What philosophy books are you reading?

[danlo]

For years I've been thinking about a song that actually might have merits in The Close-had to go back to the '70s but this might be it: I Scare Myself-Dan Hicks and his Hot Licks (what an incredible tune!).

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Hey! You saying I hate myself?!?

No, but, "In punishing yourself, you come to merit punishment. This is Despite," sounds so much like Kant it amazes me.

[Lord Mhoram]

Since I left you all last, I've become a philosophy major. So lots of philosophy books on my reading list. Here's a taste:

A Treatise of Human Nature by Hume -- I've been reading this for months for a seminar I'm in. It's mammothly genius.

Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity by Richard Rorty -- I think a lot of other people here would like this. One of the essential texts of "neopragmatism," an American philosophical revival of 19th century pragmatism in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. A great intersection of literature, philosophy, and all the humanities.

This lovely epistemology textbook.

[Fist and Faith]

Man... Philosophy major. That's some crazy stuff, I imagine!

[aliantha]

Between Mhoram and Z, things are gonna get interesting in here in a hurry -- even if rus never shows up again....

[Avatar]

Hahaha, have fun with it LM.

--A

[rusmeister]

The value of philosophy really depends on whether one approaches it as a consumer approaches a smorgasbord (try a little from here, a little from there) or as a real means of building actual truth.

The smorgasbord approach of the colleges of our time leaves everybody nowhere, but thinking that the minority that does study philosophy have gotten somewhere. In short, it is the philosophy behind the teaching of philosophy, above all, that is diseased, from the get-go.

[Fist and Faith]

Is there a reason that learning a little from here and a little from there cannot build actual truth?


But that doesn't even matter, eh? Whether it's one, well-defined philosophical system, or a smorgasbord, what you really mean is this: If a philosophy does not lead to Orthodoxy, it is not valid. IOW, Orthodoxy is the only valid philosophy.

[Lord Mhoram]

The value of philosophy really depends on whether one approaches it as a consumer approaches a smorgasbord (try a little from here, a little from there) or as a real means of building actual truth.

The smorgasbord approach of the colleges of our time leaves everybody nowhere, but thinking that the minority that does study philosophy have gotten somewhere. In short, it is the philosophy behind the teaching of philosophy, above all, that is diseased, from the get-go.

What does this even mean? Tell me specifically what it is about professional philosophy that "is diseased, from the get-go."

[Orlion]

The value of philosophy really depends on whether one approaches it as a consumer approaches a smorgasbord (try a little from here, a little from there) or as a real means of building actual truth.

The smorgasbord approach of the colleges of our time leaves everybody nowhere, but thinking that the minority that does study philosophy have gotten somewhere. In short, it is the philosophy behind the teaching of philosophy, above all, that is diseased, from the get-go.

I don't even think one could progress in philosophical thought without knowing "what has gone before." That's why we learn what has been discovered, so we don't have to travel the same path but can instead progress forward.

[rusmeister]

Is there a reason that learning a little from here and a little from there cannot build actual truth?


But that doesn't even matter, eh? Whether it's one, well-defined philosophical system, or a smorgasbord, what you really mean is this: If a philosophy does not lead to Orthodoxy, it is not valid. IOW, Orthodoxy is the only valid philosophy.

Yes, I do mean that as the final conclusion. (Shocking as it is for a pluralist to hear that.) But I'm not using that as argument as such.

But in answer to your first question - there IS a reason, especially if the conclusions arrived at are contradictory and mutually exclusive. It is when we (attempt to) stand above all philosophies, admiring all and accepting none (as if we were choosing from some kind of imaginary philosophical vacuum) that the seeker is most thoroughly deceived.

[rusmeister]

The value of philosophy really depends on whether one approaches it as a consumer approaches a smorgasbord (try a little from here, a little from there) or as a real means of building actual truth.

The smorgasbord approach of the colleges of our time leaves everybody nowhere, but thinking that the minority that does study philosophy have gotten somewhere. In short, it is the philosophy behind the teaching of philosophy, above all, that is diseased, from the get-go.

What does this even mean? Tell me specifically what it is about professional philosophy that "is diseased, from the get-go."

I kind of said it in my response to Fist, above. It is the smorgasbord approach, that attempts to examine all from an impossible philosophical vacuum.

For a concrete example, I'll refer to a prime introductory textbook that I was told is a fairly standard one in American philosophy departments: "Philosophy: An Introduction" by John Herman Randall, Jr. and Justus Buchler. It was given to me by my closest friend from childhood, who earned his major in philosophy. The parts I found most relevant in preparing the future professional philosopher were the sections on 'Ethical and Aesthtic Values' and especially the 'Interpretation of Religion'.

It clearly establishes an essentially anti-religious bias in the student from the outset, paying special attention to solidly anti-Christian philosophers like Dewey and Santayana, and essentially none at all to solidly Christian philosophers. To suggest that it is not biased against Christianity is amazingly easy to disprove. The mere absence of support of Christian faith - and indeed, most religious faith altogether - via philosophy vs the definite presence of hostile philosophy is enough. I used the word diseased - you can use the more technical term "biased" if you like, for an objective term. I do not claim this to be the only source, but as a fairly standard sample of text in beginning philosophy, it starts out dramatically setting up skepticism toward all views as the beginning philosophical point.
And clearly, the book does describe what is the modern approach in professional philosophy. Ergo, my comment that it is diseased from the get-go.

[rusmeister]

The value of philosophy really depends on whether one approaches it as a consumer approaches a smorgasbord (try a little from here, a little from there) or as a real means of building actual truth.

The smorgasbord approach of the colleges of our time leaves everybody nowhere, but thinking that the minority that does study philosophy have gotten somewhere. In short, it is the philosophy behind the teaching of philosophy, above all, that is diseased, from the get-go.

I don't even think one could progress in philosophical thought without knowing "what has gone before." That's why we learn what has been discovered, so we don't have to travel the same path but can instead progress forward.

This is a central problem for modern philosophers - that they HAVE abandoned 'what has gone before'. They can tell you next to nothing about Aquinas or Samuel Johnson, in attempting to short-circuit all learning from the advent of Christianity to the Endarkenment. They have not progressed but have created a number of different paths that one can meander down until one gets hopelessly tangled up in the various sophistries.

(Your comment is quite true, of course.)

[Fist and Faith]

Is there a reason that learning a little from here and a little from there cannot build actual truth?


But that doesn't even matter, eh? Whether it's one, well-defined philosophical system, or a smorgasbord, what you really mean is this: If a philosophy does not lead to Orthodoxy, it is not valid. IOW, Orthodoxy is the only valid philosophy.

Yes, I do mean that as the final conclusion. (Shocking as it is for a pluralist to hear that.) But I'm not using that as argument as such.

Not yet. But if this continues, you will. Orthodoxy is the starting point for you. The first thought. And each philosophy you examine will be "proven wrong" if it leads anywhere else. Possibly even if it only doesn't actively lead to Orthodoxy.

But in answer to your first question - there IS a reason, especially if the conclusions arrived at are contradictory and mutually exclusive. It is when we (attempt to) stand above all philosophies, admiring all and accepting none (as if we were choosing from some kind of imaginary philosophical vacuum) that the seeker is most thoroughly deceived.

Still, isn't it possible that aspects of many different philosophies do not lead to contradictory and mutually exclusive conclusions? Can't someone accept some of Aquinas and some of Hume, yet not have that problem? (As long as the end result leads to Orthodoxy, obviously.)

[Lord Mhoram]

It's completely untrue that philosophy has abandoned what has come before. The study of the ancient Greeks is in fact at a high point right now -- philosophers all over the Western world are publishing on Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, the pre-Socratics, etc. The study of modern philosophy (17th/18th century rationalism and empiricism) is also extremely rich. The recent literature on, say, Descartes and Leibniz and Berkeley and Locke (devoted theists, all, by the way) as well as Hume (not so much) is varied and multitudinous. And everything since then (19th century on) continues to be just as influential. It's true that medieval philosophy is not studied as much. But I'm afraid that's how influence works. We have at least 3000 years of philosophical inquiry to study. It is impossible for us to absorb it all. We necessarily pick and choose our philosophical interests, and not all of us are interested in, for example, proving the existence of God, and explicating the nature of God, which were the primary focus of medieval thought. (I should add that Aquinas's proofs are taught in almost every introduction to philosophy class; a lot teach Anselm's proof too.) Although there's been a lot of recent interest in people like Ockham for his contributions to formal logic. So medieval philosophy, even, has been studied a lot recently That said, philosophy of religion has become an extremely fruitful and popular study in the past few decades as evidenced by the spat of anthologies on it. It's a field that's always existed, but we now pay special attention to the philosophy of religion of, say, Hume more than we did in the past. So the study of Christianity is very much alive in philosophy. The fact that you mention Santayana and Dewey means, I'm afraid, that you're not very in touch with contemporary philosophy. Nobody reads Santayana, here or anywhere. And Dewey (who I think is a great philosopher) is influential mostly in other areas of philosophy and often among a smaller group.

[rusmeister]

It's completely untrue that philosophy has abandoned what has come before. The study of the ancient Greeks is in fact at a high point right now -- philosophers all over the Western world are publishing on Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, the pre-Socratics, etc. The study of modern philosophy (17th/18th century rationalism and empiricism) is also extremely rich. The recent literature on, say, Descartes and Leibniz and Berkeley and Locke (devoted theists, all, by the way) as well as Hume (not so much) is varied and multitudinous. And everything since then (19th century on) continues to be just as influential. It's true that medieval philosophy is not studied as much. But I'm afraid that's how influence works. We have at least 3000 years of philosophical inquiry to study. It is impossible for us to absorb it all. We necessarily pick and choose our philosophical interests, and not all of us are interested in, for example, proving the existence of God, and explicating the nature of God, which were the primary focus of medieval thought. (I should add that Aquinas's proofs are taught in almost every introduction to philosophy class; a lot teach Anselm's proof too.) Although there's been a lot of recent interest in people like Ockham for his contributions to formal logic. So medieval philosophy, even, has been studied a lot recently That said, philosophy of religion has become an extremely fruitful and popular study in the past few decades as evidenced by the spat of anthologies on it. It's a field that's always existed, but we now pay special attention to the philosophy of religion of, say, Hume more than we did in the past. So the study of Christianity is very much alive in philosophy. The fact that you mention Santayana and Dewey means, I'm afraid, that you're not very in touch with contemporary philosophy. Nobody reads Santayana, here or anywhere. And Dewey (who I think is a great philosopher) is influential mostly in other areas of philosophy and often among a smaller group.

Hi, LM,
If you note what I said about short-circuiting the Christian era, I'll think you'll have to admit that from Marcus Aurelius to Descartes the fare offered and seriously studied is pretty sparse. Aquinas does NOT occupy a significant place in secular curricula, even though he is smack in the middle of an era when secular humanist thinkers were rather hard to come by. So when you say "that's how influence works", I see that as simply an open rejection from the get-go (without study and therefore complete ignorance) of Christian thought in philosophy - which was the dominating worldview from the 4th-18th centuries in the western world, and chock-full of both philosophy and theology of which the world is now ignorant, and so characterizes those ages as ignorant when the absolute reverse is true and it is the modern world that is ignorant.

I will concede that occasionally some teachers actually do study and teach Aquinas (and perhaps even a little Anselm, although that is harder to imagine - the range of influence was smaller) - but that certainly it is not the rule, and it is not reflected in any larger social awareness, whereas modern philosophical thinkers carry enormous weight - one need only mention Nietzsche as an example, and so in academia, 1,000 people can quote something of Nietzsche for every one who can quote something from Aquinas.

And on Dewey, I must say, as a certified teacher, that he dominates State Education in the US, and his thought is considered foundational in the general organization of public schooling - I certainly had him forced down my throat in the state cert program, and these are the people - and more importantly, the institutions, that teach the nation, giving Dewey a near universal platform - even if not so many can name him and he is not a central-most figure in philosophy departments.

My skepticism on the study of Christianity in philosophy is limited to secular study of it. All of my experience - although I admit I took only the basic required philosophy courses at college, but the dominant attitude in academia is decidedly pluralistic - and therefore hostile to traditional Christianity, and any secular study of it is therefore colored by prejudice from the very beginning.

Gotta run.

[Lord Mhoram]

I'll readily grant that medieval thought and scholasticism are not studied nearly as much as early modern and ancient thought. But we don't study philosophy for esoteric reasons. We think the ancients have something to say to us. And no doubt the scholastics do too -- but their interests long ago diverged from that of the rest of the Western tradition, probably starting with Descartes. Consequently, there's less urge to study them. I hate to sound like a quietist or lazy, but, again, that is how the history of thought works -- we abandon ways of speaking (the ontological proof, angels on the head of a pin, the Summa) when they are no longer pragmatically useful to us anymore. We read what we think is useful.

As for ignorance, well, most scholars working today on scholasticism can't possibly be cognizant of everything happening in, say, contemporary philosophy of mind. There's constantly a trade-off involved. We study what we intellectually gravitate towards. Nobody can know everything, least of all about philosophy.

As for Dewey, he is enormously influential and important. Probably the single greatest philosopher this country has ever produced. (I can hear you beginning to contest that. ) I don't think he's read on religion very much.

[rusmeister]

I'll readily grant that medieval thought and scholasticism are not studied nearly as much as early modern and ancient thought. But we don't study philosophy for esoteric reasons. We think the ancients have something to say to us. And no doubt the scholastics do too -- but their interests long ago diverged from that of the rest of the Western tradition, probably starting with Descartes. Consequently, there's less urge to study them. I hate to sound like a quietist or lazy, but, again, that is how the history of thought works -- we abandon ways of speaking (the ontological proof, angels on the head of a pin, the Summa) when they are no longer pragmatically useful to us anymore. We read what we think is useful.

As for ignorance, well, most scholars working today on scholasticism can't possibly be cognizant of everything happening in, say, contemporary philosophy of mind. There's constantly a trade-off involved. We study what we intellectually gravitate towards. Nobody can know everything, least of all about philosophy.

As for Dewey, he is enormously influential and important. Probably the single greatest philosopher this country has ever produced. (I can hear you beginning to contest that. ) I don't think he's read on religion very much.

Hi again!

On Dewey I am quite serious. His views may not get much attention in philosophy departments - and they were formally aimed at "education" rather than "philosophy" - and yet they are central in the basis of the philosophy of education, but there is a larger worldview behind the technical application of the education philosophy, and it is decidedly hostile to traditional religion. I can make a case that this resulted in the public schools developing as they did and producing the products that they did, which produced most of us - making much of our worldview simply something indoctrinated into us via schooling, and later the media, rather than something we arrive at consciously via reason, and we interpret our experiences through a worldview that has already been given to us.

But I think, on modern philosophy, you may have touched on a real weak spot and essential contradiction in saying

when they are no longer pragmatically useful to us anymore. We read what we think is useful.

As Chesterton said in his wonderful short essay, "The Revival of Philosophy - Why?", "Where is your pragma?"
chesterton.org/gkc/philosopher/revivalpPhilosophy.htm

Action without pragma is action without philosophy, action without thought. It is therefore impossible to be pragmatic without being pragmatic from a philosophical standpoint.

It is the end result I am kicking against, though - that the impression the average man gets from modern philosophers(professional), primarily via those twin weapons of schooling and the media (I'm speaking as an ex-public school teacher), is that there was nothing of intelligence between Plato and Hume; that "medieval" somehow means "primitive", and so on. It looks like nothing so much as an actual attempt to discredit intelligent Christian thought by simply leaving it out of the programs and out of the public consciousness altogether. (It is with apprehension that I include thoughts like this, for fear that the other thoughts will be missed.)