Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with philosophy

Good books about Confucianism?

oracle bone — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:15:54 -0800

I want to learn more about Confucianism. Do you have any book recommendations? I've recently become interested in Confucianism and would like to learn more about it. I started by reading the Analects of Confucius. I'm aware that there's some other texts associated with Confucianism, so I was wondering if anyone had recommendations on any of those?

Original text aside, I'm also looking for a book for a generally intelligent layperson on the subject. Ideally I'd like a book that's a good mixture of...

- original text by Confucius, translated into English
- and annotation/explanation/philosophical musing on the original text.

I've looked through the previous threads on this topic, just wondering if you had any personal recommendations or any other pertinent thoughts? Thanks!

Beyond Good and Evil...of feet

duckierose — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:12:17 -0800

Did Nietzsche write a poem about feet? In one of my philosophy classes in college we read some of Nietzsche's poems. I have a distinct memory of giggling with one of my college chums about a specific poem, the subject of which was feet.

I remember nothing about the actual poem. The memory is completely about laughing at the fact that Nietzsche would have a poem about feet.

Now, this was 7 or 8 years ago, so the details are even more fuzzy. Recently, the memory was brought to the forefront of my mind again, and I tried to find Nietzsche's foot poem. I tried a variety of web searches, but nothing brought up anything that rung a bell.

So, I pose to you: Is there a Nietzsche poem about feet? Is it perhaps some other philosopher, and I just confused the two? Or is the man who runs the filing cabinets in my brain just totally screwing with me via fabricating this memory?

Upon read-through I realized, it might have been about shoes, and not feet. It was definitely the sub-ankle area, though.

Welcome to Metafilter. You're a Mess.

benzenedream — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:34:33 -0800

What songs have sampled the philosopher Alan Watts? The Books' song "All our base are belong to them" has an Alan Watts sample, as does Giraffes? Giraffes! song "I Am S/H(im)e[r] As You Am S/H(im)e[r] As You Are Me And We Am I And I Are All Our Together: Our Collective Consciousness' Psychogenic Fugue". There must be a ton of other songs containing Watts' quotes. I thought there was a Lemon Jelly song as well, but can't find a reference to it at the moment.

PhD in Ancient Dances of Pangea...and Teaching Math

lhude sing cuccu — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:55:11 -0800

How would someone teach a subject without a Master's in the relevant subject? I hope this question hasn't already been asked; I couldn't find anything too similar. I ask for a few reasons:

1. My history teacher has a BA and MA in History, and MBA in Business Administration, and a PhD in Science and Technology Studies (I know! she's dedicated). She told us, however, that she is qualified to teach Philosophy and Political Science. This is a community college though, and although she teaches (something, I don't know what) at the university too, it confused me. I first thought a person was stuck teaching whatever he'd pursued as a PhD, but at the community college level, a Master's in the relevant subject would suffice. Is this not true? She said something about "points", and I guess experience is involved...?

2. I would personally, as of right now, like to get an MA/PhD in Philosophy, and teach Philosophy and French (which I plan to learn to fluency)...and possibly Latin or Greek (I know most graduate schools require at least one, and I like teaching languages anyway). I don't plan on getting an MA in French, Latin, or Greek though.

3. I've decided I wouldn't feel bad about teaching any of these things at the (most likely private, if I had my way) high school or community college level. I know in order to get a tenure-track job in Philosophy, it's pretty much essential to receive a PhD from one of the Top-10 schools, and if that doesn't happen, I've decided I won't be too disappointed!

So, all in all, with a lone Master's and possibly a lone PhD, what and where would I hypothetically qualify to teach?

PS What's all this talk about "once you get a PhD, you aren't qualified for many jobs you once were"? I hear a lot of horror-talk about this, and I'm not so worried about the actual work (I put a lot of joyous effort into my last paper, I made it longer than usual and I wanted to make it longer...I like research)...so much as the job search.

Nietzsche is to Nihilism as Who is to Optimism?

MikeHarris — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:58:32 -0800

I'm looking for philosophers, both classical and modern, who have constructed arguments for optimism. Now, by that, I don't mean I'm looking for positive psychologists – I know about Seligman's Learned Optimism and Burns' Feeling Good, the two biggies in that field.

What I'm looking for is more a support of the actual philosophical construct of optimism. In other words, what Nietzsche did for nihilism, these philosophers whose names I'm soliciting would have done this for optimism, or for philosophical models of thought that directly support optimism.

The most I was able to do was that Candide was modeled off of Gottfried Leibniz's belief that we live in the best of all possible worlds; I tried reading the English copy of Leibniz's Théodicée on Project Gutenberg, but found it a little too thick to follow.

Ideally, the people you would refer me to would either be able to be semicomprehensible to a motivated layman, or would have a good book in which someone else basically explains the philosopher's system, precepts, theses or what have you in layman's terms.

A backup option would be theological proponents of optimism, or of theological models of thought that could be considered optimistic – but of the two, I'd prefer to read materials philosophical, not theological, in nature.

Habermas

moorooka — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:34:15 -0800

Can anybody explain Habermas in brief? Or point me to some good resources (other than wikipedia)?

More Foucault, heterotopias

bode well carapace — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:46:54 -0800

Does Foucault, or do any other another philosophers, expand upon what is said in "Des espaces autres" in any other publication? Obviously, I'm looking for more academic reading on heterotopian concepts and definitions of other space.

Appropriate attire for presenting at a Philosophy conference

chndrcks — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:29:56 -0800

MetaPhilosophers: What should I wear when presenting at a conference this weekend? I'm a Philosophy grad student who will be going on the job market in the next year or two. I'm also going to be presenting a paper at a professional (not-grad-student-only conference) for the first time this weekend.

I'd like to make a good impression on any future employers I may run into. It's too late to do any more for the paper, but it's not too late to pick out an outfit - preferably something that says "Hire me!" but doesn't go overboard.

Here's what I have to work with:

Pants: Dressy Jeans, Cargo Khakis, Real Khakis, Suit Pants (dark gray - charcoal maybe)

Shirts: A variety of button down shirts - a few in solid white or blue, but most have vertical stripes.

Jackets: Brown Corduroy (but not as expensive), Blue Blazer, Suit Jacket

Ties: standard

When I teach I usually wear: jeans, striped button down shirt and brown corduroy jacket. I think I should bring it up a level or two, but I'm not sure how far. Any suggestions?

Philosophy and critical thinking for younger kids

crapmatic — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:20:17 -0800

What are some good ideas (web resources, books, suggestions, etc) for introducing a 6 to 7 year old child to elements of philosophy, paradoxes, and critical thinking? This is probably too young of an age to actually study the topics directly, but there have to be thought exercises and stories out there that distill the essence of these things in an entertaining or captivating way. I've Googled a bit but found mostly dry lesson-plan type stuff for classes. I know Aesop's Fables is a classic allegory for kids but that focuses mostly on morals.

Help me orient my brain for the purpose of reading Sartre?

notquitemaryann — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:20:31 -0800

They shouldn't let people like me attend used book sales, but now that the damage is done: how and where to begin reading Sartre? I've realized lately that I have accumulated a fair amount of Sartre's writings and could probably make up the remainder among the libraries I frequent. But apart from reading The Age of Reason ten years ago, I've never made an attempt to explore his contributions to philosophy (or actually that of any 20th-century philosopher apart from a little Wittgenstein, an anomaly that I haven't approached all that well and am shelving for the moment). This is mostly because I've never felt myself to be in the proper mindset, and while that seems to be changing slowly, I feel unprepared to begin and lost as to how to prepare. Off the internet, I read very little serious contemporary writing, and spend the majority of my reading time in the head of people who died before 1900; 1650 (in Europe, anyway) is less foreign to me than 1950- this applies to art, music, politics, etc. as well, so that my ability to contextualize, which has been extremely important in my reading of other philosophers, is not there. So, I have a bit of work to do before I charge in like a complete idiot. I'm hoping you can tell me:
1) What non-Sartre things ought to be read first, or at the same time, in order to have the right references and to grasp most thoroughly his books in general, or individually?
2) If not chronologically, in what order could he be read for the best understanding? What have you found most personally rewarding?
Any other advice (apart from exhortations to dive in without any preparation) also appreciated. I do plan on looking into the usefully-named How to Read Sartre, but want and need whatever help I can find. Thanks!

The Ethics of Horror

ageispolis — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:40:54 -0800

Where I can find resources inquiring into the ethics of horror films? Scholarly articles would be best, but popular publications will suffice. So no blog posts. Thank you!

Are the existence of logical paradoxes evidence that logic is not Universal truth?

idyllhands — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:54:45 -0800

Are the existence of logical paradoxes evidence that logic is not Universal truth, or simply symptoms of incomplete or inaccurate semantic systems? I.e., if the Universe is infinite, then everything is possible and every possible scenario happens not only at least once, but an infinite number of times. Within this set of "Everything" is the possibility that "Nothing exists." But obviously something does exist, or I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading this. One could say the Universe is not infinite, but then what is outside of it? It would be either Something, or Nothing. And if it is Something what is outside of that Something? If it is Nothing, then how can Something exist "within" it when Nothing has no "within." But this digression would be beside the point of this question. There are other paradoxes out there that have no resolution.

The reason I ask this is that I have recently moved from a "liberal" college town in my state to a rural "conservative" area for a job. I am surrounded by people who easily accept religion as an answer to questions such as this, and am attempting to separate my belief in Logic from their belief in God, and keep coming to holes in my system of thinking which require blind faith, and am trying to reconcile these holes so that my faith in Logic is founded rather than blind.

Please, no responses that I should find God =)

Trying to recall a philosopher's website with photos of her friends

jayder — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:29:37 -0800

Can anyone remind me which philosopher has a personal website displaying her beautiful photographs of her university friends and colleagues? I can't for the life of me remember who this scholar is.

The photographs are black-and-white, depict strikingly beautiful and interesting-looking people, and have the aura of being taken in the gardens and quads of Oxbridge. Many of the photos look like they might have been taken in the seventies. I vaguely recall that Derek Parfit was one of the people in the photos, but I may be imagining that.

We want to be together for life - but we think marriage is weird. Help?

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:21:21 -0800

To wed or not to wed: that is [sort of] the question. This will be kind of long. I thank you all in advance.

I've been with my SO for nearly four years. I love her immensely and am absolutely sure I want to spend the rest of my life with her. She feels, or so I believe, the same way. The issue? We're pretentious 20-somethings who consider ourselves Lyotard-ian, anti-social narrative, fuck the man sort of people. i.e. - if we love each other and are committed to each other, what's the point of the whole marriage thing, other than the tax break and the wedding gifts?

Part of the issue, as you might imagine, is my family. I was raised a fundamental Christian, which I have since rejected, though my family remains so. They really do like my SO and care about her, and yet when we visit my family we have to sleep in separate rooms, my nephew can't call her an aunt, my family will only refer to her as 'the girl I'm dating' (even though it's far beyond dating), etc. I constantly have to side-step the fact that my SO and I (who live on the opposite side of the country as my family) live together, even though I am sure my parents suspect as much (though we can never speak of it). My family will never recognize my SO as a true member of the family until we are legally wed. It really doesn't matter, in the end, if it's a Christian wedding or not - I suspect my parents would be pleased enough if we simply stood before a judge. We, of course, think this is quite strange - why should some silly ceremony and/or some legal documents be necessary to 'justify' our relationship?

Her parents are much less concerned about the issue - though her grandparents continually ask her when we are going to get married (often with the subtext of 'we're not going to be around much longer and we want to be at your wedding'). We are trying to straddle the fine line between our own philosophical/moral ideologies and our desire to appease our parents/grandparents.

For us, going through the marriage motions feels quite false. It feels as though we are giving into some silly custom because our own love for and commitment to one another, though professed to one another in private, is somehow lacking. The idea of marriage makes us feel not only weak but hypocritical to our own world views. It sounds, admittedly, a bit ridiculous - but in a certain sense we have a sort of Sartre/De Beauvoir fantasy of being able to love each other unconditionally without all the social niceties (and in fact we are concerned that such niceties might, in a sense, undermine our commitment to one another).

So my questions are:

1) are we just being ridiculous 20-somethings trying to be way too cool for school thinking we are "too intelligent" or "above" marriage, traditionally conceived, as a cultural institution?
2) even if we are justified in our skepticism of marriage, should we go through the motions in order to make our lives - at least with my family - pragmatically easier?

We recognize our youth and self-righteousness in all of this. Anecdotes, advice, personal insights, philosophical points very welcome.

Thanks in advance Hive Mind!

Glee, Seinfeld and a Question about Post-Modernism

CollectiveMind — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:45:14 -0800

I keep thinking about the word, "post-modernism." As I understand it, it began after the crash of 1929, and has since represented a ironic self-evaluation of our relativistic values, ideas, cultural touchstones, etc. I've probably missed the nuance, but I'm wanting to get a generalized understanding. If it began after 1929, does that mean the tendency for us to criticize our own navel gazing happens when we experience shattering events, like Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 or the Great Recession of 2008?

And if its marked by irony, is that why there are so many, (some would call) smart, snarky, dark or meaningless comedies beginning with, maybe, Seinfeld, and now including Community, Parks and Recreation, The Office, Glee, etc?

Finally, if this post modern ball got rolling around the 1930s, is it destined to keep rolling forever, meaning I wonder, if post-modern itself is doomed to be eternally post-modern; the old irony continually crushed by the new irony. Hasn't this always been the human condition?

What is an extended abstract?

JoshSmith — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:04:39 -0800

What should an extended abstract (in the humanities) look like? This is for philosophy in particular, though I assume it might be a similar style for other disciplines. I'm responding to a CFP which asks for both an abstract and an "extended abstract." I'm unfamiliar with extended abstracts in the humanities, and most resources online are directed towards science writers.

To be clear, the CFP requests that applicants submit both an abstract (< 100 words) and an extended abstract (1,000-1,500 words). The papers themselves are expected to be under 7,000 words.

What all should be included within an extended abstract? References? What level of detail is usually expected? 1,200 words comes to about 2-1/2 typed single-spaced pages, and I'm well aware this is not a lot of space to go into extensive argumentation.

Any direction anyone can provide would be fantastic. Thanks in advance!

Should I apply for SSHRC?

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:58:58 -0800

How stringent are SSHRC's GPA requirements? Is it worth my time to apply for SSHRC? The application process is quite involved, and I could really be using that time to prepare for other aspects of my grad school applications. Also, the deadline is soon: Oct 1st. I am in my final year of undergrad, preparing applications for MA programs in philosophy. SSHRC wants, at minimum, an A- average in each of the last two years of study: I have an A+ (3.94) in my final year, and a B (3.0) in my penultimate year. I'm at U of T. In the 3.0 year, I wasn't really taking courses in philosophy, if it matters.

Sometimes it's worth it to apply for things even if you don't meet the mimimum standards, because other aspects of your application might set you apart, or the requirements are more of a wish list, or who actually gets through depends more on the competition for that year, etc. But I don't want to waste time applying for SSHRC if it's more or less certain I'm not going to get it. Any ideas?

(Anon because I'm embarrassed about that 3.0.)

I am looking for anecdotes, stories, and pieces of wisdom where "giving up" led to increased happiness and peace of mind.

DeltaForce — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:43:35 -0800

I am looking for anecdotes, stories, and pieces of wisdom where "giving up" led to increased happiness and peace of mind. "If you can't change your fate, change your attitude."
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
"Fighting a losing battle."
"Beating a dead horse."

These are quotes that bring me comfort, and a sense of relief when it comes to trying to get past certain struggles in my life, though I still tend to ruminate and obsess, which just does more harm than good.

I'd like anecdotes, stories, and pieces of wisdom relating to situations in life, health, work, and relationships, where "giving up" led to increased happiness and peace of mind. Also, perhaps someone could guide me towards a certain philosophy or slant of mind that encompasses this concept.

I'd also love to hear recommendations for any movies, music, or books in which this is a theme.

Thanks MeFi!

Aren't we and space and ideas always changing?

TheOtherSide — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:06:43 -0800

So, what are the universally accepted axioms in philosophy, if any? While tracking another askmefi question regarding questions in philosophy, I have noticed that philosophical arguments seem to make a lot of assumptions. As simple examples, the "Utility Monster" and "P-Zombie" thought experiments seem to make assumptions that life is mostly static and that people's beings don't change over time. In producing these thought experiments are these philosophers utilizing a well-regarded set of assumptions that I should be aware of? Is there even such a thing?

Also, how do I make Philosophy less semantically confusing? Because often when I read Philosophical arguments I'll think, 'sure that makes sense, if I assume that X means Y, but sometimes X means Z, or X will mean Z at a later date.'

Disclaimer: I haven't read any real philosophy since undergrad, but I remember this imprecision being a thing that turned me off from 'early' works. At the time, I remember reading Plato and Descartes and thinking to myself, 'yeah this is interesting, but wow they make a lot of assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with.'

Bedeute es mir bitte

creasy boy — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:53:34 -0800

Need help translating/interpreting Wittgenstein's "Bei der magischen Heilung einer Krankheit bedeutet man ihr, sie möge den Patienten verlassen", esp. the use of bedeuten with a dative object. It comes from his Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough, on p. 128 of Philosophical Occasions and p. 35 of the Suhrkamp Votrag über Ethik.

I've been trying to get a handle on this sentence by translating it into English but any paraphrase or explanation in either English or German might help me. My problem is that I don't really know what bedeuten could mean with a dative object. I'd be interested also in knowing whether Wittgenstein made this up or it's an accepted use.

The translation offered in Philosophical Occasions is "With the magical healing of an illness, one directs the illness to leave the patient", and I don't see how this could be right.

My intuitive sense would be something like "one signifies to it that it leave the patient", but I'm not sure if that makes any sense either.

The context:

Die Magie in "Alice in Wonderland" beim Trocknen durch Vorlesen des Trockensten was es gibt.
Bei der magischen Heilung einer Krankheit bedeutet man ihr, sie möge den Patient verlassen.
Man möchte nach der Beschreibung so einer magischen Kur immer sagen: Wenn das die Krankheit nicht versteht, so weiß ich nicht, wie man es ihr sagen soll.

Thank you for any help.

Your favorite interesting, specific question in philosophy

k. — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:54:11 -0800

Philosophy Filter: What are some fresh and interesting questions or topics in philosophy? I don't know if there are many philosophy nerds on MetaFilter (at least relative to other kinds of nerds), but I thought I'd give this a shot. I'm looking for topics that you wouldn't necessarily learn about in the usual undergraduate philosophy courses. I'd prefer these to be pretty specific, like these examples:

1. The "philosophy of information", which covers both the application of methods and ideas from computer science to philosophy and philosophical issues about what information is (especially in the work of Luciano Floridi)

2. Attacks on virtue ethics based on psychologists' claims that human character traits are much less stable than we think (summarized in e.g. the recent popular book Experiments in Ethics by K. Anthony Appiah)

More like these please! Really, any issue in philosophy that you find interesting would help. Bonus points for relevance to any timely issues outside of philosophy (in politics/society, science, etc).

∃x∀y∃z[Qx∧(My→Pyx)∧Wz ∧Pzx] ∨ ∃x[Qx∧∀y(My→Pyx)∧∃z(Wz∧Pzx)]?

ed\26h — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:28:57 -0800

∃x∀y∃z[Qx∧(My→Pyx)∧Wz ∧Pzx] ∨ ∃x[Qx∧∀y(My→Pyx)∧∃z(Wz∧Pzx)] ? 1. ∃x∀y∃z[Qx∧(My→Pyx)∧Wz ∧Pzx]
2. ∃x[Qx∧∀y(My→Pyx)∧∃z(Wz∧Pzx)]

I’m fairly new to predicate logic. When writing it, I’m naturally drawn to getting all the quantifiers out of the way at the start of the relevant scope (as in 1), as opposed to embedding them within that scope (as in 2). As far as I can tell, 1 and 2 are logically equivalent, and so choosing between them is simply a matter of notational convention, readability, etc. I have some questions:

A: Am I right? Are 1 and 2 logically equivalent? If not, why not?
B: Is there any circumstance where doing things my way would cause a problem?
C: Any further advice/comments?

Thanks in advance!

PS: If needed, here is some further info:

Let’s say our universe/domain is: people and their qualities.
Qx: x is a quality.
Mx: x is a man.
Wx: x is a woman.
Pxy: x has quality y.

Assume I’m trying to say “There exists a person/quality that is a quality and found in every man and found in at least one woman.”

Wittgenstein's joke

creasy boy — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:04:37 -0800

Looking for a joke by Wittgenstein, something like "Are they crazy?" "No, they're just doing philosophy." It's not a joke per se, but it's funny. Wittgenstein imagines a philosophical dialogue between two people, someone else walks into the room and says "are they crazy" and is told: no, they're just doing philosophy. I thought it was in the PI but I just re-read that and didn't find it. I'm also pretty sure it's not in Philosophical Remarks, Philosophical Grammar, Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, Blue and Brown Books, Culture and Value, Zettel, or the Wiener Kreis notes, because I just looked through all those in the past half-year. Maybe On Certainty?

I couldn't have made this up, it's exactly the sort of thing Wittgenstein would write, but for the life of me I can't find it.

The Hedgehog Effect?

notbuddha — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:35:12 -0800

What is the "Hedgehog Effect?" in the context of publishing (or possibly philosophy)?

Purpose of the Contingent Universe

Henry C. Mabuse — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:50:49 -0800

Searching for an article, probably pre-2004, which involves a 'new' philosophical approach to the, ahem, 'meaning of life' .. Basically, I wanted to come back and re-read the article, follow it up, do a bit of reading and research on the thinking behind it, but never did, and now it's gone. Can't remember the name of the writer/philosopher/theorist. I think he is relatively young, although that could be wrong.

The idea was along the lines that the purpose of the contingent universe is for intelligent life to arise and for that life to attempt to understand the purpose of the contingent universe... that's a bit woo-woo but I think it was a deal more serious than that.

I do not believe it was the anthropic cosmological principal or such like. I have an idea that the same theorist proposed that it is impossible to measure the location of any object in motion - not just sub atomic particles - and this was some how part of his theory. It was some kind of 'ground breaking' new theory or philosophical treatise, which at the time, due probably to laziness, alcoholism and general stupidity, I glanced over, bookmarked, and promptly forgot about. Current interests revived the memory..

As you can see, I'm totally vague on the details, and my google fu has failed me. It was a metaphysical type argument, and I believe it was largely new, not based on older philosophical lines of thought, and it probably crossed into QM.

Or did I dream it?