "too poetic", "lacking in rigor", etc. However, some of
>my best friends have been Plato fanatics who think that Aristotle is
>a dull nerd.
Actually, I enjoy reading Plato (even though his thinking is sloppy and
misguided at times, and his conclusions are generally wrong), but I also
like Aristotle even more (and agree more with his more rigorous method too).
>If one is going into this for *enjoyment* and at least some small
>degree of immediate gratification, one should attempt a short survey
>of the variety available. I have encountered a number of people who,
>upon learning that I was a professor of philosophy, said something
>like "Oh, I had a course in that, but I didn't it."
Considering the kinds of books most of the philosophey professors here
have recommended, it's no surprise people are turned off.
>Turns out
>they had taken a historically oriented course in which only a couple
>of philosophers were covered and they didn't care for the style of
>these guys. Imagine, for example, if the only philosophy you looked
>at was Aristotles _Physics_, Hobbes' _Leviathon_ and Kant's _Critique
>of Pure Reason_.
CPR is the last place I would send a philosophy newbie who was trying to get
his bearings. A better "historical" treatment would be something like:
one or two works by the greeks (say, one by Plato and another by Aristotle),
a bit of medieval/christian philosophy (say, Augustine and Aquinas), some
pre-moderns (like Locke, Hume, and Descartes), the early moderns (like
Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer), a few Nietzsche aphorisms, some pragmatist
stuff (either Dewey or James), A breeze through Wittgenstein (say, the
Tractatus...but without working though it), A bit of Russell just to get
a flavor of how he works, an Ayn Rand essay or two, some Derrida,
Rorty, and Quine to acclimate the newbie to the currently active folks out
there. Of course this only scratches the surface (face it, people have been
writing philosophical books for 2000+ years and you can't just absorb it all
in a few weeks or months) but such a course of study would provide a
skeleton of familiarity on which to understand what is going on.
>Many people would consider these pretty deadly but
>would greatly enjoy Hume's _Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion_ or
>Descartes' _Meditations_. This is why I originally suggested a look
>at the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ in order to get an idea of
>subject matter and bibliography.
The Encyclopedia is probably a lot more useful/interesting once one has
some kind of framework in which to understand what is there. Just as
an example, it would be pretty difficult to understand anything much about
Hume without knowing something about Kant, or about Aquinas without
understanding something about Aristotle and Augustine.
--Brian
Bill Turkel
>Analogously: sniffing things is part of what it is to be a dog. Guiding
>blind humans aint. But I don't know any non-dogs that guide blind humans.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's funny... just this morning I offered my arm to a blind man in the
bank, so that he could navigate the ridiculous maze of velvet ropes they
put up in front of the counter.
Bill (I didn't sniff anything though)
Stephen F. Schaffner
|> Original poster? are you still there? (The joke's on all of us if the
|> priginal poster ain't even reading these groups!)
Even if he's not reading, it's still been useful -- I've scribbled down
a bunch of the suggestions for my own use. So, speaking strictly for
myself, thanks to all of you.
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Stephen Grossman
Thus we observe the baleful influence of Plato's continuity with mysticism.
Having failed to find wisdom or even reason in postmodern grazings,
contemporary philosophers seek vain refuge in the otherworldly or stoic
philosophies of the Orient. Roman philosophers discussed this 2000 or so years
ago and, with Aristotle's philosophy of reason as a guide, understood it
better. There is, of course, no rational difference between Oriental and the
mainstream of post-Kantian ethics but contemporary philosophers are rather
narrow in their interests. Perhaps they don't like the Pope's hat. Who knows?
Who could tell? The selflessness at the core, the root, the heart, the
veritable soul of modern ethics assuredly varies among civilizations just as
much as between individuals. So Lou Reed likes to tap some heroin in his veins
and Fu Manchu and the Dragon Lady enjoy nodding out in an opium den. Big deal.
It's the same self-destructivness, the same selflessness. Remember now,
Ginzburg is thoroughly modern Millie. Have I said something wrong? She's going
to enjoy life somehow, even if the philosophy she teaches is irrational and
subjective. As British rock chanteuse Marianne Faithfull sang in the decadent
80s, "We've been trying to get high without having to pay." She was Mick's
woman in the fabled 60s. She must know something.
********************************************************************************
Beyond and back of the wind, | Stephen Grossman
Little birds fly into the sea, | pmsc...@umassd.edu
Morning light shine on me. |
|
[Marianne Faithfull & Wally Baderou] |
********************************************************************************
Gary Merrill
|> Actually, I find that very often the excessive use of symbology and mathematics
|> is just a way of covering up the fact that the author doesn't have anything
|> interesting or important to say (and this applies to other areas of academia
|> as well, from business to economics to computer science to education). This
|> "turn toward mathematics" seems to be more a turn away from reality than
|> anything else?
Well, I suppose that *by definition* the "excessive" use of anything isn't good.
Otherwise, this strikes me as a particularly odd view given the rather central
role of mathematics and its symbolism in the development of modern science.
... [Agree with (or can at least tolerate) most of the other observations made.] ...
|> The Encyclopedia is probably a lot more useful/interesting once one has
|> some kind of framework in which to understand what is there. Just as
|> an example, it would be pretty difficult to understand anything much about
|> Hume without knowing something about Kant, or about Aquinas without
|> understanding something about Aristotle and Augustine.
Yes, but let me observe that this is a rather "historicist" oriented approach.
Suppose, for example, that the goal is not the understanding *about* Hume, but
the understanding of problems and positions. The _Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion_ are eminently intelligible and and enjoyable without an inkling of
either Kant or his predecessors.
Charles L. Creegan
discursive method of philosophy (or the traditional liberal arts in
general) by their school training. (These are mostly first time college
students, in fact first generation college students.) I take the
discussion method of teaching to be an attempt to remedy this, but it
takes longer than I have (generally one semester). It's rendered more
difficult by the fact that the students mak actually resent being asked
to work in this new (to them) way.
There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
Steven Daniel
>Here's a serious question which may not seem so at first: just as Tai
>Chi instructors don't start with the movements and positions but instead
>start you out breathing, standing, and relaxing, as a foundation; and
>boxers start with conditioning (stamina, strength) before sparring -- is
>"temperamental and conversational conditioning" part of any contemporary
>philosophy curriculum, in any formal or informal way? Thick-skinnedness
>would seem to be an obvious aid to debate, and is in short supply!
I've been in the philosophy biz for a long time now, and I'd like to know
why "thick-skinnedness" need be an aid to debate. Of course I understand
why it's an aid to nasty debates where the goal is not to arrive at the
truth about an issue but to humiliate your opponent. But is this the goal?
I'm afraid it IS the goal in professional philosophy -- which is why I'm
not in the least surprised to see your post. I just want everyone to realize
that philosophy doesn't have to be conceived along the lines of "sparring"
or verbal swordplay. There's no reason at all why it can't be a pleasant,
invigorating cooperative activity.
>What if anything teaches these and related skills today? Or does the system
>simply weed out all but the most naturally obnoxious souls? :-) Or is
>direct confrontation easy to avoid for an entire carrer?
Well, the system doesn't weed out all but the most naturally obnoxious, but
it certainly tries to. If you're obnoxious you'll have a big advantage in this
business. If you're not, you'd better be good at feigning it when your
"colleagues" expect it from you.
My advice to everyone is simply this: don't allow the ugliness
of philosophers to blind you to the beauty of philosophy.
Steve
Gary Merrill
In article <1993Jul6.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, ccre...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles L. Creegan) writes:
|> There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
|> "active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
|> necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
|> 16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
I'm afraid the answer to this is the same as the answer to "How
come 16 year olds used to be able to write a coherent paragraph,
but now 21 year olds can't?" It's nothing peculiar about philosophy
or its teaching here. My three kids (13, 15, 17) can all carry on
very clear analyses, both in written and oral. However, had they
remained in the public school system here I have no doubt that they
would lack this ability (despite our best efforts at home to make up
for the lack of education at school). The stuff about "active" and
"collaboative" learning is just an attempt to deflect attention from
the fact that teaching is not being done and standards are not
being enforced. (This isn't new. Twenty years ago (how time flies!)
I was shocked at the inability of the freshman and sophomore students
in my introductory philosophy classes to write a reasonable sentence
of English.)
Of course, in 1200 hardly every (or most, or even many) 12 year
olds could *read* (or 21 year olds for that matter). So there
certainly has been an overall improvement. What's irritating is
that the improvement has now fallen off instead of continuing.
Michael R. Hand
> Considering the kinds of books most of the philosophey professors here
> have recommended, it's no surprise people are turned off.
C'mon. The most commonly recommended book in this thread has been
Russell's Problems of Philosophy. A neophyte with a philosophical turn
of mind is unlikely to be turned off by this book.
B-o} M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
These are things that we shall try and discover.
But these are things we must not take seriously.
-- Samuel Beckett
Chris Holt
>In article <C9Mt0...@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:
>|> The Encyclopedia is probably a lot more useful/interesting once one has
>|> some kind of framework in which to understand what is there. Just as
>|> an example, it would be pretty difficult to understand anything much about
>|> Hume without knowing something about Kant, or about Aquinas without
>|> understanding something about Aristotle and Augustine.
>Yes, but let me observe that this is a rather "historicist" oriented approach.
>Suppose, for example, that the goal is not the understanding *about* Hume, but
>the understanding of problems and positions. The _Dialogues Concerning Natural
>Religion_ are eminently intelligible and and enjoyable without an inkling of
>either Kant or his predecessors.
Um, um... A Treatise of Human Nature has the date 1739 on its front
page, and Kant was born in 1724. So why is it helpful to have an
understanding of Kant when reading Hume? Where these Dialogues much
later?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chameleons feed on light and air: / Programmers' food is life and pain.
Gary Merrill
In article <sgd3.74...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu>, sg...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Steven Daniel) writes:
|> tp...@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
|> I've been in the philosophy biz for a long time now, and I'd like to know
|> why "thick-skinnedness" need be an aid to debate. Of course I understand
It is not so much thick-skinnedness that is at issue so much as the
ability to divorce (conceptually at least) the person from the
position being explored, attacked, or defended.
|> why it's an aid to nasty debates where the goal is not to arrive at the
|> truth about an issue but to humiliate your opponent. But is this the goal?
|> I'm afraid it IS the goal in professional philosophy -- which is why I'm
I wonder why you say this, and what evidence you would offer in support
of it. I confess that Ian Hacking once threw a chair at me as I
was presenting a paper at an APA meeting (well, he actually nudged
it forward with his foot and it toppled over onto the stage where
I was standing -- it was intended as some kind of anti-nominalist
demonstration), but I didn't take this as an attempt to humiliate
or intimidate.
|> not in the least surprised to see your post. I just want everyone to realize
|> that philosophy doesn't have to be conceived along the lines of "sparring"
|> or verbal swordplay. There's no reason at all why it can't be a pleasant,
|> invigorating cooperative activity.
It certainly was for Socrates, wasn't it? At least I don't recall
anyone at an APA meeting having to take hemlock.
|> Well, the system doesn't weed out all but the most naturally obnoxious, but
|> it certainly tries to. If you're obnoxious you'll have a big advantage in this
|> business. If you're not, you'd better be good at feigning it when your
|> "colleagues" expect it from you.
While I would describe many of the professional philosophers I know as
"agressive", I think very few are "obnoxious", and there are a number of
really nice people as well. (I see that you are at Cornell. Is Carl
Ginet still there? I can't imagine anyone describing Carl as "obnoxious".
"Comatose" at times, maybe. But not "obnoxious". And Stalnaker [he still
there too?] never impressed me as remotely obnoxious.)
Michael R. Hand
>Ancilla to Presocratic Philosophers-Kathleen Freeman
A much better one is Barnes's recent edition of the presocratics,
Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin 1987). He gives the ancient contexts
of the fragments (e.g. the relevant surrounding materials from Diogenes
Laertius, Clement, Simplicius, or whoever). I think he did the
translations anew, too. I've heard that Freeman just translated the
German translations into English. Anyway, if you're gonna study the
presocratics, ya gotta get the 2nd ed. of Kirk & Raven (i.e. Kirk, Raven,
& Schofield). Their discussions are indispensable for beginners.
Make sure you get the 2nd edition, too.
Ruth Ginzberg
appeared in the APA Newsletters (I forget when, 88 or 89 I think). Here's
part of what I wrote (some of which was first presented at the APA in Chicago
in ?1984? - <my memory's shot>):
Philosophical Education
[...]
What I want to explore here is the methodology of philosophy --
specifically the methodology of teaching philosophy, though I'm
not so sure that 'teaching' and 'doing' philosophy are actually any
different.
[...]
Western philosophy is a written tradition. One of most integral
things to the enterprise of Western philosophy since Plato's time
is that we expect philosophy -- whatever else it may be -- to be
written, and part of teaching philosophy is teaching the written
expression of philosophical ideas. The question I want to begin
with is "Why write?"
To Socrates, this would not have been a rhetorical question; indeed,
Socrates did not write, could not have written, because for him
philosophy was too integrally an interactive and dialogical
enterprise. There is a progression here that seems worthy of note:
Socrates did not write, his philosophy was dialogical; Plato wrote
but he wrote in dialogues; Aristotle wrote non-dialogues. To
Socrates, the seeking of knowledge and wisdom occurred within the
space created by conversations between real people, in the context
of the interactions they had. [NB: much like on Usenet -RG, 1993]
[...]
It is a material condition of the professional practice of
philosophy in universities in the United States that virtually all
philosophers are expected to write, and to publish what they've
written, either in order to obtain a secure job or in order to keep
it. A quick glance through any issue of Jobs For Philosophers, the
official publication of the American Philosophical Association in
which virtually all professional job openings in philosophy are
advertised, reveals that it is not only a few research-oriented
universities that want their philosophy faculty to write. The
smallest junior colleges serving entirely undergraduate
populations, often without offering an undergraduate philosophy
major, expect junior faculty members to provide writing samples and
"evidence of outstanding scholarship" in order to qualify as
candidates for entry-level jobs. This is a euphemism for written
philosophical publications. It is a sad fact of the profession
that far too many articles and books are written not out of an
internally compelling desire to communicate ideas to others, but
because of an externally imposed requirement to get something in
print in order to get or keep one's job, or to obtain a raise,
promotion, or tenure. We shall return to this in a moment. But it
is also true that philosophers who already have tenure and
sufficient salaries and job security, who don't need to write in
order to meet anyone else's expectations or requirements still
write, and indeed it is often these writings (which spring from a
personal desire rather than from an externally imposed requirement)
which provide the richest and most fulfilling philosophical
material. [...]
Presumably we all are attracted to philosophical inquiry because we
each experience some sort of deep satisfaction from reading and
writing philosophy. But why, exactly, *do* we write? What is the
nature of this deep sense of satisfaction that comes from writing
philosophy and from reading the written words of others?
It seems that there are two models present against which one might
assess this pleasure. One, by far the dominant model in
professional philosophy at least, and present in many classrooms as
well, is the military model of philosophy. Professional
philosophers may recognize our own terminology easily in this
model: we "take" a "position" and attempt to "defend" it against
the "attacks" of other philosophers, we "argue" for our
"claims," and others -- perhaps even our best friends -- may
attempt to "shoot down" or to "shoot holes in" our theses.
Indeed, the very induction ceremony into the credentialed community
of academic scholars nearly universally involves the "defense" of
one's thesis. Adrienne Rich points out that these sorts of terms
Ésuggest the connections -- actual and metaphoric -- between the
style of the university and the style of a society invested in
military and economic aggression.
Not incidentally, professional philosophers also construct stories
about this sort of terminology for ourselves and for our students
who find it offensive that we use such militaristic and violent
imagery: we maintain that "argument" doesn't really mean
"argument-as-in-dispute", that to be "critical" doesn't really mean
that one is being "critical-as-in-derogatory", that when one
"attacks" and "defends" "positions" one isn't really engaging in
war games -- that all these are just
words-that-don't-really-mean-what-they-sound-like. Philosophy
students remain skeptical. Meanwhile, philosophical journals and
papers remain full of hostile and combative references to our
colleagues and their abilities and their work. In this model, the
reason for writing is to become a participant in the military game,
to fight for a position on the philosophical battleground (that one
can call one's own), or to weaken the position of another
philosopher who is fighting for the same philosophical territory.
Students are trained and rewarded for successfully "attacking" or
"defending" some logistically important "argument" on the
philosophical battleground. Tenure and job promotions are awarded
to those who stake out and win the most philosophical ground, who
literally "capture" the greatest number of column inches in the
"toughest" professional journals, largely through their "attacks"
on previously published ideas, especially prominant ones. In this
military model of philosophical and other kinds of scholarship,
departmental requirements for written publication amount to
"marching orders" from generals in competing armies; scholars
"capturing" space in professional journals are merely the
footsoldiers in a much larger battle.
But there is another model, another reason for writing: that which
springs out of the yearning to connect intimately with others, the
urge to join, the desire for a "meeting of minds." This is Eros.
It is my hunch that there is an erotic component to all writing,
perhaps to all communication. [The system which is the subject of
this paper] conceives eroticism without violence and domination;
thus, it also conceives communication without violence and
domination. ... philosophy, understood and practiced as a form of
communication, occurs in the context of a nonviolence and
non-domination. The reason for writing is not to "capture" space
in prestigious journals, but to connect with others who have
similar interests. [nb: again, as on Usenet.- RG 1993]
[...]
The military model of philosophy depends for its existence on the
erotization of violence; thus, the erotic element of communication
is present in the military model of philosophy, but in a
pornographed sense. The "penetrating" objection, the satisfaction
of having "slashed" a rival's argument to pieces, the notion of
"cutting down" one's rivals with one's words, the "rush" of having
"blown away" one's opponents in a philosophical debate, and the
requirement that everyone, even the defeated, act as though they're
all enjoying it -- these are pornographic enactments of the
erotization of violence in communication. The existence of these
sort of enactments, and the endorsement of them as the culturally
normative image of the "correct" way to proceed with philosophical
inquiry, are a large piece of what Catherine MacKinnon cites as the
"gender inequality in the socially constructed relationship between
power -- the political -- on the one hand and the knowledge of
truth and reality -- the epistemological -- on the other."
Achhh, I won't go on. Hope this isn't too boring, but I guess it is on the
topic under discussion anyway. Kind of.
Thomas Price
>>philosophy curriculum, in any formal or informal way? Thick-skinnedness
>>would seem to be an obvious aid to debate, and is in short supply!
>
>I've been in the philosophy biz for a long time now, and I'd like to know
>why "thick-skinnedness" need be an aid to debate. Of course I understand
>why it's an aid to nasty debates where the goal is not to arrive at the
>truth about an issue but to humiliate your opponent. But is this the goal?
It's hard to arrive at the truth about an issue when one's interlocutor
takes a matter-of-fact attack on what he says as a personal attack
and becomes defensive. It's an aid to debate for one person to say "You're
wrong -- a,b,c,d" and then the other to react to a,b,c and d, and not
to react to the brusque "you're wrong."
Chris Malcolm
seems to be the high level of aggressive wounding sarcasm etc. employed
in arguments; yet the philosophers don't take it as such.
The reason is that philosophy routinely deals with much wider and more
fundamental divergences of opinion than any other discipline. In polite
society disagreement in itself is felt to be possibly wounding, and so
is hedged with disclaimers so that the person disagreed with doesn't
feel attacked. Philosophers understand that it is possible for an
intelligent and fair-minded person to hold opinions which another
intelligent and fair-minded person thinks are grossly flawed and
seriously silly, and have simply dropped the disclaimers of hostility
without which polite society suspects malicious intent, in the interests
of efficiency. They just get on with the business of discussing the
issues without taking it personally. Given the scale of disagreement
they have to handle, to behave otherwise would simply slow them down.
It's not a question of becoming thick-skinned, it's simply a question of
getting used to a culture which operates with different default
assumptions about the intentions behind speech acts.
But I do know several students who once intended to study philosophy,
which they found fascinating, but retreated in horror from what they
interpreted as the very high level of hostile aggression encountered in
the tutorials and coffee break discussions of the philosophy department.
Just as many Japanese students find very startling the high levels of
apparently personal criticism routinely accepted in casual conversation
in the West. The point is that the users don't interpret it personally.
To suppose they are thick skinned is to misunderstand what is going on.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aipna +44 (0)31 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Jeff Dalton
>one or two works by the greeks (say, one by Plato and another by Aristotle),
>a bit of medieval/christian philosophy (say, Augustine and Aquinas), some
>pre-moderns (like Locke, Hume, and Descartes), the early moderns (like
>Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer), a few Nietzsche aphorisms, some pragmatist
>stuff (either Dewey or James), A breeze through Wittgenstein (say, the
>Tractatus...but without working though it), A bit of Russell just to get
>a flavor of how he works, an Ayn Rand essay or two,
Sticking to the mainstream, eh?
BTW, the influential Wittgenstein is not the Tractatus Wittgenstein.
some Derrida,
>Rorty, and Quine to acclimate the newbie to the currently active folks out
>there.
>> the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_
>
>The Encyclopedia is probably a lot more useful/interesting once one has
>some kind of framework in which to understand what is there. Just as
>an example, it would be pretty difficult to understand anything much about
>Hume without knowing something about Kant, or about Aquinas without
>understanding something about Aristotle and Augustine.
I disagree with this "you have to read A before B" approach, which
basically says you have to start at the beginning. In fact, it's
possible to understand much of Hume without knowing much, if anything,
about Kant. Moreover, a key advantage of the Encyclopedia, and of
secondary sources more generally, is that what's said about Hume
isn't written by Hume. Consequently, you can be told what you need
to know in order to understand Hume, and you don't have to read
pre-Hume philosophy yourself in order to find everything that might
be relevant. Of course, you may need to go into Kant (for example)
more thoroughly at some point if you want a deep understanding of
certain things in Hume -- but you don't have to do that to start out.
-- jd
Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales
>I just want everyone to realize
>that philosophy doesn't have to be conceived along the lines of "sparring"
>or verbal swordplay. There's no reason at all why it can't be a pleasant,
>invigorating cooperative activity.
Bravo.
--Jimbo
Ted Lehr
> Outsiders visiting philosophy conferences are sometimes apalled at what
> seems to be the high level of aggressive wounding sarcasm etc. employed
> in arguments; yet the philosophers don't take it as such.
They remind me of the decorum of several Internet news groups.
--
Ted Lehr | "...my thoughts, opinions and questions..."
Future Systems Technology, AWS |
IBM | Internet: le...@futserv.austin.ibm.com
Austin, TX 78758 |
Jeff Kirvin
: Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
: to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
: novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
: Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
: Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
: philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
: what good "survey" books are available.
: Please post or e-mail me at tsu...@ocf.berkeley.edu
: Thanks for your time,
: John
I'm a big fan on _The Tao of Pooh_ by Benjamin Hoff. It is an
excellent and easy to follow introduction to Taoism.
--
==============================================================================
Jeff Kirvin | These are my opinions. Any connection to the
jki...@pafosu1.hq.af.mil | opinions of the Air Force is purely coincidental.
==============================================================================
Stephen Grossman
>There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
>"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
>necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
>16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
very interesting. I knew that early americans were better educated than our
MTV/rap/Madonna/hi-tech basketball shoes barbarians but your point about 12
year-olds in 1200 is extraordinary. and what about kids in classical greece?
Stephen Grossman
> It seems that there are two models present against which one might
> assess this pleasure. One, by far the dominant model in
> well, is the military model of philosophy. Professional
> philosophers may recognize our own terminology easily in this
> model: we "take" a "position" and attempt to "defend" it against
>
> But there is another model, another reason for writing: that which
> springs out of the yearning to connect intimately with others, the
> urge to join, the desire for a "meeting of minds." This is Eros.
3. philosophy directed at reality, not hostile or harmonious society.
pete
`In article <1993Jul6.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>,
`
`>There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
`>"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
`>necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
`>16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
`
`very interesting. I knew that early americans were better educated than our
`MTV/rap/Madonna/hi-tech basketball shoes barbarians but your point about 12
`year-olds in 1200 is extraordinary. and what about kids in classical greece?
Oh, they were totally amazing. For one thing, they all could learn
classical Greek before kindergarten. (^:
==========================================================================
We are definitely here as representatives of the % Pete Vincent
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages Luminaries % Disclaimer: all I
and Other Professional Thinking Persons, and we % know I learned from
want this machine off, and we want it off now! % reading Usenet.
Roger Lustig
>In article <1993Jul6.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, ccre...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles L. Creegan) writes:
>>There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
>>"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
>>necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
>>16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
>very interesting. I knew that early americans were better educated than our
>MTV/rap/Madonna/hi-tech basketball shoes barbarians
It's remarkable what one can "know" if one substitutes prejudice for thinking.
Early Americans, let's see, what was their literacy rate -- 20%? 30?
How many could do math beyond long division? How many could do that much?
How many people of *any* age could extract information from an image with
the skill that most 12-year-olds of today have? (None, basically; in
fact, people of 75 years ago were far less visually sophisticated than
we are today.)
To "know" that early Americans were better educated requires ignoring a
great many facts.
>but your point about 12
>year-olds in 1200 is extraordinary. and what about kids in classical greece?
You want to see 12-year-olds doing philosophy? Drop by any yeshiva.
What *did* 12-year-olds in medieval Europe know how to do? Could they
*argue* philosophy? Or did they just repeat what they'd learned? And
what did the 99.9% who didn't get *any* education know of philosophy?
Oh, and which philosophy?
In Classical Greece, what percentage of the population got any education
at all?
Roger
CARL BROCK SIDES
[...]
> I disagree with this "you have to read A before B" approach, which
> basically says you have to start at the beginning. In fact, it's
> possible to understand much of Hume without knowing much, if anything,
> about Kant.
I would hope so. Presumably Hume understood Hume, and he hadn't read a bit of
Kant.
[...]
> -- jd
Brock
CARL BROCK SIDES
[...]
>
> BTW, the influential Wittgenstein is not the Tractatus Wittgenstein.
>
>
Depends on who was influenced. It has been said (and isn't too much of an
exaggeration) that LW wrote the two most influential books in 20th century
Anglo-American philosophy: the _Tractaus_ and the _Philosophical
Investigations_.
However, since this was a post for recommending reading for a newcomer to
philosophy, the _Investigations_ wins hands down. (The _Tractatus_ is also
often considered one of the most difficult and cryptic works of 20th century
Anglo-American philosophy, although it can't hold a candle to some of the
stuff that was written on the continent.) But I still wouldn't try to take on
the _Investigations_ without a good commentary work.
> -- jd
Brock
Steven Daniel
>In article <sgd3.74...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu>, sg...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Steven Daniel) writes:
>|> tp...@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>|> I've been in the philosophy biz for a long time now, and I'd like to know
>|> why "thick-skinnedness" need be an aid to debate. Of course I understand
>It is not so much thick-skinnedness that is at issue so much as the
>ability to divorce (conceptually at least) the person from the
>position being explored, attacked, or defended.
No, you're wrong here. When professional philosophers "critique" one another,
they typically do so in such a way that inevitably seems either pointed,
nasty, abusive or aggressive from a purely *personal* standpoint. Time and
again it surfaces in our student evaluations here at Cornell that students
are afraid to talk in classes. Why? Because the instructors tend to make the
students feel not just misguided or in need of instruction, but like blithering
*idiots*. From what my friends at other schools tell me, Cornell isn't
unique in this regard.
>|> why it's an aid to nasty debates where the goal is not to arrive at the
>|> truth about an issue but to humiliate your opponent. But is this the goal?
>|> I'm afraid it IS the goal in professional philosophy -- which is why I'm
>I wonder why you say this, and what evidence you would offer in support
>of it. I confess that Ian Hacking once threw a chair at me as I
>was presenting a paper at an APA meeting (well, he actually nudged
>it forward with his foot and it toppled over onto the stage where
>I was standing -- it was intended as some kind of anti-nominalist
>demonstration), but I didn't take this as an attempt to humiliate
>or intimidate.
First, why are you bothering to mention Ian Hacking here? Second, if you're
claiming that philosophers never, or only rarely, try to humiliate one another,
this is so silly that I'd prefer to leave it alone.
>|> not in the least surprised to see your post. I just want everyone to realize
>|> that philosophy doesn't have to be conceived along the lines of "sparring"
>|> or verbal swordplay. There's no reason at all why it can't be a pleasant,
>|> invigorating cooperative activity.
>It certainly was for Socrates, wasn't it? At least I don't recall
>anyone at an APA meeting having to take hemlock.
And of course if Socrates accepted this view of philosophy, it must be correct,
eh? Silly boy. Philosophy doesn't have to be a nasty business, unless of
course you for some strange reason *want* it to be...unless this enables
you to *prove* something to us....;-)
>|> Well, the system doesn't weed out all but the most naturally obnoxious, but
>|> it certainly tries to. If you're obnoxious you'll have a big advantage in this
>|> business. If you're not, you'd better be good at feigning it when your
>|> "colleagues" expect it from you.
>While I would describe many of the professional philosophers I know as
>"agressive", I think very few are "obnoxious", and there are a number of
>really nice people as well. (I see that you are at Cornell. Is Carl
>Ginet still there? I can't imagine anyone describing Carl as "obnoxious".
>"Comatose" at times, maybe. But not "obnoxious". And Stalnaker [he still
>there too?] never impressed me as remotely obnoxious.)
I don't know in what sense the philosophers you know are "aggressive." If
all this means is that they call 'em like they see 'em, don't like to let
mistakes go by them, like arguments to be valid, and so on, but *without*
making their interlocutors feel humiliated...well, of course, of course.
That kind of aggressiveness is to be praised. But the other kind is not.
I never said that every philosopher is obnoxious. All I said is what everyone
already knows: that the system is set up so that obnoxiousness often yields
real advantages. This is hardly a contentious claim.
As for your attempts to bait me by referring to people in my own department,
I can only say (1) that I refuse the bait, and (2) that Carl Ginet will
no doubt be amused when I forward your post to him.
Happy trails....
Steve
Ronald R Churchill
What *is* the influential Wittgenstein? and what does "BTW" stand
for? Personally, i love the Tractatus, although i have only read
certain parts, and it is very influential to me. please post
(book and topic) what you believe to be the most "influential"
Wittgenstein.
ron
University at Buffalo
Patrick Herring
John Tsutsui (tsu...@ocf.berkeley.edu) wrote:
|> Hi everybody. Now that summer is here I've decided
|> to do some reading. I'm getting a bit tired of
|> novels so I decided to try reading some philosophy.
|> Besides, I'll educate myself in the process!
|> Anyway, I know next to nothing on the subject of
|> philosophy so I was hoping someone could tell me
|> what good "survey" books are available.
I've always enjoyed Anthony Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy (Pan? anyway a small
paperback costing little). It has cross references between the entries so you
can dive in at random and follow the pathways. Much easier to pocket than the
Encyclopaedia but it still covers the ground (mostly Western philosophy of
nature but not exclusively) and it is well written by a panel of professionals.
/* Patrick Herring Imperial College, University of London */
/* Internet - pp...@doc.ic.ac.uk */
Mark Peterson
> sas...@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>>really nice people as well. (I see that you are at Cornell. Is Carl
>>Ginet still there? I can't imagine anyone describing Carl as "obnoxious".
>>"Comatose" at times, maybe. But not "obnoxious". And Stalnaker [he still
>>there too?] never impressed me as remotely obnoxious.)
>
> I don't know in what sense the philosophers you know are "aggressive." If
> all this means is that they call 'em like they see 'em, don't like to let
> mistakes go by them, like arguments to be valid, and so on, but *without*
> making their interlocutors feel humiliated...well, of course, of course.
> That kind of aggressiveness is to be praised. But the other kind is not.
> I never said that every philosopher is obnoxious. All I said is what everyone
> already knows: that the system is set up so that obnoxiousness often yields
> real advantages.
Yeah, but only for a while....
I remember being appalled by the level of cold aggression in seminars
when I first got to Toronto. Full contact stuff. But when I asked my
supervisor about this he smiled and said, "It's important to learn the
weapons of your enemy." He was right of course. ;-)
Rigour should always be demanded, but the posture of rigour -- while
it has the appearance of truth -- isn't the same as the truth. Come
to think of it, it isn't even always the same as philosophy... hmm.
Making your opponent in an argument look stupid is pretty easy, but
it's not the same thing as being right. Anyways, y'all know this.
But pedagogy... It's funny -- the longer I do this, the less I know
about it, but here's one thing that, to me anyways, seems to be at the
root of having an effective, arete-laden (ouch, sorry about that)
class: getting the students over their fear of being ignorant. The
minute they lose this fear, wonder sets in and all sorts of amazing
things start to happen.
Glad to know there aren't too many obnoxious philosophers at Cornell. ;-)
hiho
--
mark ce peterson | uw-washington county | hi...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi. 53095 | (414) 335-5200
The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Charles L. Creegan
What about 'em? There was that famous pythagorean slave-boy.
Charles L. Creegan
of reason from antiquity to the present. As a faculty member at a small
less-selective college I've been forced to confront some things relevant to
this.
1) of course our pool of applicants (first generation college students
from local schools) ain't Harvard's; in fact even 30 years ago most of
them wouldn't have dreamed of going to college. Many are driven to it,
not by any particular personal desire for learning or skill, but by the
desire for a decnt job (which requires a college diploma [_not_ the
education]) (I know this because I ask them!)
2) So they're not very motivated and not educationaly advantaged
3) Does this imply (as a member of our board with an Ed.D claims) that
it's harder to teach here than it is at harvard? (The argument is, any
damned fool could teach _those_ students!)
4) Does this imply that "we" (american culture at large) are making a
mistake in forcing these students into an institution they don't care
about?
5) Assuming for the sake of argument that (as I think Roger Lustig
claimed) modern youth (while failing at school) can do all sorts of
stuff not recognized by the educational community as achievement, should
liberal arts just pack up and quit?
PS:
Nevertheless, those medieval novices who recited arguments were learning
about very subtle theology, and the young drunken louts of 1750s Yale and
Harvard were also at what now passes for the graduate level in their
studies.
PPS:
There are surely kids out there now who can do this stuff; why are we so
bad at finding and rewarding them?
Todd M. Hoff
>
>>There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
>>"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
>>necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
>>16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
>
>very interesting. I knew that early americans were better educated than our
>MTV/rap/Madonna/hi-tech basketball shoes barbarians but your point about 12
>year-olds in 1200 is extraordinary. and what about kids in classical greece?
One reason is how the idea of childhood has changed over time. Before
books became widely available people became adults when they could perform
as adults, which meant when they could talk and be relatively self
sufficient. The requirement to infuse children with large bodies
of knowledge elongated childhood creating a clear demarcation
between "children" and "adults." Children by definition did not
know the "secrets" of adulthood (sex, politics, money, etc.). With the
advent of mass media children know have as much access to the secrets
as do adults thus the gap between adulthood and childhood is shrinking.
Kids now can murder, have children, be politcially active- they are
adults.
Also rememeber education has been for the elite. This changed when the
US adopted universal education, but even then most kids did not get
past grade school. It is has only been in this century when the
expectation has been everyone will master a large and diverse range
of knowledge, where mastery is measured is silly tests and enumeration
masturbation.
Steven Daniel
>Outsiders visiting philosophy conferences are sometimes apalled at what
>seems to be the high level of aggressive wounding sarcasm etc. employed
>in arguments; yet the philosophers don't take it as such.
Hmm. Then why do they lose their tempers, hold petty grudges and form
insulated little factions?
>The reason is that philosophy routinely deals with much wider and more
>fundamental divergences of opinion than any other discipline. In polite
>society disagreement in itself is felt to be possibly wounding, and so
>is hedged with disclaimers so that the person disagreed with doesn't
>feel attacked. Philosophers understand that it is possible for an
>intelligent and fair-minded person to hold opinions which another
>intelligent and fair-minded person thinks are grossly flawed and
>seriously silly, and have simply dropped the disclaimers of hostility
>without which polite society suspects malicious intent, in the interests
>of efficiency. They just get on with the business of discussing the
>issues without taking it personally.
First off, philosophers in professional contexts (colloquia, conferences,
etc.) do not generally do this. There are exceptions, thank God, but they
are exceptions. Second, I know lots of people in other disciplines who
don't immediately interpret intellectual disagreement as a personal attack.
With both philosophers and non-philosophers, it all depends on how that
disagreement is expressed. If I *say* I'm simply criticizing your views
but I'm getting red in the face, raising my voice and looking absolutely
fed up and agitated, one can't help but suspect that this is more than
a mere "intellectual" disagreement.
Given the scale of disagreement
>they have to handle, to behave otherwise would simply slow them down.
>It's not a question of becoming thick-skinned, it's simply a question of
>getting used to a culture which operates with different default
>assumptions about the intentions behind speech acts.
What you say here is perfectly reasonable. However, I think you're mistaking
the ideology of professional philosophy for the reality.
>But I do know several students who once intended to study philosophy,
>which they found fascinating, but retreated in horror from what they
>interpreted as the very high level of hostile aggression encountered in
>the tutorials and coffee break discussions of the philosophy department.
>Just as many Japanese students find very startling the high levels of
>apparently personal criticism routinely accepted in casual conversation
>in the West. The point is that the users don't interpret it personally.
>To suppose they are thick skinned is to misunderstand what is going on.
>-
Well, I don't know. Perhaps the philosophers in Scotland are just more
mature than their American counterparts (could be, for all I know :)).
Still, I can assure you the the rosy picture you paint of the philosophy
industry doesn't apply across the Atlantic.
Steve
Neil Rickert
>
>There is a whole business out there of teaching teachers to foster
>"active" and "collaborative" learning. But this never used to be
>necessary. How come in 1200 12 year olds could do philosophy, in 1800
>16 year olds could, in 1993 21 year olds can't???
At one time the job of a teacher was to prepare the students for adult
life. Today the job of the teacher is to attempt to solve some perceived
social problems while not offending some hypersensitive people representing
political causes which range from far left to far right to just plain
crazy.
Jeff Dalton
Ok. Philosophical Investigations and "later Wittgenstein"
generally.
BTW means "by the way".
I like the Tractatus too, in some ways, and I don't really like
later Wittgenstein, but that's the way it goes.
BTW, can anyone recommend a good secondary source for later
Wittgenstein? There are so many books about Wittgenstein
that people need some help in picking one. (This is not
to discourage the reading of primary sources, but it's
difficult to get perspective that way w/o having a huge
reading list.)
-- jd
Torkel Franzen
>please post
>(book and topic) what you believe to be the most "influential"
>Wittgenstein.
The Philosophical Investigations. All topics.
Jeff Dalton
If I *say* I'm simply criticizing your views
but I'm getting red in the face, raising my voice and looking absolutely
fed up and agitated, one can't help but suspect that this is more than
a mere "intellectual" disagreement.
What, you don't think someone can get that upset about views --
they have to be angry at a person?
Michael R. Hand
>BTW, can anyone recommend a good secondary source for later Wittgenstein?
Anthony Kenny's little book is terrific.
B-o} M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
These are things that we shall try and discover.
But these are things we must not take seriously.
-- Samuel Beckett
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237, USA
ha...@tamuts.tamu.edu mh...@tamu.edu
Anders G|ransson
But which are the topics of these "investigations"?
--
If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Anders G|ransson
BTW, can anyone recommend a good secondary source for later
Wittgenstein? There are so many books about Wittgenstein
that people need some help in picking one. (This is not
to discourage the reading of primary sources, but it's
difficult to get perspective that way w/o having a huge
reading list.)
-- jd
Hintikka (Jaako and Merill B.) "Investigating Wittgenstein".
HIntikka is not a follower of Wittgenstein (as he himself points
out) and this book does take the ideas of Wittgenstein seriously
i.e. as if they could be correct.
best regards Anders
Torkel Franzen
writes:
>But which are the topics of these "investigations"?
"They concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning, of understanding, of a
proposition, of logic, the foundations of mathematics, states of
consciousness, and other things."
Anders G|ransson
>But which are the topics of these "investigations"?
"They concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning,
of understanding, of a proposition, of logic, the
foundations of mathematics, states of
consciousness, and other things."
....and Kings?
CARL BROCK SIDES
> BTW, can anyone recommend a good secondary source for later
> Wittgenstein? There are so many books about Wittgenstein
> that people need some help in picking one. (This is not
> to discourage the reading of primary sources, but it's
> difficult to get perspective that way w/o having a huge
> reading list.)
>
> -- jd
I'm a big fan of Saul Kripke's _Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language_,
which contains an argument "inspired" by the middle third (138-242) of _PI_. I
suppose there's a good bit of controversy about Kripke's interpretation, but I
found that it shed a lot of light on the text. Helped me to understand Quine's
indeterminacy of translation/inscrutability of reference thesis, too.
Brock
Christopher Green
>Wittgenstein? There are so many books about Wittgenstein
>that people need some help in picking one. (This is not
>to discourage the reading of primary sources, but it's
>difficult to get perspective that way w/o having a huge
>reading list.)
>
The standard references are Kripke's _Wittgenstein on rules and private
language_ and Colin McGinn's book, the name of which I can't recall.
David Bloor's _Wittgenstein: Social theory of knowledge_ is supposed
to be good as well. I also like JJ Katz's critique of Wittgenstein
in _The metaphysics of meaning_.
REgards,
--
Christopher D. Green chr...@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department cgr...@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Anders G|ransson
Depends on which aspect of Wittgenstein's PI you're interested in.
The standard references are Kripke's _Wittgenstein on rules and private
language_ and Colin McGinn's book, the name of which I can't recall.
David Bloor's _Wittgenstein: Social theory of knowledge_ is supposed
to be good as well. I also like JJ Katz's critique of Wittgenstein
in _The metaphysics of meaning_.
REgards,
Mc Ginn`s book on W. is titled "Wittgenstein on Meaning"
Blackwell.
Prescribed for insomnia.
Richard C. Dempsey
[...]
>However, since this was a post for recommending reading for a newcomer to
>philosophy, the _Investigations_ wins hands down. (The _Tractatus_ is also
>often considered one of the most difficult and cryptic works of 20th century
>Anglo-American philosophy, although it can't hold a candle to some of the
>stuff that was written on the continent.) But I still wouldn't try to take on
>the _Investigations_ without a good commentary work.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And?
Okay, Brock, you've got _my_ attention. What's "a good commentary work"?
Rich
--
Richard C. Dempsey email: dem...@Kodak.COM
10th Floor, Bldg 83, RL phone: (716) 477-3457
Eastman Kodak Company fax: (716) 722-5350
Rochester, NY 14650-2205
Steven Daniel
Well, I ask you: If you favor a particular kind of realism, say, and I favor
the corresponding kind of anti-realism, WHY SHOULD THIS MAKE ME ANGRY?
On the other hand, perhaps by "upset" you mean something broader than
"angry". If you're asking me whether people can get worked up and anxious
to arrive at the truth about a given issue...of course, of course. But
should they get angry? Should they yell at one another? Should they say
nasty things behind the other's back? I think not; yet they do. That's all
I mean.
Steve
Mike Gallo
Um, I think this thread has strayed a bit from the
original topic (surprise!). How about restarting it with a
similar (and deliberately open ended) question.
What "support studies" are good for philosophy? For
example, Bertrand Russell once stated that would-be
philosophers should study as much mathematical logic as
possible. Plato, of course, had a similar requirement. I
would imagine that learning French/German/Greek might be
helpful. What knowledge would help to prepare a person for
serious philosophizing?
Mikeg
--
Klaatu Barada Nikto
Rob De Villiers
Would that that were so - it is arguable that the whole theoretical
linguistics industry along with years of "truth-conditional semantics"
(from Carnap and Chomsky down to Davidson, Dummett) stems from getting
hooked on what are fumdamentally Tractatus conceptions of language.
(see Baker and Hacker _Language, Sense and Nonsense_ pub. Basil
Blackwell (i think)). More's the pitty for linguistics and theory of
meaning that they failed to take on board the P.I. - which, however is by
no means to denigrate the beautiful earlier book...
Rob De Villiers
>In <38...@castle.ed.ac.uk> je...@castle.ed.ac.uk writes:
>Brock
I never liked it - Ive always believed that Wittgenstein is simply bored stiff
with skeptcism and just wanted to show the fly the way out of the skeptics
bottle - and so when I first came across K's interpretation it just did not
ring true at all. I then found Baker and Hacker's refutation of Kripke and it
brilliantly expressed what I've always vaguely believed - that W's. agruments
about rule following in _PI_ and _RFM_ are not (as so often trotted out by
Wittgenstein hacks) about exhibiting supposed deep skeptical problems with
rule following, language, meaning etc.. - but about clearing the ground of
the confusions, artificial assumptions that hold us in thrall, lead to
phoney conundrums (like K's rule skepticism) and even more phoney
resolutions (the community view, conventionalism).
Read Baker and Hacker - forget Kripke (on Wittgenstein at least).
Rob de V.
Russell Turpin
-*----
In article <lrul00.7...@euler.kodak.com> lru...@euler.kodak.com (Richard C. Dempsey) writes:
> Okay, Brock, you've got _my_ attention. What's "a good commentary work"?
I am not Brock, but being fond of good commentaries, I will
endeavor an answer to this question.
One major problem in tackling a philosophical work to which the
reader is new lies in the use of language. Philosophers,
throughout the ages, have had to bend common terms to different,
more technical meanings or create new terms for concepts that had
not previously had much currency. (For example, consider
philosophical terms such as libertarian, when it has nothing to
do with politics, black crow, when it has nothing to do with
ornithology, and scholastic, when it means something much more
particular than having to do with schools.) Moreover, each
philosopher often gives current terms a peculiar connotation to
best express the philosopher's own, unique ideas.
A good commentary explains the philosophical context in which a
writer works, the problems the writer was trying to solve, the
way in which a writer uses terms, and how the writings have been
further explicated, both by the writer in other places and by the
writer's philosophic heirs and critics. In short, it helps the
reader figure out what the writer intended and how the writings
have been taken, without the reader having to recreate the
contexts from scratch, by retracing the education and readings of
the writer and the respondents.
The issue of later interpretation is especially important in two
cases. First, it is not uncommon for a philosopher to "push"
some main ideas that later philosophers widely discard, and to
touch on other ideas that seem secondary in the text, but that
actually became the philosopher's major influence. For example,
few people today take seriously Plato's suggestions regarding the
organization of a republic, but The Republic is still read for
the arguments Plato makes in pushing this organization.
Second, contemporary and later interpretation is important when
the text of influential work is lost to us (through historical
circumstance) or was never present (because the ideas were orally
presented).
-*----
If one wants to understand a writer's influence or critique a
writer's ideas, it is considered important to acquire some
understanding of all this. Moreover, if one wants to broach
ideas in an area that others have covered many times, it is
considered de rigeur to have some notion of what these ideas were
and to be able to deal with them fairly. This is why philosophy
teachers spend time on philosophers with whose ideas they
disagree. (Indeed, a good philosophy teacher only rarelyl has
the privilege of teaching philosophers with whose ideas they are
in agreement.)
One reason "pop philosophers" such as Rand are given short shrift
is because they are lost when they discuss philosophers. Rand
vilified philosophers from Heidegger to Hegel with little
indication she read their works. If she did read their works,
she certainly did not study them in a way that brought her any
understanding of what they wrote. Thus, she was completely
ignorant of how most of the "new" ideas she pushed were little
more than recycled versions of things that had been discussed
(and often, heavily criticized) previously. (A prime example of
this is the notion of concepts arising from differences in the
dimensions of perceived things.)
Russell
--
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that
the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence
on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
Robert Vienneau
>One major problem in tackling a philosophical work to which the
>reader is new lies in the use of language. Philosophers,
>throughout the ages, have had to bend common terms to different,
>more technical meanings or create new terms for concepts that had
>not previously had much currency. (For example, consider
>philosophical terms such as libertarian, when it has nothing to
>do with politics, black crow, when it has nothing to do with
>ornithology, and scholastic, when it means something much more
>particular than having to do with schools.) Moreover, each
>philosopher often gives current terms a peculiar connotation to
>best express the philosopher's own, unique ideas.
Here's a problem I'm curious about.
The relationship of philosophers' language to common language has
always confused me. How thoroughly can one reject philosophers'
distinctions and concepts, and still leave everyday language
untouched?
For example, Berkeley is depicted as attacking and discarding
"substance" as used by philosophers. Yet he insisted that the common
man could still described all the things and objects he always did.
Many have criticized Descartes' Dualism, the separation of "mind"
and "body." How much, if at all, is dualism presumed by our everyday
speech and common sayings? E.g. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh
is weak." "Keep this in mind." The Police sang "We are spirits in the
material world."
Wittgenstein famously wanted to leave everything unchanged. I think
Russell pariodied (sp?) this as assuming "All sentences are perfectly
in order except those uttered by philosophers."
So how about it people? How consistent is an antimetaphysical position
with common sense and common language?
(If this generates a thread, I probably won't participate much, if at
all, except for reading. I don't have a hill to defend from being
overrun.)
Robert Vienneau
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Ahmad Hashem
>
>
>BTW, can anyone recommend a good secondary source for later
>Wittgenstein?
I like David Pears's THE FALSE PRISON. It is not very easy to read, but
it seems to cover the main issues well.
--Ahmad
Charles L. Creegan
>What knowledge would help to prepare a person for
>serious philosophizing?
not knowledge, experience. Experience of the relationship between
"teacher" and "pupil" (or master and novice, great philosopher and new
reader) as somewhat mutual. I.e., to paraphrase a great "Doonesbury"
strip, *not* the lecturer exuding knowledge, and the students writing
down "knowledge received."
IMHO the "factory" model of primary and secondary education currently
prevalent in the US is exactly the wrong experience to prepare for
philosophizing.