In what order to study philosophy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Sean OConnor
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 09:58 pm
@Reconstructo,
"Infinity" is qualia. "Negativity" is the quantification function, or Kant's transcendental object. Most truth is pragmatic as logos, or word, is not entirely digital, or quantified. The early Wittgenstein was digitally obsessed. The later Wittgenstein was continuous. The early Wittgenstein was right about logic and number, but not word. The late Wittgenstein is write about word but boring to poets, who already understand what he's about.....[/QUOTE]


Yes, truth is certainly pragmatic. Perhaps now we have to be a bit more daring on our moral stances, but based on metaphysical foundations. For example, monogamy is ultimately practical in that it may make a man and a woman the strongest both in the skill of resistance to temptation, and the ability to cultivate a truly deep, bonded, most intimate connection with another. Of course, I am sure anybody with rhetorical skill could find a reason to oppose it- none the less I hope we have those debates. I agree with you about Wittgenstein. I love when he is more continuous- has really inspired me as I think philosophizing is so key compared to "a philosophy" in the general sense. I also think now is a great time for philosophers to step up and stimulate social consciousness. Get paid for thinking in a way that benefits others, if only to be fascinating. It stimulates "thought values" which could change everything and for the better. There may be some critics who think it's selling your mind but such isn't the case if you're philosophizing truly to philosophize and fascinate. I see myself on tour within the year.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:02 pm
@Sean OConnor,
OK I had posted something here in response, but thought better of it. I will continue to monitor this thread though.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 10:32 pm
@jeeprs,
:perplexed: Why follow the thread ? Phychy-Hype ? What matter is order ? Why not believe Chance & Chaos $ ? Dinero econonomy GWBII stupid P. 43 ?

What exact-ly did Obama say wrong ? Was it said so be the Supreme Court ? How can any-one blunder like this ? Why did Biden Yoke ? Why did Barck get angry about it ? Was it not funny such a slip ?

About Eter/ Infinity is will Continue following your Lead.:Not-Impressed:
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 12:49 pm
@Twirlip,
Problem solved! :popcorn:
Squashed Philosophers- Condensed Plato Aristotle Augustine Descartes Hume Marx Freud Copernicus Hobbes Sartre Ayer Sade Wittgenstein Einstein
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:00 pm
@Twirlip,
That is excellent. I especially love the tag-line from 'Jim Curtis' :bigsmile:
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 04:06 pm
@Sean OConnor,
Sean O'Connor;136335 wrote:
I love when he is more continuous- has really inspired me as I think philosophizing is so key compared to "a philosophy" in the general sense. I also think now is a great time for philosophers to step up and stimulate social consciousness.


Yes, Wittgenstein makes the logical core naked in order that the continuity of reality, its beauty and terror, is also just as naked. Wittgenstein is acid on our encrusted prejudices, which are accidental impositions of concept, not the essence....for the essence must lie outside of all our essences...
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 10:18 am
@Twirlip,
Twir, I know you have me on ignore, but should someone be kindly enough to convey my message to him, I would be greatful.

Defently whipe Kirkegaard, waste of good time.
If you wants to study Marx, it should only be what you should avoid thinking, most of what he wrote was naive idiocy, too narrowminded, not taking much account for psycology.

Fredy surely was good, but really outdated imo. All his penis envy and phallos ..etc is just lol. Very Happy
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:47 pm
@Twirlip,
The thought also does occur to me, that one can become easily overwhelmed by the amount of information available, especially nowadays.

I started my reading of philosophy historically, and I find the historical approach a very useful way of organising my ideas about it. I haven't read anything much about Hegel's 'historical dialectic' but I think it is a very powerful idea. It is clear to see how these great themes have played out through centuries. I think Will Durant was especially good at the historical perspective; I have been browsing his 'age of faith' again, recently.

But having got something of a grounding in the historical approach, I think the thematic approach is most useful. There are certain themes or ideas which I have been studying for a long while; once you have an historical framework in mind, the thematic approach allows for a lot more depth in regards to the particular ideas you are pursuing.

I studied comparative religion, and the department I went to put a lot of emphasis on 'the history of ideas'. Comparative religion is somewhat broader than philosophy as such and brings in many perspectives from different disciplines.

But the thing is, there is more information than any one person can possibly hope to absorb nowadays, and it is growing all the time. I think if you try and cover too much, it can lead to a kind of burnout.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 8 Mar, 2010 09:54 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;137782 wrote:

But the thing is, there is more information than any one person can possibly hope to absorb nowadays, and it is growing all the time. I think if you try and cover too much, it can lead to a kind of burnout.


Ain't that the truth! T.M.I. I suppose the best general kind of starting point is something that grabs one. If it feels like work, one is probably starting in a bad place.

I think Will Durant's Story of Philosophy was my introduction to the subject. 13 years ago, I think. But philosophy had to compete w/ "literature" for my affection until the last few years.....Now it's just philosophy & this new shadow on the horizon: math. (I did it in school, but didn't yet completely feel its beauty.)
 
Sean OConnor
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 11:24 am
@Reconstructo,
Interesting. I haven't read enough Wittgenstien! Essences are interesting. I compare them to spirits. Would you say this is a fair comparison? I was watching Dr. Strangelove last night and the guy says to his woman "you can have me but not my essence." I was amused. I'm very fascinated by the relationship between the spirit/essence of a concept, the meaning within the concept, the word expressing the concept & meaning delivering the essence, and the concepts loaded within dream thoughts as much as material things....example, touch glass, and what kind of concepts are loaded within glass?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 9 Mar, 2010 05:54 pm
@Twirlip,
the concept of essence is...well...essential to Western philosophy. It began with Greek philosophy, with the consideration of what was the attribute or set of attributes that defined a substance, and without which it would loose its character. It can be contrasted with 'accidents' which are incidental to the thing. Plato thought that things acquired their essence from their relationship to the Form or Idea which they represented. Aristotle moved it from there to the identity of the thing itself.

Buddhist philosophy has always denied that there is such a thing as 'essence' and that individual things only exist by way of 'conditioned origination' and have no ultimate or self-existent nature.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/01/2020 at 12:35:44