What's everyone reading?

[magog]

I expected to see results from more of my schools by now... how am I supposed to work under these conditions?

In the mean time, anyone want to share what they're currently reading? I'm in the middle of Stiegler's _For a New Critique of Political Economy_.

[MattDest]

I'm reading Churchland's new book "Plato's Camera". Pretty good read.

[Javslavin]

Carl Craver's newish book: Explaining the Brain (2007). Very clear, and pretty convincing so far.

[v3p011]

I expected to see results from more of my schools by now... how am I supposed to work under these conditions?

In the mean time, anyone want to share what they're currently reading? I'm in the middle of Stiegler's _For a New Critique of Political Economy_.

Everything except Philosophy at the moment.

But I haven't read any Stiegler, any good? My impression is that he turns to a number of other thinkers in order to write about a myriad of already determined problems, but I'm not sure what is his central problem, thought, or idea. In other words, what can one get from Stiegler that one can't get elsewhere?

[Norman G]

Everything except Philosophy at the moment.

Same here. I just finished Hesse's Beneath the Wheel and Magister Ludi. The two books were quite similar and equally depressing.

[SeriouslyKidding]

Joshua Dienstag's "Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit"

It's better than I expected.

[Anonymouse Bosch]

Chantelle Mouffe and Shaun Gallagher's "How the Body shapes the Mind"

Both are pretty awesome

[EffNine]

I'm re-reading the Story of Philosophy by Will Durant

[hanoverkontent]

Philip Larkin's Jill, one of his two extended works of prose fiction. It is wonderful to trace some elements of his poetic style shimmering under the surface of his early prose!

[objectivityofcontradiction]

I'm reading Erich Maria Remarque's Three Comrades, a novel of Germany between the wars. I've always felt that Remarque is one of the more underrated and under-appreciated writers of the 20th century. Also poking around in Marx's young writings, mostly the 1844 manuscripts.

[manent]

I'm reading philosophy that's off topic for me/not the favored in contemporary analytic philosophy: Berlin's canon and Manent's Intellectual History of Liberalism and City of Man.

[The Mosby]

I've been reading some papers related to temperance and akrasia as they pertain to Nicomachean Ethics. I really should read the original text again.

Unrelated to that, does anybody have suggestions for some good secondary readings to Nietzsche?

Edited February 24, 2012 by The Mosby

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Leiter's collection of essays, Nietzsche and Morality, are great. Lots of good philosophers from both analytic and continental departments contributed. I'd recommend staying away from Deleuze's biography of Nietzsche. But who am I to say.

[v3p011]

Leiter's collection of essays, Nietzsche and Morality, are great. Lots of good philosophers from both analytic and continental departments contributed. I'd recommend staying away from Deleuze's biography of Nietzsche. But who am I to say.

Why do you say one should stay away from Deleuze's "biography" of Nietzsche? Do you have a problem with his reading of Nietzsche in general, and if so, why?

[objectivityofcontradiction]

I do not have a problem with Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche generally. In fact, lately, I find myself agreeing more and more with Deleuze's idea that the eternal return is not a return of the same but rather, of difference, owing to Nietzsche's fierce dislike of all forms of "identity" and "identifications." What's always been unsettling with me however, is French interpretations of German philosophy. I haven't quite worked out why this perturbs me. I acknowledge that Deleuze is one of the better philosophers of hermeneutics of the 20th century and so I do respect his craft. The one thing that bothers me most about his reading of Nietzsche is his handling of Nieztsche's aphoristic form. I'm not sure Deleuze himself fully understands the purpose of the aphorism, as many do not (myself included, obviously) but seeing as how it is such a crucial feature of Nietzsche's philosophy, I always find myself a bit annoyed when I encounter those who swear by Deleuze's reading, simply because I see mistakes in it. I remember particularly one point in Nietzsche and Philosophy when he mentions that the aphorism is not a mere thought, which is true. However, I think he under values the role the thinking process plays in constructing thoughts as aphorisms and in Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole. But, like I said above, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. When it comes to secondary reading, one proceeds at their own peril. I'm sure we've all read our fair share of interpreters who on a second or third glance didn't quite have it as right as we thought.

[v3p011]

I do not have a problem with Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche generally. In fact, lately, I find myself agreeing more and more with Deleuze's idea that the eternal return is not a return of the same but rather, of difference, owing to Nietzsche's fierce dislike of all forms of "identity" and "identifications." What's always been unsettling with me however, is French interpretations of German philosophy. I haven't quite worked out why this perturbs me. I acknowledge that Deleuze is one of the better philosophers of hermeneutics of the 20th century and so I do respect his craft. The one thing that bothers me most about his reading of Nietzsche is his handling of Nieztsche's aphoristic form. I'm not sure Deleuze himself fully understands the purpose of the aphorism, as many do not (myself included, obviously) but seeing as how it is such a crucial feature of Nietzsche's philosophy, I always find myself a bit annoyed when I encounter those who swear by Deleuze's reading, simply because I see mistakes in it. I remember particularly one point in Nietzsche and Philosophy when he mentions that the aphorism is not a mere thought, which is true. However, I think he under values the role the thinking process plays in constructing thoughts as aphorisms and in Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole. But, like I said above, I shouldn't have even mentioned it. When it comes to secondary reading, one proceeds at their own peril. I'm sure we've all read our fair share of interpreters who on a second or third glance didn't quite have it as right as we thought.

Thanks for the response. With respect to Deleuze's "reading" of Nietzsche, I guess one first has to decide what function it servers in Deleuze's own thinking. Is he attempting to get Nietzsche right? To take something from Nietzsche? To give something to him? And, in general, can his reading be considered an "interpretation" (since, as you probably know, Deleuze is deeply suspicious of the role of interpretation in philosophy)?

Having said that, you also mention "mistakes" in Deleuze's reading. Here, I am curious as to how you think about your own approach to reading philosophy (because this is an important question for me as well). For instance, hermeneutic approaches teach us that there isn't simply one definite reading of a text; nevertheless, all of us (myself included), ultimately tend to fall back on what we believe is clearly getting a thinker "right." Of course, Deleuze is not a historian of philosophy--to him the history of philosophy should serve a function similar to collage in painting--whereas most of us don't really do philosophy at all--we merely strive to get these thinkers "right."

Having said that,

[pompeiimagmus]

The Possessed, Dostoevsky.

[Another Sisyphus]

Finished Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It got my hopes up but ultimately disappointed me. Started MacIntyre's After Virtue. Very enjoyable so far.

[Samahito]

Infinite Jest.

[aglaea]

Chantelle Mouffe and Shaun Gallagher's "How the Body shapes the Mind"

Both are pretty awesome

Nice to see Chantal Mouffe, one woman amongst nearly two dozen.

The best thing I'm reading is Benhabib and respondents' Another Cosmopolitanism, although Alain Badiou's pop-philosophy In Praise of Love is fun.

[philosophia3]

I too am reading "Infinite Jest" by David Foster Wallace. That and "The Lessons on The Analytic of the Sublime" by Lyotard. 

[Phil2013]

Metametaphysics, eds. Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman. I've read various articles over the past year or so; now I'm working on Sider's piece, "Ontological Realism"

[Philosopath]

Good choice on Metametaphysics.  I'd like to read some of those papers as well.  Are there any papers in there that you especially like?

 

I've been sporadically reading a few things.  I've been reading When is True Belief Knowledge? by Richard Foley, Dennett's The Intentional Stance and On Reflection by Hilary Kornblith. 

Edited January 25, 2013 by Philosopath

[notorious_biv]

As soon as I finish Burge's Origins of Objectivity, I'm going to start The Opacity of Mind by Peter Carruthers (after Carruthers...I'll probably read the new Kornblith).

Edited January 26, 2013 by notorious_biv

[Phil2013]

Good choice on Metametaphysics.  I'd like to read some of those papers as well.  Are there any papers in there that you especially like?

 

I've been sporadically reading a few things.  I've been reading When is True Belief Knowledge? by Richard Foley, Dennett's The Intentional Stance and On Reflection by Hilary Kornblith. 

I like "Metaphysics After Carnap: the Ghost Who Walks?" by Huw Price and "On What Grounds What" by Jonathan Schaffer. Price's piece is about how Quine is probably as much of an anti-metaphysician as Carnap was (and that this is a good thing, Price being on the anti-realist side of metaontology). Schaffer basically agrees, and argues that in part because of this contemporary metaphysics needs to take its cue from Aristotle rather than Quine. I find this interesting as a guy who is already interested in Carnap and Quine.