I want to become educated in philosophy, but how? There is western and eastern philosophy and in each there are at least thousands of books. Not only that, but for each sub-philosophy there are hundreds of books.
Am I supposed to read on books that reinforce my beliefs or should I read on the classics, and if so what classics do you recommend?
If I reinforce my beliefs isn't that just preaching to the choir? What prevalent philosophical schools are considered important and which ones are now defunct?
Honestly, if you want to get started on learning ANYTHING, Wikipedia is the answer. Start from there, then read up more on specific subjects that interest you. Perhaps even get books if your really curios.
I suggest begin your philosophical journey by first reading some of the works of aristotle, plato, and socraties. they are generally the foundation to most of the modern day views. after you're done with them you can move onto whatever catches your interest.
This for a basic idea (it is fairly narrow, but isn't a bad start) or for a more scrupulous method you could start by simply reading something like Plato's Republic, and then progress across the time line.
A big part of philosophy is thinking for yourself, and nobody knows how far along you are in your intellectual development, so nobody can really tell you what you should read (ie what will be worthwhile to YOU). Still, as you said, there are thousands of books out there, so a push in the right direction is good.
A website I like is insomnia.ac, which focuses on videogames and philosophy. There is also a forum thread there with a list of recommendations:
the ammount of literature is enormous, and it really depends what you want to know. if you want this historical aspect of philosophy (east, west, et al), and just want to absorb as much philosophical thinking as possible, you just need to put your nose to the grindstone and do a LOT of reading. however if this is a pursuit of a more personal nature, IE learning your own views and leanings on major philosophical points, this can be more easily achieved by throwing yourself into discussions, like on IRC philo channels. real life discussion is better, but not everyone knows people irl who like to discuss such things.
philosophy requires you use your own mind, nothing else really.. "studying" philosophy is a lot more like studying history, facts. sure you can pick up ideas but to understand them you're gonna just need to use your own mind. and you could have gotten there anyways without studying other people's work.
i am frequently annoyed by half-men/half-parrots that clearly haven't developed their own views through serious contemplation
I don't know too much about philosophy, but I took a class called Contemporary Civilization last year and these are the readings I found on the more interesting end of things...
Plato: Republic Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics, Politics Machiavelli: The Prince, Discourses Hobbes: Leviathan Locke: Second Treatise, Letter on Toleration Rousseau: Basic Political Writings Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals de Tocqueville: Democracy in America Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morals
And haha, I remember reading Sophie's World for AP Lang a couple years back... good stuff.
On July 04 2010 11:34 travis wrote: i am frequently annoyed by half-men/half-parrots that clearly haven't developed their own views through serious contemplation
sounds like half of the tl.net community. but spiteful words aside, i agree. don't wind up like that op!
Just read what you want to read. As you get more interested and more serious about it you will naturally also read their predecessors and their successors and their opponents, etc. The classical texts are essential but you don't have to start off with them. It's most important that you enjoy it.
I'm currently in a phil class. As far as books go, we're reading (or have read) Meditations of First Philosophy by Rene Descartes (he's basically the definition of baller), Ethics of Belief by William Kingdon Clifford, God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard. So far we've read the first two.
Regarding Descartes, his writing helped bring the west out of the Dark Ages and made philosophy relevant again, so I can't exactly recommend him unless you're very interested in God or want to understand the concept dualism. He also writes in a very strange style that won't really make much sense in the 21st century. Nonetheless, he is vital in the history and development of philosophy. You can find this for free on the internet so perhaps you'd want to print it out or something (it's about fifty or sixty pages in .pdf).
Clifford's Ethics of Belief kind of just tells you that believing things that can't be backed up with sufficient evidence is wrong. It's a very materialistic and promotes skepticism and doubt in your beliefs. In many ways, I feel that it just gives people the right to be a dick to other people in order to promote your own beliefs. Now when purchasing this collection of essays, make sure it's by Clifford and doesn't have other authors attached to it. From what I'm aware, there isn't a single intro phil class that skips this book.
Now as far as what you should read, I don't really feel that it's a proper question since you aren't taking a class for it and you don't have any curriculum to adhere to. However, If you want a general understanding of modern philosophy, I'd go with Ethics of Belief.
Taking a class in intro philosophy is a good way to start out. I'm a philosophy minor myself and enjoy the subject. Moreso than any other subject it emphasizes logical thinking. Arguments in philosophy need to be valid and sound (and in studying epistemology, you'll learn that there are some other requirements as well!)
Do not read books that reinforce your beliefs. If your interest is reinforcing your beliefs, then read someone that believes the opposite of you, and try to form an argument that logically disproves it. If you can't, then you've just learned something new.
As an aside, Descartes is highly respected for his math, but I'd be wary of his metaphysics. He made some great contributions to modern mathematics, including a proof for an "actual" infinity (great stuff for finitists vs infinitists). As far as his metaphysics go, he spent a lot of time trying to prove the existence of God. And I think it's common belief among philosophers (at least since Kant) that one cannot prove the existence of God through metaphysics.
edit: Oh, yea, I should probably mention... if you're really interested in philosophy, Kant is obviously a go to. There are more dissertations and papers written about Kant than anyone else, mostly because of how controversial his philosophy is. He's very important, you'll want to know about him.
As an aside, Descartes is highly respected for his math, but I'd be wary of his metaphysics. He made some great contributions to modern mathematics, including a proof for an "actual" infinity (great stuff for finitists vs infinitists).
Some say Descartes contributed so much that France decided not to contribute anything for the next three hundred years
Depends on what you mean by getting well educated in philosophy. If you mean the way it's taught in schools, you're looking at learning the history of (predominantly) Western philosophical thought. This involves reading a large variety of books by prominent philosophers, as well as learning about (but not necessarily reading the works of) a multitude of lesser philosophers. When learning philosophy this way, there is little to no connection between what you read and what your personal beliefs/opinions are. They might coincide or contradict with the material you deal with, but the purpose of studying the entire history of philosophical thought is to understand the way various ares of philosophy developed over time.
If you want to learn philosophy in order to further develop your own opinions on certain subjects, you can probably skip straight to contemporary philosophers who talk about what you're interested in, with just a short crash course (e.g. Wikipedia articles) on the background of that subject. For a very broad example, you might be interested in metaphysics In that case, background knowledge of someone highly influential like Kant would almost certainly be needed; and Kant's metaphysics are (partially) in response to people like Descartes, and so on back to Aristotle. Except if you're only interested in your contemporary philosopher, you only need to know very little about his/her influences in order to know what's going on, which is a really good thing, because fully understanding someone like Kant takes years of dedicated study.
As for the question of reinforcing your beliefs vs. challenging them, that's not really a problem. Almost every philosophical work is written in response to something (or everything) written before it. Moreover, many works will make direct references to other philosophers and their arguments, so you'll get a little bit of input from both sides. And if that interests you, you can go find the people who were mentioned and read their works too.
Finally, if you're mostly concerned about more "ordinary" or "everyday" philosophical issues (e.g. ethics), you honestly don't need any background information. It's useful and interesting to read what others think, but if I ask you if doing something is right or wrong, you're just as qualified as anyone else to give your opinion regardless of whether or not you can name drop famous philosophers to support your opinion.
On July 04 2010 11:59 shinosai wrote: edit: Oh, yea, I should probably mention... if you're really interested in philosophy, Kant is obviously a go to. There are more dissertations and papers written about Kant than anyone else, mostly because of how controversial his philosophy is. He's very important, you'll want to know about him.
Regardless of whether you like Kant or not you will always have to cross by him sooner or later. It's always like this with philosophers of stature. Whether you like them or not you inevitably have to study them for some reason or another.
Most of what's been written already is pretty stupid and questionable... -_-
On July 04 2010 11:17 Pandain wrote: Honestly, if you want to get started on learning ANYTHING, Wikipedia is the answer. Start from there, then read up more on specific subjects that interest you. Perhaps even get books if your really curios.
Don't do this. Read actual books. Wikipedia is incredibly narrow and features very very limited information on any topic or work. If you want to learn about a work, read it first. Check wiki later if you're curious to see what the author of that page wrote about it.
If you MUST cop out and read up an online encyclopedia, do NOT go to wikipedia, go to stanford's online philosophy encyclopedia.
On July 04 2010 11:18 Malgrif wrote: I suggest begin your philosophical journey by first reading some of the works of aristotle, plato, and socraties. they are generally the foundation to most of the modern day views. after you're done with them you can move onto whatever catches your interest.
Starting with Aristotle and Plato is a great idea. However, there is no original writing by Socrates in existence today. Everything we know about Socrates, including his existence, is through Plato's works. Actually some scholars wonder if Socrates was an actual person.
On July 04 2010 11:23 Aus)MaCrO wrote: A big part of philosophy is thinking for yourself, and nobody knows how far along you are in your intellectual development, so nobody can really tell you what you should read (ie what will be worthwhile to YOU). Still, as you said, there are thousands of books out there, so a push in the right direction is good.
A website I like is insomnia.ac, which focuses on videogames and philosophy. There is also a forum thread there with a list of recommendations:
Eastern philosophy is mostly a waste of time as far as I am aware.
Hope that helps.
This is a stupid place to start. Don't do it.
And "Eastern philosophy is mostly a waste of time as far as I am aware." - Wow dude...just wow.
On July 04 2010 11:28 mainerd wrote: the ammount of literature is enormous, and it really depends what you want to know. if you want this historical aspect of philosophy (east, west, et al), and just want to absorb as much philosophical thinking as possible, you just need to put your nose to the grindstone and do a LOT of reading. however if this is a pursuit of a more personal nature, IE learning your own views and leanings on major philosophical points, this can be more easily achieved by throwing yourself into discussions, like on IRC philo channels. real life discussion is better, but not everyone knows people irl who like to discuss such things.
Chatting in IRC channels is a very stupid place to start. In order to really learn and get to know philosophy, you need to have that background knowledge, which is vast. There is no choice B, but only the former of what you said. A LOT of reading has to be done.
On July 04 2010 11:52 tryclops wrote: Regarding Descartes, his writing helped bring the west out of the Dark Ages and made philosophy relevant again, so I can't exactly recommend him unless you're very interested in God or want to understand the concept dualism. He also writes in a very strange style that won't really make much sense in the 21st century. Nonetheless, he is vital in the history and development of philosophy. You can find this for free on the internet so perhaps you'd want to print it out or something (it's about fifty or sixty pages in .pdf).
You're severely misunderstanding and underestimating Descartes if that's really your take on him. Like that's laughably bad.
On July 04 2010 11:59 shinosai wrote: Taking a class in intro philosophy is a good way to start out. I'm a philosophy minor myself and enjoy the subject. Moreso than any other subject it emphasizes logical thinking. Arguments in philosophy need to be valid and sound (and in studying epistemology, you'll learn that there are some other requirements as well!)
Do not read books that reinforce your beliefs. If your interest is reinforcing your beliefs, then read someone that believes the opposite of you, and try to form an argument that logically disproves it. If you can't, then you've just learned something new.
As an aside, Descartes is highly respected for his math, but I'd be wary of his metaphysics. He made some great contributions to modern mathematics, including a proof for an "actual" infinity (great stuff for finitists vs infinitists). As far as his metaphysics go, he spent a lot of time trying to prove the existence of God. And I think it's common belief among philosophers (at least since Kant) that one cannot prove the existence of God through metaphysics.
edit: Oh, yea, I should probably mention... if you're really interested in philosophy, Kant is obviously a go to. There are more dissertations and papers written about Kant than anyone else, mostly because of how controversial his philosophy is. He's very important, you'll want to know about him.
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
And Kant is written about so much because the scale of his works is so damn large. Kant as a starting point isn't a great idea, in my opinion, though.
And logic is really a very basic first step. Forming arguments that adhere to logically sound structures is very easy and intuitive. It's the content making up those slots for propositions that's hard.
As an aside, Descartes is highly respected for his math, but I'd be wary of his metaphysics. He made some great contributions to modern mathematics, including a proof for an "actual" infinity (great stuff for finitists vs infinitists).
Some say Descartes contributed so much that France decided not to contribute anything for the next three hundred years
LOL.
On July 04 2010 12:09 Crahptacular wrote: Depends on what you mean by getting well educated in philosophy. If you mean the way it's taught in schools, you're looking at learning the history of (predominantly) Western philosophical thought. This involves reading a large variety of books by prominent philosophers, as well as learning about (but not necessarily reading the works of) a multitude of lesser philosophers. When learning philosophy this way, there is little to no connection between what you read and what your personal beliefs/opinions are. They might coincide or contradict with the material you deal with, but the purpose of studying the entire history of philosophical thought is to understand the way various ares of philosophy developed over time.
If you want to learn philosophy in order to further develop your own opinions on certain subjects, you can probably skip straight to contemporary philosophers who talk about what you're interested in, with just a short crash course (e.g. Wikipedia articles) on the background of that subject. For a very broad example, you might be interested in metaphysics In that case, background knowledge of someone highly influential like Kant would almost certainly be needed; and Kant's metaphysics are (partially) in response to people like Descartes, and so on back to Aristotle. Except if you're only interested in your contemporary philosopher, you only need to know very little about his/her influences in order to know what's going on, which is a really good thing, because fully understanding someone like Kant takes years of dedicated study.
As for the question of reinforcing your beliefs vs. challenging them, that's not really a problem. Almost every philosophical work is written in response to something (or everything) written before it. Moreover, many works will make direct references to other philosophers and their arguments, so you'll get a little bit of input from both sides. And if that interests you, you can go find the people who were mentioned and read their works too.
Finally, if you're mostly concerned about more "ordinary" or "everyday" philosophical issues (e.g. ethics), you honestly don't need any background information. It's useful and interesting to read what others think, but if I ask you if doing something is right or wrong, you're just as qualified as anyone else to give your opinion regardless of whether or not you can name drop famous philosophers to support your opinion.
I agree with most everything you said...but I think background knowledge is important anywhere you go. It's not so you can "name drop famous philosophers to support your opinion", but so you understand where that author is coming from, what s/he's responding to, what s/he's seen before, etc. Jumping right into modern day stuff is probably harder than the old classics. With stuff from back then, you have a finite set of books by one author who was trying to build something huge from the ground up on his own. Nowadays, projects arent nearly as big, and usually people are writing essays or sets of essays on one topic in response to something else, or to try to stir up more discussion in a single field. You aren't going to learn anything if you don't know the context from which he's writing.
----
OP: The most important thing to keep in mind when reading philosophy is to understand that it's not going to help any of your beliefs or ideological dispositions. It's only going to get them more confused and disoriented. Keeping an open mind is the most important thing to studying philosophy.
Things are constantly in flux in philosophy, especially with the way scholars communicate now (email and whatnot). Modern philosophy is broken down into many different subjects and subdivisions of them. How it works is basically...people come together and start writing/talking about those subjects. Then others come in and will contribute their own ideas to the pool of stuff. Then others still will come in and criticize current thought and the direction it's heading in, etc, and the pot of ideas in this subject area just gets bigger and bigger. Then when it approaches an area that people are generally satisfied with or can't find anything wrong with, people sort of stop talking about the subject and it kind of dies...until someone comes back in and stirs shit up again.
There's a lot of stuff going around right now. If you really want to get into the meaty stuff, I'd suggest finding a professor you can talk to to get your pointed in the right direction. The amount of literature there is in this field is absurd. I'm an undergraduate major in philosophy and I've studied this shit for four years and have taken more classes than my major's required and I still don't know shit, to be honest. It will take tons and tons of reading to get a decent background on any subject area. It will take years to become well versed in it.
The best way for you to start, provided you're not aiming to become a scholar in the field, would be to first find the stuff you're interested in, and figure out the big name works that are important for it.
Like say if you're interested in mind/body philosophy (mind and consciousness' relationship to brain and physical body etc), you'd want to start with Descartes, then jump to the 20th century where the action really started (likes of Nagel, Jackson, Dennett and the new wave of embodied mind or consciousness proponents). When you read one essay, look at the essays that guy refers to and cites in his. Then go and look into and read those. Then when you read those, look at the works they cite and refer to and look into those, etc.
I'd go to the library and go to the Philosophy section in the non-fictions and pick up a "Great Philosophers" or "The History of the Major Schools of Philosophy" (not real titles, I hope you get the idea though) They should be very short books, lots of pictures, and give you a summary of large breadth of philosophers (from Xenophanes, Sophocles, to Hume, to C. S. Lewis, Russell, Malthus, other name drops etc.) and schools. Those books will also have a listing (famous works by so and so, books from this school and stuff) and you can check out the books you think are relevant to you/will challenge your belief.
And I don't know why people say if you're going to study philosophy you're going to run into x. I mean, sure, if you're taking a philosophy class it's hard not to run into plato, aristotle, kant, nitzche, kierkgaard, etc. But most people who want to study philosophy in their free time want to have a broader view of some difficult questions in life, not learn the precise difference between a priori and a posteriori or try and define happiness or justice.
I don't think a philosphy discussion is complete without Aquinas. Obviously I'm biased (considering I'm Catholic and he's pretty much the true foundation of all real Catholic philosophy) but his influence on philosophy for several hundred years can't be ignored.
Keep in mind though, that if you're wary of Descarte because of religion, then you'll be terrified of Aquinas. That's because in Catholic philosophy theology is bonded to philosophy (so you be finding reasons for the existence of God, the angels, etc.).
If you're going to do this by yourself, I'd start at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/
Most of the articles I've read there are great at introducing the subject and placing it in a historical context. It's a good place to start. If you try to read something like Kant without some background, it's going to be extremely confusing. For one thing, there would be words in Kant's works that were used in a particular way in the time he wrote, but is used in a different way now.
On July 04 2010 11:23 Aus)MaCrO wrote: A big part of philosophy is thinking for yourself, and nobody knows how far along you are in your intellectual development, so nobody can really tell you what you should read (ie what will be worthwhile to YOU). Still, as you said, there are thousands of books out there, so a push in the right direction is good.
A website I like is insomnia.ac, which focuses on videogames and philosophy. There is also a forum thread there with a list of recommendations:
Eastern philosophy is mostly a waste of time as far as I am aware.
Hope that helps.
This is a stupid place to start. Don't do it.
Why? I mean, are you saying it is stupid in general, or just a stupid place to start? As for the barb about Eastern Philosophy, I haven't studied it a whole lot, but from what I have read, it doesn't seem all that worthwhile.
So you just dismiss an entire culture that has existed longer than Christianity when you haven't even studied it much? For god's sake. That's like dismissing Kant because you read a bit of Nietzsche where he disparages the man even if you've never actually read any of his work yourself.
On July 04 2010 13:14 koreasilver wrote: So you just dismiss an entire culture that has existed longer than Christianity when you haven't even studied it much? For god's sake. That's like dismissing Kant because you read a bit of Nietzsche where he disparages the man even if you've never actually read any of his work yourself.
Well yeah. You can dismiss things like that. Why waste time on something when you are pretty sure its not a good use of time? Further, its not like the Kant/Nietzsche example because I have read the Eastern Philosophy for myself (albeit only some of it) and dismissed it for myself. I haven't taken somebody else's word for it.
Most philosophy is a crock because it's rich white guys spouting their opinions about stuff that has no bearing on reality. It's a big cockfight with no winner, just a big circle of a bad kind of gay people.
On July 04 2010 13:43 ella_guru wrote: Most philosophy is a crock because it's rich white guys spouting their opinions about stuff that has no bearing on reality. It's a big cockfight with no winner, just a big circle of a bad kind of gay people.
I strongly agree with that... despite you being my mortal enemy...
So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote: So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
You're a donkey, seriously.
+1000
All the oriental philosophy I know at least has a basis in reality and doesn't spend volumes upon volumes with hypothetical bullshit that couldn't began to matter at all. To anyone.
I don't agree with you saying that Western philosophy has no root in reality though. Philosophy of the eras have always had an intimate contact with the arts of the time, and also of the cultures of the time. I don't believe that philosophy is rooted in a higher truth that is only attainable through the practice, but that philosophy is but an interpretation of what we exist upon. Metaphysics will always be out of touch of reality to some extent though, so I guess I can agree with you to a degree if we talk about metaphysics. I'm rather ignorant when it comes to philosophy though as I just haven't read enough to be really literate.
I've read some pretty vapid things before when it comes to Eastern thought before as well. I find that Westerners too often put Eastern thought on a pedestal (particularly of Buddhism).
"Philosophy" is a huge, huge area. Most universities I know of will let you get a full Bachelor's degree in each of the three major subdivisions, those being Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. Beyond bachelors, you can specialize way further.
If you just dive into, say, Aristotle because its "philosophy", you're rather likely to hate it. I love philosophy, for the most part, but Aristotle (and really anyone who wrote before the 1900s) is pretty much awful.
So, for instance, I was initially interested in theories of consciousness, so I took a course in Philosophy of Mind. This ballooned into further interest in consciousness, artificial intelligence, decision making, and ethics (and so forth), so I went after all of that too. There's not really a good way of starting in philosophy if you dont have a more specific interest (imo), and the best way of doing it if you do is to find someone who's already done it with a similar interest to give you advice.
Philosophy is about questions, first and foremost - you should be reading books that answer outstanding questions you have as a result of whatever your beliefs are now. For the most part, your questions will be answered with more questions (otherwise, its not really philosophy ). Personally, I would argue you shouldn't ever expect a single book or author to perfectly reflect the beliefs you hold or end up holding - in the course of reading around subjects that interest you you become better at thinking about them, and this is what ends up giving you new perspectives and beliefs.
Its not a subject in the sense that physics is a subject - you don't accumulate knowledge, except for the knowledge of philosophical jargon. Its a subject in which you learn how to think, not what, and how to analyze issues.
This, of course, goes only for analytical philosophy, since continental is a load of failed poets pretending to be deep.
I've read some pretty vapid things before when it comes to Eastern thought before as well. I find that Westerners too often put Eastern thought on a pedestal (particularly of Buddhism).
I think you're right here, but also note that by and large our canon of "masters" include a lot of myopic rich white dudes.
I think it's cool though something like Zen was popularized because of warriors, because of it being highly useful to deal with the idea of mortality and letting go of one's "self" . If a guy who's job it is to potentially die in battle does / uses something, I can bet it's highly practical.
A great deal of Buddhist philosophy was written and led by monks that came from the higher rich class of society though. When it comes to these forms of literature the majority of these intellectuals came from comfortable backgrounds even if they later on lived in hardship. I would also argue that Zen in Japan was influenced by the culture of the Japanese just as if not more than it influenced Japanese society.
On July 04 2010 14:21 koreasilver wrote: A great deal of Buddhist philosophy was written and led by monks that came from the higher rich class of society though. When it comes to these forms of literature the majority of these intellectuals came from comfortable backgrounds even if they later on lived in hardship. I would also argue that Zen in Japan was influenced by the culture of the Japanese just as if not more than it influenced Japanese society.
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
Modern philosophy doesn't put much stock in metaphysical proofs of God's existence. My take on Descartes dates back as far as Kant. Sure, the argument is still relevant and debated, in as much as nearly every major philosopher's arguments are relevant and debated. To be honest here, though, every metaphysical proof for God's existence either ends in circularity or an endless regression, no matter how complexly created. It's not really a stupid point of view to dislike his metaphysics, in my opinion. Especially when there are really solid arguments out there as to why believing that metaphysics can prove the unknown is a rather fruitless endeavor.
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
I is ME of course. How can anyone miss that? Will I define that to you ? Unlikely, since my truth of it is already uncovered.
So, for instance, I was initially interested in theories of consciousness, so I took a course in Philosophy of Mind. This ballooned into further interest in consciousness, artificial intelligence, decision making, and ethics (and so forth), so I went after all of that too. There's not really a good way of starting in philosophy if you dont have a more specific interest (imo), and the best way of doing it if you do is to find someone who's already done it with a similar interest to give you advice.
Philosophy of mind is the only philosophy course I ever dropped. I was also interested in consciousness, but it feels more like a psychology course than a philosophy one. There was so much focus on the physical aspects of the brain that I found it rather boring. Might have just been the teacher, though.
Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."
(I spent a few hours arguing with a professor before I realized that hand-picking your postulates so that your conclusion logically follows isn't actually considered a circular argument in philosophy.)
I think that it partially depends on your initial view of it as well. If you view consciousness as a non-physical phenomena, or think purely physical explanations miss something about it, a lot of Phil of Mind courses are going to bore you/miss the point you're interested in.
I think it is a purely physical phenomena, so I was perfectly happy to get deep into neurology and stuff like that. Also my teacher is amazing.
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
I is ME of course. How can anyone miss that? Will I define that to you ? Unlikely, since my truth of it is already uncovered.
If you look at the wikipedia article under cogito ergo sum, you'll actually find that there's a rather relevant debate about the "I" in cogito ergo sum. It's briefly explained there. =)
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote: So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
You're a donkey, seriously.
Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?
Come now. Haven't you heard some of them zen puzzles? They sound stupid and nonsensical, but actually sitting down and thinking about it leads to some crazy stuff.
On July 04 2010 14:35 BottleAbuser wrote: Philosophy pisses me off. Everything I read is supported by a logical proof, which is also refuted by another logical proof. Eventually, it all comes down to your postulates, which means "believe whatever the fuck you want and you can prove it."
I know something that would piss you off even more, then. According to David Hume, induction (and by extension, deduction) are not even valid.
The problem of induction: We believe because x happened before in certain circumstances, that x will happen now. But there is no link between the past and the present that justifies the belief. For example, because I dropped a coin and it landed on the floor many times in the past, I believe that when I drop the coin in the future, it will land on the floor again. But the past does not have a link to the future, so there's no justification to believe that the coin will land on the floor in the future. In fact, according to this logic, induction (and deduction, by extension) are CIRCULAR arguments! X happened in the past, and x happens now, so x will do so in the future because it happened in the past! Circular.
Therefore, there's really no reason to believe anything, as you can deduce and induce nothing.
On July 04 2010 14:43 kzn wrote: Wait, how is deduction invalid by extension from induction?
P->Q, P, thus Q is a deductive argument, and makes no assumptions anywhere, whatsoever.
The argument works for induction as well, it's just that David Hume never took it that far. But basically, in his works, he claimed that there is no relation between cause and effect. So that deductive argument would not hold water for him. Being a skeptic, this is not surprising.
Your assumption comes from P->Q. There's no proof in the matter that Q is caused by P, just because Q follows P.
Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.
Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.
On July 04 2010 13:47 koreasilver wrote: So you've basically read very little. Do you understand how ludicrous it is to dismiss an entirety just because of a very small part of it? It is as absurd as dismissing Western philosophy as a whole because of one or two Westerners. Indian thought and Oriental thought is also very different as well.
You're a donkey, seriously.
Dude, those two books are supposed to be some of the best on/examples of Eastern philosophy. If I found them lacking, why the hell would I bother with the rest?
I can agree with Chuang Tzu being one of the good examples of classical Eastern philosophy. I'm unsure of the other book, but those two only focused on Chinese philosophy. I dunno how much the "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy" touches upon Buddhism either, but if it didn't at all then it's missing a pretty significant part of Chinese philosophy as well. Also, Indian philosophy is quite different from Chinese philosophy, even when it comes to Buddhism. I'm just exasperated over the fact that you would dismiss all Eastern philosophy just because you touched upon just Chinese philosophy.
I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.
On July 04 2010 14:47 kzn wrote: Thats not an inductive argument. A deductive argument cannot by definition be inductive. A valid deductive argument cannot be false unless the premises are unsound. Certainly, proving the soundness of premises is itself impossible, but deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible.
Deductive arguments also don't need to assume cause and effect, because the P->Q premise establishes a causal relationship whether such a thing is possible in the real world or not.
You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
edit: In any case, the point is, philosophy can sometimes be used to prove all sorts of ridiculous things. We KNOW that induction is a valid form of argument, which is why it's kind of funny to see a philosophical proof that it's not. At the end of the day, you have to separate philosophy from the practical.
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.
If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
On July 04 2010 14:51 kzn wrote: I think the difference between "Eastern" and "Western" philosophy is more that they aren't actually the same kinds of philosophy. Granted, I have almost no exposure to Eastern philosophy but from what I have it seems more concerned with creating philosophies "to live by", where Western is concerned more with asking big questions, and ignoring real life to some extent.
I find that there's often really big similarities in some areas. If you look into the concept of Sunyata in Buddhism and compare it to Existentialism you'll find that the similarities can be very striking. There's some philosophers from the 100 Schools of Thought era that are like mirrors to some Ancient Greeks. There definitely is a different colour between the East and the West but I'm not entirely too sure what it is that gives them those colours. I sometimes feel that the East generally works upon a more collectivist way of though while the West is more individualistic when it comes to approaching the human condition.
philosophy is dumb, thinking too much gets you no where. yes yes we all understand, take philosophy for what it's worth it's helpful in the sense that it makes you a better thinker when solving piratical problems, but if you argue with another philosopher, most times you get no where. and if you argue with someone who doesn't haven't a clue in philosophy most times it's not worth the substantial effort to make them see your point of view. philosophy is to just a search to what you believe to be true, not impose your truth to the world. remember every argument is fallible, even this one. lol
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.
If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
I agree that the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight. I was merely explaining Hume. For all practical deductions (one's based on real life examples), his argument against induction works just the same as deduction. However, if you were to do something abstract such as P->Q, P thus Q where P's relationship to Q was not relevant, then I think you are absolutely right.
I guess its more of a case that any practical use of deduction requires that one inductively support the premises. I thought it was like a proof that the method of deduction didn't work, which is what confused me,
On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote: Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go.
I think its pretty easy to justify practical philosophies logically.
Hume's argument in particular works on the basis of assuming a link between past and future where no such link can be proven - but practically, we are concerned with answering the question "what should I do next?". It benefits us, in answering that question, to have information about what will happen in the future. Whether we can prove causation or not, the assumption of causation generates better decisions than not making that assumption, so we continue to make it until it fails us.
Likewise, with arguments founded on our inability to prove that the world we perceive is the objective world, we are concerned with acting, and the only information we have access to is that which we perceive. This information is imperfect, but past actions and perceptions suggest that it is not completely useless, so we continue to use perceptive data to guide our actions.
The problem is most people don't want to let go of the idea that what they perceive is real - but what "real" means is variable. It is entirely possible to live practically while accepting that our knowledge may well have nothing to do with the objective reality.
I personally just operate under the assumption that whether or not I am a brain in a vat (think matrix) isn't really relevant. As we can never know whether reality is "real" it would seem to me that the question isn't worth pondering over to begin with. Whether or not this is real, this is the reality we experience, so it's the only relevant one.
My real problem with trying to justify practical philosophies is that sometimes what works within the system does not work outside the system (in particular this is true of philosophy of mathematics.) Mostly, this comes down to the will and determinism. Determinism works if you are an observer on the outside, but if everyone lived as if determinism were true, the world would fall apart.
Determinism is basically the belief that everything has a cause, thus every event is caused by another. It is up to debate whether or not thoughts are caused by something or completely random, but I'd like to believe that thoughts are caused as well. If this is the case, then we are not truly responsible for anything that we do. As we are all caused by certain events to do what we do.
Now, having a free will has been defined as "being able to choose to do otherwise." But if someone truly believes in determinism, you would not be able to choose to do otherwise. The events that caused you to do this gave you no other choice. You have an illusion of choice, where you feel like you could have done otherwise, except you didn't.
Now this point of view of determinism is perfectly valid if observed from the outside. As long as everyone believes that they have a choice, it's not problematic. But if everyone were to discover that they did not, then the philosophy would no longer work practically. Our laws would not be able to punish those for breaking the law validly, as they were caused to do so by forces beyond their control. They were not really responsible, in the sense that none of us are responsible for anything that we do.
One of the only things I took from Kant that I actually liked was his argument "for" free will. I say "for" in quotes because, as far as my understanding goes, Kant proved that the actual argument is irrelevant and that we must assume free will is true, whether or not it is, to act at all. He did this rather better than I can do, and it was a while ago, so I can't really give much more on that.
If you really want more, you can try to read the Critique of Practical Reason, but fuck me that book is ridiculous.
The above book explains different ideas, schools of thought and philosophers well in a collection of articles. The authors express themselves in such way that you can understand them relatively easily but without making things too simple. It also has long lists of recommended reading concerning each subject if you want to learn more. This is the kind of book you should start with. You probably won't understand anything what the famous philosophers of the past say in their books (unless it has the editor explaining it to you).
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
Modern philosophy doesn't put much stock in metaphysical proofs of God's existence. My take on Descartes dates back as far as Kant. Sure, the argument is still relevant and debated, in as much as nearly every major philosopher's arguments are relevant and debated. To be honest here, though, every metaphysical proof for God's existence either ends in circularity or an endless regression, no matter how complexly created. It's not really a stupid point of view to dislike his metaphysics, in my opinion. Especially when there are really solid arguments out there as to why believing that metaphysics can prove the unknown is a rather fruitless endeavor.
"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
You're still missing the point. What's important is not that he was trying to argue for the existence of God or god or whatever. His conceivability argument is actually very important, particularly in Mind/Body philosophy. It was expanded and slightly edited by David Chalmers, and is one of the many theories still brought in and discussed in that field (that's apparently now a hot subject).
I don't care that you don't like that he talked about god or tried to prove he exists...that's not important, and that crucial point you're missing is really making you look bad right now.
but it depends on how you intend to use it. if your preparing for a class or just want to be smartass without the burden of reading too much, start with wikipedia (unscholarly but practical) and familiarize urself with the canons, then focus on a philosopher or 2 that u think cud best serve ur purpose. perhaps this landscape : plato, socrates, kant, hegel, marx, nietzsche, focault, deleuze, etc. but if you want, like to teach philosophy or write a credible philo book (and ur just starting with philo), still skim the canons, but concentrate on a field that you want to be an expert of or develop. no sense knowing it all, the most significant philosophers never tried to know it all: foucault read mostly marx and develop his french PS flavored with constant friendly battle with derrida, marx had hegel, nietzsche had schopenhauer but was just as happy to vomit him eventually, as derrida of sartre... to summarize, READ READ READ, and, like lenin, LEARN LEARN LEARN
You're as bad as the last guy with your take on Descartes. That's just really stupid. Yes, he spent a lot of time on trying to prove the existence of an immaterial soul, but the actual argument he used is still relevant and is debated and written about today (conceivability argument). It's very interesting stuff and is VERY MUCH worth looking into. In addition, his skepticism is very important too.
Modern philosophy doesn't put much stock in metaphysical proofs of God's existence. My take on Descartes dates back as far as Kant. Sure, the argument is still relevant and debated, in as much as nearly every major philosopher's arguments are relevant and debated. To be honest here, though, every metaphysical proof for God's existence either ends in circularity or an endless regression, no matter how complexly created. It's not really a stupid point of view to dislike his metaphysics, in my opinion. Especially when there are really solid arguments out there as to why believing that metaphysics can prove the unknown is a rather fruitless endeavor.
"I think, therefore I am." Yet what is I?
You're still missing the point. What's important is not that he was trying to argue for the existence of God or god or whatever. His conceivability argument is actually very important, particularly in Mind/Body philosophy. It was expanded and slightly edited by David Chalmers, and is one of the many theories still brought in and discussed in that field (that's apparently now a hot subject).
I don't care that you don't like that he talked about god or tried to prove he exists...that's not important, and that crucial point you're missing is really making you look bad right now.
I don't believe I claimed that everything Descartes said in metaphysics is wrong, just that I'd be wary of them because of the great deal of importance he put into his arguments for God (and on that note, his arguments for the existence of self). As far as dualism is concerned, while I don't agree with it, I'm not attacking it. Just because I dislike his metaphysics in general doesn't mean that everything Descartes said was wrong in metaphysics.
To be clear: the only things that I'd be skeptical of with Descartes is his arguments for the existence of self and the existence of God, both of which I think have been debunked by modern philosophy. Of course, on that note, it's still important to know his theories. But they should be taken in with a certain amount of skepticism.
There is a series of 3 books called 'Classics of Western Thought' which takes the important excerpts from pretty much every single western thinker and puts a good introduction to each piece. What's really great about these books is that you will get an incredible overview of Western philosophy from the greeks to today.
You can pick and choose to find the originals if you want to really get into it, but these excerpts will equip you with enough to know what the person was saying easily. I honestly can't see anyone who wants to start reading philosophy at home starting anywhere else.
Carl Schmitt is awesome. I thikn he justifies a place as a part of the canon. The Concept of the Political is definitely worth a read.
Very interesting thread. My only piece of advice is be ware of Kant. What little I've read of Kant was tough to read. His language is just ... very very difficult to unpack. To be fair, I have only a light background in political philosophy so I might not have the experience or tools to understand it well, but in any case it was not reader friendly. You may want to delay reading him.
The ancients are awesome because you can see their influences later on. I would strongly recommend Nicomachian ethics, then Plato's Republic and The Politics.
Hobbes' Leviathan is a must read. It's simply excellent.
Political Economists are also pretty sweet, but that's well that's probably not the philosophy you are thinking of.
On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote: Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go.
On July 04 2010 14:58 BottleAbuser wrote: Fuck Hume. By his logic, we can't trust our eyes and ears.
Of course, he's right. We should all revert to solipsism... but for everyday life, induction works well enough that we use it.
I give this post a 10/10. ;P Pretty much my opinion after doing philosophy for several years is that you have to separate practicality from philosophy. If you try to LIVE philosophy you will end up a blind man in a cave with no where to go.
That is an extremely stupid conclusion.
I'm surprised it took your 4pages of a philosophy topic before you came in and made a comment, Bly. Still pretty much the response I would expect
On July 04 2010 14:51 shinosai wrote:You yourself are now making a circular argument.
"Deduction as a method of reasoning is infallible because in the past deductive arguments have not been able to be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the present, when I make an argument using deduction, the argument cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Therefore, in the future when I make a deductive argument, it cannot be proven false unless the premises are unsound. Because deduction worked in the past, it will work in the future."
Hume's problem was that "it works" was not a valid justification for him.
It's not a case of "past deductive arguments have never been false". Its a case of the conclusion in all deductive proofs being already contained within the premises. As a method of reasoning, this is infallible mostly because it generates no new knowledge, it merely rephrases what is already known.
If nothing is known, then this is practically useless, but the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight, and incapable of generating an invalid conclusion.
I agree that the method of reasoning in deductive arguments is watertight. I was merely explaining Hume. For all practical deductions (one's based on real life examples), his argument against induction works just the same as deduction. However, if you were to do something abstract such as P->Q, P thus Q where P's relationship to Q was not relevant, then I think you are absolutely right.
His argument applies to induction only. Your deduction example is wrong because you assumed the justification for deductive arguments lie in induction. Deduction is justified a priori, induction a posteriori. Basically everything kzn said is correct.
On July 05 2010 04:13 Sabu113 wrote:Very interesting thread. My only piece of advice is be ware of Kant. What little I've read of Kant was tough to read. His language is just ... very very difficult to unpack. To be fair, I have only a light background in political philosophy so I might not have the experience or tools to understand it well, but in any case it was not reader friendly. You may want to delay reading him.
He's pretty much as difficult as anything gets in philosophy. I took a course on the Critique of Practical Reason after 3 years of fairly intense philosophy and still had a seriously hard time understanding the raw text.
For one book to start, I would recommend Bertrand Russel's "A History of Western Philosophy" It will introduce you to the major philosophers from Ancient Greece to the middle of the twentieth century, and their seminal ideas. This will allow you to get a feel for the evolution of philosophy, as well as beginning to develop a feeling where your own philosophy will fit in the spectrum.
On July 04 2010 11:12 Rev0lution wrote: Am I supposed to read on books that reinforce my beliefs or should I read on the classics, and if so what classics do you recommend?
The right mindset for approaching philosophy is with the expectation that your beliefs will be challenged. The bread and butter of philosophy is critical thinking, and a good critical thinker is someone whom, among other things, has the capacity to change their deeply held beliefs--beliefs of which they really, really, want to be the case.
As a philosophy major I suggest that before anything else you start by picking up some good critical thinking books that deal with argument structure, fallacies, logic, possibly even ones covering some some basic logical notation.