Preparing for grad school

[bar_scene_gambler]

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...

Personally, I like Hamill's translation. It's only selections, but I think it preserves the drama of the text better than the Kjellberg.

[Neither Here Nor There]

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.

THIS SO MUCH. When I finish term papers in grad school, I usually sleep 12 hour days for a week to make up for the lack of sleep.

[DHumeDominates]

Am I the only one on TGC this year interested in early modern? I haven't come across anyone who's listed it as an AOI, even though a couple people wrote samples on early modern figures (according to their signatures).

[dgswaim]

Am I the only one on TGC this year interested in early modern? I haven't come across anyone who's listed it as an AOI, even though a couple people wrote samples on early modern figures (according to their signatures).

I don't have any research interests in early modern philosophy to speak of, but I am interested in mastering early modern philosophy to the extent that's necessary for teaching undergraduate "History of Philosophy" courses, since those kinds of courses tend to be the bread and butter of most departments. 

[wandajune]

Am I the only one on TGC this year interested in early modern? I haven't come across anyone who's listed it as an AOI, even though a couple people wrote samples on early modern figures (according to their signatures).

 

I am. My main AOI is ethics, but early modern is my favorite historical period to study. 

[Ryura]

Am I the only one on TGC this year interested in early modern? I haven't come across anyone who's listed it as an AOI, even though a couple people wrote samples on early modern figures (according to their signatures).

I'm interested in Descartes, but not really any other modern thinkers.

[DHumeDominates]

I am. My main AOI is ethics, but early modern is my favorite historical period to study. 

 

That's cool. As you probably know, Wisconsin's got some sweet historians of philosophy (e.g., Nadler, who's a boss).

[Platonist]

 

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

 

 

To everyone: Is a course using Loux's book - Metaphysics- as the main textbook *typically* a course for undergraduates or graduates (such as PhD students)? 

[Edit_Undo]

To everyone: Is a course using Loux's book - Metaphysics- as the main textbook *typically* a course for undergraduates or graduates (such as PhD students)? 

We used it for an upper division undergrad course (500 level in some systems), however, masters students can take that class and get credit but with some extra work. Also, we read a whole bunch of articles other than that book. The book was more of a complimentary (but required) material. 

[Platonist]

We used it for an upper division undergrad course (500 level in some systems), however, masters students can take that class and get credit but with some extra work. Also, we read a whole bunch of articles other than that book. The book was more of a complimentary (but required) material. 

 

Thanks for your feedback. Is this is the case for other programs? I think you were attending a well-ranked program. 

[Edit_Undo]

Thanks for your feedback. Is this is the case for other programs? I think you were attending a well-ranked program. 

I attended a 'National 101-200'. No PhD program for our department.

[Platonist]

Hi guys:

 

Just like Loux's Metaphysics for metaphysics, what are good texts for philosophy of mind at graduate level? Thanks. 

[Wait For It...]

Hi guys:

 

Just like Loux's Metaphysics for metaphysics, what are good texts for philosophy of mind at graduate level? Thanks. 

Jaegwan Kim and E.J. Lowe have good intros. 

Edited April 2, 2014 by Wait For It...

[Edit_Undo]

Hi guys:

 

Just like Loux's Metaphysics for metaphysics, what are good texts for philosophy of mind at graduate level? Thanks. 

 

Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings by David J. Chalmers is a really good anthology.

Edit: I have just realized that you probably meant a one author book instead of an anthology. My bad!

Edited April 2, 2014 by Edit_Undo

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

Hi guys:

 

Just like Loux's Metaphysics for metaphysics, what are good texts for philosophy of mind at graduate level? Thanks. 

I posted a partial list earlier--I think it was in this thread. I say partial because it was focused on metaphysics of mind and philosophy of cognitive science, and thus didn't have anything on consciousness or much on mental content.

[TheVineyard]

Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings by David J. Chalmers is a really good anthology.

 

Although I disagree with the man about almost everything (Chalmers, that is) this is the best collection that came to...mind...=P

[Platonist]

Thank all you guys for the responses! It is very helpful.  ​ 

[Platonist]

I know my question is off topic and does not belong in this thread, but I do not want to start a new thread for this very specific philosophical question. I am reading metaphysics now, and find that the stuff heavily interconnected with philosophy of language is daunting. Realism about universals is a pretty easy strategy to choose--"Socrates is courageous" is true because Socrates instantiates or exemplifies the property of courage, and courage is the referent of the term "courageous".But nominalists deny there is such thing as courage; what exist are only particulars -- the courageous Socrates for example. Possible worlds nominalists attempt to offer a nominalist account of being courageous without appeal to a realist ontology of universals. Their strategy is to combine set theory and possible worlds techniques. On their view, the sentence "Socrates is courageous" is true can be construed as follows: there is a possible world (out world indeed) that populates sets of courageous things, and Socrates is a member of this set. To make a long story short, talk of universals deeply reflect our way of using language-- my understanding of nominalist project. Hmm, both approaches have advantages. But it is hard to say which one is better. I tend to think that nominalism is misleading, though its techniques are very elegant and impressive. Would any one who is sympathetic with the nominalist approach want to elaborate how to construe the term 'being courageous' within a nominalist framework? 

 

PS: I initially wanted to ask a question. But when I was writing the post, things strangely changed. So sorry if the post is very bad. I understand that it should not go here, or perhaps anywhere in the Gradcafe forum. 

[SamStone]

Hi guys:

 

Just like Loux's Metaphysics for metaphysics, what are good texts for philosophy of mind at graduate level? Thanks. 

 

I just recently read a bunch of introductions to philosophy of mind in order to get a broad perspective on how the field is being presented.

 

I enjoyed William Jaworksi's introduction the most. It was pretty balanced, organized well, and pretty straight forward. However, the last 100 pages (of 350 pages total) were essentially his argument for a renewal of hylomorphism. I read some of it, but didn't finish the ending because it really should have been another book altogether.

 

John Heil's introduction is also good. Get the 3rd edition if you read this one. 

 

Last, I liked Jaegwon Kim's Philosophy of Mind, 3rd ed. He is very knowledgeable and presents a lot of angles and their opposing views in a good way—although, sometimes his own perspective colors the argument pretty heavily. 

[mattyod86]

I know my question is off topic and does not belong in this thread, but I do not want to start a new thread for this very specific philosophical question. I am reading metaphysics now, and find that the stuff heavily interconnected with philosophy of language is daunting. Realism about universals is a pretty easy strategy to choose--"Socrates is courageous" is true because Socrates instantiates or exemplifies the property of courage, and courage is the referent of the term "courageous".But nominalists deny there is such thing as courage; what exist are only particulars -- the courageous Socrates for example. Possible worlds nominalists attempt to offer a nominalist account of being courageous without appeal to a realist ontology of universals. Their strategy is to combine set theory and possible worlds techniques. On their view, the sentence "Socrates is courageous" is true can be construed as follows: there is a possible world (out world indeed) that populates sets of courageous things, and Socrates is a member of this set. To make a long story short, talk of universals deeply reflect our way of using language-- my understanding of nominalist project. Hmm, both approaches have advantages. But it is hard to say which one is better. I tend to think that nominalism is misleading, though its techniques are very elegant and impressive. Would any one who is sympathetic with the nominalist approach want to elaborate how to construe the term 'being courageous' within a nominalist framework? 

 

PS: I initially wanted to ask a question. But when I was writing the post, things strangely changed. So sorry if the post is very bad. I understand that it should not go here, or perhaps anywhere in the Gradcafe forum. 

A nominalist might say that the general term 'being courageous' just stands for the collection of all courageous things (or the 'extension' of the term 'courageous'). The problem with that is that accidentally co-extensive terms would end up being identical (e.g. 'creature with a heart' might end up meaning the same as 'creature with a kidney').  The possible worlds business you described is supposed to overcome this problem, because, when we consider the extension of a term across all possible worlds there will be no cases of terms which are accidentally co-extensive (i.e. there will be a possible world containing creature's with hearts but lacking kidneys).  

A very different approach is to think of properties as particulars (or 'tropes') and explain the fact that a multiplicity of particulars can be brought together under a general term by an appeal to a similarity relation between the particulars; the relation in turn is an 'internal one' (i.e. not another universal). 

[Dabaliga]

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.

This helps.  http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/05/whos_hot_in_met.html