Question for Philosophy Majors on Reading Background

[sar1906]

So I am applying to Master's and Ph D programs with an undergraduate major in biochemistry, minor in philosophy.  I have been doing reading in my own time to try to build a foundation of what I imagine undergraduate majors cover.

 

 

By the end of your undergraduate major in philosophy, what does your reading background look like?  Have you read complete texts of most of the major thinkers?  Just excerpts here and there? 

 

My AOS are in 19th and 20th century continental, and American philosophy.

[dgswaim]

Given your interests, I'd say some of the bare essentials are Kant's 1st and 2nd critiques, Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit," some Nietzsche, some of the German Romantics (Schelling, etc.), and then Heidegger and his contemporary interlocutors. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

You really think reading the 1st critique is necessary? I haven't, nor have I read Schelling or many German Romantics (though I adore Goethe and Schiller). Also, dude(ette) should totally read Emerson.

[Weltgeist]

You really think reading the 1st critique is necessary?

 

Yep.

 

also really the 2nd critique bores me; so much of what informs continental philosophy comes to the fore in the 3rd critique, though.

[Establishment]

You really think reading the 1st critique is necessary? I haven't, nor have I read Schelling or many German Romantics (though I adore Goethe and Schiller). Also, dude(ette) should totally read Emerson.

 

If your AOS is 19th and 20th century continental, then yeah.

 

EDIT: Shit, even just for being a philosopher, it's one of the biggest pieces of the historical cannon that probably everyone needs to have read. Otherwise, it's like graduating from High School without ever having read The Great Gatsby. You'd be a cultural degenerate.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Establishment

[sar1906]

I mean, have you guys read the complete texts?  One thing to have a familiarity with the texts, another to read them cover to cover.  I've read broadly over the post-Kantian tradition, some completely, many not.  Just wondering how completely philosophy majors typically read, or if you dealt mostly with excerpts and fragments.  Obviously, the more the better, but there is only so much time.

[sar1906]

One issue is I read a lot of Nietzsche before I read Kant, so when I try to read Kant, I just hear Nietzsche shrieking from Beyond Good and Evil: But let's think about it, it is high time.  'How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?' wondered Kant, and what did he answer?  They are facilitated by a faculty: unfortunately, however, he did not say this in four words, but so cumbersomely, so venerably, and with such an expense of German profundity and ornateness........etc., etc..

[dgswaim]

You really think reading the 1st critique is necessary? I haven't, nor have I read Schelling or many German Romantics (though I adore Goethe and Schiller). Also, dude(ette) should totally read Emerson.

I think so. While continental philosophy is not my specialty, I was educated as an undergrad in a department that required me to do a lot of continental work. I think it's difficult to understand more contemporary figures in continental philosophy without first understanding the work of Kant. So much of continental philosophy is magnified through his work (Hegel, Husserl, Gadamer, Ricouer, Habermas, etc.) that to not have a solid foundation in Kantian thought is to be missing the conversation altogether, in my opinion. The Romantics you might be able to leave out, but then you're not getting a full appreciation of Hegel, which is also very central to contemporary continental thought.

[zblaesi]

So I am applying to Master's and Ph D programs with an undergraduate major in biochemistry, minor in philosophy.  I have been doing reading in my own time to try to build a foundation of what I imagine undergraduate majors cover.

 

 

By the end of your undergraduate major in philosophy, what does your reading background look like?  Have you read complete texts of most of the major thinkers?  Just excerpts here and there? 

 

My AOS are in 19th and 20th century continental, and American philosophy.

 

Our AOIs are quite different. Almost all of my courses focused on contemporary analytic philosophy, except for History of Modern Philosophy. Regardless, my courses all focused on academic articles or excerpts from books, rather than entire books, with the exception of Kripke's Naming and Necessity and Goodman's Languages of Art.

Edited April 18, 2014 by zblaesi

[789Phil]

I'm also interested in American Philosophy. Although, I'm specifically interested in Classical Pragmatism. If you are a fellow pragmatist, I recommend William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience and his The Will to Believe. Also, John Dewey's Democracy and Education and his Experience and Nature (if you're feeling bold, it's arguably his most difficult work). Peirce's The Fixation of Belief is great too. I can keep going with Classical Pragmatism, but I'll stop there in case none of this is what your interested in. Let me know otherwise.

 

It would be great to hear what, specifically, you are interested in regarding American Philosophy, and it would be cool to swap reading recommendations   

(Pragmatism is my main interest, but I've read, and enjoy reading, other things within American philosophy)

 

Also, feel free to PM me if you are interested in talking about Amer Phil more generally and want to reserve this thread specifically for reading recommendations. (I was happy to see your AOI, this is the first time I see even the words "American Phil" in a thread, in a long time) 

[dgswaim]

I'm also interested in American Philosophy. Although, I'm specifically interested in Classical Pragmatism. If you are a fellow pragmatist, I recommend William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience and his The Will to Believe. Also, John Dewey's Democracy and Education and his Experience and Nature (if you're feeling bold, it's arguably his most difficult work). Peirce's The Fixation of Belief is great too. I can keep going with Classical Pragmatism, but I'll stop there in case none of this is what your interested in. Let me know otherwise.

 

It would be great to hear what, specifically, you are interested in regarding American Philosophy, and it would be cool to swap reading recommendations   

(Pragmatism is my main interest, but I've read, and enjoy reading, other things within American philosophy)

 

Also, feel free to PM me if you are interested in talking about Amer Phil more generally and want to reserve this thread specifically for reading recommendations. (I was happy to see your AOI, this is the first time I see even the words "American Phil" in a thread, in a long time) 

American philosophy (and pragmatism in particular) I am totally ignorant of. I read a book by Dewey on religion, and I read James's essay "The Moral Equivalent of War." That sums up my exposure to pragmatism.

[bar_scene_gambler]

Well...it looks like I've been doing philosophy wrong. Guess I know what I'm reading this summer.

[sar1906]

I'm also interested in American Philosophy. Although, I'm specifically interested in Classical Pragmatism. If you are a fellow pragmatist, I recommend William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience and his The Will to Believe. Also, John Dewey's Democracy and Education and his Experience and Nature (if you're feeling bold, it's arguably his most difficult work). Peirce's The Fixation of Belief is great too. I can keep going with Classical Pragmatism, but I'll stop there in case none of this is what your interested in. Let me know otherwise.

 

It would be great to hear what, specifically, you are interested in regarding American Philosophy, and it would be cool to swap reading recommendations   

(Pragmatism is my main interest, but I've read, and enjoy reading, other things within American philosophy)

 

Also, feel free to PM me if you are interested in talking about Amer Phil more generally and want to reserve this thread specifically for reading recommendations. (I was happy to see your AOI, this is the first time I see even the words "American Phil" in a thread, in a long time) 

 

Sweet, I didn't see anyone mention American philosophy at all on here.  I've read The Varieties of Religious Experience and The Will to Believe.  I tend to favor classical American philosophy, James, Emerson, Dewey.  I think their discussion of experience is very important, and somewhat neglected after the 'linguistic turn,' most evident in thinkers like Richard Rorty, though I also enjoyed his work.  You can check out: Philosophy and Social Hope, Achieving our Country, and Essays on Heidegger and Others.

 

My writing sample actually engages American philosophy.  I think it's really important.

[philstudent1991]

I second Nietzsche. I also very much like Camus.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I read your question as inquiring not only about relevant readings in your area of interest (which are, of course, important) but also readings that one has done "by the end of your undergraduate major in philosophy."  Most undergraduate philosophy majors have certain distribution requirements, which would normally mean two courses in history (one in Ancient/Medieval, one in Modern), a course in ethics, a course in logic, and a course in M&E.  After that, you'd have electives.  Some more rigorous undergraduate programs (particularly those in analytic departments) might require upper-level courses in some of the "core" areas.  But if we take the basic case, I would say that if you want to read the equivalent of an undergraduate major, focus on normal reading lists from the five courses I mentioned and then turn to your areas of interest.  In Ancient/Medieval, the primary figures are probably Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.  There are lots of works that could count as "core" works for each of these authors, so I would pick selections from each on different topics.  For Modern, I think it is important to know a bit about Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.  For ethics, I would say Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Kant's Groundwork, Mill's Utilitarianism, and, for a skeptical perspective, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.  For logic, you should at least know basic logic, and ideally you'd have some understanding of some of the metalogical results like completeness.  M&E is a pretty broad area.  I don't know if there's a short "core" reading list.  Perhaps others could chime in and list what they take to be "core."  I would know something about Plato and Aristotle's different metaphysical views.  I'd understand the distinction between rationalism and empiricism and then look at Kant's system.  There is also, of course, the huge amount of important (and now classic) contemporary stuff in each of these areas.  For instance, most ethics students have read Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and also have some idea of what Rawls was up to.  Most epistemology students have read Gettier's famous paper.  Most metaphysics students have read stuff by Kripke and Lewis.  

 

I obviously can't give a complete list of all of the important works.  Others should chime in and say what they take to be the core works in each main area, but this is a first stab at it.  

[dgswaim]

I actually never took a course in metaphysics. Go figure...

[sar1906]

I read your question as inquiring not only about relevant readings in your area of interest (which are, of course, important) but also readings that one has done "by the end of your undergraduate major in philosophy."  Most undergraduate philosophy majors have certain distribution requirements, which would normally mean two courses in history (one in Ancient/Medieval, one in Modern), a course in ethics, a course in logic, and a course in M&E.  After that, you'd have electives.  Some more rigorous undergraduate programs (particularly those in analytic departments) might require upper-level courses in some of the "core" areas.  But if we take the basic case, I would say that if you want to read the equivalent of an undergraduate major, focus on normal reading lists from the five courses I mentioned and then turn to your areas of interest.  In Ancient/Medieval, the primary figures are probably Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas.  There are lots of works that could count as "core" works for each of these authors, so I would pick selections from each on different topics.  For Modern, I think it is important to know a bit about Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.  For ethics, I would say Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Kant's Groundwork, Mill's Utilitarianism, and, for a skeptical perspective, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.  For logic, you should at least know basic logic, and ideally you'd have some understanding of some of the metalogical results like completeness.  M&E is a pretty broad area.  I don't know if there's a short "core" reading list.  Perhaps others could chime in and list what they take to be "core."  I would know something about Plato and Aristotle's different metaphysical views.  I'd understand the distinction between rationalism and empiricism and then look at Kant's system.  There is also, of course, the huge amount of important (and now classic) contemporary stuff in each of these areas.  For instance, most ethics students have read Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and also have some idea of what Rawls was up to.  Most epistemology students have read Gettier's famous paper.  Most metaphysics students have read stuff by Kripke and Lewis.  

 

I obviously can't give a complete list of all of the important works.  Others should chime in and say what they take to be the core works in each main area, but this is a first stab at it.  

 

Very helpful, thanks.  I've come across most of that, some with less depth than others.  It sounds like the "standard" background would be broad and based on excerpts and articles rather than complete texts.  Gives me a good sense of what I would need to go over.  I feel pretty fairly covered with that.  Thanks!

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Hello! I'm graduating with a major in phil in 3 days (so excited!) and thought I'd assist with some input. My interests are in 19th century continental philosophy, german idealism, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, and so I had a nice variety of texts from philosophers in a variety of disciplines. I did three independent studies and an honors thesis which allowed me to read my beloved Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in depth, and I'd say if you have an interest in 19th century continental you simply MUST attack at least Nietzsche and the German Idealists, although with the Idealists I don't think you need to read full texts. I must say though, I don't think I would have been able to make heads or tails of them without my course in Idealism- I had an amazing professor and we did Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, but obviously selective texts from the three Kant critiques, parts of Fichte, etc. As far as pragmatism goes, sadly I never studied James or Pierce, but I did one of my ind. studies on Davidson and Rorty and I think those two, part. Davidson, are fascinating, and it really helps with philosophy of language, which is not my philosophical strength! I think it's essential to have a strong pluralistic base in philosophy, and to push through what you consider to be the more tedious branches. A little plato and Aristotle are necessary, definitely some Bacon, Spinoza and (ugh) Descartes, and some Hume. Locke. But the entire texts aren't necessary, I think what is, however is reading select texts from them first-hand, and not mere characterizations of their theories and material. Philosophy of science is, I think, a lot more gratifying then many think (aside from the logical positivists!) I'd say some Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, all of whom are fairly lucid. And I think the existentialists are fairly easy to read on your own. I sorely regret that nobody ever taught Heidegger. I desperately wanted to study him in my undergrad career.  

[bar_scene_gambler]

Hello! I'm graduating with a major in phil in 3 days (so excited!) and thought I'd assist with some input. My interests are in 19th century continental philosophy, german idealism, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, and so I had a nice variety of texts from philosophers in a variety of disciplines. I did three independent studies and an honors thesis which allowed me to read my beloved Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in depth, and I'd say if you have an interest in 19th century continental you simply MUST attack at least Nietzsche and the German Idealists, although with the Idealists I don't think you need to read full texts. I must say though, I don't think I would have been able to make heads or tails of them without my course in Idealism- I had an amazing professor and we did Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, but obviously selective texts from the three Kant critiques, parts of Fichte, etc. As far as pragmatism goes, sadly I never studied James or Pierce, but I did one of my ind. studies on Davidson and Rorty and I think those two, part. Davidson, are fascinating, and it really helps with philosophy of language, which is not my philosophical strength! I think it's essential to have a strong pluralistic base in philosophy, and to push through what you consider to be the more tedious branches. A little plato and Aristotle are necessary, definitely some Bacon, Spinoza and (ugh) Descartes, and some Hume. Locke. But the entire texts aren't necessary, I think what is, however is reading select texts from them first-hand, and not mere characterizations of their theories and material. Philosophy of science is, I think, a lot more gratifying then many think (aside from the logical positivists!) I'd say some Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, all of whom are fairly lucid. And I think the existentialists are fairly easy to read on your own. I sorely regret that nobody ever taught Heidegger. I desperately wanted to study him in my undergrad career.  

Did an Independent Study on Being and Time last semester and it was the single best course I've ever taken. The book is absolutely phenomenal, and I got so much out of the course. Also, I won two different writing prizes with my final paper, which is always a plus. You should see if someone in whatever department you end up in will do an independent study on Heidegger with you.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

That's actually an excellent idea. Even though I'm graduating, the professor who did the Davidson/Rorty paper with me and supervised my Nietzsche thesis is also quite the Heidegger expert and I know enough people to get a little reading group started for the summer. This prof is astounding- he would love to lead a group like that. I know this is awful to say but in my contemporary European course, and I'm sure this is the case for many, but I got clobbered with Camus, and I just feel that there is only so much you can say about him (perhaps that's because I'm just not big on Camus so I'm prejudiced). So the whole time I was in that course I just kept thinking, "could we PLEASE be spending this time on somebody more significant...aka...Heidegger!!??!!"

 

Thanks though for getting this thought going! Just the fragment I've read of Heidegger has had me begging for more for some time now!

[Monadology]

The book is absolutely phenomenal

 

Pun intended?

[bar_scene_gambler]

Pun intended?

I wish I were that funny. 

[Kierkegaardashian]

I mean, have you guys read the complete texts?  One thing to have a familiarity with the texts, another to read them cover to cover.  I've read broadly over the post-Kantian tradition, some completely, many not.  Just wondering how completely philosophy majors typically read, or if you dealt mostly with excerpts and fragments.  Obviously, the more the better, but there is only so much time.

In my philo undergrad, 99% of the time we read selections in anthologies. The rare exception (reading a piece in its entirety) would be something short and relatively accessible, like Fear and Trembling or Twilight of the Idols. With undergrad classes being so broadly focused, its almost impossible to spend the time to read a whole work by one author.

[bar_scene_gambler]

In my philo undergrad, 99% of the time we read selections in anthologies. The rare exception (reading a piece in its entirety) would be something short and relatively accessible, like Fear and Trembling or Twilight of the Idols. With undergrad classes being so broadly focused, its almost impossible to spend the time to read a whole work by one author.

That's odd, I did the exact opposite in my undergrad. Once I got beyond my intro course, it was all complete texts. I've only read an anthology once beyond my Intro, with the exception of a logic textbook. 

[Kierkegaardashian]

That's odd, I did the exact opposite in my undergrad. Once I got beyond my intro course, it was all complete texts. I've only read an anthology once beyond my Intro, with the exception of a logic textbook. 

How did that work? It seems like if one were to read a complete text of any substantial length for an undergrad class, there would be little time for anything else, and the class would end up focusing on one or two works and their authors. Take, for instance, my Philo of Religion class. Even if you only covered a few of the major thinkers in the philosophy of religion from the middle ages to the present, you would need to at least introduce the thought of Aquinas, Anselm, Maimonides, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hume, John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, etc. The best way to do that seems to me to be an anthology of selections from their works. Most of these authors didn't write short works, so to read one of their complete works would entail focusing on one or two guys and passing over so many other major thinkers. Am I misunderstanding what you mean by "complete texts?"