I’ve decided to delve into the realm of philosophy because it interests me so much - and was subsequently looking for a book to introduce me to the general basics of the subject.
I had picked up two other books, one of which was more of a textbook format - Philosophy 1 - an Oxford book.
But while in the library, I came across this book… “Think”, and upon browsing it discovered it covers alot of material in different format other than a textbookish one.
Has anyone read this book? Does anyone have any opinions? And also, does anyone have any suggestions for further reading?
My advice to you is to realize that blackburn likes to kick other philosopher’s asses around the block – russel is the same way. know that what you are reading is not the final word on the subject, and is indeed a very biased opinion. nothing wrong with that, just don’t take it as gospel.
i read the oxford book – throw it out. if you are going to start anywhere in philosophy it is with the straight up, balls on philosophy. pick a thinker, and read. and then try to understand. have fun
And then, of course, you will know something about Nietsche’s philosophy (such as it is) but what will you have learned about philosophy? And more importantly, about philosophizing? Not much. The history of philosophy is about this or that philosopher. But neither philosophy nor philosophizing is about this or that philosopher.
As Wittgenstein pointed out, philosophy is an activity, not a theory (or, he might have added, a particular philosopher’s view).
I’d rather read a web site like this, where the ideas are dynamic, than being preached to from a book about ‘this is the way it is’.
But then I tend to be a very simple person.
I don’t agree. You have to know what other philosopers have said, if only to avoid re-inventing the wheel. And, philosophy is intimately connected with its history in the way that physics or chemistry is not.
But it is important not to confuse philosopy with the history of philosopy, nor with the philosophies of this or that philosopher.
Ahh well, as far as finding out what other philosophers have said, I being a lazy creature, let others with more understanding do the reading then post a link on this site to the interesting bits
And for re-inventing the wheel, well it is something I would rather do. As I have said in another post, yes I may be miles behind compared to others, but at least I feel in my self I have a good understanding and first hand knowledge of how the wheel works.
As for the history of Philosophy and who exactly said what, does it really matter? to me it’s what they said not really who said it?
Hence I’d rather read a site like this that is current, than something from a few hundred years ago, the ideas will probably be along the same lines just the topic will be more relevant.
But saying that, everything you say is totally valid, it’s just I prefer to do things ‘my way’.
Mentul : I more less agree with you for the most part, (being myself of lazy nature). I also agree that the message is what really counts after all.There have been many and much egocentria in Philosophy,and some ‘thinkers’ forgot the ultimate reason for it, which is to help Humanity at large, so whatever helps me and makes me tick,i’ll buy, the rest…well, the rest i save for a rainy day.
— Kennethamy, Thank you for your post. your error consists in assuming that that is all i do or that should be done; relating to one philosopher is a starting point, a mere chink in the windshield that eventually, in time, radiates out in a 100 directions, including many authors, books, and activities, i was merely tossing up rocks from the road of life.
— I admire the life of Wittgenstein, although i don’t know what to make of his philosophy. Could you elaborate on not confusing the history of philosophy with philosophy itself?
I would think the distinction is pretty plain, although clearly in order to be a good historian of philosophy you have to be able to do philosophy too.
But, a pure historian of philosophy would be someone who would study, say, the influence of Descartes on Spinoza in regard to Spinoza’s texts, and, for instance, to what extent Spinoza’s idea of substance was similar or not to Descartes’ notion of substance. This would, in turn be related to, although not the same as what is called “the history of ideas” or intellectual history. But, a pure historian of philosophy (if there is such a thing) would not concern himself with (say) whether Spinoza’s arguments for one substance were sound arguments, or engage in a critique of Spinoza’s philosophy.
A philosopher who does not particularly engage in the history of philosophy would be interested in the problems of philosophy for their own sake, although he would also talk about the views of other philosophers about those problems when he thought these view were relevant to his main concerns.
After all, if you come to think about it, the history of philosophy is parasitic on philosophers who are not engaged in the history of philosophy, for if all philosopher engaged only in the history of philosophy, there would be no history of philosophy for historians of philosophy to study, would there be?
By the way, Wittgenstein reputedly used to dismiss the history of philosophy as relevant to his concerns. But, if you read him (especially his later philosophy) you will find various references, some oblique, to other philosophers. Wittgenstein would often say that he was not much interested in the traditional philosophers like Decartes and Hume (who actually discussed the kind of problems Wittgenstein discussed) because he liked to let people believe he thought they were trivial and dry. Witttgenstein, it cannot be denied, was something of a poseur. He would tell people that those philosophers who really interested him were Kierkegaard, and Schopenhauer, philosohers who obviously never were interested in the kinds of philosophy Wittgenstein wrote about, nor discussed matters as he did. But this, I think, was part of Wittgenstein image which he tried to purvey. The brooding genius image. He would, for instance, insist on his followers (and he needed followers) accompany him to the films, and he pretended (and maybe he did for all I know) to enjoy Hollywood lavish musicals, but avoid any “arty” film.
He would, ostentatiously. take the train to London whenever a conference of philosophers came to Cambridge. That sort of thing.
you’re a sassy little fellow! i like it! you can go into prostitution with that attitude – crackwhores don’t have lip like that!
.
if you have studied philosophers extensively, i would think that it is impossible to learn one philosopher really well without gaining a substantial knowledge of others. there are a lot of obsurce comparisions of philosophy to things like hail or ongoing discussions – it is a discipline that is an active progression, building on old ideas and forming new ones. starting with a philosopher you enjoy will at the very least gain an understanding of that philosopher’s predecessors, contemporaries and allude to those who will continue in his/her tradition. furthermore, if you pick a really really good philosopher (like plato) who forces his readers to play an active role in understanding his philosophy, then you will also learn how to perform philosophy itself.
I certainly hope you are not bound at all. But, whatever floats your boat.
I doubt very much that someone who learns Plato (your suggestion) very well, will learn about whether the analytic/synthetic distinction is a tenable one, or about the difference between de re and de dicto modalities, although he may learn something about the pre-Socratics like Anaxogoras.
I wonder whether you would say to a physicist that if he learns Galileo well that he will inevitably be able to do string theory.
perhaps the arguement is one tangeled in terms. to learn includes to read, to research, to study and most likely take classes on said philosopher. in such cases he (or she, kennethamy, i should think that both sexes are engaged in such pursuits) will learn one way on how to do philosophy. there are others. and an extremely gifted person will know several.
I guess you only mean that if you read one philosopher, and you are interested in what he says, there is some liklihood that it will lead to reading other philosophers, and you may (or may not) become interested in the field of philosophy.
Well, I guess that’s right. Of course, if you happen to read a philosopher who bores or baffles you, it is likely that you will throw the book down and never want to look at philosophy again.
So, maybe it would be better to get a taste of several philosophers, or even better, to read a book like “Think” or “The Problems of Philosophy.” and find out something about what it is philosophers do after all. How about that as an alternative?
— I have never been able to contain myself, my studies branch out in many directions, philosophy seems to relate to everything… I am here because as Wittgestein said and Kennethamy quoted, “philosophy is an activity”. Hopefully i will learn some critical argumentation skills from you guys, thanks for the great posts.
That’s a pretty shitty alternative. don’t take my liberal use of emoticons as a signal for my intelligence. an unwillingness to begin the study of philosophy because a single philosopher failed to capture your interest indicates that the person is unwilling to study philosophy.
studying philosophy and, more importantly, doing philosophy consists of reading, critiquing and analysing other philosophers. if one where to start by reading a well-known and legitimate philosopher (like Aristotle or locke) there are many guides available and resources out there that will help with this study. further, this is valuable training ground to learn how to philosophise, by being able to recognise how one philosophy school does this and also how the individual chooses to also enage in this.
reading second hand accounts of the philosophers are good only if one uses them to pick a field or thinker to study. they should not be taken as legitimate ways of philosophising and a person wanting to get introduced to the subject should regard them in the same way a person who reads the blurb at the back of a book wants to know about the novel; as a brief summary from an angle that may not be agreed on by everyone. the only way to know the book is to read the book. the only way to do philosophy is to be able to read, write and argue philosophy. the sooner the better.
hence, your proposal was not a good one. phobos, while a large appetite is good, do not believe everything you swallow – something that those books will force you to do.
i like it!