Philosophical reading?

[Freanan]

Of course - i would not have asked otherwise...

I still have Wittgenstein lying around. I read a bit into "Philosophical Investigations" bit it seems not very interresting so far. But i should not judge from so few pages..

I think i'll look more into the recommended classical stuff... From that field i only know Platon so far.

What's this book by Focault about?

 

[speed]

Of course - i would not have asked otherwise...

I still have Wittgenstein lying around. I read a bit into "Philosophical Investigations" bit it seems not very interresting so far. But i should not judge from so few pages..

I think i'll look more into the recommended classical stuff... From that field i only know Platon so far.

What's this book by Focault about?

Excellent. Yes, Wittgenstein is not a easy read--especially if one hasnt read alot of philosophy beforehand. I think it would be very interesting to have a discussion on that, or the tractatus afterawhile.


No classical? Oh, terrible, terrible. I suggest reading not only a goodly amount of Plato and Aristotle, but Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch's Lives--he does have a number of philosophers, the remaining texts of Epicurus, Porphyry, Seneca. In literature, i'd suggest Aristophanes Clouds, Apeulius' Golden Ass, The Dialogues of Lucian, Seneca. Point being, in much of classical literature, you will learn quite quickly--because most classical lit copiously references various classical philosophical schools--about the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, the Cynics, Parmenides, the Socratics, etc.

Oh the Foucault book analyses the development and perception of madness in the Western world, and how we got to our present state of psychology as well as a defense of the creative and inspired mad as actually being quite sane--society is the one who is mad (thats his underlying thesis).

 

[OldScratch]

Someone actually read books recommended! Excellent!

I'd like to say, I actually read Foucault's Madness and Civilization, and loved every well-composed word.

Make that at least two who pursue the recommendations here. As a neophyte in the philosophical/metaphysical world I have a great deal of "catching-up" to do I fear. Which is why I read and learn here more than anything else...if only I could get some of those wasted years back

 

[ARC150]

First:
Find apprehensible translations of anything written before the 20th century - I long thought myself a moron masquerading as a scholar until I became aware of the fact that timely transcription can bequeath more knowledge than countless months of vain attempts to understand the transliterated vulgar argot of generations past.

That said, I offer the following (in the following order):

Democritus - Democritian Atomic Theory
Xeno - the Paradoxes
Plato - Republic chapter VII
Freud - Society and its Discontents
Hume - Empiricisim


There are about a hundred other "Required Reading" pieces, but I would start with these.

Each piece is relatively short (Freud is a little longer) and each piece is relatively straightforward (Plato is a little circuitous). I imagine many would disagree with both my assessment not to mention my choice of passages...but there it is.

 

[Freanan]

Excellent. Yes, Wittgenstein is not a easy read--especially if one hasnt read alot of philosophy beforehand. I think it would be very interesting to have a discussion on that, or the tractatus afterawhile.

The problem with Wittgenstein is not, that he uses difficult language (actually it is almost colloquial). I heard that Tractatus was very formal and difficult, but the Investigations are not. The problem is that he writes short paragrpahs, pondering this and that...
So far i can't see any larger picture emerging from this. I wonder whats the point of all those musings. I'm only half through the book, so maybe he has something great that connects it all waiting in the end (had the same feelings when starting to read Foundations of Arithmetcis by Frege and in the end it turned out rather fascinating).

No classical? Oh, terrible, terrible. I suggest reading not only a goodly amount of Plato and Aristotle, but Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch's Lives--he does have a number of philosophers, the remaining texts of Epicurus, Porphyry, Seneca. In literature, i'd suggest Aristophanes Clouds, Apeulius' Golden Ass, The Dialogues of Lucian, Seneca. Point being, in much of classical literature, you will learn quite quickly--because most classical lit copiously references various classical philosophical schools--about the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus, the Cynics, Parmenides, the Socratics, etc.

Plato i have read. Aristoteles and Seneca are planned in.

 

[speed]

The problem with Wittgenstein is not, that he uses difficult language (actually it is almost colloquial). I heard that Tractatus was very formal and difficult, but the Investigations are not. The problem is that he writes short paragrpahs, pondering this and that...
So far i can't see any larger picture emerging from this. I wonder whats the point of all those musings. I'm only half through the book, so maybe he has something great that connects it all waiting in the end (had the same feelings when starting to read Foundations of Arithmetcis by Frege and in the end it turned out rather fascinating).



Plato i have read. Aristoteles and Seneca are planned in.

Very true with Wittgenstein; and his writing is like a formula, or a math teacher's, plus he uses the word "shewn" more than anyone I've ever come across.

 

[derbeder]

Some readings in the philosophy of mathematics for those interested:

Gottlob Frege - The Foundations of Arithmetic,
The Frege Reader (a volume edited by Michael Beaney which includes his major essays and excerpts from The Foundations of Arithmetic and The Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Most of the material concerns Frege's writings in the philosophy of logic and philosophy of language, but it is important to know these to understand some of the important details of his views in the philosophy of mathematics)

Bertrand Russell - Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy

Jean van Heijenhoort - From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931

Michael Dummett - Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics,
Elements of Intuitionism

Crispin Wright - Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects
Wittgenstein on the Foundations of Mathematics

Hartry Field - Science Without Numbers

Benacerraf & Putnam (eds.) - Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings 2nd edition

Mathias Schirn (ed.) - The Philosophy of Mathematics Today

Burgess & Rosen - A Subject With No Object: Strategies For A Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics

John Burgess - Fixing Frege

Stewart Shapiro - Thinking About Mathematics
Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic

 

[Freanan]

I have tried a book called "Topik" in the german edition by Aristoteles.
It is about logics, rhetoric and argumentation and seems quite boring so far.
Since most people here seem to be quite fond of Aristoteles, what do you suggest most of hos works (i mean in general, it does not have to be about logics).

I am also trying to read Heideggers Being and Time right now. It is using quite difficult language and i don't know what to think of it so far. I have seen the thread about Dasein on this board and found it quite helpful.

Anyway, my interrest in philosophy, that has been sparked by Schopenhauer, Platon and a bit by Frege too is still alive and on my books wishlist there are at the moment works by the Presocratics, Giordano Bruno, Leibniz and others.

By the way, i wanted to ask about opinions concerning Ernst Mach, especially his book (title is translated by me, english version might have a different name) "Recognition and Error".
His theories have been mentioned in a small collection of essays on "physics and quantum physics" that i once read.
It is only availabe for over 60 euro so it would be good to hear opinions before buying it.

 

[Έρεβος]

Has anyone even mentioned nietzsche?

 

[Horus]

Has anyone even mentioned nietzsche?

Do you mean in this thread, or at all? Because Nietzsche has been mentioned billions of times in this subforum.

 

[Έρεβος]

Do you mean in this thread, or at all? Because Nietzsche has been mentioned billions of times in this subforum.

In this thread. As in, his books.

Like the masterpiece . . . "Thus Spoke Zarasthustra."

Edit: Ah, it was mentioned in the first post - well, just "Nietzsche," but none of his books.

 

[Freanan]

Yes, Nietzsche was only mentioned to show that i already know him and don't really need recommendations of his books.

I read Zarathustra, the Antichrist and the genealogy of morals.

 

[speed]

Has anyone even mentioned nietzsche?

He's mentioned so much around here I think we're bored of him. Lonely creative adolescent metalheads prone to apostasy, really need to find other philosophers to talk about.

 

[derek]

He's mentioned so much around here I think we're bored of him. Lonely creative adolescent metalheads prone to apostasy, really need to find other philosophers to talk about.

Weather permitting, I envisage a Spring wedding for us.



Nietzsche appeals to a certain type of person, and often enough any use of his name or work is quite conceited. Not always, but I cannot recall the amount of times I've been quoted Nietzsche in an essay, almost for no reason (and I always deduct marks for senseless quotations!).

I tend to like the philosophers that were writers, philosophers writing philosophy bores me. Reading of wonderful thoughts and ideas in a beautifully crafted narrative is what I truly enjoy.

 

[OldScratch]

He's mentioned so much around here I think we're bored of him. Lonely creative adolescent metalheads prone to apostasy, really need to find other philosophers to talk about.

I enjoy Nietzsche a great deal myself...but this observation is right on the mark Too true!

 

[Horus]

He's mentioned so much around here I think we're bored of him. Lonely creative adolescent metalheads prone to apostasy, really need to find other philosophers to talk about.

Any reccomendations for me?

 

[Doty]

Cloud-Hidden by Alan Watts

 

[speed]

Any reccomendations for me?

Oh, I think Justin S and others like Derek would be better suited. Ive listed all I love, and Im also no philosopher. Hell, I look at Derber's mathmatics list, and I become aware of my own lack of philosophical passion and inclinations.

 

[Justin S.]

Oh, I think Justin S and others like Derek would be better suited. Ive listed all I love, and Im also no philosopher. Hell, I look at Derber's mathmatics list, and I become aware of my own lack of philosophical passion and inclinations.

Well, Derbeder's lists are rather specific and are by no means representative of philosophy as a whole. He is greatly interested in philosophy of mathematics, and this is reflected in his recommendations. Its interesting how preference of philosophical "divisions" reveals much of one's general constitution.

With this connection in mind, I would advise Ptah to seek readings that are near to his fundamental orientation (not to be confused with alignment of "worldview"). Doing so allows one to enter into areas that they would have rejected if exposed to immediately (such as some highly specific and complex work with foreign concerns).

I'll use myself as an example: What got me "into" philosophy was not the academic industry of cute mental exercises (in fact I despise this). It was that charged but supremely careful thinking that thrusts to the "heart of the matter". That which delves into the most uncomfortable areas, stares headlong into the abyss, forces one to give pause and reckon with their existence. Something that addresses what we call "sociology", "history", "logistics", "knowledge" but is neither "history", "social science", "economics", nor "science".

So it is no surprise that my entry to philosophy was through Freud, who is not considered a philosopher at all. Indeed, it was the lack of formality and avoidance of "systems" that drew me in. From there, the doors were open, and I've explored far away from his concerns (including many "analytic" works). However, my essential "searching" craved more penetrating and considered thinking. Again, it is no surprise that I frequently read and "discuss" with Heidegger- In his work, and even personal life to an extent, I find a constitution that is near my own. It is not a matter of alignment of "opinion" but of the essence of thinking.

I've noticed that Ptah seems particularly interested in general "consciousness", so an entry through psychoanalysis and philosophy of mind might be advisable. If you haven't read him already, Freud really is an excellent introduction to the matter and, frankly, essential to understanding how we think of the mind.

 

[speed]

Well, Derbeder's lists are rather specific and are by no means representative of philosophy as a whole. He is greatly interested in philosophy of mathematics, and this is reflected in his recommendations. Its interesting how preference of philosophical "divisions" reveals much of one's general constitution.

With this connection in mind, I would advise Ptah to seek readings that are near to his fundamental orientation (not to be confused with alignment of "worldview"). Doing so allows one to enter into areas that they would have rejected if exposed to immediately (such as some highly specific and complex work with foreign concerns).

I'll use myself as an example: What got me "into" philosophy was not the academic industry of cute mental exercises (in fact I despise this). It was that charged but supremely careful thinking that thrusts to the "heart of the matter". That which delves into the most uncomfortable areas, stares headlong into the abyss, forces one to give pause and reckon with their existence. Something that addresses what we call "sociology", "history", "logistics", "knowledge" but is neither "history", "social science", "economics", nor "science".

So it is no surprise that my entry to philosophy was through Freud, who is not considered a philosopher at all. Indeed, it was the lack of formality and avoidance of "systems" that drew me in. From there, the doors were open, and I've explored far away from his concerns (including many "analytic" works). However, my essential "searching" craved more penetrating and considered thinking. Again, it is no surprise that I frequently read and "discuss" with Heidegger- In his work, and even personal life to an extent, I find a constitution that is near my own. It is not a matter of alignment of "opinion" but of the essence of thinking.

I've noticed that Ptah seems particularly interested in general "consciousness", so an entry through psychoanalysis and philosophy of mind might be advisable. If you haven't read him already, Freud really is an excellent introduction to the matter and, frankly, essential to understanding how we think of the mind.

I think Derek's comments on this page are perfect for Ptah. I see him enjoying narrative or classical philosophical works, much more than academic philosophy.