Philosophy -OT-

[Gremlin]

Actually, at the risk of sounding a bit self-contradictory, I'd suggest the same and can recommend a few titles if anyone is interested. Intellectually, there's certainly interesting stuff that's been happening in philosophy and critical theory over the past few decades, and there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Still, a lot of the contemporary primary materials are famously difficult and convoluted (try Derrida for a bit of beach reading ). Happily, there's a real trend in interdisciplinary work, but this also means that to appreciate a lot of contemporary philosophy, you need a decent background not merely in "classic" (in the loose sense) philosophy, but also literary theory, psychology, quantum theory, sociology, etc.

------------------

To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. --Marcus Aurelius

[Grisha]

Von Schmidt,

If you've read Clausewitz, then I strongly suggest you read John Keegan's A History of War. He has a very intriguing response to Clausewitz. John Keegan, btw, wrote Face of Battle, and is a very well respected military historian.

------------------

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[DrAlimantado]

The post-tractataus writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein are defenitely underrated. Unfortunately he got a reputation of being difficult with Tractatus but everything after that is pretty easy reading (for example: Philosophical Investigations, The Blue and Brown Books) ..... philosophicly speaking that is.

For more contemporary reading I would suggest the American philosopher Richard Rorty. His latest essay collection Philosohpy and Social Hope, is easy, accessible and relevant for contemporary life. His Achieving Our Country may be of interest for US readers if they want a fresh social democratic view on Us politics and patriotism.

Regarding the state of centemporary philosohpy: there is much bad **** out there. But there is enough good stuff published to fuel a career, it just takes some searching to find it. Philosophy has largely deteriorated to the History of Philosophy, or the commentary on the History of Philosohpy. I would say that the problem of philosophy is not that it is difficult, but that it is indulging in inbreeding. I would defenitely want to see more open philosohpy which engages in commentary on the contemporary world. But I would on the other hand not want to lose some of the stuff which is only relevant to the hardcore philsophical junkies ... like Derrida. (His books are the equivalent of cheap crack-cocaine. only few people do it, but they sure get f'ed up)

M

(Sorry for the bad spelling, grammar, unstructured sentences, etc. But it is early morning here in London, and I am just about to go to work.)

[Holman]

I second the recommendation of Richard Rorty. He writes clearly and well, and he is as smart as a whip. He also refuses to retreat into the academy and forget the rest of the world.

The philosophical landscape can be roughly divided into two continents: Anglo-American philosophy and Continental (i.e. French and German) philosophy. This may sound like the old CM "national traits" debate, but the issue here is more one of academic traditions and long, ongoing lines of influence. Basically, the Anglo-American school continues to wrestle with problems taken up by Locke, Hume and Kant, while the Continental line works in the shadow of Hegel and Nietzsche. Anglo-American philosophy is more rigorous and analytical, while Continental philosophy is riskier, sexier, and often runs the risk of being incomprehensible. Both can produce very important work, however.

If Rorty is one of the best examples of Anglo-American philosophy, then probably the best example of continental philosophy (besides the mysterious Jacques Derrida) is Michel Foucault. One good place to start with Foucault is his book "Discipline and Punish," which is a sort of history of social order written as a history of prison systems. In fact, the book is relevant to an understanding of modern militaries, too...

[Gremlin]

Another French critical theorist/philospher well worth reading, particularly if you have an interest in literary interpretation (which for the past few decades has blurred into philosophy and vice versa), is Roland Barthes. "The Death of the Author" and The Pleasure of the Text are particularly interesting, albeit quite difficult at times, particularly if you're not familiar with Saussure's linguistics theories.

------------------

To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. --Marcus Aurelius

[DrAlimantado]

I can testify that the divide between Analytical and Continental Philosophy is alive and will. The last words my Swedish phil prof said to me was: 'Mattias, if you do not write within the Analytical tradition you can forget to get into the ph.d programme'" And behold! He was actually right.

Both schools have their advantage. The problem with a lot of Continental philosophy from my point of view is that they are too fond of transcendence. The main problem with a lot of the Analytical stuff is that they want to see themselves as utterly rational and distanced from everything that is social, cultural and contingent.

But thankfully there is somework done between the two traditions. Rorty is a good example from the Analytical camp. Simon Critchley is a good example from the Continental camp. His book 'Very Little ... Almost Nothing' is defenitely worth reading.

Mattias

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow:

I can't believe that no one beat me to this. Time for a little sing-a-long:

Alright everyone, and a one, and a two...

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.

Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.

And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,

And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.

And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: 'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;

A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You beat me too it, I was gonna post the MP3 file of it!

------------------

"The world is wide, and I will not waste my life in friction when it could be turned into momentum."

[This message has been edited by Der Unbekannte Jäger (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Chupacabra]

The debate between academic and popular writing isn't confined to philosophy. In fact I'd say that it's going on in just about any academic field you could mention.

I'm taking an MA in International History at the moment, and every year, academia produces hundreds of absolutely turgid, unreadable books. Often when I tell people that I'm studying history, the response is something like "ugh, why put yourself through that?" as the only experience they've had with historical texts has been frustrating. However, these academic texts often contain important research which is impossible to ignore. I also think that there is a place for specialist literature within the field.

Unfortunately, many academics are quite critical of popular history - not of specific works, but of the idea of popular history in and of itself. The argument tends to be that popular history is held to less academically rigorous standards than academic history. This is IMO a valid criticism - it's somewhat annoying to pick up a history book which doesn't contain a bibliography, for example, something which happens too often. And being a popular work, it can give a lot of people wrong ideas. My best example of this would be Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, which is fundamentally flawed on several levels, but being a bestseller, it misinformed a lot of people who wouldn't have the access to more accurate academic research on the topic.

However there's also the feeling among many academics that writing popular history is a waste of time, or that any history written for a popular audience must necessarily be so diluted that it's no longer valid. This is one of my main criticisms of academia. Many so-called "popular" historians are excellent scholars who also happen to be able to write well. But for this they're often pilloried by academics. C'est la vie, I suppose, but it's unfortunate.

Well, I think I've sidetracked this conversation enough

------------------

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super