Kevin's Watch

Hardcore Punk always is the answer.

On a study carrel at UK, I noted graffiti that proclaimed "PHILOSOPHY MAJORS # 1". Someone added two zeros to it and "on the money making list." I enjoyed the philosophy class (intro) that I took. I also think that introductory logic should be a required course for all freshmen.

Harbinger wrote:On a study carrel at UK, I noted graffiti that proclaimed "PHILOSOPHY MAJORS # 1". Someone added two zeros to it and "on the money making list." I enjoyed the philosophy class (intro) that I took. I also think that introductory logic should be a required course for all freshmen.

Not every major's worth is measured in dollars. There are plenty of majors which don't produce 6 figure careers. And there are plenty of 6 figure careers which make no use of one's college major.

Well, it could have said, "English majors # 100 on the money making list." Wait a minute, I was an English major.

Other memorable grafitti from UK study carrels included:

Trust Jesus
Then someone added "and he will help you vandalize."

If I had to recommend any two articles in defense of Kant's ethics, they would be sec. 40 of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice and then Onora O'Neill's Tanner Lecture ("Kant on Reason and Religion"). They recapitulate some of Kant's points very nicely.

I just found a used copy of Kant C. of Judgement for $1.00.
Question for Z, or anyone who's done a lot of philosophy [but first some background]: I've done a fair amount, but mostly in chunks [2 weeks on Plato&Aristotle, then skip a couple centuries, etc.] never Kant himself [only bits of others about Kant]. The only "deep" work was 6 weeks on Heidegger, and a full semester Grad. seminar on Nietzsche [while the Prof. was working on his third book on Nietzsche...fun fun].
Does it make sense to jump into Judgement, or read the other 2 first [since I only know them in outline/general]?

Vraith wrote:Does it make sense to jump into Judgement, or read the other 2 first [since I only know them in outline/general]?

Since Kant introduces his project in CoJ in terms of what he's already done in the previous critiques, I'd recommend at least the Prolegomena and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals before diving into his theory of aesthetic and teleological judgment.

Thanks...the impression I got from the transl. notes and preface was "Holy crap, I'm missing some specific terminology background."

Honestly, though, I've only skimmed CoJ, not because I don't like it (it has some of Kant's better jokes or amusing turns of phrase; examples in a sec), but because it's at the end of the compilation of Kant's work I have access to at the local library.

Now here's the funny stuff:

1) This pure, elevating, merely negative presentation of morality involves, on the other hand, no fear of fanaticism, which is a delusion that would will some VISION beyond the bounds of all sensibility; i.e., would dream according to principles (rational raving)¦ Of these, the latter [fanaticism] is least of all compatible with the sublime, for it is profoundly ridiculous¦ in fanaticism, as a deep-seated, brooding passion, it [enthusiasm] is anomalous.
2) It has been thought somewhat suspicious that my divisions in pure philosophy should almost always come out threefold.

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:

Vraith wrote:Does it make sense to jump into Judgement, or read the other 2 first [since I only know them in outline/general]?

Since Kant introduces his project in CoJ in terms of what he's already done in the previous critiques, I'd recommend at least the Prolegomena and Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals before diving into his theory of aesthetic and teleological judgment.

Never heard of Prolegomena, but the Groundwork is essential reading for anyone interested in Kantian theory.

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:They recapitulate some of Kant's points very nicely.

They can hardly do it worse than Kant himself did... I don't remember Rawls talking about Kant...but it has been a long time. I'll dig out my copy and take a look sometime.

Z wrote:Not every major's worth is measured in dollars.

Over here, you have to do two majors...I did philosphy for fun, and communications so I could get a job. (But the real reason I went to uni was for the philosophy degree.)

--A

My eyes glaze over when you folks start talking about philosophers and their books.

They make you read them if you want to study it. (Have you ever read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner Fist? If not, it's a good introduction to the so-called serious philosophers, and easy to read.)

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:My eyes glaze over when you folks start talking about philosophers and their books.

Heh...all this time I thought it was the illicit substances that gave you that look..

That's me you're thinking of.

--A

Avatar wrote: (Have you ever read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner Fist? If not, it's a good introduction to the so-called serious philosophers, and easy to read.)

I'm reading that right now.

I read, on and off, The Way of Chuang-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. Taoism for the win. I also like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. But Taoism fits me the best, being so poetic.

Zen poet Ikkyu is also the shit.

fuck flattery success money
all I do is lie back suck my thumb

clouds very high look
not one word helped it get up there

Avatar wrote:That's me you're thinking of.

I was gonna say...


Yeah, as I said on the first page of this thread, I read Soophie's World years ago. I quoted from it a few times here. It was cool. That's the kind of book I can manage. I don't do well reading without plots. ZatAoMM, Illusions, etc. I've never even tried any of the books you guys are discussing.

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't do well reading without plots.

Donaldson's ideas about self-hatred, meaning coming from within us, etc. are more or less expressions of Kant's ideal of autonomy. Sometimes abstract philosophy finds a home (even if the person who built that home didn't make it for that philosophy) in unexpected places.

Hey! You saying I hate myself?!?