Introductions and General Comments

[Tyler]

I'm interested in Existentialism, too, so I enjoy following those discussions. There are no Bakunin threads yet, but there ought to be enough members who know something about his ideas. Anyone out there a Bakunin fan?

[Justin]

Hello I'm Justin I've always been a relatively quit person who tends to dwell in my own thoughts. always listing to others and trying to view any situation from as many diffrent view points as I can.

[Tyler]

Hi Justin, welcome. When it comes to different points of view, philosophy has them all. I like this because they're more than just opinion (doxa, as the Greeks called it) and involve some level of argumentation to be sound. I hope you'll find not just different points of view but also much better soundness to the views than you'd find on most forums.

[Robin]

Hi I'm Robin. I took Philosophy in college while getting my Associates in Early Childhood. I found the class fascinating because it was a new way of looking at things. I learned about Socrates, and his ideals. I haven't been reading up on any philosophy. I have my own personal philosophy be it ethical, morale, etc. I am not into religion but I do believe there is a God. Anyway, that is me in a nutshell.

[Tyler]

Hi Robin -- One of the attractions of philosophy is that learning about it does indeed help people develop their own personal philosophy, or life stance, as opposed to having it handed to them by others.

In early childhood education we tell the child what to think because she cannot yet think for herself. Our greatest problem as a society is that people are told what to think long after they're capable of thinking for themselves.

Welcome to the group -- I hope you'll enjoy the posts and add some yourself.

[Robin]

I sure will thanks Tyler.

[Lou]

Hey I'm Lou, new to this group today.

I first became interested in philosophy when I studied Alevel Sociology. I find Philosophy, psychology and sociology very interesting but feel I don't know enough about the subjects. Therefore I have joined this group.

I am very interested in what everyone has to say and look forward to learning alot from you all.

[Robin]

Hi Lou welcome to the group.

[Robin]

Hi Nanette. Don't know of any contemporary philosophers off hand.

[Robin]

Yes on a different thread. Thanks for joining you will be an invaluable asset to our group I can tell.

[Robin]

You are welcome.

[Tyler]

Hi Nanette --

Does anyone know of any current philosophers worth reading?"

This book is about 15 years old, but have you read Gilles Deleuze's What is Philosophy? It gave me a perspective on modern thinking about the philosophical enterprise, and I found it more readable than much of what's out there.

I'm not sure I understand Nietzsche that well, so I'll shortly be reading The Affirmation of Life, by Bernard Reginster. I hope to get a clearer understanding from it about Nietzsche's approach to nihilism.

[Tyler]

Hi Lou --

Welcome to the group ...

I find Philosophy, psychology and sociology very interesting but feel I don't know enough about these subjects."

You might be interested in discussions about the development of morality and ethics because this is an area in which all three of those disciplines have important points to make.

[Lou]

Hey Robin and Hey Tyler thanks for the welcome.

Thanks Tyler for the suggestion, I will definately look into that.

Do you have any suggestions on books and writers that would also be of interest.

Thanks.

[V]

Hello, I'm Veronica.

While I was studying literature, I had to take a class on Greek comedy in translation. We glanced at Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, but it was enough to pique my interest. And then Albert Camus came into my life.

My main interests regarding philosophy are probably absurdism and nominalism, but I'm open to discussing just about anything. I'd love to learn so much more about this subject.

[Tyler]

Hi Veronica --

Welcome to the group. You have good timing. It just happens that I was reading an article on Camus in Free Inquiry. The write-up focused on absurdism; the author was wanting to establish that had Camus lived, he may have emphasized art as a main response to absurdity. The contrast he drew between Camus and Sartre was thought provoking, too.

[Tyler]

Hi Lou --

Do you have any suggestions on books and writers that would also be of interest.

For books that straddle the border between sociology, psychology and philosophy, I recommend The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle, and The Unconsious Civilization, by John Ralston Saul. Does anyone know of any others?

[Robin]

Tyler, Do we need to read the Philosopher's Toolkit, or can we just get started reading Durant and other books that we are interested in, for a broad overview?

[Tyler]

There's no "required" reading here. The books I put up as "currently reading" are ones that have come up in recent discussions or make good basic reading, but they are suggestions only.

Matt's "Where to Start" thread has more suggestions, and if anyone knows a book they think would be a good introduction to philosophy, that would be a great place to mention it.

[Robin]

okay, I will be getting a few books from the library re: Philosophy authors, Will Durant, S. E. Frost, etc.

[Jimmy]

You won't regret starting with Frost and Durant, Robin. A survey helps you to learn some of the many great names in philosophy. You might also try the Norwegian book Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. There are many other survey books written all the time.

Then you can move on to specific philosophers. They are usually much harder to read.

[Robin]

I just got the S. E. Frost which goes back to the beginning with the first philosophers, I don't know about this one, but it does cover all the great thinkers of the time like Kant, Aristotle, just have started reading it, Thanks for the input, Jimmy.

[Tyler]

The book is Basic Teachings of the Great Philosphers -- I added it at top under "currently reading" so interested readers can click on it and see what it's about.

[Fellows]

Hi everyone. I'm also called Robin but to avoid confusion I shall be Fellows (work that one into your theory of reference!).

Just over a year ago I finished my BA in Philosophy. I tried very hard to be interested in epistemology but instead gravitated towards Sartre, ontology, rationality and relativism (Donald Davidson was a clever man) and German idealist metaphysics and aesthetics (particularly Schopenhauer). I found Kripke's Naming and Necessity a delight to read. If I had to recommend one book from my course, that would be it.

In the past year I changed pace and did an MA in Children's Literature. I had been wondering exactly what my friends studying English had been getting up to and sought out the most theoretical course I could find. Also, focusing my final Philosophy year on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer was getting me down to say the least! So my last year has been spent deconstructing Treasure Island, The Dark is Rising and numerous other favourites from my childhood.

But my interest in philosophy has not waned - and so, here I am.

[Tyler]

Hi Fellows (Robin) --

Welcome to the group, and thank you for your introduction. I have Naming and Necessity but I haven't read it. I started, but it seemed too technical (at least in his intro) and I wondered if I first needed to learn more about Frege or symbolic logic. Because you recommend it, I wonder if I should take another shot at it soon. What do you think?

I like Sartre and think of my own outlook as existential. At the moment, though, I'm reading The Affirmation of Life, Bernard Reginster's interpretation of Nietzsche's ethics, so that I can get a better understanding of that philosopher. Reginster's emphasis is on the connections and contrasts between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

My gosh, how do you deconstruct literature, especially something like Treasure Island? Maybe you can give us some good insights into the books in the literature thread.

Anyway, welcome again, and post on any topic you like or feel free to start one on any subject. Many threads are general, such as the latest one about Hawking's dismissal of philosophy, and some are more technical. I hope you enjoy the discussions and can add to them.

[Fellows]

Hi Tyler, thank you for your kind welcome.

From memory the preface of Naming and Necessity is quite technical. Some of it is background which couches Kripke's work as a belated reply to Frege but that's not really necessary to the book (unless you like Frege). There's not much symbolic logic in it from memory, but I'd have to check to be sure. I would recommend Lectures I and II :-) Really informed my views of possible worlds / ideas of reference.

I really got on with Sartre. Being and Nothingness seemed very intuitive to me, particularly bad faith, responsibility and the Other. Mmmm! Yes, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer! Definitely interesting connections. If you're interested in Nietzsche and Schopenhauer's aesthetics (and the links between) do check out Nietzsche's Philosophy of Art by Julian Young. It's a very compelling account, as is Young's book on Schopenhauer (though I have concerns about Young's reading of the Will in the latter).

Treasure Island was one of my favourite seminars. Though telling you 'how' we did it is difficult, at least in a sensibly sized paragraph. Perhaps if there is any interest I might create a thread about it - though not strictly philosophy it is philosophical. The thing which I came to understand throughout the course is that the kind of 'criticism' we were doing was not an attempt to uncover the meaning of a text, but to construct a reading. There was no loyalty to what might be implied by the genre of the text, or what appeared to be the theme of the story, but an examination of the language used and the constructions of concepts which can be arrived at by following this language. I do not know if deconstruction is taught similarly elsewhere but what we were doing felt like 'applied philosophy of language'. Very exciting :-)

Thanks again for the welcome!

[Tyler]

In that case, I think I'll give Naming and Necessity another try. You're right, it was the first few pages that baffled me, and I really need to learn more about reference.


... the kind of 'criticism' we were doing was not an attempt to uncover the meaning of a text, but to construct a reading.

Yes, that was what I didn't know. Thanks for explaining a little how it's done.

[Cindy]

Hey gang --

I'm relatively new to Goodreads (since late summer), and have been interested in Philosophy for a few years now. I've been doing some general reading, and I frequently wonder whether I'm too literal-minded to "get" much of it. I've been accused by friends of "overthinking" things -- making things more complicated than they are. I feel if I can read others' thoughts and maybe ask some questions, I'll start understanding what I'm reading.

[Tyler]

Hi Fellows --

Just to update you, I did finally read Naming and Necessity and it was a great book, just as you said.

[Tyler]

Hi Cindy --

Welcome to the group. If you're doing even general reading about philosophy, you're already involved in "doing" philosophy and I'm glad to hear it.

The literal-mindedness you mention often separates concrete-bound thinking from abstract thought. Philosophy involves moving from literal, concrete thinking to more abstract notions of how it all fits together in one big picture. But people learn to do this a little at a time, not in giant leaps, so thinking philosophically is a process that you get better and better at.

To see if you're "overthinking" a problem (which I doubt), I encourage you to venture your thoughts on some of the topics you see or start a topic of your own, if you like. Again, welcome to our group, and I hope you find it helpful.

[Fellows]

Welcome Cindy :-) I've just joined too (this group and Goodreads). What kind of things are you interested in?

And very glad to hear that you enjoyed Naming and Necessity, Tyler. "Possible worlds are stipulated, not discovered by powerful telescopes"! That book coloured a lot of my thinking about literature, the existence of characters for example.

[Cindy]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Cindy --

Welcome to the group. If you're doing even general reading about philosophy, you're already involved in "doing" philosophy and I'm glad to hear it.

The literal-mindedness you mention often separates concrete-bound thinking from abstract thought. ..."

You're not the first person to tell me I'm a "concrete" rather than an "abstract". A friend of mine points that out on a regular basis. And it's not just philosophy where this gets me into trouble. I'm a movie freak, but sometimes I feel like I'm missing something because people seem to get meaning out of films that I don't see. Ditto for the books I read. Reviews will tell me that the book is a metaphor or allegory for something else, and I just go "Okay, if you say so." That's why I'm interested in this group. Seeing how others see things will likely trigger thought processes that I haven't accessed before.

Thanks for the welcome! :)

[Aloha]

Hi, excuse my copying and pasting, with slight modifications, but I just joined the Science and Inquiry group on my search for a good Philosophy group.

As a kid, I read a lot on biology, genetics, in particular abnormal genetics, psychology (interested in abnormal and research into what makes people tic or become aberrant), the Holocaust, the Arts, and fairy tales. I also owned a nice comics collection of horror, Tarzan, Marvel comics and Disney, before it was thrown away by my mom. I attended college on early admission, one semester of pre-med, switched to Engineering. I just started focusing on Electrical when I switched to Fine Arts. I ended up with an MFA in painting.

I am mostly interested in Science and Physics as it relates to the metaphysical and philosophical aspects. I do find scientific and technological possibilities fascinating. That's why I like SciFi. As an offshoot of my interest in psychology, and the hidden and multi-dimensional nature of the world and the mind, I am very interested in Philosophy.

What is mind? Does it matter?
What is matter? Never mind.
This basically sums up my philosophy. :o)

Currently, I read everything, mostly Literature, Horror, SciFi, Fantasy, and some non-fiction.

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "Hi, excuse my copying and pasting, with slight modifications, but I just joined the Science and Inquiry group on my search for a good Philosophy group.

As a kid, I read a lot on biology, genetics,..."

Greeetings Aloha. I'm sure you will like the group. Many interesting discussions and debates.

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Robin -- One of the attractions of philosophy is that learning about it does indeed help people develop their own personal philosophy, or life stance, as opposed to having it handed to them by o..."

Interesting, Tyler. I think, in general, that is probably true...or should be true. In actual experience (my own and those with whom I am familiar), it often seems to fall short of helping one develop their own philosophy. Rather, the lover of philosophy reads so many different perspectives, each of which have compelling points and not so compelling points, that they end up primarily with unanswered questions.

Many lovers of philosophy (myself included) seem much more enamored of good questions, than they are of answers. In fact, they often seem distrustful of answers. And so, their "personal life philosophies" often end at a place of wondering about things in a much more sophisticated way.

At least that's the way it seems to me.

[Aloha]

Thanks, Robert. I'm sure I would like the group, as long as we don't start throwing eggs at each other. You know how philosophers can get!

[Aloha]

I'm with Robert in that instead of having a philosophy make me, what I do is take pieces from different areas that I agree with.

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "Thanks, Robert. I'm sure I would like the group, as long as we don't start throwing eggs at each other. You know how philosophers can get!"

Oh trust me...there are some eggs thrown in here. But Tyler does a good job of making sure that it does not become excessive.

[CK]

I concur with Robert on the avoidance of answers. The older I get, I am much less certain of things I once knew and much more likely to observe and learn.

[Aloha]

I would be one of the people who would agree with that since I like learning about the metaphysical. If anybody had looked at the topics dealing with the metaphysical, in science, physics and biology, that there are many occurrences that cannot be measured within the known quantity.

[Aloha]

Thanks, Bill. That was hilarious. I haven't seen that segment in a while. I love Monty Python.

[Aloha]

I barely made a dent in some of the topics. There's a lot of interesting discussions. I'm going to have to spend some time reading.

[Tyler]

Hi Aloha, and welcome. Robert's right -- we don't throw eggs excessively here. If we did, we wouldn't be thinking in a philosophical spirit, and it's that quality that sets us apart.

Since you're a fan of SciFi you know that if technology and science advance enough it will raise philosophical questions about personal identity and even transhumanism. Many thought experiments in philosophy deal with this; the study of the mind is a major philosophical topic as well as a scientific one. The field is in flux.

One book that takes up the mind and personal identity from a philosophical angle is The Constitution of Selves. I liked it and you might be interested in the author's approach to the question of identity.

[Aloha]

Thanks, Tyler. I put it in my to-read. I did a search for the monthly read books, and I have a feeling that it's going to require extra book bucks and search to find these obscure books. Not too many philosophers in the world, eh?

[Tyler]

With philosophy books I've found that I almost always order them online, usually through a used book dealer. The ones that are used by college professors are extremely expensive. I've been using Barnes & Nobles' site with pretty good success.

[Rob the Obscure]

Or, if you are in a large enough city, the library is a good choice.

[Aloha]

Thanks. I was searching Amazon, my main place to shop. I'll do an online scan of libraries around here. I have 5 libraries available to me. I live in the condensed New England area, and it's a hop to the next towns.

[Aloha]

I decided to start with Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. First, because it's easily available as an eBook, and I'm a big eBook person. Second, relativism and constructivism are interesting topics to me. Constructivism because I believe one of the primary reasons we are here is to learn, and I'm very interested in the learning process. Relativism is a heated topic, especially in regards to morality and religion.

[Tyler]

I read that book recently. I like it; I can recommend it.

[Aloha]

Thanks, Tyler. I finished two books over the weekend, so I'm going to start on this one.