What are you reading?

[jgweed]

Seems like all the major philosophers have been included, except some of the post-modernists. One could spend a lifetime just reading the works of those listed. Philosophia longa, vita breve, as it were. Of those you have read so far, Deftil, do you have any favourites that you intend to read further?

[MJA]

I'm reading The Ethics of Spinoza, The Bhagavad-Gita, Descartes Bones, and Decartes. I look for others who think like me. They do.
Einstein, Gandhi, Jefferson, King Jr. Socrates and Buddha are close to me too.

=
MJA

[Deftil]

Originally Posted by jgweed

Seems like all the major philosophers have been included, except some of the post-modernists. One could spend a lifetime just reading the works of those listed. Philosophia longa, vita breve, as it were. Of those you have read so far, Deftil, do you have any favourites that you intend to read further?

One thing I should have noted was that this book was published in 1967 which pretty much explains the lack of post-modernists. As another note, the part by Strawson is about Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

Out of what I've read so far, I'd have to say I have been most intrigued by Santayana. He had an interesting perspective that I've found to be deep, logically sound, and somewhat unique. It seems he takes into account that we are evolved creatures and the impact that has on our beliefs. I found it enlightening.

Most of the other stuff I've read in this book so far, I've been disappointed by. I don't know if it's the translation, the original writing, or simply the subject matter itself, but all the Husserl I read meant absolutely nothing to me. I had no idea what was going on for that whole 40 pages.

I definitely didn't hate the Whitehead or the Dewey that I read. I suppose the Moore stuff was alright too, but I was struck by how much of an anti-philosopher he seemed to be. It's kind of surprising to me how important he became in philosophy.

[jgweed]

"...all the Husserl I read meant absolutely nothing to me. I had no idea what was going on for that whole 40 pages."

You were probably reading the easier part of his writings. I have the same experience with his writing, and think he is best understood second-hand.

Moore, as a representative of ordinary language philosophy (like Wittgenstein), does seem philosophically anti-philosophical, but not without some wit, and there are a lot of funny stories about some of his conversations.

I am glad you liked Santayana. Along with Whitehead, he seems the most "European" of American philosophers, but is often overlooked probably because he never wrote a magnum opus.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Moody's Coming of Age in Mississippi at the moment.

I had to read this for a social history class a couple years ago. I had no inclination to read the book and waited until the last weekend before the test to pick it up. I ended up reading it from cover-to-cover in one sitting. Could have been one of the most inspiring days I have spent reading.

[Theaetetus]

I am currently reading Richard Moran's Authority and Estrangement for an epistemology class, the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant, and for fun Survivor by Chuck Palahniuk.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

I had to read this for a social history class a couple years ago. I had no inclination to read the book and waited until the last weekend before the test to pick it up. I ended up reading it from cover-to-cover in one sitting. Could have been one of the most inspiring days I have spent reading.

Yeah, it's surprising what ends up being inspiring. I expected Moody's book to be good based on some claims of friends, but, for example, I wasn't excited about reading Thomas Mann even though I loved the story.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yeah, it's surprising what ends up being inspiring. I expected Moody's book to be good based on some claims of friends, but, for example, I wasn't excited about reading Thomas Mann even though I loved the story.

Even books that are horrible end up being inspiring. As much time as I wasted reading a few books by Ayn Rand, I learned a lot through rejecting much of the thinking through critical critique.

[Didymos Thomas]

My experience of reading Rand has been very similar to your own. Still wish I'd never wasted the time, though...

[BlueChicken]

Still finishing my studies I often have many books on the go for both class reading and for research papers and seminars. Given how late it is in the year, I will include both fiction and non-fiction to give a sense of how lost my mind truly is:

• This is Not a Pipe by Michel Foucault (second time through, parts still fail to make sense).
• The Vampire Lestat by Anne Rice (as sad as it sounds, this is required reading for me. A true statement about the current educational system.)
• Let Us Now Praise Famous Men by James Agee and Walker Evans (as famous as this book is, and how much I love modernist literature, I cannot stand it).
• The Wasteland by T.S. Eliot (reading this in comparison to a Canadian poet leads to so many re-reads).
• Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre (for how much I disagree with his system I can't believe I am reading this again... bad Kierkegaardian, bad!).
• Phenomenology of the Spirit by G.W.F. Hegel (it is becoming more readable. The trick is to pick one or two things and focus on them throughout the text. Relational dialectics, seperate from Kojeve, is my focus this time!)

Those are the major ones. I always have secondary researching and readings that are endlessly on hold or are taking forever, but neither is worth mentioning unless you really want to know what I am doing at any given moment. I just wonder if it is sad that all of the above books are for philosophy(-ish) topics?

Also, no one seems to mind a chicken reading Hegel, but the Anne Rice brings everyone's glare.