[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

by content, do you mean the text line by line? i've found that to be the greatest of pleasures with people like nietzsche above everyone else, and roland barthes, or some of marx, and aristotle's nicomachean ethics, and the schlegels and other german romantics, and camus, and marcus aurelius, and even some of plato, and other people i can't recall at the moment (i just woke up and haven't had breakfast).

Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Barthes, Bataille, Camus, Lyotard, Sartre [etc] - all very writerly writers. Aristotle and Plato come from a very classic tradition where philosophy wasn't a distinct subject, hence you have dialogues, plays and so on rather than strict philosophy alone. Marx was a great polemicist. Writing style makes a huge difference. I'd recommend that everyone read Kierkegaard, regardless of whether they're interested in philosophy. I'd recommend very, very few people to read Hegel. It isn't a compelling writing style (although that style, like Spinoza's, is crucial to his project) and you will get as much, if not more, from reading a secondary text on him. Kant I sort of wobble on - I love him, but he's incredibly dense. Hegel is much more frustrating because he's sort of dense but somehow simple. One of my lecturers used to say, with the grandest air of malice, that no-one in the history of philosophy has ever truly read Hegel, including Hegel himself. I don't quite think that's true, but honestly, it's a complete waste of time unless you want to write a paper on Hegel.

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

you got that wrong, simpleton. the readers may be all kinds of people (a book cannot control who picks it up), but the prattle is far from inane when it's a real philosopher-- and if a philosopher is not an intellectual ("pseudo-intellectuals" you say), then there are no intellectuals. if you disagree, i invite you to present the case of the non-pseudo-intellectual-- who would that be?

about them philosophers being loners-- that is a generalization from individual cases, and utterly misinformed-- like saying that all rock musicians die at 26. i know you're ignorant, but your display spells "jackass" with fireworks in the sky.

finally-- if you're looking for inanity, and i mean inanity of the most abject kind, just look at the mirror, and when you spot a large turd with eyes and mouth that looks just like you, then you've found it.

I see all you've learned from reading philosophy is to insult someone in a painfully puerile way. Considering philosophers are normally barraged with insults, ridicule and derision, it's no surprise their ripostes to hecklers has rubbed off on you.

[ni'k]

attacking people with a mentally deficient line of thinking doesn't succeed in doing anything other than demonstrating what a fucking moron you are. i wonder who it is you are interested in demonstrating this for tho.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

I see all you've learned from reading philosophy is to insult someone in a painfully puerile way. Considering philosophers are normally barraged with insults, ridicule and derison, it's no surprise their ripostes to hecklers has rubbed off on you.

i learned to insult people in the street, where everyone else learns it, you fucking tool-- of course it is puerile (the behavior dates back to childhood, yes?), but if it's painful, i think it's only painful to you. i mean it took you the whole day to come up with "ripostes to hecklers"? i bet you were crying under your bed until 15 minutes ago when your mommy pulled you out and told you to act like a big boy now.

anyway, the only purpose of your existence is to help me warm up the keyboard fingers in the morning, and this being the early evening in my time zone, you can now fuck off.

[akprodr]

As Steve Martin said, calculus and physics are all numbers and stuff that you forget immediately afterward. Philosophy, you remember just enough to fuck you up for the rest of your life.

I had problems in my phi class. I kept reading 'causal' as 'casual' and just couldn't understand why they were talking about all these casual relationships (and not any serious ones).

[pbradley]

Keeping It Simple posts a banal, oafish opinion and !@#$%! responds with insults.

At least it's consistent.

[Skuj]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

Philosophy is nothing but the inane prattle of pseudo-intellectual loners read by pseudo-intellectual, poseur losers.

So, what shall we talk about then?

(Oh dear, what happened to this thread today?)

Anyway, I'm enjoying parts of this discussion, thank you very much, and parts of my 2 new aforementioned books. Interesting that imho, philosophy is rather like chess, an Art and a Science, with debates and hard facts.....

[pbradley]

I was introduced to philosophy via Plato and Aristotle, it's a bit difficult for me to imagine approaching it any other way. I also had the opportunity of studying them in a seminar class that allowed me to really challenge those philosophers in very open terms. They're really the most immediately relevant philosophers, I believe, for those who are new to the ideas and provide the concepts and questions that inform the relevance of later philosophers. Think about 'the good life' first and worry about induction later.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Keeping It Simple posts a banal, oafish opinion, !@#$%! responds with insults, and I soflty whine.

At least it's consistent.

fixed!

but seriously, if it displeases you, why call more attention to it? i only insult the little shit for my own amusement, not to "take the trollbait". as you may have noticed, i've made posts totally unrelated to my username and/or that red angry face i display.

let's try to avoid this:

Originally Posted by Skuj

(Oh dear, what happened to this thread today?)

and instead continue with the more enjoyable stuff:

Originally Posted by Skuj

Anyway, I'm enjoying parts of this discussion, thank you very much, and parts of my 2 new aforementioned books. Interesting that imho, philosophy is rather like chess, an Art and a Science, with debates and hard facts.....

so mang, is this your first foray at all or do you have any prior knowledge of the subject at all? what's motivating you? pure curiosity? something else? i'm curious about this.

Originally Posted by pbradley

I was introduced to philosophy via Plato and Aristotle, it's a bit difficult for me to imagine approaching it any other way. I also had the opportunity of studying them in a seminar class that allowed me to really challenge those philosophers in very open terms. They're really the most immediately relevant philosophers, I believe, for those who are new to the ideas and provide the concepts and questions that inform the relevance of later philosophers. Think about 'the good life' first and worry about induction later.

i agree with a good chunk of your post, as you can see from something i wrote in a previous page, but i can imagine a different approach to philosophy: start with a PROBLEM. something that does not have an empirical solution and requires thought and speculation. attack the problem with your own devices, and then research who and how has addressed said problem before. take from your own post the question of "the good life", and you could go back to the existentialists, for example, or deep ecology, or marcuse, other more immediate ideas, before reaching back to the greeks. of course, since all of philosophy postulates or implies its own history, you do eventually end up back on plato and aristotle, except that you arrive at them from a different avenue, i.e., your own "vital" problem, the questions that you need to answer now, and a research into possible solutions.

part of the reason i think people find a hard time reading plato today is because they are not shown how it may be relevant to their own lives-- though i find aristotle more relevant anyway-- but that's besides the point. the point is that it is not just possible but also viable to approach philosophy from a "here and now" situation rather than by the accumulation of historical knowledge which may or may not apply, eventually, to one's life.

and i'm repeating myself like a broken record at this point.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

fixed!

but seriously, if it displeases you, why call more attention to it? i only insult the little shit for my own amusement, not to "take the trollbait". as you may have noticed, i've made posts totally unrelated to my username and/or that red angry face i display.

Must you be such a humorless cunt? I'm not ni'k. I don't care why you respond to KIS. I just thought it was funny that both of your usernames fit the exchange. I suppose a defensive overreaction also fits the character of an expletive, though.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Must you be such a humorless cunt?

i honestly believe that your humor is lost on most people---i can't speak for everyone. but anyway, there were other parts of my post and you just focus on that one. must you be such a whining cunt? circular argument ensues, with finger-pointing ad infinitum "you started it" "no you started it". best skipped, don't you think?

anyway, 2 am here, so im folding the laptop for the night-- looking forward to reopening this in the morning; with some luck, might find something interesting.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i honestly believe that your humor is lost on most people---i can't speak for everyone. but anyway, there were other parts of my post and you just focus on that one. must you be such a whining cunt? circular argument ensues, with finger-pointing ad infinitum "you started it" "no you started it". best skipped, don't you think?

No, you're a humorless, hypersensitive cunt. The more you whine at this perception of yours that I was complaining, the more you are a humorless, hypersensitive cunt. No circle, just a spiral staircase that you descend alone.

Hopefully, in the morning, you'll have some detachment to see that my comment was more of an insult at KIS than you.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i agree with a good chunk of your post, as you can see from something i wrote in a previous page, but i can imagine a different approach to philosophy: start with a PROBLEM. something that does not have an empirical solution and requires thought and speculation.

Well I think that is rather implied. What philosophy does not begin with a question? Philosophy, it seems to me, holds questions in a higher regard than answers. While this might frustrate less patient attentions, therein lies the love of wisdom.

attack the problem with your own devices, and then research who and how has addressed said problem before. take from your own post the question of "the good life", and you could go back to the existentialists, for example, or deep ecology, or marcuse, other more immediate ideas, before reaching back to the greeks. of course, since all of philosophy postulates or implies its own history, you do eventually end up back on plato and aristotle, except that you arrive at them from a different avenue, i.e., your own "vital" problem, the questions that you need to answer now, and a research into possible solutions.

part of the reason i think people find a hard time reading plato today is because they are not shown how it may be relevant to their own lives-- though i find aristotle more relevant anyway-- but that's besides the point. the point is that it is not just possible but also viable to approach philosophy from a "here and now" situation rather than by the accumulation of historical knowledge which may or may not apply, eventually, to one's life.

Plato is exceptionally easy for me to read so I don't know why anyone would have a hard time. The questions dealt with, such as pinpointing the definitions of courage, justice, piety, or friendship, are eternal questions. I especially suggest beginning with the early Socratic dialogues as these famously aren't resolved by the end of the dialogues. Thus, the reader is forced to further reflect upon the reading. It fosters the internal dialectic, which I think Kierkegaard refers to but that is beside the point.

[Keeping It Simple]

!@#$%! clearly suffers from a delusion of superiority. A hyper-inflated sense of his own intelligence, wit, charm and appearance. Very much like the philosphers he's wont to read.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

!@#$%! clearly suffers from a delusion of superiority. A hyper-inflated sense of his own intelligence, wit, charm and appearance. Very much like the philosphers he's wont to read.

How do you know philosphers are like that?
Who do you consider to be a true non-pseudo intellectual?

[ni'k]

pbradley and symbol man - stop bitchin ffs. you're fighting over the little troll cunt. which is what it wants. thats why as ive said again and again we need to take it outside and beat it over the head with a shovel (ban).

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

Hopefully, in the morning, you'll have some detachment to see that my comment was more of an insult at KIS than you.

"more of a" ... FINE. let's not derail the thread with discussions about the merits of your joke or my hypersensitivities or how we perceive one another. i'm selfishly interested in this thread, and it's not worth crapping all over it. we can bicker elsewhere (or not). but i'll continue kicking the punching bag if you don't mind (he shows up, i can't help myself).

Originally Posted by Keeping It Simple

!@#$%! clearly suffers from a delusion of superiority. A hyper-inflated sense of his own intelligence, wit, charm and appearance. Very much like the philosphers he's wont to read.

simpleton, while i do have claims to be not-as-stupid as you, i have never claimed publicly or believed privately to posses any kind of "charm"-- i prefer to punch people in the face-- it's a more direct way of communication. besides, "charming" is a brand of ass paper here in america-- and while you might be the one who aspires to be charming (you list it as a virtue i lack), we just see you as a sorry asswipe.

Originally Posted by ni'k

pbradley and symbol man - stop bitchin ffs. you're fighting over the little troll cunt. which is what it wants. thats why as ive said again and again we need to take it outside and beat it over the head with a shovel (ban).

i'd happily do that if it was physically possible but i must content myself with calling him a sorry asswipe. the limitations of the internet and what not.

anyway, i gotta stop this & post back on topic.

[Rob Instigator]

here are no conclusions to be drawn from philosophy, just whether or not one agrees with a particular philosopher.

[!@#$%!]

ok, post-breakfast-sandwich:

Originally Posted by pbradley

Well I think that is rather implied. What philosophy does not begin with a question? Philosophy, it seems to me, holds questions in a higher regard than questions. While this might frustrate less patient attentions, therein lies the love of wisdom.

i think you meant questions in higher regard than answers, i get it though. of course philosophy begins with questions. my point was that philosophy could begin not with reading the texts of its founders, but with a questioning of one's own circumstances-- which will eventually lead to the great-gramps.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Plato is exceptionally easy for me to read so I don't know why anyone would have a hard time. The questions dealt with, such as pinpointing the definitions of courage, justice, piety, or friendship, are eternal questions. I especially suggest beginning with the early Socratic dialogues as these famously aren't resolved by the end of the dialogues. Thus, the reader is forced to further reflect upon the reading. It fosters the internal dialectic, which I think Kierkegaard refers to but that is beside the point.

Yeah, part of the reason why it's very easy is because there are no references to previous philosophers that are necessary for its comprehension. Take Aristotle's Poetics (I know you said Plato, but still, I'm making the jump)-- he builds on the idea of what is tragedy purely on his own experience and that of people around him, and so it's a very accessible text, whereas reading Adorno's Aesthetic Theory requires a solid grounding on Hegel. So yes, Plato is a great place to start, but it's not the only one. It could start from anywhere that you can pose a question-- even a kid watching The Matrix and wondering what is real.

One of the problems of starting with Plato would be that you're confined to the questions that he asks-- e.g. what is courage, piety, friendship, etc.-- while you in your own circumstance could be looking at what is your place in the environment or what to do in the face of impending nuclear annihilation, or what are the politics of late-capitalist societies, or what should we do about genetic engineering, which are modern questions Plato had no access to. In that sense then, an introduction to philosophy based on the classics could prove too academic for someone interested in vital, pressing questions that are not included in those texts (not to say there are no vital pressing questions there-- just that we have some new ones).

In that sense, I prefer the "here and now" approach to the historical one, at least at the introductory level. Not saying that there is no place for a chronological approach, but that there is more than one entrance to the thing, and that's something Skuj might be interested in.

Speaking of which, there's this little magazine that migh interest him-- very down to earth, very accessible, kinda like New Scientist:

http://www.philosophynow.org/

I got some copies as a present some years ago, and maybe I should get a subscription...

[Skuj]

There's some wonderful posts here amongst the silliness, and I'm slowly digesting them. (And my new books.) Thanks.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so mang, is this your first foray at all or do you have any prior knowledge of the subject at all? what's motivating you? pure curiosity? something else? i'm curious about this.

Um, I had a gift certificate to a major book store, after 2hrs of wandering about the Art and History sections, I was a) stumped and b) out of time, so on the way out something made me stop at Philosophy. The Russell book seemed interesting, so I looked him up in the Philosophy distionary, and I just said "fuck it" and bought both.

Well, ok....that's not "it" completely.....in University there was a Philosophy class that I was in (as a mandatory Arts elective), and the teacher + subject always fascinated me. Plato et al wrote such incredibly thoughtful works literally thousands of years ago, and that fact always blew me away. Now I really genuinely do want to delve into this. And the good posts in this thread really are impressive....I have so much to learn from you learned people, hahaha.....

And, I'm having a mid-life crisis, plus a lot of stress in my life right now.

You are sorry you asked, I know.