Now Reading Thread

[Justin S.]

Currently reading:

Bleak House- Dickens

I am having to go through it faster than I would like (several hundred pages to get through by tomorrow evening's class) but am enjoying it. I find it pointless to adjust my pace (and quality) of reading, so it is taking quite a bit of time.

 

[speed]

Sure, I will write up a short introduction to elementary logic. I tend to introduce this material to people in a way rather different than what I have seen in typical logic textbooks. This may be of some use to me later on as well.
But this may take a little time, since I am ridiculously busy right now.

Just to make sure I cover all your questions: have you looked at a textbook or are you just going over someone's notes? and what exactly have you had a problem with in what you have read?

No college textbook. No sir. I've just picked up a few books on Logic, and found they sort of assumed a great deal of prior knowledge. I studied logic in high school, which was almost 10 years ago (i went to one of those excellent jesuit schools, that teaches one everything); so I suppose I am trying to refresh myself.

But i would greatly appreciate any time and effort you put into such a thread.

 

[derbeder]

What are the titles of the books you picked up, then?

 

[JColtrane]

Currently reading:

Derrida-The Gift of Death

 

[speed]

What are the titles of the books you picked up, then?

An introduction to Logic book from a Hodges fellow. Cant remember his first name.

And I'm a frequent visitor to the Stanford Online Internet Encyclopedia, which sometimes is decent, sometimes not.

 

[Scourge of God]

I think Foucault is a philosopher (if not more a philosopher than almost all other philosophers), and whats wonderful is that he never pigeonholed himself into academic philosophy, or any one set philosophical theory or field. If philosophy means lover of wisdom in Greek, and Foucault was smart and dynamic enough to cover multiple areas of philosophy (like the greats, Aristotle, Plato, etc), and areas directly related to life, society, and practical matters, as much as logic and other purely theoretical matters, then how is he not a true philosopher? But of course, I come to this conclusion from a purely non-academic perspective.

I dunno. He was a historian by training (and, I suspect, by inclination as well). Most of his writings were focused on historical subjects and he wrote about them in the manner of a historian. His basic methodology was historical, and while many of his conclusions have a philosophical ring to them (in that they fit quite well within the intellectual context of French philosophy in his era), the centrality of how society works currently and the origin of certain patterns and social interaction and function is, at its core, a form of historical rather than philosophical investigation.

 

[derbeder]

An introduction to Logic book from a Hodges fellow. Cant remember his first name.

And I'm a frequent visitor to the Stanford Online Internet Encyclopedia, which sometimes is decent, sometimes not.

His name is Wilfrid Hodges. He has a key textbook on model theory. This is a field of applied set theory that studies definability and validity in rather abstract languages (langauges which allow infinitely long sentences etc.). A very elementary part of model theory is applied to the simpler langauge of first-order logic. I haven't read his introductory book, however. I have the impression that it is a good intro for students of mathematics.

The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on classical logic quickly jumps to the major theorems concerning logical provability and logical truth without any introduction about what it is that one is up to in studying logic. The more informal books discuss argument forms in natural language, but these are not satisfactory either. None of the books I know of provide a motivation as to why one should be interested in these topics. Properly speaking this issue belongs to the philosophy of logic than to logic itself. But it is of crucial importance in introducing logic, I think. Frege attempted to write an introduction to logic at least 5 times in his life but never could finish it, and his attempts contains more in the way of philosophy of logic and philosophy of language than proofs of theorems about a formalization of logic (The proofs started coming in later from Godel and Tarski.) I want to write something along those lines. For someone who has read some philosophy before, it is important to explain the significance of this stuff; otherwise, it is easy to just lose interest in these issues.
Bear with me for a few weeks, though. I will resist the temptation to elaborate too much on the philosophical issues in the introduction, but I would like to give a taste of them along with the formal presentation.

 

[speed]

I dunno. He was a historian by training (and, I suspect, by inclination as well). Most of his writings were focused on historical subjects and he wrote about them in the manner of a historian. His basic methodology was historical, and while many of his conclusions have a philosophical ring to them (in that they fit quite well within the intellectual context of French philosophy in his era), the centrality of how society works currently and the origin of certain patterns and social interaction and function is, at its core, a form of historical rather than philosophical investigation.

True, but he did write and engage in purely philosophical matters as well.
And the excellent summation of his methodology you provided is why I enjoy his ideas so.

 

[derbeder]

Very accessible introduction to one of the most important but difficult philosophers in the 20th century.

 

[derbeder]

I picked this up along with Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas's Pragmatics by Maeve Cooke for pretty cheap today. This book is centered around an essay by Charles Taylor. Other philosophers have contributed their replies to Taylor's essay; and in this second edition we also find a lengthy piece by Jürgen Habermas as well. This should be interesting. I'll most likely start a fresh thread on this issue when I get done with the book and have thought through the matter a little.

 

[Justin S.]

Currently re-reading Being and Time, both in German and the two English translations I am aware of. I also checked out Dreyfus' Being-in-the-World... to see what he makes of Div. 1, and how that relates/compares to my reading.

The differences between all three works (B&T) is much greater than I had expected. The Macquarrie & Robinson translation is especially problematic. I sincerely think that a great amount of the complaints (including on this board) of Heidegger's prose/language is due to this translation of Sein und Zeit- the German is much more elegant.

I will explore this in the Heidegger thread.

 

[The Ozzman]

I am reading the following:

 

[speed]

I am reading the following:

Well, we're living this Rand-inspired Friedman dream of untrammelled economic "liberty" right now, and I dare say we're seeing the results. The end of history is not here; no, we're seeing just how destructive capitalism is to everything--including freedom.

Hayek was clearly the top flight neoclassical economist, and Schumpeter the most prescient. Friedman however, well, I think he made numerous short-sided mistakes and had a number of false assumptions despite his successes.

 

[derbeder]

Sual Kripke - Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language

in turkish translation. i had wanted to translate this book. the guy who got to do it did a terrible job with important parts of it. now i'm gonna write an e-mail telling the publisher all the horrible mistakes in the translation.

 

[JColtrane]

Good to see this thread again! I must confess I had forgotten about it.

Now Reading:

The Climax of the Covenant-N.T. Wright

The Concept of Irony (with continual reference to Socrates)-Soren Kierkegaard

Philosophy of Right-G.W.F. Hegel

Soon to Read:

Religion Within The Boundaries of Mere Reason-Immanuel Kant

The Gay Science-Nietzsche

Torquanto Tasso-Goethe

Jesus and the Victory of God-N.T. Wright

 

[Seditious]

Karen Armstrong - A History of God
&
Friedrich Nietzsche - Thus Spake Zarathustra



I highly recommend the first!

 

[kmik]

I've read "Hunger" by Knut Hamsun and it was a very good book. It has only one central unnamed character who suffers from delusion and madness due to a constant hunger (both spiritual and physical). It has no plot so to speak of but the book explores his thoughts in great depth. I just love books with intelligent characters who slowly descend into madness, like this and Crime and Punishment. In fact the anti-heroes of both are very much alike. I felt Hunger was more esoteric, though

What I find odd is that a Nazi sympathizer would write a book that is only concerned with the inner world of one individual and not even mention society as a whole...

 

[Crimson Velvet]

He did write several other books, though, many of which did touch upon subjects such as society and thoughts about modern life, etc. Here is a quote from the book "Growth of the Soil", where a character makes it quite clear what he feels is important in life:

"Look at you folk at Sellanraa, now; looking up at blue peaks every day of your lives; no new-fangled inventions about that, but fjeld and rocky peaks, rooted deep in the past — but you’ve them for companionship. There you are, living in touch with heaven and earth, one with them, one with all these wide, deep-rooted things. No need of a sword in your hands, you go through life bareheaded, barehanded, in the midst of a great kindliness. Look, Nature’s there, for you and yours to have and enjoy. Man and Nature don’t bombard each other, but agree; they don’t compete, race one against the other, but go together. There’s you Sellanraa folk, in all this, living there. Fjeld and forest, moors and meadow, and sky and stars — oh, ’tis not poor and sparingly counted out, but without measure. Listen to me, Sivert: you be content! You’ve everything to live on, everything to live for, everything to believe in; being born and bringing forth, you are the needful on earth. ’Tis not all that are so, but you are so; needful on earth. ’Tis you that maintain life."

 

[The Ozzman]

Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

[Έρεβος]

The only really philosophic book I'm reading currently:
The Gay Science, by Friedrich Nietzsche

Somewhat philosophic, more-so science/psychology:
Touched with Fire, by Kay Redfield Jamison
An Unquiet Mind, by Kay Redfield Jamison

(And around a dozen others.)