Philosopher of the month/Beginner's guide to philosophy

simu

In this thread, a few people have suggested the idea of having a monthly thread on some aspect of philosophy to help people learn more about the subject.

As a start, it would be helpful if everyone could give a list of topics or philosophers they are particularly keen to learn about.

I'm not sure how to go about this either - do we name a text for all to read for a certain date? Do we name a few texts and have different posters read different texts and then explain and discuss the arguments of each text? Any other possibilities?

DadaKopf

I think find some online resources, get people to read them, but paste some summary/select excerpts to give people a flavour (fully cited and linked).

You, or the original poster, might also like to suggest some topics for discussion - start general. See how it goes.

I don't mind who anyone starts with. It's trite to begin with Greek philosophers, but I always found them less sexy than other heads.

Depends what people want.

Jeez, they put notes up for students now? We didn't have that then. Grrr.

simu

Well, I'll wait for a few more days and if nobody suggests anything else, the Greeks it is!

Executive Steve

well you could start off with dsescartes... the meditations on first philosophy are quite easy to get to grips with, the meditation on the tower and the one on the evil demon are both pretty fundamentle issues of enquiry...

DadaKopf

Yeah, sounds fairly meaty and graspable. But include some refutations and counter-refutations.

I can imagine people (myself included) attacking Descartes' approach head on with reference to other guys' objections etc.

Some contemporary philosophy of mind heads like Dennett, the Chapmans, Gilbert Ryle (maybe not so contemporary), Wittgenstein (?).

Also new dualists like Sartre and soft dualists like Searle.

I dunno. Focus on Descartes but offer links to resources that counter his ideas.

Here's some links I found while Googling:
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContCuce.htm
http://www.newdualism.org/online-articles.htm
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html
http://les1.man.ac.uk/CMS/sy4791/Challenging%20Dualism%20I.doc

Hmm, maybe use those two thought experiments [cm]tyranny mentioned but make sure respondents don't blather on in a way that just repeats Descartes' skeptical position.

Anyway, I look forward to the discussion!

simu

I'll read through these and try to get something together over the weekend.

How I propose to do this:

I think there should be (1.) a number of texts that all posters will be expected to read and be familiar with. I'm thinking the meditations in question themselves (the entire text is available online) and I'll see if I can find any good summaries to help anyone who is having difficulties with them.

Then, (2.) a list of links with counterarguments - all participants will be expected to become familiar with at least two of these. (Thanks for those links, Dadakopf)

Then, (3.) links for people who want to deepen their knowledge of the topic.

Anybody who mentions ideas that are not explained in the category (1.) will be expected to give a brief explanation of them if it is thought that they will not be familiar to all participants. This should be done inside the thread rather than just giving links - explain in your own words or paste short excerps from other sites(don't forget to give credit for these).

Then, maybe some questions to stimulate the discussion.

So, once I've gathered this information, I'll start a thread on it, lock it for a few days (we can decide on a date to start later) to give people the chance to familiarise themselves with the material.

This, to me seems the best way to proceed at the moment but everyone's suggestions on the matter are welcome.

ferdi

dont start with greeks - too compicated especially sophists.

start with descartes

then philosophical problems (as outlined here under "Introduction to Philosophical Problems PHIL 1006
Thursday @ 12noon Theatre P - Dr Maria Baghramian")

philosophical problems includes:


Scepticism:

likein the matrix
eg:
Premise 1. – If I know that there are chairs (stars, rocks, other minds, numbers, good acts, etc.), then I know that there is no evil demon deceiving me into believing that there are chairs (stars, rocks, other minds, numbers, good acts, etc.)

Premise 2. – I do not know that there is no evil demon deceiving me into believing that there are chairs (stars,:rocks, other minds, numbers, good acts, etc.)

Therefore: I do not know that there are chairs (stars, rocks, other minds, numbers, good acts, etc.)

The Mind-Body Problem:

eg:
Near death experiences

Personal Identity

eg: what makes me me?

this is the really interesting stuff imo

DadaKopf

The last two are very vague, which would bring us back the the whole problem that the Philosopher of the Month (heretofore to be referred to as PotM) idea was supposed to resolve.

But if you say:

Mind-Body Problem: Descartes' dualism and refutations, that's fine.

or...

Personal identity: Ricoeur's approach to narrative and identity; Foucauldian approach to identity as subject-positions and power/knowledge; or functionalist or materialist approaches to mind and identity

Know what I mean?

See, I think taking philosophical problems without the required readings would give people an excuse to natter inanely.

But c'mere, what's this new Strout guy all about? I'm intruiged by his course about agency. Can we do something on that soon?

DadaKopf

I guess I'd like to do something on the connection between ideas and the world, theory and praxis.

Thank you please.

simu

I'll read through these and try to get something together over the weekend

Or more likely, by midweek - this weekend has been busier than I expected (I did get the new charter up though).

I'm going to go with Descartes and the mind-body problem, as presented in the Mediatations for now (&criticisms thereof). It's easy enough to start with plus I'm not so sure that texts by more recent writers like Foucault would be available on the Web.

Ye can start threads on he other topics ye mentioned above if ye want - there's no reason why there can't be a few serious threads going on at once.





(Note: I use the word "ye" because I find the absence of a 2nd person plural pronoun in English very irritating).