Philosophy Now Forum

Hi guys, I am new here.
I have a little background in philosophy in its general sense. I deeply like the ideas and thoughts that are proposed in postmodern philosophy. I am interested in understanding and dedicatedly studying philosophers of this era in a comprehensive manner, philosophers like : Bakhtin, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Barthes, Habermas, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Lacan, Kripke, Putnam, Zizek.

So where should I start? Is there a road map? should I thoroughly study ancient, medieval and modern philosophies before, in order to understand postmodern philosophies?

start at the beginning...

-Imp

Foadr wrote:Hi guys, I am new here.
I have a little background in philosophy in its general sense. I deeply like the ideas and thoughts that are proposed in postmodern philosophy. I am interested in understanding and dedicatedly studying philosophers of this era in a comprehensive manner, philosophers like : Bakhtin, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Barthes, Habermas, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Lacan, Kripke, Putnam, Zizek.

So where should I start? Is there a road map? should I thoroughly study ancient, medieval and modern philosophies before, in order to understand postmodern philosophies?

welcome... I am pretty new here too as you can see.

nothing really new has been discovered since Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, most, if not all, trains of thoughts derive from them in the west, especially in EU where I was raised. From there, just follow your own path. Over the last 5 years I have turned to metaphysics and find more philosophical insights in math/physics and even economics, geometric cosmology and AI. As for psychology, I recommend to investigate mythologies instead.

reading others too much can also weaken your own original thinking (or 2 cents), something to chew on, as big shots-philosophers generally disagree with each other. You might find this confusing after a while if you do not have any strong opinion to start with.

best of luck

Foadr wrote:Hi guys, I am new here.
I have a little background in philosophy in its general sense. I deeply like the ideas and thoughts that are proposed in postmodern philosophy. I am interested in understanding and dedicatedly studying philosophers of this era in a comprehensive manner, philosophers like : Bakhtin, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Barthes, Habermas, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Lacan, Kripke, Putnam, Zizek.

So where should I start? Is there a road map? should I thoroughly study ancient, medieval and modern philosophies before, in order to understand postmodern philosophies?

Re: second sentence. Name a thought or idea that you like. Naming it can lead to suggestions, maybe unorthodox.

Walker wrote:

Foadr wrote:Hi guys, I am new here.
I have a little background in philosophy in its general sense. I deeply like the ideas and thoughts that are proposed in postmodern philosophy. I am interested in understanding and dedicatedly studying philosophers of this era in a comprehensive manner, philosophers like : Bakhtin, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Barthes, Habermas, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Lacan, Kripke, Putnam, Zizek.

So where should I start? Is there a road map? should I thoroughly study ancient, medieval and modern philosophies before, in order to understand postmodern philosophies?

Re: second sentence. Name a thought or idea that you like. Naming it can lead to suggestions, maybe unorthodox.

Bakhtin : His literary criticism and Dialogism / Putnam : his philosophy of mind (brain in a vat) / Baudrillard : hyperreality and Simulacra / Zizek : his unorthodox way of criticizing and his opinion on film / Habermas : (I like critical theory itself)

If you don't have basic grounding in philosophy of a more traditional kind you'll never be able to figure out what the fuss is all about. Most of the philosophers are flying against some of the bigger 19thC paradigms in philosophy.
If you want to get a goos start at these guys you are better off having a subject area to concentrate on.
So is you are into sociology, you might like to think about Husserl's phenomenology and how it translates into the existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. If you are into literary criticism you might want to think about Derrida's deconstructionism.
If you are interested in history then Foucault would be a good place to start. ~He unpacks traditional viewpoints.
.. Media... go for baudrillard..

But the only prerequisite is that you were born in the 20thC

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you don't have basic grounding in philosophy of a more traditional kind you'll never be able to figure out what the fuss is all about. Most of the philosophers are flying against some of the bigger 19thC paradigms in philosophy.
If you want to get a goos start at these guys you are better off having a subject area to concentrate on.
So is you are into sociology, you might like to think about Husserl's phenomenology and how it translates into the existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. If you are into literary criticism you might want to think about Derrida's deconstructionism.
If you are interested in history then Foucault would be a good place to start. ~He unpacks traditional viewpoints.
.. Media... go for baudrillard..

But the only prerequisite is that you were born in the 20thC

Is Heidegger really an "existentialist"? My understanding is that he denied the label himself.

EDIT: Or am I misreading your sentence?

Foadr wrote:Hi guys, I am new here.
I have a little background in philosophy in its general sense. I deeply like the ideas and thoughts that are proposed in postmodern philosophy. I am interested in understanding and dedicatedly studying philosophers of this era in a comprehensive manner, philosophers like : Bakhtin, Merleau-Ponty, Althusser, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Barthes, Habermas, Benjamin, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Lacan, Kripke, Putnam, Zizek.

So where should I start? Is there a road map? should I thoroughly study ancient, medieval and modern philosophies before, in order to understand postmodern philosophies?

Welcome. That's exactly what I'd recommend. The best idea is to start with the oldest and work your way to the newest. You'll discover that line "all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" is completely legit. I even found some Hume in Plato.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you don't have basic grounding in philosophy of a more traditional kind you'll never be able to figure out what the fuss is all about. Most of the philosophers are flying against some of the bigger 19thC paradigms in philosophy.
If you want to get a goos start at these guys you are better off having a subject area to concentrate on.
So is you are into sociology, you might like to think about Husserl's phenomenology and how it translates into the existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. If you are into literary criticism you might want to think about Derrida's deconstructionism.
If you are interested in history then Foucault would be a good place to start. ~He unpacks traditional viewpoints.
.. Media... go for baudrillard..

But the only prerequisite is that you were born in the 20thC

Is Heidegger really an "existentialist"? My understanding is that he denied the label himself.

EDIT: Or am I misreading your sentence?

He may well have denied the term, but there is no doubt in my mind that the concept of Dasein is perfectly existential, in that it privileges human experience as a means of understanding and acting in the world.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you don't have basic grounding in philosophy of a more traditional kind you'll never be able to figure out what the fuss is all about. Most of the philosophers are flying against some of the bigger 19thC paradigms in philosophy.
If you want to get a goos start at these guys you are better off having a subject area to concentrate on.
So is you are into sociology, you might like to think about Husserl's phenomenology and how it translates into the existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. If you are into literary criticism you might want to think about Derrida's deconstructionism.
If you are interested in history then Foucault would be a good place to start. ~He unpacks traditional viewpoints.
.. Media... go for baudrillard..

But the only prerequisite is that you were born in the 20thC

Is Heidegger really an "existentialist"? My understanding is that he denied the label himself.

EDIT: Or am I misreading your sentence?

He may well have denied the term, but there is no doubt in my mind that the concept of Dasein is perfectly existential, in that it privileges human experience as a means of understanding and acting in the world.

Obviously it's a debate in and of itself with few concrete answers. One of my former college professors is a Heidegger scholar. Last time I wrote him (a few years ago now) he seemed to indicate that contemporary Heidegger scholarship was mostly of the opinion that Heidegger was not an "existentialist". So that's what I've assumed. I guess it also depends upon what is meant by "existentialist".

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
Is Heidegger really an "existentialist"? My understanding is that he denied the label himself.

EDIT: Or am I misreading your sentence?

He may well have denied the term, but there is no doubt in my mind that the concept of Dasein is perfectly existential, in that it privileges human experience as a means of understanding and acting in the world.

Obviously it's a debate in and of itself with few concrete answers. One of my former college professors is a Heidegger scholar. Last time I wrote him (a few years ago now) he seemed to indicate that contemporary Heidegger scholarship was mostly of the opinion that Heidegger was not an "existentialist". So that's what I've assumed. I guess it also depends upon what is meant by "existentialist".

Obviously on the most basic level of definition MH succumbs to this: "a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will."

There is no doubt that MH is fully behind this, and even is at some pains to make this a core theme. But his approach might differ in some respects, as he evolved from Husserl, he is more of an existential phenomenologist. But in this he shares Existentialism's asserting the importance of experience, but might differ in that all seem fundamental to beingness.

~If you thing that beingness is not basically the same as experience, then you might disclude MH from being an existentialist. But it is a fine line.

I did read somewhere that because S.Kierkergaard examined "existentially" MH decided to examine "existentielly" - Maybe this encapsulates the difference but then what does EXISTENTIELL mean?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you don't have basic grounding in philosophy of a more traditional kind you'll never be able to figure out what the fuss is all about. Most of the philosophers are flying against some of the bigger 19thC paradigms in philosophy.
If you want to get a goos start at these guys you are better off having a subject area to concentrate on.
So is you are into sociology, you might like to think about Husserl's phenomenology and how it translates into the existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. If you are into literary criticism you might want to think about Derrida's deconstructionism.
If you are interested in history then Foucault would be a good place to start. ~He unpacks traditional viewpoints.
.. Media... go for baudrillard..

But the only prerequisite is that you were born in the 20thC

Thank you.

Jaded Sage wrote: Welcome. That's exactly what I'd recommend. The best idea is to start with the oldest and work your way to the newest. You'll discover that line "all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" is completely legit. I even found some Hume in Plato.

I know what is that you saying, but I am afraid studying those ancient and modern stuff would take much time and energy. I mean in these two eras there are great philosophers and tons of good books which can be helpful for 20thc philosophies, what I am looking for is a shortcut.

Foadr wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: Welcome. That's exactly what I'd recommend. The best idea is to start with the oldest and work your way to the newest. You'll discover that line "all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" is completely legit. I even found some Hume in Plato.

I know what is that you saying, but I am afraid studying those ancient and modern stuff would take much time and energy. I mean in these two eras there are great philosophers and tons of good books which can be helpful for 20thc philosophies, what I am looking for is a shortcut.

Typical of JS to be asked about 20thC philosophy and respond with Plato.
Jaded Sage is Plato obsessed. I image the only book on Philosophy s/he has read is Plato for Beginners..
Philosophy is not a footnote to Plato in any meaningful sense. Plato is mostly moribund and ossified.
The Socratic Method still holds true, but the cultural assumptions of he fifth Century BC, including a half-baked Theism renders Platonic philosophy as pretty much useless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Foadr wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: Welcome. That's exactly what I'd recommend. The best idea is to start with the oldest and work your way to the newest. You'll discover that line "all of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" is completely legit. I even found some Hume in Plato.

I know what is that you saying, but I am afraid studying those ancient and modern stuff would take much time and energy. I mean in these two eras there are great philosophers and tons of good books which can be helpful for 20thc philosophies, what I am looking for is a shortcut.

Typical of JS to be asked about 20thC philosophy and respond with Plato.
Jaded Sage is Plato obsessed. I image the only book on Philosophy s/he has read is Plato for Beginners..
Philosophy is not a footnote to Plato in any meaningful sense. Plato is mostly moribund and ossified.
The Socratic Method still holds true, but the cultural assumptions of he fifth Century BC, including a half-baked Theism renders Platonic philosophy as pretty much useless.

I agree with you on "footnote to plato". I believe this argument "you can find Marx (or anyone else) in plato, therefore Marx is a footnote to plato" is in any sense false. "Plato is mostly moribund and ossified", a wise saying. This is actually the reason that I dont want to read ancient and modern philosophies deeply, so I am looking for shortcuts.

You'd've thanked me. Phil is a cigar not a ciggarette.