Philosophy: books and discussion

[Sparrow]

I've enjoyed the Plato Dialogues I've read - I thought they were very clever.
Thomas More's 'Utopia' is another good read.

I'm mainly drawn to writings on the moral philosophy around animal rights (e.g. Peter Singer, Mary Midgeley) which is an area that interests me. Descartes seems to have been an idiot as far as I can make out - he thought cats were machines.

Although I have also read the first couple of sentences of Wittgenstein's 'Tractus' a few times - "The world is all that is the case."

Betrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' is a fabulous book.

I think a lot of Buddhist writings are at least as profound as a lot of the western philosophy I've encountered.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I've enjoyed the Plato Dialogues I've read - I thought they were very clever.

Yes, and it's fun watching Socrates always getting the better of his opponents, but we have to remember that, as history is written by the winners, so also were the dialogues written by his pupils. I wonder just how one-sided those exchanges actually were.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Thomas More's 'Utopia' is another good read.

In reading it, I was surprised that he wrote the book at all, being that the utopian society he described was hardly completely in keeping with the religious ideals of the day. Perhaps that's why he wrote it as fiction rather than as a philosophical treatise.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm mainly drawn to writings on the moral philosophy around animal rights (e.g. Peter Singer, Mary Midgeley) which is an area that interests me. Descartes seems to have been an idiot as far as I can make out - he thought cats were machines.

Although I don't believe I've ever read one of his books, I have read many articles by Peter Singer, most of them in the magazine Free Inquiry where he is a regular contributor, so I feel I'm familiar at least somewhat with most of his arguments. He has a remarkable mind, and isn't afraid to follow an argument to its logical conclusion, which has put him in trouble with more than one group of detractors. And you're right about Descartes; his beliefs on animals were appalling. I really think it had more to do with his religious sensibilities than his philosophical speculations. In his worldview, to equate animals with having the powers of rationality in any degree would have been tantamount to endowing them with a soul, which would have placed them on a more equal footing with the species he considered the crown of creation. In his view, animals didn't even feel pain. The appearance of pain in an animal was simply a mechanical response. There was no ghost in the machine to feel pain or any other emotion. Anyone who's ever owned a dog knows better. There may indeed be no ghost in animals or humans, but there is consciousness at least to the degree that there is the ability to enjoy pleasure and feel pain; and as Singer says in Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals (1975), "To have interests, in a strict, nonmetaphorical sense, a being must be capable of suffering or experiencing pleasure. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for disregarding that suffering, or for refusing to count it equally with the like suffering of any other being."

Of course, it's the sentence immediately following that has so vilified him in pro-life circles. "But the converse of this is also true. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of enjoyment, there is nothing to take into account."

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Although I have also read the first couple of sentences of Wittgenstein's 'Tractus' a few times - "The world is all that is the case."

I have a hard time getting into Wittgenstein and others who followed his lead. I'm probably being overly simplistic, but it seems as if he would have made a great English professor; for he seems to be more concerned with language as if it were not merely a tool, but the very essence of philosophy itself; as if properly phrasing the question was its own answer. I have a great Will Durant quote in my mind, and if I can find an ebook of The Story of Philosophy, I'll quote it. Unfortunately my son stored all my paper books in a rather inaccessible place after he broke my bookshelves, including my extremely annotated and underlined copy of that book.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' is a fabulous book.

Yes it is, although it's rather lengthy. I find his shorter collections of essays to be much more enjoyable reading. Too bad that ability to write meaningful prose for popular audiences didn't rub off on his student, Wittgenstein.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think a lot of Buddhist writings are at least as profound as a lot of the western philosophy I've encountered.

I agree.

[Trebro]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Descartes seems to have been an idiot as far as I can make out - he thought cats were machines.

My problem with Descartes is that his desire to reduce everything to the level of machine and precision is a big problem for me. It means that things can only be valued by their contribution to making life more efficient.

I blame a lot of the problems we have today on that line of thinking, and this from a man who was so afraid of the church's power at the time that he tied himself in knots trying to fit God into his theories.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Although I have also read the first couple of sentences of Wittgenstein's 'Tractus' a few times - "The world is all that is the case."

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I have a great Will Durant quote in my mind, and if I can find an ebook of The Story of Philosophy, I'll quote it.

I didn't find my copy, and it appears to be unavailable as an e-book, but thank whatever powers that be for Google Books! Here's the quotation I had in mind:

.....The author believes that epistemology has kidnapped modern philosophy, and well-nigh ruined it; he hopes for the time when the study of the knowledge-process will be recognized as the business of the science of psychology, and when philosophy will again be understood as the synthetic interpretation of all experience rather than the analytic description of the mode and process of experience itself. Analysis belongs to science, and gives us knowledge; philosophy must provide a synthesis for wisdom.
..........—Will [William James] Durant (1885 – 1981), American writer, historian, philosopher. The Story of Philosophy (1926), "To The Reader", page xxxiii.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Trebro

My problem with Descartes is that his desire to reduce everything to the level of machine and precision is a big problem for me.

Actually; that seems to me to be the very antithesis of what Descartes taught. He was the original "ghost in the machine" fellow who believed firmly in a seat of consciousness that stood apart from the machine. The Cartesian Theater was that place from which the operator controlled the machine. People like the behaviorist B.F. Skinner, on the other hand, believe that "The picture which emerges from a scientific analysis is not of a body with a person inside, but of a body which is a person in the sense that it displays a complex repertoire of behavior." (B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971.) (My emphasis.)

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

To be honest, I have only recently started being interested in philosophy. Of course I read some when I was a teenager. I remember reading Nietzsche (mandatory teenage reading I guess) but I don't remember anything about it. I also read a few religious texts, the Koran and the Tao, and even parts of the Bible ..

I've read the Tao and the Koran a couple of times, and the Bible several times, all in various English translations. I consider the Bible to be one of the most interesting collection of books ever written. I don't buy into the metaphysics of any of them, but I still consider them important for—among other things—their insights into the human condition.

[recluse]

I've read Nietzsche and was a bit lost.
When it comes to religon, I've found Bishop Fulton Sheen's talks and writings to be among the best on Catholicism and the Bible.

But what do I know?
I asked to be included in this thread too.
Never got my invite.

[FlorenceArt]

All you have to do to be included in the thread is participate But you're here now, I hope all is well.

I started reading the volume by Seneca I got from the library. It promises to be very exciting. The introduction gives some background on Seneca and the world he lived in. I read a few lines and left it for later, but it seems extremely interesting. Then I started the Letters to Lucilius, and I already found a nice quote:

It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.

Second letter to Lucilius.

Although the translation in my French version sounds better to me:

Poverty comes not from a lack of resources, but from an overabundance of desires.

Back to reading...

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think a lot of Buddhist writings are at least as profound as a lot of the western philosophy I've encountered.

I am feeling increasingly drawn to Buddhism as a philosophy (never been interested in religion, except as an object of social study). Would you care to recommend some books?

[thinkpad]

Originally Posted by omk3

Ghost Dog is an excellent film. I've read Hagakure, if I remember correctly it's more like a collection of thoughts and rules for the Samurai, than a philosophy book. Very interesting though, especially for the glimpse it offers into this alien (to us) mentality.

True it's not a philosophy book in it's purest form and it is as you say a book about the rules of the Samurai, but it gives an insight to Zen and Confucianism that was prevalent during Edo Era (1600-1868) Japan.

I saw the film before I picked up the book, perhaps this made it more inspiring to read. But I must admit it's not a book that you would read from 1 page to the other, more a book where you would hop around and pick up sentences here and there.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

...I think a lot of Buddhist writings are at least as profound as a lot of the western philosophy I've encountered.

One Western philosopher who was very strongly influenced by Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism, was Arthur Schopenhauer. His writings are very pessimistic, but also very interesting and enjoyable, being both accessible and profound simultaneously.

You mentioned one epistle, but other material is included in the book you are currently reading by Seneca?

Originally Posted by recluse

...I asked to be included in this thread too.
Never got my invite.

Welcome, recluse. Consider yourself invited!

And anyone else who wants to be included, please jump right in. The water's fine!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

...

And anyone else who wants to be included, please jump right in. The water's fine!

And Norton Says So!

[kennyc]

Kinda begs the question as to what Norton's Philosophy is though? Any insight Tom?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You mentioned one epistle, but other material is included in the book you are currently reading by Seneca?

I suppose this question is for me? Yes, there's a lot in the book. I doubt I will read all of it in the three weeks I can keep it, maybe I'll have to renew or just buy it for myself. I wish there were an e-book edition with footnotes, but I doubt it.

Here's the content of the book:

Consolation to Marcia
Consolation to Helvia
Consolation to Polybius
On Anger
On Clemency
On the Happy Life
On the Shortness of Life
On Providence
On the Firmness of the Wise Man (*)
On the Tranquility of Mind
On Leisure
On Benefits
Letters to Lucilius

(*) Wikipedia says Wise Person, but I doubt very much that Seneca knew about Politically Correct

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Welcome, recluse. Consider yourself invited!

And anyone else who wants to be included, please jump right in. The water's fine!

Couldn't say it better

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Kinda begs the question as to what Norton's Philosophy is though? Any insight Tom?

Good question. I hope his thoughts will be published soon. I can see the titles:

On Naps
On Flees
On Bacon

Food for thoughts...

....

Oh, and I forgot to mention the content that is not by Seneca in the book: a foreword, an introduction, a bibliography and a chronology, all by Paul Veyne, who also provided introductions to each of the individual texts.