Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Sartre] Re: Help Me Find My Philosophy

Expand Messages
  • Leon McQuaid
    ... Then read Nietzsche (the anti-platanist)... actually please don t read Nietzsche untill you are steeped in Philosophical thinking. Most people have
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >From: "jgbardis" <jgbardis@...>
      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Help Me Find My Philosophy
      >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:18:07 -0000
      >
      >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Kramer" <matthew@c...> wrote:
      > > Hi. I recently discovered an interest in philosophy, but I don't
      > > know much about the main philosophical theories. Politically I
      >think
      > > that I'm a moderate Republican with some Libertarian sympathy.
      > > Ethically, I think I'm a Utilitarian, but I am less certain.
      >Anyway,
      > > do any of you know of some on-line personality/philosophy
      > > profile "tests" that I can take to help me determine which of the
      > > dominant philosophic theories I best fit?
      >
      >
      >Read Plato
      >
      Then read Nietzsche (the anti-platanist)... actually please don't read
      Nietzsche untill you are steeped in Philosophical thinking. Most people
      have horrible missinterpertations of him.

      The anchients are pretty cool (though I really am no authority on them)... I
      like the germans like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Heidigger.

      If I were you I'd stay away from the Post modernist for now. Personally I
      think that the best philosphers are the existentialist like Sartre,
      Nietzsche, Heidigger, Camus, Dofstoyefsky.

      If you want to be bored to tears you can read some Mill, Quine, Hobbes,
      Putnam, (really most things british or north american). Not to say that
      they're worthless... just really really boring.

      Just pick up a book that carelessly glosses over alot of philosophers. I
      think the only way to learn things is to start with a stupid bastardized
      version of the general ideas, then gradually take things more and more
      seriously (but never too seriously of course. For if you take things too
      seriously you may just fall into the dreaded 'analytic tradition')

      My first reader was a little 150 page book called "get a grip on
      philosophy." I read it twice... very short and sweet.

      _________________________________________________________________
      Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
    • jgbardis
      ... don t ... the ... read ... people ... them)... I ... Nietzsche was really an anti-Schopenhauerian (although he loved Schopenhaur). You really can t
      Message 2 of 7 , Jun 24, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid" <leonpmcquaid@h...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > >From: "jgbardis" <jgbardis@m...>
        > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        > >Subject: [Sartre] Re: Help Me Find My Philosophy
        > >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:18:07 -0000
        > >
        > >--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Kramer" <matthew@c...>
        wrote:
        > > > Hi. I recently discovered an interest in philosophy, but I
        don't
        > > > know much about the main philosophical theories. Politically I
        > >think
        > > > that I'm a moderate Republican with some Libertarian sympathy.
        > > > Ethically, I think I'm a Utilitarian, but I am less certain.
        > >Anyway,
        > > > do any of you know of some on-line personality/philosophy
        > > > profile "tests" that I can take to help me determine which of
        the
        > > > dominant philosophic theories I best fit?
        > >
        > >
        > >Read Plato
        > >
        > Then read Nietzsche (the anti-platanist)... actually please don't
        read
        > Nietzsche untill you are steeped in Philosophical thinking. Most
        people
        > have horrible missinterpertations of him.
        >
        > The anchients are pretty cool (though I really am no authority on
        them)... I
        > like the germans like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Heidigger.


        Nietzsche was really an anti-Schopenhauerian (although he loved
        Schopenhaur). You really can't understand Nietzsche unless you've
        read Schopenhauer. But to understand Schopenhauer you need to know
        Kant's first critique (and Plato too if possible).

        For modern philosophy the place to start is definitely
        Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".

        John
      • Tommy Beavitt
        Hello Matthew, ... Thanks for your interest in philosophy. However, this isn t a general philosophical forum but one specifically aimed at those interested in
        Message 3 of 7 , Jun 24, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Matthew,

          At 11:31 pm +0000 22/6/03, Matthew Kramer wrote:
          >Hi. I recently discovered an interest in philosophy, but I don't
          >know much about the main philosophical theories. Politically I think
          >that I'm a moderate Republican with some Libertarian sympathy.
          >Ethically, I think I'm a Utilitarian, but I am less certain. Anyway,
          >do any of you know of some on-line personality/philosophy
          >profile "tests" that I can take to help me determine which of the
          >dominant philosophic theories I best fit?

          Thanks for your interest in philosophy. However, this isn't a general
          philosophical forum but one specifically aimed at those interested in
          the philosophy of Sarte, ie. existentialism and, to a lesser extent,
          Marxism.

          I shall therefore "answer" your question within the scope of Sartrean
          existentialism and, as you will see, this will show that the question
          itself is probably bogus.

          First of all, your declared political affiliations. It is probably
          meaningless to try and trace these back to some philosophical
          foundation. A relationship between philosophy and politics does exist
          - and there are thinkers active in politics who found their political
          activity on philosophical principles. But this is the exception
          rather than the rule. Particularly when we are talking about party
          politics such as exists in the US and the UK, what we are talking
          about is political SCIENCE, the mechanics of obtaining power through
          an exercise in democracy. Political science does not need to concern
          itself too much with philosophy in order to obtain a result.

          There has been some discussion on ethics recently on this board. Look
          back through the archives by approximately one week and you will see
          some comparisons between deontology, utilitarianism and Marxism with
          reference to Sartre.

          With reference to your query about on-line personality/philosophy
          profile tests, well, this is an area where a reference to Sartrean
          ontology might prove enlightening. First of all, it is a myth that
          personality tests reveal any inherent truth to which can then be
          referred. Because existence is prior to essence, any results obtained
          through the taking of tests, can only reveal certain aspects of the
          structure of consciousness as it is manifested through the cognitive
          ability of a subject to negotiate the linguistic aspects of the
          tests. It is misplaced to imagine that tests can tell you anything
          about how you "actually are". Because what you "actually are" is
          precisely nothing.

          Having understood this (and I suspect that, unless you have thought
          through some of the philosophical issues to which this post refers,
          you will not immediately understand it) it will be possible to start
          taking "philosophical tests", preferably through reading and debate,
          to clarify your understanding of philosophical identity. One
          suggested starting point is a commentary about Descartes. You will
          find literally hundreds of these on Amazon or elsewhere. Descartes
          was famously responsible for kick-starting the Enlightment by
          suggesting that reality begins with man (and individual man at that):
          "I think therefore I am". Much of what has ensued in philosophy since
          has been a refinement of this basic anthropocentric position.

          Sartre took issue with Descartes and many of his commentators by
          drawing our attention to the assumption contained in Descartes' "I".
          Mainstream post-enlightenment philosophy, especially those strands of
          thought within the "Anglo-Saxon" school predominant in the UK/US,
          tend to gloss over this point. "I am what I am" is usually thought to
          suffice. But existentialism refuses to let this pass. There is a
          facticity of being, agrees Sartre, to which a human conforms: like
          any other object, a human can be said to exist. But as what? To
          describe a human being in physiological terms, ie. in terms of its
          DNA, vital organs, brain neurons etc. quite patently does not
          suffice. Sartre resolved this by insisting that a human is both a
          being in-itself, similar to any other collection of matter in a
          discrete object, to which - for example - the law of gravity applies,
          but he or she is also a being-for-itself, that constitutes
          him/herself "as" something according to the world in which he or she
          finds him or herself. This ability on the part of a being-for-itself
          to constitute him or herself "as something" is by far the most
          salient aspect of a human being.

          There have been a number of good suggestions from other Sartre
          contributors which I would like to endorse. I agree with jgbardis who
          said:

          At 8:51 am +0000 24/6/03, jgbardis wrote:
          >For modern philosophy the place to start is definitely
          >Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".

          I am reading this at the moment and it is quite a good read as well
          as being one of those pivotal texts in the history of philosophy.

          Hope this helps.

          Tommy

          >Hi. I recently discovered an interest in philosophy, but I don't
          >know much about the main philosophical theories. Politically I think
          >that I'm a moderate Republican with some Libertarian sympathy.
          >Ethically, I think I'm a Utilitarian, but I am less certain. Anyway,
          >do any of you know of some on-line personality/philosophy
          >profile "tests" that I can take to help me determine which of the
          >dominant philosophic theories I best fit?


          --
          Join us at Communicationalism, the attempt to find a basis for ethics
          in communication rather than survival
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/communicationalism/
        • Leon McQuaid
          well... though Nietzsche was anti-Schopenhauerian, he did call himself an anti-christian; and he did call christianity something along the lines of
          Message 4 of 7 , Jun 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            well... though Nietzsche was anti-Schopenhauerian, he did call himself an
            anti-christian; and he did call christianity something along the lines of
            "dumbed-down neo-platanism for the masses".
            As for Schopenhauer... I thought he was mainly characterized as the
            essential anti-Hegelian.
            >
            >Nietzsche was really an anti-Schopenhauerian (although he loved
            >Schopenhaur). You really can't understand Nietzsche unless you've
            >read Schopenhauer. But to understand Schopenhauer you need to know
            >Kant's first critique (and Plato too if possible).
            >
            >For modern philosophy the place to start is definitely
            >Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason".
            >
            >John
            >
            >

            _________________________________________________________________
            Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
            http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.