Philosophical reading?

[Armageddon's Child]

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.

It has always been interesting, to me, at least, that Freud and Jung, while generally categorized as 'psychologists', were at their most insightful when trying make sense of the concept of consciousness, rather than when speaking of the actual workings of the human mind, while Nietzsche, a 'philosopher,' was very often at his best when dissecting the inner motivations of the mind, rather than in applying that understanding to a systematic philosophy.

 

[Justin S.]

It has always been interesting, to me, at least, that Freud and Jung, while generally categorized as 'psychologists', were at their most insightful when trying make sense of the concept of consciousness, rather than when speaking of the actual workings of the human mind, while Nietzsche, a 'philosopher,' was very often at his best when dissecting the inner motivations of the mind, rather than in applying that understanding to a systematic philosophy.

I agree, and think these are further examples of the problem of a "systematizing" tendancy- the threshold upon which thinking fails.

What do you think of Lacan and his "return to Freud" in contrast to the state of pyschoanalysis in the 40's and 50's? I have noticed that you take issue with many of the late modern/contemporary thinkers (I have great reservations as well), so im curious to hear how he sits with you (I know how you feel about Derrida).

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Personally, I'm reluctant to recommend many brand-name 'philosophy' works. The reading is generally rather laborious, and the pay-off is not always high, at least at an introductory level. I would look for a good general introduction, and then read select works that are accessible, relatively brief and significant.

Personal favorites:

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics
Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Nietzsche - The Birth of Tragedy and The Geneology of Morals
Rene Guenon - The Crisis of the Modern World

I think it's important to note that a lot of philosophically significant material (especially to someone looking to be less a student of philosophy and more a creator of one's own way of thinking) is embedded in works that aren't explicitly philosophical in nature...

Historical/Sociological/Political/Anthropological Works worth investigating:

Sima Qian: Records of the Grand Historian of China
Herodotus: The Histories
Joseph Campbell - The Hero With a Thousand Faces
Catharine MacKinnon: Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (probably the most 'challenging' of my suggestions, but well worth the effort)

Literature:

Rig Veda
Baghavad Gita
Homer - Iliad and Odyssey
Beowulf
The Poetic Edda
Geoffrey Chaucer - Canterbury Tales
William Shakespeare - Complete Works
John Milton - Paradise Lost
Voltaire - Candide
William Blake - The Complete Illuminated Books
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein (1818 Text)
Knut Hamsun - Hunger
Yukio Mishima - The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea
Don Delillo - White Noise

 

[Armageddon's Child]

I agree, and think these are further examples of the problem of a "systematizing" tendancy- the threshold upon which thinking fails.

What do you think of Lacan and his "return to Freud" in contrast to the state of pyschoanalysis in the 40's and 50's? I have noticed that you take issue with many of the late modern/contemporary thinkers (I have great reservations as well), so im curious to hear how he sets with you (I know how you feel about Derrida).

I feel much the same way about Lacan re: Freud as I do about Derrida re: Heidegger - I just don't see much there that is new, other than a certain Gallically obfuscatory impulse that just fucking irritates me. My general feeling is that Foucault and Lyotard represent the cream of the post-Satre French crop.

On the systemizing tendency, my impulse is to agree. While I wouldn't go as far as Lyotard and categorically reject meta-narratives (i.e. 'systems'), the old saw that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds definitely seems to echo with the ring of truth.

 

[Cythraul]

Some nice books that people should read:

Meaning, Understanding, and Practice by Barry Stroud
Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought, and Reality by Hans-Johann Glock
Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective by Donald Davidson
Truth: A Guide by Simon Blackburn
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
Rationality in Action by John Searle

 

[Crimson Velvet]

Aristotle - Nichomachean Ethics

Knut Hamsun - Hunger

As for Aristotle, bear in mind that he is a horrible writer, and the ending is rather confusing and... well, weird.

And if you're going to read Hamsun, learn norwegian. None of the translations I've read has done the book justice.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

There are advantages to learning the language before reading ANY work, but it's an impractical suggestion.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

Yaeh, it wasn't really meant as a suggestion as much as it was a warning.

 

[derbeder]

Some nice books that people should read:

Meaning, Understanding, and Practice by Barry Stroud
Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought, and Reality by Hans-Johann Glock
Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective by Donald Davidson
Truth: A Guide by Simon Blackburn
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
Rationality in Action by John Searle

i didn't find much that is of real interest in the chalmers book except for the first four chapters and that stuff was already in a bunch of articles, i think. it is still the most important book on the problem of qualia.

davidson's best and most influential papers are collected in his Essays on Actions and Events and Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. anyone who wants a taste of analytic philosophy in the 70s could check some of those essays out (along with some papers by david lewis).

how is the glock book btw? i have written on quine and davidson on the indeterminacy of reference and remember reading a paper by glock.

 

[Cythraul]

i didn't find much that is of real interest in the chalmers book except for the first four chapters and that stuff was already in a bunch of articles, i think. it is still the most important book on the problem of qualia.

I think it's a pretty good introduction to the problem, and yes, it does seem to be regarded as one of the most important books on the topic. Also, Chalmers used to teach at my school

davidson's best and most influential papers are collected in his Essays on Actions and Events and Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. anyone who wants a taste of analytic philosophy in the 70s could check some of those essays out (along with some papers by david lewis).

I've read a few of the papers from those. If you haven't read the book I recommended then I strongly suggest that you do. Although from reading some of your posts you strike me as a grad student so maybe this stuff is already old hat to you.

how is the glock book btw? i have written on quine and davidson on the indeterminacy of reference and remember reading a paper by glock.

It's a nice overview of the dialectic between Quine and Davidson, and it covers some really interesting topics. It's pretty good as an introduction to the issues but I've seen better. Also, Glock spends a considerable amount of time criticizing their views. Some of his criticisms I find compelling but some of the others I find rather unimpressive.

 

[derbeder]

I've read a few of the papers from those. If you haven't read the book I recommended then I strongly suggest that you do. Although from reading some of your posts you strike me as a grad student so maybe this stuff is already old hat to you.

i am actually a grad student, yes.

of the essays in the collection you recommended the ones on first person authority over one's mental states are not really all that relevant in current discussions of the issue. interesting debates have been going on among philosophers and cognitive scientists since the 80s (about the time these essays were written actually) over how humans attribute mental states to themselves and others (the sorts of mechanisms that may be involved). the question whether we attribute mental states to others in the same way as we attribute them to ourselves is best approached in a way that makes some use of studies in cognitive science.

two recent empirically informed books on this topic are:

Alvin Goldman - Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading

Steven Stich and Shaun Nichols - Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds

 

[speed]

i am actually a grad student, yes.

of the essays in the collection you recommended the ones on first person authority over one's mental states are not really all that relevant in current discussions of the issue. interesting debates have been going on among philosophers and cognitive scientists since the 80s (about the time these essays were written actually) over how humans attribute mental states to themselves and others (the sorts of mechanisms that may be involved). the question whether we attribute mental states to others in the same way as we attribute them to ourselves is best approached in a way that makes some use of studies in cognitive science.

two recent empirically informed books on this topic are:

Alvin Goldman - Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading

Steven Stitch and Shaun Nichols - Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self-Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds

This sounds like an excellent topic. A thread worthy topic.

 

[Nile577]

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.

It's interesting. I have noticed a huge bias towards analytic philosophy in academia. I fear that someone interested in continental philosophy is rather laughed at in most philosophy departments.

****

Dear Michael

I have been in touch with the Director of Graduate Studies about your questions and he answers as follows:

We are not currently able to supervise research on Heidegger or Benjamin.
He regrets that your courses to date do not meet our requirements.
A good knowledge of German would be necessary, although not necessarily a qualification.
He suggests that certainly in Cambridge the English Faculty would be more appropriate for your Ph.D research interests, the reason being the this Faculty focusses on Analytic rather than Continental Philosophy.

I hope this helps

Best wishes
****** ********
Graduate Office

 

[speed]

It's interesting. I have noticed a huge bias towards analytic philosophy in academia. I fear that someone interested in continental philosophy is rather laughed at in most philosophy departments.

****

Dear Michael

I have been in touch with the Director of Graduate Studies about your questions and he answers as follows:

We are not currently able to supervise research on Heidegger or Benjamin.
He regrets that your courses to date do not meet our requirements.
A good knowledge of German would be necessary, although not necessarily a qualification.
He suggests that certainly in Cambridge the English Faculty would be more appropriate for your Ph.D research interests, the reason being the this Faculty focusses on Analytic rather than Continental Philosophy.

I hope this helps

Best wishes
****** ********
Graduate Office

Is that a paraphrasing of a real letter? I laughed because i didnt know if it was fact or fiction. The bit with the English faculty I thought hilarious.

Well, if true, you could always get a PHD on the continent. Say France, Germany, etc.


However, no matter if it is true or not, this does show the fetishism that exists in academia. Its really the primary reason I have yet to pursue a phd in econ history or just history. There's strong ideologies that have acheived almost dogmatic status in most academic fields. I find this most troubling, especially in places devoted to ideas and freedom of knowledge.

 

[Justin S.]

Its no joke. I am reminded of that everyday at my University.

And its not simply derision- people will actively work against you in most philosophy departments- the most petty and political arena precisely because philosophy is so "personal", fundamental, and confrontational.

 

[speed]

Its no joke. I am reminded of that everyday at my University.

And its not simply derision- people will actively work against you in most philosophy departments- the most petty and political arena precisely because it is so "personal", fundamental, and confrontational.

It is most interesting. I was the GA and I suppose somewhat friend of one professor when I was in Grad School. He was hated for his unorthodox ideas (although when he was director of the program, he managed to get his wife hired as an assistant prof in the same program), and he criticized his colleagues for their ideas. Ive never seen such drama, back-stabbing, etc.

I suppose I'd like to major or a get a PHD in the Carlyle-an branch of Hitler studies. hehe.

And it continues with their classes. If one is a student and disagrees with a profs world-view, look out for unjust lower grades.

 

[speed]

Started reading the Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord.

 

[JColtrane]

I think one or two people mentioned Kierkegaard in their lists. Since I'm fairly well acquainted with his writings, I though I'd make a little list for those that want to delve more deeply into his thought:
Begin with Fear and Trembling. You won't understand it the first time, but it will probably give you a love for Kierkegaard's writing and a desire to understand what the heck he's talking about For an incredibly interesting interpretation of this book, read Derrida's The Gift of Death.
From there read Either/Or I and II. The first volume is some incredible aesthetic writing, with pieces on Don Giovanni, Goethe's Faust, and a competition of depressed individuals called "The Unhappiest One". It also includes the "Displasmata", some incredibly insightful but small aphoristic pieces by Kierkegaard, which in my opinion rival the best of Nietzsche. Either/Or II, S.K.'s piece on societal ethics, is a bit more boring in style, but the thought devolopment is fascinating.
Finally, for a little general survey, I would finish with For Self-Examination. This is a short but powerful book signed by K.'s hand that quickly describes his understanding of the religious sphere, and the individual Christian.

Reading those four books would give you a quick survey of S.K.'s four primary genres: Aesthetic, Ethical, Ethico-Religious, and Religious.

If you have lot's of time on your hands, read Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Works of Love, both absolutely huge but incredible books.

As an added thought, for the beginner in philosophy, try to really understand Socrates; if you do, in my opinion you understand most of what philosophy is about.

 

[speed]

I think one or two people mentioned Kierkegaard in their lists. Since I'm fairly well acquainted with his writings, I though I'd make a little list for those that want to delve more deeply into his thought:
Begin with Fear and Trembling. You won't understand it the first time, but it will probably give you a love for Kierkegaard's writing and a desire to understand what the heck he's talking about For an incredibly interesting interpretation of this book, read Derrida's The Gift of Death.
From there read Either/Or I and II. The first volume is some incredible aesthetic writing, with pieces on Don Giovanni, Goethe's Faust, and a competition of depressed individuals called "The Unhappiest One". It also includes the "Displasmata", some incredibly insightful but small aphoristic pieces by Kierkegaard, which in my opinion rival the best of Nietzsche. Either/Or II, S.K.'s piece on societal ethics, is a bit more boring in style, but the thought devolopment is fascinating.
Finally, for a little general survey, I would finish with For Self-Examination. This is a short but powerful book signed by K.'s hand that quickly describes his understanding of the religious sphere, and the individual Christian.

Reading those four books would give you a quick survey of S.K.'s four primary genres: Aesthetic, Ethical, Ethico-Religious, and Religious.

If you have lot's of time on your hands, read Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Works of Love, both absolutely huge but incredible books.

As an added thought, for the beginner in philosophy, try to really understand Socrates; if you do, in my opinion you understand most of what philosophy is about.

Ive read Either/Or and Fear and Trembling. I may look up this Displasmata.

 

[JColtrane]

Check this one out:

"In a theatre it happened that a fire started off stage. The clown came out to tell the audience. They thought it was a joke and applauded. He told them again, and they became still more hilarious. This is the way, I suppose, that the world will be destroyed--amid the universal hilarity of wits and wags who think it is all a joke"