How to get up to date with Logic and philosophy

[Bretty123]

Hello, I'm wondering what people's advice is to me to get up to date with logic and philosophy. I mean I've read stuff like Sartre and Heidegger, I'm reading hegel and I have read lots of other stuff from traditional philosophy such as decartes. But as far as people like Wittgenstein, to understand him what path do I need to explore? are there certain people I should read sequentially? Also, where would you suggest Derrida, foucault etc. be read in sequence with others?

I'm curious to know so I dont have to backtrack after reading someone.

[The Grey Blur]

Huh

I thought this topic title was 'how to get a date with logic and philosophy'

[rouchambeau]

I've heard many philosophy students say that it's best to start with the oldest philosophers and work your way forward to the present.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:20 PM
I've heard many philosophy students say that it's best to start with the oldest philosophers and work your way forward to the present.
Then you get the evolution and flow of the ideas, understanding what the new guy was reading and his reaction to it and the language and context. But it’s not necessary it’s only if you want to know something thoroughly. Most students wouldn’t have to read a whole book cover to cover to pass a course though.

[Bretty123]

Well I'm more sort of looking for answers about the newer stuff, like frege, carnap and wittgenstein and derrida, foucault, zizek etc. I'm not really sure where they fit into things as far as being influenced and writing for and against ideas. Also I guess this is directed at Rosa.. what would you suggest for studying logic in philosophy? Wittgenstein 1st?

I've read and studied alot of the older guys.

[apathy maybe]

To get upto date with logic, does require starting almost from the beginning and going forward. Many of the newer types of logic cannot be understood without an understanding of older types (see for example fuzzy logic). Do a course for this would be easiest as it would "force" you to learn.

With other philosophies, such as in the ethics and metaphysics, I would say, start were you are interested, then branch out and find more. If you don't understand something, go back and read what the author is responding too. Read primers and then the original texts.

You definitely don't have to start with Plato or earlier and then read forward. Plato does not really hold any relevance for today's world, nor do many of his successors.

Read what you find interesting, then read some more. You could even do an introduction course at University or something, but they do cover a lot of shit (existence of God, scepticism, free will are all examples of stuff that I find discussions of pointless, yet I have had to do in first year philosophy).

[Bretty123]

I guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and when I get to school I will just do the courses and hopefully get some well rounded stuff and eventually some specifics.

[Clarksist]

Well I'm more sort of looking for answers about the newer stuff, like frege, carnap and wittgenstein and derrida, foucault, zizek etc. I'm not really sure where they fit into things as far as being influenced and writing for and against ideas. Also I guess this is directed at Rosa.. what would you suggest for studying logic in philosophy? Wittgenstein 1st?

I've read and studied alot of the older guys.

Logic is a very maleable thing at times. The problem are the pitfalls of subjective premises, with extremely logical and objective deductions coming afterward. Soon enough you have solid walls and a solid roof, but the foundation is mush.

What much of modern philosophy is trying to do, is bridge common philosophical ideas and connect them in quasi-unifying ways. In other words: a lot of it is rubbish.

There is a new trend in philosophy that seems to be "please everyone". but philosophy isn't about being pleasant. It's about becoming as wise as possible. To do that, experience life fully, reason from it, experience some more, reason, and then throw it all away because its going to be wrong. Repeat.

To fully understand philosophy is not nearly as important as implementing what it is: the search for wisdom.

I recommend reading lots of "bad" philosophy (sages come to mind), and logically reason why they are wrong. That can help your logic out.

These are all just my subjective and infinitely and vulgarly meaningless suggestions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, why do you keep asking the same question?

I thought we decided: stay away from Sartre, Heidegger, Hegel.... :)

Or, give up trying to study logic. :o

[Umoja]

This might sound weird, but "Atheism: The Case Against God" introduced me to quite a bit of philosophy. He goes into a lot of the larger issues of philosophy and adresses them in a way most people can understand.

Most notable he details metaphysics and epistemology. His bit about logic helps a lot also. Besides that I'd just go back to the Greeks and start dealing with them. But realistically, whatever floats your fancy is good. I just started learning about the Greeks by reading about Epicurus (who is pretty minor in comparisson to the other giants of that time), and got a good sense of a few of the other's theories.

[Bretty123]

Well, maybe I'm being too vague. I guess reading everything is the appropriate answer. I just wanted to kind of know where philosophy from guys like zizek, derrida, foucault fit in? Because I have already read their predecessors some at length and some not so much.

What would you suggest Rosa for reading Wittgenstein? should i jump right in with his stuff or read someone else beforehand?

not the same question as before, I'm trying to find out where the best approach to Wittgenstein is, and also where the guys I mentioned above are coming from.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, notice the smiley's; I was joshing.

I think you will have to read these terminally obscure wastes of paper for a degree, if you are doing one.

As for Wittgenstein, there is really no way of building up to his work, except perhaps by reading Schopenhauer (for the background to some of his early work)but definitely Frege (for all his work).

But Frege, although crystal clear, is extraordinarily difficult. In his case, this is because he is addressing ideas that had gone right over the heads of the vast majority of philosophers from the previous 2400 years. It is hard to see how Wittgenstein could have done so much without Frege's influence.

I was fortunate enough to have been taught by one of Wittgenstein's own 'disciples', who said to me that when Wittgenstein used to speak of Frege, it was as he would have imagined Aristotle spoke of Plato: deep reverance, even though he disagreed with him.

Of course, no Marxist would go in for that sort of guff, but it shows how deep was the influence of Frege on Wittgenstein.

But, you can jump straight into the Blue Books, where you will find things deceptively easy.

Or, read Waismann's The Principles Of Linguistic Philosophy a book he started to write with Wittgenstein in the early 1930's, but Wittgenstein fell out with him, and Waismann completed it alone. It remained unpublished for years.

It is perhaps the best single introduction to Wittgenstein's early middle period there is.

You will see a awful lot of my ideas in there -- or, rather, that is where many of my ideas came from!!

I do not know why I did not suggest this earlier.

[Bretty123]

Exactly the answer I was looking for, thank you very much.


Rosa on another note what do you think of the guys i mentioned such as zizek, derrida, foucault? I have not read any of their stuff either and I'm curious. Is it alot like heidegger? or is it more juicy stuff? psychology? sociology? Is it real scientific observations or is it alot of metaphysical claims?

[Janus]

Huh

I thought this topic title was 'how to get a date with logic and philosophy'


Bretty, why do you keep asking the same question?

I thought we decided: stay away from Sartre, Heidegger, Hegel.... smile.gif

Or, give up trying to study logic.
There's no need to spam here.

Anyways, moved.

[Bretty123]

I'm not really sure why this is moved. Rosa would you mind responding anyways?

[ComradeRed]

I'm not really sure why this is moved. I suppose it's because Janus considered this to be more of an "Online Class" rather than a philosophical topic.

Whatever.

[gilhyle]

There is a very problematic change in philosophy in the mid 19 century. It is very difficult to relate what came after that to what came before it. So you cant start at the beginning and work forward successfully.

If you want to go the historical route, two books I like cos they cover topics not dealt with elsewhere are

Kneale and Kneale The Development of Logic

and

John Passmore Hundred Years of Philosophy

But neither book is a stroll

I really wouldnt dive into Wittgenstein, it will defeat you. There are lots of intros. Kenny is standard.

But if you want to understand the tradition Wittgenstein is part of, its a big job .....and maybe not worth it since its own fate has shown it going nowhere very interesting

If you want to understand Frege, you should read Michael Dummet (its expensive to buy - try a library)

Heidegger: Read his Introduction to Metaphysics to decide if you are interested.

Remember, Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida are all part of a tradition that goes back to Husserl - Husserl is worth a bit of effort.