Twir, you have quite an appetite! I too started out with almost a
spiritual sense of awe when it came to pure math. Somewhere along the
line it fizzled out…most likely when I spent two weeks and 28 pages of
text learning how to literally prove that 1 + 1 = 2. . . abstract
algebra I’d guess. . . not sure now. Although, I can say for sure that
once Calc became embodied, I felt actual perceptual changes…so there
is something to it….and, Neil turned me on to a few books to help
polish off my belief structures about math.
As to where to stop…perhaps with one’s last breath?
“Yes, I don't know any Eastern philosophers by name…” – Twir
While not claiming to be an authority here, I do have some
experience. Vam may know a few for Vedanta better than I so I will
leave those schools to him; however, most from India do cross over
into the Buddhist philosophers I’ve studied, a list of some of the
more noteworthy as I see it follows:
Middle Way School (Madhyamaka): Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are considered
authoritative by all Madhyamikas, regardless of sub-school
Prasangika-Madhyamaka (Middle Way Consequence):
Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Santiadeva, Tsong Khapa
Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka: Santaraksita, Kamalasila,
Haribhadra
Sautrantika-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka: Bhavaviveka,
Jnanagarbha
Yogacara/Cittamatra (Mind Only School):
Mind Only Followers of Reasoning: Dignaga, Dharmakirti
Mind Only Followers of Scripture: Asanga, Vasubandhu
Sautrantika
Sutra School Followers of Reasoning: Dignaga, Dharmakirti
Sutra School Followers of Scripture: Vasubandhu
Great Exposition School (Vaibhasika): Vasubandhu and others.
There are countless sites online for such things and rather than
burden you with some of the heavier ones, to start, Alan Wallace might
be good. His site includes references, audio downloads and a reading
library…again, free to use. When it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, he is
near the top as I see it. He is fluent in both Tibetan and Sanskrit.
http://www.sbinstitute.com/
And, I haven’t even touched China here…again wishing to share that
which I have found most profound instead of longer lists.
My personal view is that when it comes to things ontological as well
as epistemological, the ‘east’ starts beyond where many in the ‘west’
end. A prejudice for sure, however based upon some time in the art.
On Jan 18, 8:30 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 12:54 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think that Husserl's main contribution was to define [phenomenology].
> > It will be difficult to interpret [Heidegger] or Sartre without the ideas
> > in his book "Ideas"
>
> I was afraid of that. More generally (and I think this might be a
> point of more general interest to other members), one reason why I
> have not engaged in any formal or systematic study of philosophy is my
> fear that I have no chance of understanding Heidegger, say, not only
> because of the idiosyncrasy of his use of a foreign language (I did
> study German in school, and it was one of the few subjects I enjoyed,
> but I have forgotten almost all of it, so I will probably have to rely
> on translations) - this problem is perhaps especially acute with
> Heidegger (on the other hand, I have my own deep dissatisfaction with
> ordinary language, so I might have some sympathy for his
> idiosyncrasies) - but more simply and more generally, because he is
> building on the work of his predecessors, going back for millennia,
> even explicitly (in Heidegger's case, again) to the Presocratics.
>
> Where does one stop? Or rather, where does one start? (I almost
> expect a Heideggerian answer to that!)
>
> It's not like studying mathematics, where, as Dieudonne (I think) and
> many others have observed, the later stuff kind of subsumes a lot of
> the earlier stuff, and makes it more or less possible (in my case
> less, but never mind!) to absorb a good chunk of the central history
> of the subject.
>
> Or is it? Is philosophy progressive, in any even remotely analogous
> way?
>
> > It is true that [Heidegger] and Sartre, deal with being and Husserl sort
> > of missed it,
>
> That rings a bell, from that article I faintly remember reading. I
> very dimly recall getting the impression that Husserl thought of
> phenomenology too literally as a science; but of course I may be
> getting this totally wrong.
>
> > but the application of
> > phenomenology to ontology was really what gave them their
> > breakthroughs – and that’s where your breakthrough can occur too –
> > Husserl’s reduction gave them access to the material they published..
>
> I think I understand.
>
> > Vam might have some recommended reading from India. Not sure how he
> > got tuned in but I bet you dollars to donuts he has some very
> > interesting source material.
>
> Yes, I don't know any Eastern philosophers by name (and some of them,
> I seem to recall, are anonymous), but mention of the likes of
> Schopenhauer and Jung kind of brings them in by implication (OK, so
> arguing like that could justify anything!), and people have seen
> connections between Meister Eckhart and Eastern philosophy, too.
>
> > You might consider this reduced list :
> > Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, [Nietzsche], Jung, Husserl,
> > Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Popper, Denning,
>
> Denning? Typo? (See below.)
>
> > Searle (Not sure Jung belongs there. Have you seen his « Red Book yet ?)
>
> I have a strong sense that Jung will be very important to me, and I
> don't want to draw too hard-and-fast a dividing line between
> "philosophy" and "psychology", especially as (I believe) a lot of
> what /should/ be philosophy has been pushed into the "psychology"
> category.
>
> I hadn't even heard of the Red Book (just the period in his life when
> it was written). Thanks for telling me about it!
>
> > I would study them in this order though : (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre),
>
> OK, I'll see what I can do about that. It's all very daunting!
>
> > (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas),
>
> Although I'm totally ignorant of Aquinas, I know that Plato is a
> delight to read (and mind-spinningly confusing and unnerving), and I
> have Aristotle's ./Nicomachean Ethics/ to hand (although I have never
> opened it).
>
> > (Kant),
>
> Oh Gawd, Kant! Who's scarier, him or Heidegger? Anyway, I have an
> abridged edition of /The Critique of Pure Reason/ (ed. Humphrey
> Palmer), /Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/ (two copies: tr.
> Ellington, tr. Paton), and /Perpetual Peace and Other Essays/ (tr. Ted
> Humphrey), from which I have actually read and enjoyed (a long time
> ago, possibly in another translation) "Idea for a Universal History
> with a Cosmopolitan Intent".
>
> > (Kierkegaard,
>
> I think I'm going to enjoy him, although I fancy his contemporary
> references might take some getting used to.
>
> > [Nietzsche]),
>
> I hate him! Must I? I suppose I must. Where should I start? (Sigh.)
>
> > (Wittgenstein),
>
> Also scary, and also not at all to my taste, in either the earlier or
> the later incarnation. But I suppose I've got to, sometime. (I did
> skim through his /Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics/, and
> found it mostly merely annoying, and not even very suggestive. My
> fault, I suppose.) Can I not start with thinkers I actually like, feel
> some affinity for? (I've been told that I resemble him. Perhaps
> that's why I don't like him.)
>
> > (Jung),
>
> Also difficult, of course, but vital for me. Have read a few things: /
> Synchronicity/, of course, and his autobiography, some easier popular
> books (/The Undiscovered Self/, /Modern Man in Search of a Soul./,
> maybe others, all of which I liked). Don't have any real idea where to
> start on a proper study. Don't really know what an archetype is ...
>
> > (Popper,
>
> Should be very pleasant - at least /The Open Society and its Enemies/
> (and I've read his autobiography /Unended Quest/, and a few bits and
> pieces here and there). He should help me to keep my feet on the
> ground (with my head still in the clouds, if I can stretch, but at
> least in not the sand).
>
> > Dennet,
>
> Not that Daniel Dennett character? Must I read him? Really? Please
> tell me it's just a typo!
>
> > Searle)
>
> OK, he's fun, and pretty sensible (although not exactly in tune with
> my way of thinking). He should also help me to stay grounded.
>
> > I would focus on ontology throughout.
>
> The ontology of persons, or more generally?
>
> > You won't be able to get through all of each category
>
> :-)
>
> > but after you get a feel for it you can move on and come back to fill in
> > detail.
>
> > Who knows, maybe we will need to add you to the list if you ever can write
> > up what you find out!
>
> I'd better get busy, then! Oh, dear, I'm so depressed, and I've got
> this terrible pain down all the diodes in my left side ..
>
> > What's that phrase? "The unexamined life is scarcely worth living?"
>
> I think I'm going to fail this examination.
>
> > Oh, and one other thing to remember... you know what's wrong with just
> > "having a positive mental attitude"?...... Its just too
> > depressing...:)
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> > On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 18, 12:08 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Consider adding Husserl and Aquinas
>
> > > I certainly considered adding Husserl, especially since he started as
> > > a mathematician, but something I read somewhere, a year or so ago,
> > > suggested that I would not really find him at all congenial. I'm
> > > sorry I cannot remember the details, but it was an article comparing
> > > and contrasting his version of phenomenology with someone else's,
> > > possibly Merleau-Ponty (but again I'm not sure), and although I'm
> > > unfamiliar with the field, I formed a definite impression that the
> > > argument went in favour of the other guy, from my point of view.
>
> > > I also skimmed through a book called /Numbers in Presence and Absence:
> > > A Study of Husserl's Philosophy of Mathematics/, by J. Philip Miller
> > > (this was a good few years ago, but I have some notes somewhere), and
> > > again didn't form a favourable impression of H's way of thinking. I
> > > know he's a founding father, and all that, bu FWIW my impression is
> > > that I would prefer to know about how the field moved on after he
> > > founded it (if that is possible).
>
> > > Aquinas, of course, is bound to come up in any list of great
> > > philosophers, but I just don't happen to know anything about him that
> > > would give me any impression, favourable or unfavourable, that I can
> > > latch onto (apart from my bias against Christians).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
