Tyler ’s Comments (group member since May 09, 2008)

Tyler ’s comments from the Philosophy group.

Hi Kevin --

The mention of Heidegger reminded me that I just read
The Jargon Of Authenticity by Adorno. I really liked his critique of Heidegger's existentialism, but I haven't actually read Heidegger himself -- I've just read a lot about him.

The Continental philosophy you mention is something I'm not very well read in, but I'd like to learn more about it. In particular, I haven't done too much reading on art, and by chance I've been hearing lately of the general effort to blend psychoanalysis and philosophy to help create meaning. If you know anything about this, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Anyhow, welcome to our Goodreads group. I've been on the site a few years and I'm surprised how much I've liked it. Feel free to post as you like or start a thread if you don't see a topic you like.

And then, language is external to consciousness. If doubt is a concept requiring words to elucidate, there would be a problem.

I agree with Tom. Even though Rawls draws on many sources, I think this is one book whose discussions don't depend upon an in-depth knowledge of the previous philosophers. In fact, this book might be a good way to become more familiar with those earlier thinkers in the first place.

Frank wrote: "Do you mean, modern form, as opposed to the Cartesian idea that 'I think, therefore there must be at least the activity of thinking', Tyler?"

I didn't know that was the modern form. But an activity has to be an entity of some sort, so that's why I used the blunter "something."

Now I think I'm going to get in trouble with Hegel putting it that way. But in any case I hope it connects better with Hume and Kant.

Hi Tyler --

Well, I like the fake name, anyway.

Frank's article looks like an excellent way to show how philosophy relates to legal questions.

Because you're about to start law school, I recommend that you skip Plato and Aristotle and go straight to A Theory of Justice (1975). The book will be understandable and the political philosophy directly relevant to what you're getting into. You can pick up Plato and Aristotle along the way later.

Hi Philip --

Nothing could have totally prepared me for Being and Nothingness. I read the book three times over the years and got a little more each time. The book is now filled with highlighting and margin notes.

Fortunately, not all philosophy books are as hard as Kant, Hegel and Sartre.

Hi Tyler --

Where'd you get a name like that from?

Because you're going into law, I can recommend one book that's sure to capture your attention:

A Theory of Justice

Try to get the revised (1975) version. If you can handle law, you can handle the philosophical concepts in this book.

I agree with the original post. Nobody can just jump into Kant or Hegel and expect to get much out of it other than frustration.

Sometimes people study philosophy chronologically, but it can also be studied biographically, one philosopher at a time.

However, for beginning readers it is more important to start with general and introductory books about philosophy, then take on increasingly complex reading. There is no cut and dried path to this, so it's best to pick out whatever introductory book seems to suit your curiosity.

Hawking is brilliant, but he speaks from one realm of knowledge."

Yes. I don't think physics provides the proper tools for a philosophical critique.

Hi Philip --

Yes, this looks correct to me, but I'm not a Kant scholar.

Generally, the argument in its modern form is that consciousness by definition must be consciousness of something. Thus, Cogito Ergo Sum means, at best, that, "I think. Therefore, there must be something out there to think about."

Hi C.J. --

Welcome to the forum. I grew up in a religious atmosphere as well. Religion and philosophy used to be intertwined but went their separate ways during the Enlightenment. Actually, there is a philosophy of religion for people who like to explore the topic at a general or abstract level.

You're right that philosophy poses questions that don't have exact answers. We humans have a desire for certainty, but we also have a desire to examine our lives and minds.

***

To all our new members, please feel free to participate in the threads or start one of your own if you like. Around here the only dumb questions are the ones that go unasked.

Hi Susan --

Oh wow, yes that is a good question. With all the manuscripts from ancient times that have been lost, one really has to wonder how much better off we'd be today if that knowledge were preserved.

Hi --
Yes, I'm still around. Sorry I haven't posted much lately, but I hope that gives the rest of you a chance to get a word in!

I like Irrational Man as well. Some people benefit from a structured study of philosophy, but I think another good approach might be to read from the general to the specific and choose books accordingly.

You're right that insight doesn't come easily or by simply reading one or more of the classics. I'm afraid too many people are looking for instant insight, an experience I've certainly never had. I, too, see philosophy as a quest more than a discrete canon of famous works or thinkers. It's the journey as much as the destination that yields enlightenment.

Hi Jim --

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 2 represents a good early attempt to make sense of the interaction between the mind and its environment. Later authors have built upon it, and phenomenology concerns itself with much the same question.

Welcome to the group. I hope you find the discussions interesting.

Is "intuitionism" an interpretive thought of your own, or is there something in the text? For a first guess I'd say that it doesn't apply here.

Hegel had mentioned intuition in such a way that I could see he didn't want to go there. But "becoming" seemed sufficiently vague that I was wondering if some readers might take it as a stand-in for "intuiting." But after thinking about this further, I think the moments of a concept are sufficient to vouchsafe the movements within it, to prevent becoming from being ascribed to some external agency. However, because I'm not at that point in the Encyclopaedia Logic, I suspect Hegel will have more to say once he takes it up directly.


I did not locate your quotation on page 59.

My apologies. It was actually page 60, section 24, addition 2, last paragraph. I've re-read this because it deals with Hegelian truth, and I see part of what's going on. I take it that thought-determinations do refer to moments because of their negativity. But here Hegel is just getting at what you mentioned concerning concepts and forms. The distinction he's really making is between finite and infinite, and thought-determinations can take either form. That's the important point I now see. So right now I'm at the part where he's tracing out finite thought to show why it is inadequate for truth, although it has been standard in philosophy.

These translators' notes are pretty good, too, and it does appear that "sublation" means "suspension" for all intents and purposes. So I understand aufgehoben a bit better than when reading Phenomenology.

I'm still in the build-up to the Logic, but it's all good reading, especially the additions. I hope that even if I don't remember it all, this book will make the Logic itself much easier to take on when the time comes.

Hi Nathan --

On the first question, I'll have to find an example because this is a note I made to myself at the back of the book. I'll have to get back to you on that.

Actually, the second is the citation, but it comes from Encyclopaedia Logic, which I just started, during an explanation what truth properly entails, page 59 of the Geraets translation.

I was glossing over Hegel's use of "determination" in Phenomenology, and now this translation is introducing "thought-determination," which is becoming important in the discussion of truth. From what I'm understanding, Hegel is stressing that concept, not content, is the bearer of truth.

I've understood thought-determinations to refer to moments of a concept. So my question, I think, is whether Hegel is implying that the moments are sufficient to establish the truth of the overall concept.

Thanks also for explaining so much that's new to me. My whole purpose in getting into Hegel and the Continental side of philosophy is to extend my understanding of the subject. Hegel's idealism is turning out to be more interesting than I expected, but I'm having to think through many novel uses of ideas and terms.

I have a couple of questions.

Hegel associates the concept with a "becoming." But what prevents the "becoming" from being a kind of intuitionism?

Also, Hegel later says "...the Logic can also be expressed by saying that it considers how far the thought-determinations are capable of grasping what is true." Does "thought-determinations" refer to the moments of a concept? I'm not clear on the term.

Hi Garrett --

This is your quote:

Do to the previous question I have also thought about does the concept of nothing exist or does it defy its own definition thus making its concept false?

I wasn't sure I could figure out what you were trying to say, which is why I qualified my response with, "If I understand your post correctly ... ". I ordinarily understand the concept in question as "nothingness," not "nothing."

I simply could not make heads or tails of that sentence and should not have responded. My apologies.

Bob wrote: "Tyler wrote: "...I may go on to Science of Logic sooner rather than later. It looks like a monster, but based on what I've been reading in the reviews and over here, it appears that by reading Phe..."

Thanks, Bob. I didn't think about the EL, but that sounds like a great idea.

I've been getting more books that fall apart while I'm reading them, too. This is no doubt a Kindle conspiracy.