The Philosopher Forum Book Club

[speed]

I'd like to propose the formation of a book club. Essentially, once a month or every two months, I propose that a new philosophical book be selected for reading, and persons post their comments/problems and discuss some of the ideas found in said book.

This is just an idea. I was wondering if anyone was interested? I know many of you dont have the time, or are in school; thus this idea may not be feasible. However, if anyone is interested, please post here, and we can go about selecting a book everyone is interested in.

 

[Nile577]

I was thinking nearly the exact same thing. It sounds like an excellent idea. I like the thought of being able to discuss difficult sections/ask questions during reading, so I think any thread created in regards to a specific text should be posted in throughout the month, rather than saving discussions solely for the end.

 

[speed]

I was thinking nearly the exact same thing. It sounds like an excellent idea. I like the thought of being able to discuss difficult sections/ask questions during reading, so I think any thread created in regards to a specific text should be posted in throughout the month, rather than saving discussions solely for the end.

Now thats an even better idea.

A chapter a week? A chapter every two weeks? I suppose the time interval per chapter would depend on the text: if it's some heavy-duty philosophy like Kant, Heidegger, etc, two weeks may be required; it it's some light not particularly taxing reading like Camus, Russell etc, then perhaps only a week or less per chapter is needed.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I like this idea, but it would hopefully be a text that is available to read on-line.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Grand idea, I vote in favour. I've seen this idea be implemented by other forums in the past and end up being a flop though, usually because hardly anybody's actually bothered to read the text. If you're going to try this, make sure there's quite a few who seem wholly willing to join in.

 

[Horus]

I'm all for the idea.

 

[MURAI]

Good idea but not sure if everyone can keep it going.

I like this idea, but it would hopefully be a text that is available to read on-line.

Yes, that would make it easier.

 

[derek]

I like the idea a great deal.

How about if the thread was opened, then locked until a predetermined date? That would avoid it filling with nonsense?

 

[Matt]

I like the idea a great deal.

How about if the thread was opened, then locked until a predetermined date? That would avoid it filling with nonsense?

or just delete the posts.

I like the idea, I'm in if it goes through.

 

[ARC150]

I absolutely love this idea.

As far as participation (or a potential lack thereof) is concerned:
This should not be a concern. At the very least, I imagine that any reading will get attention on par with any single topic within the forum. If there are a lot of participants - great. If there are only a few, then a focused discussion is that much more easily obtained.

As far as the availability of the chosen text:
An online text would, for obvious reasons, be preferrable - but I would prefer to not limit selection in this way.

As far as choosing a first text, I advocate the following criteria:
1) Something chronologically distant - In the hope that this endeavor (read: The Philosopher Forum Book Club) will continue ad infinitum, and considering that knowledge builds on knowledge, starting with a pre-socratic piece should set the stage for future installments.
2) Something well known - If we start with a text that has been read by most, it will encourage initial participation and interest.
3) Something terse - A piece that can be digested in one sitting will encourage participation and will potentially allow for focused discussion. I think the first Book Club outing should be more about the participants getting a feel for the structure of the sub-forum rather than meandering through any given text.

As far as the structure of Book Club threads:
I imagine that discussion could quickly become fractured or derailed. Within a general forum, this is not a problem; but within this type of thread, I advocate that the person who names the body-of-work-to-be-read has previously read said passage and begins the thread with a particular topic of discussion so as to keep the initial discourse focused.

As far as moderation of the sub-forum/thread:
One of the Forum Moderators should act as moderator of this sub-forum/thread. This means that (s)he should decide the piece of literature, the time discussion begins and the time that discussion ends. Anyone who has suggestions for future readings should feel free and encouraged to PM the Mod - but the final choice should always be in the hands of the Mod (I further suggest that the selected reading should not be put to a vote -the Mod should take into account all suggestions, but then make a decision...anything else could easily result in debate over what to read rather than debate about what is being read).

~And, of course, make the thread Sticky~

****

That's all I got.
Please respond to this so that we can assess the particulars and get this thing going!

 

[Nile577]

I agree with almost everything you say. I am keen to have the thread left open during reading time to allow people to raise difficulties they might be having.

I also like the idea of a chronological reading but, stemming from Justin's argument on the 'Dasein' thread, I think it is important to realize that philosophy should be a life-endeavor towards 'truth.' I am a little wary that such a reading scheme treats it more as a diversion or an 'interesting history of thought.' However, I think it serves as a workable model and personally, I would favor it.

In regards to participation, I think we should expect interest to taper off after an initial surge. I would hate to think of someone feeling obliged to force themselves to read a text by a certain deadline. However, if this works out, I am quite prepared to treat this as motivation for 'the' major philosophical study of my life and would even read texts and post thoughts alone, if necessary.

To get the ball rolling: I am very unfamiliar with Pre-Socratic thinkers. I seem to remember either Derek or Speed might have greater knowledge here? Maybe Justin? If we are to attempt a chronological reading of major Western philosophical texts, is there anything of essential importance we need to cover before starting with, say, Plato's Republic?

 

[speed]

I agree with almost everything you say. I am keen to have the thread left open during reading time to allow people to raise difficulties they might be having.

I also like the idea of a chronological reading but, stemming from Justin's argument on the 'Dasein' thread, I think it is important to realize that philosophy should be a life-endeavor towards 'truth.' I am a little wary that such a reading scheme treats it more as a diversion or an 'interesting history of thought.' However, I think it serves as a workable model and personally, I would favor it.

In regards to participation, I think we should expect interest to taper off after an initial surge. I would hate to think of someone feeling obliged to force themselves to read a text by a certain deadline. However, if this works out, I am quite prepared to treat this as motivation for 'the' major philosophical study of my life and would even read texts and post thoughts alone, if necessary.

To get the ball rolling: I am very unfamiliar with Pre-Socratic thinkers. I seem to remember either Derek or Speed might have greater knowledge here? Maybe Justin? If we are to attempt a chronological reading of major Western philosophical texts, is there anything of essential importance we need to cover before starting with, say, Plato's Republic?

Currently the Symposium is in the lead in the poll. But, you bring up a good point about the pre-socratics.

I would say that Plato's Thaetatus is much better starting place than the Republic, as it discusses the concept of knowledge itself, and it addresses Protgoras's idea of knowledge, Heraclitian ideas of knowledge, and finally Parmenides. One of Nietszche's best works that is forgotten (a shame, as it explains essentially the concepts of his later philosophy) is his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. I have included a link:
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.htm. In it, he gives a excellent description of pre-socratic knowledge and philosophy. Unfortunately, all that is left of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythogoras, Thales, are fragments and discussion of said ideas within the surviving books of the ancients (like Thaetatus).

 

[ARC150]

Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.htm

Done and done, I'd say.

Nile577? derek? Want to make this the first reading?

 

[Demiurge]

To get the ball rolling: I am very unfamiliar with Pre-Socratic thinkers. I seem to remember either Derek or Speed might have greater knowledge here? Maybe Justin? If we are to attempt a chronological reading of major Western philosophical texts, is there anything of essential importance we need to cover before starting with, say, Plato's Republic?

This link contains all of the Presocratic fragments: http://kr.geocities.com/hyun_sinnayo/presoc.htm

 

[derek]

Well, it's always important to understand context, but I think the leap from the Presocratics to Plato is rather large, so I'd consider it a smart idea to familiarise oneself with what came before, but reading some of Plato's smaller works (perhaps the symposium or the gorgias) without such a background will still work fine.

I believe the Symposium to be the general choice?

I think it'd be a good idea for this get started. Shall we officially consider the club to have begun and set a date two weeks from now for the books to have been read?

I know that's a longer period of time than really needed, but we are all busy people.

 

[Silver Incubus]

http://www.mininova.org/tor/440661

if anyone gets torrents, I thought some of the people on this board may want to read this collection of papers.

This book offers a re-reading of the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Rosenzweig. It argues that within the structure of their thinking lies a notion of the absolute which can be recognised as ‘philosophy’s higher education’. This higher education is contained within and arises out of dualisms that are central to the work of each thinker: formation and finality (Kant), master and slave (Hegel), being and time (Heidegger), recollection and repetition (Kierkegaard), will to power and eternal return (Nietzsche), and fire and rays (Rosenzweig). The book argues that the dualisms have a speculative and therefore an educational significance which underpins the coherence of each thinker, and shows how, in each case, there subsists a notion of philosophy’s higher education. The result of this investigation, therefore, is not only a radical re-interpretation of these philosophers, but also an ambitious attempt at unifying their work around another dualism, the relation of philosophy ‘and’ education. It is within this latter relation that the book argues that ‘the absolute can be realised’. This book is of interest to those working in the fields of Contemporary Philosophy, Philosophy of Education and Theory of Education.

 

[speed]

Attention all.

The Symposium is leading in the poll, and the poll closes in 3 days. We will begin discussion October 19 of said philosophical tome. Everyone is welcomed and encouraged to contribute essays, criticisms, posts, and questions about the work.

I also remind everyone, that The Symposium is not only a philosophical masterpiece, but a literary masterpiece as well. It is not long, and it yields a lifetime of rewards and comforts. It is classical perfection.

Finally, it has been suggested that we read Nietszche's Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks after we finish the Symposium. A link can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.html

This work by Nietszche, discusses pre-socratic philosophy. Demiurge has kindly posted a link to a collection of the remaining fragments of the pre-socratics, with the exception of Pythagoras. This link is found below: http://kr.geocities.com/hyun_sinnayo/presoc.htm


And for the true classicist, historian, and seeker of knowledge, Diogenes Laertius' Lives of the Eminent Philosopher, is the source for much of our surviving information, even if it was written in a story-like form similar to the great Plutarch. Here is a link to the collected works: http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/

Happy reading.