# Give me 3 titles



## jiggajagga (Aug 28, 2006)

If I was to ask philosophers on this forum to give me a list of the 3 most thought provoking books they have ever read what would they be?

I await your lists with anticipation and trepidation.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Aug 28, 2006)

Without doubt, Machiavelli's "The Prince"

superb book.

Plato's "Republic"

and John Stuart Mill's one, I forget what it's called. Liberty?

there ya go.


----------



## Pete the Greek (Aug 28, 2006)

Also, literature on Immanuel Kant and his discussion of his theory of 'the Critical Imperative'. Kant and Machiavelli were my faves in me study days.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 28, 2006)

Heller, Huxley, Orwell
Catch-22, Doors of Perception, 1984

Not very sophisticated, I know, but when I read them in my teens they had a big effect.


----------



## laptop (Aug 28, 2006)

Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_

Hobbes's _Leviathan_

err...

Tor Norretranders' _The User Illusion_ (he's a journalist, but it covers and summarises a lot of interesting ground in the impending collision between philosophy and neuroscience).


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 28, 2006)

Wow! I'm impressed!
Do all philosophers stay up so late pondering the universe? 
Cheers!


----------



## laptop (Aug 28, 2006)

jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Do all philosophers stay up so late pondering the universe?



It's in the job description. That's what philosophy _is_


----------



## jiggajagga (Aug 28, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> It's in the job description. That's what philosophy _is_


----------



## cutandsplice (Aug 29, 2006)

Those works (rather than single books) that have had the greatest impact on me are as follows:
Hegel's Science of Logic
Marx's Capital (including Grundrisse and Theories of Surplus Value)
Wittgensten - Philosophical Investigations.


----------



## Cerberus (Aug 29, 2006)

Machiavelli - The Prince
Max Weber - The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
George Orwell - 1984

Shame its just three I culd go on........


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2006)

Peter Singer - Animal Rights (not because I agree with his hypothesis, but because I believe it's a good primer on utilitarianism).

Isaiah Berlin - Six Enemies of Liberty (because it forces you to think)

Religion and Science - Bertrand Russell (because it is still valid half a century after it was written)


----------



## xenon (Aug 30, 2006)

This thread should be made a sticky.


----------



## knopf (Aug 30, 2006)

Michel Foucault - _Discipline & punish_ (not my fave, but it had the biggest impact on my thinking)
Emmanuel Levinas - _Totality & infinity_ (argues that ethics, rather than epistemology or ontology, is "first philosophy")
Wittgenstein - _Philosophical investigations_ (another vote for this one. Written in everyday language, but incredibly sophisticated & original. Few philosophy books -- or any other books -- have excited me as much as this one. Apart from porn, obviously).


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (Aug 30, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Peter Singer - Animal Rights (not because I agree with his hypothesis, but because I believe it's a good primer on utilitarianism).
> 
> Isaiah Berlin - Six Enemies of Liberty (because it forces you to think)
> 
> Religion and Science - Bertrand Russell (because it is still valid half a century after it was written)


Yeah I agree. 

Read stuff by Berlin, the most though-provoking, intelligent and readable philosopher I have ever read.

His essay on freedom - called Two Concepts of Liberty - is a work of genius.

A lot of philosophy I have tried to read can easily bore you and bog you down in concepts that mean little to those who haven't studied philosohpy.

Berlin tends to concentrate on the history of ideas, in other words how the ideas set down in books by thinkers like Hegel, Marx, Joseph de Maistre and the Enlightenment thinkers eventually found practical application.

His later works focus on political and moral philosophy and the concept of scientific history plus examinations of individual thinkers and writers.

Talking about Peter Singer, he edited a collection of essays, quotations and short passages on ethics, called just Ethics I think, which is worth a read.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 30, 2006)

Carl Sagan - Cosmos
Nobody like Carl for putting the human (individual and race) into context amongst the universe. Some bits make me cry - "One voice in the cosmic fugue" especially.

Karen Armstrong - A History of God
The history of the monotheistic faiths - from historical, psycological, spiritual, cultural and political viewpoints. Utterly comprehensive and insightful.

And I think 1984 - but only after I 'got it' and realised it was the third act that was the important bit.

Ok, so maybe not s'specialist' philosophy books, but if you only read those, you'd end up working in a vacuum so powerful it would suck your head up your arse in no time at all


----------



## Gavin Bl (Aug 30, 2006)

I found the 'Guns Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond, very thought provoking - he argues a sort of geographical determinism to explain the relative rise of different civilisations.


----------



## In Bloom (Aug 30, 2006)

Not very sophisticated stuff on my part, but:
Another vote for _Nineteen Eighty-Four_, absolute classic.
_Six Characters in Search of an Author_ by Luigi Pirandello, some thought provoking stuff on the nature of existence and actually quite funny in its own way.
_Millitancy: The Highest Stage of Alienation_ by the Young Communist League (a French group from the late 60s, not the nutters you're probably thinking of), an excellent text on how leftism replicates capitalist social relations within its own forms of action.




			
				jiggajagga said:
			
		

> Do all philosophers stay up so late pondering the universe?


Well it's not like they have to be up for work in the morning


----------



## BigTom (Aug 30, 2006)

another vote for Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations 

Robert Tressell - The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists

Kant - Foundation on the Metaphysics of Morals


----------



## merlin wood (Aug 31, 2006)

8ball said:
			
		

> Heller, Huxley, Orwell
> Catch-22, Doors of Perception, 1984
> 
> Not very sophisticated, I know, but when I read them in my teens they had a big effect.



All excellent stuff plus Albert Camus' _The Rebel_


----------



## cutandsplice (Sep 1, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> _Millitancy: The Highest Stage of Alienation_ by the Young Communist League (a French group from the late 60s, not the nutters you're probably thinking of), an excellent text on how leftism replicates capitalist social relations within its own forms of action.



This sounds interesting. Can't find anything about it online. Any idea if it's available anywhere?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 1, 2006)

The Death of Ivan Ilych - Leon Tolstoy. A superb look at a death and the consequences of an unlived life.

Fear of Freedom - Erich Fromm. 'If humanity cannot live with the dangers and responsibilities inherent in freedom, it will probably turn to authoritarianism.' Simple premise, amazing book.

Brave New World Revisited - Aldux Huxley. Huxley takes some of the philosophies in BNW and puts them into the real world. Written in 1958 it's still incredibly lucid, perhaps testament not only to his observations but also to how much further we have travelled down the path he warns about. Not necessary to have read BNW in advance although you'll appreciate this more if you have. I'd highly recommend it if you like '1984' too.


----------



## bluestreak (Sep 1, 2006)

oh my, all mine have already been said, what can i add...


i'll come back


----------



## jbob (Sep 3, 2006)

Agree with the Foucault, Marx and Machiavelli choices, would add:

Nietzsche - The Geneology of Morals; Beyond Good and Evil

Montaigne - The Essays


----------



## Larry O'Hara (Sep 3, 2006)

First two predictable, third not

Marx: Grundrisse

Heidegger: Being & Time

Paul Tillich: The Socialist Decision--a suppressed classic that I love!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 3, 2006)

Not three books but four people

Seneca

http://www.egs.edu/resources/seneca.html

Dr Johnson

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Johnson/Guide/

and Darwin, particularly his works on earthworms.


OK and Edward Lear too.

These are the people who have influenced me most.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 3, 2006)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> This sounds interesting. Can't find anything about it online. Any idea if it's available anywhere?


Millitancy: Highest Stage of Alienation


----------



## samk (Sep 4, 2006)

Wouldn't the first book you read influence you the most, so surely the _real_ answer, not the pretentious one would be The cat sat on the mat


----------



## laptop (Sep 4, 2006)

samk said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the first book you read influence you the most, so surely the _real_ answer, not the pretentious one would be _The cat sat on the mat_



Only if all the books you read after that had the same amount of content*.












Wait...



* Or possibly you could allow *slightly* more content for subsequent books, them not having the impact of being the first. Tenth book = Teletubbies annual feels about right, and essentially all the same from there on out.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 4, 2006)

God and the State: Bakunin
The Quest for Consciousness: Christoff Koch
Manufacturing Consent: Chomsky and Herman

A bit esoteric but all were eye-openers for me.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 4, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Millitancy: Highest Stage of Alienation


That's gotta be one of the silliest rants I've ever read.



> These organisations will know how to do without a leadership and a bureaucratic apparatus. A product of the solidarity of combative workers, they will be free associations of autonomous individuals. They will demonstrate through their ideas, and especially by their behaviour in struggle, that they will never venture to pursue their own interests, as distinct from those of the whole of the proletariat.



Infinite faith in a pure and perfect future order while absolutely anything that tries to do something in the present is THE ULTIMATE ENEMY.  And what's this about never venturing "to pursue their own interests"?  Sounds like militancy to me and sacrifice and all that terrible stuff.

Ultra-leftism.  Your role is to produce self-affirming rhetorical rants justifying the fact that your politics are limited to doing nothing that might inconvenience your social life and denouncing anybody who tries to do anything to affect the here and now - we can wait until heaven / the revolution for that and it'll all be magically taken care of.


----------



## cutandsplice (Sep 4, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Millitancy: Highest Stage of Alienation



Cheers.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 4, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Infinite faith in a pure and perfect future order while absolutely anything that tries to do something in the present is THE ULTIMATE ENEMY.


They're talking about a form of struggle, not a hypothetical utopian future.



> And what's this about never venturing "to pursue their own interests"?  Sounds like militancy to me and sacrifice and all that terrible stuff.


You've taken that a bit out of context.


> They will demonstrate through their ideas, and especially by their behaviour in struggle, that they will never venture to pursue their own interests, *as distinct from those of the whole of the proletariat*.


It's basically a critique of a the tendancy within leftism for leftists to see themselves as distinct from the proletariat, and thus claiming to persue the interests of the proletariat, but not their own interests.  It's an attack on the failure to recognise the role of subjectivity and desire in class interest.



> Ultra-leftism.  Your role is to produce self-affirming rhetorical rants justifying the fact that your politics are limited to doing nothing that might inconvenience your social life and denouncing anybody who tries to do anything to affect the here and now - we can wait until heaven / the revolution for that and it'll all be magically taken care of.


Erm, I'm fairly sure the OJTR were involved in the '68 uprising, so "doing nothing" is not exactly something you can accuse them of.

In any case, it's not perfect, but it raises some interesting points about how leftists see themselves and how it relates to their own actions.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Sep 4, 2006)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Without doubt, Machiavelli's "The Prince"
> 
> superb book.
> 
> ...



Pretty much agree except I'd go with "Utilitarianism" and I'd have Hobbes as a sub.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Sep 4, 2006)

Pete the Greek said:
			
		

> Also, literature on Immanuel Kant and his discussion of his theory of 'the Critical Imperative'. Kant and Machiavelli were my faves in me study days.




I like this too.


----------



## gurrier (Sep 5, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> They're talking about a form of struggle, not a hypothetical utopian future.


No they're not, unless there is a form of struggle that involved doing nothing (except dishing out rhetoric which doesn't really count).  

The whole point of the piece of piss is that militancy is the problem.  Now, they don't present any alternative form of struggle to 'militancy' except for the leftist-millenarian stuff at the end.  

Or perhaps I'm missing something.  What exactly (I'm not looking for rhetoric here) are they proposing one should do to struggle in opposition to militancy?  




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> It's basically a critique of a the tendancy within leftism for leftists to see themselves as distinct from the proletariat, and thus claiming to persue the interests of the proletariat, but not their own interests.  It's an attack on the failure to recognise the role of subjectivity and desire in class interest.


I can see that.  I can also see that it's an unbelievably crap critique.  The author imagines some mystical proletariat which is entirely distinct from all militants and thereby falls into his own trap - only a thousand times worse.  




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> Erm, I'm fairly sure the OJTR were involved in the '68 uprising, so "doing nothing" is not exactly something you can accuse them of.


There has never been a better stage for ultra left wankpots than Paris '68.  I'm willing to bet my left bollock that their activity consisted of showing up to lecture theatres in the Sorbonne or Jusieu to denounce militants in rhetorical tours de force.  




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> In any case, it's not perfect, but it raises some interesting points about how leftists see themselves and how it relates to their own actions.


Personally I'd say that leftists see themselves in all sorts of different ways and some of those ways are downright flawed (although not as flawed as rightists).  For example some leftists see themselves as brave visionaries breaking through the chains of leftist group thought while in reality they are self-glorifying egotistical morons in love with their own heroic self image.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 6, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> God and the State: Bakunin
> The Quest for Consciousness: Christoff Koch
> Manufacturing Consent: Chomsky and Herman
> 
> A bit esoteric but all were eye-openers for me.



Koch maybe, but Bakunin and Chomsky/Herman "esoteric"? Not the word I'd have used.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 6, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> No they're not, unless there is a form of struggle that involved doing nothing (except dishing out rhetoric which doesn't really count).
> 
> The whole point of the piece of piss is that militancy is the problem.  Now, they don't present any alternative form of struggle to 'militancy' except for the leftist-millenarian stuff at the end.


This is true, but I think that it's an important text because it makes criticisms that need to be made, even if they fail to provide an alternative.

Since when does a text need to provide a critique of every dangerous or damaging trend and the absolute answer to everything in the world to be useful?  The criticisms made by the OJTR provide a warning against _some_ of the dangers of millitancy as described in the pamphlet, surely that has some value?



> I can see that.  I can also see that it's an unbelievably crap critique.  The author imagines some mystical proletariat which is entirely distinct from all militants and thereby falls into his own trap - only a thousand times worse.


This is a trap a lot of people fall into, but I don't think that's exactly what the author is doing, he comes dangerously close to this in his argument, but does appear to be arguing that leftists are proletarians acting against their own interests due to their alienation from the proletariat.  It's a fine line, but I think the text falls on the right side of it, just about.

And it's not like the OJTR let themselves completely off the hook, either.



> There has never been a better stage for ultra left wankpots than Paris '68.  I'm willing to bet my left bollock that their activity consisted of showing up to lecture theatres in the Sorbonne or Jusieu to denounce militants in rhetorical tours de force.


So you don't actually have any reason for thinking this?  It winds me up when people do this.

Some guy - "That's ultra-leftism, everybody knows they do nothing anyway!"
Me - "They were involved in X"
Some guy - "Yeah, but I bet they just piggy-backed off it"
Me - "How do you know that?"
Some guy - "Because they're ultra-leftists"

I mean, for fucks sake, talk about your circular arguments.  There are criticisms to be made of ultra-leftism, but that particular one is stupid, to be quite frank.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 6, 2006)

that article said:
			
		

> Discrediting and ridiculing militants, this is the task that falls to revolutionaries today



LOL - how constructive!


----------



## gurrier (Sep 7, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> LOL - how constructive!


Yep and that's the only thing that he says about today (as opposed to the never never land when the entire proletariat will just know how to run a perfect society without leaders - they'll have to do it all at once though, or else the first ones will be militants).  

Incidentally, In Bloom, that's how I know that they did nothing useful in Paris '68.  Somebody who thinks that ridiculing militants is the main task of revolutionaries today isn't exactly likely to do much.


----------



## 118118 (Sep 7, 2006)

Nothing wrong with thinking that certain people set back revolt. Nothing wrong with thinking that these people could have good intensions (i.e. think of themselves as leftists). 

Maybe it presumes a w/c history, but not that leftists are destinct from w/c - why would it? 

Though it must assume that some of the w/c are wrong - but if you can't accept this then maybe you are equally at risk of mysticism.


----------



## In Bloom (Sep 7, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Yep and that's the only thing that he says about today (as opposed to the never never land when the entire proletariat will just know how to run a perfect society without leaders - they'll have to do it all at once though, or else the first ones will be militants).


The entire pamphlet is about what was wrong with the left at the time that it was published.

Did you even read the bloody thing?



> Incidentally, In Bloom, that's how I know that they did nothing useful in Paris '68.  Somebody who thinks that ridiculing militants is the main task of revolutionaries today isn't exactly likely to do much.


How does that follow?


----------



## meurig (Sep 7, 2006)

Hmm just 3's hard.

The 3 that changed my life?

Heart of Darkness - Conrad (I wish it bloody hadn't but there you are)
On Liberty - JS Mill (not because it's particularly good philosophy, but because it led to me being interested in, and finally studying, philosophy)
Anna Karenina - Tolstoy (because it wiped out the last vestiges of the influence of Conrad's influence on me)

If I'm allowed a fourth I'd say
The First Man - Camus (Which started the reversal of Conrad's influence)

Strangely only one academic philosophical work - my old ethics tutor would approve.


----------



## Kameron (Sep 7, 2006)

Holy fuck; one hardcore reading list is going on here.

I think therefore I am:
Discourse on Method and Related Writings - Rene Descartes
(upper most in my mind following the discussion of whether there exists a single concrete reality, does it mater if we can only measure our perceptions and why don't we like it if there isn't one)

But there is another book. One that changed the way I think.
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter
(published in the year of my birth this book teases apart the nature of self-reference and how to go about building a machine translation for that idea, the machine that can say "I did this" rather than "I was programmed to do this": A book like no other I've ever read)


----------



## ska invita (Sep 11, 2006)

My selection is only two books, and both easy but mindblowing reads:

1st: The PROPHET, by Kahlil Gibran 





-its a small book, verging on poetry, and is full to the brim with wisdom on the human condition.
And whats more you can read it online - here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibtable.html

Take 15mins and do it! - Cant recommend it enough.

2nd: Ken Wilber's A Brief History of Everything-





Ken ties together all his thinking and presents it to the layman - fusing evolution, physics, psychology and the human potential movement into a coherent and convincing whole. All the answers to life, the universe and everything might well be here - to some extent he presents a kind of New Age Intelligent Design Theory, but that is to underestimate the ideas presented here.
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Everything-Ken-Wilber/dp/1570627401


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2006)

Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches
Be Here Now
This Is It


----------



## 118118 (Sep 11, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> This Is It


I inherited that off of an older brother when I was about 14  Is OK.


----------



## glaucon (Sep 13, 2006)

Hegel - "Phenomenology of Spirit".
Sartre - "Being and Nothingness"
Proust - "In Search of Lost Time"

The last is obviously not a philosophy textbook but it does express philosophical ideas and is unlike anything else I have ever read.

If you ask me this question again in a couple of years time I expect my answers will all be different (probably not the Proust though).


----------



## Hawkeye Pearce (Sep 13, 2006)

Marx - Communist Manifesto.  The best introduction to his work.

Nieztche - Thus Spoke Zarathustra.  Difficult but challenged all the received wisdom i had in my head even if i didn't agree with a lot of it.

George Woodcock - Anarchism.  Got me out of trotism, though he is a bit of a middle class tolstoyist i reckon, still worth reading for an introduction.


----------



## rhys gethin (Sep 18, 2006)

My English teacher told me philosophy was a study for old men, and I'm still waiting.   Meanwhile, Johnson's 'Rasselas', Koestler's 'Darkness at Noon' and Ursula le Guin's 'The Left Hand of Darkness' will do to show my mental limitations.

Like 'The Death of Ivan Ilych' too, but three's three!


----------



## Dr_Gonzo (Sep 25, 2006)

Just because nobody has mentioned it:
Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M Pirsig.


----------



## Falcon (Sep 28, 2006)

*Das Glasperlenspiel*, _Hermann Hesse (1943)_
Do the intellectually gifted have the right to withdraw from life's big problems?

*Powerdown*, _Heinberg (2004)_
About the biggest life problem we are all ever likely to experience.

*Guide to Life*, _Rowe (1996)_
A sensible framework for coping mentally with life's big problems.


----------



## ICB (Oct 20, 2006)

Lots of excellent suggestions already and I could be here for a long time but I'll go for three classics you can download for free

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics
Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature
Nietzsche's Ecce Homo

The latter features such superb chapter titles as   

Why I Am So Wise 
Why I Am So Clever 
Why I Write Such Good Books 
and
Why I am Destiny


----------



## thought (Oct 23, 2006)

Ragged Trousered Philanthropist
Edgar Hover - anthony summers
Story of the Malakand Field Force - Churchill


----------



## EddyBlack (Nov 22, 2006)

Good thread. I'll have a look at some of these...

I think *1984 *and *Animal Farm* are essential in understanding politics, propaganda etc.

Bits of the *Bible* are good, spiritually, philosophically. You'd probably heard of that one. Helps if you believe in god, but I don't think it is essential.

*Shakespeare* - Humour, love, tragedy. He really understands people, and life. Only read a couple but i'm reading some at the moment.


----------



## max_freakout (Jan 9, 2007)

Stanislav Grof - Explorations of the frontiers of human consciousness

Colin Wilson - The outsider

Terence Mckenna - (All his books)

Joseph Campbell - The Hero with a thousand faces

Robert Nozick - Anarchy, state and utopia

Carl Jung - Modern Man in search of a soul

Nietzche - thus spoke zarathustra/twilight of the idols/The Antichrist

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World


----------



## Final (Jan 9, 2007)

The Art of War - Sun Tzu
The Prince - Machiavelli
Way of the peaceful warrior - Dan Millman


----------



## Nickster (Jan 10, 2007)

Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species

Bertrand Russell - A History of Western Philosophy

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion


----------



## absinthe pirate (Feb 3, 2007)

Ah my first post is on a philosophy thread, how incredibly fitting 

Well there have been some fantastic suggestions... its a bit hard to select 3 texts considering we are talking about philosophy as a whole here, but i do love how topical Nickster's suggestions are, very relevant to a certain argument within the world of religious philosophy.

I guess mine would be George Orwell 1984 and Animal Farm, as i'm a big fan, and Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, as they are interesting little reads both on the surface and with alot of philosophy chucked in for good measure. The content, especially of Sophie's world, is a little simplistic, but its a damn good place to start.


Philosopher's you just cannot bypass in my eyes are Hume, especially Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding for the problem of induction. Kant Re Morals and Aesthetics, and Rousseau for The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality/social contract stuff....


----------



## soluble duck (Mar 19, 2007)

as far as important philosophical works, there is probably none more important than Critique of Pure Reason by Kant.

also, Being and Time by Heidegger is pretty amazing

...and to carry on the phenomenology, The Phenomenology of Perception by Maurice Merleu-Ponty


----------



## 118118 (Mar 19, 2007)

haha. way to go soluble duck.

I recommend Visible and Invisible by Merleau-Ponty - just to show how easy philosophical problems seem when you exocrise the myth of scientism.

Basic Writing by Heidegger - accessible, and just as much fun as Buddhism.

And probs Phenomenology of Spirit. Tho I haven't _actually_ read it, I will recommend it when I have (unless its a massive disappointment, which seems unlikely).


----------



## soluble duck (Mar 19, 2007)

thanks for the recommendation, Phenomenology of Perception is a very long book, and is very 'science-y' in parts, so it would be good to read some of hi work that wont take about 6 months to get through.

oh and Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions by Jean-Paul Sartre is a very good read, and actually pretty believable.


----------



## 118118 (Mar 20, 2007)

cheers soluble duck... i do honestly like M-P, I think he had eaxctly the right approach to many many problems. So I am a little biased tbh (I don't want to disappoint you). I know exactly what you mean about the sciency bits in Phenomenology of Perception.
I read some by Bernard Williams the other day, about Sartre being a crook: believable but, well its a con. It sits well with me. Be wary before you see yourself to him


----------



## mozzy (Mar 20, 2007)

Spinoza's Ethics, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Huxley's Doors of Perception,
Gurdjieff's Teachings, Kierkergaard's The Sickness unto Death, Plato's Symposium and Repubilc, Foucault's Maddness and Civilisation, and Derrida's Difference.


----------



## 118118 (Apr 8, 2007)

derail:
soz, soluble duck: 'you read visible and invisible yet?


----------



## 118118 (Apr 27, 2007)

^^ its honestly good. almost all if it is criticism of other philosophies, and then there's erm 10-20 pages on 'the flesh' - which i can't work out how original it is, but makes sense. it strikes mejust as 2 fingers toi scientism really, whichin this day and age, matters.


----------



## gorski (May 1, 2007)

> If you wanna live dangerously, study philosophy!


 

God forbid you actually want to put it to action!!!


----------



## selamlar (May 1, 2007)

> Hegel - "Phenomenology of Spirit".
> Sartre - "Being and Nothingness"
> Proust - "In Search of Lost Time"




Hegel - yes, definate yes.
Sartre - yes, although I prefered the 'critique of Dialectical Reason'

Proust - Good god no.  Innane ramblings on the joys of madeleine from a man who refused to leave his cork lined bedroom for the last 4 years of his life. 'Involuntary memories' my arse.

What about something along the lines of 'The Second Sex'? Put the cat amongst the pigeons, that one did.


----------



## maya (May 1, 2007)

*3x3*




			
				laptop said:
			
		

> Tor Norretranders' _The User Illusion_ (he's a journalist, but it covers and summarises a lot of interesting ground in the impending collision between philosophy and neuroscience).


- Another vote for Norretranders here!  

Also Heidegger: '_Being And Time_',
Merleau-Ponty: '_Phenomenology Of Perception_',
Simone de Beauvoir: '_The Second Sex_',

Hannah Arendt: '_The Origins of Totalitarianism_' and '_Eichmann In Jerusalem_' (on the banality of evil),
Marcel Mauss: '_The Gift_' (social anthropology),

Carlo Ginzburg: '_Ecstacies: Dechiphering The Witches' Sabbath_' (history- a look at medieval society's attempts to explain "otherness) and '_The Cheese and The Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller_' (also by Ginzburg)

...lots more, but I haven't got all day!  (err, EDIT: oops, it should only be 3?! um... )


----------



## ska invita (May 25, 2007)

max_freakout said:
			
		

> Stanislav Grof - Explorations of the frontiers of human consciousness


nice one max - Grof should be more well known than he is


----------



## 118118 (May 25, 2007)

> he's a journalist, but it covers and summarises a lot of interesting ground in the impending collision between philosophy and neuroscience


start a thread - i say. i get could get in a right barney with scientists who think they are better philosophers than the entire philosophy communityn


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 4, 2007)

Love, Guilt and Reparation - Melanie Klein
Second Thoughts - Wilfred Bion
The Unconscious as Infinite Sets - Matte Blanco


----------



## nosos (Jun 4, 2007)

maya said:
			
		

> Hannah Arendt: '_The Origins of Totalitarianism_'


I loved that so much while reading it and got more and more pissed off with it after reading it. She says what we says beautifully (chillingly) but what she says is, analytically, bollocks.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 4, 2007)

_Either/Or_ and _Fear and Trembling_ By Søren Kierkegaard. 

_Spritual Verses_ By Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī
_Conference of the Birds_ By Farid ud-Din Attar

Everything written by Tolstoy

_Society of the Spectacle_ By Guy Debord
_The Revolution of Everyday Life_ By Raoul Vanigem

_The Penal Colony_ By Franz Kafka (that particular story first and foremost).

I have generally developed a distaste for 'Analytic' Philosophy. It has scientific merits, but it is incredibly incredibly dull, and I feel does not tell me anything about my life.

Which naturally led me to existentialism.

I like Søren Kierkegaard most of all because of this, and he seems to tie up a lot of things for me, as he has a religious element worked in there. Whilst I am not a particularly religious person, the mystical is important to me.

Which is why I admire the Sufi texts I mention, and (partly) the reason for admiring Tolstoy so much as well.

Even reading Wittgensteins Tractatus, A seminal piece of empirical and analytic philosophy, concludes with elements of mysticism.


----------



## gorski (Jun 4, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> She says what we says beautifully (chillingly) but what she says is, analytically, bollocks.



How so? And who's "we", please?

I'm with Dillinger, on the whole re. the analytical emptiness - but there are other paths to be "lead to naturally" by this dissatisfaction, I think...


----------



## nosos (Jun 4, 2007)

gorski said:
			
		

> How so?


Her argument isn't particularly good. She speaks in vague generalities that are neither philosophical nor sociological. The best defense I've heard of her was from the guy leading my seminar at the time (big Ardent fan) who said her conflation of communism and fascism as a single category of totalitarianism is an ideal type analysis yet such a strategy is only useful if it brings out interesting/meaningful/obscure features and relations that previously were shielded by the apparant difference. Yet reducing fascism and communism into totalitarianism doesn't. It actually obscures a whole host of important factors in understanding the historical and philosophical genesis of each. I love her writing on the subject on an aesthetic level but on analytical level I thought it was genuinely quite shit.


----------



## gorski (Jun 4, 2007)

Equalising them certainly doesn't help much, as they certainly aren't the same, by any means, agreed. 

On the other hand, her main argument is that methodically speaking, the kind of methods used in establishing a society have the deepest possible consequences for the [development of the] society established...

That much, I hope, we can also agree on?


----------



## nosos (Jun 4, 2007)

gorski said:
			
		

> On the other hand, her main argument is that methodically speaking, the kind of methods used in establishing a society have the deepest possible consequences for the [development of the] society established...


Well that's true but it's not exactly a particularly profound or revelatory claim that building a society on terror will lead to a society dominated by terror. Perhaps I'm overly harsh. It's just that I found it a genuinely thrilling read and when I actually started to discuss and analyse it failed to live up to my aesthetic enjoyment of it. I’ve had the Human Condition on my shelf for ages and read bits. This seems a very interesting book. From what I understand of her work she advocates a sort of quasi-Heideggerian communitarianism which sounds really interesting. Though I also thought she had a reactionary-romantic streak in her which, when voiced, really pissed off the people I know who are very into her.


----------



## gorski (Jun 4, 2007)

Hmmm... Best put into context, methinx...

Two World Wars, immense millions of people killed, butchered, tortured, brutalised, everything and everybody objectified, totalitarian societies and after the WW II authoritarian tendencies even in democracies all around us, some fuelled by the Cold War tensions and so on and forth...

I think we can't over-emphasise the simplest of lessons we can ever learn from our [recent] history, no... even though Hegel would disagree, in a kinda Heraclites manner...

You see, to my mind, we have to keep exercising this part of ourselves every day of our lives... Relentlessly and mercilessly!

As for the Heideggerian anything when it comes to a society – I cringe...


----------



## nosos (Jun 4, 2007)

Yeah I see your point about context but the Open Society and its Enemies (which I read a couple of months before reading the Ardent) was very much a product of his time, if not more so than the Ardent, yet it was a heavy-weight piece of work. Both are attempts to deal with the horrors the world has just witnessed yet one, in my view, does it well and the other does it rather badly. One is a strong and proud assertion of liberalism against the totalitarianism that was a living reality at the time, whereas the other is just a set of well written platitudes about terror and power which sounds great when you first read them and become less and less captivating the more you think them through.


----------



## gorski (Jun 4, 2007)

There I have to decline the kind offer... 

Popper certainly isn't a heavy-weight, to my mind, but a mediocre turncoat with no balls to pull the proper consequences... and his "Open society..." certainly badly misinterpreted a helluva lot of [essential!] stuff that matters to Humans... 

Or is this a wrong forum with Advocatus Diaboli not being honoured here?


----------



## nosos (Jun 4, 2007)

gorski said:
			
		

> Popper certainly isn't a heavy-weight, to my mind, but a mediocre turncoat with no balls to pull the proper consequences... and his "Open society..." certainly badly misinterpreted a helluva lot of [essential!] stuff that matters to Humans


How so*? Perhaps an argument to be had in a few weeks time. I'm planning on rereading it when I get back from Glastonbury because I want to work out how Popper's liberalism fits into the wider development of Liberal thought in the past half century.

*Far be it from me to ever accuse _anyone_, particularly students of continental philosophy, of engaging in Popper-bashing because it's fashionable. Perish the thought!


----------



## gorski (Jun 4, 2007)

Bashing the simple-minded Popper's simplifications and the rest of his turncoat nonsense is fun! 

See you then...


----------



## gorski (Jun 5, 2007)

- well, how can anyone not luuuurrrrveeee this...


----------



## maya (Jun 7, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> I loved that so much while reading it and got more and more pissed off with it after reading it. She says what we says beautifully (chillingly) but what she says is, analytically, bollocks.


I think you're right, and that criticism IMO applies to everything she's written...
I have much of the same problem with people like Kristeva, for instance. That kind of gushing lyrical without sufficient coherence or analysis (and Kristeva, in addition to that, is completely unscientific). *



			
				Dillinger4 said:
			
		

> Everything written by Tolstoy


I used to love Tolstoy, then read a history of anarchism which quoted him saying something along the lines of, "the proper place for a woman is in the home, at work in the kitchen and giving birth to babies"...  (so much for his egalitarianism, i guess...  )

(BTW, the list earlier was just my private reading list for the past two months, no sympathies or ideological affinities intended)

(* it's uncanny, though, to see that this criticism probably applies to my own academic output aswell! ...LOL!)


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2007)

maya said:
			
		

> I used to love Tolstoy, then read a history of anarchism which quoted him saying something along the lines of, "the proper place for a woman is in the home, at work in the kitchen and giving birth to babies"...  (so much for his egalitarianism, i guess...  )



I agree, having just started to read The Death of Ivan Ilych and other stories, It seems that Tolstoy is not what he seems at first glance.

The stories in Ivan Ilych seem horribly misogynistic, and from the translation notes, this seems to be a reflection of Tolstoy's disillusionment in later life. I always considered War & Peace/Anna Karenina to reflect well on women (at least for the era). Maybe I was wrong.

I don't know what to think now


----------



## gorski (Jun 7, 2007)

Both him and Dostoyevski were the children of their time and space...


----------



## maya (Jun 7, 2007)

Which brings us back to religion and (in)tolerance again... But that discussion warrants a thread of its own, n'est-ce pas?*  

*tries poncey "french theory" pose


----------



## gorski (Jun 7, 2007)

Imagine Lenin saying "She's the only hen that flew as high as an eagle!" about one Rosa Luxemburg...  []


----------



## gorski (Jun 7, 2007)

Nevertheless, the universality of their "insights into human condition" shouldn't be gender or otherwise reduced, non?


----------



## maya (Jun 7, 2007)

*quite*

Oh noes! The intellectual limitations of my gender prevents me from understanding this thread!  
Quiet, I feel a PMS attack is on the way... 
_< punches Tolstoy on the nose >_*

*_< digs up Tolstoy's corpse and punch it on the nose >_


----------



## maya (Jun 7, 2007)

(Sorry for the derail + [my own] stupidity, let's get this thread back on track!)


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 7, 2007)

This is my favourite corner of urban


----------



## Jonti (Jun 7, 2007)

not just to annoy the continental philosophers ... 


relativity by albert einstein
tractatus logico-philosophicus by wittgenstein
godels proof by nagel and newman

the first because of how the methodology makes the science; the second for being clear that one way or another, we interpret the world in a language; and the third, for demonstrating that even mathematics has its limits.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 8, 2007)

Hegel: 'The Phenomenology of Spırıt'
Marx: 'Capıtal'
Lukacs: 'Hıstory and Class-conscıousness'

In that order.  In fact, they have to be read ın that order to be understood.


----------



## gorski (Jun 8, 2007)

Add to it:

"*Subjekt - Objekt*" [here's a bit on the author: http://www.bookrags.com/biography/ernst-bloch/ and http://arts.monash.edu.au/eras/edition_5/brownarticle.htm - for instance: 





> ...the functional significance Bloch accords the imagination. For Bloch our human condition is one of 'not-yet' (noch nicht), a category that in Bloch's philosophy is a signifier,[13] referring to the fundamental directionality of the world and its unfinished character. Bloch's emphasis is on reality as "process and open".



and "*Naturrecht und menschliche Wurde*" [*Natural Right and Human Dignity*], both by *Ernst Bloch*!!!

[Here is a bit on Kant: http://74.6.146.244/search/cache?p=...ity+ernst+bloch&d=RMINMOrnOvqY&icp=1&.intl=uk

Chapter 12. Kant’s and Fichte’s Natural Law without Nature: The A Priori Law of Reason

66. Kant in many ways attenuated the advances made by earlier natural law theorists—the denial of the right of resistance, for example. (“The idea of the social contract—namely that every legislator has to make his laws as if they could have arisen from the universal will of the people—applied only to ‘the judgment of the legislator, not the subject’”)

67. There is no empirical referent for Kant’s conception of man and self-determination. Only as thought/idea/concept could they be the basis for the deduction of natural law. All previous natural law doctrine, whilst rationalistic in method, were based on empirical conception of the free individual. Not so for Kant: “he calls for a deduction of the principle of deduction itself, that is, the founding of the determining ground of natural law in an a priori principle. But this principle is not individual freedom (with empirical happiness as the goal); rather it is exclusively restricted or general freedom as the principle of any possible human co-existence” 

68. Justice as the restriction of individual freedom. “The primordial right is therefore not so much the freedom of the individual as a creature (caprice) as it is the thought of the most primordial, and at the same time, limited freedom; this a priori law of justice exists primarily as social contract” 

Social contract as a regulative fiction rather than a natural occurrence. 

69. Kant wins the award for methodological purity. Content of his natural law is an attempt to follow the principle of non-contradiction (“according to natural law it would belong to the essence of property not to be without an owner” or essence of a deposit not to be withheld. Hegel quips—but where is the contradiction if there were no deposits?)

Determination of conditions of justice remain formal. This is consistent with great material inequality—because such inequality is material rather than formal/legal. 

Formal, non-empirical concepts cannot have content. 

Kant’s principle of right refers to external actions rather than intentions. “obligations of justice can be externally imposed” whereas virtue and morality must be self-legislated b good will. This results in the complete separation of legality and morality. 

70. In the end, Kant does away with natural law altogether. The Philosophy of Right and original law become “rational law”. Thus, it becomes severed from nature. For Kant, nature is a measure only for aesthetics, not for the philosophy of right. This severance is maintained by all subsequent philosophers of right. “Henceforth, nature, not only in the Hobbesian sense, but also in the Rousseavian sense (the sense of nature that inspired confidence) is cut off from the rational law of the citizen”]

"*Reason and Revolution*" and "One dimensional Man" by *Herbert Marcuse*

[Plenty of excerpts here: http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Marcuse.html]

"*The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity*" by *Jurgen Habermas*
[here is a taster: http://webpages.ursinus.edu/rrichter/habermas.html ]

and

"*Etika ili Revolucija*" and "*Etika*" by *Milan Kangrga*


----------



## gorski (Jun 8, 2007)

OK, a few favs of mine... 

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/Kant.html

http://tinyurl.com/krf9x

http://tinyurl.com/fwtha

====================

http://www.hegel.net/en/sitemap.htm -Hegel's archive

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel

Interesting lectures by Hegel:

http://tinyurl.com/kyn7k - History of Philosophy

http://tinyurl.com/fq9c9 - Relation of Philosophy

====================

Marx is everywhere, so gonna skip that for now...

Here are the links towards the BEST school we have today by far: Frankfurt School - Critical Theory!!! From Horkheimer and Adorno to Marcuse and today Habermas and co. (Alfred Schmidt, Oskar Negt, Albrecht Wellmer, and Karl-Otto Apel):

http://www.jahsonic.com/Frankfurt.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School_critical_theory

http://home.cwru.edu/~ngb2/Pages/Intro.html

http://home.cwru.edu/~ngb2/Authors/Habermas.html

A good intro in English: David Held, "Introduction to Critical Theory"

Interestingly enough not mentioning Wilhelm Reich a great deal and Freud is there, of course... Hmmm.... So, here''s one that does: http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/

Just found this... seems good to begin with...

http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol4.1/01_powell.html - The Challenge of Modernity: Habermas and Critical Theory

====================

Psychostuff... ['ello, Jonti, m8...  skip this one, as per usual...] 

http://users.rcn.com/brill/freudarc.html

http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Freud.html

http://www.freudfile.org/

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/68/frameset.html - registration needed...

Here are the dissidents:

http://www.freudfile.org/dissidents.html 

http://www.freudfile.org/reich.html - Reich in particular!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/index.htm - another most valuable link to an extraordinary opus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vygotsky 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg - one of the best US psychologists, Lawrence Kohlberg



> During a visit to Israel in 1969, Kohlberg journeyed to a kibbutz and was shocked to discover how much more the youths'' moral development had progressed compared to those who were not part of kibbutzim. Jarred by what he saw, he decided to rethink his current research and start by beginning a new school called the Cluster School within Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School. The Cluster School ran as a "just community" where students had a basic and trustworthy relationship with one another, using democracy to make all the school''s decisions. Armed with this model he started similar "just communities" in other schools and even one in a prision.





> Kohberg's stages were broken into 3 different levels, pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. According to his model it is not possible to regress backwards in stages. It is also not possible to "jump" stages; each stage is has new perspective that is "more comprehensive, differentiated and integrated than its predecessors."
> 
> Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
> 1. Obedience and punishment orientation
> ...



Btw, Habermas brings him into the debate, together with many others, like for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhmann and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber - from another "field"...

====================

Some good sources on the net:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm - Philosophy Sources, the library...

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/ - the net encyclopaedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Philosophy 

http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/lost.html - SOSIG


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

gorski said:
			
		

> Ernst Bloch



Aye.  'The Prıncıple of Hope' ıs truly a lıfe-transformıng read.  Bloch ıs very lıttle read ın the West, because people are uncomfortable wıth hıs theologıcal concepts, the fools!


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

gorski,  from the OP





> give me three titles


Oh, and fuck off with your snide remarks, until you learn to read.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> gorski,  from the OPOh, and fuck off with your snide remarks, until you learn to read.



Englısh ısn't hıs fırst language, you rude, patronızıng gıt.  He can read a damn sıght better than you.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

* tired of the troll? then click here to ignore phildwyer*  
this has been a public service announcement​


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> gorski,  from the OPOh, and fuck off with your snide remarks, until you learn to read.



Thıs was a perfectly frıendly thread untıl you turned up.  Can't you leave us ın peace?


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

* tired of phildwyer's thread-wreaking? just click here to ignore the troll*  
this has been a public service announcement​


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Leave us alone, weırdo.  And lose the moustache.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

This message is hidden because phildwyer is on your ignore list.

Recommended.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> This message is hidden because phildwyer is on your ignore list.
> 
> Recommended.



Cyber-pımp.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

Poster reported for harassment, libel, and stalking.

There's nothing cyber about this phil. It's taking place in the real world.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> There's nothing cyber about this phil. It's taking place in the real world.



OK: pımp.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

Post reported!


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Post reported!



Shall we just assume that you report all my posts from now on?  Perhaps that wıll stop your obsessıve, dısruptıve behavıour?  Also, you should really shave off your moustache.  Thank you ın advance.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

* tired of phildwyer's vile hate posts? Just click here to ignore the troll*http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=20967  
this has been a public service announcement​


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> * tired of phildwyer's vile hate posts? Just click here to ignore the troll*http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=20967
> this has been a public service announcement​



Perhaps you should take your own advıce?  But serıously, ıt looks lıke a caterpıllar crawled onto your face.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2007)

Gorski has posted some very interesting things to read, so what if it is more than 3?

And what has phil done wrong on this thread?


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

I think libels are generally thought of as "wrong".


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> I think libels are generally thought of as "wrong".



I thınk you are generally thought of as a prat.  Now, wıll you drop ıt please?  I've asked you several tımes now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2007)

Damn, i came to what looks to be an interesting thread too late and it seems to be headed off elsewhere. Can't understand why though, seems like pointless aggro.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> Damn, i came to what looks to be an interesting thread too late and it seems to be headed off elsewhere. Can't understand why though, seems like pointless aggro.



Could't agree more.  Gıve us your three anyway, I'd be ınterested to hear them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2007)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Could't agree more.  Gıve us your three anyway, I'd be ınterested to hear them.



Think i'd go for Hegel's philosophy of History, Marx's Grundrisse, and Negri's Marx beyond Marx.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> Damn, i came to what looks to be an interesting thread too late and it seems to be headed off elsewhere. Can't understand why though, seems like pointless aggro.


Another poster has commented on the pattern that he sees behind phildwyer's disputions.  Enjoy! and ponder.


----------



## gorski (Jun 9, 2007)

Indeed, I agree, too:

Hegel's Philosophy of History is a marvellous piece of work!! Full of great insights of whom we [potentially] are! The “freedom advancing consciousness” stuff is second to none!

Unfortunately, I also have to agree now re. Jonti...  What a disappointment it turned out to be now...  I feel bad about it, really. As if something potentially good has broken down...  Sad, really sad...  And for what? It reads as one of those immature tech guys thinking that everybody is a “lamer” if they don’t think exactly like them...

Jonti, m8: I had this collection of my favs ready and rather than being so damn formal [the English, you have to admit, frequently are] I just offered some different reading, 'tis all. If you seem a wee bit too touchy I assure you it has very little to do with my nasty or even disrespectful nature. In this context I think it's not a “major damage done to a thread” if I gave some excellent sources on the net, especially since this thread figures as one...


----------



## gorski (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> ...and fuck off with your snide remarks, until you learn to read.



If this is about the links to psychologists: it was a light hearted joke, ffs...  Besides, you are quite partial to hating Freud and dismissing him out of hand, ergo that is easy to dispute anyhow but in this case it was not about it, hence it was not a snide remark, just a light-hearted tease... Honestly... 

I mean, if you go into it you will see not just Freud but also the "dissidents", like Reich, and then much more, like Vygotski, Kohlberg...


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

You have a nasty and disrespectful nature, eh? Heh! Thanks for the heads-up on that one. But .... _you are not alone_  

What I was getting at, is it's no great effort to keep a discussion within the bounds of the OP, roughly. After all, one can always start another discussion if the OP is too  limiting. And no, it's hardly a hanging matter to throw a whole library shelf at folk. Point is, it's not likely to be that effective; readers here in this thread are most likely interested in those, oh! so hard to choose _three most influential works_.

That's not to say discussions can't wander (there's thread I started on the question of consciousness that is now thoughtfully focusing on the nature of information, for just one example). 

Look, I admire your enthusiasm, and your evident voluminous reading. It seems to me though, that you mistake scientific materialists to be somehow your ideological adversaries (some may be, of course; scientists and engineers being typically not hugely politically astute -- just to say that's not so much the case on these boards, y'know). And possibly worse, that you may be taken in by your ideological enemies who do come at things with an idealistic theology. 

I feel your reacting to me as a cypher, but that you haven't really bothered, despite polite offers, to investigate my thinking at all.  That you are just seeking to label and dismiss people whose understanding of materialism and the scientific approach may (just possibly) be largely correct.

But the point is, this thread isn't really for that discussion.  I've offered to be grilled by you elsewhere ... let's go!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2007)

ffs 

 

I was enjoying this thread, I didn't really care if we had three or a hundred interesting titles.

I just care if they were _interesting_.

Threads develop from their OP. 

This what (I thought) theory/philosophy/history is all about.


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

Just before I posted my "three titles" there were calls to get back on-topic.

I would like that as well, it's really interesting to me to have a thread where I can go see the "three titles" of various people who've interested me.


----------



## gorski (Jun 9, 2007)

Jonti said:
			
		

> You have a nasty and disrespectful nature, eh? Heh! Thanks for the heads-up on that one. But .... _you are not alone_
> 
> What I was getting at, is it's no great effort to keep a discussion within the bounds of the OP, roughly. After all, one can always start another discussion if the OP is too  limiting. And no, it's hardly a hanging matter to throw a whole library shelf at folk. Point is, it's not likely to be that effective; readers here in this thread are most likely interested in those, oh! so hard to choose _three most influential works_.



Please, do not tell me what to do in this manner, as I find it materially disrespectful. I will express myself the way I see fit. Effectiveness does not enter into it at all. I am not a proselytiser at all. I put forward my point and people who have the inkling towards the critical theory will hear. Those who have the aversion to reading with understanding, in an open-minded manner are not going to. There is very little anyone can do there. Unless and until they are ready to see it.




			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> That's not to say discussions can't wander (there's thread I started on the question of consciousness that is now thoughtfully focusing on the nature of information, for just one example).



So, why did you play the nasty policeman role there? And after that insinuate I do have a nasty or disrespectful nature? I certainly do not. And especially not towards you. I had no need for it. I stated that openly a number of times. Thanked you. And so on. Only for you to drop the level to the gutter and make it personal where it was not personal from my end at all... Sad... 




			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> Look, I admire your enthusiasm, and your evident voluminous reading. It seems to me though, that you mistake scientific materialists to be somehow your ideological adversaries (some may be, of course; scientists and engineers being typically not hugely politically astute -- just to say that's not so much the case on these boards, y'know). And possibly worse, that you may be taken in by your ideological enemies who do come at things with an idealistic theology.



I admire your helpful nature in your narrower field of expertise. Your good will and patience is something that is rare, especially with the "tech" types, from my experience. Hence even more valuable. I respect that!

In this thread there is a link to Vygotsky and there you will find a very nice part to an article about "crude materialism": http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/comment/lois1.htm - may I respectfully suggest you study this a bit and then think, maybe inform yourself some more... http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/index.htm




			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> I feel your reacting to me as a cypher, but that you haven't really bothered, despite polite offers, to investigate my thinking at all.  That you are just seeking to label and dismiss people whose understanding of materialism and the scientific approach may (just possibly) be largely correct.



I reject this completely. I did see quite clearly your type of thinking. It is nothing new to a philosopher. ‘Know it inside out, seen it many a time in different guises. But the problem is that my type of thinking is ‘an unknown’ to you. Have a look at the above links, to start with, please. The "misunderstanding" starts there. You seem to think that if I don't think like you I'm an enemy and "obscure and obfuscating". It doesn't matter to you that you are entering a field you are not well versed in and that you are using notions which are loaded. And no matter how hard I try to make it a bit easier for you to understand - you keep refusing it steadfastly. 

I didn't refuse your help in IT matters. What do you think stops you from doing the same in matters regarding philosophy and adjoining areas? My arrogance? Maybe the truth lies much closer to home? Too close for comfort? Sorry, but you will have to sort it out with yourself. I have no problem with authority of knowledge [=no chip on my shoulder]. I enter a field of debate with no prejudices, as to who knows how much. And if one demonstrates to me s/he knows a lot I respect that. In this case my many years of studying and a certain level of understanding of the issues were totally disrespected from a really arrogant ground. By people who have not studied it anywhere near to what I have invested in it. Ergo...?!? 




			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> But the point is, this thread isn't really for that discussion.  I've offered to be grilled by you elsewhere ... let's go!



I offer no ‘grilling’ until someone attacks me personally. Then I will reciprocate, as I am no Catholic and do not turn the other cheek. I will say sorry if I misunderstood and made a mistake. But if I am attacked I will retaliate, sure. I think that's fair, especially if I didn't start. In your case I most certainly did not. Quite the opposite is the case. Hence my astonishment at your tone and the content you fired at me personally...


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about. Sorry.


----------



## gorski (Jun 9, 2007)

What, you just dropped from Mars?


----------



## Jonti (Jun 9, 2007)

Further ... much further ...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2007)

*sigh*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 9, 2007)

Dillinger4 said:
			
		

> Gorski has posted some very interesting things to read, so what if it is more than 3?



The original idea of the thread was to suggest *three* titles that you would consider "essential reading".

I suspect that Jonti is reacting to gorski's posting of a veritable bibliography, which doesn't exactly conform to the orignal intent of the thread.

After all, it wouldn't exactly be difficulty for gorski (or anyone else for that matter) to start a thread entitled "suggestions for interesting reading" or the like, would it?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 9, 2007)

It didn't derail the thread, which carried on just fine with discussion after it. 

It was pointless argument that derailed it. 

fucking philosophy


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 9, 2007)

torres said:
			
		

> Think i'd go for Hegel's philosophy of History, Marx's Grundrisse, and Negri's Marx beyond Marx.



The last one surprıses me.  I haven't read ıt, but I have read 'Empıre' and 'Multıtude' and I dıdn't rate them much.  Wouldn't have thought they were your cup of tea eıther.  Am I wrong or ıs thıs one dıfferent?


----------



## nosos (Jun 10, 2007)

<no point>


----------



## thought (Jun 20, 2007)

Alexander the Corrector


A book on I Ching. I have this phililosophy that if i dont agree with something i have to research it more.. It causes me all sorts of problems, but does allow my knowledge and insite to expand.

Possibly the AA big book.. I was leant it by a client who had  joined the  fellowship. It was very interesting and gave me a really different view point on AA as a resource for people with Addictive Personallities.


----------



## riglet (Jun 20, 2007)

A very difficult thread to answer but worth trying. Try these..

A History Of God - Karen Armstrong

The Tao Of Physics - Flitjof Capra

Dead Souls - Nikolai Gogol


----------



## davekriss (Aug 22, 2007)

Did these have to be strictly philosophy?  If not, books I've read over the last 30 years that have had strong effect on me (in no particular order):

Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death
Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capitalism
Julia Kristeva, Black Sun
Paul Sweezy, Monopoly Capital
Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development
Henry Miller, The Oranges of Hieronymous Bosch
Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann, Manufacturing Consent
Stuart Ewen, Captains of Consciousness
Michael Harrington, The Twighlight of Capitalism
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Pascal's Pensees
Gary Snyder, Earth Household
Guy Debord, Society as Spectacle
Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Creative Mythology
Alan Watts, The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
Carolyn Forsche, The Country Between Us
Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism
Andre Malraux, The Voices of Silence
Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind
Sartre, Search for a Method
Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be
Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy
Zinn, A Peoples History of the United States
Ingram, In the Footsteps of Gandhi
Duane Elgin, Voluntary Simplicity


Ask me next week and I'd probably give you a different twenty (or change modalities to film or art).


----------



## nosos (Aug 24, 2007)

Have you started posting again mate? I was thinking yesterday that I'd not seen your posts in a long time. I used to really enjoy them.


----------



## Demosthenes (Sep 23, 2007)

the book I've found most informative and interesting philosophically, is without a doubt a book called - The New Inquisition - by Robert Anton Wilson.  

http://www.debunker.com/texts/inquisit.html

Here's a highly critical review of it by Robert Sheaffer, who works for the committee for scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal.  

From it you might get the impression that Raw's book pissed him off mightily, and that it was good enough to warrant a well-written hatchet job.  Alternatively you might think that of course it's Robert sheaffer's job to write reviews of this sort.  

I found this review quite entertaining.  It is a good attempt at a hatchet job, but it doesn't even come close to Raw's demolition of Csicop's intellectual credibility. 

_Of course, if all there was to the book was a rehash of loads of accounts of "paranormal" events, it would hardly rate mention as a work of popular philosophy._ 

I really like it, because unlike professional philosophy, he doesn't bother to argue the many assertions he makes, - he just makes them, and builds his case, and invites you to draw your own conclusions.  It's also generally quite funny.  

Sheaffer doesn't actually give you much idea of what the book's about though, as he's too interested in getting revenge, and he doesn't even bother to argue any of the substantive points that Raw made in the book. 

It's interesting that sheaffer pays respect to wilson's philosophical knowledge, - by way of starting a line of attack, - in fact, Wilson isn't that knowledgeable about philosophy, - he knows about Nietzche and Hume, but he doesn't seem to have comparable knowledge about Spinoza and Kant, who seem to me to be much better philosophers.  Not that I've got anything against Nietzche and Hume, who are entertaining and thoought-provoking philosophical pisstakers, - whereas Kant and Spinoza are really quite the opposite of entertaining, - they just happen to be right about almost everything.  As you find, if only you can manage to read them.  

Hume in particular makes most sense understood as taking empiricism as a philosophy and reducing it to absurdity.   Materialists often love Hume for his "debunking" of claims of miracles, proofs of the existence of God.  What they generally fail to realise, not being philosophers, is that his philosophy pretty much debunks any claims to knowledge.


----------



## Demosthenes (Sep 23, 2007)

I forgot to say, - proof of Raw's extraordinary insight is suggested by his quoting in full a conversation about a rabbit said to live on the moon, in an in-depth discussion of the connections between UFO's and rabbits, and this in a book written well before 1988. 

This text concludes with the immortal line - the name of the rabbit was not recorded - - which should be familiar to anyone immersed in good techno, as the beginning of a track, which, as anyone who ever heard it properly will know was, in its time, one of the best ever ecstasy tracks.  

In general, anyone who finds the urban75 interesting simply as urban75, will find the book fascinating in the account it gives of human psychology in general.


----------



## gorski (Oct 6, 2007)

Anyone saw "A Student's Guide to Methodology" by P. Clough and C. Nutbrown? Very cool!!! Enlightening to some of our regulars here, I would've thought...


----------



## Gmart (Oct 10, 2007)

Zorba The Greek - Kazantzakis

Prometheus Rising - Robert Anton Wilson

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tsu


----------



## davekriss (Oct 26, 2007)

On edit: I just noticed I already posted on this thread.  Well, that's ambien for ya'  (goooood stuff).





			
				jiggajagga said:
			
		

> If I was to ask philosophers on this forum to give me a list of the 3 most thought provoking books they have ever read what would they be?
> 
> I await your lists with anticipation and trepidation.


I'm not a philosopher (studied English Lit, so perhaps I shouldn't reply. And the books I list here might not be on many A lists, but for me they invoked much thought and have stuck with me all these years.  (Ah but to limit it to three!)

Harry Braverman, _Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degredation of Work in the Twentieth Century_, 1974.  It instilled a sense of permanent outrage in me for the strictures of class and exploitation of workers.

Norman O Brown, _Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History_, 1959. It taught me that when we cling to order, we die a death of paralysis and ossification; if we cling to disorder, chaos, we die a death of disease and calamity. That the thing to seek is balance. "At the still point of the turning world, there the dance is."  The book also gave me cognitive tools (dialectical thinking, mechanisms of displacement) that I used to great amusement of my professors during my college years (in the Illiad, only the Gods are completely free, because they can displace downward onto man the disorder and chaos that springs from their unfettered freedom -- hey, it got me one of many A+ grades at a top academic school!).

Stuart Ewen, _Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture_, 1976.  A brief history of the rise of the public relations and advertising industries.  Along with Braverman, above, and Chomsky, below, it shaped my understanding of the operational tools of the capitalist class.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, _Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media_, 1988.  An eye opener for many of us.  Well known (and I think named by several on this thread).

Julia Kristeva, _Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia_, 1987.  An intense little book.  Paints an incredibly clear picture of depression and melancholia and how it works its way through our culture.  After reading this, one cannot help but have real empathy for the empty depressives that come across our paths.

Andre Malraux, _The Voices of Silence_, 1953.  A tour de force in art history/criticism.  When we encounter great art, he says, it's as if we've discovered a new language, and all of a sudden what was mute to you now speaks, literally screams from the walls.  It inspires us to imitate, the art of the artisan. Then there are the few that, after mastering "what is", are able to take it further, to break through into new territory -- they alone we call the "great" artists.

Joseph Campbell, _The Masks of God: Creative Mythology_, 1968.  Established a deeply sourced and grounded narrative for understanding modern art and writing.  Another tour de force.

OK, I'll stop there, I'm up to 7 already.  It is not from ego I write, but joy -- I have 6 bookcases filled to the brim in my music room at home, books piled up on top of the cases too (there's no more room).  And each one is like an old, dear friend.  It brings me delight to just scan their spines as the warmth or drama or light, whatever the book had to depart, stirs up from my heart and brings me pleasure.

Note if you ask me tomorrow, I probably would name 7 other books, as it's hard to pin down.  An aside, don't ask me for my top 10 list of films, another passion of mine; my list has 100 films on it and most people haven't heard of 90 of them.  I suspect the denizens of this board would fare better.


----------



## gorski (Oct 26, 2007)

We're waiting for a Prince of Darkness to give you an earful on not being able to read the title of the thread... and misbehaving... like he did to me...


----------



## davekriss (Oct 28, 2007)

gorski said:
			
		

> We're waiting for a Prince of Darkness to give you an earful on not being able to read the title of the thread... and misbehaving... like he did to me...


It would be deserved (apologies all).  Again, it was the ambien that made me do it!


----------



## gorski (Oct 28, 2007)

Don't apologise to me, I did much worse...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2008)

Spinoza - Ethics
Hegel - Phenomenology...
Wittgenstein - Philsophical Investigations.


----------



## camouflage (Jul 1, 2008)

The Prince

The Bagvad Ghita

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.


----------



## kopelgep (Jul 24, 2008)

Hegel - Phenomenology of Spirit / Kant- Critique of Pure Reason - continental philosophy begins here? (along with Spinoza perhaps)
Badiou- Being and Event (Numerical Materialism)
Meillassoux - After Finitude (Speculative Materialism/realism: a highly readable assault on correlationist dogma, an aggressive and imaginative new strand of realism with perverse and counter-intuitive end results)


----------



## Y_I_Otter (Jul 24, 2008)

Hui Neng (attributed to)-- _Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch_ 
Lao Tsu-- _Tao Te Ching_
D. T. Suzuki-- several books. If I had to pin a single one down (and apparently one does  ), his _Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra_


----------



## kopelgep (Jul 26, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> The last one surprıses me.  I haven't read ıt, but I have read 'Empıre' and 'Multıtude' and I dıdn't rate them much.  Wouldn't have thought they were your cup of tea eıther.  Am I wrong or ıs thıs one dıfferent?



Negri is absolutely dire. I've read _Insurgencies_ and _Empire_ and I'm afraid his fundamental belief that Integrated World Capitalism is somehow creating a form of subjectivity which will enable the multitude to overthrow the present socio-economic situation is just laughable. The end of the last chapter of _Insurgencies_ in particular is shockingly weak: almost hallmark card philosophy, endlessly affirming the power of potentia/consitutive power/the multitude without any real evidence or persuasive ontological argument (except for the fact that they= strength etc). Further his refusal to engage with Maoism and the cultural revolution in that book at least is a real weakness, given that the kind of constitutional model of power/legitimacy he is working with is best represented by that historical moment, rather than by Machiavelli, the American and French Revolutions, and Soviet Russia...


----------



## gorski (Jul 26, 2008)

How does 





> constitutional model of power/legitimacy he is working with


 work in Machiavelli, though? [haven't read the book, obviously]


----------



## kopelgep (Jul 26, 2008)

gorski said:


> How does  work in Machiavelli, though? [haven't read the book, obviously]



Its about this basic notion: potentia (constitu*ent *power)- basically revolutionary people power is at the core of every constitution, but constitut*ed* power (potestas) seeks to deny it agency and how gradually over time in different political revolutions we get closer and closer to a form of government/political constitution which is capable of maintaining the molten-lava like nature of potentia. Machiavelli comes into it as Negri attempts to position him as follows: 


> "the prince is democracy - precisely the reform of the Renaissance. Machiavelli's problem will never be that of closing down the revolution: the constitution for him is always the opening of the revolutionary process of the multitude." [Negri, _Insurgencies_ p.80]


----------



## gorski (Jul 27, 2008)

Yes, there are such interpretations of M. but I find it much more plausible he had no idea of that sort...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/



> It has been a common view among political philosophers that there exists a special relationship between moral goodness and legitimate authority. Many authors (especially those who composed mirror-of-princes books or royal advice books during the Middle Ages and Renaissance) believed that the use of political power was only rightful if it was exercised by a ruler whose personal moral character was strictly virtuous. Thus rulers were counseled that if they wanted to succeed—that is, if they desired a long and peaceful reign and aimed to pass their office down to their offspring—they must be sure to behave in accordance with conventional standards of ethical goodness. In a sense, it was thought that rulers did well when they did good; they earned the right to be obeyed and respected inasmuch as they showed themselves to be virtuous and morally upright.
> It is precisely this moralistic view of authority that Machiavelli criticizes at length in his best-known treatise, _The Prince_. For Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being good. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic theory of politics, Machiavelli says that the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power (although he talks less about power _per se_ than about “maintaining the state.”) In this sense, Machiavelli presents a trenchant criticism of the concept of authority by arguing that the notion of legitimate rights of rulership adds nothing to the actual possession of power. _The Prince_ purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism of an author who is fully aware—on the basis of direct experience with the Florentine government—that goodness and right are not sufficient to win and maintain political office. Machiavelli thus seeks to learn and teach the rules of political power. For Machiavelli, power characteristically defines political activity, and hence it is necessary for any successful ruler to know how power is to be used. Only by means of the proper application of power, Machiavelli believes, can individuals be brought to obey and will the ruler be able to maintain the state in safety and security.




But!




> In direct contrast, some of Machiavelli's readers have found no taint of immoralism in his thought whatsoever. Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of _The Prince_ is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule. Various versions of this thesis have been disseminated more recently. Some scholars, such as Garrett Mattingly (1958), have pronounced Machiavelli the supreme satirist, pointing out the foibles of princes and their advisors. The fact that Machiavelli later wrote biting popular stage comedies is cited as evidence in support of his strong satirical bent. Thus, we should take nothing Machiavelli says about moral conduct at face value, but instead should understood his remarks as sharply humorous commentary on public affairs. Alternatively, Mary Deitz (1986) asserts that Machiavelli's agenda was driven by a desire to “trap” the prince by offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed.




I disagree with the conclusion of the article, as I see him as unambiguously Modern. Indeed, the father of Modern Political Philosophy. As opposed to Jezuits with "justification" as grounding of action, M. cleanses the politics of any ethics...


Similar with the rest of R., he disposes with dogmas and constraints on research and paints it all "as is", as does Leonardo in art [corpses] or Bruno in science etc.


----------



## kopelgep (Jul 27, 2008)

Its all quite plausible, Negri does tend to talk a lot of arse about many topics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2008)

kopelgep said:


> Negri is absolutely dire. I've read _Insurgencies_ and _Empire_ and I'm afraid his fundamental belief that Integrated World Capitalism is somehow creating a form of subjectivity which will enable the multitude to overthrow the present socio-economic situation is just laughable. The end of the last chapter of _Insurgencies_ in particular is shockingly weak: almost hallmark card philosophy, endlessly affirming the power of potentia/consitutive power/the multitude without any real evidence or persuasive ontological argument (except for the fact that they= strength etc).<snip>



It's worse than that. He actually argues that this mass collective 'subjectivity' is _already constituted_, that contemporary capitalism is a development of it (rather then capital developing it), that it is the real content of todays capitalism. In some sense your IWC has already been overthrown. This being the fabled _communism of capitalism_ that Virno is also trying to reconstruct.


----------



## kopelgep (Jul 27, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> It's worse than that. He actually argues that this mass collective 'subjectivity' is _already constituted_, that contemporary capitalism is a development of it (rather then capital developing it), that it is the real content of todays capitalism. In some sense your IWC has already been overthrown. This being the fabled _communism of capitalism_ that Virno is also trying to reconstruct.



Its just total bollocks isn't it? No wonder Negri is taught in management schools.


----------



## Shevek (Dec 17, 2008)

My top three authors are:

Andre Gunde-Frank. I was taught his theories of underdevelopment in A level geography class and they have stuck with me ever since.

Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent and Chomsky on Anarchism

Donna Haraway. Her cyborg theory inspires me greatly


----------



## pboi (Jan 21, 2009)

Forgive this post, but I have recently found myself wanting to read books that help me deal with the loss of my father at the start of my teens. (now 26)   While I am not looking for ''Losing a Parent for Dummies'', Anything that helps me reconcile how it might have affected my personal development and all that jazz, would be much appreciated.  Philisophical meditations on life, career, family, how a boy is affected when losing his father before puberty kicks in.

 While I am successful, with great family and friends..there is an inescapable hole that I simply must attempt to understand.    I thought of therapy, but I would rather not 

Appreciate if anyone has any ideas


----------



## gorski (Jan 22, 2009)

Read Sartre. It might sound cruel initially but in a way it may also be quite insightful about the way families, and in particular fatherhood, function in a hierarchical society... 

He does take Freud/Reich idea [which others have developed afterwards, like Fromm, for instance] about the father figure as the State in the  Home, teaching kids obedience, adhering to authority etc. [not necessarily consciously] etc. and then takes it to its "logical" conclusion...

Btw, I lost mine when I was 11 and for me it _was_ liberatory - dunno about you and your relationship etc.

Good luck, either way!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2009)

pboi said:


> Philisophical meditations on life, career, family, how a boy is affected when losing his father before puberty kicks in.



Freud's "The Interpretation of Dreams" is, amongst other things, one long meditation on the recent death of his father and its impact at a time when his career didn't really seem to have started in earnest (a lot of unresolved aggression/anxiety/guilt and feelings of release) - leads to his formulating the Oedipus complex etc.  Not puberty though, he was in his 30s I think.

His "Mourning and Melancholia" seems another obvious choice.


----------



## pboi (Jan 22, 2009)

thankyou guys, got them ordered.


Thankyou for indulging me.


----------



## PeterTCA (May 19, 2009)

The last ten pages of Joyce's Ulysses. Read aloud into the wind off the Northumbrian coast and with a hip-flask of whiskey in your jacket pocket.


----------



## jayeola (May 19, 2009)

Tsun Tzu - art of war
Neal Stephenson - crypticomnicom
Malcom X -Autobigraphy of Malcom X


----------



## Biscuitmonkey (Aug 27, 2009)

Can I just mention that I hate Immanuel Kant, mainly for his ridiculous made up words. It adds fuel to me thinking that most "Philosophers" can only share ideas to a small, safe world of academia, rather than actually enlightening humankind. It's like arguing for intellectual sport rather than with deep conviction. On the other hand, it's possible I'm just thick and if anyone would like to recommend _an introduction to Uncle Immanuel_ type of thing I'll give it a go.

I thought this thread would be more Sophies World/Zen & the Art of... than some of the heavyweight stuff already mentioned, then I realised I hadn't read it properly as I thought it was what provoked you into getting into more.

I can't decide, but Kafka would have to be in there somewhere. My sons like "Two Monsters" by David McKee. That's deep I tell thee.


----------



## gorski (Aug 27, 2009)

Wicked!  PhD in Philosophy?


----------



## Dr. Furface (Aug 27, 2009)

A lot of good choices on here, some of which I might have chosen myself, but just to be different I'll go for -

Albert Camus - The Myth of Sisyphus
Franz Kafka - The Trial
Roland Barthes - Mythologies


----------



## Drone Module (Sep 18, 2009)

Hegel _Phenomenology of Spirit_
Marx _Collected Early Writings_
Baudrillard _Forget Foucault_


----------



## Drone Module (Sep 18, 2009)

pboi said:


> Forgive this post, but I have recently found myself wanting to read books that help me deal with the loss of my father at the start of my teens. (now 26)   While I am not looking for ''Losing a Parent for Dummies'', Anything that helps me reconcile how it might have affected my personal development and all that jazz, would be much appreciated.  Philisophical meditations on life, career, family, how a boy is affected when losing his father before puberty kicks in.
> 
> While I am successful, with great family and friends..there is an inescapable hole that I simply must attempt to understand.    I thought of therapy, but I would rather not
> 
> Appreciate if anyone has any ideas



probably way to late with this reply... but these things take time and if its at all helpful:

Simon Critchley's_ Very Little Almost Nothing_ is a very good bbook on death in general, and was motivated by the death of his own father. steer clear of anything else he has written though.


----------



## klaustbl (Oct 23, 2009)

M. Heidegger, Sein und zeit
J.P. Sartre, l'Etre et le Neant
J.L. Nancy, Corpus


----------



## yield (Oct 23, 2009)

The Accursed Share by Georges Bataille

A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History by Manuel De Landa 

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber


----------



## timeforanother (Dec 25, 2009)

I'm going to re-read this thread for ideas for interesting reads, and ignore the infighting.

I vote for "guns germs and steel", "communist manifesto" (but read in its place in history), "Lord of the Flies"; I think "The Prince" is very dull and written by a failure. Wish I had more upbeat recommendations, and only look at other (Jared Diamond books if you want to be really depressed or see very silly ideas about sex. Ooo. Also look at Slavoj Zizek - loads of interesting ideas, and funny too.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Dec 25, 2009)

The Game of the Name - Gregory McCulloch
Philosophy of Mind - David Chalmers
Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy - John Rawls

(I don't actually enjoy these books I just want you to suffer like I)


----------



## gorski (Dec 25, 2009)

AHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!

But if you had to do it as an obligatory part of your course... 

I had a friend whose son became a young 'English philosopher'. He was cursing the whole "tradition" he had to go through, not learning anything about "Philosophy", at the end of a 3 year undergrad course, filled with a very particular "vision" of what "philosophy" is/ought to be...

To him it was an enormous release to go beyond the masses of rubbish Positivist, Pragmatist, Utilitarian and whatever else is required reading [just a mass of stuff to speedily and therefore superficially run through], to go for some real Philosophy!


----------



## Caecilian (Jan 1, 2010)

Discipline and Punish (Foucault)
Autopoiesis and Cognition (Maturana and Varela)
Natural Born Cyborgs (Clark)

I don't entirely agree with any of the above. But they are very thought provoking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2010)

Are they books - what are their arguments?


----------



## Caecilian (Jan 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Are they books - what are their arguments?



Yeah, they're books. 

Obviously can't summarize them too well in a post, but to give you some idea of what they're about:

Discipline & Punish- Is a sort of History of the development of the systems of coercion in modern society, and particularly an account of how power and knowledge are fused together and deployed in order to judge, normalize and control. I'm new on this forum, and have no idea what your politics are, but the likelihood is that they'd be more radical after reading this one- its a very very powerful indictment of the way society works.

Autopoiesis & Cognition- Is a radically different view of Biology. Maturana and Varela argue that living systems are autonomous and self-creating, using an extremely technical vocabulary derived from Cybernetics. They develop an account of the nervous system and mental states using this as their basis. I wouldn't actually recommend anyone trying to read this without a background in Systems Theory. Much more approachable is their other book 'The Tree of Knowledge'.

Natural Born Cyborgs- IMO Andy Clark's best book. He develops his theory of the 'Extended Mind'- according to Clark it makes sense to think of the human mind as being environmentally extended, and not purely in the head. Technological extension of our physical and cognitive capabilities is normal and natural.

Hope thats helpful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2010)

It is -  thank you.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 20, 2010)

Caecilian said:


> Yeah, they're books.
> 
> Obviously can't summarize them too well in a post, but to give you some idea of what they're about:
> 
> ...



Actually, are there more empirical histories of the French prison system out there? It would be handy to have something to judge Foucault's book against.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 23, 2010)

Biscuitmonkey said:


> I can't decide, but Kafka would have to be in there somewhere. My sons like "Two Monsters" by David McKee. That's deep I tell thee.


 
 I read that to my class along with Farmer Duck by Martin Waddell.


----------



## toggle (Apr 1, 2011)

> The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber



that is tomorrow night's reading.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 11, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> Actually, are there more empirical histories of the French prison system out there? It would be handy to have something to judge Foucault's book against.


 
Yet answer came there none.


----------



## TruXta (May 11, 2011)

Try looking at Pieter Spierenburg's work maybe? The Prison Experience looks OK.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Try looking at Pieter Spierenburg's work maybe? The Prison Experience looks OK.


 
Might do that some time, thanks.


----------



## bubmachine (Jan 28, 2012)

Aristotle's _The Politics_. A bit rambling, but good.  As a clue, Aristotle wouldn't have called our society democratic.
Erich Fromm's _The Fear of Freedom_. The book was "inspired" by Wilhelm Reich's _The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, and he repeats the same argument about a million times, but even so ... it is an awesome little book.
Karl Popper's _The Open Society and Its Enemies_. A 1000 page rant against everyone that isn't Karl Popper. A fabulous read, if you can stomach the insults.


----------



## Firky (May 6, 2012)

Pedagogy of the Oppressed, makes for dry reading but worth it.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2012)

firky said:


> Pedagogy of the Oppressed, makes for dry reading but worth it.


I didn't have you down as a Freire buff.


----------



## Firky (May 8, 2012)

dp


----------



## Firky (May 8, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I didn't have you down as a Freire buff.


 
I like Brazil nuts.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2012)

Baba Ram Dass - Be Here Now.

Alan Watts - This Is It

Benson Mates - Elementary Logic


[extra bonus-book: Albert Camus - :L'Etranger]


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 17, 2013)

Misread the thread title as 'give me 3 litres'


----------



## xslavearcx (May 6, 2013)

Someones gotta represent the analytics here.

1.)Problems of Philosophy - Betrand Russell - advances his theory of descriptions, thoughts on idealism, epistomology and so on for a non technical audience. You can't go wrong with Bertie.

2.) Language, Truth, and Logic. - A.J Ayer ... bringing the vienna circle to the english speaking world with a bang. Getting fed up with zizek, badiou, and heidegger - are they saying stuff that doesn't seem to have any referents? Are you dying to say 'nonsense'?!? -read this!

3.) Sense and Reference - Gottlob Frege's exposition of his theory of meaning...

4.) Logic with Trees, Colin Howson - best intro to propositional and predicate logic ive come across for someone like me who aint good with maths.


----------



## xslavearcx (May 6, 2013)

Firky said:


> Pedagogy of the Oppressed, makes for dry reading but worth it.


 
I read it and liked it a lot. It's part of the holy trinity of what gets taught at com -ed courses (frerie, alinsky, and gramsci)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 2, 2013)

My Booky Wook - Russell Brand
My Animals and Other Family - Claire Balding
Trev and Simons Stupid Book - Trevor and Simon


----------



## protesticals (Jun 20, 2013)

Animal Liberation- Singer
Language, Truth, and Logic. - A.J Ayer
The Blank Slate- Dennet


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

magick without tears http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/
book of the sacred magic of abramelin http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/abr/
holy books of thelema


----------



## protesticals (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> magick without tears http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-without-tears/
> book of the sacred magic of abramelin http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/abr/
> holy books of thelema


 Its not big and its not clever


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

protesticals said:


> Its not big and its not clever


but it's a fuck of a lot more fun than bloody a.j. ayer


----------



## protesticals (Jun 20, 2013)

Freddy Ayer was my Tutor's tutor..so there..with knobs on.


----------



## maya (Jun 27, 2013)

(...)
*'Watership Down', Richard Adams*-
because it's a cold world out there, and we are all scared, little rabbits.

*'Momo', Michael Ende*-
antic*pitalism for kids of all ages.

*'Illuminations, the drunken boat', Rimbaud*-
shapeshifting, raw, luminous synaesthesia-as-poetry through the gutter to transcendence... after this he never wrote again.


----------



## Jay Park (Jul 25, 2014)

easy one....... 'In Praise of Idleness' by Bertrand Russel


----------



## gorski (Oct 12, 2014)

If you wanna miss any and all the problems of Philosophy - read Russell...

Or you may try Ernst Bloch...


----------



## Horas (Oct 15, 2014)

protesticals said:


> Animal Liberation- Singer
> Language, Truth, and Logic. - A.J Ayer
> The Blank Slate- Dennet



the blank slate is not by Dennet. its by Pinker. so there.


----------



## Horas (Oct 15, 2014)

how about
1) spinoza ethics - rearranges your thinking, but need to put in effort. worth it though.
2) nietzsche - genealogy of morality - again, easier to read than spinoza, but forces you to think, even if finally you don't agree with Nietzsche.
3) thomas nagel - what is it like to be a bat - thought provoking, bringing up issues of subjectivity, objectivity, knowledge, and quite readable and fairly short.

i recommend these because they force or cause the need to think.


----------



## gorski (Oct 15, 2014)

Spinoza is a dead end, I think...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2014)

gorski said:


> Spinoza is a dead end, I think...


Precisely why he's not a dead end.


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Precisely why he's not a dead end.



Gorski being a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition


----------



## gorski (Oct 15, 2014)

No wonder Stalinist twats claim something like that: https://www.google.it/?gfe_rd=cr&ei...&gws_rd=ssl#q=spinoza+freedom+and+determinism 

I already mentioned the Spinoza conundrum on this forum but I will do it again, as no one would bother otherwise... 

There are various interpretations of Spinoza, from Hegel, who thinks he is indispensable (for his own systemic reasons), to Heidegger, all the way to the Left (generally speaking), not to mention the French...  (Oych and that's a really funny one...  )

So, here's one: if you want the worst in Modernity, leading to totalitarian sh@te - then study and implement Spinoza (if you can)! He forgets the Ancient Greek "_To on legetai polachos_" and wants to deduce everything "_more geometrico_", even _Ethics_! From a single principle!

His 'freedom', _ad nauseam_ mentioned and emphatically insisted upon, actually is killed off by the fact that one is not supposed to wish that which one is not supposed to wish, otherwise one is free to wish whatever is wish-able... 

The "Subject" is pre-determined not to even have grounds to be able to wish anything he is not supposed to wish, as either unattainable or "bad for him".

Hence, freedom has no grounds on which it can even be tested, let alone assert itself. Says a man who reached for stuff he could not attain...

He was dealt with swiftly and then he turned and... Oh, well, became patronising... 

"I didn't manage, ergo, no one should even try, booo-hooo..."

Honestly...


----------



## Santino (Oct 15, 2014)

He's still got it.


----------



## gorski (Oct 15, 2014)




----------



## ManchesterBeth (Nov 8, 2014)

gorski said:


> No wonder Stalinist twats claim something like that: https://www.google.it/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=TkMXVIbYL8qq8wfcyILQDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=spinoza freedom and determinism
> 
> I already mentioned the Spinoza conundrum on this forum but I will do it again, as no one would bother otherwise...
> 
> ...



I had to study Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche right through to Lukacs, who was sort of correct actually.  Unless you're based on desire a la young communists post-1968 or the French, which is just like...

Well are we going to read shite like Camus then? 

Or maybe we can retreat to the safe spaces of Althusser and glorify comrade Stalin eternally... 

I think I understand why I got so depressed with the academic left at my university.


----------



## gorski (Nov 8, 2014)

Remember Praxis? Well, one of my professors (Danko Grlić) was a Nietzsche buff, one of the best I have read. Lukács's interpretation of Nietzsche must be viewed with extreme caution and suspicion, for various reasons.

Look at this: _Lukács_, György, _Nietzsche_ als Vorläufer der faschistischen Ästhetik /, 1935, 2665.

Bloch, Lukács's best buddy, Grlic and some others have dealt with it decisively, later on...

Here are two studies that opened my eyes: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2162042W/Friedrich_Nietzsche and https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2162035W/Ko_je_Niče - sadly, I don't believe they are translated into English, not sure... 

I don't have the time to search now but: https://www.marxists.org/subject/praxis/index.htm

Good luck! 

P.S. As a curiosity: I was 18/19 (we are talking 1990/91) when I read one of them, before going to Uni, to study Philosophy in Zagreb. I was forced to join the YU Army (by law) at the time. By chance, I had a (future) colleague there, in the same unit as me, a Philosopher, who already finished his BA studies in Prishtina (he was an Albanian from Gostivar, Macedonia, so this was the closest to him, in many ways). When we talked about those issues during stupid army exercises, guard duty and whatnot, he was bewildered by "my" take on N. Why? Prishtina Philosophical Dptm was a Stalinist den back then and Lukács's interpretation of Nietzsche was the "law" there... So, I lent him the book and he was utterly gob-smacked. His philosophical world was thrown into chaos, suddenly all the little cosy certainties were rocked to the core and he couldn't really talk about it at all, such was the impact of the Grlić's research on him...


----------



## xes (Oct 19, 2015)

stuff_it said:


> Misread the thread title as 'give me 3 litres'


Everytime I see this thread I missread it as 'give me 3 titties' and have to resist the urge.


----------



## bimble (Dec 14, 2015)

Has anybody here by chance read a book called 'Gödel, Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid"?
A friend has posted it to me as a gift and it's definitely meant well but.. I'm a bit terrified, because it's so big and has lots of numbers in. Please if you have read this send an encouraging word, or let me off the hook by confirming that it's actually about maths.


----------



## Knotted (Dec 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> Has anybody here by chance read a book called 'Gödel, Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid"?
> A friend has posted it to me as a gift and it's definitely meant well but.. I'm a bit terrified, because it's so big and has lots of numbers in. Please if you have read this send an encouraging word, or let me off the hook by confirming that it's actually about maths.



Its riffing off the big idea in mathematical logic ie. Godel's incompleteness theorems. Years since I've read it. I would advice caution, it's not exactly easy and it's not exactly completely sound. But great fun. Definitely "thought provoking".


----------



## bimble (Dec 14, 2015)

Knotted said:


> not exactly easy and it's not exactly completely sound.


Err.. thanks.


----------



## Jay Park (Jan 7, 2016)

gorski said:


> If you wanna miss any and all the problems of Philosophy - read Russell...
> 
> Or you may try Ernst Bloch...



No Merit to Bertrand's work?


----------



## discokermit (Jun 3, 2016)

xes said:


> 'give me 3 titties'


lycia naff's character in ''total recall''.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2016)

wee wee


----------



## laptop (Jun 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> Has anybody here by chance read a book called 'Gödel, Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid"?
> A friend has posted it to me as a gift and it's definitely meant well but.. I'm a bit terrified, because it's so big and has lots of numbers in. Please if you have read this send an encouraging word, or let me off the hook by confirming that it's actually about maths.


G'wan, give it a try. It's about logic more than anything.


----------



## PDJ (Jun 26, 2017)

"A Book Concerning Dictionaries" by Benjamin Hoopintrotter

"Yesterday The Future Was Nostalgia" by Ann Tecedently

"I Thought,Therefore I Was" by Pining Schmaltz


----------

