Philosophy Now Forum

Dear friends,

My name is Harry and I’m currently grinding through a degree in Economics and Law at university.
Over the past 12 months my interest in philosophy has deepened, prompted mainly by my own thoughts about the ‘bigger questions’ in life. These questions are not easily answerable, but philosophers throughout the ages have attempted to provide some reasonable explanations.

Most people my age seem to be more concerned about their sex lives, personal image, Facebook accounts and conforming with ‘the Herd’, rather than actually exploring what it is to be human, and what greater purpose we may have in our lives.

Thus far, I have only managed to read very lightly on a few people who have interested me: Burke, Machiavelli, Kant, Neitzsche, Scruton, Mill and Hayek.

My university workload leaves little time to read for pure leisure. More serious is my inability to simply pick up the book and dive straight in. The denseness and complexity of some prose requires me to harness all my concentration into not just reading, but (hopefully) comprehending. I sometimes get the impression only half of what I’ve read has been properly absorbed.

This generation’s lifestyles, adoption of technology and indifference towards reading have no doubt eroded attention spans significantly.

Typically for me, periods of lucidity arise late in the evening, during which I feel compelled to write down my thoughts and experiences, revisit my collection of notes or newspaper articles, think about life and read philosophy. Before long these periods are constrained by natural tiredness.

➢ How do you concentrate well on philosophy? Have you managed to complete Spinoza’s Ethics, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason or Heidegger’s Being and Time? If so, HOW! Is reading analysis and expert interpretation of these works a good way to ease into it (I feel like a fraud, however, if I don’t get around to reading the original text)?

For the time being I’m content slowly ploughing through the books I’ve amassed at home.

➢ As a younger person, could you suggest to me a roadmap to study philosophy? If you were in my position, how would you handle the next few years? Should I stick to certain ‘introductory’ thinkers? To develop as a person, should I be writing and reading as much as possible?

I apologise for bombarding you with so many questions, but I hope to learn. I bow to the wisdom of other forum members whose knowledge is infinitely greater than my own, and who can offer valuable advice regarding life and study.

Any response would be appreciated,
Harry

Actually, speaking as someone who has read all or at least most of this stuff, I can say if you don't read it you're not missing much.

Read Italo Calvino instead.

.


You should concern yourself with your sex life, personal image, Facebook accounts and conforming with ‘the Herd’ just like everyone else your age.


There are ten curmudgeons left on this site. We all hate each other, barely talk, and certainly don't reach to understand.


Philosophy, the way that is accepted here, is dead. Hit the school books. Grind out a living. Rub one off.


Pray when it's about over...

.........................................................................




.

Read Daniel Quinn, Sam Harris and Terry Pratchett. Watch The Daily Show and MI5 whenever you can keep your eyes open that late. Drink beer and eat blueberries (not at the same time - yuck!). Smell roses - unless you're allergic. Visit geriatric wards.

PS I thought only half of us curmudgeons hated the other half.

Hi Harry,

Not sure there is a roadmap for this journey, but it seems to me that following a chronological order may help, as philosophers usually build theirs thoughts or systems on the ideas and concepts developed by previous thinkers. But there is neither a gate nor a path to start in philosophy, just like there is none to start in "science" taken as a whole.

Political and moral philosophy is quite easy to catch (and useful for our everyday life), so I would personally start with that following a chronological order (Plato's Republic and Laws, Aristotle's Politics and N. Ethic, Rousseau's Contract, British philosophers like Locke, Hobbes, Hume...).

If it comes to metaphysics, I would first get familiar with the basic vocabulary, and then follow for sure a chronological order. Can't see how to understand Descartes without understanding Augustine, Aristotle and Plato for instance. Especially if we don't want to disconnect their thoughts from the historical background. Same for Spinoza: his Ethics is one of the most difficult books of the history of philosophy, and it just can't be understood without knowledge about Descartes and his conception of the substance and attributes.

As for German philosophy, I would leave Kant and Hegel aside, and focus on Nietzsche, which is a great refreshment after reading too much of Christian philosophers or the Bible (which I didn't read entirely, but is fundamental as all philosophers refer to it in their writings).

But you may prefer Aesthetics, Philosophy of the mind/consciousness, Philosophy of Language and Logic? I think the field is so huge that it may be good to start with what interests you the most. Or just with a good History of Philosophy, like the one of Russell.

Good journey, but don't forget your sex life

Today I'm interested in philosophy for the purpose of learning other languages to help me be a better Buddhist. The more languages you know the more people you can communicate with.

There are many Buddhists who aspire to learn the highest teachings for the purpose of showing other Buddhists who much they know. They never meditate. If one spent their entire life learning woodworking reading books but never actually worked with wood, could I call myself a woodworker?

The word "Buddhism" alone doesn't mean anything, it's like "Greek thought"... There are so many schools of Buddhisms, some of which are more religious (like Pure Land: you just pray Amithaba and pronounce his name as much as possible to guarantee your seat in Paradise) and other more philosophical (like Madhyamaka, which is the one which interests me, and which thought is close to Kant, Damasio and other modern thinkers and scientists). Some (rational) schools like Madhyamaka consider knowledge as a key to enlightenment, meditation being practised to "realize" (>make real) in the mind what has been understood theoretically. Some (irrational) others have developed a whole pantheon of Gods, and consider practice as more important (prayer, meditation...) than teachings. In China, those schools met a huge success as they were easy to understand, practical and seducing for the people (like in Christianity, people basically like having a God above them, protecting them, and promising them a great after-life).

However, I think all the buddhists, including Madhyamika, consider meditation as fundamental. It's just that different schools focus on different things, or prioritize things differently.

In Chinese tradition, including Chinese schools of Buddhism, you will often hear that theory and practice are like the 2 wheels of a chariot, or the 2 wings of a bird, so one is not a woodworker before having assimilated both.

Anyway, if you're interested by both languages and philosophy, please check out www.languages-through-philosophy.net

classicallibera1 wrote:Dear friends,

My name is Harry and I’m currently grinding through a degree in Economics and Law at university.

-Hi ClassicLiberal!

My father did exactly the same, HEC in french, and Law, he became one of the better notaries of his state ...according to my divorced mother. Among others, he introduced computers technology in his practical work - but he did not for so a reconversion in technologies laws (I mean, he could be active in digital signatures, or about the relevance of integrity and authentifications in technologies, but he was already notary before the internet, si didn't).

classicallibera1 wrote: Over the past 12 months my interest in philosophy has deepened, prompted mainly by my own thoughts about the ‘bigger questions’ in life. These questions are not easily answerable, but philosophers throughout the ages have attempted to provide some reasonable explanations.

-The phenomenon that comes to you is symptomatic of studying a "dry" branch, as Law or science.

-Beginning to study physics, I also had strong dreams of "Absolute". And in a learning in computers, my philosophical interests increased to the puissance of ten!..

classicallibera1 wrote: Most people my age seem to be more concerned about their sex lives, personal image, Facebook accounts and conforming with ‘the Herd’, rather than actually exploring what it is to be human, and what greater purpose we may have in our lives.

-Don't worry about your friends.

classicallibera1 wrote: Thus far, I have only managed to read very lightly on a few people who have interested me: Burke, Machiavelli, Kant, Neitzsche, Scruton, Mill and Hayek.

My university workload leaves little time to read for pure leisure. More serious is my inability to simply pick up the book and dive straight in. The denseness and complexity of some prose requires me to harness all my concentration into not just reading, but (hopefully) comprehending. I sometimes get the impression only half of what I’ve read has been properly absorbed.

-I am surprised that your work at university in two branches let you even little time. But I read in your text that you have a cleverness beyond common people.
-If you let me a first advice: Omit philosophy for this time, except on these evenings moments when you have a really thirst for it (what you evoke later), because of the limited time and energy.

classicallibera1 wrote: This generation’s lifestyles, adoption of technology and indifference towards reading have no doubt eroded attention spans significantly.

Typically for me, periods of lucidity arise late in the evening, during which I feel compelled to write down my thoughts and experiences, revisit my collection of notes or newspaper articles, think about life and read philosophy. Before long these periods are constrained by natural tiredness.

➢ How do you concentrate well on philosophy? Have you managed to complete Spinoza’s Ethics, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason or Heidegger’s Being and Time? If so, HOW! Is reading analysis and expert interpretation of these works a good way to ease into it (I feel like a fraud, however, if I don’t get around to reading the original text)?

-For me, I read the 3 first chapters of Critique of pure reason, I found a gold mine there, I couldn't stop myself in reading.

But after 3 chapters, I had a break pause, because word began in mixing in front of my eyes. The same occur when I am coding.

Edit:-I disadvise you strongly any "expert interpretation" - this would be the best way to have a biased view of it - very bad for a beginning.
Articles of magazine are another thing, they could be an impartial introduction.

Experts interpretation is as Bible exegesis: it is useful only once you have your own global vision, to have another point of view only.

classicallibera1 wrote: For the time being I’m content slowly ploughing through the books I’ve amassed at home.

➢ As a younger person, could you suggest to me a roadmap to study philosophy? If you were in my position, how would you handle the next few years? Should I stick to certain ‘introductory’ thinkers? To develop as a person, should I be writing and reading as much as possible?

-The best way to study something as philosophy could be to do it 100% of time. But think about if you was philosophy student, you would perhaps take a rest (of mind), in doing Law studies.

I am not ironical, I would prevent you in abandoning your first interests, what wouldn't be a very good idea, except if you cannot continue.

-But philosophy in the university is not the only way to do philosophy. For this reason, the "master" in philosophy was not called a diploma some years ago in my Land - only a certificate (in having eaten the thoughts of others).

azerty wrote:The word "Buddhism" alone doesn't mean anything, it's like "Greek thought"... There are so many schools of Buddhisms, some of which are more religious (like Pure Land: you just pray Amithaba and pronounce his name as much as possible to guarantee your seat in Paradise) and other more philosophical (like Madhyamaka, which is the one which interests me, and which thought is close to Kant, Damasio and other modern thinkers and scientists). Some (rational) schools like Madhyamaka consider knowledge as a key to enlightenment, meditation being practised to "realize" (>make real) in the mind what has been understood theoretically. Some (irrational) others have developed a whole pantheon of Gods, and consider practice as more important (prayer, meditation...) than teachings. In China, those schools met a huge success as they were easy to understand, practical and seducing for the people (like in Christianity, people basically like having a God above them, protecting them, and promising them a great after-life).

However, I think all the buddhists, including Madhyamika, consider meditation as fundamental. It's just that different schools focus on different things, or prioritize things differently.

In Chinese tradition, including Chinese schools of Buddhism, you will often hear that theory and practice are like the 2 wheels of a chariot, or the 2 wings of a bird, so one is not a woodworker before having assimilated both.

Anyway, if you're interested by both languages and philosophy, please check out http://www.languages-through-philosophy.net

How nice it would be to have some of those texts in podcast format.

My point though was geared toward the OP or anyone who takes an interest in knowledge.
What I was saying was basically you can learn about philosophy to subdue your ego or you can use philosophy to feed it.

sjeff70 wrote:you can learn about philosophy to subdue your ego or you can use philosophy to feed it.

Yeah true, I agree. If Buddhist teaching is basically all about understanding that there is no such thing as an "ego", then those guys are missing the point indeed. I wouldn't criticize however our excellent scholars in Buddhist Studies, whose understanding of Buddhist teachings is great, and who are not Buddhists themselves.

Interesting also to see how Buddhists consider "rational thinking" (not to say "philosophy" in that Oriental context just to avoid controversies) as a medicine for the mind, just like some ancient Greek philosophers, whereas philosophy in Modern Europe has more developed like a science. It can only be right to "learn about philosophy to subdue your ego" in a thought like Buddhism, which 1/ (like European philosophy may do) proposes a certain rational explanation about why there is not such thing as an ego and how believing that that ego exists produces suffering, and which 2/ (unlike European philosophy would do) considers that, on the basis of that theoretical diagnosis, it is necessary to cure people's mind in practice for their own sake.

European philosophy is more descriptive and would stop to point 1 (knowing the truth), whereas Indian and Chinese thoughts are more prescriptive and go to step 2 (proposing a way of life derived from that truth). Which may also be the reason why they are considered as "spirituality" and not "philosophy"?

You can certainly turn philosophy or any religion into a hobby or interest. There are many great scholars in the past who were practioners as there are presently I suppose. It really boils down to what you deem most important in life or what you want out of it. I was not happy in my twenties so I went searching and found meaning through practice.

I don't want to take away from the original poster, so I will stop.