Introductions and General Comments

[Damian]

Howdy

I joined goodreads when procrastinating on an essay i was doing on islam and women.

I joined this group as i am doing philosophy at university at the moment as a mature student. Like the original poster, i think you learn a subject better when you actually discuss it.

At the moment my reading is confined mainly to books relating to my impending exams which are bertrand russell's the problems of philosophy and AJ Ayers, language truth and logic. Im also trying to learn logic at the momnet which is a must given i wish to progress into honours.

I am finding this side of the course (epistemology) very interesting though it is way outside my comfort zone which is mainly political philosophy. Not because i've read tons of that subject matter, more down to me being a leftie of sorts most of my life, and thus have enaged in a fair few debates on all stuff politics.

The other subject ive taken is religious studies, im particularly interested in mysticism, and whether it can provide a means to us discverig more about this universe alongwith rationalism and empiricism.

Another thing im interested in is learning about whether christian discourse still has a part to play in we see the world and in particular in our morality in this secular context. I need to read some stirner and nietzche when i get the chance!!!

I am maybe going to do my dissartation on whether left wing marxist derived language and actions is of a religious nature, i think though such an investigation will take me more down the direction of psychology rather than religious studies or philosophy.

anyway computer is being slow so ill spare yous of more of my ramblings :)

[Aloha]

Welcome, Damian! That'd be an interesting dissertation, left wing Marxism of a religious nature. I'm here to learn myself. Either you're the student or the teacher. Who declares he's the teacher here? I dare you. :o)

[Damian]

if the subject changes direction towards scottish football then i might be able to claim some epistemic authority, otherwise im definately in the student camp!

As for the dissartation, its been inspired through my interactions with local left wing paper sellers who it appears have managed to analyise the current events and where events are leading us with the same degree of certainty that i have found from jehovahs witnesses selling me the watchtower.

That said, how much of this is owed to marx himself is an open question, and thus i think any investigations will likely lead us down a psychology route.

Nevertheless, when there is the mention of scientific derived laws of history it does seem to parallel judeo-christian ideas of us starting in eden, without alienation, falling, and working our way through various oppressions towards towards God again in the messianic era with the lion lying down with the sheep.

That could be a superficial observation on my part though, and/or such attitudes surrounding marx may be down to crudely misreading his writings, - i guess ill be able to look at more of this when i get to that level in studies. I just wish that marx wasn't so hard to read :(

this stuff is the perfect stuff to study in the middle of a recession, im sure it will improve my employment prospects no end!!!

[Rob the Obscure]

Damian wrote: "The other subject ive taken is religious studies, im particularly interested in mysticism, and whether it can provide a means to us discverig more about this universe alongwith rationalism and empiricism..."

Mysticism (within the major world religions) has its own unique take on epistemology. Its basic position is that our knowledge is direct and intuitive, rather than analytical.

Here's the thing about mysticism as a way of "discovering more about the universe". Reading about it will lead nowhere toward that goal. Practice is the only way.

[Aloha]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. When you start thinking about it too much, it gets tied down. But it doesn't mean you should throw away the analytical part. It just means that there are times to be analytical and times to be intuitive.

Robert wrote: "Mysticism (within the major world religions) has its own unique take on epistemology. Its basic position is that our knowledge is direct and intuitive, rather than analytical.

Here's the thing about mysticism as a way of "discovering more about the universe". Reading about it will lead nowhere toward that goal. Practice is the only way. "

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "I wholeheartedly agree with that. When you start thinking about it too much, it gets tied down. But it doesn't mean you should throw away the analytical part. It just means that there are times ..."

True, Aloha. But for the mystic, the time to be analytical is NOT when one is contemplating the ultimate questions (smile). Dat be da difference.

[Aloha]

Agree! But you wouldn't believe it when you've been on some of the sites with discussions on the religious/metaphysical/mystical. And some of the tomes! Geesh!

So...what does an online discussion site for a bunch of mystics look like?

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "Agree! But you wouldn't believe it when you've been on some of the sites with discussions on the religious/metaphysical/mystical. And some of the tomes! Geesh!

So...what does an online discussi..."

I'll say only this: there's a difference between people who read about and discuss mysticism, and those who are truly mystics.

I don't know what an online discussion with true mystics discussing mysticism would look like. Probably a lot like the stories of the desert fathers, or maybe the writings of Thomas Merton (some of them), or D.T. Suzuki, or Thich Nat Hanh.

[Aloha]

Or the better question would be, what is an online discussion site of true mystics not discussing mysticism like?

Okay, okay, I'll go wash my bowl...lol

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "Or the better question would be, what is an online discussion site of true mystics not discussing mysticism like?

Okay, okay, I'll go wash my bowl...lol"

Let's just put it this way: going to the online discussion will not be a time-consuming endeavor

[Rob the Obscure]

Bill wrote: "OOOOMMMMMMM"

If you wish...

[Aloha]

I could do some drumming with that. Okay, back to reading Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism while cooking dinner. Who'd thought there'd be so much logic applied to a philosophical book?

[Rob the Obscure]

Aloha wrote: "I could do some drumming with that. Okay, back to reading Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism while cooking dinner. Who'd thought there'd be so much logic appli..."

What's for dinner?

[Aloha]

When I am sick, I eat chicken soup. I'm sick. Therefore, I am having chicken soup.

I've been eating chicken soup whenever I am sick. Therefore, when I'm sick, I eat chicken soup.

When I'm sick, I eat chicken soup. I am sick, therefore, I'm probably having chicken soup.

Robert wrote: "What's for dinner? "

[Aloha]

It reminds me of the calming effect of watching a music box. I used to practice T'ai-Chi. It's great doing it with a whole bunch of people.

Bill wrote: "Regarding mysticism. Isn't this awesome?

I'm serious. This practice mimics the cosmos long before science discovered that everything does this."

[Rob the Obscure]

Bill wrote: "Regarding mysticism. Isn't this awesome? "

Very! The dervishes are wonderful. They are (I'm sure you know) followers of Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam. Similar to many Christian monastic orders, they are extremely ascetic, following a spirituality of poverty and contemplation.

[Aloha]

I'm sure you've read the wonderful poems of Rumi. Rumi was on his way to becoming a scholar until he met the dervish, Shams of Tabriz.

[Aloha]

3/4 through Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. This book is not for people who have not taken a Logic course. I was able to understand it because I studied logic, but I would not recommend it to my friends who wants philosophy for laymen.

[Damian]

Robert wrote: "Aloha wrote: "I wholeheartedly agree with that. When you start thinking about it too much, it gets tied down. But it doesn't mean you should throw away the analytical part. It just means that th..."

i think apothatic theology has an analyitic component to it whereby one posits attributes of God and negates it progressily to the point whereby rationality ceases to function and is, indeed, an impediment to realisation of the truth (which owes a helluva lot to plotinus)

[Damian]

Robert wrote: "Aloha wrote: "Agree! But you wouldn't believe it when you've been on some of the sites with discussions on the religious/metaphysical/mystical. And some of the tomes! Geesh!

So...what does an..."

i could post an essay i did on how academia deals with mysticism on here if anybodys interested. be fun to see it getting ripped to shreds too haha

a lot of how academics have come to study mysticism has been through the work of william james "the varities of religious experience"

[Damian]

psuedo-dionysus negative theology is a great read! (and short too which is always good)

[Rob the Obscure]

Pseudo-Dionysius (aka Pseudo-Denys, and Denys the Aeropagite) was an eastern rite teacher, and as Damian points out, one of the primary proponents (Maximums the Confessor was another) of a theology known as "Via Negativa". This is generally a mystical approach to spirituality by discerning primarily what the divine is NOT, vs. what the divine IS.

To say what God IS is thought to be, by definition, limiting. So, when you think about what God is NOT, you are left with divine mystery which, in this way of seeing things, is much closer to the truth.

The spiritual classic "The Cloud Of Unknowing" (authorship anonymous) drew heavily on the work of Denys.

In Christian theology, the tradition is referred to as "Apophatic" (as Damian referenced above), which is essentially means "is not".

[Julian]

If I may, it is important to clarify the distinction between mainstream Christian mysticism and what is now thought of as mysticism. Medieval Christian mysticism is an attempt by the individual to attain direct contact with the divine, indeed to be subsumed within the divine, as opposed to the more indirect relationship of Lord and supplicant of orthodoxy.

This is very different from the rather vague anti-intellectualism that has, in the last half-century, been labelled as mysticism. Indeed, far from getting in touch with yourself, the purpose is to abolish the self, but one of the principal tools in doing so (particularly in the view of Eckhart, the greatest of the mystical theologians) is the intellect. Also, medieval mysticism is very much rooted in the world (unlike the modern variety): when one has achieved union with the Divine, one 'lives without a why', acting justly as God dictates.

This isn't surprising, as mysticism largely comes from a collision of neo-Platonism with Christianity, and in neo-Platonic thought the Intellect comes only just below the One, and is the prime route to achieving union with the One. Certainly Apophatic originates with the neo-Platonists. But Eckhart and others supplemented it with a bold and original constructive route to the Godhead, using, amongst other things, carefully chosen paradox, which allows him to define God as the negation of negation.

Thus, for example, as the only property that can be predicated of God is unity, God must be all. But then the existence of all means that there is a concept of 'nothing', which is the negation of God. But God cannot be negated, by virtue of being unity. Therefore God is simultaneously all and nothing. And, according to Eckhart, it is out of understanding of this paradox that one can open up the route to God.

So, my mystical reading list would include: the works of Plotinus, Mechthild von Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete and (of course) Meister Eckhart. All these are easily available from Amazon.

[Julian]

Following which, hello. My name is Julian and I am an armchair philosopher. My principle interest is epistemology, though I am also interested in philosophy of language and political philosophy.

In epistemology, I suppose I started as a follower of Quine, but soon concluded that his rigid extensionality was too limited to achieve a workable theory of knowledge. Interestingly the clues are present in his own work on translation, which shows that the realist epistemology that is so depressingly popular nowadays is simply untenable.

So, I am interested in areas such as barriers to communication that are systemic in that it is impossible to breach them: translation will never be possible. Also anatomising how we achieve our consensus view of what 'reality' (if it exists) consists of.

I'm also very interested in how this applies to theology, specifically (as you may have guessed from above) Christian mystical theology.

[Rob the Obscure]

Julian,

Thanks for your contribution. I might offer that you are making some fairly sweeping generalizations (medieval mysticism, modern mysticism, etc.). There are notable differences, for example, in "modern mysticism" - especially that of the last 50 or so years. Reading Merton, for example, and D.T. Suzuki, or Thich Nat Hanh is a very different thing than reading Carlos Castenada, or the myriad new age dreamers that are writing today. Best to be pretty tight in what you are referencing...at least for me.

Christian mysticism provides an epistemology that is problematic from a philosophical standpoint. In a sentence, it is difficult to rationally analyze the usefulness of an epistemology that is based on direct, intuitive understanding of Reality.

[Julian]

Given the astounding generalisation in your final paragraph, I feel that you are scarcely in a position to cast stones.

[Rob the Obscure]

Julian wrote: "Given the astounding generalisation in your final paragraph, I feel that you are scarcely in a position to cast stones."

I didn't see what I said as "casting stones". Just an observation.

I'm not interested in being combative. It sounds like you are. Which is fine, just not with me.

As far as my final statement, I overtly said it was a summary in one sentence. If you feel it is inaccurate, show me how.

Otherwise, we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[Damian]

Has anybody read Jantzens Power, Gender, and Christian Mysticism?

It gives a really good overview about how the concept of what constitutes mysticism has changed throughout the times...

[Nemo]

Hello, I'm Nemo. I just realized that I had started a thread in this group without introducing myself first. So here it is.

I'm a beginner in Philosophy and only started reading Plato last year. Since western philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato, I figured it would be best to start at the source, and work my way down. Now I'm just finishing up Plato's Laws and ready to move on to Aristotle. It might take a while to catch up to the 21th century.

Question: Which book by Aristotle would you recommend for a beginner?

[Rob the Obscure]

Nemo, did a professor tell you that western philosophy is nothing but a "series of footnotes to Plato"? Others may disagree, but I would say that is more than a bit reductionistic.

[Jimmy]

It was the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who made that quote. A more accurate quote would have been "the Judeo-Christian heritage is only a series of footnotes to Plato." Not every philosopher fits into that tradition.

[Rob the Obscure]

Jimmy wrote: "It was the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who made that quote. A more accurate quote would have been "the Judeo-Christian heritage is only a series of footnotes to Plato." Not every philosopher..."

Precisely! That would have been a much better quote and, I think, a great deal more accurate, as you say.

Yes, now that you mention it I recall reading that quote by Al.

[Rob the Obscure]

Patrice wrote: "Superstitions rule. Western thought is more than religious thought. Are you saying that Plato had nothing to do with the laws of logic? Politics?..."

You are stretching way too far in your interpretation of my comments. No one is selling P. short. To do so would be stupid, not to mention intellectual suicide.

I am saying that the other end is also true - to say that all of western philosophy is only a footnote to him is to completely ignore the myriad of directions in which philosophy has gone, in many cases leaving Plato way behind, in others directly disagreeing with him. That's all.

Superstitions often rule - I would agree. And I would place this whole idea of a realm of perfect forms and ideas somewhere within that category.

[Nemo]

Patrice wrote: "Yes, Plato's influence has certainly come down to us through religion. But don't sell him short. He was the beginning of science as well.
His spirit of inquiry, his search for the universal, is t..."

Agreed.

I see that you've read both Plato and Aristotle. How would you compare Aristotle's Politics to Plato's Republic?

I'm looking for a good entry into Aristotle. I picked up one of his books in a bookstore the other day, but couldn't get past the first page. Not sure whether it was the translation, or his writing style, or just me.

[Nemo]

Patrice wrote: "You just made me laugh Nemo. When I was l8 and a freshman in college, I entered my first philosophy class and was told to read the Nichomecean (sp?) Ethics. It was a tiny little book, with tiny l..."

You made me laugh too. :) Which translation of Nicomachean Ethics did the prof use for your great books program?

[Nemo]

I couldn't find the Prentice Hall edition in our library, so got the one from Penguin Classics instead. Judging by what I've read so far, I think Nicomachean Ethics is relatively easy to follow, and provides a good segue from Plato's Laws to Aristotle's Politics. Anyone interested in a group read?

[Nemo]

Patrice wrote: "Sorry, I'm swamped in War and Peace."

Now you know what happens after page 100? :) There's a healthy dose of philosophy in the epilogue. Enjoy.

[Aloha]

Welcome, Rob!

[Aloha]

I didn't finish the book. It was getting a bit silly for me. I'll try the ones you recommended. Thanks! I notice that you've read Torture and Democracy. That looks like a very interesting book. I'm going to get it.

[Tyler]

Welcome, Rob. I read Deleuze's What Is Philosophy? some time ago. How did you like it?

Edit: Oh, I just saw your recommendation on the other thread.

[Adam]

I was introduced to philosophy by a friend, via Ayn Rand (I know, I know, collective groan). I now have a master's degree in philosophy. I'm mostly interested in metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics.

[Tyler]

Hi Adam --

Welcome to the group. I've read Ayn Rand's philosophy, too, and I began reading philosophy partly to get a broader understanding of some of the issues raised by the Objectivists. It was an interesting process.

Anyway, feel free to comment on any of the threads (there are a couple already on metaphysics and epistemology) or start one of your own. I'd like to find out more about what the philosophy of mathematics entails because I've read so little in that area.

Again, welcome.

[[deleted user]]

I'm not sure when I became interested in philosophy. I was probably about 16 when I started seriously engaging with it, but I'd always tended towards that kind of thinking.

I'm interested in analytic philosophy, and within analytic philosophy, primarily philosophy of mind and philosophy of science.

I didn't do philosophy at A-level (it wasn't available at my school) but I went on to study it at university... unfortunately, after only one semester (which I thoroughly enjoyed), I had to come back home because I'd developed severe panic disorder. I intend to resume my studies in 2012.

Leaving the academic environment hasn't dimished my love of the subject. I still read philosophy all the time.

[Tyler]

Hi Zoot --

Welcome to the group. I hope you'll be able to pick up with your studies next year.

[Phillip]

Came to philosophy through sociology (primarily the Frankfurt School and various postmodern critiques). Wrote my thesis on Habermas. Eventually dropped out of my Ph.D. program. Dream of one day returning to finish up.
My interest revolve around issues of social theory. Drawn to Continental Philosophy. Still maintain the critical theory assumption that all our theorizing is about changing the world we live in.

[Tyler]

Hi P.D. --

Welcome to the group. What I've been reading lately in Continental Philosophy (Zizek) employs lots of psychoanalytic reasoning. Have you read much of it? Do you find that a fruitful avenue for philosophy?

[Phillip]

I've read a bit. As a social theorist I find it helpful in dealing with the tough social and political questions we face in everyday life. Elements I routinely return in my reasoning includes Heidegger on caring, Derrida on justice (I guess even the most grounded philosopher needs some concept of the meta), Foucault structuralism/post-structuralism, Marcuse on administration, Lyotard on meta-narratives, and Habermas on communicative actions.
I find it very helpful to have a philosophical foundation for how I view the world and the society/polity I live in. The same holds true for anything I write.

[Tyler]

I've read Marcuse in One-dimensional Man. I have to say I found it quite useful (and somewhat disturbing) to my own understanding of the political and social structure of modern societies.

[Phillip]

It's a wonderful book. A lot of people read the ending and thought that Marcuse had all but given up on advance industrial (and now I guess we should include post-industrial) countries. Yet when Jürgen Habermas tried to explain this, after Marcuse's death, he noted that Marcuse “claimed negation to be the very essence of thinking…but the driving force of criticism, of contradiction and contest carried him well beyond the limits of accusation…He did not hesitate to advocate, in an affirmative mood, the fulfillment of human needs, of the need for undeserved happiness, of the need for beauty, of the need for peace, calm, and privacy…with him negative thinking retained the dialectic trust in determinate negation, in the disclosure of positive alternatives.” Habermas felt that “in all his activities he (Marcuse) was ‘life affirming.’”
That's the thing to remember. Critical theory as Horkheimer stated when he first define critical theory, was not just about describing the world we live in but changing it. That means there will be disappointments. However, in the effort to change the world, to advocate for a better way, there is always hope and an affirmation of the human spirit.

[Tyler]

Yes, after reading the book I couldn't see what could really be done about the situation he describes, mainly because society is so atomized. But if change is possible, I've come to agree that it must entail a negative confrontation with reality as part of any process leading to more positive outcome. I still need to read Eros and Civilization, too.