Your favourite philosophical essays: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Your favourite philosophical essays » Your favourite philosophical essays

Your favourite philosophical essays

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Your favourite philosophical essays

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 03/28/05 - 11:54 AM:	#21
Morrandir wrote: Any tips on James? ~M~ I suggest Pragmatism, which is a collection of his lectures (from Boston I think) on Pragmatisim. I do believe his writings on religious experience are interesting as well, although I haven't read them as of yet. Edited by sensabile on 03/28/05 - 12:02 PM
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 03/28/05 - 04:23 PM:	#22
Funny, I thought that Peirce was a pragmaticist, not a pragmatist. I'm not sure that I can think of anything worth mentioning that would have a Finnish translation. There are lots of exciting papers in the feminist philosophy of science that would be nice. Something by Sandra Harding, maybe. Heck, Evelyn Fox Keller's Feminism and Science (reprinted all over the place) was an interesting and funny piece. Unfortunately, there are different versions floating around (thanks to ellipsis) and they're not all created equally. Or how about the section on meaning from the 1st chapter of Hans Reichnbach's Experience and Prediction. That introduces the notion of epistemology as a part of sociology, the context of discovery and the context of justification. And it does it all in the way that has been soundly criticized in the last fifty years. A great jumping off point.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/28/05 - 04:35 PM:	#23
Kwalish Kid wrote: Funny, I thought that Peirce was a pragmaticist, not a pragmatist. I'm not sure that I can think of anything worth mentioning that would have a Finnish translation. There are lots of exciting papers in the feminist philosophy of science that would be nice. Something by Sandra Harding, maybe. Heck, Evelyn Fox Keller's Feminism and Science (reprinted all over the place) was an interesting and funny piece. Unfortunately, there are different versions floating around (thanks to ellipsis) and they're not all created equally. Or how about the section on meaning from the 1st chapter of Hans Reichnbach's Experience and Prediction. That introduces the notion of epistemology as a part of sociology, the context of discovery and the context of justification. And it does it all in the way that has been soundly criticized in the last fifty years. A great jumping off point. After William James called his views "Pragmatism", Peirce announced that if James' views were to be called "Pragmatism" that he (Pierce) wanted to call his philosophy "Pragmaticism" in order to distinguish it sharply from those of James which he thought were foolish. Sandra Harding??!!. Sandra Harding??!!. The same girl who called physics rape? Feminist science has the same ring as the Nazi's jewish physics. I approve of the Reichenbach, though. And I agree that it has been strongly criticized. But not soundly. It seems to me to be right.

EcceQuiTollisPeccataMundi
Hanzai kienai eien ni

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 08, 2004
Location: Every-damn-where

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1208

Posted 03/28/05 - 05:47 PM:	#24
Language: Hilary Putnam's "Is semantics possible?" and Paul G. Morrison's response to that essay(If you cannot find these essays, I can send them to you; both are short enough to be read as a single essay). Or, Quine's "Philosophical progress in language theory." Epistemology: "Some logical incongruities between the concept of knowledge and the concept of belief" by Justus Hartnack. Or, Wilfred Sellar's "Belief and the expression of belief." Metaphysics: "Identity through time" by Roderick M. Chisholm. Strawson has made some interesting comments on the essay and C has replied to them; as a stand alone essay it is quite exceptional. If not that one, then Milton Munitz's "The concept of the world" would serve you well. Like I said in IM Morrie, if they can read "Two Dogmas...", they can read these.
The Optimist: I do believe that it was a life-changing experience. From this point on, every chicken sandwich I eat will be compared to that one and I know they'll all fall short...What a terrible world. Hyena: Or you can say that with the rarity of such a chicken sandwich, all the low quality sandwiches you are going to eat from then onwards would always remind you of how lucky you are for being one of the few who have been able to taste such an extraordinary sandwich.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 03/28/05 - 06:26 PM:	#25
My view is that undergraduates should learn to walk before they learn to run. And I have been teaching undergraduates for a long time. They will not be grateful to you for teaching them Hegel, and Sellars, and Quine, before they learn about Plato, or Descartes, or Hume. Graduate students want to teach the stuff that interests them. But I think that they should teach what the undergraduates ought to learn. In any case, how would it be possible to teach them about empiricism's dogmas before they know what empiricism is? It is better that you be bored than that they be confused. However, I expect you will not listen to me. When I began to teach, my students must have suffered horribly. I think I once gave them excerpts from Wittgenstein's Blue Book to read. I had just read it with great enthusiasm. But my student did not have the foggiest idea what it was all about. And why should they have? One teacher of mine (one who is still a close friend of mine) reminded me when I began to teach that I was not teaching a course, but I was teaching students. But I didn't listen to him either. Alas for my students.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 03/28/05 - 08:11 PM:	#26
Gassendi1 wrote: After William James called his views "Pragmatism", Peirce announced that if James' views were to be called "Pragmatism" that he (Pierce) wanted to call his philosophy "Pragmaticism" in order to distinguish it sharply from those of James which he thought were foolish. Thanks for spoiling the joke with literalism. Sandra Harding??!!. Sandra Harding??!!. The same girl who called physics rape? Feminist science has the same ring as the Nazi's jewish physics. Maybe you should try reading, first. Harding does good philosophical work in providing meaningful distinctions between different types of feminist epistemologies.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 03/29/05 - 01:15 AM:	#27
Gassendi1 wrote: My view is that undergraduates should learn to walk before they learn to run. Of course, and they have. They have had a good education in high school and have passed a very hard test to get into studying philosophy. Note that all my texts are checked by a professor, and he has already approved of Two Dogmas as being good. Moreover, I went through the same course in my first year and we all read Two Dogmas, and there was no problem. I wouldn't give them texts that they can't handle. And I have been teaching undergraduates for a long time. American undergraduates, yes. They will not be grateful to you for teaching them Hegel, and Sellars, and Quine, before they learn about Plato, or Descartes, or Hume. They have all learned about those. They have studied for an entry-exam, and if they can pass the test (being in the less than ten percent that are admitted), they know about them. Moreover, I am also giving them something to read from all of those. Graduate students want to teach the stuff that interests them. Might be true to some. But I have already expressed that I must teach a wide variety of philosophy - meaning that I will not teach them what I am interested in. But I think that they should teach what the undergraduates ought to learn. Thank you for your assessment, but I do not agree, because this includes the idea that someone up there decides what they should learn. I think that to certain extent students themselves know what they want to learn. They must all learn their basics (I am not the one doing that, by the way, the idea of my course is not about teaching basics, but about teaching how to discuss different philosophy), but after that they can concentrate on what they want within the parameters of philosophy. In our department we have the basic courses, the advanced courses (directed to those that will to have a teaching permit) and then the special courses, where the students specialise in fields of philosophy of their own deciding. One point in my course is that a wide variety of interesting philosophy is presented so that they have a better idea of what to concentrate on. Teaching is not that straightforward. If one takes on the attitude that "I will teach them what they need to learn", one takes more authority than is often good. Unless, of course, the "what they need to learn" are the basics. When you throw out Hegel because you think of him as unimportant, you basically choose for the students that continental tradition is worse than analytic tradition. This is your view, and when you go on teaching this view, you teach what you want to teach, but not necessarily what they ought to learn. You most probably know full well that in countries like France, this same type of thinking is applied the other way: with the expense of analytic philosophy. I intend to avoid this mistake by offering both of the sides a chance to speak. In any case, how would it be possible to teach them about empiricism's dogmas before they know what empiricism is? It is better that you be bored than that they be confused. 1. I am not to teach the basics - other courses do that. 2. The undergraduates here have a good grasp on philosophy in general. 3. They all know full well what empiricism is. It is taught in high school. 4. I will have a text on Hume, and I will consider the order, of course. 5. I am not pushing my agenda here. If there was such an agenda, it would be pretty much Kant-oriented. I will take into consideration the level the students are on, and unlike you, I know what that level in Finland is. (To your earlier remark once, I have NEVER heard anyone in our courses to ask anything about "TRUE" knowledge or anything similar.) However, I expect you will not listen to me. And why is that? Whenever you make sense and have valid points, I listen to you. Other times I try not to. Your points are valid, your concerns overreacting, some of your thoughts I disagree with and some of my thoughts you have misinterpreted. Sounds like a normal discussion to me. When I began to teach, my students must have suffered horribly. Well... I think I once gave them excerpts from Wittgenstein's Blue Book to read. I had just read it with great enthusiasm. But my student did not have the foggiest idea what it was all about. And why should they have? One teacher of mine (one who is still a close friend of mine) reminded me when I began to teach that I was not teaching a course, but I was teaching students. But I didn't listen to him either. Alas for my students. Well, I am sorry to hear about the troubles you have had with teaching. Kwalish Kid wrote: I'm not sure that I can think of anything worth mentioning that would have a Finnish translation. Interesting. You seem to have a quite different view on philosophy than most. Thanks for the tips anyway - I can put the texts there in English too if no Finnish translations are available. However, I don't think feminism is the way to go in this introductory course. ~M~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 03/29/05 - 01:25 AM:	#28
These hardly pass for an essays as such, but in terms of influential material I would have to list Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" as well as Heidegger's "Being & Time"...
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 03/29/05 - 02:27 AM:	#29
Gassendi, I do think you are right. A course in the history of philosophy must begin with Plato and Aristotle and descartes. (By the way Morrandir an excerpt of Aristotle'smetaphysics might also be a good idea. Apart of book 3 (I think) perhaps where aristotle lists aporiai in metaphysics is a good one. we still wrestle with them today). We had a course in hist of phil. in two parts. From the presocratics to Augustine and from Descartes via Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Frege to Dummett and Rorty. It was done in more or less the same way as Morrandir will do it, per text. We got part one in the first trimester and part two in the third. Yet I do not think it is premature to teach Kant or Wittgenstein in the first year. My first trimester was logic and included reading the Tractatus. The lectures on Kant and hegel were hard to follow, sure, but at our uni it was considered simply obligatory to know the basics of these thinkers. It didn't do me any harm I think, but maybe you disagree.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 03/29/05 - 02:50 AM:	#30
Tobias wrote: A course in the history of philosophy must begin with Plato and Aristotle and descartes. I think it should begin with Presocratic philosophers. However, this is not a course of history of philosophy. (By the way Morrandir an excerpt of Aristotle'smetaphysics might also be a good idea. Apart of book 3 (I think) perhaps where aristotle lists aporiai in metaphysics is a good one. we still wrestle with them today). I hope to include something from both Plato and Aristotle, yes. I just don't have a good text on Aristotle at hand yet. It was done in more or less the same way as Morrandir will do it, per text. We got part one in the first trimester and part two in the third. Note that my course will only include 10 times two hours of discussion. It is not a lecturing course, and thus can never achieve the same amount of information, nor is it meant to. It is called "practicum", where instead of getting into philosophy through books or lectures, we will get into the philosophical thought itself through discussion. The texts must be short, ten to twenty pages, so they can be read through in two hours. This reading is done outside the discussion, and in the two hours of dicussion we will discuss all the problems, questions and ideas that rise up from the texts. It will be some 100-200 pages of text all in all, from the whole field of philosophy. It cannot be indepth in knowledge, and it is not meant to be indepth either. Its value lies in the discussion and in the sharing of ideas, hearing other viewpoints, reading the best that philosophy has to offer. Yet I do not think it is premature to teach Kant or Wittgenstein in the first year. My first trimester was logic and included reading the Tractatus. Why would it be, by the way? Our first-year majors can easily understand the basics of both Kant and Wittgenstein. It is not to say that they can be considered experts, but the basic ideas of both are easy enough to understand. The lectures on Kant and hegel were hard to follow, sure, but at our uni it was considered simply obligatory to know the basics of these thinkers. It didn't do me any harm I think, but maybe you disagree. In these discussions I think all agree that it is good to know as much as one can. However, the problem is that there is not enough time to do that. It is about emphasis, and I assume Gassendi simply thinks that reading Hegel is a waste of time as long as you have something better to read. When I compile those essays, I try to remember that I teach first-year students. They do not know what they want, for most part, nor have they had the chance to get deep into different philosophies (although they do know their basic assumptions, mostly). They will receive their share of facts and knowledge from other courses that are directed at that, but what I can give them with this small course is perspective. The one single most important lesson that I have learned is that every philosopher has more sense in it that it would seem at first. It is easy to brush off the basic ideas of philosophers, but when one reads even ten to twenty pages of his philosophy and understands what it says, one is immediately more respectful towards it. The least that I can do is to give a piece of text concerning, for example, phenomenology, and through that text and the ensuing discussion have the students understand that it does indeed have a point. After all, you can refute someone's claims only after you have understood them. ~M~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.