Preparing for grad school

[TheVineyard]

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

 

You've clearly sipped on the kool-aid!

I can't believe that people would defend a reading list from a Notre Dame PhD that lists primarily Notre Dame Christian philosophers as the "must read" philosophers for a foundation of metaphysics...and then say it's unbiased. It's just laughable.

But whatever, anyone who can't see that that is an incredibly biased reading list has too much "faith" to overcome. If you want to study only Notre Dame Christian philosophers, be my guest. I didn't say anything bad about them. I didn't say that they are bad, motivated by supernatural claims, unscientific, radically speculative, or insulated from the rest of the world. I'm just saying that the universe of metaphysics doesn't center around Notre Dame Christian philosophers as your list makes it seem.

[Wait For It...]

You've clearly sipped on the kool-aid!

I can't believe that people would defend a reading list from a Notre Dame PhD that lists primarily Notre Dame Christian philosophers as the "must read" philosophers for a foundation of metaphysics...and then say it's unbiased. It's just laughable.

But whatever, anyone who can't see that that is an incredibly biased reading list has too much "faith" to overcome. If you want to study only Notre Dame Christian philosophers, be my guest. I didn't say anything bad about them. I didn't say that they are bad, motivated by supernatural claims, unscientific, radically speculative, or insulated from the rest of the world. I'm just saying that the universe of metaphysics doesn't center around Notre Dame Christian philosophers as your list makes it seem.

Again, out of the TWENTY FOUR items on the list, only FOUR were by the Notre Dame philosophers. That hardly counts as evidence of bias; nor does it suggest that the list's author thinks the "universe of metaphysics center around Notre Dame Christian Philosophers" (whatever that happens to mean).

 

And, like we've already said, three of those books were influential in forming current debates in metaphysics and epistemology; and the fourth is a very good introduction. Thus, they are rightly listed. You're the one who's asserted bias, and the only reasons you've offered in support of that claim are that the list is from a former Notre Dame PhD (irrelevant) and that a few of the items on the list were written by Notre Dame philosophers who happen to be religious (also irrelevant). This is my last comment on this matter. 

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

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

Again, out of the TWENTY FOUR items on the list, only FOUR were by the Notre Dame philosophers. That hardly counts as evidence of bias; nor does it suggest that the list's author thinks the "universe of metaphysics center around Notre Dame Christian Philosophers" (whatever that happens to mean).

 

And, like we've already said, three of those books were influential in forming current debates in metaphysics and epistemology; and the fourth is a very good introduction. Thus, they are rightly listed. You're the one who's asserted bias, and the only reasons you've offered in support of that claim are that the list is from a former Notre Dame PhD (irrelevant) and that a few of the items on the list were written by Notre Dame philosophers who happen to be religious (also irrelevant). This is my last comment on this matter. 

Vitriol aside, I really do think Stich's "Fragmentation of Reason" is a significantly better discussion of the relationship between epistemic processes and evolution than "Warrant and Proper Function," and I'd like to re-iterate that point independent of anyone's views on Notre Dame philosophy generally. I agree with what you say about the other three books, though.

Edited March 11, 2014 by perpetualapplicant

[Wait For It...]

Vitriol aside, I really do think Stich's "Fragmentation of Reason" is a significantly better discussion of the relationship between epistemic processes and evolution than "Warrant and Proper Function," and I'd like to re-iterate that point independent of anyone's views on Notre Dame philosophy generally. I agree with what you say about the other three books, though.

Thanks for the comment. You might be right the Stich's text deserves to be on the list; I haven't read it, so I can't definitively say. Indeed, there are a great many books that are not included on the list. But one cannot read every great book in order to get a good "lay of the land" (so to speak) of themes in analytic philosophy. My list was merely a reflection of what one philosopher suggested. No doubt it's a good list; all of its members deserve to be there, although another good list with different members could also be formed. 

[objectivityofcontradiction]

FWIW, Vineyard has now taken jabs at Notre Dame and Purdue. Can we conclude from this that he/she is some sort of all-things-Indiana hater, i.e. an illini of sorts? Or, perhaps an IUB person who is duped into the ideology of college rivalry and detests the rest of the Indiana Unis? Why not answer this one for us, Vineyard. What do you have against these two Midwestern institutions? The Christian-bias is one thing, but what did the Boilermakers ever do to you? 

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

Thanks for the comment. You might be right the Stich's text deserves to be on the list; I haven't read it, so I can't definitively say. Indeed, there are a great many books that are not included on the list. But one cannot read every great book in order to get a good "lay of the land" (so to speak) of themes in analytic philosophy. My list was merely a reflection of what one philosopher suggested. No doubt it's a good list; all of its members deserve to be there, although another good list with different members could also be formed. 

Agreed. I just wanted to try to jump-start the discussion into returning to putting together such a list. I'll have to think about it for a bit, but I'll try to add a few of the more influential empirical mind/cog sci books later.

 

ALSO: Stupid upvote quota.

[catwoman15]

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..

OMG ME TOO!

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

A philosophy of cog sci reading list (very tentative--please feel free to add in comments):

 

Background:

Davidson "Essays on Actions and Events"

Fodor "The Language of Thought"

Anything by Dennett from 1969-87

 

Classical Theory

Fodor, "Psychosemantics" and "The Modularity of Mind"

Churchland (Pat) and Sejnowski, "The Computational Brain"

 

Newer Theory

Bechtel "Mental Mechanisms"

Noe "Perception in Action" and "Out of Our Heads"

Shapiro's reader on Embodied Cognition

 

Theory of Mind

Goldman, "Simulating Minds"

Nichols and Stich"Mindreading"

 

Philosophy of Psychology

Griffiths, "What Emotions Really Are"

 

Relevant Theoretical Cog Sci/Psych

Marr, "Vision"

Pylyshyn, "Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think" and "Computation and Cognition"

Sperber and Wilson "Relevance: Communication and Cognition" (it helps to read some of Grice's stuff in language first)

DaMasio "Descartes' Error"

[TheVineyard]

FWIW, Vineyard has now taken jabs at Notre Dame and Purdue. Can we conclude from this that he/she is some sort of all-things-Indiana hater, i.e. an illini of sorts? Or, perhaps an IUB person who is duped into the ideology of college rivalry and detests the rest of the Indiana Unis? Why not answer this one for us, Vineyard. What do you have against these two Midwestern institutions? The Christian-bias is one thing, but what did the Boilermakers ever do to you? 

Oh I have nothing against Purdue, it is a fantastic school. I just have heard the term and PurDUPED reminded me of it. I watch college sports and I know a bunch more. Give me a school and I'll give you a little rhymey name that others use to make fun of it.

My problems with Notre Dame are just problems with religion generally. I'm assuming I don't have to say more about that? It is also a great school with many great students and some great faculty. Again, though, my criticism was about the one-school-centrism of the supposed "foundation in metaphysics." If someone had said that most of the philosophers of mind you need to read before going into graduate school are from Duke or CUNY and are straight-up hardcore reductive physicalists, I would question that list just as strongly, even though I agree with those authors and love their programs.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TheVineyard

[maxhgns]

My suggestion to you all would be twofold:

 

1.) Enjoy your break. You won't have another like it for a while.

 

2.) If you're feeling antsy and want to do a spot of work, take a look at the progression requirements at your school, and see what you can get ahead on. If there's a language requirement, start now. If there's a logic requirement, find out what the content is (i.e. ask, and ask about textbooks), and get started on it. This is especially important if you don't consider yourself a logic whiz, because the work involved can be quite tough (not to mention time-consuming). Even just learning the elements of set theory and mathematical induction will save you a lot of pain later.

[stressedout]

Sinan Dogramaci at UT Austin (PhD, NYU) has a nice reading list on his website:

 

http://www.sinandogramaci.net/Sinan_Dogramaci/Teaching_files/Reading%20List%20for%20Ph.D%20students.pdf

[alethicethic]

Arizona used to publish their required comp readings, I don't know if they still do, but that might be helpful.

 

About the recommended reading list: it's a little odd to read the ethics list in that order. So, to appreciate the contributions of Rawls and MacIntyre, it might be useful to see why people wanted to divorce normative from metaethics (so, one might read Ayer first, not last.) It's also heavily weighted toward contemporary ethics. You could do worse than to just focus on reading Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Sidgwick.

 

I really like the Moral Discourse and Practice reader, and George Sher's compilation Moral Philosophy. The nice thing about the latter is that it excerpts the classics. 

 

If anyone is interested in reading more about Chinese philosophy, I recommend the Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy by Ivanhoe and Van Norden, along with Van Norden's Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy as a guide to getting started.

[Wait For It...]

Arizona used to publish their required comp readings, I don't know if they still do, but that might be helpful.

 

About the recommended reading list: it's a little odd to read the ethics list in that order. So, to appreciate the contributions of Rawls and MacIntyre, it might be useful to see why people wanted to divorce normative from metaethics (so, one might read Ayer first, not last.) It's also heavily weighted toward contemporary ethics. You could do worse than to just focus on reading Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Sidgwick.

 

I really like the Moral Discourse and Practice reader, and George Sher's compilation Moral Philosophy. The nice thing about the latter is that it excerpts the classics. 

 

If anyone is interested in reading more about Chinese philosophy, I recommend the Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy by Ivanhoe and Van Norden, along with Van Norden's Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy as a guide to getting started.

Thanks for the contribution. I agree with what you say about appreciating the work of Rawls and Co. I also think you're right that my list is weighted toward contemporary, as opposed to historical, ethics. But alas, no reading list, if it aims to be at all manageable, can be so exhaustive as to include both. The list I gave was primarily a starter for those interested in analytic philosophy. It is, of course, insufficient! As a side note, the works are not listed in any particular order. So, for example, the list's maker isn't suggesting, by the fact that Ayer isn't first on the list, that Ayer should not be read first. 

 

Edit: All this assuming, of course, that you were talking about my list and not that of another poster!   

Edited March 12, 2014 by Wait For It...

[bar_scene_gambler]

Arizona used to publish their required comp readings, I don't know if they still do, but that might be helpful.

About the recommended reading list: it's a little odd to read the ethics list in that order. So, to appreciate the contributions of Rawls and MacIntyre, it might be useful to see why people wanted to divorce normative from metaethics (so, one might read Ayer first, not last.) It's also heavily weighted toward contemporary ethics. You could do worse than to just focus on reading Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Mill, and Sidgwick.

I really like the Moral Discourse and Practice reader, and George Sher's compilation Moral Philosophy. The nice thing about the latter is that it excerpts the classics.

If anyone is interested in reading more about Chinese philosophy, I recommend the Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy by Ivanhoe and Van Norden, along with Van Norden's Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy as a guide to getting started.

I used that book for the Eastern Phil course I co-taught. Good stuff, though I don't like the Zhuangzi translation.

[v_e_r000]

My list:

Do everything I won't be able to do as a PhD student.

Watch TV

Read non-philosophical books

Spend time with my current friends

Sleep 9 hours every night (at least)

Study music

Relax

Seems like I'll be to busy to read all those amazing books that have been mentioned.

[MattDest]

My list:

Do everything I won't be able to do as a PhD student.

Watch TV

Read non-philosophical books

Spend time with my current friends

Sleep 9 hours every night (at least)

Study music

Relax

Seems like I'll be to busy to read all those amazing books that have been mentioned.

 

The PhD students that I know manage to find time for these things. 

[alethicethic]

I used that book for the Eastern Phil course I co-taught. Good stuff, though I don't like the Zhuangzi translation.

 

Fair enough. Which translation do you like? Zhuangzi can be a real PITA to translate. Biggest headache of my first-year classical course (we finished with Zhuangzi.) So many hapax legomena...

[dgswaim]

 I'm mostly brushing up on some epistemology and 1st and 2nd order logic. Other than that, I've been spending time reading a lot of pop-science and history books. I like pop-science books. I don't read a lot of fiction, so it ends up being sort of like the equivalent of reading a novel for me.

[PhiPhiPhi]

 I'm mostly brushing up on some epistemology and 1st and 2nd order logic. Other than that, I've been spending time reading a lot of pop-science and history books. I like pop-science books. I don't read a lot of fiction, so it ends up being sort of like the equivalent of reading a novel for me.

Is there a reason you need second-order logic? It's not used often in your areas of interest.

[Establishment]

Is there a reason you need second-order logic? It's not used often in your areas of interest.

 

Because second-order logic is best-order logic and Quine can eat it.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if second-order logic is anything "weird" such that only special areas need it. I use second-order logic in metaphysics and meta-ethics. It's just a matter of extending the domain of your quantifiers.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Establishment

[dgswaim]

Is there a reason you need second-order logic? It's not used often in your areas of interest.

 

Because second-order logic is best-order logic and Quine can eat it.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if second-order logic is anything "weird" such that only special areas need it. I use second-order logic in metaphysics and meta-ethics. It's just a matter of extending the domain of your quantifiers.

What Establishment said, basically. Most of what I'm interested in with respect to phil religion could just as well be called metaphysics, and I find second-order logic to be a useful tool with respect to projects of this kind.

[PhiPhiPhi]

Because second-order logic is best-order logic and Quine can eat it.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if second-order logic is anything "weird" such that only special areas need it. I use second-order logic in metaphysics and meta-ethics. It's just a matter of extending the domain of your quantifiers.

I think 20L is pretty decently characterised as weird; I do logic and philosophy of math and its used as sparingly as possible. I'm fairly comfortable with it (you need it do to neologicism), but many people still are careful because of the ontological commitments involved.

 

I've never used it used in metaethics. What kind of stuff do you use it for?

Edited March 13, 2014 by PhiPhiPhi

[Platonist]

Re: all of the posts above regarding logic: 

 

(1) Would you guys please recommend good textbooks on second-order logic? I've never taken logic courses beyond first-order ones, and want to read over some good second-order logic texts. 

 

(2) A humble opinion: Logic, first-order or higher, cannot really avoid ontological commitment. Frege seemed to try to avoid the ontological import when he based logic on such notions as functions and concepts, but he eventually took a realist position regarding mathematical objects (and on universals, I think). 

 

Thanks. 

[PhiPhiPhi]

Re: all of the posts above regarding logic: 

 

(1) Would you guys please recommend good textbooks on second-order logic? I've never taken logic courses beyond first-order ones, and want to read over some good second-order logic texts. 

 

(2) A humble opinion: Logic, first-order or higher, cannot really avoid ontological commitment. Frege seemed to try to avoid the ontological import when he based logic on such notions as functions and concepts, but he eventually took a realist position regarding mathematical objects (and on universals, I think). 

 

Thanks. 

I linked to Peter Smith's blog earlier, which has books listed for second-order logic as well. The only resource you really need is Stu Shapiro's Foundations Without Foundationalism, which goes by the loving name of 'The Bible' in many philosophy of math and logic circles.

 

As to the ontological commitment - I wouldn't count it out so fast. Free logics are fairly successful, albeit weaker than their non-free counterparts. Likewise, if plural quantification works (not taking a stance there), it would nominalize second-order logic.

 

As to Frege - he certainly wasn't concerned about ontological commitment at all. He was a dedicated platonist, with many, many abstract objects. I wouldn't even say he tried to avoid it - in fact certain things he says in the Grundlagen make him appear to say that any good theory of math will have abstract objects that exist (independently of us).

[Platonist]

I linked to Peter Smith's blog earlier, which has books listed for second-order logic as well. The only resource you really need is Stu Shapiro's Foundations Without Foundationalism, which goes by the loving name of 'The Bible' in many philosophy of math and logic circles.

 

As to the ontological commitment - I wouldn't count it out so fast. Free logics are fairly successful, albeit weaker than their non-free counterparts. Likewise, if plural quantification works (not taking a stance there), it would nominalize second-order logic.

 

As to Frege - he certainly wasn't concerned about ontological commitment at all. He was a dedicated platonist, with many, many abstract objects. I wouldn't even say he tried to avoid it - in fact certain things he says in the Grundlagen make him appear to say that any good theory of math will have abstract objects that exist (independently of us).

Thanks for the reply! So helpful. I will give a look at the book you recommend. 

Frege's own works are very difficult to follow. He seems to treat quantification as a second-order function of truth values. Russell's idea is probably better, as quantification is taken as the first-order function. Need to read more about this stuff.