Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Trouble reading philosophy.

  1. #31
    Internal nebulae TheFifthElement's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,067
    Blog Entries
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by Infinitefox View Post
    I've tried reading philosophy and I can never seem to finish the book I start. I tried reading an anthology(Blackwell, I think) of philosophers where it had a bunch of different philosophers with brief writings of their works and I just didn't understand it. I then tried reading one of John Locke's essays and I didn't get that, either. Am I starting at the wrong point or am I just not intelligent enough to grasp what's being said?
    Infinitefox, you might want to start with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-West...1766880&sr=8-2

    Russell was a philosopher in his own right, but this particular book gives an overview of the development of Western philosophy from the Ancient Greeks up to Russell's predecessors (Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer). It's really clearly written; Russell focuses on the key ideas of each philisopher and also explores their philisophy looking at the pros and cons, in his opinion. From there you can pick which philosophers you're more interested in and read some more of their work.

    I found that, in the absence of a teacher, the key to developing a philosophical understanding was not to rush into it and expect too much. As has been mentioned, philosophy has it's own language and is constructed, to a point, with ideas built on ideas. If it takes someone 3-4 years to do a philosophy degree then you need to pace yourself with that sort of timescale in mind. Spend a few months on a philosopher and only when you feel comfortable move on. A teacher helps, certainly, as they are able to guide you on how to think about the message but you can do this yourself if you just take your time and let your mind absorb, and then question, what you've read.

    Good luck with your reading.
    Want to know what I think about books? Check out https://biisbooks.wordpress.com/

  2. #32
    Registered User Lust Hogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    On a lonely penisula in The Atlantic
    Posts
    37
    I do not think that you are necessarily intellectually disadvantaged because you find philosophy, difficult, boring, and sometimes disengaging. I studied philosophy for four years and the various emotions listed above were perennially present in that period. Philosophy is most certainly challenging, but it is certainly an admirable and valuable pursuit. Take your time with it. Recommendations... well stay away from contemporary analytic philosophy such as Strawson, Davidson, some older stuff such as Frege and Wittgenstein. Not because of any lack of valuable content, but for sheer difficulty in light of your lack of experience with philosophy. As mentioned by others, the Greeks are accessible and quite particularly important considering they were instrumental in forming most theoretical positions which have in the last couple thousand years been expounded and repudiated by just about everyone. A few Essays, rather than lengthy treatises to consider.... Hume "of Liberty and Necessity" (free will and determinism) Thomas Nagel "What it Feels Like to be a Bat"( philosophy of Mind) George Berkley "Three Dialogues From Hylas and Philonous" ... just to name a few, Good luck

  3. #33
    Itinerant Reader
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFifthElement View Post
    Infinitefox, you might want to start with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-West...1766880&sr=8-2
    Heartily seconded!

    There are two connected subjects involved here - philosophy and the history of philosophy. Some people think they should be conflated others that they are distinct. Russel believes they are distinct but nonetheless his history is a good way into some common philosophical ideas. He's a very good, very clear writer. Be aware however this his views on the history of philosophy and his interpretation of earlier philosophers are not always the most mainstream!

    As to which philosophers are difficult and which not, I can only say that I have found that those that seem simple often get difficult the more you reflect on what they say and that those who seem difficult to begin with often turn out to be expressing perennial and simple ideas. What you will succeed with depends a lot on your prior interests and knowledge. I very much enjoyed John Passmore's One Hundred Years of Philosophy but I'm a maths geek and the formality of the some of the questions and arguments didn't phase me. On the other hand, I found Peter Singer's Practical Ethics which was strongly recommended to me, infuriatingly difficult and frustrating. A chacun son gout!

    Peace and loving kindness

  4. #34
    Real-Life Vorticist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by mayneverhave View Post
    This is a sweeping generlization. Philosophical language, although sometimes difficult, is often necessary - similiar to the jargon used in computer technology, or automotive work. In philosophical enquiry, its often necessary to speak exactly, in a scientific, intellectual language. Its purpose isn't to stroke the philosopher's ego, but to come as close as possible to reaching attainable truth in writing.

    As for philosophers belonging to a certain class of people: this is often not the case. Quite a few philosophers were middle-class, or poor. Some were vagabonds. Think about it this way: the practice of philosophy requires leisure time. The poor, hungry man doesn't think of philosophy, he thinks of food.

    As for your last paragraph. You must realize that your criticism of philosophy is a philosophical one - there are no values of better or worse in human behaivor. In order to build that thesis, to come to that conclusion, requires intellectual argument. To put it simply: thought. By simply dismissing philosophy as retarded is intellectually backwards.
    Obviously, fighting fire with fire feeds the flame, and destruction is the PRIMARY name of the game. Toxick magician...

    Anyway, for the most part the terms coined in WESTERN PHILOSOPHY bear much semblance really simple explanations of why things are the way they are that have existed since before science. You are right however, my bone to pick is not with all "philosophy", but with western philosophy in particular.

    It's boring, secular, and always fails to include itself in it's thesis'. This leads to a large group of children who assume their assumptions hold more weight than anything else. The fact of the matter is... things are. Your perception matters little to anyone but you, and why should it?

    So when you have a group of white men questioning the ways of hte universe and then publishing rebuttals of others explanations on the grounds of some "universal logic" it quickly accumulates into what we have right now...

    An aristocratic elite composed of BORED DOGS.

    Now my with my comment on class I was refering more ot social strata. Whether or not one is BORN impoverish matters little to his work, it's whether or not he writes to be read by those impoverished. Please, tell me the enlightenment was for the people, and please, tell me Utopia was written to be read by those it would "benefit". It's really quite a joke.

    And while I'm on the topic of enlightenment, it appears many of you are stuck in that archaic age of drought. No, the enlightnment was not a push "forward" but rather a desperate attempt created by the mainstreaming of alchemical beliefs into "science" to get Europe up to date with the rest of the world, particularily the Middle East and the Far East, both of whom are primarily responsible for this so called "enlightenment".

    It's a joke folks, get beyond out and over.

  5. #35
    Registered User Lust Hogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    On a lonely penisula in The Atlantic
    Posts
    37
    Mr math guy, the real joke is your explicit disdain for an area of thought which quite evidently has incurred irreparable damage upon your serenity. You give a fractured, incomplete,repudiation of philosophy without ever critiquing anything which is in itself philosophical. Fear and aggression are emotions which are suggestive of fear. Maybe i am wrong, but your rather aggressive language towards philosophy seems to confirm what is already explicitly revealed in your some-what odd methods of argumentation, simply, you just don't understand it. Most sensible individuals do not rely upon emotionally charged, unsubstantiated claims to confirm some point or validate their claims. They do so dispassionately, with a logically succinct structure. They certainly do not make vague historical generalizations about thinkers they know nothing about. If you think philosophy is a joke, prove it to me. Maybe it is, just demonstrate why.

  6. #36
    Real-Life Vorticist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    Once again this depends on the area of philosophy.

    It does not trouble my serenity, merely allows another vehicle for which me to achieve serenity by. However my quarrels with the assumptions of mainstreamed philosophy are a suggestion of betterment, or progress, and a rather grandiose estimate of ones own worth in the world, effects included. This creates, unfortunately, a dogmatic approach to questioning the world that takes the subjective questioner out of the... question. We don't bother attempting to digest the idea that the conception that allows for the understanding of the world may indded be the very conception that creates the world, and therefore absolutism is inherently... nonabsolute.

    Therefore the mental structures that originally questioned and probed the fractalian moments we inhabit now serve to sever our understanding of it. it has made hypocrisy and mockey of itself.

    Once again, this is a generalization, but Spinoza, Voltaire, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Socrates and yes, all you rationalist nihilist's favorite, dear Nietzche all suffer from this obsessant fascination with absolutism and the clingy secularism implied with it. How do we begin to forget we are a product of infinite randomness and, according to our own theories on relativitity, therefore no larger smaller bigger greater older younger than any other notion of "being" we permit?

    In short, again, it is a

    JOKE!

    and if it weren't you people wouldn't be such funny guys.

  7. #37
    Registered User Etienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    967
    0=2, you are obviously missing the real point of philosophy, and are judging it from your own personal viewpoint, therefore including yourself in your own criticism. And what is your point with secularism? Is this it? Are you simply a frustrated theist? Besides could you name me philosophers you have actually read? Have you ever seriously studied philosophy without this boorish preconception in mind? Do you realize that many of these thoughts are very old (who would take the pineal gland theory seriously anymore?) but their interest lies on two level which are reasonings behind the substance of the thought and also knowledge of the history of thought. Who cares if people don't use chariots anymore, does this mean that chariots are just a degenerated invention made by bored dogs?

    The thing I've learnt the most, I believe, from ancient or simply older philosophers, is to realize how many preconceptions we take for granted as axioms, but which, in the end, might not be so obvious and things might be in fact much more complex. Studying the history of thought is the best way to deconstruct current thought and be able to have a better critical eye on it.

    End of rant.
    Et l'unique cordeau des trompettes marines

    Apollinaire, Le chantre

  8. #38
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by 0=2 View Post
    yes, all you rationalist nihilist's favorite, dear Nietzche
    Nietzsche a nihilist?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slavoj Zizek
    But for me - though I never liked Friedrich Nietzsche - if there is a definition that really fits, it is Nietzsche's old opposition between active and passive nihilism. Active nihilism, in the sense of wanting nothing itself, is this active self-destruction which would be precisely the passion of the real - the idea that, in order to live fully and authentically, you must engage in self-destruction. On the other hand, there is passive nihilism, what Nietzsche called 'The last man' - just living a stupid, self-satisfied life without great passions.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C4.htm

    Note that neither type of nihilism is being promoted. Nietzsche considered nihilism a sort of sin of resentfulness.

    I'm also having trouble making sense of your characterisation of western philosophy as follows:

    Quote Originally Posted by 0=2
    secular, and always fails to include itself in it's thesis'.
    Most western philosophers up to about the nineteenth century believed in God and defended their belief philosophically. Kant's philosophy, beginning from the point of wondering how philosophical knowledge could be possible to us at all, would seem to 'include itself in its thesis'. Some significant recent philosophy also echoes your critique of enlightenment values and very definitely includes philosophy in its theses, doing a lot to undermine its traditional premises.
    Last edited by blp; 01-14-2009 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by Infinitefox View Post
    I've tried reading philosophy and I can never seem to finish the book I start. I tried reading an anthology(Blackwell, I think) of philosophers where it had a bunch of different philosophers with brief writings of their works and I just didn't understand it. I then tried reading one of John Locke's essays and I didn't get that, either. Am I starting at the wrong point or am I just not intelligent enough to grasp what's being said?
    I am a retired engineer with an MA in philosophy that I acquired along the way. I once asked a professor of philosophy "what is philosophy about". He said that philosophy "is a radically critical self-consciousness".

    It was thirty years later before I began to understand what he was saying.

    I consider CT (Critical Thinking) to be philosophy lite. I think that the best way to approach philosophy is to first study CT.


    CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

    Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

    The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

    Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

    Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

    When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

    I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

    I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

    To put the matter into a nut shell:
    1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
    2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
    3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
    4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
    5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
    6. Can our democracy survive that long?
    7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
    8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.


    Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

    http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html

    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

    http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquir...5/weinste.html

    http://www.criticalthinking.org/reso...glossary.shtml

    http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/pas...g03&sID=eslava

  10. #40
    Real-Life Vorticist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Etienne View Post
    0=2, you are obviously missing the real point of philosophy, and are judging it from your own personal viewpoint, therefore including yourself in your own criticism. And what is your point with secularism? Is this it? Are you simply a frustrated theist? Besides could you name me philosophers you have actually read? Have you ever seriously studied philosophy without this boorish preconception in mind? Do you realize that many of these thoughts are very old (who would take the pineal gland theory seriously anymore?) but their interest lies on two level which are reasonings behind the substance of the thought and also knowledge of the history of thought. Who cares if people don't use chariots anymore, does this mean that chariots are just a degenerated invention made by bored dogs?

    The thing I've learnt the most, I believe, from ancient or simply older philosophers, is to realize how many preconceptions we take for granted as axioms, but which, in the end, might not be so obvious and things might be in fact much more complex. Studying the history of thought is the best way to deconstruct current thought and be able to have a better critical eye on it.

    End of rant.
    Oh yes, I mustn't be well read enough. Excuse me.

    See that logic alone... oh man someone somewhere must be reading this and laughing at what I'm seeing.

    Yes, see my point, or rather a section of said point, was that we view these people, Socrates Voltaire Spinoza Grant Hume, the whole goddamn lot as DISCOVERING SOMETHING.

    Now, without touching the statement many a scholar would make, that statement being the Renaissance was NOT birthed from a return to Greek philosophy but rather an integration of Islam and eastern mysticism into the occult undercurrent pre-existing in Europe... whoops, tapped that ****, without even mentioning that we get to a Eurocentrized idea of what makes a thought VALID as a philosophy.

    Now to me philosophy and psychology appear to be one, they both deal with the state of man as we find him today, and the causes of this(Sri Auribindo can go **** himself for just this once), and as such any advanced psychological process is akin to a philosophical process. Of course most philosophers let their ideas rot in their heads, or rather most people coined "philosophers" by the culture under question.

    Ideas presented by, oh let's say...

    kant(because he was so judiciously brought up by a reason hungry wolf), the idea of things in and of themselves being unknown and your reaction with that thing being as much a part of you as a part o the thing itself, and that spilling over into our interpretation of the "isness" of a given object and hte qualities we project onto it, though truly our own,

    ...Do you guys think that was NEW when Kant wrote it? Those are the foundations of our most archaic beliefs. Taoism, Babylonian mythology, Aztec and Maya mythologies Hinduism, Taoism, occult practices world wide, on and on and on...

    The idea of the atom presented by the ancient greeks. The idea of spirit being the foundation of the atom(this has only recently been addressed by modern science), the idea of localism and non-local relativity and the intrinsic values properties to both sides... blah blah blah

    on and on. These concepts, these ideas deemed "revolutionary" by a European "intellectual elite". It's a joke. None of this is new. NONE of it. Europe is simply lagging behind the rest of the world.

    Nevermind all these philosophers who think it MATTERS that they've "found" something. Who think they find a "truth". All of these "laws" are simply networks of symbols created from an assumption we turned into a "rational process", so your method of "finding" or "discovering" your "truth" is no more valid than any other. You used the same tools as everyone else and come out as "better"? No... because you still die.

    So reading philosophy is not important and answers only as much as you will allow it to. You can find as much divinity in a Big Mac.

    (See that? For those of you watching at home this is a perfect example of how to make three points from one and return to none. Remember, noosphere is a SPHERE and as such all points are equidistant from the same center.)

  11. #41
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    What's the matter, 0=2? Which western philosopher abused you when you were a kid? It sort of seems you have read around in the subject, even if it was only enough secondary sources to give a doubtful precis of chapter 1 of The Critique of Pure Reason, so I'm mystified as to why you'd be so intent on warning total novices off completely. Even if you think it's all junk, why so hysterically reluctant to let people make their minds up for themselves? Regarding those of us who've read a bit of it, you seem to think you're debating a bunch of slack-jawed acolytes who think they're being handed the unvarnished word of God. It seems impossible for you to comprehend the idea that some of us might be interested in points of view we don't necessarily agree with.


    Quote Originally Posted by 0=2
    Nevermind all these philosophers who think it MATTERS that they've "found" something. Who think they find a "truth". All of these "laws" are simply networks of symbols created from an assumption we turned into a "rational process", so your method of "finding" or "discovering" your "truth" is no more valid than any other. You used the same tools as everyone else and come out as "better"? No... because you still die.
    Jeez, louise. Now who's the nihilist?

  12. #42
    Real-Life Vorticist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    ...Disregard all of philosophy? I believe I've been noting philosophy I view as helpful to the individuals condition since the beginning. Everything is, and should be, used by the psyche as a weapon fo sorts, to enabl the self to continue as happily as possible. Philosophy included, but to assume that any of these tools used to gain personal sanity are any more "true" simply isn't plausible, And the only reason you find it so is because a series of random variables that contain you and your action... this includes thought.

    Because al is random no one instance is necessarily more "thruthful" or closer to a "right".

    Now admiring a persons belief as an AESTHETIC VALUE makes complete sense, why take it as anything different? But to assume that your personal aesthetics are greater than anothers, or that they were birthed from a "progressive" train of thought, is ridiculousand illogical according to your own logic.

    So read if you will, but assuming that it gifts you some higher intellect is... retarded, and makes you all fish ready to be abolished by the overwhelming current of air always lingering overhead...

    death. You will all still die.

    Have fun, I will.

  13. #43
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by 0=2 View Post
    Have fun, I will.
    That's nice, dear.

  14. #44
    Real-Life Vorticist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    60
    That's weak. A weak way out. You come in here with a point, and it gets shredded. This is where logic eats itself. This is where the godheads fail their own game. lesson is? Don't make games you can lose.
    Last edited by 0=2; 01-16-2009 at 12:10 AM.

  15. #45
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by 0=2 View Post
    That's weak. A weak way out. You come in here with a point, and it gets shredded. This is where logic eats itself. This is where the godheads fail their own game. lesson is? Don't make games you can lose.
    You want a game you can't lose? Have you tried solitaire?

    I don't claim to understand all of philosophy as you seem to and I don't even claim to have the ammo to take down all of your points. Some may be perfectly valid for all I know. I don't mind being weak from time to time either, oh ubermensch, Hulk Hogan, Sgt. Rock, whoever you are, but there's no point playing games I can't win at all, like trying to communicate with ranting monomaniacs who don't really pay attention. You patently didn't understand the point of my post, which was not to accuse you of rejecting philosophy completely, but to ask why you didn't want people reading western philosophy in particular. I'm not going to beat myself up to get my point across to someone who seems more interested in proving his or her lofty, contemptuous and unimpeachable superiority than having an honest debate.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Advice on improving critical reading skills?
    By Ashalin in forum General Teaching
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-09-2014, 06:42 AM
  2. The end of philosophy
    By blazeofglory in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 02-14-2008, 11:13 AM
  3. Things that spoil the joy of reading
    By blazeofglory in forum General Literature
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 04:39 PM
  4. Philosophy Reading List
    By Entropy in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-11-2006, 04:21 PM
  5. Appropriate reading?
    By Anthony Furze in forum General Literature
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-19-2006, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •