Book on twentieth century philosophy. Suggestions?
Fabio Rojas
All books seem to end about 1950 with
a) analytic philosophy in Anglo-american philosophy
and
b) existentialism and phenomenology on the continental side
Are there any good books that include the above topics
AND post-1950 stuff?
Fabio Rojas
Michael Zeleny
f...@soda.berkeley.edu (Fabio Rojas) writes:
>Can anyone suggest a good book on 20th century philosophy?
>All books seem to end about 1950 with
>
>a) analytic philosophy in Anglo-american philosophy
>and
John Passmore has two books on the subject; Freddie Ayer offers a more
personal account. There exist a couple of new books in the Oxford
paperback history series, but I cannot vouch for their merit. Ditto
for Stegmueller's scholarly tome.
>b) existentialism and phenomenology on the continental side
Camus is very readable, and there exists a decent book by Switzer on
his philosophy. I know of no reliable treatment of Sartre, but his
magnum opus can be fun, and likewise for the pompous "existential
psychoanalysis" of Baudelaire. _La chute_ is a great spoof of Sartre,
pace Per Nykrog, who convincingly reads it that way. Tony Judt in a
recent bit of scandal-mongering, _Past Imperfect_, skewers the lot of
them, sparing Camus. Husserl is a hard nut to crack, and the recent
volume by David Bell is not of much help. _Mein Kampf_ is the best
commentary on Heidegger.
>Are there any good books that include the above topics
>AND post-1950 stuff?
Vincent Descombes does a good job on the frogs.
>Fabio Rojas
cordially,
mikhail zel...@math.ucla.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Charles Onstott
>In article <2glkmp$n...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>f...@soda.berkeley.edu (Fabio Rojas) writes:
>
>
>>b) existentialism and phenomenology on the continental side
>
>Camus is very readable, and there exists a decent book by Switzer on
>his philosophy. I know of no reliable treatment of Sartre, but his
>magnum opus can be fun, and likewise for the pompous "existential
>psychoanalysis" of Baudelaire. _La chute_ is a great spoof of Sartre,
>pace Per Nykrog, who convincingly reads it that way. Tony Judt in a
>recent bit of scandal-mongering, _Past Imperfect_, skewers the lot of
>them, sparing Camus. Husserl is a hard nut to crack, and the recent
>volume by David Bell is not of much help. _Mein Kampf_ is the best
>commentary on Heidegger.
>
As for Heidegger, if you are interested in what he had to say
without the smoke and mirrors of those who are too sloppy to read
him, I suggest Dreyfus' commentary on _Being and Time_ entitled
_Being in the World_. If you find the Heidegger controversy too
chilling, I would recommend Dallmayr's recent text _The Other Heidegger_
for one of the most level headed treatment's of Heidegger's corpus.
It does away with Farias' sloppiness, makes more sense than Heidegger's
own rationalizations of the events and is marked by sincerity to
get at the issue in Heidegger's corpus (something which is not
too obvious in other commentaries, pro and con, on the topic of
Heidegger and Nazism).
I would also highly recommend Taylor's _Sources of the Self_ though it
is not restricted to 20th century philosophy. In the field of
theology (though it treats most of what I think you are looking for),
I would recommend Tracy's _The Analogous Imagination_. In the
field of ethics, I would recomend Gamwell's _The Divine Good_ which
treats primarly 20th century philosophers with the exceptions of
Aristotle and Kant.
>>Fabio Rojas
BCnya,
Charles
--
Charles O. Onstott, III (coon...@midway.uchicago.edu)
The University of Chicago Divinity School
"Philosophy may not neglect the multifariousness of the world -- the fairies
dance, and Christ is nailed to the cross." (A.N. Whitehead)
Varada R. Karamchedu
: As for Heidegger, if you are interested in what he had to say
: without the smoke and mirrors of those who are too sloppy to read
: him, I suggest Dreyfus' commentary on _Being and Time_ entitled
: _Being in the World_. If you find the Heidegger controversy too
: chilling, I would recommend Dallmayr's recent text _The Other Heidegger_
: for one of the most level headed treatment's of Heidegger's corpus.
: It does away with Farias' sloppiness, makes more sense than Heidegger's
: own rationalizations of the events and is marked by sincerity to
: get at the issue in Heidegger's corpus (something which is not
: too obvious in other commentaries, pro and con, on the topic of
: Heidegger and Nazism).
Also, George Steiner's "Heidegger" (Fontana paperbacks) is a good
commentary.
-Raj
Robert E. Lee
: Can anyone suggest a good book on 20th century philosophy?
I suggest Roger Scruton's A Short History of Modern Philosophy. If you
are thinking of the French popular philosophers as "post-1950 stuff" you
will find them not included in many reference books. They do not
constitute a serious philosophy, at least not as descended along what
Nietzsche might call the great minds of Western thought speaking to one
another across time. While Professor Scruton leaves some things out, you
can't beat this book for dry, English humor and short concise
introduction to the subject at hand.
--
Robert E. Lee
internet: orp...@netcom.com
Reg Foulkes
Lee) wrote:
> Fabio Rojas (f...@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : Can anyone suggest a good book on 20th century philosophy?
> : All books seem to end about 1950 with
>
> : a) analytic philosophy in Anglo-american philosophy
> : and
> : b) existentialism and phenomenology on the continental side
>
> : Are there any good books that include the above topics
> : AND post-1950 stuff?
>
I would recommend Charles Taylor's "The Malaise of Modernity"
--
Reg Foulkes
ris...@bnr.ca
DA...@psuvm.psu.edu
>
>I suggest Roger Scruton's A Short History of Modern Philosophy. If you
>are thinking of the French popular philosophers as "post-1950 stuff" you
>will find them not included in many reference books. They do not
>constitute a serious philosophy, at least not as descended along what
>Nietzsche might call the great minds of Western thought speaking to one
>another across time. While Professor Scruton leaves some things out, you
>can't beat this book for dry, English humor and short concise
>introduction to the subject at hand.
Which certainly wouldn't have recommended him to Nietzsche, who more than
once dismissed Hobbes as simply "an Englishman." Not that I can help
with a recommendation for a survey of contemporary French philosophy.
For one, it's too recent, and for two, most synopses I have read seem
way off mark. But to suggest that Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Lyotard,
Lacan, Kristeva, Irigary, (to round up some of the usual suspects) are
not doing serious philosophy is simply ignorance. Of course, if one really
wants to follow Nietzsche, taking philosophy seriously is not unmitigated
praise.
On other post-1950 fronts, I believe there's some sort of anthology of
critical theory available (Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, etc.). Now
that I think of it, Richard Bernstein's book, _The New Constellation_
might be a good overview of at least political aspects of both
"post-modernism" and "critical theory." But it is not an introduction
or survey; rather it presumes some engagement with these works.
- - - - - - - - -
Dennis Beach
da...@psuvm.psu.edu
Sean Matthews
The return of the grand theory in the human sciences,
Quentin Skinner,
CUP/Canto
is a pretty good intro to the sort of people the original poster was looking
for, i.e. which is a collection of survey essays on Habermas, Derrida, Foucault,
etc. along with reading suggestions.
Sean
John Wojdylo
Mr. Zeleny:
The best commentary on Heidegger is _Mein Kampf_.
Mr. Onstott:
["smoke", "mirrors" and suggested reading for those who find
the controversy on Heidegger "too hot to handle"... deleted]
Well said, Mr Onstott! I say, how's your patchwork going? The patchwork,
I mean, of the theology that boasts the Inquisition as one of its achievements?
You know, I have looked into Mr Hartshorne's Process Gizmo as you
suggested, and have yet to see anything better than a redefinition of
terms to suit the outcome: "immanent" and "transcendental" are
presented on a platter, devoid of internal logical dependency... just as
with Heidegger --- you guys really do seem to stick together. Nothing unusual
in that. In the Beginning was "The Word", after all.
John Wojdylo
In the Beginning was Logic.
Kris Carroll
kevin sawad brooks
>Try Lipstick Traces - a secret history of the 20th century by Greil Marcus
you can't be serious.
--
"This is a signature?"