Preparing for grad school

[shelbyelisha]

What are you planning on doing to prepare for grad school?  Are there any books/anthologies/essays you plan to read? Papers to write? Knowledge gaps to fill? 

 

I finished my undergrad two years ago and have been working in a library without taking classes for two years.  I was thinking of reading (at least) some sort of extensive anthology/history of philosophy text over the summer to get myself back in the swing of things.  Let me know if you have any suggestions!

[Monadology]

I'm relearning the German I forgot much of years ago. If I end up going to UC Riverside (quite likely), I'm going to read up on a lot of phenomenology.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Monadology

[MongooseMayhem]

I'm just doing a lot of reading on 1) topics I plan on looking into in grad school and 2) work by professors I currently see myself working with. I'm doing this in a fairly freewheeling way because I probably won't have much time for that once I get into the nitty gritty of research.

[shelbyelisha]

Good idea Monadology; I should probably brush up on my Latin and Greek.

 

Dylan: Excellent idea to familiarize yourself with your professors' work.  I'll add that to my list.

[MattDest]

I like Dylan's idea, I'll probably grab a few books/papers that philosophers at Arizona have written and read them over the summer. I'm crossing my fingers for an adjunct position, as I'd like to have something else to do as well. 

[deverettf]

A good chunk of my summer will be spent at CUNY's Latin/Greek Institute.  Got to cram all of Latin grammar into my head before I go off to grad school!

[Establishment]

A good chunk of my summer will be spent at CUNY's Latin/Greek Institute.  Got to cram all of Latin grammar into my head before I go off to grad school!

 

I'm super jelly, that sounds like a great opportunity.

[Wait For It...]

For those aiming to study something in the analytic tradition, the following list was given me by a well published, tenured professor of mine (PhD from Notre Dame). The list is geared toward forming the groundwork for further study in analytic philosophy. I plan to begin reading through it, continuing until I start next Fall; I've read several of them already and will probably read them again! Hope this helps. 

 

 

Metaphysics:

 

Start here: Loux, Metaphysics (Routledge)

 

Then master these:

van Inwagen, Material Beings

Plantinga, Nature of Necessity

Lewis, On the Plurality of Worlds

Kripke, Naming and Necessity

Stalnaker, Inquiry

Sider, Four-Dimensionalism

 

Epistemology:

 

Start here: Feldman, Epistemology (Prentice Hall)

 

Then master:

BonJour, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge

Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function

Conee & Feldman, Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology

Alston, Epistemic Justification. Essays in the Theory of Knowledge.

Dretske: Knowledge and the Flow of Information.

Fumerton: Metaepistemology and Skepticism.

Williamson: Knowledge and its Limits

 

Ethics:

 

Start here: Timmons, Moral Theory; Shafer-Landau's Moral Realism: A Defence.

 

Then master:

 

Rawls, Theory of Justice (just the first 100 or so pages)

Smith, The Moral Problem

Macintyre, After Virtue

Parfit, Reasons and Persons

Mackie, Ethics, chapter one,

Moore, Principia Ethica, chapter one

Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic, chapter on emotivism

Edited March 11, 2014 by Wait For It...

[TheVineyard]

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

[Establishment]

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

 

Ah yes, van Inwagen's "Material Beings", a classic work of Christian dogmatic philosophical metaphysics which argues for the non-existence of ordinary things which has contributed to a much larger debate over ontological metaphysics with other Christian metaphysicians, such as Eli Hirsch, Ted Sider...

[TheVineyard]

Ah yes, van Inwagen's "Material Beings", a classic work of Christian dogmatic philosophical metaphysics which argues for the non-existence of ordinary things which has contributed to a much larger debate over ontological metaphysics with other Christian metaphysicians, such as Eli Hirsch, Ted Sider...

 

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is...I don't know if you are trying to say that the proposed sample of mostly-Christian, mostly Notre Dame philosophers is an accurate representation of a "foundation" in the field, or if you just mean to say that Inwagen is influential in metaphysics. I believe he is, but that doesn't make the former true.

[wandajune]

I'm just doing a lot of reading on 1) topics I plan on looking into in grad school and 2) work by professors I currently see myself working with. I'm doing this in a fairly freewheeling way because I probably won't have much time for that once I get into the nitty gritty of research.

I was hoping to do something similar to this over the summer.

I think the list Wait for it... posted is a good one, thanks for sharing!

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

I'm not sure exactly what your point here is...I don't know if you are trying to say that the proposed sample of mostly-Christian, mostly Notre Dame philosophers is an accurate representation of a "foundation" in the field, or if you just mean to say that Inwagen is influential in metaphysics. I believe he is, but that doesn't make the former true.

His point is that van Inwaegen's metaphysics is unrelated to his theological work to the extent that it can be taken seriously by naturalist metaphysicians on their own terms. The same is true of, for example, his discussion of Frankfurt examples in the moral responsibility literature. I do however agree with you about "Warrant and Proper Function," which is not a great book in and of itself, and seems mostly aimed at forcing analytic theology into epistemology. Stich's "The Fragmentation of Reason" does a much better job discussing many of the same issues.

Edited March 11, 2014 by perpetualapplicant

[PhiPhiPhi]

If anyone has questions for an already established PhD student feel free to send them my way. I'm just hanging out here avoiding work on my dissertation..

[perpetuavix]

I did my undergrad at a school with concentrations, so I took fewer philosophy courses than someone who majored in it. I'm decently well read in my AOS, but I haven't read most important philosophical texts that were published after the ancient Greeks and before 1950. I'm also underemployed right now, so I have a lot of free time. I'm working on this list:  http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6093

which is definitely a little broader than the one posted above. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

I did my undergrad at a school with concentrations, so I took fewer philosophy courses than someone who majored in it. I'm decently well read in my AOS, but I haven't read most important philosophical texts that were published after the ancient Greeks and before 1950. I'm also underemployed right now, so I have a lot of free time. I'm working on this list:  http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6093

which is definitely a little broader than the one posted above. 

You're missing a few goodies, but overall it's a solid list. Though, as a Nietzsche guy, I would never advise someone to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra without having read several of his other works thoroughly first. It's probably one of the most difficult books I've ever read (for various reasons), and this is coming from someone doing his thesis on the work. 

[perpetuavix]

You're missing a few goodies, but overall it's a solid list. Though, as a Nietzsche guy, I would never advise someone to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra without having read several of his other works thoroughly first. It's probably one of the most difficult books I've ever read (for various reasons), and this is coming from someone doing his thesis on the work. 

I read (most of) The Genealogy of Morals so I was probably going to skip over Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and now I definitely am.

Anything specific you would add to the list? 

[bar_scene_gambler]

Stuff that I think is a must read if you're getting into Nietzsche:

Early: The Birth of Tragedy
          Schopenhauer as Educator

Middle: The Gay Science

Late: Twilight of the Idols

         Beyond Good and Evil

         Genealogy of Morals

Only after those would I suggest someone take a look at Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The book is notoriously difficult and infamous for giving people the wrong impression of Nietzsche. Out of all of those works though, Twilight is absolutely amazing, followed closely by Schopenhauer as Educator. 

[Dialectica]

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

 

This is just obviously false. First, Loux's Metaphysics book as nothing to do with God or philosophy of religion for that matter. It is on the list because it is a well-known and commonly used in intro courses in metaphysics. Second, as Establishment has satirically noted, Van Inwagen's Material Beings has nothing to do with a Christian or theist agenda. Thirdly, Plantinga's Nature of Necessity is incredibly well-known as a seminal work in modal metaphysics (just look at how many times it is cited in metaphysics volumes/articles, without mention of its latter chapters that are explicitly theistic). While Plantinga's work on warrant has been very influential in epistemology, despite its ties to Plantinga's larger project of warrant with respect to theism and christian belief. 

 

 

Without any argument for why these authors shouldn't be on the list (other than the fact they are Christian), your post sounds just as silly as the following: 

 

Anyone who lists  Dretske, Ayer, Mackie (three very anti-religious philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream anti-Christian apology) is exposing some extreme anti-Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in anti-religiously-motivated metaphysics or anti-Christian apology/atheism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in anti-Christian philosophy and anti-Christian metaphysics/ethics.

[shelbyelisha]

Thanks for the lists, Wait For It and Perpetuavix, and for the Neitzsche help, Bar_Scene!

[lesage13]

Ethics:

 

Start here: Timmons, Moral Theory; Shafer-Landau's Moral Realism: A Defence.

 

Then master:

 

Rawls, Theory of Justice (just the first 100 or so pages)

Smith, The Moral Problem

Macintyre, After Virtue

Parfit, Reasons and Persons

Mackie, Ethics, chapter one,

Moore, Principia Ethica, chapter one

Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic, chapter on emotivism

 

Mostly agreed. Miller's An Introduction to Metaethics is also a great primer on the development of metaethics. I would replace Rawls's Theory of Justice with the later Political Liberalism (don't bother with the Restatement I don't really think it adds much). Though I also think that political philosophy deserves a separate list. Such a list should probably include Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Sen's Development as Freedom. 

Edited March 11, 2014 by lesage13

[Wait For It...]

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

TheVineyard: Two things.

 

1. It seems to me that, if there are negative posts to be found on these forums, they are yours. (Hence, the copious amount of down-votes you sometimes receive.) I've thus far avoided you---and will hopefully continue to do so after this post---but your comment about my list has motivated me to say at least something by way of reply.

 

I take it that most, if not all, of us here are in the stressful process of awaiting responses that could change what we do and where we are for the next five years. I also take it that most of us come to these forums because they contain some connection, community, and advice. This particular thread contains posts by people (like me) who are offering advice on how to prepare oneself for further graduate study. I provided list (which I'll address in a moment) to contribute to the discussion, and I don't understand why you would bash it. Are you playing around? Do you enjoy trying to upset others? Do you have little time on your hands for much else? Are you trying to elicit some sort of vitriolic, polemical response? I really don't get it.

 

2. If you don't like the list I gave, there are about a million or so appropriate ways to object to it other than the way you did. For one, the list should be judged by the quality of the works within it, not by whether some of its works were authored by "religious" or Notre Dame philosophers. Plantinga, Loux, and van Inwagen aren't on the list because the maker of the list was biased in favor of religious, Notre Dame philosophers. They're on the list because they ought to be. Plantinga's Nature of Necessity was, along with David Lewis' Plurality of Worlds, one of the earliest complete theories of modal metaphysics to appear in the philosophical literature in 20th century. If you don't think Loux's introduction to metaphysics is a good place to start, then I have little else to say to you about it. Lastly, van Inwagen's Material Beings helped shape the current debate on composition. He was basically the first (or at least most recent) person to frame and address the so-called "composition question." All three of those works are important to gaining a good groundwork for further study analytic philosophy (metaphysics in particular); that's why they're on the list. It simply doesn't follow that, say, van Inwagen's metaphysics are religious because he himself is "religious." If you have any substantial reasons to think those authors should've been left off the list, let them be known. Otherwise, your post to seems irrelevantly negative. 

 

Finally, you'll notice that the list contains mostly non-religious philosophers (like Lewis and Sider). What follows solely from that? Nothing. Those works are on the list because they ought to be. If you want to offer your own list, please do; that's what this thread is for. But please, for the sake of us all, stop the negativity. Thanks.  

Edited March 11, 2014 by Wait For It...

[Wait For It...]

Mostly agreed. Miller's An Introduction to Metaethics is also a great primer on the development of metaethics. I would replace Rawls's Theory of Justice with the later Political Liberalism (don't bother with the Restatement I don't really think it adds much). Though I also think that political philosophy deserves a separate list. Such a list should probably include Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Sen's Development as Freedom. 

Out of up-votes, but thanks for the recommendation! 

[stressedout]

Anyone who lists Plantinga, Loux, and Inwagen (three very religious Notre Dame Philosophers) as the most important/central/fundamental writers on metaphysics (or anything other than mainstream Christian apology) is exposing some extreme Christian centrism and taking you on a ride. If you are only interested in religiously-motivated metaphysics or Christian apology/theism, they might be a good place to start, but by no means do those philosophers accurately represent a "groundwork in analytic philosophy." It is a groundwork in Christian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wait For It...]

Thanks for the lists, Wait For It and Perpetuavix, and for the Neitzsche help, Bar_Scene!

Out of up-votes, but you're welcome!