Philosophy: books and discussion

[Sparrow]

The Stanford Encyclopedia is great; but I just thought I'd stick in a mention for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as well.
It's sometimes interesting to compare articles on the same topics.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Another French intellectual who argues that the tradition out of which Jesus came was liberating, and that Jesus's death on the cross is a moment of importance to all humans is Rene Girard, whose book "On Things Hidden Since the Beginning of Time" is quite impressive.

I'm glad you mentioned René Girard, his ideas fascinate me and I think there is a lot of truth in them, though I don't subscribe to them completely.

Just want to point out that Girard's point is that the teachings of Jesus were completely misunderstood from the beginning. I think it's better to read "Violence and the Sacred" before reading "Things hidden since the beginning of time".

His theory is that the role of religion has always been to break the vicious circle of violence (you do me a wrong, I retaliate, you or your relatives retaliate, and so on in an increasing spiral of violence) by diverting the flow of violence to a scapegoat. The cathartic explosion does calm the violence for some time, which confirms that the scapegoat was indeed responsible for it all (or, alternatively, voluntarily sacrificed themselves to make things right).

This is the whole demonstration in Violence and the Sacred. Then in the second book, he proceeds to analyze how this process slowly started to lose if efficiency as the people were more and more aware of it. There are many signs of this in the Old Testament, such as Abraham's story, or Cain and Abel (Cain is supposed to be the bad one, but after all, God had singled him out before he did anything wrong, and on the other hand why doesn't God just smite him instead of only exiling him while at the same time putting a protection on him?)

But the culmination is the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus, which is that the only way to stop the violence is to... just stop it. If someone strikes you, you don't strike them back. The spiral stops here. Of course you may also end up dead, which is what Jesus did.

But this teaching started to be lost almost immediately after the death of Jesus. Within less than a century, the old narrative came back to absorb the death of Jesus in the old myth: he died for our sins, to make things right again. And since then things have been getting worse and worse, the sacrifices get less and less effective in putting an end to violence, and as a result the search for victims becomes more and more desperate and violent.

I hope I didn't mangle his theories too much. I don't know how they sound as I relate them, but it's really worth reading the books IMO. There are many, many things in his demonstration that strike me as true, although I can't really subscribe to it as an all-encompassing explanation to everything in the history of humanity. But it's certainly food for thought.

Originally Posted by TimMason

Another book which argues that religions aren't just arbitrary collections of rules, but that they express something deeper, is Chris Knight's "Blood Relations." Knight finds critical knowledge in the myths of the people of Central Australia, the Arrernte.

Thank you, I'll look it up!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The Stanford Encyclopedia is great; but I just thought I'd stick in a mention for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy as well.
It's sometimes interesting to compare articles on the same topics.

Thanks for the link. It is indeed a good thing to have access to different views on the same subject.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by recluse

I have a question.
Although it appears that organized religon in general has become unpopular, the concept of a clear set of moral guidelines with which to live by seems, to me, to be increasingly important. It is almost as if society, as it turns it's back on religon, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where does one find moral guidelines in a religon free world?

I think that's great question, but I think the better question is simply, Where does one find ethical guidelines? There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to addressing that question. The answers aren't easy, but the fact that they are considered important enough to occupy some of the finest minds this world has produced is encouraging. Humans seem to be hard-wired for social behavior, which is impossible without some sort of sense of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. (I'm not saying we're the only terrestrial species that exhibits this trait, but it does seem to go hand in hand with the greater intelligence of our particular species.)

Many solutions have been put forward to the question of "How, then, shall we live," from the deontological ethics of philosophers like Kant to the Utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham, with every possible shade in between.

I think one of the main problems is how to get these concerns out of the ivory towers and into the streets, i.e., how do we produce an ethical society?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Someone who may show a penchant similar to Morin's for synthesizing biological and sociological approaches to human behaviour is WG Runciman - he writes about memes here - although his writing is rather more accessible than Morin's.

In that article, he reviews The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore. Blackmore is fantastic on the lecture circuit. Kennyc posted a wonderful TED Talk featuring her in another thread, perhaps he still has the link.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Perhaps I'll throw out some suggestions. (I'm a philosophy professor, though the kind of philosophy I focus on is not really the kind you tend to read for the “fun” of it.)

Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes. Far and away the most commonly assigned book into Introductory philosophy classes, since it covers all the basics, and introduces students to rigorous thinking so well (and of course was very influential in its own right).

Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkeley (18th century Irish philosopher). This is a beautifully written dialogue in which Berkeley (through the character Philonous) argues for immaterialism, the theory that no matter exists. The arguments are not really convincing in the end, but it may change the way you think nonetheless.

The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. This piece is not at all representative of Russell's usual philosophy (for that, look at The Philosophy of Logical Atomism), but it's broader and more accessible, and is a good accessory to the others mentioned.

If you liked Popper, a good next stop would be A. J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic, which advances the logical positivist doctrines into more traditional areas of philosophy. These sorts of views are not taken very seriously any more, but in the middle of the century they were all the rage in the English speaking world.

I'd make some more recommendations if people are interested in special topics. E.g., for philosophy of science, read T. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; for political philosophy, try John Rawls's A Theory of Justice; these are high level works but still accessible.

It's not really my cup of tea, but people interested in existentialism usually start with Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism (though I think he himself wouldn't regard it a serious work). If you were more into Nietzsche, my favorite work of his is The Genealogy of Morals, though that's not saying much (--don't much care for that kind of stuff.)

I've never heard anything good from a academic philosopher about Simon Critchley's work (and I've read lots of bad stuff), though I haven't read it myself, so take that with a grain of salt.

By 'Academic' I assume you mean "trained in the Anglophone style of philosophy?" Critchley, despite being English, seems to draw more from the Continental tradition, but without the jargon. The Book of Dead Philosophers is very clearly written and both entertaining and informative. I have started reading his Infinitely Demanding and it seems to be both well-written and an interesting take on ethics, especially in relation to political practice. I found his analysis of al-Qaida as a nihilistic group similar to the RAF to be quite interesting (one the main themes of his work is overcoming the challenge of nihilism).

Luqman

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by hidari

Have to a agree Russel's book is a good intro to Philosophy..I have read it twice over the years. Also, for a quick good light overview...Maybe Geoff and others would like

Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder.... A novel about the history of philosophy..Not perfect but very good...

http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-...5977111&sr=8-1

Also, Oxford produces the Very short introductions, or VSI. Those include some philosophers as well. Back to Russell. Another Book like his is Will Durant's History of Philosophy. Also a good general overview of Western Philosophy.

While Russell's book is worth reading, it is hardly a good introduction to Western Philosophy. It is more his personal rant about which philosophers are worthy and which are not. He really fails to understand Nietzsche, I think, and this may be due to the fact that he was writing against the backdrop of WWII. I also feel that his assessment of Aristotle is off-base. The book is also dated. There have been many important developments and trends in Philosophy since WWII, notably the ascendancy of Wittgenstein in the Anglophone world, the rise of Existentialism and Phenomenology, and the rise of the New Left and Post-Modernism. I enjoyed the book, don't get me wrong: I wore the thing down till it was falling a part. But I wouldn't take it as a fully objective study of the subject.

Luqman

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Just because it's in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just imagine the World as we now know it was devastated and in a few generations hence, all the surviviors had in book form was (say) Lord of the Rings or The Da Vinci Code; might either of these books affect that future in terms of creating a new religion?

The prevailing line of thought among Biblical scholars (to which I also subscribe) is that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible—traditionally ascribed to Moses' authorship—were in fact mainly composed by four different authors; the Yawist ("J"), the Elohist ("E"), the Deuteronomist ("D"), and the Priestly author ("P"), along with a later editor known as the Redactor, who put them all together. This is usually referred to as the "Documentary Hypothesis". In an entertaining and informative book published a few years ago by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg, the authors put forth an interesting take on the Yawist. In "The Book of J", they state their belief that "J" was a woman who probably lived around the time of Soloman. They believe she composed the book not as holy scripture, but as fanciful history more in line with modern fairy tales.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

That seems to be a rather narrow definition of religion.

Indeed. In Islam, we take evidence for our beliefs very seriously and there is a voluminous literature making the case for belief in God and in the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH). These arguments can be either purely rational (i.e. the Ontological argument for God's existence) or inductive (teleological arguments, arguments from the nature of the Qur'an, etc.). The previous poster may disagree with the cogency (or, in the case of the rational arguments, the validity or soundness) of the arguments, but they are arguments advance in good faith (so to speak) to make a rational case for belief that certain propositions are true. There is no suggestion of belief for belief's sake. That being said, many Muslim thinkers view Iman (faith or belief) as something more than mere intellectual assent that a proposition is true (this latter being known in Islamic logic (mantiq) as tasdeeq or assent). It is inextricably bound up with action in a manner similar to that suggested by the American Pragmatists Peirce and James. Peirce argued that Catholics don't really believe that the Host becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (PBUH) because their actions do not betray any acceptance of this belief. In other words, if Catholics really believed that they were eating flesh and blood, there would be a profound emotional reaction, and likely disgust and disease, to this. Similarly, Pierce critiqued Descartes for his method of total doubt. He argued that it is impossible to doubt the existence of a writing desk while simultaneously writing on it. You may say the words, but this an act of deception. Thinkers of the Ashari school of Islamic theology have taken a similar view regarding belief: that, going beyond mere intellectual assent, it increases or decreases depending on one's actions. Religious belief is a bit more involved and complicated than many skeptics give it credit for. The problem is the incredible arrogance that often affects all sides of religious debate.

Luqman

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The prevailing line of thought among Bible scholars (to which I also subscribe) is that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible—traditionally ascribed to Moses' authorship—were in fact mainly composed by four different authors; the Yawist ("J"), the Elohist ("E"), the Deuteronomist ("D"), and the Priestly author ("P"), along with a later editor known as the Redactor, who put them all together. This is usually referred to as the "Documentary Hypothesis". In an entertaining and informative book put forth years ago by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg, the authors put forth an interesting take on the Yawist. In "The Book of J", they state their belief that "J" was a woman who probably lived around the time of Soloman. They believe she composed the book not as holy scripture, but as fanciful history more in line with modern fairy tales.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I found his analysis of al-Qaida as a nihilistic group similar to the RAF to be quite interesting ...

RAF as in 'Red Army Faction' rather than 'Royal Air Force' I take it?
(Just to avoid possible misunderstandings. )

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It's in the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
but I guess you might be asking if we can know it really happened.

As I don't think there is a god - I don't think it's true.
But it's still part of Judeo-Christian teaching whether it's true or not.

This story is also part of the Islamic tradition, with the proviso that the majority (but not sole) opinion is that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed and that it was a willing sacrifice (i.e. the bound party consented). In Islamic theology, both Ishmael and Isaac are considered to be Prophets and thus had access to some degree of Divine Revelation, making the whole process a little more understandable.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

RAF as in 'Red Army Faction' rather than 'Royal Air Force' I take it?
(Just to avoid possible misunderstandings. )

Yep, that one.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

This story is also part of the Islamic tradition, with the proviso that the majority (but not sole) opinion is that Ishmael was the child to be sacrificed and that it was a willing sacrifice (i.e. the bound party consented). In Islamic theology, both Ishmael and Isaac are considered to be Prophets and thus had access to some degree of Divine Revelation, making the whole process a little more understandable.

In the Bible version, once Isaac was spared, Abraham sacrificed a ram instead - which seems a shame to me, since I imagine the ram was an unwilling victim.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

RAF as in 'Red Army Faction' rather than 'Royal Air Force' I take it?
(Just to avoid possible misunderstandings. )

Thank you, I was a bit confused for a minute