EPTWhat Are You Reading 2013 - Page 136
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
caelym
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On October 03 2013 20:54 frogrubdown wrote: Prima facie, saying philosophy should be like math is quite different from saying literature should. But in either case, a lot hinges on how the two are supposed to be like each other. If "like math" means taking place in an artificial language with explicitly defined axioms, then obviously philosophy needn't always be "like math." But "like math" could also mean that attempts are made to make your terms intelligible to outsiders, that each step of the argument is easily identifiable, and that it's always obvious why one thing is taken to follow from a different thing. I see no reason why philosophy shouldn't strive to be like math in this sense, except for philosophy that has literary pretensions. But I've never seen a good argument for why a given claim is best argued for in a literary format, and even if you can do such things well the talent is not as easily teachable as the more "math like" philosophy. Because by doing that it seems to me you're vastly limiting the way one can describe the world. I think literrature can explain very complicated things in a clear way, and that logico-deductive reasonning has its limits. Plus maths "obviousness" is a strange model to me, like who is that outsider who can understand the obviousness of an argument involving schemes, I wonder. What I more or less mean is that analytic philosophy is useful, but that it shouldn't be the only way to do philosophy. | ||
|
Brainsurgeon
Sweden359 Posts
On October 04 2013 01:22 caelym wrote: I'm looking for a plot driven, not too dense fantasy book to read this month. I'm leaning towards Assassin's Apprentice; how did you guys like it? I read the books a while ago and I remember finding them to be quite alright. | ||
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On October 04 2013 02:12 corumjhaelen wrote: Because by doing that it seems to me you're vastly limiting the way one can describe the world. I think literrature can explain very complicated things in a clear way, and that logico-deductive reasonning has its limits. Plus maths "obviousness" is a strange model to me, like who is that outsider who can understand the obviousness of an argument involving schemes, I wonder. What I more or less mean is that analytic philosophy is useful, but that it shouldn't be the only way to do philosophy. I'm hardly advocating that other forms of philosophy be outlawed here, but I do think that explanations that literature makes of complicated philosophical things are generally illusory. At least, they have been for me. When I feel that I totally get something, but no matter how hard I try I can't find a way to at all explain it clearly, I usually throw out the feeling. edit: As for the obviousness thing, that was about the steps between claims that are supposed to follow from each other being small. So small that you can keep track of and verify them individually. Yeah, even in math this part isn't always as obvious as with a deduction in formal logic, but it's a hell of a lot easier to see which claims follow from which and why than in, say, the "reasoning" found in the first page of the second chapter of Of Grammatology | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
I claim to understand a minority of analytic philosophy debates I've invested much time into. edit: I still give these debates at least a B+ for effort in trying to be understandable though, which I wouldn't give to some other things. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On October 04 2013 08:20 frogrubdown wrote: I know the math side; I have a degree in it. As for Proust, I haven't read him but I wouldn't expect him to be more philosophically enlightening than other philosophically touted literature by,e.g., Dostoevsky, Sartre, and Camus that I have read (which isn't to say that it wouldn't be valuable in other ways). I think you still have too much illusions about mathematics then, that or that you'd need to be more precise. Proust is really different from those guys for he deals, among many other things, with that feeling you were talking about, and the question of wether to write an essay or a novel is essential to the novel. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On October 04 2013 08:38 oneofthem wrote: writing is hard enough already. philosophy as literature just kill me already. Learning philosophy through literature, film, and some TV although very little, is actually easier than the original text in many cases. I mean, there is a reason why tens of millions of people swarm to Kafka, Dostoyevsky, and Sartre rather than the texts of Hegel for example. I am sure you know all the philosophical literature out there. Also, if you want some psychoanalysis and postmodernism (one that everyone is guaranteed to love), watch the film Mulholland Drive by David Lynch. I am sure LiquidDeleuze can tell you about the Body Without Organs scene :D | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
but I'm a heretic and i think that what gets taught in philosophy departments is only a subset of philosophy, because philosophy is about life i don't really believe in departmental separations in the humanities, and yes i think philosophy is a humanity | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
Who knows what sam means by "literature" and "literary" when he calls them essential to the best philosophy even though his philosophical heroes (e.g., Marx) didn't write literature. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
mostly my objection to analytic philosophy is that it is too formalist and has no poetry. they think they are doing science and discovering eternal truth expressed in rigorous language. i think that's a particular way to do a rather uninteresting kind of philosophy, not philosophy tout court they want to do philosophy for robots but i'm not a robot so i don't care about it | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On October 04 2013 09:44 sam!zdat wrote: hmm. is literature fiction? mostly my objection to analytic philosophy is that it is too formalist and has no poetry. they think they are doing science and discovering eternal truth expressed in rigorous language. i think that's a particular way to do a rather uninteresting kind of philosophy, not philosophy tout court they want to do philosophy for robots but i'm not a robot so i don't care about it Fiction provides the most obvious cases (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre), but it can apply more generally. I mean, even Quine got poetic from time to time, what with his man-made fabric talk. But it's hardly a central or essential part of his views. I don't think trying to write aesthetically pleasing versions of your view is that worthwhile a task for most philosophers. But that's not too important because most of the unclarity in badly written philosophy doesn't stem from attempts to write like that. It's not like people are reading Derrida for the beauty of it while not caring about content. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
i don't mean "philosophy expressed poetically." i mean "philosophy that is poetic." world of difference. i don't think philosophy is entirely a matter of communicating true statements in words. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
Your last statement is definitely true, though maybe we believe it for different reasons. The problem here is that you probably think what it means for philosophy to be poetic can't be explained in non-poetic philosophy, which somewhat limits our room for dialogue. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
as a hegelian of sorts I think the best way to study philosophy is to study the history of philosophy. analytic philosophy is not really interested in the dialectical unfolding of worldviews and paradigms (basically, analytic philosophy tends to take itself to be outside of culture, I think) | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
as a hegelian of sorts I think the best way to study philosophy is to study the history of philosophy. analytic philosophy is not really interested in the dialectical unfolding of worldviews and paradigms (basically, analytic philosophy tends to take itself to be outside of culture, I think) History/cultural certainly in some sense play less of a role in some parts of analytic philosophy than in continental, but that can be exaggerated (most of the time someone from the rest of the humanities tries to explain analytic philosophy they seem to think we're still positivists). For instance, my totally mainstream grad program had more course requirements in history than any other area. I couldn't work in the area though since unlike most historians I usually take historical philosophers to be deeply confused when they sound deeply confused. edit: Have we reached the limit of how much of the thread we're allowed to monopolize? I'll let you have the last word if you want it. | ||
|
RiFter88
1 Post
Here's the link to synopsis Hands down, a GREAT book. A few trope-like elements, but I believed I felt at home with the WOT influence. Also, the Ronin are badass. They are unlike anything I’ve seen before, aside from Le’ Morte De Arthur’s knights of the round table, but these are even more dynamic. The main character has lost his memories, so it's kind Bourne Identity-like. The rest has a classic fantasy feel to it. If you like Sword of Truth etc like me, you'll love TKE. Especially since i've read the author planned nine books, so I hope for another crazy entrenching series. All in all, I can really see it growin/being great. Next book (should have read it a long time ago) is Elantris by Brandon Sanderson | ||
| ||
