6 ms·

Wow, this is great. So he took philosophy out of the normative, positivist, Hegelian world it was stuck in, pointlessly proving useless esoteric questions of lo

Wow, this is great. So he took philosophy out of the normative, positivist, Hegelian world it was stuck in, pointlessly proving useless esoteric questions of logic, and applied it phenomenologically to the broad experience of human experience and reality. Anybody know anything I should read besides Nozick along this vein?

RodericDay 9y ago
Yeah, Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto and Capital are both good, but I personally think Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts is great.
- ue_ 9y ago
  I don't know if it's just me, but I consider Capital more of an economic text than a philosophical one. That's Marx in political economist mode. And from what (albeit little) I've read of Nozick I much prefer Marx and continental philosophy as a whole (though I'm just beginning). The Manifesto draws varying opinions even within Communist circles; arguably Engels' "The Principles of Communism" is a more gentle text.
  - bobwaycott 9y ago
    This is definitely a common thought, and has long been considered the proper way to read Marx. You should check out Marx's Inferno for an interesting—and, I've long thought, more accurate—take otherwise.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      I've heard about it before, though I haven't checked it out. I'll take a look, thanks.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  Marx's Inferno +1 It's absolutely worth reading, and properly positions Capital as a work of intentional political theory.
samirillian 9y ago
Neitzsche! Genealogy of Morals is such a classic.
deepnet 9y ago
Daniel Dennet is grounded in reality, though he is concerned with how minds came about and the possibility of AI - his latest from Bacteria to Bach combines Darwin and Turing to imagine how biological machines came to be minds and cites Clark and Hinton. His recent Life Scientific outlines his thesis. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4
paganel 9y ago
> Anybody know anything I should read besides Nozick along this vein? I'm now reading a selection of essays on the general theory of politics by Norberto Bobbio (it's in Italian: http://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/norberto-bobbio/teoria-generale-della-politica/978880619985 http://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/norberto-bobbio/teoria-gen...) which I find quite interesting, in the same vein as the later Nozick described by the article. Bobbio never seems to choose a dogmatic view on the philosophy of politics, even though he discusses at length about controversial political ideas like freedom vs equality, politics vs morals and the like. His short description of "liberal socialism" is quite convincing, even though the construct might at first seem like an oxymoron (he uses the word "liberal" in the continental way, borrowed from Benjamin Constant). Too lazy to search for but I'm pretty sure there must be plenty of English translations of Bobbio's works.
- ue_ 9y ago
  >"liberal socialism" is quite convincing, even though the construct might at first seem like an oxymoron I don't understand why this is even considered an oxymoron, aside from the arguably distorted views people have about the theory of Socialism. There are plenty of liberal Socialists, Oscar Wilde being a popular one.
  - paganel 9y ago
    You could say that people like Oscar Wilde were the exception, rather than the rule. As is the British NHS experiment, in the great scheme of things. The tendency in the last 200 years was either to have as many privately-held entities running things around (the "liberal" side of things), or to have as much State-control as possible ("socialist"). For the moment the pendulum seems to be pointing to us going more "liberal" (I had a cultural shock when I read that parents are supposed to pay for their kids' elementary education in "communist" China).
    - ue_ 9y ago
      It sort of depends what we mean by liberal. Very few Socialists would be arguing to have the population woken up by the commissar in the morning to commence their 9 hour working day, in return receiving labour vouchers which guarantee a position in a lottery for the confiscated possessions of the bourgeoisie. An extreme example maybe, but nevertheless I doubt you'll find many Socialists, today at least, talking about forced labour. It would be extremely hypocritical of them, considering the fact of forced labour within capitalism. All forms of Socialism rest upon the communal ownership of the means of production, and the gradual removal of power from the state, in the direction of Communism (though let's be sure as Marx said in German Ideology, Communism is not a state of affairs to be established). This relies upon some kind of confiscation of private property. What divides the 'liberal' Socialism from regular old Marx and Engels's Socialism, I'm not sure. Though if I must I shall paint myself as a a liberal Socialist. That doesn't mean I want capitalism with health care.
ue_ 9y ago
Proudhon and Kropotkin?
kolbe 9y ago
Don't all the great fiction writers just skip that first misguided step?
igravious 9y ago
Your take on the article is all wrong. And buzzwordy to boot. Analytic philosophy, though a broad church, is a number of things -- (1) a constrained style, one that tends to mimic the papers in logic or mathematics, certainly not one that is stylistically liberal (2) a reluctance to address certain topics, so philosophy of science (championed by Quine as mentioned in the article) to name but one out of a restricted set of topics is favoured (3) this one is important, analytic philosophy is very Anglo-American, and this shows. > Anybody know anything I should read besides Nozick along this vein? They mention two in the article: Hofstadter's nerd-famous G.E.B which I could not in good conscience recommend, and Rorty's _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_ which is a landmark text. One reason to recommend Rorty over Hofstadter to a person interested in philosophy is that PatMoN is a proper philosophical text and G.E.B is most certainly not.
- mercer 9y ago
  Could you elaborate on your opinion of G.E.B?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hyperpape 9y ago
Mid 20th century Anglo-American philosophy was about as anti-Hegelian as can be, so it's more than a little unclear what you're asking for.
keeler 9y ago
> So he took philosophy out of the normative, positivist, Hegelian world Former philosophy person here. In analytic philosophy, those three are generally understood to be all at odds with each other. "Normative" has to do with values, typically moral ones such as "good" or "ought". Positivism in analytic philosophy generally refers to an early 20th century school of thought (see, for example, the Vienna Circle) that roughly held that the only meaningful statements were those that were empirically testable, or that were a priori; all other statements, including normative ones, were simply meaningless. Positivism exerted an enormous influence on analytic philosophy that is still felt today, though few if any philosophers identify themselves strictly as such anymore. As for Hegalianism, that was/is a major influence in Continental philosophy, but has had very little influence in the analytic tradition. I haven't read much Nozick, but considering the article discusses his reaction against the analytic tradition, the closest thing he was reacting to of your three was positivism, mixed with the intense influence of philosophy of language that evolved out of the work of Frege and Russell.

RodericDay 9y ago

Yeah, Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto and Capital are both good, but I personally think Marx's Inferno by William Clare Roberts is great.

ue_ 9y ago
I don't know if it's just me, but I consider Capital more of an economic text than a philosophical one. That's Marx in political economist mode. And from what (albeit little) I've read of Nozick I much prefer Marx and continental philosophy as a whole (though I'm just beginning). The Manifesto draws varying opinions even within Communist circles; arguably Engels' "The Principles of Communism" is a more gentle text.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  This is definitely a common thought, and has long been considered the proper way to read Marx. You should check out Marx's Inferno for an interesting—and, I've long thought, more accurate—take otherwise.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    I've heard about it before, though I haven't checked it out. I'll take a look, thanks.
bobwaycott 9y ago
Marx's Inferno +1 It's absolutely worth reading, and properly positions Capital as a work of intentional political theory.

samirillian 9y ago

Neitzsche! Genealogy of Morals is such a classic.

deepnet 9y ago

Daniel Dennet is grounded in reality, though he is concerned with how minds came about and the possibility of AI - his latest from Bacteria to Bach combines Darwin and Turing to imagine how biological machines came to be minds and cites Clark and Hinton. His recent Life Scientific outlines his thesis. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kv3y4

paganel 9y ago

> Anybody know anything I should read besides Nozick along this vein? I'm now reading a selection of essays on the general theory of politics by Norberto Bobbio (it's in Italian: http://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/norberto-bobbio/teoria-generale-della-politica/978880619985 http://www.einaudi.it/libri/libro/norberto-bobbio/teoria-gen...) which I find quite interesting, in the same vein as the later Nozick described by the article. Bobbio never seems to choose a dogmatic view on the philosophy of politics, even though he discusses at length about controversial political ideas like freedom vs equality, politics vs morals and the like. His short description of "liberal socialism" is quite convincing, even though the construct might at first seem like an oxymoron (he uses the word "liberal" in the continental way, borrowed from Benjamin Constant). Too lazy to search for but I'm pretty sure there must be plenty of English translations of Bobbio's works.

ue_ 9y ago
>"liberal socialism" is quite convincing, even though the construct might at first seem like an oxymoron I don't understand why this is even considered an oxymoron, aside from the arguably distorted views people have about the theory of Socialism. There are plenty of liberal Socialists, Oscar Wilde being a popular one.
- paganel 9y ago
  You could say that people like Oscar Wilde were the exception, rather than the rule. As is the British NHS experiment, in the great scheme of things. The tendency in the last 200 years was either to have as many privately-held entities running things around (the "liberal" side of things), or to have as much State-control as possible ("socialist"). For the moment the pendulum seems to be pointing to us going more "liberal" (I had a cultural shock when I read that parents are supposed to pay for their kids' elementary education in "communist" China).
  - ue_ 9y ago
    It sort of depends what we mean by liberal. Very few Socialists would be arguing to have the population woken up by the commissar in the morning to commence their 9 hour working day, in return receiving labour vouchers which guarantee a position in a lottery for the confiscated possessions of the bourgeoisie. An extreme example maybe, but nevertheless I doubt you'll find many Socialists, today at least, talking about forced labour. It would be extremely hypocritical of them, considering the fact of forced labour within capitalism. All forms of Socialism rest upon the communal ownership of the means of production, and the gradual removal of power from the state, in the direction of Communism (though let's be sure as Marx said in German Ideology, Communism is not a state of affairs to be established). This relies upon some kind of confiscation of private property. What divides the 'liberal' Socialism from regular old Marx and Engels's Socialism, I'm not sure. Though if I must I shall paint myself as a a liberal Socialist. That doesn't mean I want capitalism with health care.

ue_ 9y ago

Proudhon and Kropotkin?

kolbe 9y ago

Don't all the great fiction writers just skip that first misguided step?

igravious 9y ago

Your take on the article is all wrong. And buzzwordy to boot. Analytic philosophy, though a broad church, is a number of things -- (1) a constrained style, one that tends to mimic the papers in logic or mathematics, certainly not one that is stylistically liberal (2) a reluctance to address certain topics, so philosophy of science (championed by Quine as mentioned in the article) to name but one out of a restricted set of topics is favoured (3) this one is important, analytic philosophy is very Anglo-American, and this shows. > Anybody know anything I should read besides Nozick along this vein? They mention two in the article: Hofstadter's nerd-famous G.E.B which I could not in good conscience recommend, and Rorty's _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_ which is a landmark text. One reason to recommend Rorty over Hofstadter to a person interested in philosophy is that PatMoN is a proper philosophical text and G.E.B is most certainly not.

mercer 9y ago
Could you elaborate on your opinion of G.E.B?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

hyperpape 9y ago

Mid 20th century Anglo-American philosophy was about as anti-Hegelian as can be, so it's more than a little unclear what you're asking for.

keeler 9y ago

> So he took philosophy out of the normative, positivist, Hegelian world Former philosophy person here. In analytic philosophy, those three are generally understood to be all at odds with each other. "Normative" has to do with values, typically moral ones such as "good" or "ought". Positivism in analytic philosophy generally refers to an early 20th century school of thought (see, for example, the Vienna Circle) that roughly held that the only meaningful statements were those that were empirically testable, or that were a priori; all other statements, including normative ones, were simply meaningless. Positivism exerted an enormous influence on analytic philosophy that is still felt today, though few if any philosophers identify themselves strictly as such anymore. As for Hegalianism, that was/is a major influence in Continental philosophy, but has had very little influence in the analytic tradition. I haven't read much Nozick, but considering the article discusses his reaction against the analytic tradition, the closest thing he was reacting to of your three was positivism, mixed with the intense influence of philosophy of language that evolved out of the work of Frege and Russell.