 |
| I live with my parents! |
 |
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:10 pm
Posts: 4807
Location: Canada
|
traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: Define Infinity wrote: traptunderice wrote: I generally hate Cambridge Companions minus the Wittgenstein one. Why? 8 out of 10 of the essays always just hit me as absurdly abstract and kinda circle jerk-y. I don't know, maybe I just have issues with boring philosophers resulting in boring collections of essays. I did just look up the Adorno set and that sounded kinda sexy, albeit I remember the Frankfurt School set was rather uninteresting. You consider Kierkegaard, boring?! In any case, I have read a few chapters on the book and as always Cambridge is nothing short of excellence and well structured. Also, the Blackwell companions are excellent as well. But considering Kierkegaard, boring  ? I didn't call Kierkegaard boring. Over the last two years, I picked up a lot of the Cambridge Companions because they are always the first book to come up on secondary source searches. However, I've never been impressed by any of them. They come off as stuffy and esoteric, which is totally not my style of philosophy. I've never picked up the Kierkegaard one so maybe it is better. I know the Wittgenstein one is good and the Adorno one I googled and it seemed interesting. But the Heidegger, Kant, Descartes, Arendt, Freud, even the Marx one were just uninteresting and boring collections of essays. They provided interesting summaries at times, but never put forth a gripping claim which I want from a secondary source. Maybe it's because they are so general, whatever. I see. Personally, I've never found them "Esoteric" or "inaccessible." You're actually the first person I've met that has not found the companions helpful for a more profound understanding of philosophers in general. Sometimes a direct read is much better than companions but other times they do help a lot (which is obviously from personal experience). I have the Blackwell companion to Heidegger and Nietzsche and have found them very good. But that's about it. I do prefer a direct read from a text itself but you know a companion sometimes gives you a view you would have never thought of yourself. I haven't checked out any of the Blackwell companions and I'm not totally opposed to secondary sources. I have just generally been unimpressed by Cambridge's. I think my issue might be that I generally read the history of philosophy against the grain where they like to dig into particular issues that just might not interest me in the slightest. I know what you mean. However, digging into the history of philosophy might sometimes give one the utmost creativity to advance to new perspectives never thought of before. Have you read Russell's History of Philosophy? I've been meaning to pick it up for a while. I've always heard awful things of Russell's readings of folk. Besides Leibniz, which he apparently does a spectacular job on, the rest leaves something to be desired. I picked it up for $6 a few years back and wasn't impressed by the Spinoza, Hume, Locke, Marx sections that I opted to read. And I think the philosophy of history has value, but you have to read it against the grain. We can't look back at Hobbes and get anything but monarchism if we aren't willing to push the framework he has provided us in new ways. I think some thinkers can be read this way, i.e., Spinoza is incredibly deep and malleable, where Hobbes might never get us anywhere new. Attempts, by folks like Arendt or Schmitt, show that he has a neat notion of human nature but the conclusions he draws are resistant to change. I wholeheartedly agree on Spinoza. He's truly a magnificent philosopher of untouchable logic although as any other philosopher he has his own problematic contradiction upon his genius systematic reasoning. I believe Russell has incredible clarity in his writing as well being somewhat an eloquent writer. I also agree on Hobbes. He's by far a philosopher I have never bothered reading upon. Also, you make a good point on how some philosophical frameworks will remain impenetrable as also somewhat irrelevant to today's age. I think one of the most relevant and most influential thinkers as deep as Marx (in terms of influence that is) would be Nietzsche. What are your thoughts on Kierkegaard? I think if you read Russell realizing that he is telling a story, his thoughts on the history of western philosophy, and not seeking to provide a comprehensive account than you will get something out of the book. You're right that Russell is an extremely good writer. I love his Problems of Philosophy. Given that, you can get something out of his book, but I was looking for readings of philosophers and not Russell's thoughts on the philosophers. I don't see a contradiction in Spinoza, but I work with his premises more than his conclusions. And Nietzsche is incredibly influential. I see Western continental philosophy as divided between Marxists and Nietzscheans, while the truly great philosophers in the last 100 year have bridged that gap (Adorno, Foucault, Deleuze). Of course that doesn't apply to the analytic tradition. As for Kierkegaard, I love him. I thoroughly enjoy reading him. However, I never walk away from his thought with anything, at least relevant to my research interests. Someone like Zizek internalizes some of his account of religious action, and I can agree with that. But overall, Kierkegaard is a lovely read albeit a very difficult thinker to penetrate. He pushes you to think, yet sadly I feel like what you're compelled to think about is not so relevant to contemporary concerns. Say more of what you think of him, if you can, I have read selections of Either/Or and most of Fear and Trembling. A lot of the current crop of the philosophy dept that I'm leaving adore him yet they face the same issue I do. They just resort to a lot of secondary sources. My studying of Adorno, however, always makes me skeptical of philosopher of authenticity. I feel like a lot of what Adorno, and what I have internalized from him of how to critique Heidegger, is rooted in Kierkegaard's influence on Heidegger, those notions of freedom, authentic acts, and falling prey that are present in Kierkegaard as themes, at least, if not fully-fleshed concepts. I believe Kierkegaard is an extremely unique thinker in terms of one simple fact that he had always regulated in his philosophy: emotion. He is, as you have said, a hard philosopher to penetrate the labyrinth of his thought. But once you do it's very rewarding. His uniqueness is also a point of weakness for him. His famous notion of the absurd is a notion which if understood correctly would lead into extreme comfort into the faith of true Christianity and following the symbolic fact that Christ is indeed God in flesh. His Aesthetics are extremely interesting and I would say: groundbreaking. I have not delved into his politics as political philosophy does not interest me in the least. But as mentioned, his Aesthetics, religious and also the inter-connectivity of his religious and ethical thoughts are the very epitome of originality and creativity. Where do his aesthetics come out most clearly? The notion of the absurd, I am familiar enough with, mainly how it develops into Camus' thought, less so on the religious elements, but I can totally see it. His Aesthetics are most vivid in his analysis of music and more importantly theater. His thoughts on Goethe's "Faust", in his Letters and Journals are captivating (as explained in this companion) and a confirmation on the deep influence of Kierkegaard on Albert Camus. I always think one main factor in the beauty of theater can be explained in Freud's notion of the "oceanic" feeling, wouldn't you say? I know you have studied Freud extensively so that's the reason I bring it up. I'll have to look into his thoughts on music. The problem with so much analyses of music from that time is that I'm not super familiar with the composers. Hmph... And I'm not super familiar with theater, but I don't know if I'd describe it as oceanic. The oceanic feeling was always something that one develops out of through the development of an ego. I could imagine losing myself in the epic nature of opera where plays are always something outside of me, unfolding, that I have a look into. As far as I have gone in his notions of theater, he mostly is analyzing the underlying philosophies and principles more so than the specifics and details of particular notion (although he does admire Jon Giovanni!). I too am not very familiar at all with theater. I am nonetheless familiar with cinema as you are as well, and theater in general is another complex story altogether compared to cinema. I mean even when Nietzsche was criticizing music composers (he hated a lot of things) it was just reference and generalization and nothing more as far I can remember. I have to read more upon Kierkegaard and his ideas about arts in general but I do suggest you look into this companion and see how you like it. Although Kierkegaard is a whole different philosopher from Nietzsche as he was not systematic and only certain "themes" ran through his "philosophy." I also think the notion of the "ego" is an essential matter in developing a particular character in a story. It can, on the other hand, be devoid of ego as one devotes his or her character, detaches from it, and gives it to something completely else. But as many great actors have said, there has to be certain aspect of the "character played" in the "real life character" of an actor.
_________________
"The Tigers Of Wrath Are Wiser Than The Horses of Instruction"
-William Blake
|
|
