Language-problem: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Language-problem » Language-problem

Language-problem
I need your advise about study.

Page: 1 2

Language-problem

pinguis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 43

Posted 07/04/09 - 04:54 AM: Subject: Language-problem	#1
Hello. This time I want to ask for opinion about language. I'm not native English but I can understand English very well compare to my grammar. I can read a philosophy book for sure. I am a 'good' student in my university. My teachers love me and they know I want to be a philosophy teacher too. So they suggest some scholar which I think I can get. But the problem is they also suggest me to learn third-language. I have no basic in any language exclude my native and English. For now, I like David Hume. I like Plato too. I've never read his book but I think I like Derrida's idea. Kant seems good to me. Machiavelli is a good one too. So I don't know which language to learn. I think Italy is the the most beautiful and I love opera but I know only one philosopher of it. Greek is interesting but I don't think I can use it in daily life. I want you to help me this way. Please list the top 3 philosophers which use this languages(in your opinion): English, Greek, French, German, Italy. Thank you very much.

Hypothesis
Honest Soul

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England

Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 653

Posted 07/04/09 - 02:54 PM:	#2
If I was to learn 3rd language I would love to learn spanish only to enjoy Don Quixote untranslated.
We build too many walls and not enough bridges. - Newton

pinguis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 43

Posted 07/04/09 - 09:53 PM:	#3
Don Quixote is one of my favorite too.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 376

Posted 07/05/09 - 07:15 AM:	#4
Hello, pinguis I'll advice you to learn French or German. In that way you'll not be stuck with the classics like if you learn Greek. There are these two links to French philosophers and German philosophers respectively, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_philosophers and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_philosophers. I don't know which philosophers I'll rate top 3. It's yours for the choosing. It takes quite some time and effort to learn a new language. English is being strengthened day by day as the dominant academic language. As this is the case, you may consider to go deeper in knowledge rather than wider in language. Cheers!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 226

Posted 07/05/09 - 07:37 AM:	#5
pinguis wrote: But the problem is they also suggest me to learn third-language. Why? Are you interested in languages? If not, why shouldn't you just do philosophy? For now, I like David Hume. Hume writes very nice English. He is a better writer than philosopher in my opinion. As Aetixintro says, German or French are the obvious options if you do want to read philosophers in their original language. I still don't really understand the need to do so, though, unless you're really devoted to a particular philosopher.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

pinguis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 43

Posted 07/05/09 - 09:11 PM:	#6
Thank you everyone. The reason they suggest this is because they think I should be able to read original work of some philosopher who doesn’t use English. I am not fan of language-learning. I love language, I can write poet (in my own language) very well. But to learn…meh!. I can do it if some philosophy/pher inspires me to do so. I use Wiki to search to and I found the same list as you gave me, Aetixintro. But I don’t know which one is really famous. I can’t really know which one is good because we have no “philosopher-excellence-meter” so I aim for a famous one. “Hume writes very nice English. He is a better writer than philosopher in my opinion.” Really? Is this mean he is a great philosopher but be an even greater writer or he is just ok philosopher who is great writer? Can you show me more detail?

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 226

Posted 07/06/09 - 03:52 AM:	#7
pinguis wrote: The reason they suggest this is because they think I should be able to read original work of some philosopher who doesn’t use English. Oh, that's odd! It's perfectly possible to appreciate philosophers in translation. You may miss a few nuances, but that's not worth learning a whole other language for. I am not fan of language-learning. Have you told them that? If they still insist you learn a language when they know you just want to do philosophy then they are weird. Really? Is this mean he is a great philosopher but be an even greater writer or he is just ok philosopher who is great writer? I suppose it means that I admire him as a philosopher, but admire him more as a writer. For example, here are some excerpts from "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals" which illustrates his entertaining (if verbose) style: "When it is affirmed that two and three are equal to the half of ten, this relation of equality I understand perfectly. I conceive, that if ten be divided into two parts, of which one has as many units as the other; and if any of these parts be compared to two added to three, it will contain as many units as that compound number. But when you draw thence a comparison to moral relations, I own that I am altogether at a loss to understand you. A moral action, a crime, such as ingratitude, is a complicated object. Does the morality consist in the relation of its parts to each other? How? After what manner? Specify the relation: be more particular and explicit in your propositions, and you will easily see their falsehood." And another which illustrates that although Hume is a solid thinker, he lacks depth: "It appears evident that--the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man WHY HE USES EXERCISE; he will answer, BECAUSE HE DESIRES TO KEEP HIS HEALTH. If you then enquire, WHY HE DESIRES HEALTH, he will readily reply, BECAUSE SICKNESS IS PAINFUL. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason WHY HE HATES PAIN, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object. Perhaps to your second question, WHY HE DESIRES HEALTH, he may also reply, that IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS CALLING. If you ask, WHY HE IS ANXIOUS ON THAT HEAD, he will answer, BECAUSE HE DESIRES TO GET MONEY. If you demand WHY? IT IS THE INSTRUMENT OF PLEASURE, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress IN INFINITUM; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection." This is a worthy contribution to moral philosophy, but is hardly a deep insight. So too with his 'bundle' theory of the self in which he examines what he thinks of as himself (body, memories, dispositions, values etc) and fails to find anything which is essentially him. Not very insightful in my view.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

pinguis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 43

Posted 07/07/09 - 12:48 AM:	#8
I see your point now. Can you give me a name of insightful philosopher in your opinion please? I want to read as much as I can but I can't read too much because I have many thing to deal with so I can't just random read all books in library.

Ratheius Netheros
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005

Total Topics: 49
Total Posts: 304

Posted 07/08/09 - 03:43 PM:	#9
Hume is insightful. He is greater than Jesus. Don't listen to the heathens try to persuade you otherwise. Hume is clear, concise, and obvious, but he is a skeptic. He tells you what you already know but were incapable of expressing. He puts modern life into context. He also seems to be rather dull, sometimes, because after he wrote, everyone agreed with him. Skeptics tend to write powerfully convincing works because they use a few assumptions as possible. If you want insightful authors, I'd suggest Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Derek Parfit, and Karl Popper. If you want philosophers that are often taught in academia, I'd suggest John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant. I like almost every philosopher. I find they all have something valuable to add.

ModBot
Eliza clone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Location: Dual xeon processors

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 529

Posted 07/08/09 - 03:43 PM:	#10
As Wittgenstein said: "If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered."

Page: 1 2

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