What kind of philosophy do you enjoy the most?
- Thread starter Ren
- Start date
Welcome to this lovely nerdy thread @dogman6126 ! I'm glad you joined the fray, and from what I read of your recent postings on other threads, you seem to be very well versed in at least some of the philosophical disciplines. I hope this will be an opportunity to learn from you.
Would you have some philosophers in mind that you particularly like, or who particularly influenced you, in the areas that you mentioned as your favorite? The vibes I get is that you identify more with the Analytic than the Continental school. Would that be far off? Also very interested to hear what your interests are within metaphysics. As for the philosophy of mind, I keep thinking that this remains a blind spot for me, so any 'classic readings' suggestions would be warmly welcomed.
Haha, thanks for the warm welcome, and I'm sure we will be able to learn from each other! I completed my bachelors in psychology and philosophy last year, that's why I know some of this stuff. As for particular philosophers, I don't have many in mind for metaphysics, but chalmers in phil of mind was cool, and schoenfield talked about my favorite position in epistemology. When it comes to specific philosophers, my favorite writers are actually outside of my primary disciplines. For example, I love Kripke in phil of language and Korsgaard in metaethics. I more so track arguments that I enjoy rather than specific writers. You are also correct that I am in the analytic school. Almost exclusively actually. My institution had one class that existentialism or other continental philosophers, and I never took that class :/
Within metaphysics, I love mereology, the free will debate, phil of science, ordinary object metaphysics, and a few other areas. I love all spheres in epistemology, and in phil of mind, I like the mind body problem, the hard problem of consciousness, mental instantiation (relates to my metaphysics interests), and a few others. I hope that answers all your questions!
@dogman6126 Thanks for all the suggestions 
I will take note of the different names you mentioned. I trained in continental philosophy, so in a sense our paths are quite different, but lately - for about a year - I've decided to engage with Analytic philosophers, as I believe this divide is truly detrimental to philosophy as a whole. It seems that, with a few exceptions, the two schools remain largely impervious to each other. To the Continentals, the Analytics are dry and unimaginative, and to the Analytics, the Continentals are just speaking gibberish. We should aim for a common ground... maybe we can provide this template! ah ah In my own writing, in many respects I aim for a reconciliation of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, which aims in that direction, I suppose.
Anyway, this thread has been quite inactive lately and I would like to bring some life back into it. Here's my attempt:
Do you guys remember the first text/experience that first got you into philosophy? I'd love to hear your stories For me, it was Thus Spoke Zarasthustra.
I will take note of the different names you mentioned. I trained in continental philosophy, so in a sense our paths are quite different, but lately - for about a year - I've decided to engage with Analytic philosophers, as I believe this divide is truly detrimental to philosophy as a whole. It seems that, with a few exceptions, the two schools remain largely impervious to each other. To the Continentals, the Analytics are dry and unimaginative, and to the Analytics, the Continentals are just speaking gibberish. We should aim for a common ground... maybe we can provide this template! ah ah In my own writing, in many respects I aim for a reconciliation of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, which aims in that direction, I suppose.Anyway, this thread has been quite inactive lately and I would like to bring some life back into it. Here's my attempt:
Do you guys remember the first text/experience that first got you into philosophy? I'd love to hear your stories
For me, it was Thus Spoke Zarasthustra.
It was only through this forum that I recently (re)discovered philosophy as something that may enrich my inner life. I still haven't got around to completely diving into it, but I am skimming the surface and occasionally put my head underwater with my copy of "Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprache" (transl. Treatise on the Origin of Language) by Johann Gottfried Herder, a text I found among my ancient greek stuff. It's the text I have had the longest (and completely forgotten about), so I think I can also call it the first. I am (re)reading it at the moment.
A book I have had on my shelf for a while now is "Through the Language Glass," but there are also classics that I want to read to completely turn into a philosphy mermaid (it's better than the maul-analogy I just thought of). Nietzsche is first on my list.
On Friday, I was out with a friend, and I saw in between a lot of Freud-crap Jung's The Red Book on a bookstore shelf. Is it worth getting into?
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,240
- 246,772
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
@Ren
My mom is a philosophy and religion major so even at a very young age I was discussing things with my parents. On a road trip at some point, my dad introduced me to Schrödinger's cat and I was hooked.
In college I took some classes with a professor that looked like Jesus. They were a lot of fun. Then of course there was The Matrix which I'm still a bit obsessed with as far as unpacking all of the layered ideas it presents.
My mom is a philosophy and religion major so even at a very young age I was discussing things with my parents. On a road trip at some point, my dad introduced me to Schrödinger's cat and I was hooked.
In college I took some classes with a professor that looked like Jesus. They were a lot of fun. Then of course there was The Matrix which I'm still a bit obsessed with as far as unpacking all of the layered ideas it presents.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,240
- 246,772
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,240
- 246,772
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
I'm also reminded of the Ship of Theseus which really kept my brain churning as a kid. There were many others.
@Ginny It makes me really glad that you see this thread as having reignited your interest in philosophy. I agree with Wyote that The Red Book is worth getting into, even if I wouldn't technically call it philosophy (it's certainly influential on philosophy). Also - I'd be more than happy to suggest thinkers/schools to you if you tell me what kind of thinky stuff you're usually into. I'm very passionate about this and I do know a little bit, I read philosophy every day, so I'm more than happy to give advice. I can even recommend specific Nietzsche books if that's helpful.
@Wyote It's awesome about your mom! I envy you for having had that opportunity to discuss deep topics such as these with your parents. My parents were never very philosophically inclined, although for some reason my mom always loved to talk about Kant (probably because she's half German). Ironically, even though I took an interest at a young enough age, I only encountered Schrödinger's cat much later. Do you remember your first philosophical reading?
Here's a must-read for anybody in my humble opinion. Not always accurate, sometimes partial, but always full of wit and penetrating insight. Of course, it only covers Western philosophy:
@Wyote It's awesome about your mom! I envy you for having had that opportunity to discuss deep topics such as these with your parents. My parents were never very philosophically inclined, although for some reason my mom always loved to talk about Kant (probably because she's half German). Ironically, even though I took an interest at a young enough age, I only encountered Schrödinger's cat much later. Do you remember your first philosophical reading?
Here's a must-read for anybody in my humble opinion. Not always accurate, sometimes partial, but always full of wit and penetrating insight. Of course, it only covers Western philosophy:
@Ginny It makes me really glad that you see this thread as having reignited your interest in philosophy. I agree with Wyote that The Red Book is worth getting into, even if I wouldn't technically call it philosophy (it's certainly influential on philosophy). Also - I'd be more than happy to suggest thinkers/schools to you if you tell me what kind of thinky stuff you're usually into. I'm very passionate about this and I do know a little bit, I read philosophy every day, so I'm more than happy to give advice. I can even recommend specific Nietzsche books if that's helpful.
@Wyote It's awesome about your mom! I envy you for having had that opportunity to discuss deep topics such as these with your parents. My parents were never very philosophically inclined, although for some reason my mom always loved to talk about Kant (probably because she's half German). Ironically, even though I took an interest at a young enough age, I only encountered Schrödinger's cat much later. Do you remember your first philosophical reading?
Here's a must-read for anybody in my humble opinion. Not always accurate, sometimes partial, but always full of wit and penetrating insight. Of course, it only covers Western philosophy:
I am looking for an overview first, to really know what I am seeking to understand. At the moment it is all kinda fuzzy. I think it's mostly to broaden my horizons, taking in other perspectives to find my own and be able to converse in a more distinguished way. At the moment, it's a general drive for knowledge, where I see a lack. And I don't like not knowing what someone is talking about. Once I have an idea of who is about what, and how they stand towards each other, I can determine a more specific direction.
I have experience in linguistics and literary theory, with a little side-track into psychology (Zizek on Lacan). But even if it's not really philosophical (humanities are in Germany in the "philosophical department"), this is where I'm at knowledgewise. At school, I heard of Kant and Jung, but it was merely in the context of religious education, so I was too bored to death to properly focus and take it in. Back then I was more interested in genetics and molecular biology, thanks to the books I was reading.
@Ginny
If you're looking for an overview, the book by Russell I mentioned above is a good way in, I think. It's like being introduced to philosophy by a genius who’s also funny. He almost says about Hegel, for instance: "You're intimidated because you don't understand him? I have not a single clue either." Of course, he does cover Hegel substantially in the end, but it's very refreshing to hear such a statement from one of the 20th century's more important philosophers. It breaks the ice, in a way. Many people feel alienated from philosophy because they find it impenetrable. Russell just says that he also finds it quite impenetrable too, a lot of the time… Even though he’s Russell! It’s cool.
By the way, I would consider Zizek’s thoughts on Lacan to be philosophical. Among the great thinkers of psychoanalysis, Lacan is probably the one who engaged the most with philosophy. Much more than Freud or Jung. His thought is very influenced by Kant, Heidegger, phenomenology in general… also, I’d be ready to wager that he was an INFJ. I find a lot of his intellectual mannerisms (including probably some mild attraction for abstruse expression) in my own writing
@Lurk What’s not enjoyable about being an existential nihilist? “Values? I’ll create them myself!” – I find that pretty exciting… just make sure you don’t burn out
If you're looking for an overview, the book by Russell I mentioned above is a good way in, I think. It's like being introduced to philosophy by a genius who’s also funny. He almost says about Hegel, for instance: "You're intimidated because you don't understand him? I have not a single clue either." Of course, he does cover Hegel substantially in the end, but it's very refreshing to hear such a statement from one of the 20th century's more important philosophers. It breaks the ice, in a way. Many people feel alienated from philosophy because they find it impenetrable. Russell just says that he also finds it quite impenetrable too, a lot of the time… Even though he’s Russell! It’s cool.
By the way, I would consider Zizek’s thoughts on Lacan to be philosophical. Among the great thinkers of psychoanalysis, Lacan is probably the one who engaged the most with philosophy. Much more than Freud or Jung. His thought is very influenced by Kant, Heidegger, phenomenology in general… also, I’d be ready to wager that he was an INFJ. I find a lot of his intellectual mannerisms (including probably some mild attraction for abstruse expression) in my own writing
@Lurk What’s not enjoyable about being an existential nihilist? “Values? I’ll create them myself!” – I find that pretty exciting… just make sure you don’t burn out
@Lurk What’s not enjoyable about being an existential nihilist? “Values? I’ll create them myself!” – I find that pretty exciting… just make sure you don’t burn out
What is enjoyable about existential nihilism? I don't have a swiss cheese frontal lobe. Values are a universal set of principles guiding humans, created by humans. I can't create my own values. Why? Because values transcend self-interest. They exist for the good of all.
So you believe that humans are capable of creating universally shared values that transcend self-interest, and at the same time you see yourself as an existential nihilist? I believe this is contradictory. I don't think a nihilist could ever make a statement such as "Values transcend self-interest. They exist for the good of all." This is a normative claim that not even I would dare to make with such boldness! and that a nihilist would have to reject by definition, it being a normative claim.
Another possibility is that we're operating with two different definitions of the word "nihilist".
Another possibility is that we're operating with two different definitions of the word "nihilist".
Last edited:
So you believe that humans are capable of creating universally shared values that transcend self-interest, and at the same time you see yourself as an existential nihilist? I believe this is contradictory. I don't think a nihilist could ever make a statement such as "Values transcend self-interest. They exist for the good of all." This is a normative claim that not even I would dare to make with such boldness, and that a nihilist would have to reject by definition.
Another possibility is that we're operating with two different definitions of the word "nihilist".
Capable? Yes. I'm not saying the motive is altruistic. But, the end product functions to that end.
I should have clarified intent of the "values ... good of all." I'm no idealist. I know that the real intent is to maintain a dutiful populace, which ultimately benefits the vulnerable few (elites).
"Values should transcend self-interest. They should exist for the good of all."
I should have clarified.
Now, most animals behave pro-socially for the well-being of their posse. I see human values in a similar light.
Now, I know there is a glaring inconsistency here; yes, values aren't always developed with the general good in mind, but there is accountability in numbers. An individual creating his or her own values answers only to himself. Ted Kaczynski created his own values, with no peer consensus. Yes, I know this is like a Godwin moment.
Does that make sense?
Glad to see you join this thread @SeanSquared I had been waiting patiently for your coming! I mean, why would Kierkegaard not take part in a philosophical discussion?
I must admit that I don't know that much about Alan Watts. I had a look at his Wikipedia page there and saw that "John Cage" was one of his influences. Interesting. Is he more of a popularizer or does he have his own philosophy?
I also like the idea that you're listening to philosophy while lifting weights. I'd like to do that too, with soccer. Playing a game with my headphones on listening to Nietzsche speak about the superman, maybe it would help me score more goals?
I had been waiting patiently for your coming! I mean, why would Kierkegaard not take part in a philosophical discussion?I must admit that I don't know that much about Alan Watts. I had a look at his Wikipedia page there and saw that "John Cage" was one of his influences. Interesting. Is he more of a popularizer or does he have his own philosophy?
I also like the idea that you're listening to philosophy while lifting weights. I'd like to do that too, with soccer. Playing a game with my headphones on listening to Nietzsche speak about the superman, maybe it would help me score more goals?