Epistemology

[Mariam]

Calling out all philosophy guys in here..
Im quite interested in the theory of knowledge as i've been reading a lot on the matter but im still a bit confused coz the problem is that i do not know where to start..so if you can recommend me some books, philosophers to start with i'll be more than thankful.

Thanks in advance.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:17 am
Calling out all philosophy guys in here..
Im quite interested in the theory of knowledge as i've been reading a lot on the matter but im still a bit confused coz the problem is that i do not know where to start..so if you can recommend me some books, philosophers to start with i'll be more than thankful.

Thanks in advance.
There is a philosophy section on here and I am sure you would get more responses, but I will try to help you.

Although I do not know of a lot of books on epistemology, i can direct you to sources to further your understanding.

One of the best places that I have found is the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, just google it and look up the author of your choosing. Now for epistemology, you have to know the authors of the philosophy before you can or at least the name of the philosophy.

Some philosophers interested in epistemology that you may find interesting are Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel and any existentialist or postmodern philosophers (camus, nietzche, heidegger, kafka).

Also, I advise you check out their philosophies in the order I presented. In philosophy, ideas tend to be reactions to other ideas. For example, Kant's transcendental idealism was a reaction to both Hume and Descartes.

Hopefully that helps.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unless you need to read up on this for a college course, I'd advise you to steer clear of epistemology in its entirety. Not one single problem has been solved in 2500 years, and we still do not know what a solution would even look like.

And definitely steer clear of Heidegger, unless you want to be bamboozled by an out and out charlatan.

Hegel will merely give you a headache, and confuse you even more (I'd call him a charlatan too, but that is far too mild a word for him).

Avoid Kant, he is too difficult, and probably quite mad.

Descartes is easy to read, but a total waste of time. Spinoza is difficult too, but a monumental waste of time --, while Hume is interesting, but far too confused to be of much use to anyone.

Camus and Kafka have absolutely nothing of worth to say on this topic (whatever else you think of their fiction), and Nietzsche is in places a genius, but he is not much use in helping you get your ideas clear.

But, if you absolutely have to read something, I'd try Michael Williams' 'Problems of Knowledge' (Oxford University Press, 2001).

And then, if you are feeling really adventurous, Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty'.

But, my advice is still, 'don't go there!'

[Mariam]

Well thanks aloy guys..at least now i know where to put my feet!


Hegel will merely give you a headache

Now i know why the hell i feel hammers in my head!! :lol:



But, my advice is still, 'don't go there!'

Lets hope i'll be back in one piece!

[RedJacobin]

Here are two essays by Mao that summarize Marxist epistemology. Very short and easy to read:

Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-9/mswv9_01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_01.htm)

On Practice
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_16.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm)

[Mariam]

Thanks fats..appreciate that!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry fats, but Mao is 100% confused about anything whatsoever to do with Philosophy, let alone with epistemology.

He is content merely to pontificate in an area where he lacks any expertise, still less any flare.

Comrades who regard him as some sort of guru can scarely point their fingers at other religious mystics, like the real the Pope, in comparison -- a similar pontificator.

[funkmasterswede]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 06, 2007 10:04 am
Unless you need to read up on this for a college course, I'd advise you to steer clear of epistemology in its entirety. Not one single problem has been solved in 2500 years, and we still do not know what a solution would even look like.

And definitely steer clear of Heidegger, unless you want to be bamboozled by an out and out charlatan.

Hegel will merely give you a headache, and confuse you even more (I'd call him a charlatan too, but that is far too mild a word for him).

Avoid Kant, he is too difficult, and probably quite mad.

Descartes is easy to read, but a total waste of time. Spinoza is difficult too, but a monumental waste of time --, while Hume is interesting, but far too confused to be of much use to anyone.

Camus and Kafka have absolutely nothing of worth to say on this topic (whatever else you think of their fiction), and Nietzsche is in places a genius, but he is not much use in helping you get your ideas clear.

But, if you absolutely have to read something, I'd try Michael Williams' 'Problems of Knowledge' (Oxford University Press, 2001).

And then, if you are feeling really adventurous, Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty'.

But, my advice is still, 'don't go there!'
Oh, it's analytic philosophy, is it now?

I am more of a fan of continental philosophy.

If I knew what you meant by a charlatan, I could respond; but frankly I have no idea what that term really means.

Descartes' philosophy may be useless, there is no question, but it is very important to western philosophy. Understanding epistemology cannot be done with a few selected works, but with an understanding of all of the major ideas and schools of thoughts. Being able to compare theories of epistemology is very important, for if your views are truly defensible you can call upon a larger scope of ideas.

Hegel and Heidegger are quite annoying to read, but I feel their ideas merit at least an attempt.

Kant is also difficult, but his theory of transcendental idealism is one of the closest academic solutions to the problems of empiricism and rationalism.

Nietzche, you just have to read. He can be hard to penetrate at times; but after reading Kant, it would be very easy.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+July 06, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ July 06, 2007 10:45 pm) I am sorry fats, but Mao is 100% confused about anything whatsoever to do with Philosophy, let alone with epistemology.

He is content merely to pontificate in an area where he lacks any expertise, still less any flare. [/b]
Says who? Some in philosophical circles feel that Mao's work on the subject is not only worth engaging, but valuable:

Slavoj Zizek Presents Mao: On Practice and Contradiction (http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/xyz-titles/zedong_zizek_on_practice.shtml)


Rosa Lichtenstein
Unless you need to read up on this for a college course, I'd advise you to steer clear of epistemology in its entirety. Not one single problem has been solved in 2500 years, and we still do not know what a solution would even look like.
Theses on Feuerbach:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...eses/theses.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...8/mec/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Funk:


If I knew what you meant by a charlatan, I could respond; but frankly I have no idea what that term really means

May I suggest you use a dictionary then; failing that, here's Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan


Descartes' philosophy may be useless, there is no question, but it is very important to western philosophy. Understanding epistemology cannot be done with a few selected works, but with an understanding of all of the major ideas and schools of thoughts. Being able to compare theories of epistemology is very important, for if your views are truly defensible you can call upon a larger scope of ideas

I did not deny Descartes was important, but this is only because he sent philosophy on a wild goose chase for 400 years -- another total waste of time.


Hegel and Heidegger are quite annoying to read, but I feel their ideas merit at least an attempt.

In that case so does the entire New York telephone directory -- except with the latter you will actually learn something.


Kant is also difficult, but his theory of transcendental idealism is one of the closest academic solutions to the problems of empiricism and rationalism.

The word "solution" here should be in scare quotes since it was no solution.

As I said, we have yet to see one single 'problem' solved by philosophers in 2500 years of going nowhere slowly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fats:


Says who? Some in philosophical circles feel that Mao's work on the subject is not only worth engaging, but valuable:

Says me, and I can prove it.

That is why I set up my site. Mao is one of the most confused Marxists ever to have put pen to paper; his work in Philosophy is even worse than that of Engels (and that is saying something).

He is content merely to pontificate about what must be the case in the entire universe for all of space and time based on a few trite examples (endlessly recycled), and ones that do not work anyway. He is a dogmatist, not a philosopher, still less a scientist -- and he is an incompetent dogmatist too.

His 'theory' of change I have trashed here (and in more detail at my site):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292342211 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67708&st=0&#entry1292342211)

Materialism and Empiriocriticism is one of the worst books ever written on this subject, and fit only for the shredder.

And I say that as a Leninist.

Theses on Feuerbach (vastly over-rated) were scibbled ideas Marx wrote down when very young.

Why we fetishise them beats me.

Many of its ideas do not work, and many he never repeated (and no wonder).