Where should I begin?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sorry about that, Jack. That was mal4mac who mentioned the Kenny book. My mistake.

[Jack of Hearts]

All good. Hopefully you didn't find that annoying/nitpicky. Personal quirk.






J

[mal4mac]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree. The profession has found better ways to explain Newton's ideas. Some works (Plato, Nietzsche...) might be looked upon as art objects, like great novels, that should be read for their aesthetic impact. But can you make that argument for most philosophical works? Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

[MarilynMonroe]

LOL @ mal4mac - ignorant pig. A lazy, incurious, philistine mind. Thank god intelligent people aren't like you - insufferably certain. You belong here. lol

[/dev/null]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree.

My academic background is in physics and no one expects students to do only what they are told to do.

Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

Bloom not including something in his cannon doesn't mean it isn't a classic. That something isn't a classic doesn't mean it isn't a must read, let alone worth reading. That something isn't good literature doesn't mean it isn't good philosophical essays. There's plenty of reason for reading any of the named philosophers.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why read the original philosophers? My professional background is in physics and no one expects students to read Newton when doing a physics degree. The profession has found better ways to explain Newton's ideas. Some works (Plato, Nietzsche...) might be looked upon as art objects, like great novels, that should be read for their aesthetic impact. But can you make that argument for most philosophical works? Harold Bloom, doesn't include many philosophical works in his literary canon! Why should we put ourselves through the hard grind of reading Aristotle, Kant, or Heidegger, if their works are not literary classics?

Well, aside from actually experiencing them as they were intended by the original author, as you already suggested, I guess my other main reason is that I don't necessarily trust just one person to tell me how they interpreted a person's thoughts, especially when it comes to something as ambiguous as philosophy. I don't know what agenda they might have. I'd rather read and make up my own mind.

[Theunderground]

Early Buber and especially Levinas.