I want to ask if anyone here actually make it a habit to read academic papers in philosophy?

In my experience, philosophy courses( junior, senior, and graduate) taught at top universities tend to focus on research papers. As such, students learn to quickly pick up the basic essentials, and go quickly to the research level debate. What do you think of this approach?


I think it is much more easy to read philosophy paper, than a math paper. Philosophy paper are still quite technical, but they are also able to capture the general idea in the introduction. In general, philosophy is easy, and fun to read. How easy is it for you to read philosophy papers?

I want to ask if anyone here actually make it a habit to read academic papers in philosophy?

In my experience, philosophy courses( junior, senior, and graduate) taught at top universities tend to focus on research papers. As such, students learn to quickly pick up the basic essentials, and go quickly to the research level debate. What do you think of this approach?


I think it is much more easy to read philosophy paper, than a math paper. Philosophy paper are still quite technical, but they are also able to capture the general idea in the introduction. In general, philosophy is easy, and fun to read. How easy is it for you to read philosophy papers?

I want to ask if anyone here actually make it a habit to read academic papers in philosophy?

In my experience, philosophy courses( junior, senior, and graduate) taught at top universities tend to focus on research papers. As such, students learn to quickly pick up the basic essentials, and go quickly to the research level debate. What do you think of this approach?


I think it is much more easy to read philosophy paper, than a math paper. Philosophy paper are still quite technical, but they are also able to capture the general idea in the introduction. In general, philosophy is easy, and fun to read. How easy is it for you to read philosophy papers?

I want to ask if anyone here actually make it a habit to read academic papers in philosophy?

In my experience, philosophy courses( junior, senior, and graduate) taught at top universities tend to focus on research papers. As such, students learn to quickly pick up the basic essentials, and go quickly to the research level debate. What do you think of this approach?

I think it is much more easy to read philosophy paper, than a math paper. Philosophy paper are still quite technical, but they are also able to capture the general idea in the introduction. In general, philosophy is easy, and fun to read. How easy is it for you to read philosophy papers?

I Definitely don't make a habit of reading the journals for fun...

I too would be interested if anyone has any online links/resources to share on these.

Generally, I'm a bit hesitant on reading papers since everyone with a keyboard has their own opinion. I've found that the more established published philosophers of all eras are just so because they've enunciated the basics that are more likely to be understood and noteworthy.

Even so, I'd very much like to dive into some of these to see for myself.

Thanks

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hrp/issues/2003/Dreyfus.pdf

I think this one was a fun read. He explores the idea of the matrix and writes about what other philosophers in history might say about the idea.

The Homeric Greeks thought that human beings had no private life to speak of. All their feelings were expressed publicly. Homer considered it one of Odysseus's cleverest tricks that he could cry inwardly while his eyes remained like horn.2 A thousand years later, people still had no sense of the importance of their inner lives. Saint Augustine had to work hard to convince them otherwise. For example, he called attention to the fact that one did not have to read out loud. In his Confessions, he points out that Saint Ambrose was remarkable in that he read to himself. "When he read, his eyes scanned the page and his heart explored the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still."3 The idea that each of us has an inner life made up of our private thoughts and feelings didn't take hold until early in the 17th century when Descartes introduced the modern distinction between the contents of the mind and the rest of reality.

In one of his letters, Descartes declared himself "convinced that I cannot have any knowledge of what is outside me except through the mediation of the ideas that I have in me."4 Thus, according to Descartes, all that each of us can directly experience is the content of his or her own mind. Our access to the world is always indirect. Descartes then used reports of people with a phantom limb to call into question even our seemingly direct experience of our own bodies. He writes: I have been assured by men whose arm or leg has been amputated that it still seemed to them that they occasionally felt pain in the limb they had lost-thus giving me grounds to think that I could not be quite certain that a pain I endured was indeed due to the limb in which I seemed to feel it.5 For all we could ever know, Descartes concluded, the objective external world, including our body, may not exist; all we can be certain of is our subjective inner life.

This Cartesian conclusion was taken for granted by thinkers in the West for the next three centuries.

I keep reading things like this, and I continue to find all such statements starkly unbelievable.

The Homeric Greeks thought that human beings had no private life to speak of. All their feelings were expressed publicly. Homer considered it one of Odysseus's cleverest tricks that he could cry inwardly while his eyes remained like horn.2

For example, he called attention to the fact that one did not have to read out loud.

And the idea that we developed a private internal life over time opens the door to new developments...

I want to ask if anyone here actually make it a habit to read academic papers in philosophy?

How easy is it for you to read philosophy papers?