Reading Philosophy

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » MetaPhilosophy
  3. » Reading Philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:32 am
I enjoy reading philosophy, but Sometimes when reading some works, I get a little confused and a bit overwhelmed. what is the best way to read philosophy effectively?
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:40 am
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140589 wrote:
I enjoy reading philosophy, but Sometimes when reading some works, I get a little confused and a bit overwhelmed. what is the best way to read philosophy effectively?


Read the work more than once and have a companion or teacher to help you out. Youll need it for certain philosophers (if not all).
 
Flamvell Rose
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:45 am
@Ding an Sich,
Thank you very much! Smile
 
zefloid13
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:46 am
@Ding an Sich,
What kind of philosophy are you reading? Is it technical, literary, prose? Or better yet, whose philosophy are you reading? I ask because understanding it depends on the sort of writing used. Needless to say, there is no right or wrong way to read, write or do philosophy (there are petty ways, but that's another subject).
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:51 am
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140589 wrote:
I enjoy reading philosophy, but Sometimes when reading some works, I get a little confused and a bit overwhelmed. what is the best way to read philosophy effectively?


Line by line and sometimes not at all. Sometimes even the Author does not know what he means and aims to confuse.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:54 am
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;140596 wrote:
Line by line and sometimes not at all. Sometimes even the Author does not know what he means and aims to confuse.


Heidegger comes to mind.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:58 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;140597 wrote:
Heidegger comes to mind.


And Foucault!............
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 10:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140599 wrote:
And Foucault!............


Ill read him at some point just to make myself angry like I used to do with Kant. Good times....
 
Flamvell Rose
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:00 am
@zefloid13,
zefloid13;140594 wrote:
What kind of philosophy are you reading? Is it technical, literary, prose? Or better yet, whose philosophy are you reading? I ask because understanding it depends on the sort of writing used. Needless to say, there is no right or wrong way to read, write or do philosophy (there are petty ways, but that's another subject).


Right now I'm reading Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals."
 
zefloid13
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:02 am
@Flamvell Rose,
I just read Kant's Groundwork, Flamvell Rose! Or, at least I tried to... Yeah, Kant is up there on the obscurity bar. He is often cited as one of the first purely academic philosophers, so he was influenced by professors who wrote technically, and somewhat esoterically. Take it a page at a time. Have you read about Kant's ethics previously?
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:04 am
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140601 wrote:
Right now I'm reading Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals."


Did you get really angry at Kant, throw the book at the wall, shout at the book, vent for a little bit, then pick the book up and continue reading? That's what I used to do....
 
Flamvell Rose
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:07 am
@zefloid13,
I would read it and pause for a moment, and think to myself "If I throw this book, I could possibly mess it up and have to pay for a new one. Your best bet is to take a moment, breathe and ask for a little guidance."
 
zefloid13
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:09 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;140604 wrote:
Did you get really angry at Kant, throw the book at the wall, shout at the book, vent for a little bit, then pick the book up and continue reading? That's what I used to do....


Haha, Ding! Yeah, been there, done that. Kant's ethics are rather ambiguous, which is ironic, since his thesis seems pretty straightforward. It's when you try to apply his "categorical imperative" that things get messy.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:09 am
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140601 wrote:
Right now I'm reading Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals."


You need a lot of secondary sources to understand Kant. Unless you are a genius, reading him without help or background is futile. Kant was addressing professional philosophers, not you.

Kant's Ethics

Kantian Ethics
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:13 am
@zefloid13,
zefloid13;140607 wrote:
Haha, Ding! Yeah, been there, done that. Kant's ethics are rather ambiguous, which is ironic, since his thesis seems pretty straightforward. It's when you try to apply his "categorical imperative" that things get messy.


It's not that it's ambigious, Kant's arguments are sometimes missing! In his Grounding there are literally parts of the argument that he is making which he assumes you know. Other than that he is straightforward. His categorical imperative is obnoxious at times and requires you to basically think like Kant (which is nigh impossible). I think the problem with Kant's ethics (or the benefit of them) is that he is both egoistic and altruistic. Its really awkward....
 
Flamvell Rose
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;140608 wrote:
You need a lot of secondary sources to understand Kant. Unless you are a genius, reading him without help or background is futile. Kant was addressing professional philosophers, not you.

Kant's Ethics

Kantian Ethics


Wow so it's kind of like going to a dinner party with alot of well known philosophers and they turn to to ask "what do you think?" Dazed and confused, the person asks for the restroom instead.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 11:22 am
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140612 wrote:
Wow so it's kind of like going to a dinner party with alot of well known philosophers and they turn to to ask "what do you think?" Dazed and confused, the person asks for the restroom instead.


It's like writing a letter to a friend of yours whom you had been arguing over an issue with for a while, and then expecting others to understand the content and intentions of the letter without any explanation. It may be hard for others to understand the letter unless they receive some background information, information that your friend (professional philosopher) already knew.

Not to mention, a lot of this is technical stuff too, so it's not always just about understanding the context. It's often about understanding what these people even mean at all! (and this is where secondary sources come in)
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 01:05 pm
@Flamvell Rose,
Flamvell Rose;140589 wrote:
I enjoy reading philosophy, but Sometimes when reading some works, I get a little confused and a bit overwhelmed. what is the best way to read philosophy effectively?


What helps me is to start reading a primary work (like Kant's First Critique, for example), then as I come across ideas (Like his Copernican Revolution) I investigate that idea using Google.

Like Ding_an_Sich suggested, the best method is to find a teacher or knowledgeable friend and have ongoing discussions. If this is not available, secondary research is your next best option.

Another thing that helps me is to try to regurgitate the ideas on to paper. This helps you see what you are missing and forces you to investigate the ideas further.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 01:13 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio;140636 wrote:
What helps me is to start reading a primary work (like Kant's First Critique, for example), then as I come across ideas (Like his Copernican Revolution) I investigate that idea using Google.

Like Ding_an_Sich suggested, the best method is to find a teacher or knowledgeable friend and have ongoing discussions. If this is not available, secondary research is your next best option.

Another thing that helps me is to try to regurgitate the ideas on to paper. This helps you see what you are missing and forces you to investigate the ideas further.


How do you tell whether the ideas you put on paper mirror Kant's? It seems to me that a good place to ask would be this forum. It's not hard to tell whether a poster knows what he is talking about, or whether he is just making it up as he goes along. Of course, going to the two links I already posted would help too. That is, if you are really serious about wanting to know what Kant had to say.
 
Flamvell Rose
 
Reply Wed 17 Mar, 2010 01:15 pm
@zefloid13,
zefloid13;140602 wrote:
I just read Kant's Groundwork, Flamvell Rose! Or, at least I tried to... Yeah, Kant is up there on the obscurity bar. He is often cited as one of the first purely academic philosophers, so he was influenced by professors who wrote technically, and somewhat esoterically. Take it a page at a time. Have you read about Kant's ethics previously?


I have not read Kant previously, we started reading him in our philosophy class in regard to the subject, "How can I know what is right?"
But, thanks alot I'm going to try to take my time reading it. Smile
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » MetaPhilosophy
  3. » Reading Philosophy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 10:14:09