Philosophy

[mac1]

Anyone read any good non-fiction philosophy books?

I have read a few of late.

I read Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" not so long ago. That was facinating, his writings on metaphysics were a nice way of looking at the world I thought.

Having finished the deep and intense read that was Russell I decided to go fro something a little easier next. I bought a light-hearted philosophy book by an author named Roger Poldroit. The book is entitled "101 Experiments in the Philosophy of Everyday Life". It (as the name suggests) contains 101 little experiments you can try at home. Everything from sending yourself slightly mad through sleep deprivation, calling yourself repeatedly in the hope you'll get an answer, to emptying a word of its meaning, and telling a stranger she is beautiful (with no alterior motives).

The next book I plan on reading is Simon Blackburn's "Think". I bought it a while back but havent had time to read it yet, it is certainly next on my list though.

Any other good philosophy books anyone can recommend?

 

[mac1]

sending yourself slightly mad through sleep deprivation

Sometimes (like right now!!!!) I do this anyway.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I often had difficulty reading non-fiction philosophy. I tried a couple, but was immensely irritated by what I perceived to be the overwhelming tendency to overdescribe - with as much unnecessary vocabulary as possible - even the most basic ideas. I'm very much of the "call a spade a spade" crowd. So I'll read summaries of philosophical ideas instead. Though, on saying that, I really should try Plato straight from the source sometime.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Plato's Dialogues tend to be quite pithy and easy to follow, I recall.

I have to agree that works of philosophy tend to get caught up in terms and academic debates I cannot follow. There are however fictional works by some philosophers that I value greatly. These would include The Roads To Freedom Trilogy (The Age of Reason, The Reprieve and Iron in the Soul) and Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre, The Mandarins by Simone de Bueauvoir and several of Albert Camus' works (The Stranger is probably the best starting point).

The Bhagwad Gita is another great source of philosophical specualtion on morality, freewill, duty, and ultimately, the nature of reality itself. There are many translations available, I guess any would be a good one to start with.

Even though he has since wandered into some rather fringe territory, I also hold Colin Wilson's book 'The Outsider' in very high regard.

 

[mac1]

TBH knivesout, I usually avoid religious texts. I was brought up as a christian, but never really took any of it on board, and in my experience, I have found almost all religions to lean towards doctrine over spirituality. Yes, it is simpler to just believe a spade is a spade, but what is a spade, really? As Prof. VS Ramachandra has recentley showed, what we percieve is not necessarily the true nature of the universe, his research into rare conditions such as blindsight show it is entirely concievable that we do indeed create our own reality, hence it is very difficult to have 100% belief in the spade as it stands.

In terms of philosophers overcomplicating matters, I do know where you are coming from. I think the problem is an intrinsic flaw with the nature of philosophers. Unfortunatley, the layman seldom writes a book on philosophy, they are almost all written by men with phd's in the topic, used to conforming to common achedemic standards. Having spent years writing in language to impress those assessing them, it becomes second nature. When they come to release papers on the subject, they dare not write in layman's terms, for fear of being ridiculed by their peers. Unfortunatley such a scenerio doesn't make non-fiction philosophy the most accessable read for the like of us, but prevail and amongst the hippopotomonstrosesquipedalianism you will find discussions and evalutions that, I at least, find to be of immense interest.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I have to say that I also have trouble reading philosophers. I had a wonderful philosophy teacher in community college. He would explain things with clear examples and then answer our questions, no matter how silly the questions were. Unfortunately, most of the philosophers I've tried to read are about as clear as mud. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that most of them are scholars and have the scholarly disease of believing they have to prove their intelligence by using complicated language when they could easily use more simple language. I have found this true not only in philosophy but in other disciplines (primarily anthropology and archaeology, with a little theology thrown in) in which I've had to read a great deal of theory, which is what philosophical writing generally deals with. One archaeologist even admitted in the preface to one of his books that he deliberately wrote so that most people would not be able to understand what he was saying the first time through. That's just arrogant, I think; I think a lot of scholars do that, but most of them don't have the chutzpah to admit it.

Now, having said all this, I have to say that philosophical speculation fascinates me. I don't really find it of much practical use, honestly, but it is fun to play with. For example, I don't find it of much practical use to speculate about whether anything around us is really real. The fact that things appear to be real and that we go about our lives as if they are real means, to me, that for practical purposes the world around us is real. I mean, even philosophers who believe that everything is an illusion still drink their coffee or tea or orange juice in the morning, then walk or bike or drive or take the bus to work, write their speculations on paper with a pen or pencil or on a computer (wow - there are some real issues about what constitutes reality when you start talking about computers and cyberspace ), and then come home to make love to their respective spouses at night. However, it is a heck of a lot of fun to sit and think and talk about what reality really is (or isn't) and what the implications of that might be if we really acted like the world around us wasn't real.

I would like to read more philosophy - just because I get frustrated with reading philosophers doesn't mean that there aren't interesting issues in philosophy that I would like to explore further. So, if anyone has any recommendations, that would be a good thing.

Anyway, excuse the rant. This is just something that I feel very strongly about - that men and women of ideas are obligated to make their work accessible and not just write for their fellow scholars.

 

[mac1]

Anyway, excuse the rant. This is just something that I feel very strongly about - that men and women of ideas are obligated to make their work accessible and not just write for their fellow scholars.

I couldn't agree more. In term of recommendations, I would recommend Betrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy". In it, he takes many points made by the philosophers before him (mostly in the field of metaphysics), and compares the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments in the real world. Obviously, like any other philosopher, Russell has his own slants on everything, some of which is sound, some of which aren't, but (for the first 2/3 of the book anyway) his writings are relatively easy to relate to.


Having never had the option to take philosophy as an achedemic study, I have had to seek out books myself, unfortunatley I never had a teacher, so all I have learnt on the topic is through my own research. There are huge sections of philosophy such as morality and ethics that I have never even touched on really, but to be honest they dont really interest me as much as questions about existance and the nature of matter.


In fact my only real interest in such issues as morality and ethics are based around studies pyschological in nature as opposed to philosophy. Questions about the psychology of the human race can be very interesting, and they do, de facto occasionally raise some interesting philiosophical debates. On which has always interested me is the way in which people (despite their claims of free will) will usually conform to any given stereotype. Experiments such as the Stamford Prison Experiment have shown, that if you put a person in a role, he /she will become whatever you make them, however horrific the consequences. The Milgram Experiment showed with terrifying results, that 50% of people would go as far as to electrocute a man to the point of apparent death and beyond, just to complete an experiment, the results of which held absolutely no bearing to them personally. It raises huge questions about how many of us do indeed have free will. Upon reading this, every one of you will be thinking "I could never kill a man in the name of science", but statistics have shown that 50% of you would. Have those people lost their free will, their morality, their ethics? Did they have them in the first place? Or have they mearly become part (or always have subconciously been part) of a sociological machine which kills indiscriminately? Scary thoughts! Anyone know of any good texts regarding subject matter such as that? I would find an accessable book on such matters very interesting. There must be one out there... surely ...

 

[littlemissattitude]

In a social psychology class I took, we studied both of those experiments, plus another one in which school children were put into groups of those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes and then were told that those with blue eyes were superior to those with brown eyes, and then treated accordingly. It was disturbing how readily the children got into the swing of things and began treating each other, and considering themselves, as befitted their assigned roles. I wish I could recall the name of the experiment; it shoudn't be hard to find information on it though, it is a relatively well-known experiment mainly because if was very controversial due to its use of children as experimental subjects.

You know, though, I don't know if these studies have so much to do with free will as they do with the tendency to conform socially. Even the western, supposedly free societies, really have a very narrow view of what is acceptable activity, and those who don't conform to those they perceive as "the authorities" are so often penalized for that nonconformity that most people do whatever they can to "go along to get along". It doesn't mean that people cannot or will not flout the conformist line. It just means that most people will take the path of least resistance because it is less painful for them (but not, as in Milgram's experiment, necessarily for the other guy, at least as far as the subjects knew ). I don't know. Maybe that's just my interpretation of these studies. I do know that I, as pretty much of a nonconformist, am horrified at the results of those studies. Not that I question their results; as nonconformist as I am (or would like to think of myself as) I also tend to "go along to get along" so long as certain of my core beliefs are not touched. Hit one of those the wrong way, though, and I get quite stubborn and confrontationist and nonconformist.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to see if my library has that book. Right now, though, I'm going to bed. I'm tired, and it's cold, and I have a book to finish reading that is due at the library on Monday, and I'm only about halfway through with it. No philosophy though, just some escapist reading.

 

[mac1]

In a social psychology class I took, we studied both of those experiments, plus another one in which school children were put into groups of those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes and then were told that those with blue eyes were superior to those with brown eyes, and then treated accordingly. It was disturbing how readily the children got into the swing of things and began treating each other, and considering themselves, as befitted their assigned roles. I wish I could recall the name of the experiment; it shoudn't be hard to find information on it though, it is a relatively well-known experiment mainly because if was very controversial due to its use of children as experimental subjects.

I did some research and found out that this experiment was conducted in 1971 and was called "A Class Divided" also know as Jane Elliott’s “blue eyed/brown eyed" experiment. The 1970 documentary was entitled "The Eye of The Storm, and I also found out that in 1984 a book based on the experiment was released, entitled "A Class Divided: Then and Now". I am going to try to get hold of a copy of that from my library.

You know, though, I don't know if these studies have so much to do with free will as they do with the tendency to conform socially. Even the western, supposedly free societies, really have a very narrow view of what is acceptable activity, and those who don't conform to those they perceive as "the authorities" are so often penalized for that nonconformity that most people do whatever they can to "go along to get along". It doesn't mean that people cannot or will not flout the conformist line. It just means that most people will take the path of least resistance because it is less painful for them (but not, as in Milgram's experiment, necessarily for the other guy, at least as far as the subjects knew ). I don't know. Maybe that's just my interpretation of these studies. I do know that I, as pretty much of a nonconformist, am horrified at the results of those studies. Not that I question their results; as nonconformist as I am (or would like to think of myself as) I also tend to "go along to get along" so long as certain of my core beliefs are not touched. Hit one of those the wrong way, though, and I get quite stubborn and confrontationist and nonconformist.

It is truly frightening and disgusting to me that people would kill for science. I too consider myself to be a person who becomes confrontational when placed in a moral dilema, but then again, dont most people? I think that is a scary thing. If I know deep down in my heart that I could not assume a role to kill for science, and the vast majority of other people in the world feel similarly, yet 50% lose their way under test conditions, surely this is a significant and terrifying loss of every moral principal we, as human beings, hold dear. There is an inherant irony in the fact that to commit murder is something our society considers to be utterly dispicable, yet under the correct laborotary conditions it has been proved to be in our nature to adhere to a social hiarchy, no matter how questionable it may be, and carry out its abominable machinations regardless of an individuals moral code. This I see as a loss of free will. It is almost effortless brainwashing, deliberate yet remarkably simple, and it really puts into question debates about fate, free will, obedience, and the ability of a ones role, be it social or domestic, to govern not only ones life, but ones entire ethos and thought process.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendation. I'll have to see if my library has that book. Right now, though, I'm going to bed. I'm tired, and it's cold, and I have a book to finish reading that is due at the library on Monday, and I'm only about halfway through with it. No philosophy though, just some escapist reading.

No problem. Its gone 7am over here in England, and I am still up! Time for me to rest my head too. A little too late for any more deep philosophical and pyschological discussion.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Actually, I woudn't classify the Gita as just a religious text, bigmac, but that's just my opinion.

 

[littlemissattitude]

It is truly frightening and disgusting to me that people would kill for science. I too consider myself to be a person who becomes confrontational when placed in a moral dilema, but then again, dont most people? I think that is a scary thing. If I know deep down in my heart that I could not assume a role to kill for science, and the vast majority of other people in the world feel similarly, yet 50% lose their way under test conditions, surely this is a significant and terrifying loss of every moral principal we, as human beings, hold dear. There is an inherant irony in the fact that to commit murder is something our society considers to be utterly dispicable, yet under the correct laborotary conditions it has been proved to be in our nature to adhere to a social hiarchy, no matter how questionable it may be, and carry out its abominable machinations regardless of an individuals moral code. This I see as a loss of free will. It is almost effortless brainwashing, deliberate yet remarkably simple, and it really puts into question debates about fate, free will, obedience, and the ability of a ones role, be it social or domestic, to govern not only ones life, but ones entire ethos and thought process.

I've been thinking about this, wondering how to respond. I can see what you are saying here, but as much as I try to fit it together I can't find a way to equate this sort of social control or brainwashing with the Free Will/Predestination controversy on a universal or cosmic level.

I think you are right, if I am understanding what you are saying, that within a cultural setting, the things people can or will do are limited to one extent or another by the prevailing mores. Culture is a very potent force. In some cases, a culture is so controlling that individuals brought up in that culture simply cannot conceive of doing certain things (and of not doing certain things, as well). Other cultures are not so all-encompassing. In contemporary American culture, for example, there are a lot of things that most people won't do because they fear the social, political, or legal consequences of doing them. Yet there are people who will do some of those things (murder, for example, or armed robbery or rape or even going out and getting drunk or taking illegal drugs; the list could be very long and varies in the severity of the consequences for doing them) because they believe they won't be caught, or because they believe that the rules don't apply to them (this would be your garden variety sociopath) or that the rules are just stupid, or just because they don't have good impulse control. I agree that all that limits what we can or will do, depending on which culture we were raised in.

However, I think the Free Will/Predestination question is on a whole other level from those cultural constraints. This deals with the idea that either individuals have the Free Will to make choices that can lead to different life outcomes for them, or else what individuals will do in any given situation has already been predetermined and any appearance that the individual is actually making choices is an illusion. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we are predestined to do what we do. This is a personal bias, and I know it. It may very well stem from the fact that I am by temperament a bit of a control freak when it comes to my own circumstances. Additionally, I am not really equipped to argue my point of view intelligently - it is a bias and not a logically reasoned belief at this point - because I have avoided reading about the subject for the very reason that the thought of it makes me so uncomfortable. So all I can say here is that I think we've got two completely different topics here, but that I do understand - I think - the argument that you are making that they are one and the same topic.

Does any of this make any sense at all?

 

[G-borg]

I would highly recommend Nietzsches Thus Spake Zarathustra

There are a lot of ideas here that have been reflected in many a SciFi and Fantasy novel. His idea of the übermensch has also been misused and misinterpreted a lot. It is a good read simply for its impact on the very modern thought that also lies at the base of any good SciFi novel

 

[mac1]

I've been thinking about this, wondering how to respond. I can see what you are saying here, but as much as I try to fit it together I can't find a way to equate this sort of social control or brainwashing with the Free Will/Predestination controversy on a universal or cosmic level.

I think you are right, if I am understanding what you are saying, that within a cultural setting, the things people can or will do are limited to one extent or another by the prevailing mores. Culture is a very potent force. In some cases, a culture is so controlling that individuals brought up in that culture simply cannot conceive of doing certain things (and of not doing certain things, as well). Other cultures are not so all-encompassing. In contemporary American culture, for example, there are a lot of things that most people won't do because they fear the social, political, or legal consequences of doing them. Yet there are people who will do some of those things (murder, for example, or armed robbery or rape or even going out and getting drunk or taking illegal drugs; the list could be very long and varies in the severity of the consequences for doing them) because they believe they won't be caught, or because they believe that the rules don't apply to them (this would be your garden variety sociopath) or that the rules are just stupid, or just because they don't have good impulse control. I agree that all that limits what we can or will do, depending on which culture we were raised in.

However, I think the Free Will/Predestination question is on a whole other level from those cultural constraints. This deals with the idea that either individuals have the Free Will to make choices that can lead to different life outcomes for them, or else what individuals will do in any given situation has already been predetermined and any appearance that the individual is actually making choices is an illusion. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that we are predestined to do what we do. This is a personal bias, and I know it. It may very well stem from the fact that I am by temperament a bit of a control freak when it comes to my own circumstances. Additionally, I am not really equipped to argue my point of view intelligently - it is a bias and not a logically reasoned belief at this point - because I have avoided reading about the subject for the very reason that the thought of it makes me so uncomfortable. So all I can say here is that I think we've got two completely different topics here, but that I do understand - I think - the argument that you are making that they are one and the same topic.

Does any of this make any sense at all?

Yes absolutely it makes sense littlemiss. It is very common for people to dismiss a theorey because it frightens them, and the loss of free will is certainly high on the list. The enitire human race is brought up to believe that the decisions they make effect their lives. Whenever you bring into the question the priniciple of causality in any stem of philosophy, you free yourself to the possibilities of some truly frightening hypotheses, and more often than not, you will find yourself in a dark and abstract realm of thought. Causality in metaphysics, is central to all belief about matter and the physical world. When we look at any object we assume that it is the effect of a process that created it and put it where we see it. If we question "cause and effect" we soon realise that the only reason we believe that given object came from somewhere is a definate belief in causality to govern the universe. Why should we just assume everything has a cause and effect? After all if the big bang theorey were ever proven it would show otherwise. Causality in morals is much scarier. The predestination of thought while it cannot be proven, has much evidence in favor of it. Perhaps we are only partially in control of our actions and partially controlled by situations. Our inherant tendancy to adhere to any situation and disregard our nurture is a frightening topic, but embrace your fears and you will come up with some strange and facinating concepts.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Interestingly, mac, the idea of predestination or a lack of free will on a cosmic scale isn't what frightens me. I can't see that in action, I personally don't believe it to be true, and therefore if I don't have free will I don't know it, don't feel the impact of that on my existence.

What frightens me is the use to which belief in predestination can be used by those with ill intent. Predestination, or the idea that "that's just the way things were meant to be" can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things, racismm sexism, and political repression being at the top of the list. It is an argument, too, that sociobiology seems to like because it supports their idea that "biology is destiny", which can also be used in the attempt by a small minority to repress large numbers of people.

So basically, I suppose, what I believe is that even if it is the case that certain things - or even all things - are predestined, it is better to act as if it is not. If it is the case that we are predestined, then ignoring that we are isn't going to change anything. And if it is the case that we do have free will, a lot of social and political mischief can be avoided by not promoting the idea of predestination. I guess you could say, then, that my antagonism toward the idea of predestination is much more political and social than personal.

 

[dwndrgn]

Ergh. You guys make my head hurt.

 

[littlemissattitude]

Ergh. You guys make my head hurt.

Some would say, dwndrgn, that your head was predestined to hurt.

Me, I'm just going to say sorry, we didn't mean to do it.

 

[mac1]

Ah, I see littlemiss, you are coming from a slightly different angle when regards predestination, and I agree with everything you have to say. Predestination as a universal theorey is interesting, but on a one to one level a belief in it can be horrific. The example of murder for example is a good one, people who use "fate" as an excuse, "I did kill her, but it was my destiny to do so", and stuff like that. Some psychologists would argue that these people are simply in denial of their actions, and that their belief in predestination has either grown from the event of murder, or some other deep trauma from the past. Some people are however aquire such beliefs as children, science has recently proved that these people are not "crazy", there is a part of the brain that actually dictates belief in higher forces. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's work in brain science has been instumental in showing why some people believe they are God, why some amputees have "phantom limbs" and why others believe that their parents are "imposters". Such study is scientific in nature, not philosophical, and I think the examples you give are too. It has even been shown that the way in which we think, even the strength of our morals and our ability to abide by them is actually affected by both our genetic makeup, and the way in which our brains are wired up. Yes, you are right, we should always live our lives as if we have free will, if only because the alternative is so dark. On predestination, you said "I can't see that in action, I personally don't believe it to be true", yet surely it is not good scientific practice to completely dismiss it, had men hundreds of years ago thought like that we would all still believe the world to be flat. I dont personally believe in predestination either, I have seen nothing to make show me (personally) that I do not have free will, but if I (believing as I do that I could never commit murder,) found myself participating in the Milgram experiment and abiding by its rules as 50% do, I would surely have to draw conclusions on whether I was in control. Only an infinitesimal percentage of people believe themselves capable of murder, yet under lab conditions half of people commit murder, does this mean that such actions, under the correct (unforced) conditions could be taken by anyone? This is a truly frightening thought as the figures would appear to speak for themselves. Littlemiss, I want to ask you to play along with a scenario, and tell me what conclusions and/or quesions you would draw from it. What would you do if you found yourself having completed the Milgram experiment? There is a 50% probability that if you participated, you would see it through to the end. You do not believe you could kill for no reason, would completing the Milgram experiment cause you to doubt your free will, or would you draw other conclusions from this positive completion of the experiment? I am just curious, thats all. The easy answer is simply to say "I would always be one of the ones who ended it early, I am sure of that". This is the wrong approach to take as it assumes that half of people are "evil", a very dangerous assumption. Assume, for arguments sake, that all the test subjects believe they could not kill, yet you as one of them complete the experiment. You find yourself in a confusing place where you realise that it doesn't take a lot for you to kill. What questions does this raise for you? Or are you one of the many who dare not even explore that path? Same question applies to anyone else with an answer.

 

[littlemissattitude]

That's an interesting question, mac.

But before I answer it, something occurred to me - Milgram's experiment was carried out in the late 1950s or early 1960s, wasn't it? That was a time when conformity was much more a part of the American make-up than it is now. It was a time when anyone in a white coat was assumed to have the authority of a physician, which was much greater than it is now. People did what they were told quite a bit more readily than they do today, just as a matter of course. Do you think that might have played into the high number of people who went along and carried the experiment to its conclusion?

Now, to try to answer your question, although there is an experience in my past that I think probably skews my answer. And that answer is that because of that experience, I can't honestly think that I would even participate in such an experiment, much less see it all the way through to the end.

When I was in 11th grade a speaker came to my U.S. History class, claiming to be an athlete who had defected from the Soviet Union. Such defections were much in the news at that time, a time when the USSR was still quite monolithic. As he got into his story, I - and several other people in the class - began to suspect that he was not on the up and up. To begin with, some of the things he said seemed to just be way too close to recent defection stories that had been in the news (and, yes, I did follow the news when I was in high school). Also, his accent seemed to be kind of slipping at times (sort of how Kevin Costner's accent kept wavering in and out in "Robin Hood" ), and he seemed to have a pretty good grasp of English syntax for someone who had not been in the U.S. very long (another experience thing - my Grandmother was German, and I knew even then that the word order in foreign languages was different from English, and that it took a long time for non-native English speakers to get used to using English syntax rather than their native language's syntax). In this case, I didn't jump up and accuse him of being a fraud. I did start asking some fairly pointed questions, as did a couple of other people in the class. His response was to quit answering our questions and concentrate on the people who seemed to be completely buying his story.

At the end of the period, the 'defector' 'fessed up. He was a student at the local community college who had been assigned to pose as a defector to see how many in the class would take his story at face value and how many would question him. Because of this experience, which made me feel quite betrayed even though I had caught on to an extent, I think, as I said, I would probably be less than likely to even take part in this kind of experiment. Sorry if that seems like a cop-out; that's the only answer I have.

Maybe that means that we are predestined, because of our past experiences, to only act in specific ways - not predestination from the beginning, but a narrowing of options based on past experience. Maybe it just means that once bitten, twice shy. I don't know.

So, mac, why are you asking all these questions? Just kidding.

 

[mac1]

So, mac, why are you asking all these questions? Just kidding.

Hehe

This has become quite and interesting debate actually

 

[littlemissattitude]

You're right. It is an interesting conversation.