Impact Books

[Bram]

I lied in my previous post. I said I would step out of the discussion but I won't (especially now that the topic's original starter has chimed in on the subject )

I think that fundamentally, exposure to other perspectives is a good thing.

No argument there. I read what I can, when I can. Especially when I think the author's views will not coincide with my own (since outside affirmation of your own beliefs may lead to a false sense of righteousness). Case in point: Seneca. I simply love his work. His views are some of the most narrow-minded and biased ones you're ever likely to find in ancient Roman philosophical works, but they have an endearing quality to them for precisely that reason. Reading his work in the context of more or less objective biographies on him show the very worldly setting in which his ideas were generated. Same for, say, Kierkegaard. The problem lies in the fact that I cannot objectively discern whether or not I'm stupid. While I may think that I figure things out for myself and am not subject to retorics by those more eloquent than me, this just as well might not be the case. I therefor choose to withold judgment on such matters regarding myself, my peers and the authors in question. So by my own reasoning, philosophy is meaningless to me. In plain language: whenever I read some theory, I will absorb it, accept that some people believe it to be true, say 'Oh, that's really interesting' and file it under 'Guess we'll never now'. That's my personal take on agnosticism, I guess

Take what you're saying to its logical extreme: I can't convince you of anything, you can't convince me of anything, no one can convince anyone of anything. What is there left to do but remove you if we disagree about something important and fundamental? I'm just not okay with that.

Me neither. The only alternative to the 'removal' you speak of would be convincing ourselves that nothing is important, which is quite nihilisic and leads to apathy. But given that mankind will stop at nothing to convince others of their views (the ultimate consequence of which is war), the alternative is worse.

1. How in the world is it immature to think you're right about something? 2. If you don't think you're right, don't you want to BECOME right? 3. Or are you just okay with being wrong and knowing it? 4. What's immature is thinking that you're right and then refusing to be open-minded enough to be convinced that maybe you're not right.

These are some very specific questions & statements. Keep in mind that my answers only apply to myself.
1. In my opinion, it is a misconception that you can be 'right' about anything pertaining these matters. Failure to accept that is child-like, since children tend to view the world in terms of black&white, right&wrong.
2. Based on my own experience and interpretation of the world, I feel it isn't possible to 'become right.' But I could be wrong
3. Yes. And I think that of everyone else would be OK with the fact that they're wrong, too, the world would be a slightly less horrible but perhaps a little more bleak place. And knowing full well that is never going to happen, I refuse to try and convince others of this.
4. That, beyond all else, is true. The implications of this are staggering however.

your generally misanthropic views

No argument there, either. Which is why I recommened 'The Hole That Needs To Be Filled' by Kenneth J. Harvey in my first post

A great virtue of philosophy is that it doesn't teach what to think. Instead it teaches how to think.

Nah, it tries to teach this. And with you lot, it probably succeeds.

Honestly, I think you're overstating your case because you've met some dumbass Philosophy students in the past. I have a degree in Philosophy, and believe me, I know that there are plenty of them. I also know alot of Computer Science majors with no personal hygiene, but that doesn't invalidate their entire enterprise.

LOL. Well, yeah. But I'm agnostic, remember? I rely on my personal experience. And from what I know, all philosophical text might just as well have been written by the pompous retards I mentioned and that you have probably encoutered, too.

But then I think there are other problems to address.

I really enjoyed the classes that I took and it has helped me breakdown some preconcieved notions

A bit of auto-psycho-analysis: I think the problem might well be that with me, it broke down ALL preconcieved notions

Finally:

Also, we got here first. This thread isn't Dutch-jacked yet.

Like HELL it ain't

[Ric_Flair]

Ever since smart people started figuring out things for themselves, the domain of philosophy started to shrink, until only that which noone can figure out was left. All that remains is theoretical bullshit on the nature of existence and such which I can very well judge on my own, thank you, without being indoctrinated by idiotic writers who think they know what they're talking about.

First off, I think the notion that "smart people" have made philosophy less needed is a little silly unless we are talking about a VERY small handful of people in human history (five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe).  If you are not one of those people then I think that philosophy is helpful enough, and if you are I still think it is worthwhile.

But here is the real thing that does philosophy in for some people--there is no solution.  It is not like anatomy for example, where when the discipline started there was a lot of uncharted territory, but now we pretty much no everything there is to know in the field.  Anatomy, in that sense, is a "solved" field.  There are still lots of important things that happen but the discipline had a clear goal--mapping the location and function of human organs, and now for the most part, that goal is accomplished.  Furthermore, unlike say, mathematics, philosophy is not direct helpful in other disciplines.  Philosophy in this sense is like good art, according to the minimalist, Richard Serra, it is purposely purposeless.  Philosophy has no goal and there is no definite solution.  If that is not for you, then philosophy is not for you, but that does not mean it is worthless.  Also note that religion is very much purposeful.  Salvation or spiritual enlightnemt is the purpose of all religion.  

The value that philosophy has is that in its purposely purposelessness it has remained constantly alive and new.  People are still working on problems that Thales proposed.  While neural science might tell us how the brain works, it does not, and cannot tell us why we want to think certain things.  Philosophy has a very well defined area of problems that it and only it can address.  It does not provide solutions, mind you, but it shows us approaches.  By being purposely purposeless philosophy is without external bias and can be used indirectly in a range of situations.  Philosophy is pursued for its own sake and in that it represents a sort of "untouched paradise."  So the very thing that makes it frustrating to people that require their knowledge to "do something" is what makes it nearly eternally interesting to others who don't have such demands.  

Finally, I think that recent philosophy--Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey--all do something that is incredibly important in our world of competing and narrowing expertise.  Philosophy provides a common ground to clear away silly and absurd arguments.  It allows us to ask better questions.  Used indirectly in this manner, philosophy IS useful.  For example, I think that contemporary theoretical physics' debate about what happened "before time" or the Big Bang is STUPID and can be instantly seen as an absurd question when you recall Kant's Antimonies and definition of time.  One can see, applying Kant, that there is no possibility to define something "before" time or to look for external verification of time before time.  So here is an example in which philosophical study can provide some sort of useful knowledge if used indirectly.  

Either way, take it or leave, when you reason and appeal to more objective arguments and rigorously question what is assumed you are philosophizing in all meaningful senses of the word.  Studying old dead guys is useful in that it shapes more directly your thoughts, but it is by no means necessary.

I am working on an essay on this very topic, as you can tell.

[PucktheCat]

five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe

I'm gonna go ahead and blow a bit of eurocentricism (sp?) whistle here.  These five may qualify, but it is a bit hard to say that there wasn't a caveman in central Asia that accomplished the same things right before a mountain fell on his head.

For the record, I think that the debate over the merits of philiosophy is interesting, but ultimately not as relevant as people think.  I think the main thing is that people somehow engage their world - through philosophy or in some other way.  Too many people don't do anything at all, so complaining that some of those that do don't do exactly the thing you find interesting and relevant is a bit . . . can't think of word and time to go home.

And yes, that idea is one that has its roots in philosophy I have read  

Leo

[kirdape3]

The question of what happened before the Big Bang is actually really fundamental - does our theory of how the universe formed in violation of an underlying law that we've proven to hold true throughout all forms of science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).  If there was a Big Bang (which everything we've yet seen says that there was), then the period before that COULD NOT have followed that law.  You can't get more ordered than what caused the Big Bang.  It may be possible (and necessary) to redefine our concepts of time in the period centered on the Big Bang - the energy-defined epoch after and the period before.

If you want really fundamental questions, go to a good theoretical physicist and ask them what a measurement is.  On the most fundamental levels, that question cannot yet be answered.  And it holds a whole lot of impact - the continuity of physics to an even more fundamental form depends on it.

[Bram]

The funny thing is that, rereading all of this, it becomes apparent to me that in spite of various bold statements by some of us, none of us are really disagreeing on any fundamental level.

Except maybe on the 'Five Guy List'. That's so totally random, based on consensus and projection of positive qualities on dead people and you know it While I believe that all of them were enlightened individuals, I do not believe that they were any close to a 'truth' than any of us are. And even if they were, I refuse to believe the group is limited to that insanely random number (for one thing, you didn't mention Smmenen *or* Dr. Sylvan).

If there was a Big Bang (which everything we've yet seen says that there was), then the period before that COULD NOT have followed that law

Oh man, now you really got me going For one thing, the second law of thermodynamics (for reference: it can be expressed in many ways that all boil down to the same thing. one way of denoting it in words would be to say that it is impossible to devise a process the sole result of which is the transfer of heat from a cold reservoir to a hotter one. In other words: every energy transfer will lead to an exergy loss) is NOT a law. We just have never discovered an instance of it not being correct and find it difficult to imagine it not being true because of the rather far-reaching consequenses. To illustrate: while no patent offices in the world still accept patents for machines that break the first 'law' (conservation of energy), there's still one bureau that accepts applications for devices that break the second one!

Also, you can get around the whole 'what happened before the big bang' thing rather easily by assuming (as Hawking does) that time itself began at that point. Simply put: there WAS no before the big bang. This statement itself has interesting implications, some of which are adressed in relatively new 12-dimensional 'solutions' which basically evolved from string theory. Believe you me, the GUT is not far away. The end of science, yo (talk about interesting books...John Horgan's 'The End Of Science' is a must-read)

And yeah, it's all pretty fucking useless. But now comes the REAL incentive to do anything: it's FUN

[walkingdude]

First off, I think the notion that "smart people" have made philosophy less needed is a little silly unless we are talking about a VERY small handful of people in human history (five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe). If you are not one of those people then I think that philosophy is helpful enough, and if you are I still think it is worthwhile.

Wow, I think that list is way off (my opinion, not gospel). Your list is all creative people. I suspect that the top people from analytical disciplines are probably smarter. For example, I would bet a substantial amount of money that Gauss absolutely blows that entire crowd out of the water. Newton was also brilliant, and the guy in India who first invented the concept of zero must have been very sharp. In philosophy there were a lot of smart people since Aristotle, I’m no expert in that field but a lot of people seem to regard Wittgenstein as really brilliant.  Also most of my music major friends pick Bach over mozart.

[Saucemaster]

The problem lies in the fact that I cannot objectively discern whether or not I'm stupid. While I may think that I figure things out for myself and am not subject to retorics by those more eloquent than me, this just as well might not be the case. I therefor choose to withold judgment on such matters regarding myself, my peers and the authors in question. So by my own reasoning, philosophy is meaningless to me. In plain language: whenever I read some theory, I will absorb it, accept that some people believe it to be true, say 'Oh, that's really interesting' and file it under 'Guess we'll never now'. That's my personal take on agnosticism, I guess.

I don't see this as a problem.  I have no trouble discerning that I am not stupid.  I've seen stupidity and that's not me.  I am undoubtedly MORE stupid than certain OTHER people, but that's beside the point.  Regardless, the point I've been trying to make is that above all else the value in seeking out other opinions and other modes of thought is that it provides a check to your own beliefs and opinions.  If you feel challenged by someone else's system of thought and you interact with it, I'm saying THAT's the most important part.  You may or may not be self-aware enough to truly discern whether it's their rhetoric or their argumentation that's convincing you, and whether it's because you just WANT to believe it, etc., but that's a whole other question.  In the meantime, you actually HAVE interacted with ideas not your own and formed a reaction to them, and that's what I'm claiming the value is in Philosophy.

In other words, I never said that studying Philosophy would provide you with the RIGHT answers (and obviously you wouldn't either ), I just said that studying Philosophy should make you question the answers you thought you had.  If you don't feel you have enough self-awareness to know whether or not you've even questioned your previous assumptions and conclusions... well... what can I say?  Anyway, I don't think anyone ever believes anything for wholly logical and non-biased reasons, which is a problem that's only exacerbated by refusing to seek out and consider other ways of thinking, not vice versa, which is what you seem to be implying.

1. In my opinion, it is a misconception that you can be 'right' about anything pertaining these matters. Failure to accept that is child-like, since children tend to view the world in terms of black&white, right&wrong.

We disagree here, though I think we disagree on much less than I'd thought before the last few posts.  I think that what's child-like is for someone to say that they know beyond doubt that something is one way--right, wrong, black, white--and remain impervious to critique.  That doesn't mean that I think the world is starkly divided into black and white, etc., it just means that I don't see what the point is in believing anything at all unless you actually think that you're on some level correct about it.  And it's not as if you can possibly avoid it, anyway.  You can't actually act without implicitly having some world-view that allows for those actions.

This has gone so far out of bounds that I'm not even sure where we are anymore, but anyway I think we've more or less got a general map of the field.  I'm definitely enjoying it.

Shockingly, I'm going to actually recommend a book: Pale Fire by Nabokov.  I think it's easily his best book.

[Smmenen]

five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe

I'm gonna go ahead and blow a bit of eurocentricism (sp?) whistle here.  These five may qualify, but it is a bit hard to say that there wasn't a caveman in central Asia that accomplished the same things right before a mountain fell on his head.

For the record, I think that the debate over the merits of philiosophy is interesting, but ultimately not as relevant as people think.  I think the main thing is that people somehow engage their world - through philosophy or in some other way.  Too many people don't do anything at all, so complaining that some of those that do don't do exactly the thing you find interesting and relevant is a bit . . . can't think of word and time to go home.

And yes, that idea is one that has its roots in philosophy I have read  

Leo

I would go further and assert that philosophically shockingly little has happened since Ancient Greece in terms of understanding the human experience (not scientific knowledge).  They tackled the vast majority of the major issues we still deal with today.  How Plato can be left off that that list boggles my mind.  Plato is the father of modern thought - if any "modern" person should go up there, shouldn't it be Decartes?  

This isn't to say that major advances haven't been made - but the Ancient Greeks made such a bold new foundation in terms of Western Thought - and advanced so far and deeply in it, that comparatively, even the works of Marx and Adorno - and the treatises of Rawls and rantings of Neitchze seem small by comparison.

Look at the Stoics, cynics, and Epicurians - the dividing lines are basically where we are today - same with Sophists (which have gotten a bad rap becuase of Plato).

Steve

[Matt]

Wow, I think that list is way off (my opinion, not gospel). Your list is all creative people. I suspect that the top people from analytical disciplines are probably smarter. For example, I would bet a substantial amount of money that Gauss absolutely blows that entire crowd out of the water. Newton was also brilliant, and the guy in India who first invented the concept of zero must have been very sharp. In philosophy there were a lot of smart people since Aristotle, I’m no expert in that field but a lot of people seem to regard Wittgenstein as really brilliant.  Also most of my music major friends pick Bach over mozart.

Eu-ler! Eu-ler!

[Ric_Flair]

I love the fact that my list got so many people upset.  Face it, these are the best of the best.  If you disagree you are wrong.  Obviously I am just kidding.  Here is a book I found to be interesting about this topic: Human Accomplishment: Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC-1950 AD by Charles Murray (of the Bell Curve fame).  My list is a modified version of his list.  He made his list by looking at historical experts in a given field and tallying many times people were mentioned and how significant the mention was.  There are some details to his formula, but overall I thought it was interesting.  Ask the experts in the field, that is a good way to find out who is the best.  

Individual People:

First off, Wittgenstein himself, in the Big Typescript, mentioned that he was intellectually inferior to Goethe and Mozart, so he is off the list.

Plato is important to philosophy and political theory, but his contributions there are equal to or only slightly greater than Aristotle's.  What puts Aristotle on the short list is the contributions to other things.  Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, Biology, Physics, Economics, Meterology, and about every other field in the span of the liberal arts collection was defined and started by Aristotle.  His biology theories were not toppled relatively recently by Darwin.  His physics was toppled by Newton, who in turn was toppled by others.  In Logic Russell was the first person to strictly break with the Prior and Posterior Analytics. In Ethics and Aesthetics only Kant rivals Aristotle in terms of comprehensiveness and even still Aristotle is required reading in those topics.  In short, Aristotle changed humanity.  Before Aristotle we were supersitious morons not all that different from cavemen.  After Aristotle it was possible to meaningfully speak of human knowledge and rationality.  Others may have started us down that path,  but Aristotle was the one that organized everything.  

Side note:  I find the comment that list is eurocentric is kinda funny.  First off Aristotle preceeded any meaningful sense of "Europeanness" by at least 200 years, if we consider Roman influence European.  For Aristotle Germany was as foreign as America.  They were all barbarians.  So a full 1/5th of the list is not European.  The other thing is that I think we have mixed up things.  We see Aristotle as European because he shaped the entire course of thinking in the Western world.  But since he preceeded Europe, it is unfair to call him European.  Finally, I think that there are few experts in any of the fields I named that would disagree with my list.  They may add people, but they could not certainly meaningfully take anyone of those people OFF the list.

Ironically Euler was third Murray's on the Math list behind Newton and Euclid.  I would defer to a math person here, but since that is what Murray did, I would would defer to him.  He gathered sources from hundreds of years of writing.

Philosophy and ancient Greece.  Steve I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying.  I am fond of the Greeks too, but I think that Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and the pragmatists all represent strains of thought not present in the Greek milieu.  Derrida, also represents something new, but I am not sure where to put it yet.  

@walking dude:

Wow, I think that list is way off (my opinion, not gospel). Your list is all creative people. I suspect that the top people from analytical disciplines are probably smarter. For example, I would bet a substantial amount of money that Gauss absolutely blows that entire crowd out of the water. Newton was also brilliant, and the guy in India who first invented the concept of zero must have been very sharp. In philosophy there were a lot of smart people since Aristotle, I’m no expert in that field but a lot of people seem to regard Wittgenstein as really brilliant. Also most of my music major friends pick Bach over mozart.

First, I am not sure what constitutes an analytic v. creative discipline.  I would have a feeling most philosophers would want to say what they are doing is analysis.  Second, one of the reasons it is difficult to compare (using more workable terms) scientific achievement to artistic achievement is that science constantly makes old achievements unimportant, whereas an artistic achievement may wane in popularity but that is cyclic (see peoples disdain for Bach during his lifetime, his rise after Beethoven, his fall during Minimalism and his rise again in the past 50 years).  Does anyone remember the name of the person that invented the sexton?  Or the person that came up with the first models of the structure of atoms?  No.  Well maybe a few people, but they are interested in those folks from a history, not science, point of view.  The problem is that when science progresses, the value of past achievements is judged by the standards of its usefulness in the modern paradigm.  The less useful, the less remembered.  And eventually those achievements fade into history.

As far as the Five Guy List, it is not just being smart--there are lots of smart people--it is about being smart and hardworking and making lasting contributions to human knowledge.  Mendohlsson was widely considered a prodigy of Mozartian proportions, but he did not develop or work at his talent, and in the end his music shows little development or growth from its earliest forms until his death at 36 (Mozart died in his early 40s so it is not an age thing).  These five people were part genius, part yeoman worker, and part lucky.  But I am fairly confident is saying that people in the respective fields of each of these people would rank them at the top or near the top in their discipline.   As I said before, people may be added to the list, but I am almost positive no one would take a name away.

Other people that made important contributions:

Ghandi (I almost put him on the Five Guys list, but his autobiography was TERRIBLE.  Still he is like Jesus but better because he got results)
Plato
Kant
Frued
Euclid
Picasso
Einstein (maybe)
Tolstoy

Sorry for taking this thread WAY FAR AWAY from the original topic.  But I have had fun.

[PucktheCat]

Side note: I find the comment that list is eurocentric is kinda funny. First off Aristotle preceeded any meaningful sense of "Europeanness" by at least 200 years, if we consider Roman influence European. For Aristotle Germany was as foreign as America. They were all barbarians. So a full 1/5th of the list is not European. The other thing is that I think we have mixed up things. We see Aristotle as European because he shaped the entire course of thinking in the Western world. But since he preceeded European, it is unfair to call him European. Finally, I think that there are few experts in any of the fields I named that would disagree with my list. They may add people, but they could not certainly meaningfully take anyone of those people OFF the list.

Since I think this is directed at me this is directed at me, I will respond.

The issue of whether they percieved themselves as European seems entirely irrelevant.  They aren't the ones compiling the list - you are.

If I made a list of the ten coolest objects in the world and eight of them were rocks, someone might justifiably comment that I seemed overly focused on rocks.  It wouldn't be at all relevant if I were to say that the rocks don't think of themselves that way.

Leo

[Ric_Flair]

I think calling Aristotle European is stretching the term beyond any meaningful recognition.  It is only because of hindsight and historical convenience that he is European.  Its like calling Aztecs in the 12th Century Mexicans.  It does not work.  Regardless of who is classifying them, Aztecs weren't Mexicans and Aristotle could not have been a European.

[Matt]

Euler was basically the Einstein of his time, considered by many the smartest man alive. They actually went after his brain and dissected it, trying to find some anomaly to explain his brilliance. He also produced almost half his output while totally blind.

I don't really give Newton that much credit for his math work because if you're familiar with the time, it really seemed like what he did was inevitable from that point - Leibniz in particular would have practically duplicated Newton's work, just starting from the other direction (a rough generalizaion is that Newton made integral calculus and Leibniz made differential calculus, though in reality they overlapped a little more and there were several others whose work came tantalizingly close to what those two were doing).

Also, to stir up the Bach vs. Mozart brouhaha: http://www.bachfaq.org/nerd.html

[Ric_Flair]

Bach v. Mozart can reach bloodsport levels in some circles.  I ride the T in past Berkeley School of Music in Boston and I have been witness to some really rip-snorting debates on the issue.  I actually heard a professor once tell another professor to "fucking fuck off" over the Bach v. Mozart issue.  It was funny.  Two skinny bald old men REALLY pissed off.  But that debate is really not the issue.  Posterity can fight over the genius so long as I can have my Beethoven.  Beethoven is a perfect example of a non-genius (relatively speaking, of course...us mere mortals) having a huge impact.

[PucktheCat]

I think calling Aristotle European is stretching the term beyond any meaningful recognition.  It is only because of hindsight and historical convenience that he is European.  Its like calling Aztecs in the 12th Century Mexicans.  It does not work.  Regardless of who is classifying them, Aztecs weren't Mexicans and Aristotle could not have been a European.

Now wait a minute, how does the fact that it is a matter of convienience and hindsight change any of the facts at all?

Just because I am obsessed with both true rocks, like granite, and products of biological activity that I mistake for rocks, like seashells, doesn't mean I am not ignoring a lot of other things.  Trees, for example.

Eventually, I will respond to something with a argument instead of an analogy.  But not now.

Leo

[Ric_Flair]

Your analogy is a faulty one.  Aristotle is the mistaken rock that is actually a turtle shell in your analogy.  

First, I am not worried if all of the people are European.  Or if they were men.  I don't care about that stuff.  It might not be PC to say so, but I think that regardless of the dominant point of view the accomplishments of those people would stand out.  Even if they were limited in the ways that women or minorities were, their accomplishments would be outstanding, see Hildeguard of Bingham or Simone Weil.  But the real issue is not what they would have been, or what they are or would be adjusting for all that crap that we have no way of quantifying, but WHAT THEY DID IN FACT ACCOMPLISH.  

Second, the purpose, I assume, in labeling Aristotle a "European" is to somehow claim that his achievements are only significant in the European tradition.  But this is just not true.  Aristotle's concpetion of knowledge shapes the university the primary method of education ALL OVER THE WORLD.  Without Aristotle, how people are educated in China, South Africa, Brazil, and Germany would be different.  

So Aristotle is not historically a European nor is his influence limited to European traditions.

[Bram]

Ooh, ooh, you forgot the guy in Africa who thought of putting water in clay pots when it was plentyful and bury them, in order to not die of thirst when his nomadic tribe would come back over the same plains in the dry season, hereby leaving behind the earliest proof of mankind's dawning imagination, eventually leading him to victory over the Neanderthals.

Surely having invented abstract thought counts for something?

[PucktheCat]

Your analogy is a faulty one.  Aristotle is the mistaken rock that is actually a turtle shell in your analogy.  

Obviously.  That is just what I am saying.  Perception of groupings and catagories is what places Aristotle in western thought.  The fact that those perceptions may be wrong doesn't change them.

Think about it this way: if someone were to list the greatest things ever written as Hamlet, the Bible, and Great Expectations I would feel comfortable saying they were focusing on the western tradition in spite of the fact that the bulk of the Bible was written in a place that is both geographically and culturally distinct from western europe.

I don't disagree, by the way, that those five are great geniuses.

But the real issue is not what they would have been, or what they are or would be adjusting for all that crap that we have no way of quantifying, but WHAT THEY DID IN FACT ACCOMPLISH.

First off, I think the notion that "smart people" have made philosophy less needed is a little silly unless we are talking about a VERY small handful of people in human history (five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe).

Actually, I guess you are right.  I misread the original post as the following:

First off, I think the notion that "smart people" have needed philosphy less is a little silly unless we are talking about a VERY small handful of people in human history (five people EXACTLY Aristotle, Mozart, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Goethe).

I hope you can see how that changes one's reaction   .

I still think that great geniuses may have informed the thought of cultures long dead in the same way that these inform our own, but it makes much more sense to me now.

Leo

[walkingdude]

The contributions of people in esoteric fields can be far more major than one thinks or knows. A very large portion of the physics Einstein did doesn’t work without math that was pioneered by Gauss (he did most of non Euclidian geometry on his own before many of the other people but never published most of his work. Instead he just discussed it in letters with the people who did publish and get theorems named after them). Modern astro physics and general relativity, and string theory and (the list goes on) all come from Guass.
His impact has been huge but physics people don’t cite the mathematicians whose theorems they use the same way they cite other physicists so Murray’s selection process would systematically discriminate against mathematicians.
Using the standard of impact, it also seems Galileo should be on the list, he invented the idea of the modern scientific method and repeatable experimentation. Prior to him people (even brilliant ones like Aristotle) just hypothesized all sorts of whacky physical theory with no basis. Galileo is responsible for just about every experiment done in science but they don’t cite him in every paper as originating the scientific method.
 So he too is shortchanged by murrays method.

[Ric_Flair]

If you have not read Murray's book, give it a look.  He accounts for the types of quirks your referring to.  Really, before you rip into him, read the book.  I know that the people really don't like the Bell Curve, and I didn't either, but it is really important to read what the other side is saying.

Also, I am not saying I AGREE ENTIRELY with Murray's method.  It has flaws, but not the one you mentioned.  Just read the book before you rip into its method.  It is just too complicated to explain the whole thing here.

@Puck:  

I think we are on the same page now.

BTW to everyone, I admit that part of the formula is luck.  If Greece had been at war, or a greater state of war, when Aristotle was alive things may have been different.  If he hadn't hooked up with Alexander the Great...For Mozart, what would have happened without his gifts from the Hapsburgs or his father's influence....It is all a bit of luck.  But it is also the convergence of genius and work.  All of these people were lucky to be men...born at the right time...not being born retarded...but whatever.  The issue is impact.  And those five guys had serious impact.  

Think about this though, had the Library of Alexandria (the real one) not burned down we would have a ton more works by Aristotle and many finished versions of what we do have, like the Metaphysics, which is clearly a draft.  So luck works against them too.

[PucktheCat]

Saucemaster, I enjoyed Invisible Cities by Calvino.  I like that sort of writing, where meaning always seems just beyond the words on the page.  Reading it you feel like every sentance is vastly more than the sum of its parts.  Reminds me of poetry in that way.

To others: this is something you would like if you can handle books that raise questions but never answer them and suggest points without ever settling on one.

Finally, to all the philoso-philes (yes, I realize that is an absurdly redundant neologism) on this site: what is a good place to begin with Heidegger?  He is an author I simply didn't get around to in college and I would like to read some before I get back into school.

Leo

[Jhaggs]

I touched on Heidegger a little.  I think he wrote something called "Being and Time" (I forget its German title).  I believe it was his first or one of his first major publications.  Being and Time (I think) was a foundational start for all of his future writings.

[Saucemaster]

Saucemaster, I enjoyed Invisible Cities by Calvino.  I like that sort of writing, where meaning always seems just beyond the words on the page.  Reading it you feel like every sentance is vastly more than the sum of its parts.  Reminds me of poetry in that way.

Yeah, Invisible Cities is definitely his most poetic book.  Cosmicomics and If On a Winter's Night A Traveler slightly edge it out in my mind for sheer brilliance, but Invisible Cities still ranks with the best books I've ever read.

Jhaggs is correct in that Being and Time is the foundational work of Heidegger's thought, but trying to attack it by yourself would be a huge and probably frustrating task; I'd recommend at least a few commentaries and such to ease the way a little.  I'm biased here, because he was my professor at UC Berkeley (from whom I took two classes on Heidegger), but I would highly recommend Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1 by Hubert Dreyfus.

Actually, on Googling it seems that Prof. Dreyfus actually posted mp3s of most of his lectures on early Heidegger from this year (I took that class about, what, 5 or 6 years ago now): http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/185_s04/html/lectures_185_s04.html

Ric Flair can give you plenty of other input on Heidegger as well.

[Jhaggs]

Jhaggs is correct in that Being and Time is the foundational work of Heidegger's thought, but trying to attack it by yourself would be a huge and probably frustrating task; I'd recommend at least a few commentaries and such to ease the way a little.  I'm biased here, because he was my professor at UC Berkeley (from whom I took two classes on Heidegger), but I would highly recommend Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1 by Hubert Dreyfus.

Funny, I couldn't remember what I read from my classes at UC Davis but I think we read the commentaries you mentioned and not the actual text.

[Ric_Flair]

I took a class that lasted a year on Heidegger's Being and Time (Zine Und Seit) from William Richardson at BC, who actually had Heidegger as a professor for most of his graduate school career.  I would actually say that if you want to start some place that a good place to start is the Introduction to the Being and Time.  Really read it and get out your Greek dictionary, but it is worth it.  It is a tremendous and CLEAR rendition of his pre-Kehre thought.  Heidegger, like Wittgenstein, has a clear early and late period, separated by "the turn" or Kehre, in the lingo of Heideggerians.  His early period stuff is best seen in Being and Time, and the best summation is in the Introduction.  Trying to read this work by yourself is tremendously difficult.  It can be done but it is SO hard.  I read it in German and English parallel and this was the hardest thing I have ever done in my entire life.  His German is so different from regular German that I cannot hardly read regular German anymore.  If you want the later stuff the best place to start is an essay called "What is Thinking?," "A Discourse on Thinking," or "The Essence of Being."  If you want a good synopsis of all of Heidegger's stuff the Safranski biography is AMAZING.  It is one of the best biographies I have ever read.  One of my other teachers wrote an excellent intro though it is quite limited after you reach a certain point.  His name is Richard Polt.  Once you have read that stuff the pinnacle of the early work is Being and Time, obviously.  The pinnacle of his late work is a bit more difficult to pin down, though I think that "The Essence of Ground" is up there.  Pathmarks, a compliation of essays, is probably the best sample of his later work.  Be prepared to go from German to French to Greek to Latin and to English if you are reading in translation.  Also The MacQuarrie translation is the BEST for Being and Time.  The new one by the American female professor is a very earnest but ultimately failed attempt.  David Farrell Krell is probably the best translator of the later period.

[PucktheCat]

Thanks for the pointers.  I will probably take Ric Flair's recommendation and start with the intro to Being and Time.  I am not too worried about the difficulty level - I like jumping in the deep end on a subject from time to time.  After I have gotten frustrated with it I might move on to some secondary material.

Leo

[Dozer]

So Aristotle is not historically a European nor is his influence limited to European traditions.

OUCH! This is so wrong. Aristoteles WAS a European. His influence spread only through the Greek/Macedonian empire and the adjacent countries. Later, his works were to be found in the Roman empire, already regarded as classics and only preserved from copies, and spread to the adjacent cultures. But saying that Aristoteles teachings ever reached China or South America means stretching it very far. The ONLY way that those teachings reached these areas was via European invaders, merchants and colonists. They never left the sphere of influence of European traditions, because these tradititons moved themselves over the world. Not for nothing were the works of the Greek philosophers recreated in the period we are now used to call the Rennaissance, or in English (iirc) the Age of Enlightenment, solely in Europe.

We now perceive Aristoteles and his colleagues as the foundation of modern thinking because we Europeans spread this thinking during the 15th, 16th century. Before, Aristoteles was known to the Greek, to the Romans, and the school of his thought was brought to the people living under the dominion of either Athens/Sparta/Troia or Rome by the actions of their oppressors, and in the case of Alexander the Great as far as India, although it is debatable if he brought philosophy with him or not. And that did never change. By proclaiming Aristoteles to have influenced more than just the European tradition, you disregard all other non-European philosophers that have shaped societies. Lao-Tse (born 571 B.C.) and Konfuzius (born about the same time; sp?, this one is the German variant) are probably the best known Asian-Chinese philosophers, and have no basis in Aristoteles (who was born 384 B.C.).

The point is that since European traditions are the basis of all Western culture and this culture is the current dominant variety in terms of world power and resource distribution, we perceive it as the foundation of everything. But it isn't, and saying that Aristoteles was historically no European disregards both the European culture and developments of other cultures.

The philosophies that relate back to Aristoteles (and his predecessors, which we have ignored now) are all based in the European culture. I do not know of any one philosopher who is based in Aristoteles who does not come from a culture that has its roots in ancient Europe as formed by the Greek and Alexander the Great, who was actually educated by Aristoteles and who may be held responsible for spreading the philosophies beyond the Greek-Macedonian border for the first time, finally coming as far as the Kaschmir region in 326 B.C., stretching his empire farther than the Romans.

Dozer

[Ric_Flair]

OUCH! This is so wrong. Aristoteles WAS a European.

This comment, in fact this entire post, is so anachronistic.  Europe had no meaning to Aristotle.  If you were to ask Aristotle what a European was he would look at you with a puzzled look on his face.  In fact the word barbarian originated from Greece during this time.  Invading tribes were speaking foreign languages that the Greeks thought sounded like "bar, bar, bar."  These tribes were from what we now think of as Europe.  The Greeks perception of them underscore that Europe meant nothing when Aristotle was alive.  They were all barbarians.  There was no meaning to the word Europe during Aristotle's time.  There were Greeks, Turks (Trojans), Macedonians, and others, but Europeans were non-existent.  They were Goths and Visigoths, Gaulians and Celts, but none of these people would think of themselves as Europeans.  

Simply because people that later thought of themselves as Europeans spread thought derived from Aristotle's philosophy and science does not make him European.  A German artist copying Michangelo's style does not make Michangelo German.  

It is simply a matter of history.  Aristotle thought of himself as a Macedonian or a Greek.  There was no such thing as a European.  In fact, Aristotle preceeded Rome, so there is at least one epoch separating Aristotle from being European.

Not for nothing were the works of the Greek philosophers recreated in the period we are now used to call the Rennaissance, or in English (iirc) the Age of Enlightenment, solely in Europe.

I am not sure what that sentence means, but assuming it means that only Europeans studied Aristotle, that is again wrong.  Averroes and Avicena were both Muslims and in the Middle Ages Islam was the sole link between Classical Greece and the modern world.  Averroes was a Moor, and thus not (at the time) a European.  Avicena was an Arab and again not a European.  Other Muslim scholars were the only people in the world to have Aristotle's works for a long time (through the Dark Ages).  It was not until St. Thomas Aquinas received the works from an exchange between Islamic scholars and Catholic theologians (and subsequently intergrated Aristotle indelibly into Catholic theology) that Europeans had access to Aristotle.  So for a long time, Europeans had no Aristotle at all.

We now perceive Aristoteles and his colleagues as the foundation of modern thinking because we Europeans spread this thinking during the 15th, 16th century.

Europeans only had Aristotle because Islam had gave his works to us.  

Aristotle was not a European and non-Europeans played a crucial historical link between Aristotle and modern Europe.  Averroes' commentaries are still among the best, rivaling St. Thomas'. Personally, Islamic commentaries on Aristotle are my favorite, after Sir David Ross's.

The point is that since European traditions are the basis of all Western culture and this culture is the current dominant variety in terms of world power and resource distribution, we perceive it as the foundation of everything.

See, if Aristotle had done just philosophy or political theory, like the two individuals you mentioned, he would not be as important as he is.  He would be like Plato, who I also like.  Aristotle's influence and importance in unrivaled because not only did he make foundational contributions to philosophy (metaphysics, logic) and political theory, but also: economics, ethics, literary interpretation, biology, physics, rhetoric and meterology.  For many centuries Aristotle's work in each of these fields was the pinnacle of the field.  He may have been superceded recently, in the past 400 years, but not by one person, but many.

[PucktheCat]

Ric, you are definatly right that Aristotle wouldn't self-identify as European.  The question is whether European is a designation that has some meaning beyond self-identification.

The basic argument that Aristotle is European comes down to an argument that Aristotle (and the other Greek philosophers) have essentially created a philosophical tradition with certain traits that we call "the European philosophical tradition."  In the same way that I would call Christianity European I would call Aristotle European, because the Bible and Aristotle (and Plato, and some others) essentially created the European intellectual tradition from whole cloth.

When I made my original post stating that it was "Eurocentric" to list the five you did as the only great philosophical geniuses (which, it turned out, wasn't what you said, but was what I was responding to) I didn't mean that all the people you listed were from Europe, but that the people you listed were all ones that reflected a preoccupation (on your part) with the Western/European mode of thought.  In that sense it is much more important to notice that everyone in the European tradition is responding to these authors than that these authors are actually from Europe.

Basically, I would say that Aristotle wasn't European in the sense that Marx wasn't a Marxist.  Marx would probably never have identified himself as a Marxist but after he died a large group of people influenced by his writing became identified that way.  Aristotle might never have said he was European, but the group that was most influenced by his thought has just that label.

Just for the record, I would say that it would be fair, if you stated that Marx, Lenin and Mao were the greatest thinkers in history, to say you were overly focused on the Marxist tradition, in spite of the fact that it may or may not be accurate to call Marx a Marxist.

Leo

Edit: just a terminology clairification:

the Rennaissance, or in English (iirc) the Age of Enlightenment

In English, the Rennaissance is refered to as the Rennaisannce.  The Age of Enlightenment refers to a later period.

[Dozer]

Puckthecat has got it right, but I will still add some thoughts. I might add, though, that I am not a student of Philosophy, but of History and view conceptions like "Europe" probably differently than a philosopher might do.

OUCH! This is so wrong. Aristoteles WAS a European.

This comment, in fact this entire post, is so anachronistic.  Europe had no meaning to Aristotle.  If you were to ask Aristotle what a European was he would look at you with a puzzled look on his face.  In fact the word barbarian originated from Greece during this time.

I admit, this is in fact anachronistic. But see below for what I was getting at, I'll try to get it clearer.

Simply because people that later thought of themselves as Europeans spread thought derived from Aristotle's philosophy and science does not make him European.

But it makes him part of European tradition. What I was getting at was that if you want to sort Aristoteles into any line of tradition, one cannot proclaim him a "world philosopher", but necessarily needs to show links between his Greek/Macedonian origin and the region we now call Europe that began to take shape in the days of the Roman empire.

We now perceive Aristoteles and his colleagues as the foundation of modern thinking because we Europeans spread this thinking during the 15th, 16th century.

Europeans only had Aristotle because Islam had gave his works to us.  

Aristotle was not a European and non-Europeans played a crucial historical link between Aristotle and modern Europe.  Averroes' commentaries are still among the best, rivaling St. Thomas'. Personally, Islamic commentaries on Aristotle are my favorite, after Sir David Ross's.

The fact that Islam philosophers and libraries have been the ones to keep Aristoteles' works over the centuries and made them available for Europes new thinkers does not sever the lines of tradition between Aristoteles and what we now call Europe. I think the question this revolves around how far Aristoteles' teachings actually spread and influenced people and developments.
You said in the post I was quoting initially:

Without Aristotle, how people are educated in China, South Africa, Brazil, and Germany would be different.

This is the crux. Aristoteles' influence was carried to China, South Africa, Brazil and Germany by merchants, colonists, intellectuals and soldiers from the region we now call Europe (first Alexander the Great, who got as far as Kashmir, and centuries later Italians, Spaniards/Portugese and Dutch). The scientists of the Islam helped preserve his works, and the people who received those works (i.e., the "Europeans") spread their knowledge.
If, for example, Aristoteles had been Indian or Japanese, I believe we now would not hold his works in such a high esteem, because we would know less about it and probably not talk about it. It might even never have reached the culture that both modern Europe and the USA have come from. I know this kind of projection is fruitless, but I want to get the point across that not even the greatest philosopher is independent of his surroundings and the "scientific community" that is existing or taking shape around him - very much like today, I might add.

In addition to all that, it just occured to me -- as I write this -- that you can see my ramblings from a different point of view: that I am a European (which I am) trying to defend and maybe even exaggerate the importance of his own culture and its roots, trying to claim Aristoteles as "Europe's own" because of pride. This is probably correct, but I try to broaden my view and see the other angle as well.

I think we can agree, to cap it off here, that Aristoteles came from the Greek-Mediterranian culture which also was the very beginning of Europe as it is today, his influence stretching over Greece and Macedonia to the Arab peninsula. There his works were preserved by Islam philosophers to be rediscovered in the now-existing Europe during the Rennaissance (thanks to Puckthecat for clarifying the terminology, btw), whose explorers spread the culture that was built on ancient foundations to the Americas, Africa and the Far East.


Btw, I've been enjoying this thread so far. As to literature, I strongly recommend both Fjodor Dostojewsky and if you really want a treat, James Joyce. Just don't start with Ulysses, it's going to blow your brains out. I read "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" first, and it really grabbed me as an incredible fascinating, entertaining and gripping piece of literature. So did Ulysses, but I have to read each page three times without understanding them and still haven't had the discipline to finish it.
On a lighter note, among the classics to read are of course the Shakespeare plays, and Herman Melville's "Moby Dick", which I enjoy every time I read it. Just make sure you get an unabridged version, because most modern editions have most of the whaling theory cut out. It is enthralling both as a story and as a contemporary account of "modern" knowledge about whales. Equally fascinating is Bram Stoker's "Dracula", which is notable for the way it is told and still does not fail to grip my imagination.

Dozer