Philosophy Now Forum

Hello,

I have been reading a little philosophy with no rhyme or reason for around two years, but now, I want to be more methodical. Eventually, I want to come up with my own philosophy, but, truth be told, I hardly know what Philosophy really is. Therefore, I’ve decided to learn a philosophy (stress on the “a”), a complete one, so that I can use it as a framework for learning others.

It doesn’t really matter which philosophy I choose, as long as there is enough written material about it, material conducive enough to learning by a beginner. By searching the Web, and based on the little I’ve already read on Philosophy, I’ve found no systematic expositions of entire philosophical systems, especially not easy-enough ones. None, but Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

I should urge you now to please not to get into the specifics or pros and cons of Objectivism in this thread. I know it is quite controversial a philosophy, and I do intend to inquire about it on this board, but that’s not my point here. I’ve chosen it as a starting point simply because it provides the most complete and easiest-to-follow exposition of an entire philosophical system I could find (although I admit, much of it does resonate with me). In fact, it is the only philosophy I’ve found so far that attempts to link all of its main branches through logical reasoning. The Logical Structure of Objectivism (https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... bjectivism) is exactly what I wish I could find for every major philosophical system out there. For the first time, I was able to see how metaphysical and epistemological axioms form the basis for more advanced ethical, political, and even aesthetical considerations. I am sure it sounds very basic and naive for you guys, but it was a sort of revelation to me.

My plan is to learn all Objectivism I can manage in a reasonable time-frame, and then begin studying other philosophies/philosophers by comparing their arguments with those of Objectivism. Any time that, after thoughtful consideration, I decide I prefer a given premise or argument from a given philosopher, I'll try to integrate it to my previous Objectivism-based system and reassess everything. Eventually, after many iterations, I might finally come up with my own set of philosophical beliefs, my full philosophical system, which might not even resemble Objectivism in the first place - or which might actually resemble it a lot. I have no idea what is going to happen, for now.

Does that make any sense?

Do you guys know of resources similar to the Logical Structure of Objectivism, but for other philosophies?

I thank you all in advance for any commentaries and criticisms.

Best,
M.

Mnemoriam wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:53 pm Hello,

I have been reading a little philosophy with no rhyme or reason for around two years, but now, I want to be more methodical. Eventually, I want to come up with my own philosophy, but, truth be told, I hardly know what Philosophy really is. Therefore, I’ve decided to learn a philosophy (stress on the “a”), a complete one, so that I can use it as a framework for learning others.

It doesn’t really matter which philosophy I choose, as long as there is enough written material about it, material conducive enough to learning by a beginner. By searching the Web, and based on the little I’ve already read on Philosophy, I’ve found no systematic expositions of entire philosophical systems, especially not easy-enough ones. None, but Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

I should urge you now to please not to get into the specifics or pros and cons of Objectivism in this thread. I know it is quite controversial a philosophy, and I do intend to inquire about it on this board, but that’s not my point here. I’ve chosen it as a starting point simply because it provides the most complete and easiest-to-follow exposition of an entire philosophical system I could find (although I admit, much of it does resonate with me). In fact, it is the only philosophy I’ve found so far that attempts to link all of its main branches through logical reasoning. The Logical Structure of Objectivism (https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/at ... bjectivism) is exactly what I wish I could find for every major philosophical system out there. For the first time, I was able to see how metaphysical and epistemological axioms form the basis for more advanced ethical, political, and even aesthetical considerations. I am sure it sounds very basic and naive for you guys, but it was a sort of revelation to me.

My plan is to learn all Objectivism I can manage in a reasonable time-frame, and then begin studying other philosophies/philosophers by comparing their arguments with those of Objectivism. Any time that, after thoughtful consideration, I decide I prefer a given premise or argument from a given philosopher, I'll try to integrate it to my previous Objectivism-based system and reassess everything. Eventually, after many iterations, I might finally come up with my own set of philosophical beliefs, my full philosophical system, which might not even resemble Objectivism in the first place - or which might actually resemble it a lot. I have no idea what is going to happen, for now.

Does that make any sense?

Do you guys know of resources similar to the Logical Structure of Objectivism, but for other philosophies?

I thank you all in advance for any commentaries and criticisms.

Best,
M.

Objectivism has its place, as all axioms (self-evident truths) have an objective nature.

The problem occurs, in the respect that objectivism on its own terms requires some form of subjective understanding and premise. We can observe this further within the nature of the axiom as "self" (subjective) "evidence" (objective).

If you are formulating a philosophy, one approach would be to observe a dualism of where one author inherently counteracts another author. In these respects will be able to observe a more universal approach, avoid be locked into anyone ideology specifically, and see both sides of the same coin through a tension that will help you formulate your own thoughts.

The third element will be "you" in synthesizing these philosophies to form your own axioms, while simultaneously discovering universal constants that extend beyond yourself.

In these respects, considering that Rand is and objectivism and atheist, try reading some Kierkegaard who was a highly subjective theist/deist. He is what comes to my mind, but others may give you some better suggestions.

Reading the polar opposites will enable you to find some balance and help you center both yourself and whatever further philosophies you read through. It will simultaneously help you to learn quicker as you will become more involved through the arguments.

One simple axiom I have learned from this is: "If it exists, there is some degree of truth in it...no matter how small".

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:26 pm Objectivism has its place, as all axioms (self-evident truths) have an objective nature.

The problem occurs, in the respect that objectivism on its own terms requires some form of subjective understanding and premise. We can observe this further within the nature of the axiom as "self" (subjective) "evidence" (objective).

Yes, from the start (no pun intended) I have a problem with axioms, which you stated much better than I ever could: “the nature of the axiom as ‘self’ (subjective) ‘evidence’ (objective)”. You’ve got to “believe” it at some point, anyway.

I force myself to accept them by asking: “What do I prefer: to accept a few arbitrary claims in order to acquire a lot of further knowledge, or to question everything from the start and risk being caught in paralysis through analysis”? I have a tendency toward the latter, so I am choosing the first option.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:26 pm If you are formulating a philosophy, one approach would be to observe a dualism of where one author inherently counteracts another author. In these respects will be able to observe a more universal approach, avoid be locked into anyone ideology specifically, and see both sides of the same coin through a tension that will help you formulate your own thoughts.

The third element will be "you" in synthesizing these philosophies to form your own axioms, while simultaneously discovering universal constants that extend beyond yourself.

In these respects, considering that Rand is and objectivism and atheist, try reading some Kierkegaard who was a highly subjective theist/deist. He is what comes to my mind, but others may give you some better suggestions.

Reading the polar opposites will enable you to find some balance and help you center both yourself and whatever further philosophies you read through. It will simultaneously help you to learn quicker as you will become more involved through the arguments.

There is no greater polar opposite to Objectivism than Kant. Rand and his followers revile him (in a rather aggressive manner, I must say) all the time, to the point that they made me want to read him. But Kierkegaard, as well as any other existentialist, is, for sure, almost as opposite as it can get, so thanks for the suggestion. Something got me interested in him a while back, but I can’t quite remember what…

I will consider your suggestion and maybe relax my plan of sticking just to Objectivism, even now when I am just beginning. To read other (opposing) philosophies might, as you say, even accelerate my learning by involving me in contrasting arguments. I just need to find the right balance.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:26 pm One simple axiom I have learned from this is: "If it exists, there is some degree of truth in it...no matter how small".

Thanks for that.

Best,
M.

QUOTE "I have been reading a little philosophy with no rhyme or reason for around two years, but now, I want to be more methodical. Eventually, I want to come up with my own philosophy, but, truth be told, I hardly know what Philosophy really is. Therefore, I’ve decided to learn a philosophy (stress on the “a”), a complete one, so that I can use it as a framework for learning others"


There is no creditable "philosophy" I`ve come across beyond the known science, natural selection, which can reasonably be described as applicable to everything. However, whilst I`d describe the search as philosophy I`d describe the findings of that search as conjecture. Only when philosophy/philosophical process arrives at a formulae would I consider it to exist still, that is to say the formulae, as actual philosophy.

Respected philosophy is the product of names/gods, and beyond rhyme or reason such that us mere mortals cannot grasp it, far less show it up for its underlying value. Intellectual snobbery is snobbery of the very worst kind. To create ones own philosophy one must lead, not follow. To follow is merely god worshiping.

Mnemoriam wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:53 pm Hello,

I have been reading a little philosophy with no rhyme or reason for around two years, but now, I want to be more methodical. Eventually, I want to come up with my own philosophy, but, truth be told, I hardly know what Philosophy really is. Therefore, I’ve decided to learn a philosophy (stress on the “a”), a complete one, so that I can use it as a framework for learning others.

It doesn’t really matter which philosophy I choose, as long as there is enough written material about it, material conducive enough to learning by a beginner. By searching the Web, and based on the little I’ve already read on Philosophy, I’ve found no systematic expositions of entire philosophical systems, especially not easy-enough ones. None, but Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

If you are interested in philosophy in the sense of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant and the rest, it is a disastrous choice. Rand is not a philosopher in that sense, so if you learn the meaning of technical language from her it will be no help at all in understanding other philosophers.

I would suggest that philosophy is an activity. You do not 'learn one', you learn to philosophise. What you have to learn to do is to question. That is why Rand, with her system, and her band of uncritical acolytes, was not a philosopher.

What is wrong with looking at Socratic dialogues? They are an example of somebody actually doing philosophy. Or Descartes. But neither provide a set of answers to be learnt, rather they reveal the flimsy foundations of our existing beliefs. Or you could look at Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'.

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:20 am There is no creditable "philosophy" I`ve come across beyond the known science, natural selection, which can reasonably be described as applicable to everything. However, whilst I`d describe the search as philosophy I`d describe the findings of that search as conjecture. Only when philosophy/philosophical process arrives at a formulae would I consider it to exist still, that is to say the formulae, as actual philosophy.

I am not quite sure I follow you though, so, please, correct me if I am wrong.

You say Philosophy is just conjectures, pure intellectual snobbery with no underlying value?

If that’s so, what exactly do you extract of value from this forum? Are you a philosopher who doesn’t believe in Philosophy, maybe like I am becoming a policeman who doesn’t believe in the Police? I ask you this very sincerely.

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:20 am“Respected philosophy is the product of names/gods

This part, I didn’t understand. Do you mind expanding on it? I don’t see where God fits in the subject.

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:20 amTo create ones own philosophy one must lead, not follow.

When I say that I want to come up with my philosophy, I mean philosophy in a complete sense. People use the expression “philosophy of life” to mean all sorts of things, most of them much less encompassing than what I mean here.

I want to define my metaphysics, my epistemology, my ethics, my politics, and my aesthetics: a complete philosophical system. My point is that little time ago I wouldn't even know that existed some kind of hierarchy within Philosophy. I know I will only be able to philosophize by thinking through my own ideas, but there is a lot of more “formal” knowledge to acquire, I believe. However, I don’t know what this actually entails. I am only now learning what kind of questions this endeavor might generate. I am only now beginning to see how logical arguments might connect an entire philosophical system from its very foundational axioms up to its most abstract and complex concepts.

I find it fascinating.

If I don’t follow first, I will never be able to create something with the slightest chance of not being just conjecture. I believe every scientific innovation is a little leading after a lot of following; I don’t see why things must be different in philosophy. (I am using the term “innovation” here very lightly, just to allude to anything that I might come up with for myself, not anything of interest to anybody else)

I know nothing about philosophy, but I am eager to learn. To try to lead now would be nothing but arrogance and stupidity.

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:20 amTo follow is merely god worshiping.

Here, again, I don’t see where God (or god worshiping) fits in the subject. You are speaking figuratively, right?

Could you elaborate?

Thanks again.

Best,
M.

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:53 am If you are interested in philosophy in the sense of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant and the rest, it is a disastrous choice. Rand is not a philosopher in that sense, so if you learn the meaning of technical language from her it will be no help at all in understanding other philosophers.

I am afraid I don’t know exactly what you mean by “in the sense of” in that case. Yes, I was hoping one day to study all these philosophers, and I did think they were all in the “same sense” as any other, including Ayn Rand. I know their ideas are almost polar opposites, but I really thought I could compare them somehow.

If you say the technical language between Rand and the others is disparate, I might indeed be in trouble. Could you give me examples of what you mean? I’d appreciate it.

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:53 am I would suggest that philosophy is an activity. You do not 'learn one', you learn to philosophise. What you have to learn to do is to question. That is why Rand, with her system, and her band of uncritical acolytes, was not a philosopher.

What I want is exactly that: to learn how to philosophize. I have difficulty with abstract thinking. I am not used to it. When I say I want to learn “one” philosophy, I don’t mean I want to learn its “answers”. All I want is to use it as a tool, as a helper for further study. Maybe it’s hard for you to understand if you are a philosopher; philosophizing is probably second-nature to you all. But I feel that if I don’t use some kind of “pre-defined” structure to help with my thoughts, it’s going to be a much slower process. But, of course, maybe I am simply wrong…

Londoner wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:53 am What is wrong with looking at Socratic dialogues? They are an example of somebody actually doing philosophy. Or Descartes. But neither provide a set of answers to be learnt, rather they reveal the flimsy foundations of our existing beliefs. Or you could look at Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'.

Thanks for the suggestions. Nothing is absolutely wrong with Socratic dialogues. In fact, my first contact with philosophy was through The Apology. I had just read Adler’s How to read a book and decided (as advised) to tackle Plato without any preparatory reading, no commentary, no Wikipedia. I can’t describe what I felt when I read it! I was absolutely stunned. I was reading a 2,400-year old text about a guy who lived for knowledge and died for integrity. I was hooked.

In time, I might be able to grasp, for instance, Plato's metaphysics or epistemology by reading the dialogues and other commentaries, but I'd have to build the understanding almost from scratch. This is great, of course, and probably the best (and only) way to actually learn. But the way Objectivism has been laid out in front of us makes it really easy to grasp the whole philosophy in a way I haven't been able to do with any other system.

Moreover, my life has always been too concrete, too fast, too real. I hardly have time or ability to formulate abstract questions before I have to put the answers into practice and bear the consequences. All I want by learning “a” philosophy as best as possible first is to have a framework that might help me compensate for decades of too much action with too little thought.

Thanks again.

Best,
M.

Mnemoriam wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:29 am
If you are interested in philosophy in the sense of Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant and the rest, it is a disastrous choice. Rand is not a philosopher in that sense, so if you learn the meaning of technical language from her it will be no help at all in understanding other philosophers.

I am afraid I don’t know exactly what you mean by “in the sense of” in that case. Yes, I was hoping one day to study all these philosophers, and I did think they were all in the “same sense” as any other, including Ayn Rand. I know their ideas are almost polar opposites, but I really thought I could compare them somehow.

If you say the technical language between Rand and the others is disparate, I might indeed be in trouble. Could you give me examples of what you mean? I’d appreciate it.

As an example, here is an extract from the start of the introduction to Rand's 'Objectivism'.

To exist is to be something, to possess a specific identity. This is the Law of Identity: A is A. Facts are facts, independent of any consciousness. No amount of passionate wishing, desperate longing or hopeful pleading can alter the facts. Nor will ignoring or evading the facts erase them: the facts remain, immutable.

The 'Law of Identity' is a very basic axiom within logic. It says that each thing is identical with itself. Logic is a formal system - it is not a description of either 'facts' or states of mind.

It is like maths; '2' must equal '2'. But that '2' does not stand for a fact, like '2 apples'. If '2' did stand for a fact, then '2' would not necessarily equal '2'. For example 2 apples are not identical to 2 elephants.

So , if you picked up an understanding of 'Law of Identity' from Rand you would have completely the wrong idea.

Thanks for the suggestions. Nothing is absolutely wrong with Socratic dialogues. In fact, my first contact with philosophy was through The Apology. I had just read Adler’s How to read a book and decided (as advised) to tackle Plato without any preparatory reading, no commentary, no Wikipedia. I can’t describe what I felt when I read it! I was absolutely stunned. I was reading a 2,400-year old text about a guy who lived for knowledge and died for integrity. I was hooked.

In time, I might be able to grasp, for instance, Plato's metaphysics or epistemology by reading the dialogues and other commentaries, but I'd have to build the understanding almost from scratch. This is great, of course, and probably the best (and only) way to actually learn. But the way Objectivism has been laid out in front of us makes it really easy to grasp the whole philosophy in a way I haven't been able to do with any other system.

In my opinion, you need an 'idiots guide' type book to explain somebody like Plato before you start. The trouble with a lot of philosophy is that it is part of a long conversation and so a new reader can literally not know what they are talking 'about'. They seem to be taking a lot of trouble to make a point, and even if you can understand it, you don't see what you are supposed to have learnt.

But on the other hand, you ought to try and pick holes in the 'idiots guide' type book. Philosophy is like science in that no theory is privileged just because it comes from somebody famous.

What sort of things are you interested in already? Maths, law, history, art, religion...? They will all have a philosophy. If you start with something you know something about already, you will have a head-start understanding any references. I would recommend a general book like 'The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy' (available online, but easier to read on paper in my opinion) which has chapters on both particular subjects and particular philosophers, then, if something takes your fancy, you can find more detailed discussions.

Hi, Londoner

I’ll try to answer you in reverse order if you don’t mind.

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:20 am What sort of things are you interested in already? Maths, law, history, art, religion...? They will all have a philosophy. If you start with something you know something about already, you will have a head-start understanding any references. I would recommend a general book like 'The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy' (available online, but easier to read on paper in my opinion) which has chapters on both particular subjects and particular philosophers, then, if something takes your fancy, you can find more detailed discussions.

Thank you for the book suggestion. I’ve already downloaded it and I am sure it’s going to be very useful.

I am interested in analyzing my life and, hopefully, become a better person in the process. I am about to have a daughter, and one day she will make questions about my life and life in general — I want to have good answers for her. That’s about it.

So, I guess I am mainly interested in ethics, but, since we live in society, I need to study politics too; and, since I need to know what I think the world is, what man is, and I need to know where I’ll get that knowledge from, I am pretty sure I need metaphysics and epistemology too. I still don’t know exactly what I might extract of value from aesthetics, but I admire the beauty of the world (what amazes some people, after all I have seen and done in life), so I want to study it too. In fact, I think it's exactly because of everything I've done and seen in life that I admire beauty so much.

I guess I am interested in Philosophy as a whole — which doesn’t make my life easy, for sure. I am interested in Religion just as a door to understanding man, but I don’t believe in God. I would gladly discuss God philosophically, but the fact that the notion of God is inherent in almost all philosophies make my life even harder. This is one reason Objectivism resonated a lot with me.

I also find very useful the notion of the “primacy of existence” versus the “primacy of conscience” that Ayn Rand expounds. This gets me to your comment on the Law of Identity, but, first, a comment on books.

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:20 am In my opinion, you need an 'idiots guide' type book to explain somebody like Plato before you start. The trouble with a lot of philosophy is that it is part of a long conversation and so a new reader can literally not know what they are talking 'about'. They seem to be taking a lot of trouble to make a point, and even if you can understand it, you don't see what you are supposed to have learnt.

But on the other hand, you ought to try and pick holes in the 'idiots guide' type book. Philosophy is like science in that no theory is privileged just because it comes from somebody famous.

I try to believe I can tackle higher-level books, but I see your point. After reading what Adler and Doren had to say about the “great books” of mankind, I accepted that understanding half of Aristotle or Plato or Kant would provide an enormous value. I still believe in that. But if I want a systematic approach to philosophy, then I need more than just sipping here and there by whim. That’s where an “idiots guide” could indeed help. But I’ve read, for instance, Russell’s History of Western Philosophy and Durant’s The Story of Philosophy, and these kinds of books provide a nice overall view to, at least, position any philosopher or idea in a general context. And reading them has the added value of not making me feel like an idiot!

I have been thinking of tackling some kind of introductory books in metaphysics and epistemology. I’ve found a thread somewhere in this forum with nice suggestions. Do you think it’s a good idea? Would you recommend any of these? I had already bought Russell's The Problems of Philosophy when you suggested it, but I did so in audio format, which I don't think is particularly suited for that kind of book. I'll try to get a print copy of it too.

Now, to "A is A":

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:20 am As an example, here is an extract from the start of the introduction to Rand's 'Objectivism'.

To exist is to be something, to possess a specific identity. This is the Law of Identity: A is A. Facts are facts, independent of any consciousness. No amount of passionate wishing, desperate longing or hopeful pleading can alter the facts. Nor will ignoring or evading the facts erase them: the facts remain, immutable.

The 'Law of Identity' is a very basic axiom within logic. It says that each thing is identical with itself. Logic is a formal system - it is not a description of either 'facts' or states of mind.

It is like maths; '2' must equal '2'. But that '2' does not stand for a fact, like '2 apples'. If '2' did stand for a fact, then '2' would not necessarily equal '2'. For example 2 apples are not identical to 2 elephants.

So, if you picked up an understanding of 'Law of Identity' from Rand you would have completely the wrong idea.

For obvious reasons, I cannot discuss Formal Logic with you. But what you said intrigued me.

First, you are right when you say Objectivism applies the Law of Identity to “facts” and not just to numbers or to other formal notions of Logic. But you are not right when you say it applies it to “states of mind”. This is exactly what it doesn’t do. “Passionate wishing, desperate longing or hopeful pleading” are examples of “states of mind” that are not grounded in facts of existence and, because of that, they are not a means of acquiring knowledge. And they can’t change reality.

This sounds obvious, but, after reading Objectivism, I could finally put into more definite terms what I see all around me — and that is exactly that people think they can change reality with their thoughts. Most of the people I know (almost the totality of them and, especially, my wife) believe so, even if they don’t realize it. They think that A can stop being A depending on their thoughts, desires, or prayers. This had always been absurd to me, but I didn’t know how to express it. Now, I know: the Law of Identity, A is A; an axiomatic concept, a primary of Objectivism (and of Philosophy in general?).

If you say it was not meant originally to be used as such, I believe you. But it is very useful as such. And, since the headline of Objectivism is “A philosophy for living on Earth”, maybe that’s what Ayn Rand intended: to apply useful concepts of Formal Logic (and Philosophy at large) to more “real” situations.

But even reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics, I wonder if you are right. Please, read this:

“For instance, we might say that 'man' has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. 'two-footed animal', while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.”
— Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4 (from Wikipedia)

I think the bolded section illustrates the main stress Ayn Rand put on the Law of Identity. It is a necessity for proper reasoning and transmission of knowledge. If there is no common-ground there can be no discussion, to begin with. If now you say A is A and tomorrow you say A is B, a barrier to communication has been erected, and no more proper reasoning is possible. Even if the concept is being used in a corrupt way with respect to Formal Logic, I still think it’s very useful. No?

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

Best,
M.

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:20 am What sort of things are you interested in already? Maths, law, history, art, religion...? They will all have a philosophy. If you start with something you know something about already, you will have a head-start understanding any references. I would recommend a general book like 'The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy'

By just now perusing The Blackwell Companion you suggested, I think I can be a bit more precise about the things I am "interested in already".

I want to eventually study Applied Ethics. More specifically, Ethics applied to combat situations. But I mean a very specific kind of combat, combat between police and criminals, combat that rages like a guerilla but is not between countries. It's not the same thing as a policeman simply reacting to an attack from a criminal either. Here, it's much more like what you see in the movie "Blackhawk Down" (helicopter included), but in a different social and political context. Chapter 16 of The Blackwell Companion is on Applied Ethics and it mentions "Just War Theory", which I believe is something like what I would like to study/develop for my type of combat situations.

Furthermore, I believe there are ethics to be derived from combat situations. I like what Objectivism says about values, that they presuppose alternatives. "Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." And that life or death is the fundamental alternative we face. "It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible." I believe the kind of life and death situations we live daily put us in a privileged position to understand value. It is too easy to judge value from the comfort of an office like most political commentators do on TV, deciding where the combatant should have done differently, or when he should not have done anything. The trader/philosopher Nassim Taleb talks a lot about the need to have "skin in the game" in his book "Anti-Fragile", and I must say I agree 100%.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread, while I might be able to read and extract value from a text on Just War Theory, I feel that I'd profit much more by already possessing a structural understanding of Philosophy — of "a" philosophy — so as to better grasp, for instance, what kinds of premises are implicit in such and such ethical conclusion, and so forth. I don't believe a text on Applied Ethics will go all the way down to the very foundational axioms of the inherent metaphysics and epistemology they are considering in order to demonstrate their final ethical conclusions. I'd like to have such understanding though.

Best,
M.