[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/b/ - Random

Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

esdgrg.jpg

men who like philosophy Anonymous 90329

i have a few male friends who are very interested in philosophy and my god are they condescending and pretentious. they aren't bad people but they are such a drag, and usually pseudo-intellectuals (maybe pseudo-pseudo-intellectuals bc they do read a lot, but they care sm abt being seen as smart they keep namedropping all those philosopher names and theories) i respect them to some extent, but i have decided that to out-intellect and out-condescend them and start reading abt philosophy also (i'm not a total beginner since i took some classes but still).

Anonymous 90330

Valerie Solanas once theorised that moids pursue philosophy because they're empty and must seek a meaning outside of themself

Anonymous 90332

>>90330
she was right

Anonymous 90340

d121b8bfab3bebeb67…

>>90329
>namedropping all those philosopher names
ngl I do that with artists because I had to take 3 years of art history in high school and knowing semi-obscure artists and elements of antique - renaissance architecture is the only thing it got me. I fear the day someone will call me out on my half-baked knowledge of gothic cathedrals.

Anonymous 90342

Ugh, look, as a philosophy major, you need to learn about logic and critical thinking before you begin reading philosophy (or at least at the same time). Logic and critical thinking is what will allow you to argue better and see the holes in others' arguments. If you just read philosophy, the problem I often have with people who do that is they end up just absorbing different ideologies and philosophies instead of being interactive with them.

Anonymous 90349

>>90342
I know what you're talking about and I think you're right.
At the same time, I feel like learning philosophy forced me to learn how to think. I took a gap year before college and spent the time getting obsessed with philosophy– I don't think I would have survived college the way I did otherwise, because I did not learn those thinking skills in K-12.

Philosophy taught me to look for unstated premises, question all premises and assumptions, think about how things would be like if "this" were the case versus if "that" were the case, it taught me how to read closely and write clearly, it taught me how to build up a good argument (hint: constantly finding possible ways your argument could fail and anticipating those objections), etc. etc.

I think philosophical education in schools ought to be mandatory, it taught me so much about reasoning and writing and how knowledge is obtained and how academic research works. I'd argue that learning philosophy is one of the best ways to learn about logic and thinking.

I suppose the problem you're pointing out is when someone just doesn't take the right attitude towards studying philosophy on their own– it's a constant, critical pursuit for truth, not just a set of ideologies to adopt.

Anonymous 90355

>>90342
but how can someone just learn logic and critical thinking? you need philosophy for that

Anonymous 90356

>>90355
It's called propositional logic

Anonymous 90358

>>90355
Also, you can learn logical fallacies without having to use philosophy-related examples. I mean, logic is essentially math when it comes down to it. Logic and critical thinking aren't exclusive to philosophy. Critical thinking and philosophy are not the same thing, philosophy utilizes critical thinking, but so do many other disciplines.

Anonymous 90359

>>90342
Being good at critical thinking and logic doesn't prevent people from slipping into ideologies, it just makes them better at narrowing and then defending their ideologies.

Anonymous 90360

>>90342
op here. like i said, i want to outsmart them and not to fall trap into just reading and repeating philosophy, so i was already planning to do that

Anonymous 90362

>>90359
>Being good at critical thinking and logic doesn't prevent people from slipping into ideologies
Of course. Like any tool, it can be used in different ways. Many people choose to only look at the logic of certain sides of issues to bolster their own views.
>it just makes them better at narrowing and then defending their ideologies.
I disagree. Logic and critical thinking is a useful way to examine your own beliefs and opinions so you can reevaluate them. It's quite the stretch to say logic and critical thinking "just" is a tool for narrowing and defending ideologies. The fact it is also used for that isn't necessarily a negative thing.

Anonymous 90364

Don't argue with i…

>>90360
In that case pic related is the go to. Disagreeable idiots that are good at philosophy, but have no internal values or trust bend and weave out of the way of any loss by simply not having principles. They'll do it just for fun too.

Anonymous 90365

>>90362
>Of course. Like any tool, it can be used in different ways. Many people choose to only look at the logic of certain sides of issues to bolster their own views.
Correct.
>I disagree. Logic and critical thinking is a useful way to examine your own beliefs and opinions so you can reevaluate them. It's quite the stretch to say logic and critical thinking "just" is a tool for narrowing and defending ideologies. The fact it is also used for that isn't necessarily a negative thing.
Good to know, that isn't the argument you made though. The argument you made was that teaching people logic and critical thinking will at the very least help them from falling into ideologies. This assumption is false. You have to have the will to question yourself to use those tools. You can't teach that will via logic and critical thinking, it's a separate phenomena.

Anonymous 90368

>>90365
>The argument you made was that teaching people logic and critical thinking will at the very least help them from falling into ideologies.
I wrote "allow" instead of "make" because it will allow you the ability, as I said, to make better arguments and see holes in other arguments. Allow implies it is up to the person whether they do it or not. They have access.
>You have to have the will to question yourself to use those tools
You need to know what those tools are in the first place, though, regardless of whether you have the will to use them consistently. Hence why I would recommend someone studying those before jumping into philosophy and reading it like it's a textbook.

Anonymous 90369

>>90368
>I wrote "allow" instead of "make" because it will allow you the ability, as I said, to make better arguments and see holes in other arguments. Allow implies it is up to the person whether they do it or not. They have access.
Then I suppose you are correct for the minority sliver of people that simultaneously have the will to question themselves, yet don't have the ability to use tools that come automatically from questionings yourself.
>You need to know what those tools are in the first place, though, regardless of whether you have the will to use them consistently. Hence why I would recommend someone studying those before jumping into philosophy and reading it like it's a textbook.
Anybody who reads philosophy like a textbook doesn't have the will to question themself, so they wouldn't find the tools useful in preventing a fall into ideology.

Anonymous 90375

>>90369
>Anybody who reads philosophy like a textbook doesn't have the will to question themself, so they wouldn't find the tools useful in preventing a fall into ideology.
A lot of people aren't aware how you are meant to read philosophy (really, a lot of subjects), and that is certainly a skill that can be practiced. If one doesn't question things initially, they are not necessarily indefinitely stuck like that. It is very plausible a person could use said tools one way, but also use them differently in other contexts.

For instance, I have met people who learned about logic and critical thinking when it's clear it's a new skill set for them and the fact they learned these skills contributed to them reading and discussing philosophy in a more critical way than they did before. Being critical has layers to it, I would argue that even if someone sometimes uses logic and critical thinking in a biased way, it is still useful to know because it can help a person navigate a new topic they are less familiar with.

> I suppose you are correct for the minority sliver of people that simultaneously have the will to question themselves, yet don't have the ability to use tools that come automatically from questionings yourself.

I would argue that questioning yourself is not enough. Questioning yourself won't necessarily lead to logical conclusions. I don't think these tools naturally arise from that alone; there is some information you are implicitly relying on. It's possible to question yourself and come up with something illogical as an answer.

Anonymous 90377

>For instance, I have met people who learned about logic and critical thinking when it's clear it's a new skill set for them and the fact they learned these skills contributed to them reading and discussing philosophy in a more critical way than they did before. Being critical has layers to it, I would argue that even if someone sometimes uses logic and critical thinking in a biased way, it is still useful to know because it can help a person navigate a new topic they are less familiar with.
Great to know, still doesn't mean teaching people logic and critical thinking will prevent them from falling into ideology.
>I would argue that questioning yourself is not enough. Questioning yourself won't necessarily lead to logical conclusions. I don't think these tools naturally arise from that alone; there is some information you are implicitly relying on. It's possible to question yourself and come up with something illogical as an answer.
It's enough for not falling into ideology, which is the point we were originally discussing. Whether or not the conclusion they reach is logically sound is completely separate. I am trying to convey to you the notion of questioning yourself is completely separate from logic and critical thinking, and only the latter can be taught, and only the former prevents the falling into ideology. If the goal and only goal is to prevent falling into ideology, then the one has to have the will to question oneself, which is purely separate value-based phenomena that is unrelated to the the tools one uses.

Anonymous 90378

>>90377
You know I may have slightly misstated, I suppose it is possible to help someone develop their ability to question themselves as a function across time via a therapeutic approach, but this still requires the individual to blossom spontaneously within themselves the urge to gain the ability to question themselves at the very least if the not the will to question themselves. If you are arguing that teaching logic and critical thinking would help develop in people this will to question themselves, I can't see the connection, because the will to question is purely value and emotionally based and separate from the rational faculties.

Anonymous 90380

>>90375
>A lot of people aren't aware how you are meant to read philosophy (really, a lot of subjects), and that is certainly a skill that can be practiced. If one doesn't question things initially, they are not necessarily indefinitely stuck like that. It is very plausible a person could use said tools one way, but also use them differently in other contexts.
Allegedly. I am wondering what your definition of "read like a textbook is" though, as it seems to imply there's any reason to treat a given textbook different from a standard book.

Anonymous 90385

>>90377
>still doesn't mean teaching people logic and critical thinking will prevent them from falling into ideology
You continue to misconstrue what I said. I did not say it for a fact will prevent that. I said it allows, implying that it is possible they will still fall to an ideology, but they have the tools not to. How to use the tools is yes, based on the person. But again, knowledge of the tools is the starting point. It is no guarantee. I would rather have a person equipped than not.
>I am trying to convey to you the notion of questioning yourself is completely separate from logic and critical thinking
I guess that's something you see as separate from critical thinking. Questioning and actively reading is part of critical thinking. As I said before, a person actually applying logic and critical thinking (and questioning if we consider it to be separate from critical thinking though I don't see it as separate) to how they read a text is a choice. But, I would argue that learning logic and critical thinking is the first step, so that choice is there for a person to make. The problem with focusing on purely questioning is that you have consider how to answer whatever questions arise, and that's where logic and critical thinking come in. Questioning alone won't lead to rejection of ideologies because you could have someone earnestly question things and not know where to go from there; that's the point of knowing logic and critical thinking. And, someone could question and come up with a totally irrational answer. Questioning, like logic and critical thinking, doesn't necessarily mean it won't be used in a way that indulges one's bias. I agree you need some sort of value-based phenomena, but it applies to logic, critical thinking, and questioning, not just questioning; after all, you need to decide to apply logic.

My original point still stands - it is helpful to learn logic and critical thinking because of what it allows. I never stated it was a guarantee.

>>90378
> If you are arguing that teaching logic and critical thinking would help develop in people this will to question themselves, I can't see the connection
Well, the connection is that I take it for granted when learning about critical thinking that people learn about the importance of questioning. It's plastered all over texts regarding critical thinking, I have no idea how one wouldn't be exposed to the idea of questioning if they were to study critical thinking.

>>90380
By read like a textbook, I am referring to the way many people read textbooks - as the truth, so they don't question what's in there. I am not condoning that but stating a common phenomenon.

For instance, there's a thread here on the nature of reality and an anon keeps arguing that everything is x way because x philosophers say so. I see that happen a lot with philosophy.

Anonymous 90390

>>90385
>Questioning and actively reading is part of critical thinking.
No, critical thinking is a subcategory of questioning. You can irrationally and strangely question without critically thinking, you can not critically think without questioning. Thus, the former is a subcategory of the latter.

>You continue to misconstrue what I said. I did not say it for a fact will prevent that. I said it allows, implying that it is possible they will still fall to an ideology, but they have the tools not to. How to use the tools is yes, based on the person. But again, knowledge of the tools is the starting point. It is no guarantee. I would rather have a person equipped than not.

Good to know, that's just like, your opinion man.
>I agree you need some sort of value-based phenomena, but it applies to logic, critical thinking, and questioning, not just questioning; after all, you need to decide to apply logic.
Correct, and that actual value-based phenomena can not be taught, only equipped, but this assumes it was already present, which means it can not be granted and is thus pointless to enforce because the type of person to do what OP has complained about obviously doesn't have that will in the first place.

>And, someone could question and come up with a totally irrational answer.

Which is perfectly fine from the perspective of not falling into ideology.
>My original point still stands - it is helpful to learn logic and critical thinking because of what it allows. I never stated it was a guarantee.
Good, then we agree it won't prevent a fall into ideology and is thus irrelevant to doing it before reading philosophy if your only concern is the falling into ideology part.

>Well, the connection is that I take it for granted when learning about critical thinking that people learn about the importance of questioning. It's plastered all over texts regarding critical thinking, I have no idea how one wouldn't be exposed to the idea of questioning if they were to study critical thinking.

I don't take it for granted. Being exposed to the concept and idea is not the same as gaining the will to do so. The rational concept and faculties of questioning yourself are completely separate from the emotional will to do so. Being expose to the "idea" of doing so does not magically grant the will to do so, it would be analogous to saying reading Nietzche and cognitively understanding what a "will to morality" is would actually bestow upon one the will to morality. The will to morality was either already there or not there, and it's development is separate from it's understanding. Man can do as he wills, but he can not will as he wills.

>For instance, there's a thread here on the nature of reality and an anon keeps arguing that everything is x way because x philosophers say so. I see that happen a lot with philosophy.

The type of person to do that can't be rationally elucidated into stopping to do so, they have to develop the will to not which is completely separate.

Anonymous 90394

>>90390
>you can not critically think without questioning
yes, this was my point.
>actual value-based phenomena can not be taught, only equipped, but this assumes it was already present, which means it can not be granted and is thus pointless to enforce because the type of person to do what OP has complained about obviously doesn't have that will in the first place.
Consider that a person's will is capable of changing depending on the information a person receives. This is my hope in a person informing themselves regarding logic and critical thinking. Indeed, no guarantees, but I'd rather introduce a chance from the start.
>Which is perfectly fine from the perspective of not falling into ideology.
Not quite. Questioning could lead one to equally fall into their same ideology, for no good reason, since the answers to a question could be irrational.
> it won't prevent a fall into ideology
Sure
>and is thus irrelevant to doing it before reading philosophy if your only concern is the falling into ideology part.
Just because it does not 100% prevent a fall doesn't mean it is not worth studying before reading philosophical texts. Having the tools that can prevent a fall is important.
>Being exposed to the concept and idea is not the same as gaining the will to do so
Sure. But if you have shown an interest in studying philosophy and I tell you that "oh, here are these tools you may want to familiarize yourself with", it's not irrational of me to think that you would have an interest in applying them to your study of philosophy. It's specific to this instance in that anon has shown an interest. Obviously I'm not telling people randomly to study logic and critical thinking. And of course, OP may very well not apply what she learns from logic and critical thinking if she studies it. But, I would rather have her know so that perhaps she is able to spot an invalid argument because she notices that certain premises don't actually follow from each other, even if she hasn't been critically thinking the entire time. Or if someone points out to her that an argument is invalid or unsound, she knows what that means. I'm tangenting, but my point is that sure, will isn't a guarantee, but I have reason to think a person is willing to exercise the will to apply logic, critically think, and question if they are interested in studying philosophy. I am not as jaded as you are regarding what people are willing to do, and regarding their capacities.

Anonymous 90396

>>90394
>yes, this was my point.
Wrong, you explicitly stated.
>Questioning and actively reading is part of critical thinking.
This statement is false. Critical thinking is a subcategory of questioning. If you agree with me on this, explicitly state that questioning is not a part of critical thinking, but instead that critical thinking is a part of questioning. If you don't understand the nuance of difference between these two propositions than obviously this conversation is a lost cause.
>Consider that a person's will is capable of changing depending on the information a person receives. This is my hope in a person informing themselves regarding logic and critical thinking. Indeed, no guarantees, but I'd rather introduce a chance from the start.
I don' consider it possible to change someone's will. Period.
>Not quite. Questioning could lead one to equally fall into their same ideology, for no good reason, since the answers to a question could be irrational.
Are you starting with the assumption that someone already had an ideology in the first place? You can't fall back into something you are already currently in. Because that means you weren't trying to prevent them from falling into ideology, you are trying to help them out of it. These are not the same thing at all.
>Just because it does not 100% prevent a fall doesn't mean it is not worth studying before reading philosophical texts. Having the tools that can prevent a fall is important.
Again I can't tell if you're starting with the assumption someone was already in an ideology or will fall into one. You seem to be using "prevent" very loosely. Assuming you actually mean "prevent" as in "stop it before it occurs" then it is irrelevant as what is actually needing to prevent is a will.
>But if you have shown an interest in studying philosophy and I tell you that "oh, here are these tools you may want to familiarize yourself with", it's not irrational of me to think that you would have an interest in applying them to your study of philosophy.
It's pretty irrational to assume other's desires and emotions, most of the time you won't be punished, by definition you are assuming, because you are not explicitly asking them if they do or do not want to critical think about what they are reading, and letting them answer. You've just stated you just assume that other people want to critically think, so don't try to frame it as rational. You can say "well good golly gee, doesn't everyone want to critically think about everything?" and I will say definitively no, because for some it's an exhausting activity that isn't worth the effort of what they are trying to do.
>It's specific to this instance in that anon has shown an interest.
She's pretty dumb because she wants to learn philosophy to win arguments as opposed to actually enjoy it, which is pretty silly in my opinion.
>I am not as jaded as you are regarding what people are willing to do, and regarding their capacities.
Cool, that's just like, your assumptions sis. It could also be however, that I am not jaded, as much as understanding that developing someone's urges and will is a fundamentally separate exercise from enabling their rational faculties, and anyone that treats them as synonymous is in for some very confusing interactions.

Anonymous 90402

>>90330
As opposed to a meaning within ourselves? Wouldn't it be dull if the objective world would have subjective meaning. Also, how would that work? Unless you imply the objective world doesn't have meaning and we must create our own within ourselves. Then, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the word "meaning" in this particular context?

Anonymous 90404

>This statement is false. Critical thinking is a subcategory of questioning. If you agree with me on this, explicitly state that questioning is not a part of critical thinking, but instead that critical thinking is a part of questioning. If you don't understand the nuance of difference between these two propositions than obviously this conversation is a lost cause.
The point of what I was saying was that you can't critically think without questioning. The two are intertwined. I did not say that questioning is not an activity of its own. No need to be condescending.
>I don' consider it possible to change someone's will. Period
Well, we agree to disagree then. I think a person's will can be changed. I don't believe it is set in stone. I think being exposed to information, for instance, can affect a person's will.
>Are you starting with the assumption that someone already had an ideology in the first place?
I have no assumption that they necessarily do or do not. I was using an example.
>Assuming you actually mean "prevent" as in "stop it before it occurs" then it is irrelevant as what is actually needing to prevent is a will.
Again, we disagree on whether a will can change.
>you are not explicitly asking them if they do or do not want to critical think about what they are reading
No, I'm not. I'm telling them how I think philosophy should be approached in a way that would most likely result in a benefit to them.
>You've just stated you just assume that other people want to critically think
No, only in this specific instance. And it's not even that I am assuming she wants to critically think, I'm assuming she wants to study philosophy so she will take my advice.
>You can say "well good golly gee, doesn't everyone want to critically think about everything?"
I never said that and I don't assume that in general. Most people don't appear to be interested in putting in the effort.
>She's pretty dumb because she wants to learn philosophy to win arguments as opposed to actually enjoy it, which is pretty silly in my opinion.
Maybe it's silly, but I wouldn't call anon dumb without more things to go off of. I've no idea of her other capabilities.
>It could also be however, that I am not jaded, as much as understanding that developing someone's urges and will is a fundamentally separate exercise from enabling their rational faculties, and anyone that treats them as synonymous is in for some very confusing interactions.
Again, I've never been in disagreement they are separate exercises.

Anonymous 90408

>>90404
>The point of what I was saying was that you can't critically think without questioning. The two are intertwined. I did not say that questioning is not an activity of its own. No need to be condescending.
Alright then, we disagree, though I'm glad we moved from "questioning is a part of critical thinking" to "The two are intertwined". With the assumption of the former and later, that leaves the options of "critical thinking and questioning are two separate things that happen to overlap" or "critical thinking is a subcategory of questioning". I firmly stand in the later, and if you disagree with this sentiment, provide me with examples. I have plenty to support the later intuitively.
> I think a person's will can be changed. I don't believe it is set in stone.
I have made no statement that a person's will can not change over time, what I disagree with is outside changing of someone's will. If you believe you can mold someone's will than go ahead and believe so, but do not put words in my mouth.
>Maybe it's silly, but I wouldn't call anon dumb without more things to go off of. I've no idea of her other capabilities.
I consider wanting to know something purely to spite others in disagreements as being the height of folly and arrogant behavior. If you engage in conversations not to elucidate yourself but to emerge victorious over other's you have pathologized your rational faculties in pursuit of vanity.
>Again, I've never been in disagreement they are separate exercises.
Good, we agree that the two are separate and that the one that can be taught doesn't actually prevent falling into ideology.

Anonymous 90423

>>90408
>I'm glad we moved from "questioning is a part of critical thinking" to "The two are intertwined".
I think questioning is absolutely a part of critical thinking. You made the assumption that I was saying that questioning isn't a larger category than critical thinking whereas I was stating that critical thinking includes questioning. Yes, critical thinking is a subcategory of questioning, but I've never even been saying that to begin with. You conflated me saying "part of" to mean something more narrow than I meant.
>If you believe you can mold someone's will than go ahead and believe so
I have never said I believe a person's will can be molded.
>we agree that the two are separate
Okay
>and that the one that can be taught doesn't actually prevent falling into ideology.
The one that can be taught can prevent falling into ideology, hence why I think it's worth mentioning.

Anonymous 90424

>>90423
*I've never even been saying the opposite of that to begin with

Anonymous 90425

>>90423
>You conflated me saying "part of" to mean something more narrow than I meant.
In that case your use of language is imprecise. You don't say "the interstate system is a part of the road" you say "the road is a part of the interstate system". Linguistically it makes no sense to say something is a part of something else unless it is either contained inside it (questioning is a subcategory of critical thinking) or the two overlap (questioning and critical thinking are two seperate items that have overlap, but there is questioning without critical thinking and critical thinking without questioning). If you use "part of" to describe something that contains a concept as opposed to the concept that is contained being a part of what contains it, then that's poor word use.
>I have never said I believe a person's will can be molded.
Then we agree the will can not be changed.
>The one that can be taught can prevent falling into ideology, hence why I think it's worth mentioning.
No, because if the person doesn't have the will to question themselves it doesn't matter how equipped she or he is in critical thinking, they won't question their own ideology without will.

Anonymous 90430

>>90425
>In that case your use of language is imprecise
Okay, my use of language was imprecise.
>Then we agree the will can not be changed
Just because the will cannot be molded does not mean it cannot change.
>if the person doesn't have the will to question themselves it doesn't matter how equipped she or he is in critical thinking, they won't question their own ideology without will.
yes, but if a person does have the will to question, they may not know about logic or other aspects of critical thinking that if they knew, that would help them know how to interact with the texts they are reading. So yes, it is relevant to suggest learning about logic and critical thinking. We just disagree about the will of OP and whether they actually will utilize the logic and critical thinking they learn about if they choose to pursue studying that.

Anonymous 90431

>>90423
>Just because the will cannot be molded does not mean it cannot change.
If outside forces can change the will, the outside forces can intentionally change the will. If outside forces can intentionally change the will, the will can be molded.

Anonymous 90443

>>90431
>If outside forces can change the will, the outside forces can intentionally change the will
I said nothing about outside forces changing the will in of itself. I think outside forces can contribute to a person deciding to change their will.

Anonymous 90493

>>90349
are you an analytical philosopher? you talk like someone in analytical philosophy? at least a philosophy student in the anglosphere

Anonymous 91101

>>90493
lol, the analytical vibe is that obvious? I'm not a philosopher or philosophy student, unfortunately. But all/most the philosophy I studied was analytic

Anonymous 91112

damn hegel got eyebags for days

Anonymous 91153

Socrates_and_Alcib…

If shawty a lil' baddie, chances are so is his philosopher daddy.

Anonymous 91155

>>91153
My dad is a philosopher and I can confirm. However, he is very argumentative.

Anonymous 92878

I've found Kenney's A New History of Western Philosophy to be the best survey of the field. I tried Russell's too, and read Durant's Story of Philosophy. Kenney's is nice because it goes through the history of philosophy in each time period, noting all the major thinkers and trends, and then also goes through each major subject in philosophy (e.g. logic, epistemology, etc.) and discourses on the subject for each time period (e.g. antiquity, medieval thought, etc.)

I love Durant and his Story of Civilization, which has great coverage of philosophers throughout history, but the Story skips around a lot and isn't systematic.

The Great Courses has a lot of good lectures of philosophy. The Mind Body Philosophy one is the best I've seen but Political Philosophy: Hobbes to Habermaus and Modern Philosophy: Decartes to Derrida are both good too. Just don't expect to remember it all just by listening as you drive or do chores. You need to follow up the lectures by reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia is great for that.

That alone should give you name dropping ammo for years.

Just don't make the mistake of going into Hegel. I'm 3 months into trying to read them Phenomenology with a 1,600 page line by line commentary and it is still brutal.



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]