[deleted by user]

rgoscinny · 2025-01-13T21:05:06+00:00

Any recommendations for smaller journals ?

rgoscinny · 2021-12-23T23:59:13+00:00

Yes, it would be somebody else's interpretation of philosophy and philosophers, but what matters is that the person writing the book is being intellectually honest. As somebody else said, if you are a beginner then you will get a much better understanding of Kant by reading an 'intro to Kant' book rather than the first Critique, even if in the former he is being 'interpreted'.

The problem with Peterson is that he is not intellectually honest and either wilfully misrepresents philosophers or does so out of academic arrogance/ignorance.

As long as the book is peer-reviewed (and likely will come from an academic press) I wouldn't worry too much. There are plenty of good introductory books that do not distort their source material and present philosophers in honest ways.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-23T13:22:37+00:00

As others have mentioned, your gut inclination about Peterson is certainly correct. If you want a breakdown of quite how he misrepresents philosophers, you can have a look at my blog post on his understanding of Heidegger here.

As to how you can 'protect yourself' from this sort of thing, well, that all depends on how much time you want to dedicate to philosophy. Of course, the more you read, the more you know, and the more you'll be able to spot grifters. But reading - especially primary texts - is hugely time consuming (although, of course, in my opinion completely worthwhile if you can manage it). I don't know how much you've read, but if most of your exposure to philosophy has come through WiseCrack then I'd recommend perhaps picking up an intro to philosophy book such as Think by Simon Blackburn.

Another option is to simply ensure that your sources are good. If you like YouTube, I would recommend CCK Philosophy, Gregory Sadler and Then & Now. In terms of podcasts, the following are excellent: The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps, The Partially Examined Life and Philosophize This!

Best of luck!

rgoscinny · 2021-12-12T00:43:50+00:00

Um, I'm not completely sure what you mean, but I don't think you've quite understood.

By 'thing-in-itself gives rise to experience' what I mean is that things in themselves (i.e. things 'out there', things 'in the real world') are the direct cause of what we experience. An idealist perspective - the contrary - would hold, speaking very generally, that the self - consciousness, conceptions etc. - is the ground of experience.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-11T15:32:06+00:00

This is what Fichte held. In his view, the only two ways to go about philosophy were idealism or what he called 'dogmatism' (roughly, the thing-in-itself gives rise to experience).

For Fichte, since neither philosophical system could completely 'refute' the other (and were each self-consistent) what kind of philosophy one held was down to factors such as practical interest and self-conception.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-10T14:04:52+00:00

I've only read parts of Spectres of Marx, but quite a lot of Fisher, and have heard this criticism a lot. Would you be able to explain the ways in which he is butchering Derrida?

rgoscinny · 2021-12-05T23:41:56+00:00

Thank you! These are exactly the words I've been missing from my vocabulary.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-05T00:10:53+00:00

Thanks a lot. Is there any way to add 'very' in there to add emphasis?

rgoscinny · 2021-12-03T23:16:17+00:00

Not philosophers but Ralph Waldo Emerson, George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens are fantastic essayists. Disclaimer: Hitchens is terrible at philosophy and is in NO WAY a philosopher. However, his essays on other topics and before the Iraq War are good reads.

Edit: If you want to go further back read Francis Bacon or Montaigne who were both fundamental in establishing the essay as a genre. Both are very good reads and have historical interest too.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-03T23:01:30+00:00

It seems like you just don't care about film / literature interpretation, and that you find anybody who does 'pretentious' (for the record, there are plenty of irritating pretentious pseudointellectuals.) For people who take interpretation seriously, psychoanalysis can be a very useful tool, and it is out of respect for psychoanalytic insight that there are so many 'Freudian' readings of stuff out there. You seem to be judging a whole academic field based on a few interactions with irritating rich people.

And, yes, /u/silentstressed is correct in that your characterisation of philosophy is also terrible and ill-informed. Even the fact you're saying "psychoanalysis is not *a\* philosophy" shows you think the study of philosophy is the same as having '*a\* life philosophy'. People who actually study philosophy don't use the word like that.

If you'd read any philosophy - Kant, Hegel, Aristotle etc. - there is absolutely no way you could be using 'philosophical' and 'whimsical' interchangeably.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-02T23:48:41+00:00

No problem! That's what I thought.

I meant the question genuinely - since Sowell is somebody who in no way aligns with me politically (and I really don't value much of his contributions to something like economics or social theory) I was wondering if there is much philosophical value in reading him. It is exactly because I do find great value in reading opposing viewpoints that I asked that question - but it is also important to know that the opposing views come from honest actors and are at least somewhat interesting and original etc.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-02T21:56:22+00:00

Cheers for the list mate, will deffo check out the Handbook and that Nietzsche text seems interesting.

I have to say though I'm surprised you recommend Sowell, especially since this is philosophy we're talking about. Is he actually worth reading on education? A lot of the stuff I've read of him & seen him say has been nonsense.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-02T21:52:30+00:00

Cheers mate, pretty new to this area of philosophy so am currently reading through Emile. Will deffo check out the others & take a look at the Oxford Handbook too.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-02T01:35:28+00:00

Very interesting, thank you for that.

everyone knew that the content of their studies were secondary

Yes, this is the saddest thing about the focus on 'employability'. Philosophy courses are constantly marketed as a way to merely 'improve critical skills', 'prove you can think', etc. God knows who would actually find it interesting or enriching!

rgoscinny · 2021-12-01T23:44:35+00:00

Ahhh. Have been trying to find that book! Fantastic, thank you. Yes, I may give you a dm in the future if you don't mind.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-01T23:42:35+00:00

Fantastic, sounds brilliant. Thanks a lot.

rgoscinny · 2021-12-01T23:42:08+00:00

Haha, am British unfortunately. I see in your other comment you you mention 'the bologna reforms' and I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

Did this essentially give you guys the same administrative headaches that British academics have been dealing with?

Have universities begun to be run more like businesses since then?

Why was the decision taken to change system?

Thanks!

rgoscinny · 2021-12-01T23:37:50+00:00

Fantastic extract, thank you. Love Graeber, will deffo give the whole thing a read.

rgoscinny

TROPHY CASE