What areas of philosophy are you interested in? What have read or are planning to read in these areas? Having some sort of idea about where people are coming from may be of help to everyone. Hopefully this will facilitate more detailed and interesting discussions.
What's Your Philosophical Background?
- Thread starter derbeder
- Start date
Seditious
GodSlayer
why not ethics and political philosophy?
what's the attraction to all this abstract logic and math stuff?
what's the attraction to all this abstract logic and math stuff?
Well, I like classical philosophy (which kind of covers everything), and dont care for this split of genres or areas that occurred after the renaissance.
Justin S.
Member
I am concerned primarily with "continental" thought, although I have some degree of familiarity with the analytic tradition. Currently, I am studying under a student of Derrida's, so this should indicate how I lean 
. Although, last year I worked with an analytic prof. (a former student of Van Fraassen at Princeton; derbeder probably knows of the latter, especially on the realism/anti-realism issue) in logic, philosophy of science, and a small bit of philosophy of mind.
My constitutional focus is on the crossroads of Heidegger, "deconstruction", psychoanalysis, and what I hesitate to call natural science, but to keep it simple, I'm concerned with thinking.
. Although, last year I worked with an analytic prof. (a former student of Van Fraassen at Princeton; derbeder probably knows of the latter, especially on the realism/anti-realism issue) in logic, philosophy of science, and a small bit of philosophy of mind.My constitutional focus is on the crossroads of Heidegger, "deconstruction", psychoanalysis, and what I hesitate to call natural science, but to keep it simple, I'm concerned with thinking.
perhaps we can have a thread on derrida. i'm more familiar with his earlier writings speech and phenomena, introduction to husserl's "the origin of geometry", and limited inc. since the former two are close commmentaries on husserl, i had an easier time seeing what's going on. i'll try to reread these sometime soon.
Demiurge
This user has no title
I am studying for an MA now. My interests at this time are purely analytic. I am interested in epistemology(internalism vs. externalism, contextualism, anti-individualism and privileged access, bayesian, lottery problems, etc.), philosophy of mind(physicalist theories of, consciousness), metaphysics(classic problems, realism vs. anti debate). I am interested in philosophy of mathematics, but haven't educated myself in it as of yet. I have a mild interest in metaethics. Theories of meaning and pragmatics in philo of language are interesting, too.
I'm a historian by training and inclination, so my interest is always first and foremost in the ways in which ideas originating in philosophy are incorporated into practical social and political ideologies, the consequences of belief, etc. I've always had an interest in aesthetics, the philosophy of art etc. as well.
MetalBooger delenda est.
MetalBooger delenda est.
Demiurge
This user has no title
Well, I used to think something similar, but the fragmentation of philosophy does not seem exceptional when compared to other fields. Take science, for example. I used to be unified into one discipline, but now there are many different fields in the 'science' category. I don't think this is to the disadvantage of science. Also, in philosophy, things do overlap if you talk for long enough. A discussion of epistemology drifts to possible world semantics, then metaphysics very easily. The different branches do have an intimate connection with one another.
As for myself, I have a very wide range of interests spanning essentially all the core areas of analytic philosophy except ethics and political philosophy -
metaphysics (modality, time, persistence of material objects, the theory of parts and wholes, realism and anti-realism),
epistemology (the basis of a priori knowledge, current contextualist and relativist theories of knowledge),
philosophy of language (direct reference, context-sensitivity)
philosophy of mind (criticisms of naturalistic theories of intentionality, artificial intelligence, nonconceptual content)
philosophy of logic (semantic paradoxes, paradoxes of vagueness, alternative logics - especially intuitionistic and paraconsistent logics -, the problem of justifying basic logical rules)
philosophy of mathematics (different responses to set-theoretic paradoxes, the viability of a neo-Fregean logicism, nominalistic reconstructions of mathematical theories)
My primary historical focus is on early 20th century, especially Frege, Russell, Husserl and Wittgenstein. I have tried to come to grips with Heidegger in the past, but I can't make as good a claim to have understood him as these others. Recently, I have gone back to reading Heidegger and am also trying to get into some Foucault. I should also say that I find Aristotle's ethics and metaphysics to be rich in insights and I wish to spend more time on properly thinking through his views.
I have very little knowledge of ethics, and a bare minimum of political philosophy (mosly liberalists from Locke to Rawls). I think the issues in these areas are very important, but I find it really difficult to think clearly about them.
metaphysics (modality, time, persistence of material objects, the theory of parts and wholes, realism and anti-realism),
epistemology (the basis of a priori knowledge, current contextualist and relativist theories of knowledge),
philosophy of language (direct reference, context-sensitivity)
philosophy of mind (criticisms of naturalistic theories of intentionality, artificial intelligence, nonconceptual content)
philosophy of logic (semantic paradoxes, paradoxes of vagueness, alternative logics - especially intuitionistic and paraconsistent logics -, the problem of justifying basic logical rules)
philosophy of mathematics (different responses to set-theoretic paradoxes, the viability of a neo-Fregean logicism, nominalistic reconstructions of mathematical theories)
My primary historical focus is on early 20th century, especially Frege, Russell, Husserl and Wittgenstein. I have tried to come to grips with Heidegger in the past, but I can't make as good a claim to have understood him as these others. Recently, I have gone back to reading Heidegger and am also trying to get into some Foucault. I should also say that I find Aristotle's ethics and metaphysics to be rich in insights and I wish to spend more time on properly thinking through his views.
I have very little knowledge of ethics, and a bare minimum of political philosophy (mosly liberalists from Locke to Rawls). I think the issues in these areas are very important, but I find it really difficult to think clearly about them.
My 'knowledge' of philosophy is tiny, but I have a long and healthy relationship going with thought. I am most interested with the application of philosophy to everyday life, but enjoy all areas of it that are grounded in 'what I can perceive as real or useful'
Based on my limited (broad scope) reading so far I intend to track down some Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Quine. The only very old philosophy I have found interesting so far is from Buddha, but I'll give the Greeks plenty more chances yet.
Based on my limited (broad scope) reading so far I intend to track down some Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Quine. The only very old philosophy I have found interesting so far is from Buddha, but I'll give the Greeks plenty more chances yet.
JColtrane
Member
My first philosophical book of any kind was Plato's Republic. I guess Plato remains my "true love" in philosophy
The only thing I can say with confidence that I know well in philosophy is Kierkegaard. That being said, his thought was exceedingly wide spread and can apply to most every field of interest in philosophy. He had a very complex philosophy of language and a large influence on Derrida, whom a few of y'all expressed interest in (I am reading The Gift of Death right now). This summer, I am going to be taking a nearly month-long class that focuses on reading Kierkegaard's Danish, and during that time I will also being writing a majority of my undergraduate honors thesis, which will focus on the concept of "dying-to" (at afdoe) throughout the entirety his of writings.
I have read a bit of Nietzsche, whom I thoroughly enjoy and wish I had more time to spend on!
I have become fairly well-versed in the ancient Greek language at my university, under the instruction of a brilliant papyrologist named Jeffery Fish, and have used this skill to become decently aquainted with some ancient Greek philosophy, and of course, Plato.
I think I'm slightly different than the rest of you all, because I tend to focus on thinkers rather than specific subjects. Your approach is an interesting one, and I wish I could comprehend an entire field like that, but it's not really for me.
I'm really glad, though, that there are other nerds like me; and if anyone wants to talk about Kierkegaard, just let me know!
The only thing I can say with confidence that I know well in philosophy is Kierkegaard. That being said, his thought was exceedingly wide spread and can apply to most every field of interest in philosophy. He had a very complex philosophy of language and a large influence on Derrida, whom a few of y'all expressed interest in (I am reading The Gift of Death right now). This summer, I am going to be taking a nearly month-long class that focuses on reading Kierkegaard's Danish, and during that time I will also being writing a majority of my undergraduate honors thesis, which will focus on the concept of "dying-to" (at afdoe) throughout the entirety his of writings.
I have read a bit of Nietzsche, whom I thoroughly enjoy and wish I had more time to spend on!
I have become fairly well-versed in the ancient Greek language at my university, under the instruction of a brilliant papyrologist named Jeffery Fish, and have used this skill to become decently aquainted with some ancient Greek philosophy, and of course, Plato.
I think I'm slightly different than the rest of you all, because I tend to focus on thinkers rather than specific subjects. Your approach is an interesting one, and I wish I could comprehend an entire field like that, but it's not really for me.
I'm really glad, though, that there are other nerds like me; and if anyone wants to talk about Kierkegaard, just let me know!
My 'knowledge' of philosophy is tiny, but I have a long and healthy relationship going with thought. I am most interested with the application of philosophy to everyday life, but enjoy all areas of it that are grounded in 'what I can perceive as real or useful'
Based on my limited (broad scope) reading so far I intend to track down some Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, and Quine. The only very old philosophy I have found interesting so far is from Buddha, but I'll give the Greeks plenty more chances yet.
I think we share alot of similarities. I'm only interested in the pursuit of knowledge, and knowledge that impacts life, or I find highly interesting. But, I am dilettante, not a formally-trained philosopher.
I do find it disturbing how in the past, most educated people were familiar with the major philosophers and philosophies, whereas today in America and Asia (the Europeans do not have this problem), most educated people are totally oblivious to philosophy and the major philosophers.
JColtrane
Member
I think this goes both ways though. Philosophy is much more specialized these days. Philosophers of past eras were knowledgeable in a number of fields, whereas today a writer's knowledge might be confined to even a certain branch of philosophy.
Demiurge
This user has no title
Somewhat, but in my experience, that's too strong. Philosophers usually have an area(often several) in which they are especially expert, but they have a solid, basic knowledge of other branches, too. They might not have read the latest journal entry on a major issue, but they can certainly carry on a learned conversation about the topic.
Philosophy has become increasingly difficult for the layman to understand. We've now reached a point at which to make sense of contemporary debate, one needs a great deal of fairly technical background knowledge.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
As most people here probably already know, I am an undergraduate philosophy major. I was supposed to graduate this May but I decided that I didn't want to leave town and now I have a second major (linguistics).
Anyway, I got into philosophy by reading Nietzsche and some existentialist writing. I really got into philosophy after reading Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I used to really be into analytic philosophy of language, logic, and science. Not so much anymore. I've gotten a bit bored with all that stuff. Now I'm more into aesthetics and metaethics.
I suppose that the texts which have most influenced my thinking are the following:
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume
Principia Ethica by G.E. Moore
Languages of Art by Nelson Goodman
Word and Object by W.V. Quine
Pursuit of Truth by W.V. Quine
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam
Anyway, I got into philosophy by reading Nietzsche and some existentialist writing. I really got into philosophy after reading Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I used to really be into analytic philosophy of language, logic, and science. Not so much anymore. I've gotten a bit bored with all that stuff. Now I'm more into aesthetics and metaethics.
I suppose that the texts which have most influenced my thinking are the following:
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume
Principia Ethica by G.E. Moore
Languages of Art by Nelson Goodman
Word and Object by W.V. Quine
Pursuit of Truth by W.V. Quine
The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam
JColtrane
Member
Don't get me wrong, I like Hume, but his arguments against miracles were completely illogical.
My favorite fallacy was when he said that only un-schooled people had reported miracles. My retort was to ask 'Did you go to the school of ad hominem to learn how to argue?'
He starts the work by stating that 'miracles are those things which never happen'. Well, as Kierkegaard says (when discussing that Socrates presupposed that people knew nothing), you always end up proving what you presuppose.
In general though, Hume is good
My favorite fallacy was when he said that only un-schooled people had reported miracles. My retort was to ask 'Did you go to the school of ad hominem to learn how to argue?'
He starts the work by stating that 'miracles are those things which never happen'. Well, as Kierkegaard says (when discussing that Socrates presupposed that people knew nothing), you always end up proving what you presuppose.
In general though, Hume is good
