Best modern philosophy books according to redditors

Starting out in philosophy, I think, requires a historical approach. In order to fully understand some work (say, Marx's Das Kapital) means you need the background literature that led up to that work (say, Hegel's Phenomenology). The important thing to remember when reading through the history of western philosophy, is that all of these writers are in dialogue with one another, and that none of their views makes perfect sense in a vacuum. So, I suggest we start at the beginning.

Plato. Folks will tell you to read the pre-socratics, but if you aren't a professional or a student, it's not entirely necessary. Plato is the ground floor in terms of western philosophy and the upshot is that the dialogues are fairly easy and light reading (in the context of western philosophy, which can often get very dense). I'd suggest the Meno which covers a bunch of intro epistemology, the Republic, which covers a lot of P's political and moral thought. The trial and death of socrates is also really great. It's a collection of dialogues.

Then I'd suggest Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics which is a direct response to Plato.

Then I'd move on to the early modern guys. Some will tell you to dig into the Romans and the medieval stuff, but again, if you just want a beginners list, I'd skip em for now.

In terms of early modern stuff, the period runs roughly from Francis Bacon or Galileo, to Kant. All of these guys are debating with each other so its important to move through it chronologically, in order to understand the context of the writings.

I always suggest that my students pick up this book: http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Philosophy-Anthology-Primary-Sources/dp/0872209784/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375192962&sr=1-1&keywords=early+modern+philosophy+reader
Get an old edition, and a dirty used cheap one if you are buying the book. No point in going nuts when there's no difference between editions.

It is an anthology (with good translations) of Descartes' Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, Leibniz's Monadology, Locke's Essay, Berkeley's Three Dialogues, Hume's Enquiry, and Kant's Prolegomena. Plus more- checkout the table of contents.
This book will give you the whole history of early modern, without you having to buy a ton of different books. But these are the books a beginner would read, in this order.

Once my beginner had finished these texts, he'd have a good idea of what the history of philosophy looks like, and would be in a really good position to start tackling more contemporary stuff. It will also give you an idea of what issues in philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, political philosophy, etc.) you are interested in so you can dial in what else you want to read.

Remember!: All of these books are in the public domain and you can find free copies online. The only downside is that the translations can be a little rough.

I also suggest (as you can no doubt tell by now), that a beginner tackle primary sources. People will tell you to read some secondary book that "breaks it down for you," but the only way to build up the ability to read the history of philosophy is by actually digging in and getting messy. Philosophy can be really hard to read, but you get the hang of it. But this only happens if you struggle with the text's themselves. The payoff is worth it.

Edit: /u/realy provided an absolutely badass reading list from St. John's undergraduate great books program. Check it out!!

Wittgenstein.
He had the strength of character to admit his own early works were unsatisfactory, and in doing so changed the direction of C20th philosophy.

Key texts:

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (early logical positivism)

Philosophical Investigations

EDIT: A post about the Philosophical Investigations wouldn't really be complete without also mentioning the Baker and Hacker commentary. Worth pursuing if you want to read PI in any depth (also pulls you out of the mist when it descends!).

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Tämä on mielestäni ihan jees analyysi Petersonista. Käsittääkseni Petersonin ymmärrys postmodernismista ei ole edes hänen omansa, vaan se perustuu tähän kirjaan, joka ei myöskään ole mitenkään uskottava tulkinta. Tälläisen kuvan olen saanut, kun olen selaillut filosofisia keskusteluita aiheesta.

Soames's History of Analytic philosophy is accesible and language-focused. Could make for a good read, even though it might be a bit challenging. Should be helpful.

I haven't read Ian Hacking's Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy. But I've read many of his books and know that he's an excellent writer. Could be a productive read.

> State Representative DJ Johnson said the Bible “really did set the foundation that our founding fathers used to develop documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.”

No, it really didn't, and I'm beyond sick of hearing this canard trotted out, particularly by public officials.

The works of John Locke had more bearing on the development of our founding documents than did any religious text.

If you're curious about a "survey overview" of postmodernism from conception to today, check out Explaining Post-Modernism. It's only $4 + change on kindle.

"Explaining postmodernism: read it, and feel all logic and sense drain away."
~ Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, U of Toronto.

Better men than me have already done that, but certainly no sickle-wielding communists are going to read them, much less assent to their conclusions.

Dr. Stephen Hicks wrote a very good book on the subject of how the failures of Marxism in the 20th Century gave rise to the postmodern philosophical tradition wherein its adherents eschew rationality and logic, aphoristically embodied by quotes such as:

>Postmodernism “seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” —Frank Lentricchia


>“the normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation” —Andrea Dworkin


>“everything is ‘in the last analysis’ political.” —Fredric Jameson


Dr. Hicks posits that only through the postmodernists’ assertion that reason and logic have failed and by appealing to people’s visceral emotions can they hope to usher in a politcoeconomic system that has been thoroughly disproven.

Postmodernity has gradually engendered the subversive notions of identity politics, political correctness, hate speech, radical feminism, transnormativity, and useless pseudoacademic institutions such as “gender studies,” all of which pervade academia.

Here’s an Amazon link to his book, Explaining Postmodernism

And here’s a fun web application called the Postmodernism Generator that uses abstruse terminology to randomly generate papers reflective of the garbage pumped out by postmodernists. The generator creates papers bearing titles such as The Defining characteristic of Sexual identity: Constructivist
libertarianism in the works of Burroughs that are utter hogwash, but humorous nonetheless and ironically calls to mind a Nietzschean quote:

>Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.

William Lycan's Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction is very helpful and comprehensive as an overview.

As for really famous primary works in the field, you might want to check these out:


Truth and Meaning

Tarski's The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics

Quine's Two Dogma's of Empiricism

Davidson's Truth and Meaning

Pragmatics

Austin's How to Do Things with Words

Grice's Logic and Conversation


Reference

Donellen's Reference and Definite Descriptions

Kripke's Naming and Necessity

Wittgenstein

Primary Lit:

Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus (obviously)

Secondary Lit (I'm only well versed on the secondary lit for the later Wittgenstein, so I'll give you that):

Marie McGinn's Routledge Guide

John McDowell's Wittgenstein on Following a Rule

Meredith Williams' Wittgenstein, Mind, and Meaning

----

Hope that helps!

EDIT: Added a lot

I like to recommend Simon Blackburn's Think as a primer. I would try reading Descartes' Meditations, Aristotle's 'Posterior Analytics', and perhaps G. E. Moore's Philosophical Papers (particularly his essay 'A Defense of Common Sense') alongside Blackburn's book. The recommendations in the sidebar have a few good suggestions (Williams, Blackburn, etc.) for introductory works on ethics.

Someone posted this thread on psychedelic leftism today, with a link to a longer piece on the subject here, might be relevant to your interests. And although I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, Bloch's Principles of Hope sounds like it would relate to the intersection of spirituality and leftist utopianism too (it's referenced in the book Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions by Marxist literary critic Fredric Jameson)

None of them. Its a modern quote from carl sagan or someone. Its also ambiguous. Without clarification its not clear what it even means, or even if its an attempt to say anything more than that people's parts come from the universe. Most people who repeat it don't even mean very much by it.

If you want to know what ones believe something like that more literally, one example might be hinduism. It holds that god is everything that exists, and that individual people in some sense are an illusion generated by it dividing its mind into seemingly distinct entities. And so part of enlightenment can be identification with the whole.

Another religous example s jewish kabbalah. From god's perspective only god exists. And god may not even be an entity so to speak, at least not one we can understand an an entity. Its an abstract infinite essence that at one space contracted and allowed part of it to generate into the universe. From its perspective, people are part of it even though from their own perspective they are distinct.

Obviously both of those imply a supernatural god, not just the universe. If you want a philosophy idea that means something like this without needing anything suernatural, it is referred to as open individualism. the idea that the main facts of identity identity exist not on the human level, but on the universal level, and individual people develop out of this, divided not by strict barriers but just by distance, and psychological constructs seeing them as distinct. Its not well known, despite becoming seen as more mainstream lately, and even big historical figures like schopenhauer and schrodinger being big into it. Schrodinger's book is a good intro to the idea, though its more of an explanation than an argument. There's a few arguments, but a more complicated textbook would have more in it.

Also, this just came out yesterday, but it seems to be more of a companion to his other book, rather than a replacement.

Have an upvote. Your answer's not shitty at all.

I'm not an expert, but I'll add some stuff.

First, if you want a complicated answer that will open up a lot of sources to you, a place to start would be Frederic Jameson's Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions.

In that collection of essays, Jameson argues that, like /u/Plecboy states above, in order to think about technology leading civilization into some kind of future, people first had to notice that technology was really changing the present.

Because technology changed the present from the past so much, people started to think that the future could be different than the present. To paraphrase and make a huge generalization, before the enlightenment and the industrial revolution, people didn't think the past was very different than the present. They certainly didn't think the earthly future was going to be different than the present except for divine revelation, and that's why popular stories about the direction of humanity were tied up in religion, like judgment, the second coming, etc. People thought that's where humanity was headed, or else they thought humanity was doomed (for some, or everyone, etc).

There's another big current of thought that I don't want to leave out, though. It wasn't just technology that was changing the world; capitalism and the sociopolitical construction of the self underwent a huge change. This is not easy to sum up, but to make another big general statement, people began to realize (very slowly) that the forces that change the world are not divine, or god-given, but very much subject to power that certain persons hold at a certain time and place.

So besides immersing yourself in the post-modern standards like Foucault's Madness and Civilization and Discipline and Punish, as well as Marxist history, I would also invite you to read Hayden White's Tropics of Discourse because White argues that the way of thinking about history has always been quite dynamic and subject to political and literary forces of the moment too. Reading White's work fits in really well with thinking about science fiction, not only because the lines between fiction and non-fiction are often blurred in both genres, but also because writing about the (real) past and the (speculative) future both involve a lot of ... artistic decision-making.

Jamesons writing is really difficult. White's is easier and awesome to read.

You might also check out Peter Lang's Tenses of Imagination: Raymond Williams on Science Fiction, Utopia and Dystopia. I haven't read this collection, but Jameson often refers to Williams's work on utopian literature.

First thing's first, get yourself a better translation. I know the Common translation is free online, but it's an outdated translation with it's own issues, and you'll understand the text better in a more contemporary translation anyways. I like this translation personally because it has great footnotes, but the Cambridge has become the standard, and it's not a bad translation either.

Okay. So let's work through your questions sequentially.

1. The Big Bang theory as we know it was not formulated until the early 1900's, and even then it was in it's nascent stages as a theory and would be almost unrecognizable to us in the way that the layman understands it. So, it's probably safe to say that Nietzsche isn't concerned with TBBT.
   
   That said, I think it's a mistake to read this particular passage as an instance of a metaphysical claim. Zarathustra is talking about a vision that he had, and after all, he is a prophetic character. So it's probably best to look past the metaphysical propositions and just assume that time functions in this fashion, what does that say?
   
   
2. My response picks up here. One's life, according to the Eternal Recurrence, occurs again and again, the same way, ad infinitum. Zarathustra, as an individual in the moment (hence moment is inscribed on the gateway overhead), only has the perspective in the present moment, yet he can see that life goes on infinitely forwards and infinitely backwards. They aren't two separate entities which flow into one another, it is all one constant "line", if you will, which flows infinitely in one direction. Zarathustra, in the present moment, exists on a single point on that continuum.
   
   I wouldn't make heavy weather of the word antithetical. Perhaps the better translation will help.
   
   > They contradict each other, these paths; they blatantly offend each other - and here at this gateway is where they come together.
   
   
3. The dwarf is not echoing Zarathustra. The del Caro translation:
   
   > 'All that is straight lies,' murmured the dward contemptuously. 'All truth is crooked, time itself is a circle.' 'You spirit of gravity!' I said, angrily. 'Do not make it too easy on yourself! Or I shall leave you crouching here where you crouch, lamefoot - and I bore you this high!
   
   The dwarf is speaking platitudes. It's easy to say that time is circular and that you're just coming back to the same moment, doing the same thing, over and over again, returning endlessly to this same spot, but one almost gets the sense that the dwarf is speaking about metaphysical truths, or perhaps trying to make this metaphysics instead of what it really is, the wonderful affirmative thing that follows (the vision of the shepherd).
   
   The spirit of gravity is the spirit of seriousness, something which Zarathustra detests. He's not talking about physics, and he's not referencing any metaphysical theories, so don't worry about dimensionality or gravity as a force, or anything like that.
   
   And yes, he retains a linear concept, but only to preserve the metaphor of a "path" upon which one walks. Hence earlier he says "Two paths come together here; no one has yet walked them to the end". Don't think that there is a physical end or that it's talking about physics. Just focus on the fact that it's your path, one which stretches infinitely.
   
   
4. From my translation:
   
   > And are not all things firmly knotted together in such a way that this moment draws after it all things to come? Therefore - itself as well?
   
   Essentially, all of time sinks into the present moment. You're never outside of the present moment, and so the moment draws all things in, including itself, in the sense that the moment which you conceive of as the present is already past, and so it must continually draw all of time into the present moment going forward into the future.
   
   Okay, so the point is that this book, and this passage, and this teaching are fundamentally existential, which is to say that they speak to one's existence. One must live in the present moment, one must always and eternally experience the present moment the same way, and one must always walk the same path. Yet this path is not numerically the same, it's different every time.
   
   I think Deleuze points out somewhere (probably in his book on Nietzsche), that this particular part of the vision is an awful one, about shallow metaphysical propositions, and thus one might call it The Eternal Return (because everything returns to the moment, like a baseball falling back down after it's been tossed), whereas the Eternal Recurrence, probably represented by the shepherd in the next part, is life affirming and transformative.
   
   I hope that helps a little. It might behoove you to separate yourself from concerns about physics, given that it's not really a common reading of the work, nor is it a defensible one unless you do a ton of work, and even then it's not entirely convincing. It's a way of reading it, but I don't read it that way.

I have read several translations of Being and Time in English as well as the German text. I believe that John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson have performed the best translation at this time. That was the older one from the 60's.

I would also recommend reading some of the work about how to read Heidegger1 2


I believe that Dreyfus and Wrathall are the best Heideggarian scholars currently and I tend to agree with most of their insights.

You may find Scott Soames' volumes on the history of analytic philosophy useful.

> P has asked for facts of daily language use. You have offered him your personal philosophy


It isn't a personal philosophy. My information was based on the analysis of Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra Cambridge print. The book has much deeper analogy of Khoda's etymology. What I wrote is a conglomerate cluster of 100 pages of analysis.

> OP did not make any mention of heresy either

He did. his reply under KhosrousAnushiravan says: "some hyper religious social circles they're seeking to replace "khodafez" with "allahfez"". By talking about heresy, I meant to explain why hyper religious circles are against using 'khoda'.

> Your understanding of both Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian theology is a fringe modern interpretation probably gleaned from poorly informed

I'm currently obtaining my masters in philosophy from UCL. My main project is actually centralised on Iran's theologists and philosophers; Rumi, Jabir ibn Hayyan and Avicenna. Admittidly, I'm more aware of Iranian theology more than you, unless you've surpassed me in academic levels of studying theology; which I doubt you do. When presented with new sets of knowledge, you can double check their validity, or engage in healthier debate on points, rather than than bashing me on being 'poorly informed'.

> The etymology you have offered for «خدا» may sound "cool" and work well with your personal philosophy but it has no grounding in linguistics.

I agree, it's cool. but it isn't personal philosophy, and it has grounding in linguistics. Read the book I've linked. You will be appreciating learning something you've completely closed your mind to.

> New Persian word «خدا» (khodā) is direct descendant of Middle Persian xwadāy which means lord, king and is widely attested in Middle Persian texts in that exact meaning.

Accurate point. But merely a repetition of the point I made. It is** a direct translation to address god. But it's origins as I mentioned, it originates from Zurvanist beliefs. I urge you to read the book if you want to know more about the connection between the religion and 'Khoda'.

> This is where other words such as kadkhodā (lord/chief of the village) and khānekhodā (master/owner of the house) also originated. There are instances of a ruler being addressed as mar khodāy (my lord) in New Persian poetry as well.

As I mentioned it in my comment, 'Khoda', has lost its original meaning, and now it is merely a translation for 'god/lord'. Hence why it's formed into titles such as the ones you mentioned. 'Allah' was a part of prophet Mohammad father's name. The name later became associated with the 'god' he introduced. It was always forbidden to put 'Allah''s name on anything, as it was deemed disrespectful. However, now, it seems 'Allah' has lost is value as well, much similar to 'Khoda'. There are people named, 'Abdullah' (servant of god), 'Ruhoullah' (spirit of god), even terrorist organisations named 'Jundullah' (army of god). It's common for such religiously sacred words to lose their weight of meaning through time. 'Khoda' isn't any more special than 'Allah'. It's lost it's original value and meaning.

> Your answer is heartfelt and personal but it is as far from accurate as one can get.

Be open to learning something new. We both get our resources from either books, or available online data bases. Your resources don't go into depth as much as my resources do. Just because I'm not close to the surface as much as you are, that doesn't mean I'm not accurate; in fact, it's quite the contrary.

No, he argues that philosophy is meaningless, shuts up, and then writes an entire new book plus leaves behind many books of notes.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

> in this case it's fairly obvious that the author isn't well-versed in either Nietzsche as political thinker per se or in the extensive secondary literature on the subject.

Funny you should make that charge because the author of the piece actually has a new book out on Nietzsche as a political thinker. I know editing an academic book on Nietzsche's political philosophy does not necessarily mean that the author is well-versed in such matters, but...

I think your other critiques are equally shallow, to be honest. John Holbo and Corey Robin have both, for example, touched on those topics as recently as May of last year. Are you sure that you are not just upset, like /u/slaveofchrist, that libertarians are making certain connections that non-libertarians find uncomfortable?

I think the best readable overview is Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks (also there's an audio version free on his website here). Critical Theory is an outgrowth of Postmodernism (and Marxism more broadly), and Hicks's book is a great and accessible overview of what it means today.

A prof of mine recommended Mark Wrathall's "How to Read Heidegger." Its a very quick read (I'm a slow reader and finished it within a day or so) and offers a great introduction to his writing. Each chapter in the "how to read' series attempts to translate an important section or paragraph of a primary text into ordinary language. This kind of layout allows you to deeply read one section and trace it line-by-line with what the commentator interprets. This is especially helpful for Heidegger's language. As far as commentaries of B&T itself go, I've read Dreyfus', Blattner's, Mulhall's, and Gelvin's. While Dreyfus' is much more popular, I think it is one of the weakest on the market now, down there with Mulhall's. The one that helped me to most was by far Gelvin's.

On a side note, remember that the arguments given in B&T are not set forth by logical deduction. You simply can't analyze the book like you can with ones written by authors like Spinoza, where everything logically follows from some beginning. This has lead some people to think that Heidegger is much more difficult than he really is. B&T's philosophical power comes from phenomenology. Thus, what I feel is the best way to read the book is to go through it section-by-section, taking a break every few pages or paragraphs. Between readings, simply live your life as you normally would while keeping Heidegger's notes in the background. Soon enough, his writing has a way of clearing up.

I started to make one a while back but didn't get too far. There are just too many great books to choose from.

Classics 1950-1970

What is Conservatism?

The Conservative Mind

The Road to Serfdom

The Constitution of Liberty

Ideas Have Consequences

The Quest for Community

Economics in One Lesson

Capitalism and Freedom

In Defense of Freedom


Age of Reagan 1970-1990

The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945

Modern Times

Knowledge and Decisions

A Conflict of Visions

Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Roots Of American Order


Modern Must Reads 1990-Today

The Clash of Civilizations

A History of the American People

The Vision of the Annointed

Intellectuals and Society

Illiberal Reformers

Restoring the Lost Constitution

How To Be A Conservative

	

	

	

> # The End of Hyperinflation | AIER
>
>
>
> Image
>
> The ongoing collapse of Venezuela’s economy has grabbed some headlines, though the lessons from Venezuela’s tragedy may have gone under-reported. To the extent the tragedy has been covered, many writers have focused on the most glaring problem Venezuela’s economy is facing: hyperinflation.
>
> Tales of Venezuela’s bout with hyperinflation make for dire reading. But for students of monetary history, they give us a reason to re-examine the history of hyperinflations to see what lessons we can learn and what trends we can glean from the data.
>
> In a widely cited paper, Steve Hanke and Nicholas Krus (2012) document 55 cases of hyperinflation. What stands out, particularly if we focus our attention on the timing of these events?
>
> The first observation is perhaps the most obvious yet the most important: hyperinflation is unique to fiat money. No commodity-backed money has experienced hyperinflation. This is for the simple reason that the supply of a commodity-backed money cannot be manipulated, especially not for a sustained period of time, the way an unbacked paper money can.
>
> Only one recorded hyperinflation occurred prior to the advent of fiat money in the 20th century: the French inflation of 1796. It should come as no surprise that France’s hyperinflation occurred only after the assignat had been stripped of its commodity backing (assignats were initially backed by the value of lands confiscated from the Catholic Church in the wake of the French Revolution). The assignat’s demise foretold the fate of dozens of later experiments with fiat money.
>
> But didn’t the gold standard occasionally produce high and variable rates of inflation after the discovery of gold in the New World? Far from it. For all the bluster about the high, sustained inflation the Spanish economy endured in the 15th and 17th centuries after the discovery and pillaging of gold from the New World, the effects of this so-called price revolution are hardly discernible by modern standards. As Lawrence White (1999) notes, although inflation was high and variable by the standards of the day, the annual inflation rate in Spain over this period was less than 2 percent on average. Most modern central banks would kill for the inflation track record of the gold standard even in its darkest hour.
>
> A second observation highlights a silver lining in the dark cloud that is the tragedy of Venezuela: although hyperinflation spread like wildfire in the 20th century (thanks in large part to two world wars financed by fiat money in the first half of the century and the desperate death throes of many Soviet satellite states in the latter half), it has largely gone extinct in the Western World. The only two cases of hyperinflation in the 21st century are Zimbabwe (2007) and Venezuela. And both are the results of socialist governments’ writing checks they couldn’t cash.
>
> So where has all the hyperinflation gone? Has hyperinflation breathed its final breath in the Western World?
>
> To answer the first question: hyperinflation has largely gone the way of the dodo for two reasons. For starters, our understanding of monetary policy and in particular what drives sustained inflation has drastically improved over the past century. This is particularly true in the wake of the monetarist counterrevolution. It’s true that economists for centuries knew that substantially high rates of inflation were driven by monetary factors. Ludwig von Mises was certainly aware of this after witnessing the German and Austrian hyperinflations firsthand. But Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s (1963)work arguably did more than anything to firmly establish this idea among scholars and policy makers. It reinforced the idea (in the words of Friedman) that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” It gave it strong empirical backing, especially as later scholars built on their framework to examine nations that had more extreme histories of inflation. The tight causal connection between money and inflation might’ve been neglected or dismissed by earlier policy makers. But it can no longer be ignored or denied. And neither can the culpability of any political party or leaders who resort to the printing press as a last-ditch effort to finance their delusional spending schemes.
>
> Another reason hyperinflation has largely vanished from the Western world is the simple fact that inflationary finance has universally proven to be a disaster. It’s a cure worse than the disease for any political leader who hopes to stay in power. Sure, dictators like Nicolas Maduro and Robert Mugabe might be able to maintain their stranglehold on power even amid the torrent of hyperinflation (for now at least). But as the Weimar government in Germany in the 1920s learned the hard way, no truly democratic regime can survive the disasters of hyperinflation. As it turns out, voters don’t like seeing the value of their life savings evaporate. Nor do ordinary citizens appreciate the utter economic chaos that accompanies hyperinflation. So if monetary theory isn’t enough to convince policy makers to keep their hands off the printing press, political self-interest and self-preservation likely is.
>
> The answer to the question of whether we’ve seen the end of hyperinflation in the developed world is, to borrow a phrase from College Gameday icon Lee Corso, “Not so fast.” It’s true that cases of hyperinflation have lessened dramatically in recent decades. But past performance is no indicator of future results. The populist movements that gave rise to socialism in Zimbabwe and Venezuela are beginning to rear their heads in many Western nations. Many of the key pillars of the Washington Consensus have also begun to erode because of nationalist pressures. In short, while I don’t think we’ll see anything nearing very high inflation or hyperinflation in the United States anytime soon, it could happen. The mere possibility that we might completely abandon sound monetary principles is something that should motivate everyone interested in monetary economics to remain vigilant. We should not forget that Venezuela was one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America before its recent demise.
>
> As the late historian and political philosopher Richard M. Weaver wisely noted: “Ideas have consequences.” Bad ideas breed misguided policies and bad outcomes. Good ideas breed prosperity. So keep up the good fight. Economics is as important today as ever before. As Mises so eloquently said with his trademark German optimism in the final sentence of Human Action, if we allow people to disregard economics, “they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race.”

• • • • • -
          
          Owner | Source Code | Stats

Richard M. Weaver was not a Catholic, but wrote a famous book called Ideas Have Consequences in which he blamed William of Ockham's logical nominalism for the advent of totalitarianism, nuclear war, and jazz.

Critical Theory does focus on breaking down traditional disciplinary walls between philosophy and the social sciences, but as /u/_kwsx pointed out, they require a large background in what they're responding to and developing to really understand or appreciate much of their work. That is, you need to understand why those walls were erected in the first place to understand and appreciate why they're breaking them down.

You can certainly do that, but it requires focusing your attention in a specific way to develop your background in the strains of thought they're interested in. This book, when read carefully from front to back and supplemented with commentary by those familiar with the authors/theories within it, should really give you a broadly firm foundation to get you started in any discipline you may be interested in. It's by no means complete or total, but it should help develop the basics for whatever you'll want to jump into that's relevant to contemporary philosophy.

Or, more generally, check out Coplestone's History of Western Philosophy. I'd probably suggest this over that to develop your interests more broadly, but either will do.

If you're interested in Critical Theory, then you'll be committing yourself to far more work than you're expecting and should plan on studying in depth the authors in that book I linked, the entire linage of German Idealism, the fall-out of German Idealism after Hegel and their methods applied to contemporary problems. That will require a large dose of people like Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and various others. None of which are easy to understand reads

That's not true. He was referring to people like Heidegger and Paul de Man, left wing European intellectuals who were nazis and then became heroes to the new left and post modernists. Insinuating that anybody you disagree with is an anti semite or racist is a stalinist tactic of ziofascist neocons and establishment liberals. Richard Wolin has written about the phenonomena of nihilist, anti enlightenment, anti capitalist, and anti science romanticist European intellectuals who were first nazis and then whose ideas were supported in America by post modernists.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Seduction-Unreason-Intellectual-Postmodernism/dp/0691125996

http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668152&sr=1-1&keywords=stephen+hicks

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction-Literature-Criticism-after-Auschwitz/dp/0874515661/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668256&sr=1-6&keywords=david+hirsch

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Enlightenment-Tradition-Zeev-Sternhell/dp/0300135548/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668499&sr=1-3&keywords=zeev+sternhell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The two intellectual movements Molyneux was referring to. Supported by European intellectuals like Herder, Heidegger, and Fichte.

The only thing I've ever seen about Aztec Philosophy are some recordings of lectures by James Maffie, a professor who specialises in it. You can find them on on YouTube. I googled him and he's got a book on aztec philosophy. The Review seems interesting.

In Erwin Shrodinger's own book (titled "My View of the World"), Erwin Schrödinger elaborates more on the influence of Vedanta in Chapter 4. By the way, the book can be found on Amazon : http://www.amazon.com/My-View-World-Erwin-Schrodinger/dp/0918024307.

Perhaps reading it might help.

AddemF is right that the 'canonical' translation is Kaufmann, but nowadays the translation being used increasingly in academic contexts is the Cambridge one. I'd check those out if you're looking for something that employs more up-to-date scholarship. I studied this text in that translation and found it to be excellent.

This is political philosophy 101 so pay attention.

Originally states formed under the authority of God(s). For example, the British Monarch got power from the crown and the crown got its power from God. Monarchs ruled under the authority of God. This was called 'divine right' Often called 'the divine right of kings'.

After some enlightening philosophy from, in order of date published, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, John Locke's Treatise of Civil Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract this changed.

Leviathan first questioned the state of nature to which the theocratic government rules. Whilst he did ponder this question, his conclusions were strictly conservative and believed Kings did have the right to rule their citizens under the authority of a God.

Enter John Locke! Locke pondered the same idea of the state of nature but concluded completely differently (essentially founding liberalism). He suggested that Monarchs did not have a right to rule on the authority of God. He suggested that the individual were more important than the state. Essentially, government should be founded upon the people and not upon authority from God. Important note: Locke felt that all humans had inalienable natural rights. This is important later.

Enter Rousseau! Rousseau suggested that in order for a society to function with justice, liberty and legitimacy a government must have the consent of the people. Essentially, in order for a government/state to have legitimacy it must be elected.

Enter revolution! The starters of the American revolution were heavily influenced by Locke's ideas of natural rights being inalienable and thus rejected the british Monarch's right (under Hobbes theory) to alienate people from their property, liberty etc. Sparked by Paine's Common Sense, the American revolutionaries where the first to establish a system which embodied (1) Locke's natural rights (the Bill of Rights are the first example of natural rights being confidingly protected), (2) Rousseau's legitimate government and (3) Montesquieu's separation of powers.

All western democracies, where rights are observed follow these principals.

So why does the state protect people's rights? Because that is their primary goal. Classical Liberalism (John Locke style) demands that any government's first job is to protect the people who create it. To quote Lincoln: Of the people, By the people, For the people.

> or do you concider that anything the state does is reason enough

No. This would be circular logic. Its like saying 'whatever the state does is reason enough for the state to do it.' No. The purpose of the separation of powers is to ensure no one branch becomes too powerful and oppress the people.

What happens if the Executive (The President in the case of America) abuses his powers? He is impeached by Congress (or forced to resign before it happens...Nixon). What happens if Congress passes a law that abuses the rights of citizens according to the Constitution? Supreme Court overturns it.

The additional roles of government (in economics, for example) are to do with the modern political philosophy, which I shall not delve into here).

The crucial thing to understand is that legitimate governments must be founded upon a consensus/mandate of the people to enforce, create and protect laws that protect those people. Those laws are founded upon natural rights inalienable to the individual.

>You have not said why, why does the state protect people

Have I answered your question sufficiently?

Suggested reading materials (my own personal reading list for Political Philosophy):

1. Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes
   
   
2. Treatise of Government - John Locke
   
   
3. Common Sense - Thomas Paine
   
   
   

Steve Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" was reccomended to me the last time this came up on this sub (and is layman friendly for the most part) The publisher has released the audio version for free on youtube. (around 6 hrs total)

Goes through the historical roots of the movement (revival of early theological anti-enlightenment philosophy) and how the post modernist lens shapes ones worldview.

He's critical of post modernism (for the same reasons sam is) but focuses on explaining the base assumptions and precepts of the movement

Which is self is part of the larger, post-modern war on truth, facts and reason.

When reality is not on your side, deny reality.
This has been the nature of the left for a long, long time.
Philosophy has been corrupted since Plato, with a major wrong turn by the granddaddy of postmodernism, Immanuel Kant.

The Frankfurt School simply applied this nonsense to various disciplines.

For an overview of the wrong turns of philosophy, and how that has played out in various disciplines (economics, politics, art, etc.) I would recommend Piekoff's The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights Are Going Out in the West

Just started Explaining Postmodernism; looks as though it will be interesting!

John Cottingham's translation is very good. You can find it in these volumes.

http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Meditations-Philosophy-Selections-Objections/dp/0521558182

http://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Selected-Philosophical-Writings-Ren%C3%A9/dp/0521358124/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1416963798&sr=1-1&keywords=descartes+selected+philosophical+writings

> Hahaha, very amusing as I was just thinking the same thought to myself! "I don't think I quite meant that sentence like I stated it, perhaps I need to re-evaluate what I actually mean." It's more like, we've given certain words too much power? I feel the thought in my head, I'm just struggling to articulate it exactly. Because if you asked me "Do words have power" my answer would be "yes." This is a contradiction, seemingly. I suppose what I'm saying is that we give specific words too much energy or power, or perhaps it's even deeper on a language level? Some are trying to change our language into something that I feel is less useful to us? Or that sometimes I feel that our language is being hijacked in order to serve a specific agenda, and force dialogue into certain channels? I shall keep pondering what I actually mean...

Ok, that made sense, and I would agree. Certain words and ideas hold more power than they "should." That's a very interesting, very complex topic. I'm not sure what I mean by should, but for example, screaming terrorist on Sept 12 2011 probably held a different meaning that day, and for many days following. I don't mean that it actually "had a different meaning;" it would be more accurate to call it a different effect.

> Back to that peculiar situation we sometimes find ourselves in, where there are two truth's in opposition to one another. The reason I'm beginning to see isn't that it's necessarily the universe that holds the two truths in opposition, but our own language that defines things rigidly, that makes things seem in opposition to one another, but in reality are part of a greater whole.

Yes. 2x yes.

I've mentioned Wittgenstein a couple times here before, but if you want to make headway on language and its usage, you should try reading his two works Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations.

I've been eyeing the Tractatus in my pile of books, but honestly my mind is not yet advanced enough to understand it to the degree I feel it deserves. But maybe you might find it worth the read regarding language and its usage. He was huge on word games - not playing them, well maybe, but I think he had a truly holistic understanding of language.

EDIT: And while we're on the topic of language, since I cannot seem to escape the Being-Becoming duality, I instead attempt to embrace it to the extent that it furthers my understanding of the world.

Let's take the sentence "I don't know that yet." The most important takeaway from that sentence is that it does not read "I don't know that." The expectation of future understanding exists when you include the word, sure, but does expectation of future understanding not exist if you exclude the word 'yet'? The answer must be no, and it's quite easy to prove so, but to leave it at that would be folly. Does not including the word 'yet' have an implication regarding a trajectory of the mind and body? Why did that person not say the word yet? Do they not think understanding may come in the future? The man that says 'yet' is already thinking with energy into the future, and as such, I tentatively argue that the inclusion of the word yet, its mere inclusion, has consequences on whether or not you will achieve whatever came before 'yet'. Alternatively, the man that considers future understanding and excludes the word 'yet', purposefully or not, must in some manner be limiting himself.

So, does the man that says 'yet' and attains that future understanding exist as the man who was going to know, always going to know, or does that same man exist as the man that knows because he said 'yet'?

Ultimately, I see man as trying to separate himself from language, but that is an ignorant perspective. Ignorant of the vast interconnectivity of EVERYTHING. Oh there is so much to say about language... I would say other than trying to answer why there is something and not nothing, language might be the most complex and befuddling topic in existence.

First thing to do would be to consult Lyotard's "La Condition Postmoderne - report sur le savoir" from '79, which formally announces the 'postmodern condition'. He draws on Wittgensteinian language-games to underpin his 'small narratives', so you should also check up on his "Philosophical Investigations" (alternatively, start off with these introductory articles). There are a few thinkers (and even fewer philosophers) who file themselves under the postmodern label, and it's hard to get a grasp of where the dog sleeps when it finally does lie. Jean Baudrillard is a popular one, though he's mainly a sociologist. Philosophers like Foucault, Derrida and Rorty are typically dubbed postmodernists, though they themselves (and many, many of us) would and did deny such classification.

Apart from that, I'd recommend you also check out Jürgen Habermas, as he was one of the very few philosophers through the rage of postmodernism who actually took the time to take it seriously - he constitutes one of the major (and more well articulated) standpoints against it.

EDIT: This is just a personal peeve of mine, which anyone is totally validated in criticizing me for (i.e.: personal opinion alert); please, do engage in the study of postmodernism, as it was (and perhaps, to some extent still is) a resonant occurrence in Western culture and humanities. However - please, please, please don't start thinking that there's actually anything to it.

He's my favorite, too. As for your first question, it depends on what you mean by "society and politics." Schopenhauer read the Times of London every evening at dinner, so he was pretty well informed about the social and political events of his day. However, he preferred to "mind not the times but the eternities" (pun intended), which shouldn't be too surprising, given that pessimism naturally entails a degree of detachment from politics. Consequently, you'll only find a handful of non-philosophical remarks about contemporary political issues peppered throughout his oeuvre. If you're interested in his formal political philosophy, you can find it presented in the fourth book of the WWP and in the essay "On Jurisprudence and Politics" in the second volume of the PP.

Because you're planning on reading his major works, you'll become familiar with his political philosophy. He was heavily influenced by Hobbes and, in general, can best be described as a classical liberal or conservative. He viewed the state as necessary to curb baser human instincts and to protect the rights of individuals and their property. Though he preferred monarchism to republican forms of government, he viewed the separation of powers and freedom of thought as important. If you're interested in what some of his specific opinions on political and social issues were, I would recommend reading this fine biography by David Cartwright: https://www.amazon.com/Schopenhauer-Biography-David-Cartwright/dp/1107626951

It might be easier to look at it through a specific lens, ie art or literature, than as a whole thought movement. There's a lot of complexity there. I found Structuralism and Poststructuralism for beginners by Palmer a good starting point. Theres /r/criticaltheory here which might help too.

Not who you were responding to, but I really enjoy Heidegger as well. I would strongly suggest How to read Heidegger first before jumping into anything else. I read it first, then read Being and Time and it helped tremendously.

Postmodern thought, which is infecting public discourse and is perhaps most prevalent within educational institutions, dictates that there are no individuals, only collective groups which we all belong to. Postmodern thinkers are obsessed with power, and with separating humans even from these groups into further sub-groups, and pitting those sub groups against each other – as the dominant and the submissive, the oppressor and the oppressed.

It’s this rejection of individual responsibility, and obsession with sub-group dominance hierarchies, which leads to the defence of Shamima Begum. There are those who say she cannot be held fully accountable because of the young age at which she joined ISIS, or plead mercy because she is pregnant. If she repented her actions, or displayed even the slightest hint of regret for her treachery, then perhaps I would have more sympathy for these arguments.

But what is really at the heart of her defence is a willingness to infer victimhood on any enemy of the West. If you listen closely to those on the far left, especially in academia, you will find a deep resentment of western societies, and a perverse forgiveness and understanding of her enemies.

The postmodern worldview holds that individuals are not responsible for their actions, but are either victims or villains based on their sub-group category. This world view positions Begum as a victim of evil western imperialism, since she was born into a particular group which has been oppressed, and cannot be held accountable for the decisions she has made. This line of thinking led Jean-François Lyotard, a postmodernist philosopher, to conclude that “Saddam Hussein (was) a product of Western departments of state and big companies”.

In order to understand how someone could draw such a ridiculous conclusion, we need to understand exactly how and why postmodern philosophy came about. During the latter half of the 20th century, it became strikingly obvious to the intellectual community that by any rational measure, communism had failed. Stephen Hicks hypothesises that left-wing academics had two choices: either to accept that communism had failed, or to construct a new way of measuring reality which would allow for communism to work. They chose the latter.

Communist apologists were presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence which rendered their political philosophy a crime against humanity. The collapse of the Soviet Union and revelations of the horrors of its death camps were enough to persuade many that communism had failed.

Left-wing academics had to give Marxism a makeover. Evidence and logic proved that socialist and communist societies have failed – but what if we simply reject logic and reason? Postmodern thinkers started to claim that everyone’s experience of the world is subjective, and that our knowledge is based on a group identity, which we cannot escape from. By rejecting reason, rejecting evidence, and dismissing the truth as subjective, postmodernist thinkers could dismiss the evidence against socialism and communism.

Furthermore, this commitment to collective group identities allowed for a new Marxist power struggle. They argue that some group identities are oppressed, and should rise up against their oppressors. Instead of the working class vs the  bourgeois, postmodern thought pitches race against race, gender against gender, and so on.

Thousands of words could be written about how postmodernists have given communist ideas a makeover, and I’ll be discussing this in more detail at an event in London this evening. For the purpose of this article, it is enough to say that their worldview which is based on group identity allows them to blame everything – even joining a terrorist group like ISIS – on the West.

Postmodernists and the far left are united in their hatred of Western civilisation. During the 2017 election, Jeremy Corbyn blamed the terrorist attacks such as the Manchester bombing on British foreign policy. Andrew Murray, a friend of Len McCluskey’s and advisor to the Labour Party, blamed the formation of ISIS on Western imperialism. The far left side with Britain’s enemies because they view them as victims, not as individuals responsible for their own actions.

Last week’s reaction to the story about Begum was a perfect example of this philosophy in action. Begum, a young girl who joins a terrorist group which has burnt alive pilots, beheaded journalists and thrown gay people off buildings, is apparently a victim. However, if you’re a straight white male who has sent some questionable tweets a few years ago, you are the villain, and there can be no understanding or forgiveness.

I’m sickened by this postmodern morality, and so every person reading this article should be. This worldview doesn’t allow for the fair judgement of human beings, based on the content of their character. Rather, it forgives the wrongs of individuals belonging to ‘oppressed’ groups, and blames all the world problems on the ‘oppressors’, i.e. the West. There are those who criticise British and American foreign policy, and in many cases rightly so, but it is only the extreme left which go so far as to infer victimhood on our enemies.

Our modern society has been founded on enlightenment ideals: a respect for knowledge and science, and a respect for the individual. Societies that respect these rights of the individual to produce, and buy and sell what they choose, far outperform societies which do don’t. That is why so many who take up arms against the West are quite keen to return to Britain to enjoy far superior living standards.

So the next time you hear someone attack western societies as oppressive or responsible for all the evils in the world, understand that, for many, this is based on an intense resentment that the capitalist west disproved socialist and communist theory. Postmodern philosophy is an intellectually bankrupt attempt to re-write history and position the societies which promote individual freedom and democracy as the ‘bad guys’.

> OK, so your question is pretty much the driving question for all of metaethics. So I'm not going to summarize the entire field here as that's a book-length project.

Somebody who has gone to these lengths is Alexander Miller, whose survey Contemporary Metaethics: An Introduction looks to me to be the standard text these days. It's a good book, well worth reading if you're into this type of thing.

I've read four intros to metaethics. I highly recommend you begin with Fisher's intro and then read Miller's intro.

First of all, I absolutely must also follow in Urbinsanity's suggestion of A.N Whitehead's 'Adventures of ideas' - it is a wonderful book.

I do not know of any 'defining book' on the study of ontology unfortunately, but I would also join in suggesting "Metaphysics an Introduction" along with bitemydickallthetime, given what I've heard on the book.

Also, I'd strongly suggest Process and Reality if you have a few years to spare, or Modes of thought if you have a few weeks (perhaps less!).

And for the more 'interesting'/'strange' stuff, I always go with Leibniz's Monadology.

Oh! and I don't know how well-corroborated this suggestion would be, but I have always found the fiction of Jorge Luis Borges to be ripe with notions strongly involved in metaphysics and ontology. Labyrinths is a great place to look in this regards - especially if you're looking for something a bit 'lighter' than direct works on ontology.

This helped me understand it.

In the context of the SEP article, the disclosure of the world is its emergence as significance. How do things become significant? By becoming more, or other, than their mere material components. The temple is something qualitatively different from the stone that comprises or supports it. When we look at it, we forget the stone ("earth"), although that is what we are actually, physically seeing – it is concealed from us, retreats – in recognizing the temple (the signifying "world"). In Being and Time, the same point is made with reference to sounds. No one hears naked sounds ("earth"). What we hear is the car going past, the friend coming up the stairs, the meaning "I love you" ("world").

But don't take my word for it. Read Heidegger’s essay. It’s not as difficult as some people make it out to be. There’s a chapter on Heidegger’s ontology of art in Dreyfus & Wrathall’s Companion to Heidegger by Dreyfus himself that takes a somewhat different line, but is also worth reading.

This version was the one we used for class. Very interesting if you're into late W.

> edit: Seriously people? This isn't even pro-Ayn Rand. Hell, none of the posts in this topic are pro-Ayn Rand. Yet you folks are burying anything but "LOL AYN RAND" type posts and upvoting blatant lies with no substance. And you wonder why we get so many complaints about /r/politics? Grow up.

It's an intellectual pathology of a partisan hivemind.

Ayn Rand is an intellectual figure that the left just doesn't come to grips with; she doesn't fit the stereotypical model of the intellectually-pathological right-winger who is easy to demolish. It's pretty much nothing but ignorant strawman attacks when it comes to opposition to the real Rand.

Because the opposition to Rand is so pathetic on so many intellectual levels, her influence will only grow.

EDIT: And it's not like there's things she said that aren't open to strong criticism, either; but her opposition is so lacking in intellectual credibility you wouldn't be able to tell the good criticism from the bad if you weren't already strongly familiar with her system of ideas. The standard crap flung at her is about as bad as what you'd expect from right-wing crap-flinging at Marx. (I'd say they also fling crap at Chomsky, but they seem to just ignore Chomsky and go on shouting "USA! USA! USA!" at anything and everything the USA does.)

I'd have to say a great place to start is with Dr. Stephen Hicks' Explaining Post-Modernism (2006). If you search the title on YouTube, you can find the full audio book available for streaming.

Reading this book would be a good intro to the problem:

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1518811680&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+hicks&linkCode=ll1&tag=epact&linkId=3b483174b8852dfc6e2d3c8f6139fd9e

For a really good introduction (from a critical perspective), I recommend Stephen Hicks's book Explaining Postmodernism.

Thank you. For people looking to learn more, read "The Blue and Brown Books" by Ludwig Wittgenstein tl;dr (of his book) Wittgenstein believes that our discussions of life and philosophy are pointless/meaningless until we understand the tools we're actually using (e.g. language) and what those tools' limitations are and whether we can actually find real existing things that correlate to the representations within language (i.e. our tools).

For metaethics, Andrew Fisher has what I've heard is a good introduction, and Alexander Miller has a more advanced introduction that I like.

For political philosophy, Ian Shapiro's The Moral Foundations of Politics is a great introductory lecture series, and he has an introductory textbook based on the lecture series.

For anthologies, I'd recommend Ethical Theory for normative ethics, Moral Discourse and Practice for metaethics, and What's Wrong? for applied ethics.

Nicely said. Also for those interested, formally metaphysics is at a point of construction, like physics was back in the day. Philosophers/logicians/etc such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, and Edward Zalta aimed(s) at establishing a consistent and formal means of representation for the discipline.

• I refer you to:
  
• anything of Wittgenstein's
  
• Whitehead's Process and Reality: Amazon link
  
• and Zalta's Principia Metaphysica: http://mally.stanford.edu/index.html

hey now post structuralism is pretty awesome!

here is a book to get you started poststructuralism for beginners

Oh neat, look what I found :-)

youtube

Ah no worries, he's doing it differently then. Byrne had us use this book plus a smaller book on Spinoza. To be honest though, I didn't use them that much, partly because she posted the slides and I took pretty good notes.

Scott Soames has a good intro book. It can be a obtuse with overly nested statements at times, but it gives you a good gist of analytical philosophy even if you don't fully understand his nested statements.

Watch the lecture I attached, where a top philosophy professor is interviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwW9QV5Ulmw&t=1652s

Dr. Stephen R. C. Hicks (www.stephenhicks.org), Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society in August of 2017 (http://bit.ly/306ggDQ), and decided that it was time for an update. Dr. Hicks received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Guelph, Canada, and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. He has published four books, translated into sixteen different languages: • In 1994; 2nd ed 1998 The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis (co-edited with David Kelley, W. W. Norton & Co., 1994, second edition 1998). • In 2010, Nietzsche and the Nazis • In 2016, Entrepreneurial Living (co-edited with Jennifer Harrolle) The remaining book, published in 2004 and expanded in 2011, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, has been particularly relevant to our discussions. It’s available at Amazon.com (https://amzn.to/2Jh4Uro) but also in pdf form on Dr. Hick’s website (http://bit.ly/2MaI9rH). I found it very helpful when trying to understand the intellectual roots of the ideas that appear so dominant in today’s universities.

example: amazon...

Yeah, sure. It's "Schopenhauer : A Biography" by David E. Cartwright. It's a Cambridge University Press publication.
Here's an Amazon link :


https://www.amazon.com/Schopenhauer-Biography-David-Cartwright/dp/1107626951

A simple, quick google search of the phrase finds you the result: https://www.amazon.com/Schopenhauer-Biography-David-Cartwright/dp/1107626951

If you think it's still possible to expand upon what you already know, you could start here. You can even pick your favorite discipline:

* Philosophy: Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.

* Literature: John Ellis, Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities.

* History: Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History.

* Science: Noretta Koertge, editor, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.

* Law: Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law.

​

Or you could just accept that one does not need advanced degrees in philosophy to study, understand, analyze and interpret it - not to mention TO philosophize - and read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

>Minor correction: 'Understanding Objectivism' was a lecture series, so it's not something you'd read.

It's been in print for nearly 3 years now.

Almost every translation of Descartes Meditations will be in modern English. I would recommend switching to a modern translation, such as one of these:

Cottingham translation:

https://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Meditations-Philosophy-Selections-Objections/dp/0521558182/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505099147&sr=8-2&keywords=descartes+meditations

Cress translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-First-Philosophy-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872201929/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505099160&sr=1-1&keywords=descartes+meditations+hackett

Ariew translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Objections-Replies-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872207986/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505099160&sr=1-3&keywords=descartes+meditations+hackett

<Blind faith is un-Buddhist.

I don't disagree, but I'm an academic. The understanding of Buddhism I have is academic and my arguments are based in issues of history as I understand it.

<I quote scholars and you quote yourself, as if you are an authority. State your name and your credentials then.


This tells me that my arguments alone are insufficient to identify me as an authority to you- really I wouldn't claim to be on this topic. As I said, I study mostly American Buddhism today- no I will not provide my name because I like to preserve some anonymity on the internet. I have a M.A and am doing PhD coursework. The problem that you are having is that you are not taking an academic view of the discussion.

>Your faith is greater than your wisdom

This is an ad-hominem fallacy at its best. I'm not Buddhist at all. I have no faith because I study the topic. I respect the tradition but I certainly don't worship in it. This is a discussion about historical understanding- something that you have garnered from questionable scholars. Here is a brief reading list of real scholars you can take and read to see what actual authorities in the field are saying.

Don Lopez: Elaborations on Emptiness
Don Lopez: The Heart Sutra Explained this is a series of translated commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Though it uses the long version, which is problematic.

J.L Austin: How to Do Things With Words This will tell you a lot about the linguistic empiricists and how words function in religious settings.

If you want to read the theory that I do you might also read
Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality
Also:Whithead's Symbolism: It's meaning and Effect
And
Bruce Lincoln's Authority

For Buddhist histories that are not popularist:

Peter N. Gregory: Tsung-Mi and the Sinification of Buddhism

Gimello's Paths to Liberation
or his Studies in Ch'an and Hua-yen

For modern philosophical takes on Buddhism Nancy Frankenberry's Religion and Radical Empiricism though to understand her you need a wider knowledge base than you probably have. Here, let me suggest something for you to read first:

James: The Varieties of Religious Experience
James: The Will to Believe
James: Pragmatism
Rorty: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
Rorty: Consequences of Pragmatism

This one is particularly important for you:
Rorty: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth

You want to know about the origins of Buddhism? How about Vajrayana?
Snellgrove: Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
Pollock (a great book): The Language of the Gods in the World of Men
For a modern take: Wedemeyer: Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism

Davidson: Indian Esoteric Buddhism
Bhattacharyya: An Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism These last few present conflicting views on the nature of Tantrism, particularly the last one that might fit your "fundamentalist" category.

TO understand American Buddhism better:
Merton: Zen and the Birds of Appetite
Eck: A New Religious America
Tweed (this is one of my favorite books ever) The American Encounter with Buddhism 1844-1912
Neusner (ed) World Religions in America
on individuals: Sterling: Zen Pioneer
Hotz: Holding the Lotus to the Rock Sokei-an was a traditionalist and a near mirror of Thich Nhat Hanh, yet his teachings never took off.
Since you Love Thich Nhat Hanh: Fragrant Palm Leaves: Journals 1962-1966 and the companion to that, Merton's journals
Another of Hanh's Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire This is before he was popular and so is much more interesting than some of his later works.

Also Mcmahan: The Making of Buddhist Modernism

Det finns olika grupperingar inom feminismen, men den som har varit på uppsving de senaste åren har ett otäckt förhållningssätt till objektivitet, logik ("uppfunnet av vita män för att förtrycka") etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA för en kort redogörelse
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406 för en längre, aktuell dissektion.

Troligen är det det nuvarande största hotet mot det moderna samhället.

Great recommendations already. I'll throw in Anarchy, State and Utopia though it may not be the best book club read.

Also, Ideas Have Consequences and The Conservative Mind.

>I have not used "chose" or "choose" at any point in my last comment.
My bad, I thought I saw it... but still, the ad-thing is very vague and unconvincing, how is a decision not involved?

What I'm trying to say is that when we are talking about determinism(which IS in my opinion meaningless if we're not allowed to step outside of the universe, which in turn shoudln't even be possible at all, it's as ridiculous as the idea of a dog outrunning his own tail), it's on a whole another level as talking about morality. Morality is inside the world, inside our experiences, determinism and the opposite is completely outside, either answer wouldn't have a perceptible for us effect at all.


I don't view morality as something always objectively decidable, rather it's in acting in accord with one's best feelings about what's right, which seems as a circular logic, but that would be true only if I tried to define something. What I'm trying to do instead is to point you in the right direction so you can understand it yourself, without needing to express it. This isn't only hard to explain, it's impossible by its nature, just as you can't communicate your subjective experience of the colour 'red' to a blind person who has never perceived it.

Where there are no feelings, there can be no morality. Ask yourself, give me a counter example if you can.
The degree of something being moral or not is often up to debate, and that's because one can't fully see into the other person, you can't fully know (or rather feel) the situation from his/her perspective. Furthermore, morality isn't something that can be defined, the only things that can be precisely defined are parts of closed systems such as logic etc. Real ("natural") language is fuzzy and can't be analyzed in ways people like computer scientists tend to think. It's precisely this, the need to put everything in brackets, that causes debates, not realizing that our everyday language is ultimately closer to music as it is to computer programs. Also, I'm a programmer.

>So you're basically saying complete anarchy for everyone all the time is the most moral state of being? People have generally defined moral acts to be those that make humanity better off and anarchy doesn't really do that afaik, so again, that's not a good definition because it flies in the face of what people are trying to accomplish when discussing whether acts are moral or not.



As to anarchy, isn't it here already? Realize this: Any anarchy would still be bound by persistent effects of genetic, physical, cultural moral etc. predispositions and laws. Full anarchy is only nothingness, chaos, chasm, which is everything and nothing at the same time, therefore not very useful in this conversation. Even the religious people say morality is 'inside'

Really, get this if you're interested in ways language can work.

edit: clarified a point

edit: further clarifications

I highly, HIGHLY recommend that you find yourself a copy of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. I personally have found it to be the best attempt at grappling with the difficulties of forming a coherent conception of how one thinks.

May I suggest Maffie's book Aztec Philosophy?
Amazingly insightful piece of writing.

http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=0019864EFCA4119BAC4615C6B0D1009C

https://www.amazon.com/Aztec-Philosophy-Understanding-World-Motion/dp/160732461X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526047766&sr=8-1&keywords=Aztec+Philosophy

The recommended book:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0983258406

Prob either Gulag Archipelago or Explaining Post-Modernism.

Both of which are often recommended by Peterson. The former for its devastating explication of the dark inevitabilities of marxism, and the latter for its clear overview of post-modernism and how it has emerged and gained power through the decades.

1. Obviously not everything, but a lot of popular programming certainly adheres to those ideas and what not.
   
   
2. No, when did I say 'anyone slightly left of center'? You've just made that up yourself. The people I am talking about are almost entirely FAR leftists, so it's very much an extreme fringe -- albeit one that's very influential. I am right of center but know plenty of people who are left of center who mostly agree with me and find this stuff abhorrent, so you're just wrong about that.
   
   Also, none of this is my fabrication. There's a whole realm of analysis about it. Here's a great starting point for you: https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406

Obligatory wikipedia link to Process and Reality

This book should be read before digging into P&R

Here's the mammoth tome in its entirety on amazon

PDF of the final section of P&R. All the quotes I used come from the section God and the World that starts on page 5 of this document.

Be forewarned, this is really heavy stuff. I've been grappling with it for over 6 years and it's slowly becoming understandable to me even though I have a scholastic background in metaphysics and philosophy.
That said, I encourage you and anyone interested in both science and philosophy of religion to jump right in; it's the most complete metaphysical system I have ever encountered and I consider it to be the pinnacle of speculative philosophy.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1405159286/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492570839&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=Philosophical+Investigations&dpPl=1&dpID=413SkBxJZBL&ref=plSrch suggested reading