Philosophy books?

[B-side]

I got over halfway through Beyond Good and Evil before it had to go back. I'm going to be buying Thus Spoke Zarathustra. So, basically, I've got Nietzsche covered. What books do you suggest as good for introductions to other philosophers? Sartre? Kierkegaard? Marx? Zizek? Various others?

[dreamdead]

Definitely check out Marx
Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison
Søren Kierkegaard's Works of Love

and to challenge some of those notions explored there...
Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God

[Melville]

Plato - pretty much every philosopher since Plato has been influenced by him, so it's important to be at least moderately familiar with his ideas, particularly the idea of a Platonic Form. All the things I read by him kind of melted together in my mind, so I can't recommend anything in particular. He's very readable. Wikipedia can probably tell you which of his dialogues to start with.

Kant - Kant was probably the most influential philosopher after Plato, so you should be familiar with some of his basic ideas in order to understand later philosophers. His fundamental view of human existence (transcendental idealism) is introduced in The Critique of Pure Reason. The book is long and dense, but I think reading just the first few sections would suffice. His basic idea in ethics (the categorical imperative) is covered in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, which is pretty short.

Nietzsche - I recommend finishing Beyond Good and Evil, or reading Genealogy of Morals, before reading Thus Spake Zarathustra. Zarathustra makes a lot more sense once you understand the underlying ideas.

Sartre - I'd go straight to Being and Nothingness. It's very long, so you might want to pick out just a few parts to read. But definitely read the section "Concrete relations with others", which contains a brilliant existential description of human relationships. The lecture Existentialism is a Humanism is often used as an introduction, but I've heard that its simplifications are somewhat misleading, and Sartre himself renounced it. (I haven't read it.) You could also start with his novel Nausea, which is terrific. But its meanings can easily be misconstrued if you haven't read Being and Nothingness. If you do read Nausea, then skip the introduction by Hayden Carruth, which is very misleading.

Kierkegaard - The Sickness Unto Death is a terrific analysis of despair, though with a Christian slant. Fear and Trembling is a good introduction to Kierkegaard's thoughts on faith.
Either/Or is a good introduction to his thoughts on romantic love (and irony, aestheticism, morality, and other stuff), though it's long.

Marx - the first 70 or so pages of The German Ideology contain a great overview of Marx's metaphysics—dialectical materialism—and how it relates to his political and economic philosophy. The Communist Manifesto is readable and brief, but I don't recall it containing much philosophy.

Heidegger - Being and Time: the best philosophy book I've read; a sprawling, brilliant analysis of what it means to exist as a human being. But it's very long and dense. Introduction to Metaphysics is a good intro to some of Heidegger's ideas, with some really good stuff about language, and it covers a lot of ground in its analysis of Greek philosophy. But you might want to first read some of the Greek stuff that he's commenting on.

Dostoevsky - not a straight-up philosopher, but his books are as profound as they come. Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and especially The Brothers Karamazov are painfully insightful descriptions of human existence. Notes form Underground is really short, and the first half is almost all philosophizing (though the second half brilliantly shows the failings of the ideas presented in the first half).

Buddhism - I remember you mentioning that you're Buddhist. I don't know how much you've read, but I recommend The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha for an overview of both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhist Wisdom, which contains the Diamond and Heart sutras along with commentary, is a good exposition of Mayahana Buddhism. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way is a great explication of the underlying metaphysics of Mayahana Buddhism, but you definitely need to read it with some commentary, because it's extremely abstruse.


The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) has good overviews of various philosophers. Since each philosopher typically builds off of earlier ideas, you might want to refer to a resource like that to understand what Nietzsche, say, is criticizing.

[B-side]

Wow. Thank you very much, Melville. I really appreciate it.

You as well, dreamdead.

[B-side]

I decided to hold off on Thus Spoke Zarathustra based on your recommendation, Melville, and instead nabbed The Antichrist. Seemed fairly self-explanatory.

[lovejuice]

Plato...
Kant...
Nietzsche...
Sartre...
Kierkegaard...
Marx...
Heidegger...
Dostoevsky...
Buddhism...
did you intentionally leave out Hegel? :P
and i will add Freud. It's good (and fun) to familiarize yourself with different minor branches of philosophy like psychoanalysis, structuralism, semiotics. to see which "tick" you most.

[Melville]

I decided to hold off on Thus Spoke Zarathustra based on your recommendation, Melville, and instead nabbed The Antichrist. Seemed fairly self-explanatory.
I don't remember much about The Antichrist, but most of Nietzsche's late-period books largely reiterate the same ideas in different ways, so it should serve well enough to solidify whatever you got from Beyond Good and Evil. The edition I read came with Twilight of the Idols as well, which contains the best description of Nietzsche's philosophy: "philosophizing with a hammer." Does your edition have both books?


did you intentionally leave out Hegel? :P
Yeah, I haven't finished a single book by Hegel, so I'm not qualified to recommend a good introductory one.


As an alternative to dreamdead's recommendation for an intro to Foucault, I'll recommend the short essay "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History," which can be downloaded here (http://www.mediafire.com/?2wkmnw5jd3k). In the essay, Foucault basically outlines his approach to history; understanding that overarching approach clarifies what he was trying to accomplish in his books (which are mostly analyses of historical trends in things like sexuality, punishment, and "mental health").

[Spaceman Spiff]

Cool thread.

I've been meaning to read more philosohpy, but I must say that I'm a tad philosophically challenged, and try as I might I find the few texts I have read difficult.

Melville, you seem to know your philo onions. Recommend me a great low-intensity text.

[Melville]

Melville, you seem to know your philo onions. Recommend me a great low-intensity text.
What kind of philosophy are you interested in?

Plato is very readable, high-quality, covers a lot of topics, and introduces many of the issues that reappear throughout the history of philosophy. But I can't recommend a particular text.

A book I recently read, Bergson's Time and Free Will, has some good stuff to say about human experience of time (though it has a lot of silly stuff to say too), and it's an easy read.

Nietzsche is very readable and a great writer, though I don't agree with much of what he says. I'd recommend Beyond Good and Evil to start.

A lot of the 20th century analytic philosophers use purposely simple language, since they are reacting against the obscurantism of people like Hegel. For analytic philosophy, you could try Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic, or Wittgenstein's On Certainty, which are both good. But analytic philosophers focus a lot on the details of systems of language and logic, so they can be somewhat dry.

A lot of Eastern philosophy is also very readable. The book of Chuang Tzu (a Taoist book) is both funny and interesting.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What kind of philosophy are you interested in?

Plato is very readable, high-quality, covers a lot of topics, and introduces many of the issues that reappear throughout the history of philosophy. But I can't recommend a particular text.

A book I recently read, Bergson's Time and Free Will, has some good stuff to say about human experience of time (though it has a lot of silly stuff to say too), and it's an easy read.

Nietzsche is very readable and a great writer, though I don't agree with much of what he says. I'd recommend Beyond Good and Evil to start.

A lot of the 20th century analytic philosophers use purposely simple language, since they are reacting against the obscurantism of people like Hegel. For analytic philosophy, you could try Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic, or Wittgenstein's On Certainty, which are both good. But analytic philosophers focus a lot on the details of systems of language and logic, so they can be somewhat dry.

A lot of Eastern philosophy is also very readable. The book of Chuang Tzu (a Taoist book) is both funny and interesting.

1: Mostly Western in fairness, but that's because I have a rough idea about some of it.
2: I have Nietzsche's book lying around somewhere, I think.
3: Thanks, that's kind of what I wanted to know. Agreed that 'logic' systems is quite boring.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I also like all the fire and brimstone stuff. Angry armchair philosophers who are telling me how it is with passion and fervor rather than wistful and contemplative pontification.

[Melville]

I also like all the fire and brimstone stuff. Angry armchair philosophers who are telling me how it is with passion and fervor rather than wistful and contemplative pontification.
Nietzsche is definitely your man. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his most fiery, and you can read and enjoy its soaring, raving prose without having read anything else by him. But if you haven't read anything else by him, then the ideas don't really come through the raving. So I recommend Beyond Good and Evil followed by Zarathustra.

Emerson is also great for bombastic philosophy. You can get a collection of his essays.

If you haven't read it yet, definitely read Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.

Kierkegaard is also good for that kind of stuff, though his writing can be a bit more difficult.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Love Dostoevsky and Notes From Underground. I've also read some of Fear and Trembling, and it was quite good but definitely something I have to play real close attention to.

[B-side]

I don't remember much about The Antichrist, but most of Nietzsche's late-period books largely reiterate the same ideas in different ways, so it should serve well enough to solidify whatever you got from Beyond Good and Evil. The edition I read came with Twilight of the Idols as well, which contains the best description of Nietzsche's philosophy: "philosophizing with a hammer." Does your edition have both books?

It doesn't. But it's a rather personal subject for me, and since you recommended I become a bit more familiar with Nietzsche before diving into Zarathustra, I figured I'd grab it. I guess I'm like Spiff in the sense that I have little to no real experience with philosophy texts. I found Beyond Good and Evil to be a bit opaque. I get a general impression of a deconstruction of morality, but he also spent quite a bit of time critiquing philosophers I knew nothing about, so I felt lost there.

[Melville]

It doesn't. But it's a rather personal subject for me, and since you recommended I become a bit more familiar with Nietzsche before diving into Zarathustra, I figured I'd grab it. I guess I'm like Spiff in the sense that I have little to no real experience with philosophy texts. I found Beyond Good and Evil to be a bit opaque. I get a general impression of a deconstruction of morality, but he also spent quite a bit of time critiquing philosophers I knew nothing about, so I felt lost there.
Hm.. If you found Beyond Good and Evil a bit opaque, you'll probably have a lot of trouble with most of the books I recommended. To get the gist of what Nietzsche was criticizing, just reading an encyclopedia article on him would probably suffice. (You also don't need to understand every reference, as long as you're following the basic ideas: a physiologically-centered metaphysic, life as the will to power, saying Yes to life, saying No to idols and ideals.) But if you're really keen on getting a lot out of the philosophy you read, it would probably be fruitful to start with some of the more foundational/basic stuff before proceeding to the more difficult texts. Read some Plato for sure. Maybe get a book that includes a number of selections from different authors (for example, Classics of Western Philosophy, edited by Stephen M. Kahn).

A very readable philosophy book that I forgot to mention is Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, which I didn't much care for, but which is a pretty famous take on humanity creating its own values, and making life worth living, through an absurd struggle.

[B-side]

Hm.. If you found Beyond Good and Evil a bit opaque, you'll probably have a lot of trouble with most of the books I recommended. To get the gist of what Nietzsche was criticizing, just reading an encyclopedia article on him would probably suffice. (You also don't need to understand every reference, as long as you're following the basic ideas: a physiologically-centered metaphysic, life as the will to power, saying Yes to life, saying No to idols and ideals.) But if you're really keen on getting a lot out of the philosophy you read, it would probably be fruitful to start with some of the more foundational/basic stuff before proceeding to the more difficult texts. Read some Plato for sure. Maybe get a book that includes a number of selections from different authors (for example, Classics of Western Philosophy, edited by Stephen M. Kahn).

A very readable philosophy book that I forgot to mention is Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, which I didn't much care for, but which is a pretty famous take on humanity creating its own values, and making life worth living, through an absurd struggle.

Thanks for the help. I'll see how I feel after reading The Antichrist.

[Qrazy]

Just to fill out some of Melville's suggestions:

Plato... Meno, Phaedo are fairly standard intro. dialogues. Hit up The Republic at a later date.

These guys have been covered well enough (Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Marx, Heidegger)

---

Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle and Plato are the two-edged sword of early philosophy.

Presocratic Philosophers: Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno - It's fun to read the fragments left behind from the guys that came before Plato et al. It gives you a sense of the history of philosophy. There are a few others but I'd say these are the four to start with)


Epicurus - Assorted Fragments

Spinoza: The Ethics - The most insightful rationalist for my money. Leave Leibniz alone for a while.

Descartes - Discourse on the Method, Meditations on First Philosophy - Assumptive and problematic? Perhaps. Historically essential? Yes. Read before Kant.

Hume: An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding - Hume isn't quite a skeptic but he's an absolutely essential voice of criticism in the midst of a lot of assumptive philosophy.

Machiavelli - The Prince. Short. Easy to read.

General reading, no particular recs (only read excerpts):

Husserl (read before Sartre and Heidegger)

Hobbes
Rousseau
Locke
John Stuart Mill
Bentham

Just understand utilitarianism and later on consequentialism, don't need to read Mill and Bentham in depth unless it really interests you. Ditto Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Just understand where they fit in.

Frege
Karl Popper
Fichte

These guys are interesting, but I don't know enough about them.

Ayer and Wittgenstein are the extremist analytic philosophers. They represent an interesting voice but I find it difficult to take them seriously.

For something a bit less intense:

W. D. Ross
G. E. Moore
W. V. O. Quine (read after Kant... important for epistemology)
Russell
Kripke
Carnap

I'd actually suggest reading Sartre's A Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions before diving into Being and Nothingness. I don't think you'll make it very far in the latter without a broader philosophical background first.

If I were you I would read Plato, Descartes and Hume to give yourself a baseline first.

Meno
Discourse on the Method
Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

They're all short and this gives you Greek, Rationalist and Empiricist. I think you'll find yourself lost in the heavier stuff without this background. You can do Nietzsche and some analytic philosophy but it will give you a much better foundation for most continental philosophy.

[Qrazy]

For a basic ethical background you'll need:

Kant (Deontology)
Mill (Utilitarianism)

Then it would be good to know:

Rawls
Aristotle
Spinoza

Before moving on to the rest.

[Melville]

Descartes - Read before Kant.

Husserl (read before Sartre and Heidegger)

I don't know about that. Kant introduces his ideas well enough on his own, I think, and you can get the gist of Descartes' ideas just by reading an encyclopedia summary. Of course, Descartes is up there with Plato and Kant in terms of influence, but I found that reading his books didn't illuminate much except the lameness of his arguments. Sartre and Heidegger are at least as readable as Husserl, and they re-introduce and review phenomenology in their big books.

Here's a good intro to Husserl and Heidegger. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0) (But ignore what the guy says about Sartre.)

[Qrazy]

I don't know about that. Kant introduces his ideas well enough on his own, I think, and you can get the gist of Descartes' ideas just by reading an encyclopedia summary. Of course, Descartes is up there with Plato and Kant in terms of influence, but I found that reading his books didn't illuminate much except the lameness of his arguments. Sartre and Heidegger are at least as readable as Husserl, and they re-introduce and review phenomenology in their big books.

Here's a good intro to Husserl and Heidegger. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0) (But ignore what the guy says about Sartre.)

The cogito itself isn't lame and it's majorly important for nearly all the continental philosophy after him. It may be open to quite a bit of criticism but even the philosopher's who reject it have to address it. It's his extrapolations to God after the cogito which are the lame part. Discourse on the Method is very short and even for the lame arguments it's usually better to read the original. Even the least compelling famous philosophers have much to say.

My post is more about history of philosophy while I think yours is more about preferred philosophers. Although we both do touch upon each trajectory. As such I think Husserl is important prior reading before jumping into existentialism.

I'd also say both Husserl and Sartre are much more readable than Heidegger (for a novice). Don't get me wrong, I like him, but he's not easy sailing for beginners.

[Melville]

The cogito itself isn't lame and it's majorly important for nearly all the continental philosophy after him. It may be open to quite a bit of criticism but even the philosopher's who reject it have to address it. It's his extrapolations to God after the cogito which are the lame part. Discourse on the Method is very short and even for the lame arguments it's usually better to read the original. Even the least compelling famous philosophers have much to say.
His ideas aren't lame; it's his arguments in favor of them that are (mostly the argument for god's existence, and all the stuff that he then derives from that—but even "I am thinking, therefore I exist" is problematic). And certainly in order to read Kant and most other later philosophers, one needs to understand Descartes' basic description of human existence in terms of the cogito and the internal/external divide. And if someone is really interested in his ideas, or in the history of philosophy, then of course it's better to read his books than a secondary source. But one doesn't need to read his books in order to be sufficiently familiar with his ideas to understand Kant.


My post is more about history of philosophy while I think yours is more about preferred philosophers. Although we both do touch upon each trajectory. As such I think Husserl is important prior reading before jumping into existentialism.
Yeah, same situation here as with Descartes: if you're really interested in Husserl's phenomenology or the history of philosophy, then you should read him. But I didn't read one of his books until several years after reading Sartre and Heidegger, and I don't think that cost me any understanding of those authors' ideas. (Actually, an author who might be worth reading before Sartre and Heidegger is Bergson. I'm not sure if his ideas about time and free will directly influenced those later authors, but his ideas definitely seem like a precursor to theirs, and he's very readable.)


I guess all I'm saying is that while you definitely need to have some understanding of the foundational issues and seminal authors of philosophy in order to understand more advanced texts, you shouldn't feel obligated to read all the major authors in chronological order if they don't interest you. Often times, reading a summary of their ideas will suffice.

[Qrazy]

I guess all I'm saying is that while you definitely need to have some understanding of the foundational issues and seminal authors of philosophy in order to understand more advanced texts, you shouldn't feel obligated to read all the major authors in chronological order if they don't interest you. Often times, reading a summary of their ideas will suffice.

Sure, but I think Descartes and Husserl are important enough to be read prior, if only their shorter works. I agree with you on the point in general. I don't think one has to read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham etc in depth even though they too are precursors to a lot of later stuff.

[Melville]

Sure, but I think Descartes and Husserl are important enough to be read prior, if only their shorter works. I agree with you on the point in general. I don't think one has to read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham etc in depth even though they too are precursors to a lot of later stuff.
Okay.

Maybe listing the important concepts would be more effective than listing the important authors. I'd say that in order to understand most authors of the last couple hundred years (and in particular, the authors that Brightside expressed an interest in), you'd need to be somewhat familiar with the following:

Plato: Platonic forms
Descartes: Cartesian dualism and the "cogito, ergo sum" argument
Hume: Empiricism
Various people: Idealism and Realism
Kant: Transcendental Idealism and the categorical imperative; Nietzsche is also big on criticizing Kant's idea of synthetic apriori knowledge
Hegel: Hegel's dialectic (Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche were all reacting against Hegel in their writing)
Husserl and Heidegger: Phenomenology
Mill and Bentham: utilitarianism/consequentialist ethics
Buddhism: the (non-)existence of the self
Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky: the absurd, faith, angst

I'm probably missing a bunch of things.

[kuehnepips]

..

Husserl (read before Sartre and Heidegger)

....

Don't. Actually skip Husserl and avoid Heidegger by all means.

Marx translated Hegel well enough.

[Qrazy]

Don't. Actually skip Husserl and avoid Heidegger by all means.

Marx translated Hegel well enough.

Ah. Care to qualify your opinions?

[kuehnepips]

Ah. Care to qualify your opinions?

I've been living in Germany for 37 years (actually near the house Hegel was born) and I've read him, Husserl, Heidegger, Freud, Wittgestein, Marx etc. etc. pp.

In German.

[Melville]

avoid Heidegger by all means.
:| That's the wrongest advice ever. No other philosopher has provided as precise and, in my view, correct a description of human experience as Heidegger did (or at least no philosopher before him did so).

[Qrazy]

I've been living in Germany for 37 years (actually near the house Hegel was born) and I've read him, Husserl, Heidegger, Freud, Wittgestein, Marx etc. etc. pp.

In German.

Good for you. Yet I'm not sure how your ability to read precludes your ability to communicate your thoughts.

In fact I'm not sure what your age, your proximity to Hegel's birthplace or your ability to speak German has to do with Husserl or Heidegger's philosophy in the slightest. We do not exist in an intellectual gerontocracy. And you certainly can't be saying that something must be read in it's mother tongue to be intelligible.

If you find Husserl and Heidegger underwhelming you must have some reason for this. What aspect of their philosophy do you find unappealing? I'm afraid arbitrary appeals to authority hold little sway with me.

[Izzy Black]

I don't know about that. Kant introduces his ideas well enough on his own, I think, and you can get the gist of Descartes' ideas just by reading an encyclopedia summary. Of course, Descartes is up there with Plato and Kant in terms of influence, but I found that reading his books didn't illuminate much except the lameness of his arguments. Sartre and Heidegger are at least as readable as Husserl, and they re-introduce and review phenomenology in their big books.

Kant isn't exactly famous for accessible introductions. In fact, he's one of the most inaccessible philosophers out there; ponderous, dry, repetitive, long-winded, arcane - and as made worse by necessity of the content - sufficiently abstract. I would not only recommend reading Descartes before reading Kant, but to be familiar with Hume and Leibniz as well. A basic understanding of the disputes between Empiricism and Rationalism is practically prerequisite for a relatively productive reading of the Critique. I would say, echoing Qrazy, Descartes especially.

Now, at the same rate, you can jump into any philosopher head on if you like, but in the case of Kant, if you want to really understand his views on metaphysics and epistemology, you should really be acquainted with a few folks, and as you say, secondary sources will probably suffice for many, but I would recommend some engagement with primary sources of Descartes prior to reading. (I would also agree with recommending Husserl before reading certain areas of Sartre.)

* I realize that you were not suggesting all or even any of this, but I figured it's worth mentioning (if it hasn't been already).

As to the thread, there is a strong bias here for Continental philosophy, which I suppose is understandable given that this is a film forum so it will naturally have literary-centric leanings. I would would personally echo mentions of Wittgenstein, Quine, Russell, Moore, and Kripke. I'd throw out Berkeley, Bacon, Dewey, Ardendt, Weil, and Ryle as well. I would also recommend some contemporary and late 20th philosophy such as McDowell, Putnam, Rorty, Sellars, and Strawson.

[Llopin]

Kant is one of the worst writers ever. Man had genuine ideas, but couldn't articulate them well.

Myself I'm pretty fond of later day Wittgenstein (the Philosophical Investigations), Nietzsche, Schopenhauer (the best) and Kierkegaard. And of course the postmodern bastards, as in Foucault (specially his introductions), Derrida (ultra-interesting and funny at times) and Deleuze.

Zizek is teh shit too. Besides his way of talking is hilarious, so everytime I read him I cannot help but picture him and chuckle.

[B-side]

I picked up The Communist Manifesto for 6 bucks and The Gay Science for 12. Excited to dive into them.

[Melville]

Kant isn't exactly famous for accessible introductions. In fact, he's one of the most inaccessible philosophers out there.
I think reports of his inaccessibility are greatly exaggerated. He is successfully taught in first-year philosophy courses, so he can't be all that impenetrable. Most 20th century continental philosophy that I've read is more difficult.


The Gay Science
Oh, that's the last major Nietzsche book I want to read. Let me know what you think of it.

[B-side]

Oh, that's the last major Nietzsche book I want to read. Let me know what you think of it.

I still gotta finish The Antichrist.:lol:

Depression has come back full force. I don't have the will to do much of anything, let alone something that requires patience.

[Melville]

I still gotta finish The Antichrist.:lol:

Depression has come back full force. I don't have the will to do much of anything, let alone something that requires patience.
To quote Nietzsche (in his early, Schopenhauerian days), "The very best of all things is completely beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best thing for you is—to meet an early death."

[B-side]

To quote Nietzsche (in his early, Schopenhauerian days), "The very best of all things is completely beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best thing for you is—to meet an early death."

I'm trying to decide if that's cheering me up or depressing me more.:P

[Melville]

I'm trying to decide if that's cheering me up or depressing me more.:P
A little from column A, a little from column B.

[B-side]

A little from column A, a little from column B.

As silly as it may seem, I've come to not expect to make it too far, especially if I keep going at my current rate. Viva el gordo!:frustrated::D

[Melville]

As silly as it may seem, I've come to not expect to make it too far, especially if I keep going at my current rate. Viva el gordo!:frustrated::D
What is Viva el gordo? I tried to google it, but that only led to confusion.

Much as I'd like to continue this joyous conversation about how life is hopeless, fruitless, and causes great pains in my chest, I have to get out of the house because the jackhammering outside my window is driving me insane.

Best of luck with keeping on keeping on.

[B-side]

What is Viva el gordo? I tried to google it, but that only led to confusion.

Much as I'd like to continue this joyous conversation about how life is hopeless, fruitless, and causes great pains in my chest, I have to get out of the house because the jackhammering outside my window is driving me insane.

Best of luck with keeping on keeping on.

Like Viva Las Vegas, but Viva Fat instead.:P

[Melville]

Like Viva Las Vegas, but Viva Fat instead.:P
Oh. You didn't look that fat in your picture.

[B-side]

Oh. You didn't look that fat in your picture.

Appearances can be deceiving?;)

[Melville]

Appearances can be deceiving?;)
So it's your personality that's really fat? Sounds jolly. You should adopt a jolly demeanor. Everybody loves jolly. Although it's really only appealing in old men. So your aim should be to survive long enough to get old, and then become jolly. It'll all be worth it.

[B-side]

So it's your personality that's really fat? Sounds jolly. You should adopt a jolly demeanor. Everybody loves jolly. Although it's really only appealing in old men. So your aim should be to survive long enough to get old, and then become jolly. It'll all be worth it.

I'll do my best.:P

[lovejuice]

the first quarter of phenomenology of spirit ends with a big bang for me, when hegel discusses the dialectic movement between individuality and the unchangeable. it bares a lot of similarities to buddhism too. in fact, in the art of happiness, his holiness the dalai lama says something along this line.

[Melville]

the first quarter of phenomenology of spirit ends with a big bang for me, when hegel discusses the dialectic movement between individuality and the unchangeable. it bares a lot of similarities to buddhism too. in fact, in the art of happiness, his holiness the dalai lama says something along this line.
Forgive my poor memory, but which section is that? I felt like the book peaked in section B. IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty, especially in the description of the master-slave dialectic. Everything up to and including that is pure genius, really astoundingly brilliant (though his description of the Here and Now at the foundation of all the movements might be thought of too much as a presumed origin, whereas it should be a trace in the sense of Derrida). Beyond that point, though, I felt like the movements, and in particular the reconciliations between thesis and antithesis, became more and more questionable. And of course, he states his movements as "logical" certainties, based on his own tenuous logic. I love Kierkegaard's attack on Hegelian logic in the preface to Concept of Anxiety.

[lovejuice]

I felt like the book peaked in section B. IV. The Truth of Self-Certainty, especially in the description of the master-slave dialectic. Everything up to and including that is pure genius, really astoundingly brilliant
That's where I am. My favorite part is the next subsection when he discusses stoicism and scepticism before moving on to how individuality compromises with the spirit.


(though his description of the Here and Now at the foundation of all the movements might be thought of too much as a presumed origin, whereas it should be a trace in the sense of Derrida).
That part is a bit questionable to me too. (Eco discusses a similar concept in A Theory of Semiotics.) Hegel, I feel, takes the semiotic argument a bit too far. Only because language is unable to express the particular, he assumes our mind works in the same way. Later linguisticians like Chomsky and Pinkus perhaps will have a lot to say about this.

I don't fully accept it, but I understand it enough to take it for granted. I'm glad I do -- and can do -- so since what follow is brilliant.


Beyond that point, though, I felt like the movements, and in particular the reconciliations between thesis and antithesis, became more and more questionable.
That's not promising, :sad:, although it's the part I am most waiting for. Is that where he lays the groundwork for later marxist theory?

[lovejuice]

And while we are on this topic of philosophy, last week I read and review The Birth of Tragedy. That is one tough book to review. It seems to say a lot of things which contradicts what Nietzsche later believes in. (In fact Aye Rand uses TBoT as to demonstrate how un-nietzschean Nietzsche is.)

[Melville]

That part is a bit questionable to me too. (Eco discusses a similar concept in A Theory of Semiotics.) Hegel, I feel, takes the semiotic argument a bit too far. Only because language is unable to express the particular, he assumes our mind works in the same way. Later linguisticians like Chomsky and Pinkus perhaps will have a lot to say about this.
I think we might have opposing criticisms here. Hegel presents the Here and Now as something underlying, an origin, that is disrupted and then overcome in a dialectical movement. But I think that's incorrect. Historically (i.e. as we grow from infancy) that might be true, but existentially it is not: I don't think, in situ, we do have access to the particular. The Here and Now is given to us already within our conceptual framework, sense of Self, memory, intentions, valuations, relations, etc. As such, it is not an origin. It is not "overcome" by a movement invoked by the other elements of our consciousness; instead, we are given it in terms of those other elements and movements. But we are perpetually aware of it as a limit, as something that would be there if we strip something else away. Hence, it is a trace, a (mis)perceived metaphysical origin that lingers in our experience of the world.

However, I think his description is valid if we begin from certain moments. In uncanny moments, we do become suddenly, crystallinely aware of the Here and Now. That is not a "return" to an origin (to Eden, to what is "prior" to the eating of the apple of knowledge). Instead, it is just etching over the trace. But from there, I think the movement he describes, the rupturing of the particular, does proceed.

Part of the issue here is how to interpret Hegel's dialectic: temporally or metaphorically. Do the dialectical movements occur in time? I feel like he leaves this point vague, though presumably he thinks these are universal structures that occur both temporally and atemporally.


That's not promising, :sad:, although it's the part I am most waiting for. Is that where he lays the groundwork for later marxist theory?
I'm guessing the most relevant stuff for Marxist theory would be in the second half of the book, where it talks about culture and history (though Philosophy of History might be still more relevant). However, Marx's materialist dialectic criticized Hegel's entire Idealist project, so the whole thing kind of lays the groundwork.


And while we are on this topic of philosophy, last week I read and review The Birth of Tragedy. That is one tough book to review. It seems to say a lot of things which contradicts what Nietzsche later believes in. (In fact Aye Rand uses TBoT as to demonstrate how un-nietzschean Nietzsche is.)
Yeah, it's very unlike his later stuff, though he continued to make use of the Apollonian-Dionysian concept. But I don't think it makes him un-Nietzschean; he just changed his mind. All his later stuff is internally consistent.

[lovejuice]

Hegel presents the Here and Now as something underlying, an origin, that is disrupted and then overcome in a dialectical movement. But I think that's incorrect....I don't think, in situ, we do have access to the particular. The Here and Now is given to us already within our conceptual framework, sense of Self, memory, intentions, valuations, relations, etc.
But if they're given to us already, they are not immediate, aren't they? Shouldn't Here and Now spring from the perception? That we aware of them more in uncanny moments is perhaps because the perception doesn't quite fit in with our pre-concept of reality. Thus the movement from the particular to the universal takes more effort. (Indeed we are back to the issue that you have raised. Is the movement temporal or atemporal?)

[Melville]

But if they're given to us already, they are not immediate, aren't they? Shouldn't Here and Now spring from the perception? That we aware of them more in uncanny moments is perhaps because the perception doesn't quite fit in with our pre-concept of reality. Thus the movement from the particular to the universal takes more effort. (Indeed we are back to the issue that you have raised. Is the movement temporal or atemporal?)
Here and Now spring from perception, but when we perceive, we are already in a state of mind; the perception appears in consciousness already within the context of our concepts, sense of Self and Otherness, etc. The uncanny ruptures the cohesion of this context, but that does indeed bring us back to whether the movement is temporal or atemporal. Do we perceive something, try to fit it within our expectations of reality, and fail, or is the uncanny thing given to us within those expectations, leading to a manifold of perception containing within itself an incongruity?

[lovejuice]

Here and Now spring from perception, but when we perceive, we are already in a state of mind; the perception appears in consciousness already within the context of our concepts, sense of Self and Otherness, etc. The uncanny ruptures the cohesion of this context, but that does indeed bring us back to whether the movement is temporal or atemporal. Do we perceive something, try to fit it within our expectations of reality, and fail, or is the uncanny thing given to us within those expectations, leading to a manifold of perception containing within itself an incongruity?

btw, where did you get all these uncanny stuffs? are they in later parts of the book? i am planning on doing a research on surrealism and thai comics, and i think that might be useful.

[Melville]

btw, where did you get all these uncanny stuffs? are they in later parts of the book? i am planning on doing a research on surrealism and thai comics, and i think that might be useful.
It's inspired by Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.

EDIT: but my description of the Here and Now in terms of a trace, and the relation of that to the uncanny, is to the best of my knowledge, my own idea. Of course, it's presumably been analyzed as such before, but not by anybody I've read (I think).

[lovejuice]

Observation of Nature (AA.A.a) in PHENOMENOLOGY is freaking tough! I read the chapter over and over along with its accompanied text, and very little gets into my head.

I also have this nagging feeling it's not that good or that central. bias on my part, no doubt.

Btw, Melville, I assume you read the version with Finlay's accompanied text. What do you think of it? There are certains paragraphes I feel like he takes too much liberty with Hegel's. I still can't survive this book without them though.

[lovejuice]

about to finish REASON, guess i agree with Marx afterall. Hegel really needs to be put right back on his feet.

[Melville]

Btw, Melville, I assume you read the version with Finlay's accompanied text. What do you think of it? There are certains paragraphes I feel like he takes too much liberty with Hegel's. I still can't survive this book without them though.
Yeah, the endnotes are a mixed bag. I didn't use them a lot. I found some of the notes just as obscure as the text, some too simplistic. Must be a damn hard job to try to give a full explanation of what Hegel is saying without simply restating it or oversimplifying it.


about to finish REASON, guess i agree with Marx afterall. Hegel really needs to be put right back on his feet.
25 pages further than I ever got. I'll have to review these sections when I start on the later ones.

[endingcredits]

My advice would be to start with Plato. If you want to understand much of what has been written, then you will have to understand Plato. Aside from that, I would recommend picking up some logic if you haven't already done so. If you're a masochist and want to plunge into Hegel, Fichte comes to mind as a bridge to his ideas. Hegel's use of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis was "borrowed" from Fichte. If existentialism interests you, then Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are good place to start, as their ideas paved the way for Heidegger and Sartre.

[lovejuice]

My advice would be to start with Plato.
which book specifically? i've never read any greek, I am ashamed to say. (except Aristotle on Meteologie.)

[endingcredits]

which book specifically? i've never read any greek, I am ashamed to say. (except Aristotle on Meteologie.)

The Apology, The Republic, or Parmenides would be my recommendations. You can read all three in a day's time if you wish, as they are short. Apology and Republic exemplify Early and Middle Platonic thought, respectively. Parmenides mostly deals with the ubiquitous "forms".

EDIT:
The whole library of plato can be found here :
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/

[Qrazy]

The Apology, The Republic, or Parmenides would be my recommendations. You can read all three in a day's time if you wish, as they are short. Apology and Republic exemplify Early and Middle Platonic thought, respectively. Parmenides mostly deals with the ubiquitous "forms".

EDIT:
The whole library of plato can be found here :
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/

The Republic isn't short dude.

The Meno and Phaedo are fairly standard short starting places also.

[endingcredits]

The Republic isn't short dude.

OK... then perhaps two days is more accurate.

[lovejuice]

OK... then perhaps two days is more accurate.
I bow to you, sir.

[lovejuice]

whoa! this zizek guy is brilliant.

[endingcredits]

whoa! this zizek guy is brilliant.

Which book of his are you reading? I read On Belief a few years back and it was pretty stale. Never went back for more.

[lovejuice]

Which book of his are you reading? I read On Belief a few years back and it was pretty stale. Never went back for more.
I'm reading his first the sublime object of ideology. I find it wonderful and topical to what's happening right now in my country. Two years ago I read the metastases of enjoyment, but back then a lot of it go over my head.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Just started Foucault's Madness & Civilization, interesting so far.

[SirNewt]

Not as cerebral but I highly recommend "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig.

PS also the book that inspired that book's title "Zen and the Art of Archery".

[lovejuice]

every year I plan to achieve one heroism to be forever sung by my children. last year was the rubik. this year is phenomenology of spirit!

[lovejuice]

Sein und Zeit is surprisingly easy to chew. Heidegger, if he were alive, would surely be a powerpoint master. The book is well-structured. The introduction neatly outlines the main idea, and every section and sub-section serve well to progress the idea and argument forward.

[B-side]

So I kinda randomly dove into Kierkegaard after hearing about a close friend's battle with ethical structure and her subsequent desire to revert back to Christianity, I'm reading The Sickness Unto Death right now, and doing plenty of complimentary reading. I'm not certain I'll stick with him long since I find the general premise of being in constant despair simply because you lack a relationship with God to be specious at best. Granted, I acknowledge he often speaks from the point of view of his ultra-religious pseudonym whom he acknowledges is better than him in that regard, I still find it a bit hard to swallow, even just as pure literature.

[Melville]

I'm reading The Sickness Unto Death right now, and doing plenty of complimentary reading. I'm not certain I'll stick with him long since I find the general premise of being in constant despair simply because you lack a relationship with God to be specious at best.
Given your lack of connection to religious thoughts, I wouldn't have recommended that for a first foray into Kierkegaard. Books like Fear and Trembling, Either/Or, and Repetition are a lot more interesting on purely structural and literary levels. But I think Sickness Unto Death can be read without dwelling on the religious aspects. The central premise is that despair is a dislocation of the relation of oneself to oneself, and his exploration of that premise has great phenomenological value—that is, it gives valuable descriptions of how things are, our actual experience of states of human existence. He relates those descriptions to God, but you can often (though not always) simply excise such a relation from his descriptions or translate God into something more general. As with many of his other works (Concept of Anxiety springs to mind), he lays a groundwork for later, more fleshed out existential descriptions by Sartre and others, which ditched the religious aspect but kept many of the core concepts.

[B-side]

Given your lack of connection to religious thoughts, I wouldn't have recommended that for a first foray into Kierkegaard. Books like Fear and Trembling, Either/Or, and Repetition are a lot more interesting on purely structural and literary levels. But I think Sickness Unto Death can be read without dwelling on the religious aspects. The central premise is that despair is a dislocation of the relation of oneself to oneself, and his exploration of that premise has great phenomenological value—that is, it gives valuable descriptions of how things are, our actual experience of states of human existence. He relates those descriptions to God, but you can often (though not always) simply excise such a relation from his descriptions or translate God into something more general. As with many of his other works (Concept of Anxiety springs to mind), he lays a groundwork for later, more fleshed out existential descriptions by Sartre and others, which ditched the religious aspect but kept many of the core concepts.

I'll definitely check those out, then. I spent a few hours yesterday researching the concepts you told me to familiarize myself with, like, two years ago.:P I need to do more reading on Plato's Theory of Forms -- as well as in the original text -- since I don't feel like I can speak about it knowingly, if that makes sense.

[B-side]

Hegelianism promised to make absolute knowledge available by virtue of a science of logic. Anyone with the capacity to follow the dialectical progression of the purportedly transparent concepts of Hegel's logic would have access to the mind of God (which for Hegel was equivalent to the logical structure of the universe). Kierkegaard thought this to be the hubristic attempt to build a new tower of Babel, or a scala paradisi — a dialectical ladder by which humans can climb with ease up to heaven. Kierkegaard's strategy was to invert this dialectic by seeking to make everything more difficult. Instead of seeing scientific knowledge as the means of human redemption, he regarded it as the greatest obstacle to redemption. Instead of seeking to give people more knowledge he sought to take away what passed for knowledge. Instead of seeking to make God and Christian faith perfectly intelligible he sought to emphasize the absolute transcendence by God of all human categories. Instead of setting himself up as a religious authority, Kierkegaard used a vast array of textual devices to undermine his authority as an author and to place responsibility for the existential significance to be derived from his texts squarely on the reader.

See, this sounds like a much more interesting Kierkegaard than the one I was exposed to. Then again, these things likely come to one after reading more than a dozen pages of one of his books.

[B-side]

The figure of the aesthete in the first volume of Either-Or is an ironic portrayal of German romanticism, but it also draws on medieval characters as diverse as Don Juan, Ahasverus (the wandering Jew), and Faust. It finds its most sophisticated form in the author of “The Seducer's Diary”, the final section of Either-Or. Johannes the seducer is a reflective aesthete, who gains sensuous delight not so much from the act of seduction but from engineering the possibility of seduction. His real aim is the manipulation of people and situations in ways which generate interesting reflections in his own voyeuristic mind. The aesthetic perspective transforms quotidian dullness into a richly poetic world by whatever means it can. Sometimes the reflective aesthete will inject interest into a book by reading only the last third, or into a conversation by provoking a bore into an apoplectic fit so that he can see a bead of sweat form between the bore's eyes and run down his nose. That is, the aesthete uses artifice, arbitrariness, irony, and wilful imagination to recreate the world in his own image. The prime motivation for the aesthete is the transformation of the boring into the interesting.

Holy shit, this sounds fantastic. And fits so much of the cinema I enjoy.