Hi handsome, How are you? i love your profile,please contact me on my private email (sup445942@gmail.com ) i have something to share with you, please am not always on this site. Thanks
Oh yes, I love Stanford's encyclopedia. I far prefer it to Wikipedia, well to any site whatsoever when it comes to anything related to philosophy. Will be a while until I can read Ethics though, lots of school work and stuff going on.
Expensive? Odd, they are equally expensive here, sometimes cheaper... It must be conspiracy, obviously, an insidious conspiracy to make sure Hegel and Quine never meet and form something FABULOUS~
Hm. Well at least my edition has a preface... if it gets tough it's always possible to prowl the internet for notes I s'pose.
Hah, yeah, all manner of people have been neutral monists. Platonists, Spinoza (the ur-neutral monist), Russell... So it accepts all kinds.
Ah, yeah, that's far closer to what Penrose argues for. I don't think he does a good job (a bit of strawmanning here, a bit of "it must be true because it feels like it" there - an argument Gödel would fancy, as he saw mathematical intuition as quite like any other sense). Formalism is nice, but not quite convincing, and apparently Gödel's incompleteness theorem refutes it somehow. Have not really figured out how, might be that they think formalism would never be able to produce true nonprovable theorems (which I suppose does make sense, but I'm still chewing at it).
The bookstore only had Thousand Plateaus for some reason... gnarbel. Well, I'll try to get through Difference and Repetition first. And before that Spinoza's Ethics, if that is what he is working after. I do like Spinoza for whatever I do know of him so it'll likely be a rather pleasant experience.
And yeah, I'm quite analytic. But I have Wittgenstein's adoration of the mystical, ineffable, and I do not think there is only ONE correct way to do philosophy. While I view metaphysics with skepsis, I do not judge it cognitively worthless just because it is metaphysics. For one, the mind/body dualism/monism/verymanyism debate I find cognitively meaningful... and, I'd admit, the answer obvious (neutral monism).
Though I switch opinions all the time. I was antirealist to Carnapian degrees until last week. :P
Yeah, I bought Penrose today. He spends a lot of time arguing for "Platonism" (it has little in common with Platonism, he seems unaware of this) in the beginning of his Road to Reality, though, which essentially is him restating that maths is obviously true, which is why platonism is. Ur well... yeah. He is not promising from a philosophicalstandpoint, but he'll likely deliver regarding the science. Which I suppose is an okay compromise. I realize I forgot Hofstadter though - Gödel Escher Bach is one of my all-time favourite books, and is pretty concerned with Philosophy of Mind. recommended if you haven't read it.
Oh yes, Heraclitus is win. One of my first favourite philosophers, still inhabits a warm place in my heart. Parmenides I discovered way too late - perfect argumentation (and had Zeno on his side!) but I reject the rationalist project, being an empiricist, so I can't say I am a supporter to any degree.
I don't know if I can say Plato is awesome; He makes a rather fine amount of fallacies in hiw own favour, and so on. His dialogue Parmenides is great though (for obvious reasons), and I haven't read that much by him, so I might like him more once well-steeped in his works. Plus, he really does write good, which is more than can be said about most. But his opinions, nah. Frege was a better Platonist than Plato, I think.
I have heard a lot good about Deleuze; I have Difference and Repetition, but I didn't really understand it the first time I tried it... And I've been sorely tempted to get Thousand Plateaus + Anti-Oedipus, they seem great (if I understand them that is).
In my opinion, a philosopher should aim at integrating all areas of knowledge, and at defining exactly what knowledge, truth and so on are. So to speak, the bridges between the sciences. Physics has gotten inbcredibly far, other areas not; to find out why, to adapt epistemology and so on, are things I think philosophers maybe should spend a bit more time on. But that may just be me with my desire for eclectic pluralism, hah.
My philosophical heroes would be Russell, Wittgenstein, Gödel, perhaps Popper and definitely Nietzsche. For some reason, I've yet to find any writer in the area that fascinates me the most (philosophy of mind), they're all deeply into logic, epistemology and language. Which are luckily my favourite areas after mind, hah. Logic and epistemology, O think, we've gotten a bit further than we had by Kant, and what with the rise of linguistics, language philosophy has certainly been boosted. Everything else I am probably inclined to agree has been more or less dormant, though.
Hmm. You're right, they would. Now why did I not think of that? Must'ave been all those earthquakes, and the relative obscurity of Cuba vis-a-vis Thailand. I'll likely rot away up here in the North though.
Out of interest, what philosophers do you dig, and what do you recommend by the lot? We're awful analytical over here, I like to balance it, and I'm guessing you're at least slightly Continental. Not that recommendations of analytical philosophers is to any degree dislikeable, either!
Oh Asia ;_; How I want to go somewhere there. Sadly, no can do with my less-than-decent finances. I imagine cities are different over there, where they are proper CITIES and not some larger-than-the-other-villages congregation ofhouses.
I also want to go to Cuba, live in an old shack smacked absolutely full of books and heaps of paper which once were books, and write novels on a rocking chair, facing the beach and listening to a slightly broken transistor radio. And the odd part is I don't even like Hemingway :/
Don't know much of Athens - spent the time there on Crete-, and I was in Paris at an unfortunate time (when Sarkozy was inaugured). But yeah, certainly nice places, though I'm more of a rural country boy. Meadows, grass and hills and stuff.
Well, mayhaps not too much of a loss, Malmö is a bleak, boring town.
All I've managed to go to is Denmark, France and Greece (and technically Italia, but I could barely string together a coherent sentece back then, let alone a memory).
All Comments (16) Comments
...wait, are you older than ghostlightning?
oh wai----
Leibniz scares me, though he'll likely be good to read before my logics test in August. ...Or maybe that's better spent on Gödel and his cronies.
Expensive? Odd, they are equally expensive here, sometimes cheaper... It must be conspiracy, obviously, an insidious conspiracy to make sure Hegel and Quine never meet and form something FABULOUS~
Hah, yeah, all manner of people have been neutral monists. Platonists, Spinoza (the ur-neutral monist), Russell... So it accepts all kinds.
Ah, yeah, that's far closer to what Penrose argues for. I don't think he does a good job (a bit of strawmanning here, a bit of "it must be true because it feels like it" there - an argument Gödel would fancy, as he saw mathematical intuition as quite like any other sense). Formalism is nice, but not quite convincing, and apparently Gödel's incompleteness theorem refutes it somehow. Have not really figured out how, might be that they think formalism would never be able to produce true nonprovable theorems (which I suppose does make sense, but I'm still chewing at it).
And yeah, I'm quite analytic. But I have Wittgenstein's adoration of the mystical, ineffable, and I do not think there is only ONE correct way to do philosophy. While I view metaphysics with skepsis, I do not judge it cognitively worthless just because it is metaphysics. For one, the mind/body dualism/monism/verymanyism debate I find cognitively meaningful... and, I'd admit, the answer obvious (neutral monism).
Though I switch opinions all the time. I was antirealist to Carnapian degrees until last week. :P
Yeah, I bought Penrose today. He spends a lot of time arguing for "Platonism" (it has little in common with Platonism, he seems unaware of this) in the beginning of his Road to Reality, though, which essentially is him restating that maths is obviously true, which is why platonism is. Ur well... yeah. He is not promising from a philosophicalstandpoint, but he'll likely deliver regarding the science. Which I suppose is an okay compromise. I realize I forgot Hofstadter though - Gödel Escher Bach is one of my all-time favourite books, and is pretty concerned with Philosophy of Mind. recommended if you haven't read it.
I don't know if I can say Plato is awesome; He makes a rather fine amount of fallacies in hiw own favour, and so on. His dialogue Parmenides is great though (for obvious reasons), and I haven't read that much by him, so I might like him more once well-steeped in his works. Plus, he really does write good, which is more than can be said about most. But his opinions, nah. Frege was a better Platonist than Plato, I think.
I have heard a lot good about Deleuze; I have Difference and Repetition, but I didn't really understand it the first time I tried it... And I've been sorely tempted to get Thousand Plateaus + Anti-Oedipus, they seem great (if I understand them that is).
In my opinion, a philosopher should aim at integrating all areas of knowledge, and at defining exactly what knowledge, truth and so on are. So to speak, the bridges between the sciences. Physics has gotten inbcredibly far, other areas not; to find out why, to adapt epistemology and so on, are things I think philosophers maybe should spend a bit more time on. But that may just be me with my desire for eclectic pluralism, hah.
My philosophical heroes would be Russell, Wittgenstein, Gödel, perhaps Popper and definitely Nietzsche. For some reason, I've yet to find any writer in the area that fascinates me the most (philosophy of mind), they're all deeply into logic, epistemology and language. Which are luckily my favourite areas after mind, hah. Logic and epistemology, O think, we've gotten a bit further than we had by Kant, and what with the rise of linguistics, language philosophy has certainly been boosted. Everything else I am probably inclined to agree has been more or less dormant, though.
Out of interest, what philosophers do you dig, and what do you recommend by the lot? We're awful analytical over here, I like to balance it, and I'm guessing you're at least slightly Continental. Not that recommendations of analytical philosophers is to any degree dislikeable, either!
I also want to go to Cuba, live in an old shack smacked absolutely full of books and heaps of paper which once were books, and write novels on a rocking chair, facing the beach and listening to a slightly broken transistor radio. And the odd part is I don't even like Hemingway :/
All I've managed to go to is Denmark, France and Greece (and technically Italia, but I could barely string together a coherent sentece back then, let alone a memory).
where is your avatar from? which manga?