I cant understand what I read

[Noah]

Hey guys,

When I'm reading philosophy it's really hard to get my head round what I'm reading, I'll read the first page and then lose track and understanding of what's going on..

I've read some of Freud on sexuality (just because it was there) and I bought this book called 'The social philosophers' with plato and aristotle and many other famous philosophers but I can't understand/grasp/keep up with what they talk about alot of the times!!!

Did anyone else have this problem?

I'm not sure whether it's an english problem, I'm a good english student, it's just grasping what the philosopher is saying which is hard.

Should i read each page several times, does anyone else do this?

[Zeruzo]

I have it with Nietzsche and Marx at times... I had it once with Lenin too i think. But just keep re-reading till you get it.

[which doctor]

For someone like you, it's probaly best to read Intro to _____ by another, more modern author instead of going straight to the source.

[tolstoyevski]

i always live this problem when reading post-modern bullshits which are trying to say "capitalism is bad but it's impossible to destroy it" or "science is impossible, truth is impossible" etc...

well, in the hands of good authors, every paragraph can be decreased to one or two basic-sentences. after reading the paragraph try to get the main idea, the basic-sentence that the author wants to say.

secondly, sometimes it can be a very useful way of understanding to read the whole article by ignoring the hard-to-understand parts, in order to get the total idea of the article. Then re-read it again keeping in mind the main theme.

third, to take notes is a vital way of studying. use coloured pencils, underline, write down, make quotations etc.

fourth, try to get the meanings, implications of main concepts of the article. as an example, pleasure principle in psychology has a very deep background including the relations between child, father, mother and the socialization of the child etc. without knowing them it's impossible to grasp the idea of the paragraph which gives the aforementioned concept an important role.

search the google for note taking tactics on reading... useful..
:)

[Hit The North]

I suspect most of us have this problem. The trouble with most philosophers and social theorists is that they spend too long saying too little. I once struggled through Sartre's 'Critique of Dialectical Reason' only to learn less in three months of reading it than it took to learn in forty minutes of reading Marx's 18th Brumaire.

These people have a professional interest in making their work as exclusive and obscure as possible. Apparently, Wittgenstein claimed it might take 500 hundred years before anyone understood his work. Good job that untangling its meaning isn't a matter of urgency for the human race then, innit?!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I suggest you give that charlatan Freud a miss -- he is neither a good psychologist, nor even a fifth-rate philosopher.

Most philosophy is inmcomprehensible anyway, so unless you have to read it for college etc., I suggest you skip the vast bulk of it.

You can be an excellent revolutionary and not even have heard of the word 'philosophy'. In fact, the less the better.

There are, however, admirably clear books on the subject; if you want a few ideas, let me know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Apparently, Wittgenstein claimed it might take 500 hundred years before anyone understood his work.

No, I think he only had you in mind.

The rest of us will have it mastered in weeks.

[More Fire for the People]

Rosa, out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Lacan and Zizek? As for Wittgenstein, it is easy to understand him — it far more difficult to interpret him.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 10:50 pm
Z:


Apparently, Wittgenstein claimed it might take 500 hundred years before anyone understood his work.

No, I think he only had you in mind.

The rest of us will have it mastered in weeks.
Ah well, I only mentioned it so you'd say hello to me Rosa.

Hop:


As for Wittgenstein, it is easy to understand him — it far more difficult to interpret him.

What does that mean?

[bretty]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 02, 2007 09:55 pm
Rosa, out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Lacan and Zizek? As for Wittgenstein, it is easy to understand him — it far more difficult to interpret him.
Well as Wittgenstein said: There is many interpretations but only one MEANING.


Yes, alot of philosophy is becoming more and more artistic and this in my opinion is a bad thing because scholarship should not be intertwined with artistic language. If you want to prove a point you should not confuse people with artsy puzzlement.

You see it in Foucault and Derrida etc. and I won't comment on their scholarship but when was the last time any scientific revolutionary wanted to prove something through artistic language? It defeats the purpose.

[Noah]

I've just been trying it as a hobby and have found it very taxing on my brain, like I'd get into bed and begin to read (thinking it'd make me a understand 'things' better hence make me a better revolutionary) but it's hard & sometimes, I'm like what's the point of this? And pick up a book about biology, politics or history.

--

edit...this is probably my last shot at perhaps making a spark with philosophy..I bought a book which contains some writings of;

aristotle
plato
epicurus
epictetus
marcus aurelius
confucius
mantaigne
emerson
john dewer

any recommendations?!

[Hit The North]

Noah

No one in that list was a revolutionary so why do you think engaging with any of them will make you a better revolutionary?

[Noah]

I just thought reading the famous philosophers (like plato) would be a good place to start...and that was the only book in the market stall that was about philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Ah well, I only mentioned it so you'd say hello to me Rosa.

You know, I can actually believe you are that sad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


Rosa, out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Lacan and Zizek? As for Wittgenstein, it is easy to understand him — it far more difficult to interpret him.

What I have read of Lacan suggests I'd learn more from reading a Martian telephone directory.

And what little I have read of Zizek has formed in me no other opinion than I should resist all inducements to read any more.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For once I have to agree with Z (I need a shower...):

Noah, do yourself a favour and throw that book away.

[Certainly read Plato, who, apart from Hegel, is the enemy incarnate.

You need to know your enemy....]

I can honestly think of no author who will make you a better revolutionary other than one who is one already.

The best advice I can give you: stick to the Marxist classics -- stay away from anything to do with dialectics, and brush your teeth regularly.

If you absolutely have to read something, try these:

Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy.

Gilbert Ryle: Dilemmas.

Plato: Gorgias.

Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Ian Hacking: Why Does Language Matter To Philosophy?

Ditto: Representing and Intervening.

Wittgenstein: The Blue Book

On the other hand, if you want guidance from philosophers on the meaning of life, you are asking the wrong questions.....

[bretty]

Rosa have you had any contract with the works of Louis Althusser? If so, what's your opinion of him? [please try to give me more then a quick sentence on why you do or don't like him].

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

In response to having difficulty understanding philosophy, Noah:

I suggest you read the Greeks first, and then try a history of philosophy book/lecture. You'll need to understand the history of philosophy because all philosophy utilizes specific language developed over the past 2000 years. I suggest you ignore the advice of Rosa (Save the book recommendations, which are nice; though if you don't enjoy and understand Plato and Aristotle, then I imagine that Bertrand Russell and Gilbert Ryle will destroy any youthful interest you have in philosophy.) Even Rosa's patron-saint, Wittgenstein, read Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer, if for nothing else than to use them as ladders to be thrown away. I also suggest you avoid television, and pop literature. You must train your mind to sustain attention toward difficult concepts.


On the other hand, if you want guidance from philosophers on the meaning of life, you are asking the wrong questions.....

What are the right questions and why does one ask them?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WTHNF:


I suggest you ignore the advice of Rosa

Yes, we ought to engage this lost soul in a ruling-class endeavour that has taken humanity on a slow 2500 year meander to nowhere, solving not one single problem along the way; what a good idea!


Even Rosa's patron-saint, Wittgenstein, read Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer

He read the second when young, and rapidly abandoned the ideas he found there, and of the second, even W admitted K was mind-numbingly boring.

And we will need a little more than just your say so that W meant that the work of these two jokers was part of the ladder he suggested we throw away (especially when he was explicitly referring to his own 'propositions' when he used that metaphor).

You are a fountain of good advice, no mistake.


What are the right questions and why does one ask them?

If you have to ask, then I suggest you give this more thought.

I cannot be expected to help you with your every little problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, at the risk of upsetting you, not only do I have no time for Althusser, I have even less for writing about how little time I have for him.

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

Yes, we ought to engage this lost soul in a ruling-class endeavour that has taken humanity on a slow 2500 year meander to nowhere, solving not one single problem along the way; what a good idea!

I propose that we ought to allow this "lost soul" to read without worrying about the invasive and destructive eye of your cathartic, anti-bourgeois Kulturkampf.


even W admitted K was mind-numbingly boring.

Proof, please.


And we will need a little more than just your say so that W meant that the work of these two jokers was part of the ladder he suggested we throw away (especially when he was explicitly referring to his own 'propositions' when he used that metaphor).

Perhaps I was taking liberties with his metaphor, but it is undeniable that Wittgenstein was influenced by Kierkegaard, right up until his death. And in any case, I think we can both agree that my use of his metaphor retains meaning, even within the separate context in which I used it.

"Kierkegaard writes: If Christianity were so easy and cosy, why should God in his Scriptures have set Heaven and Earth in motion and threatened eternal punishments? - Question: But in that case why is this Scripture so unclear? If we want to warn someone of a terrible danger, do we go about it by telling him a riddle whose solution will be the warning? - But who is to say that the Scripture really is unclear? Isn't it possible that it was essential in this case to 'tell a riddle'? And that, on the other hand, giving a more direct warning would necessarily have had the wrong effect? God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies - but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely historically plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential, decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, - because these might distract attention from what matters.)

"The spirit puts what is essential, essential for your life, into these words. The point is precisely that you are only supposed to see clearly what appears clearly even in this representation." - Wittgenstein, Culture and Value; quoted in "Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard" by Jens Glebe-Moller

"Wittgenstein's friend, Norman Malcolm, reports for example that Wittgenstein held Kierkegaard in esteem and referred to him "with something of awe in his expression, as a 'reallly religious' man" - "Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard" by Jens Glebe-Moller.

"I believe that one of the things Christianity says is that sound doctrines are all useless. That you have to change your life. (Or the direction of your life.)

"It says that wisdom is all cold: and that you can no more use it for setting your life to rights than you can forge iron when it is cold. The point is that a sound doctrine need not take hold of you; you can follow it as you would a doctor's prescription. - But here you need something to move you and turn you in a new direction. - (I.e. this is how I understand it.) Once you have been turned round, you must stay turned round.

"Wisdom is passionless. But faith by contrast is what Kierkegaard calls a passion"- quoted in "Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard"


If you haven't read Kierkegaard - which I imagine you haven't - then you probably will not realize how Kierkegaardian these notes are.


You are a fountain of good advice, no mistake.

I suppose your posts were somehow better? You proposed that Noah should throw away his book without explaining why. You subsequently listed off books that would have equally proved problematic for the new mind - The Blue Book :0. Granted, I have learned much from Gilbert Ryle, Russell, and Wittgenstein, but to throw their names out as arguments in themselves is unfair to someone new to philosophy.

I suggest you reconsider your ultra-conservative, belligerent "analytical" attitude when dealing with minds new to philosophy. Your Anglophile genuflecting serves no purpose at all; if the last great French philosopher was Descartes, then let people figure that out for themselves. Your belligerence betrays a pervasive fear that philosophy and truth really are relative, and that therefore a crusade to deceive young minds away from the continent is necessary.

And please do not conflate the analytical tradition with leftist radicalism and communism. At best, with a few exceptions, the great analytical philosophers have been nothing more than radical liberals - i.e. philosophers oriented toward petty-bourgeois politics.


If you have to ask, then I suggest you give this more thought.

I cannot be expected to help you with your every little problem.

What is the reason that you ask questions?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WTHNF:


I propose that we ought to allow this "lost soul" to read without worrying about the invasive and destructive eye of your cathartic, anti-bourgeois Kulturkampf.

Indeed, but then you go one better and advise him to lose his sanity in following an endeavour that has nothing to recommend it.

And, no anti-bourgeois me: I am against all forms of ruling-class thought --, oh, and obscure german phrases (trotted out by poseurs).


Proof, please.

Rush Rees 'Recollections of Wittgenstein' (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1984), p.88:

"I couldn't read him [Kierkegaard] now. He is too long-winded; he keeps on saying the same thing over and over again...".

Happy?


but it is undeniable that Wittgenstein was influenced by Kierkegaard, right up until his death. And in any case, I think we can both agree that my use of his metaphor retains meaning, even within the separate context in which I used it.

And only someone who has no grasp of the Tractatus could use this metaphor in such a context.

I have read K (when I was an under-graduate); I used to think highly of him, then I grew up.

I think W did the same.


I have learned much from Gilbert Ryle, Russell, and Wittgenstein, but to throw their names out as arguments in themselves is unfair to someone new to philosophy.

If you read what I wrote, I said, if you absolutely have to read something, read these.

Not that he should read these.

I deliberately chose those because they are nice and easy, and well-written.


I suggest you reconsider your ultra-conservative, belligerent "analytical" attitude when dealing with minds new to philosophy.

And I suggest you check on the meaning of 'conservative', since my work aims to overturn 2500 years of ruling class conservative thought --, called "philosophy".

That is why I call myself a radical.

You, my fine friend, are the conservative: recommending a 19th century bumbler and mystic called K.

And far from being obsessed with 'anglophone philosophy', may I remind you that the three thinkers who I refer to most, and who have influenced me most, were German and Austrian (Marx, Wittgenstein and Frege).


if the last great French philosopher was Descartes, then let people figure that out for themselves.

The last and only great French Philosopher was Buridan; Descartes was fourth-rate, at best.

And where did you dredge up this murky idea?


Your belligerence betrays a pervasive fear that philosophy and truth really are relative, and that therefore a crusade to deceive young minds away from the continent is necessary

Are you trying to make a point about what I think about truth by making stuff up?

If so, I rather think I have little to learn from you (except, perhaps, how to fib).


And please do not conflate the analytical tradition with leftist radicalism and communism. At best, with a few exceptions, the great analytical philosophers have been nothing more than radical liberals - i.e. philosophers oriented toward petty-bourgeois politics.

More fibs. Nice one!

I need lessons. Got any spare time?


What is the reason that you ask questions?

Why does a fibber like you need to ask?

Just make up an answer and put it in my mouth.

Do I have to tell you everything??

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

Indeed, but then you go one better and advise him to lose his sanity in following an endeavour that has nothing to recommend it.

What does this mean? I thought we privileged clarity.


And, no anti-bourgeois me: I am against all forms of ruling-class thought --,
oh, and obscure german phrases (trotted out by poseurs).

I assume by this remark that you had to look the phrase up. Someone against all forms of ruling-class thought should know a very common phrase that has been used in various contexts since its inception.


Rush Rees 'Recollections of Wittgenstein' (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1984), p.88:

"I couldn't read him [Kierkegaard] now. He is too long-winded; he keeps on saying the same thing over and over again...".

Happy?

Yes, except for the fact that you failed to address the proof I supplied regarding Wittgenstein's affinity for Keirkegaard.

"You can't hear God speak to someone else, you can hear him only if you are being addressed. - That is a grammatical remark" - Wittgenstein, Zettel

Why does Wittgenstein, post Tractatus, choose to isolate and categorize the Christian language game in the same way that Kierkegaard does?


And I suggest you check on the meaning of 'conservative', since my work aims to overturn 2500 years of ruling class conservative thought --, called "philosophy".

That is why I call myself a radical.

Overturning means throwing away books? Why be so afraid of history? Shouldn't we, to use your words, know the enemy?


And far from being obsessed with 'anglophone philosophy', may I remind you that the three thinkers who I refer to most, and who have influenced me most, were German and Austrian (Marx, Wittgenstein and Frege).

So Wittgenstein and Frege were primarily popular in Austria and Germany? I must be mistaken as to the history of analytical philosophy.


The last and only great French Philosopher was Buridan; Descartes was fourth-rate, at best.

And where did you dredge up this murky idea?

Analytical philosophers. Apparently there isn't consensus in your field.



More fibs. Nice one!

I need lessons. Got any spare time?

Great response, now I know how to be an analytical philosopher: use ad hominem arguments.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Noah I know exactly what you mean mate.

I've read very very little of philosophy, the only thing I can really claim to have read is some chapters of Socrates in a Classical civilization class.

Although at University we had to look at Locke, Hobbs and Rousseau.

It may be ignorance on my part, but lots of philosophy seems to be way overrated and really doesn't mean anything.

Not because what philosophers say is too complex but because, in my humble opinion, it doesn't translate to the material world.

For example, I am attempting to read 'Empire' by Hardt and Negri and in one of the first chapters, they look at the institutions thought up by libertarians like the U.N and prior to that the league of nations.

But despite all the good ideas, the league of nations and the UN have failed.

I found that quite enlightening.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WTHNF:


What does this mean? I thought we privileged clarity.

Which word do you not understand?


I assume by this remark that you had to look the phrase up. Someone against all forms of ruling-class thought should know a very common phrase that has been used in various contexts since its inception.

Unlike you, I use words I understand. Back to the dictionary with you.


Yes, except for the fact that you failed to address the proof I supplied regarding Wittgenstein's affinity for Keirkegaard.

As I said, he, like me, grew out of K, as that quote indicates.


"You can't hear God speak to someone else, you can hear him only if you are being addressed. - That is a grammatical remark" - Wittgenstein, Zettel

And...?


Why does Wittgenstein, post Tractatus, choose to isolate and categorize the Christian language game in the same way that Kierkegaard does?

And if you read his remarks on Fraser, you will see that this is yet another of your exaggerations.


Overturning means throwing away books? Why be so afraid of history? Shouldn't we, to use your words, know the enemy?

I tend to take a Humean approach to ruling-class theory: into the flames with it -- not through fear, but contempt (aka, class hatred).


So Wittgenstein and Frege were primarily popular in Austria and Germany? I must be mistaken as to the history of analytical philosophy.

I see, you are changing your descriptor to 'popular in'?

But so what? The fact that Descartes is popular with philosophical numpties does not make Descartes a great philosopher.


Analytical philosophers. Apparently there isn't consensus in your field.

So what, once more? Where in philosophy is there a consensus?

You might as well tell me he is popular among pigeon fanciers for all the good it will do you.


Great response, now I know how to be an analytical philosopher: use ad hominem arguments.

There is no problem with 'ad hominem' arguments (despite what poor logic books will tell you) -- if used to reveal the inconsistencies in someone's case, or expose stupidity, as in this instance; and they can be valid, too.

Looks like your logic is as poor as your knowledge of W.

[Connolly]

Hey guys,

When I'm reading philosophy it's really hard to get my head round what I'm reading, I'll read the first page and then lose track and understanding of what's going on..

I've read some of Freud on sexuality (just because it was there) and I bought this book called 'The social philosophers' with plato and aristotle and many other famous philosophers but I can't understand/grasp/keep up with what they talk about alot of the times!!!

Did anyone else have this problem?

I'm not sure whether it's an english problem, I'm a good english student, it's just grasping what the philosopher is saying which is hard.

Should i read each page several times, does anyone else do this?

:lol:

I know exactly how you feel.

I bought a book there a while back "A time for revolution" by Antonio Negri.

Reading it was almost impossible. I was very selective about which parts I read. The chapters had nice simple names though :lol:.

Basically, the book is thrown there in the corner. Ill get back to it sometime in a couple of years maybe. :P

-----------

I find that my ability to read things and understand it grows gradually. For example, when very young, I would have found the communist manifesto something difficult and necessary to read a couple of times over. Now, its very easy to understand and I admire it for its simplicity in outlining something very complex.

My advice would be, the more you expose yourself to difficult texts (and other reading and terminology), the more you pick up bit by bit to eventually grip an overall text. Dont dive in straight away - but read abit - leave it a week or so :lol: - then come back to it with a fresh mind. That goes for everything - just take it easy and gradual.

As for reading things a couple of times over. That happens to everyone. Even if reading a newspaper, its sometimes necessary to read again, or a couple of times to get the main points. Somedays its not necessary, some days it is - it all depends on what state your mind is in that day ie, get enough sleep?...Something else troubling you? ...Something else needs to be done in priority to this one? etc etc.

Its nothing to worry about - at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Except, RB, one soon learns that much of this stuff is not worth the effort!

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

Which word do you not understand?

Indeed, but then you go one better and advise him to lose his sanity in following an endeavour that has nothing to recommend it.

What does 'it' refer to?


Unlike you, I use words I understand. Back to the dictionary with you.

Kulturkampf refers to a cultural crusade; e.g. your book-burning approach to philosophy.


As I said, he, like me, grew out of K, as that quote indicates.

Firstly, Wittgenstein's remarks on K are rather ambiguous up until his death.
Secondly, because someone may grow out of a philosophy, does it follow that the philosophy is to be burned?


I tend to take a Humean approach to ruling-class theory: into the flames with it -- not through fear, but contempt (aka, class hatred).

This isn't an answer to my question. How does someone, for instance Noah, form contempt for books they have never read?


I see, you are changing your descriptor to 'popular in'?

You are being disingenuous in order to save face. The analytical tradition is intimately bound with what people refer to as Anglo philosophy. I was using Anglo as a synonym for the analytical tradition, which would be accepted in any analytical philosophy dept. in the world.

In any case, Hume, Russell and Ryle (all philosophers you recommended to Noah) are from the Isle.


You might as well tell me he is popular among pigeon fanciers for all the good it will do you.


False analogy. You are an analytical cheerleader - albeit an ancient one - but a cheerleader nonetheless. The age of logical positivist chauvinism is drawing to a close, and it is no longer heretical for enlightened analytical philosophers to engage philosophers like Descartes without whom modern philosophy would not exist.

And before you misinterpret this statement, I want to make it clear that I am not calling you a logical positivist. I am referring to the analytical disposition, pioneered by logical positivists, to discourage reading in the history of philosophy.


There is no problem with 'ad hominem' arguments (despite what poor logic books will tell you) -- if used to reveal the inconsistncies in someone's case, or expose stupidity, as in this case; and they can be valid, too.

Looks like your logic is as poor as your knowledge of W.

So by calling me a fibber, you have revealed an inconsistency in my logic? Thank you for the education in logic, I think I'll try ad hominem:

I do hope that you do not teach philosophy in a real learning environment. Analytical dinosaurs like yourself are perpetrators of a memetic plague destroying free thought and history in philosophy.

You are a living paradox. Why tell people to throw away dated philosophical texts, and then turn around and philosophically engage an issue (Hegelian Dialectics), that has been an analytical punching bag for 100 years?

The fact still remains that Wittgenstein was very interested in metaphysical banalities such as spirituality, passion and Christ.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WTHNF:


What does 'it' refer to?

I see, you do not understand anaphoric pronouns.

How can I help you with this category without using one drawn from it?

Oops, I just did!


Kulturkampf refers to a cultural crusade; e.g. your book-burning approach to philosophy.

Thanks for telling me what I already knew, but I chose not to parade that fact since I refuse to be a poseur.


Firstly, Wittgenstein's remarks on K are rather ambiguous up until his death.

So are mine, but K is still mind-numbingly boring for all that, as W said.


Secondly, because someone may grow out of a philosophy, does it follow that the philosophy is to be burned?

If it is mystical, and spouts a ruling-class view of reality, burning is wrong, I agree.

I was far too lenient: as a result of your excellent critique I suggest concentrated Nitric Acid, instead.

Or, American friendly fire; I am not fussed.


How does someone, for instance Noah, form contempt for books they have never read?

You will need to ask him.

If I had my way, he'd not even get the chance -- save he ran his fingers through the remains.


You are being disingenuous in order to save face. The analytical tradition is intimately bound with what people refer to as Anglo philosophy. I was using Anglo as a synonym for the analytical tradition, which would be accepted in any analytical philosophy dept. in the world.

As I said, you changed your descriptor, and are now trying to deflect attention.


In any case, Hume, Russell and Ryle (all philosophers you recommended to Noah) are from the Isle.

So?

I see, you are ignorant of analytic philosophy too:



The age of logical positivist chauvinism is drawing to a close,

Is there anything in anything I have ever said, wrote or implied that even so much as hints I think highly, or at all, about logical positivism? Or copy them?

Why do you mystics make stuff up?

But now we get a genuine example of disingenuousness:


And before you misinterpret this statement, I want to make it clear that I am not calling you a logical positivist. I am referring to the analytical disposition, pioneered by logical positivists, to discourage reading in the history of philosophy.

Mine is driven by class hatred, not logical positivism. I am amazed you take a different view if you are a socialist (if you are).

But, I already told you this.


without whom modern philosophy would not exist.

Ooh! Stop it, you are turning me on....

Anyone got a time machine?


So by calling me a fibber, you have revealed an inconsistency in my logic? Thank you for the education in logic, I think I'll try ad hominem:

In that case, we need to add 'an incapacity to read' to your logically-challenged state and fondness for mystical bumblers.

I'd give up while you are behind, if I were you.

And the poseur goes into hyper-drive:


I do hope that you do not teach philosophy in a real learning environment. Analytical dinosaurs like yourself are perpetrators of a memetic [eh??] plague destroying free thought and history in philosophy.

When I used to teach it, I taught good old-fashioned socialist anti-philosophy, especially to those who knew what 'memetic' meant, and to those that refrained from advertising the fact that they did not.

[Sorry to keep using pronouns!!]


You are a living paradox. Why tell people to throw away dated philosophical texts, and then turn around and philosophically engage an issue (Hegelian Dialectics), that has been an analytical punching bag for 100 years?

I see, recommending to the good folk here the work of a mystical bumbler who lived a good 150 years ago, as you do, is being bang up-to-date it is?

I prefer being anachronistic, then.


The fact still remains that Wittgenstein was very interested in metaphysical banalities such as spirituality, passion and Christ.

Show me where he called these 'metaphysical'.

And why do you think I accept everything he said, anyway?

[Connolly]

Except, RB, one soon learns that much of this stuff is not worth the effort!

Your probably right too!

I think though, for those of us who havnt yet learned that lesson first hand, its a matter of trial and error...

Maybe when we come to actually realise what these philosophers are saying, we can discount them as full of shit.

For now - the curiosity as to what these philosophers thoughts are, can be difficult to resist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB, I can understand that -- but, as they say, curiosity killed the categories.

[WritingToHaveNoFace]

I see, you do not understand anaphoric pronouns.

I'm still confused. Did my post have nothing to recommend Noah, his endeavor, or his sanity?


Thanks for telling me what I already knew, but I chose not to parade that fact since I refuse to be a poseur.

I actually had to look "poseur" up. And I guess that people throw around the term "anaphoric" equally as often.


So are mine, but K is still mind-numbingly boring for all that, as W said.

Either that, or too deep for him, as W also said.


If it is mystical, and spouts a ruling-class view of reality, burning is wrong, I agree.

I was far too lenient: as a result of your excellent critique I suggest concentrated Nitric Acid, instead.

And yet in your following post you admit that you can understand why people might want to read the history of philosophy.



RB, I can understand that



You will need to ask him.

If I had my way, he'd not even get the chance -- save he ran his fingers through the remains.

I understand that, and I was asking why.


As I said, you changed your descriptor, and are now trying to deflect attention.

So you honestly believe I was referring specifically to Anglo philosophers, and not to Analytical philosophy?


So?
good answer


Is there anything in anything I have ever said, wrote or implied that even so much as hints I think highly, or at all, about logical positivism? Or copy them?

Why do you mystics make stuff up?


And before you misinterpret this statement, I want to make it clear that I am not calling you a logical positivist. I am referring to the analytical disposition, pioneered by logical positivists, to discourage reading in the history of philosophy.

Try reading the entire post before responding.


Mine is driven by class hatred, not logical positivism. I am amazed you take a different view if you are a socialist (if you are).

But, I already told you this.

Cartesian epistemology is bourgeois? You're nothing but another book burner. Go join the National Socialist party.


Anyone got a time machine?

I think you have it; I just checked the date and it's 1970.


memetic [eh??]

A metaphor. If it is too ruling class, and too "poseurish", maybe I'll resort to anaphoric pronouns; oh wait, I just did.


When I used to teach it, I taught good old-fashioned socialist anti-philosophy, especially to those who knew what 'memetic' meant, and to those that refrained from advertising the fact that they did not.


Christians teach good old-fashioned anti-science.


[Sorry to keep using pronouns!!]

That's ok, I really was confused as to what pronouns were - evidenced by my own use of them.


I see, recommending to the good folk here the work of a mystical bumbler who lived a good 150 years ago, as you do, is being bang up-to-date it is?


When did I do this? And in any case, I am not the one declaring the history of philosophy up until the 20th century to be heretical. Read what you want, people. If socialism is the true, natural state for man, then I'm sure it is achievable even with a free reading list (including Mein Kampf and Descartes' Meditations.


And why do you think I accept everything he said, anyway?

The original argument was regarding whether or not the history of philosophy was worth investigating. As evidence, I indicated that even Wittgenstein, a man who discouraged reading in the history of philosophy, nevertheless did so. I don't care whether or not you accepted this position.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WTHNF:


I'm still confused.

I blame your love of non-analytic philosophy.


Did my post have nothing to recommend Noah, his endeavor, or his sanity?

Eh?


And I guess that people throw around the term "anaphoric" equally as often.

You see, you are learning from me.

Progress at last.



Either that, or too deep for him, as W also said.

I refer the honourable lover of bumblers to what W said to Rush Rhees. He no longer read K, and finds him boring.


And yet in your following post you admit that you can understand why people might want to read the history of philosophy

Well, I am nice to non-bumblers.


I understand that, and I was asking why.

Yes I know you were, and I answered you.

Please stay awake.


So you honestly believe I was referring specifically to Anglo philosophers, and not to Analytical philosophy?

W would have denied being an analytic philosopher, and Frege never heard the term; but even so, I can only go on what you say. If you use confused language, I have to treat you accordingly.


good answer

Thanks.


Try reading the entire post before responding

Try learning to read before mouthing off.


Cartesian epistemology is bourgeois? You're nothing but another book burner. Go join the National Socialist party.

More invention, and now nasty abuse.

I shall respond in kind.


I think you have it; I just checked the date and it's 1970.

Whereas yours is either 1630, or 1850.


If it is too ruling class, and too "poseurish", maybe I'll resort to anaphoric pronouns; oh wait, I just did.

Aha, the uncrowned prince of bumblers has learnt a new word, and like a child with a new toy, can't put it away.


Christians teach good old-fashioned anti-science.

More evidence for the prosecution; good!


That's ok, I really was confused as to what pronouns were - evidenced by my own use of them.

You should not be so hard on yourself; we generally make allowances for the afflicted at RevLeft.

Exhibit A:


When did I do this?

You seem to think I can solve all your problems; memory issues of this order of severity need professional help, I reckon.


And in any case, I am not the one declaring the history of philosophy up until the 20th century to be heretical. Read what you want, people. If socialism is the true, natural state for man, then I'm sure it is achievable even with a free reading list (including Mein Kampf and Descartes' Meditations.

People should be free to rot their brains, I agree.

And you should be preserved in a museum somewhere as a sort of health warning to those who are thinking of taking your advice.


The original argument was regarding whether or not the history of philosophy was worth investigating. As evidence, I indicated that even Wittgenstein, a man who discouraged reading in the history of philosophy, nevertheless did so. I don't care whether or not you accepted this position.

As I said, a health warning.

Please do not change; we need damaged souls like you to scare the naive away from studying Philosophy.

Can you do a world tour?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

For what it's worth, I think Descartes rather ruined himself with the whole I Think Therefore I Am. Silly thing to say, especially for a man held in such reverence.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And worse, he never considered whether or not this 'evil demon' could confuse him over the meaning of the words he used, to such an extent that even the words 'evil demon' could have meant 'dose of the pox' one minute and 'left hand glove' the next, with those words themselves changing meaning equally quickly.

In other words, his whole project self-destructs, as does all traditional philosophy.

[Nakrab]

I think you'll find all individual philosophies tend to collapse once the indivudal realizes that;
"Shit, no one else is saying it, maybe i'm wrong?"
Then again, careless illusions of something other than personal deitification is something that we see so often in this capitalist collective that spawns little mall creatures.

[bretty]

Further with Descartes, what about his justification to doubt? The wax he says is still considered wax but it is a changed form, yet this is just a misunderstanding of how we use language.

Because he considers hard wax and melted wax the same wax yet all that has happened to cause doubt in it is a chemical reaction or physical change due to the fireplace.

His confusion comes in calling it the "same wax" as before he put it close to the fireplace. He categorically confuses his definition of it and therefore doubts by referring to it with a lack of words to describe its scientific change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, you are right; Descartes did not begin by looking at how we use the word 'same' (and all the many ways we do this); he just blundered in with a fixed idea, and determined that reality bend to match his crass analysis.

But, he was part of a long tradition, wherein everyone did this, and still do.

[gilhyle]

WHile I consider all four philosophers completely wrong, I would recommend

Plato: Last Days of Socrates
Descartes: Meditations
Russell: Problems of Philosophy
Sartre: Existentialism is a Humanism

Each book is well written, short and different from the others.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I agree with your choice of items 1 and 3, and anyone new to Philosophy should read your second choice just to see how not to construct an argument.

The last item should put them off current French Philosophy for good -- with any luck.

[Dewolfemann]

If you are looking for good modern introductions before diving into source material, I highly recommend

http://www.alibris.com/searcMaterialism and the Dialectical Method (http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&qauth=Maurice%20Cornforth&S=R&bid=8949834925&pbest=&pqtynew=&page=1&matches=25&qsort=p)h/detail.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&qauth=Maurice%20Cornforth&S=R&bid=8949834925&pbest=&pqtynew=&page=1&matches=25&qsort=p

Its written in very simple English and is necessary so that you have a compass for understanding primary source material

*Edit*

Did i mention its under 5 bucks?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dewolfemann:

Cornforth's book makes all the usual mistakes; it is full of a priori theses backed up by scant evidence (or none at all) -- and the theses themselves do not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

You need to know that we (myself and others) have systematically trashed this theory at RevLeft; you can find the links to the many discussions we have had here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

A summary of the main objections to 'materialist dialectics' can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

More details at my site; link below: