Recommend me Philosophy

i know a lot of your are deep into this shit (playbynumbers), if you would be so kind as to direct me toward any, any good philosophy at all...i want to build a collection and be decently well versed at it(i dont have the mental capacity to be a master of it)....so far I have and read

Adorno & Horkheimer-Dialectic of Enlightenment

Herbert Marcuse-One Dimensional Man

Nietzsche-The genealogy of Morals

St. Thomas Aquinas-Various Summa Theologica Excerpts]

Heidegger-The Question Concerning Technology

and various works from St.Anselm, Augustine, and a few others

recommend me anything you think i would enjoy/essential to understanding the development of philosophy.

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

If you want to understand the sort of philosophy which is currently practiced by the vast majority of english speaking philosophers (a group distinct from historians of philosophy) -- analytic philosophy, in other words -- then you could read some of the following:

Gottlob Frege - The Foundations of Arithmetic (if you like math)

Bertrand Russell - The Problems of Philosophy

W. V. O. Quine - Word and Object

Saul Kripke - Naming and Necessity

David Lewis - On the Plurality of Worlds

Robert Stalnaker - Inquiry

  Yegg said:

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

ok, mrs. painting is dead.

Would you like to study philosophy? It's about life, existence, purpose, and, of course, wisdom itself. In work, top up your qualifications. Out of work, give yourself the edge! Including a variety of professional and other qualifications, in accountancy, management, humanities and technology.

You're off to a good start.

If you enjoyed what you say you've read I'd stick to the continental side of things as opposed to diving into to more analytical philosophy as mentioned by grue. I myself am not a fan of analytic philosophy anyway.

Read Horkheimer's essay titled The Social Function of Philosophy for a general approach to the mode of philosophy. It can be found online for free.

Sartre's Existentialism Is A Humanism is not a bad read if you want to approach existentialism.

What Makes Us Think is a formal argument which takes place between an influential phenomenologist and a neuroscientist on the nature of our minds and experience. Might help conceptualize continental approaches compared to analytic approaches.

Of course you could always go to your local library and get a Cambridge Companion if you want to understand the history of philosophy and how things came to be in the philosophical world as they are. The establishment of Cartesian Dualism and the philosophical unrest that resulted is what gave birth to modern philosophy. Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz - all cunts. Plato? Fag. Socrates? Fictional character - senile old man. Aristotle? Self-righteous bastard.

Anyway, its hard to jump into philosophy without an understanding of its history - many references will not make any sense. Ultimately it comes down to where your philosophical interests lie. What are your questions? Concerns? It's a whole other fuckin' rabbit hole...

  lumpenprol said:

  Yegg said:

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

 

ok, mrs. painting is dead.

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

Nice post, panoptimist. =]

  Yegg said:

  lumpenprol said:

  Yegg said:

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

 

ok, mrs. painting is dead.

 

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

 

 

Nice post, panoptimist. =]

Butler, Oliver, Alcoff, Fanon, de Beauvior, etc.

Personally I feel analytic philosophy perpetuates this.

ive also read Maimonides and Lao Tzu among other Hindu texts, you dumb cunt.

anyway, thanks for the suggestions.

i dont have any particular aim, i just genuinely enjoy reading any philosophical texts...philosophy for me on a personal level is like lifting weights with my brain...good mental exercise....like I said, I dont claim to be that good at explaining or shit, even understanding it.

  Yegg said:

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

wait, so who else is there? Black Elk? Buddha? Deepak Chopra?

  Panoptimist said:

  Yegg said:

  lumpenprol said:

  Yegg said:

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

 

ok, mrs. painting is dead.

 

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

 

 

Nice post, panoptimist. =]

 

Butler, Oliver, Alcoff, Fanon, de Beauvior, etc.

 

 

Personally I feel analytic philosophy perpetuates this.

Not surprisingly, you don't know much about analytic philosophy. Of all the philosophy departments I'm familiar with (which is many), the one with the greatest gender balance amongst, for instance, its grad students (essentially 50/50) is completely analytic (it is considered one of the top analytic departments in the world). It also has amongst its faculty some of the most well-known contemporary feminist philosophers (Rae Langton and Sally Haslanger), who work on both feminist philosophy and traditional issues in core analytic philosophy, teach graduate level seminars on feminism, etc. Feminism notwithstanding, many analytic philosophers who have been highly influential in their fields are not old, white males (Sharon Street, L.A. Paul, Agustin Rayo, Ruth Marcus, Judy Thomson, Philippa Foot, Christine Korsgaard, Nishi Shah, etc.). There is, of course, still a lot of gender inequity, and non-Caucasians are still in the minority in the field, but that is true of almost every academic discipline.

Anyway, it's a bit silly arguing about this with someone who is such a fan of Sartre, who has lots of interesting things to say about women in his discussions of slime and holes.

now that you mention it...feminist philosophy...where should I starT? I heard some of Wollstonecraft's writings are good.

o hai

  Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

now that you mention it...feminist philosophy...where should I starT? I heard some of Wollstonecraft's writings are good.

I would start with Donna Haraway, Laura Mulvey, Judith Butler, and maybe Andrea Fraser.

  lumpenprol said:

  Yegg said:

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

 

wait, so who else is there? Black Elk? Buddha? Deepak Chopra?

i hope pbn comes back for an epic wattm philoso-war...

nonononono....no wars..just peaceful recommendations you overly smug sophists.

but what's philosophy good for if not pissing on each other?

Other interesting reads;

Paul Virilio (any of his essays and books on speed/technology and its drive), Homi Bhabha (his essay The Location of Culture, about identity politics), Baudrillard (theory of simulacra), Franz Fanon (aforementioned), Miwon Kown (writes about meaning in a Globalized condition), Felix Guattari (Regimes, Pathways, Subjects), Gilles Deleuze (writes about using rhizomic developments to avoid being branded by Capitalism), Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt ( the book Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire), Trinh T. Minh-ha (interesting literary theorist and artist), D. T. Suzuki (Zen master in NY, lol but really interesting), Roland Barthes (the book A Lovers Discourse and his essay on Camera Lucida), Edward Said (Post-colonialist writer, the book Orientalism is amazing), Samuel P. Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations).

Here is a good philosophy:

Get the most out of life by finding out what you love most (assuming you feel emotions) in life and study that or live that or do that until you die........

93/93

i love reading philosophy, so my path continues unabated. thank you.

  grue said:

  Panoptimist said:

  Yegg said:

  lumpenprol said:

  Yegg said:

Lol, typical white boy fail (for the most part)

 

ok, mrs. painting is dead.

 

It's just pathetic whenever the "erudite" only know and reach for the texts of white males who are most likely dead, imho.

 

 

Nice post, panoptimist. =]

 

Butler, Oliver, Alcoff, Fanon, de Beauvior, etc.

 

 

Personally I feel analytic philosophy perpetuates this.

 

Not surprisingly, you don't know much about analytic philosophy. Of all the philosophy departments I'm familiar with (which is many), the one with the greatest gender balance amongst, for instance, its grad students (essentially 50/50) is completely analytic (it is considered one of the top analytic departments in the world). It also has amongst its faculty some of the most well-known contemporary feminist philosophers (Rae Langton and Sally Haslanger), who work on both feminist philosophy and traditional issues in core analytic philosophy, teach graduate level seminars on feminism, etc. Feminism notwithstanding, many analytic philosophers who have been highly influential in their fields are not old, white males (Sharon Street, L.A. Paul, Agustin Rayo, Ruth Marcus, Judy Thomson, Philippa Foot, Christine Korsgaard, Nishi Shah, etc.). There is, of course, still a lot of gender inequity, and non-Caucasians are still in the minority in the field, but that is true of almost every academic discipline.

 

Anyway, it's a bit silly arguing about this with someone who is such a fan of Sartre, who has lots of interesting things to say about women in his discussions of slime and holes.

How's the view from up there?

I'm interested...Tell me more. Point me in some direction. What are the implications of being an analytic feminist? One of my most influential mentors in the field of philosophy is a feminist professor who focuses on continental philosophy. I'm interested in what she has to say on this matter.

You'd probably enjoy a thesis I wrote last semester on responsibility in terms of Sartre. I actually wrote some on this meaning and the implications of Oliver's critiques of Sartre's conception of subject-object relationships on Sartre's philosophy, and vice versa. It's because of a feminist woman that I was introduced to Sartre...you're perpetuating the same stereotype you're knocking in the previous post you made by making ad hominem attacks against me because of my interest in Sartre's existentialism.

then this is what you do for the rest of your life....

unless you find something that you love even more.....?

like the perfect ass of a beautiful woman......

or the fact that we are all multidimensional beings........

  Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

ive also read Maimonides and Lao Tzu among other Hindu texts, you dumb cunt.

 

anyway, thanks for the suggestions.

 

i dont have any particular aim, i just genuinely enjoy reading any philosophical texts...philosophy for me on a personal level is like lifting weights with my brain...good mental exercise....like I said, I dont claim to be that good at explaining or shit, even understanding it.

Sounds like it would be a very confusing approach, but to each his own.

I mean, if you're looking for "mental exercise," why not just do crossword puzzles and sudoku?

  Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

ive also read Maimonides and Lao Tzu among other Hindu texts

did you mean, "as well as some Hindu texts"?

Cause neither of those two dudes were Hindus....

I recommend questioning your existence and methodically trying to explain it. Be prepared to accept the answer to the question "Who am I?"

Deconstruct and rebuild.