What are you reading?

[overoverover]

If you're anything like me, you're already going a little crazy. I find that I'm reading a lot more philosophy (and some fiction) in order to stay sane.  Anybody else doing the same thing?

 

In addition to my school stuff, I've been reading parts of David Enoch's Taking Morality Seriously and I just started Stephen Yablo's Aboutness. Probably going to read Epistemic Modality (ed. Egan and Weatherson) afterward (or at least some of the chapters). On the lighter side, I just read Never Let Me Go. 

 

So, what are you reading? Anything awesome that everybody should check out?

[brettmullga]

I'm reading Choices by Michael Resnik. I am planning to finish Book 3 of Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Despite its many flaws, it's an enjoyable read. 

[ZiggyPhil]

Mostly school stuff.  Articles on epiphenomenalism for the thesis, plus a handful of articles for a paper on how far Pogge can push his negative duties claim.

 

I'm also reading some stuff on event-causal libertarian conceptions of free will, in order to beef up my writing sample.  I'm about to put the thesis work on hold to really dig into this stuff and get the sample done, since deadlines are fast approaching.

 

For no particular reason I'm reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.  I generally stay away from continental stuff, but Nietzsche is an easy read (and entertaining), and his arguments - those few that he gives anyway - are pretty clear. 

 

But honestly, a too-large part of my reading time is being spent here and on philosophy blogs, scouring old posts for application advice and just generally wasting time. 

[frege-bombs]

Currently going through Cappelen's Philosophy Without Intuitions. It's a joy to read. 

[overoverover]

Currently going through Cappelen's Philosophy Without Intuitions. It's a joy to read.

That was a great book to read. Also, I pressed the wrong arrow on your reply---sorry about that, didn't mean to down vote you!

[dgswaim]

Parfit, On What Matters Vol. I (for a seminar)

 

Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought

 

Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory

 

Peter Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism

 

Daniel Velleman, How to Prove It

[queennight]

I'm not from this philosophy forum, but I'd thought I'd pop in an answer as well - currently Shaw's The Sanity of Art is sitting on my desk, amid piles of applications. Whether I get to it or not is another thing!

[overoverover]

Parfit, On What Matters Vol. I (for a seminar)

 

Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought

 

Pierre Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory

 

Peter Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism

 

Daniel Velleman, How to Prove It

How is How to Prove It ? I know it doesn't require much of a math background, but how much of a logic background is too much for the book to be useful? 

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

I'm just finishing up Putnam's The Threefold Cord, and then I want to find something that will integrate the receptor theory of representation in cognitive neuroscience with embodied cognition- my prof gave me a recommendation but of course the name escapes me. My one prof is also beginning a Foucault reading group this winter so I'm looking forward to that- trying to feed both my continental and analytic sides!

[kant_get_in]

I've been reading a lot of philosophy of mind, mostly the classic papers in the history of philosophy of mind. For those of you who haven't read W.D Hart's Engines of the Soul, I recommend it. It's crazy-good. It's crazy and it's good (I'm not a dualist, by the way). I've also been reading John Searle's Mind (imagine how crazy that would look if I didn't use italics), which makes me feel really stupid because he keeps writing about how stupid people are for not understanding consciousness and intentionality. In all seriousness, the first three chapters of that book are great; he provides an approachable, thorough history of the philosophy of mind. 

[brettmullga]

How is How to Prove It ? I know it doesn't require much of a math background, but how much of a logic background is too much for the book to be useful? 

 

How to Prove It is well written textbook that is comparable to several in the Bridge to Advanced Mathematics niche. If you haven't gone through the material on relations, functions, and infinity (i.e. cardinality) before, I would suggest doing so. It will provide a nice foundation for approaching other mathematics in the future. 

 

The second question is difficult to answer. If one has only taken undergraduate logic courses at a level lower than The Logic Book or has not taken a proof based Math course, then it is worth glancing through these sections. Philosophy and Math tend to approach logic differently and, in some sense, Philosophy is more formal (deductions literally have no content). 

 

I additionally suggest More Precisely by Steinhart. This is an excellent introduction to mathematics in philosophy and should be required reading IMHO.

[Infinite Zest]

How to Prove It is well written textbook that is comparable to several in the Bridge to Advanced Mathematics niche. If you haven't gone through the material on relations, functions, and infinity (i.e. cardinality) before, I would suggest doing so. It will provide a nice foundation for approaching other mathematics in the future. 

 

The second question is difficult to answer. If one has only taken undergraduate logic courses at a level lower than The Logic Book or has not taken a proof based Math course, then it is worth glancing through these sections. Philosophy and Math tend to approach logic differently and, in some sense, Philosophy is more formal (deductions literally have no content). 

 

I additionally suggest More Precisely by Steinhart. This is an excellent introduction to mathematics in philosophy and should be required reading IMHO.

 

On a related note, I just picked up How to Solve It by George Polya. I've heard good things.

[The Pedanticist]

I'm reading Unbroken for entertainment and it is truly amazing.  I highly recommend it as a fun read.  In philosophy I'm reading, and re-reading, the necessary books for my thesis.  It seems like I'm getting into more Metaphysics then I had anticipated.  

[overoverover]

How to Prove It is well written textbook that is comparable to several in the Bridge to Advanced Mathematics niche. If you haven't gone through the material on relations, functions, and infinity (i.e. cardinality) before, I would suggest doing so. It will provide a nice foundation for approaching other mathematics in the future. 

 

The second question is difficult to answer. If one has only taken undergraduate logic courses at a level lower than The Logic Book or has not taken a proof based Math course, then it is worth glancing through these sections. Philosophy and Math tend to approach logic differently and, in some sense, Philosophy is more formal (deductions literally have no content). 

 

I additionally suggest More Precisely by Steinhart. This is an excellent introduction to mathematics in philosophy and should be required reading IMHO.

 

Thanks. I'll give it a look. I've actually been lucky because my current logic class, and the one I'll be taking in the spring, are actually cross-listed in math and philosophy and taught by a mathematician.  I also definitely want to check out More Precisely. 

Edited November 8, 2014 by overoverover

[dgswaim]

How is How to Prove It ? I know it doesn't require much of a math background, but how much of a logic background is too much for the book to be useful? 

I think it's great. Velleman is a good teacher. As far as logic background, it sort of depends what you mean. What I mean is that it's easier if you have a more model-theoretic foundation as opposed to a proof-theoretic one. 

[MattDest]

This forum to avoid working on term papers and grading. 

[overoverover]

This forum to avoid working on term papers and grading. 

Finally, somebody admits it!

[reixis]

I have just finished Descartes' Meditations and Plato's Theaetetus as a requirement for an MA's admissions process in my country. I've been reading C. S. Peirce's papers this week and I am planning to start reading John Burgess Philosophical logic and Arthur Prior's Time and modality in the next week. Next to that is Harold Simmons' Introduction to category theory. 

 

For what it's worth, I would recommend Ruth Millikan's Language, thought and other biological categories. I've really enjoyed this work.

 

Oh, I've also been reading Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. It's a nice piece of reading for those interested in Russian literature, though I prefer War and Peace much more.

Edited November 13, 2014 by reixis

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

 

 

I have just finished Descartes' Meditations and Plato's Theaetetus as a requirement for an MA's admissions process in my country.

 

I'm really really surprised you hadn't read it before...

[MorganFreemanlives]

I'm really really surprised you hadn't read it before...

what's wrong with chiki's comment to deserve a down vote? i swear, why dont they just get rid of this like, dislike button crap? half the time people get downvotes, its because someone is oversensitive/ misunderstood what you said. its a nasty peer pressure device.

 

im sure more than half of you were surprised about the comment chiki was replying to and when he is the first to speak our mind, we pretend he is being sacrilegious.

[reixis]

I'm really really surprised you hadn't read it before...

 

Oh no, I did read it a few times before. It's just that it's been a few months since I read it for the last time (actually, it was in 2012), so I decided to read it all over again. Same thing for Plato's Theaetetus.

[Establishment]

what's wrong with chiki's comment to deserve a down vote?

 

Because it's a post that doesn't contribute anything other than being a jerky thing to say online to someone you don't know.

 

im sure more than half of you were surprised about the comment chiki was replying to and when he is the first to speak our mind, we pretend he is being sacrilegious.

 

I love it when people take it upon themselves to claim what others are actually doing or thinking. Thank you, but I can speak for myself, and that wasn't the reaction I had.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Establishment

[reixis]

what's wrong with chiki's comment to deserve a down vote? i swear, why dont they just get rid of this like, dislike button crap? half the time people get downvotes, its because someone is oversensitive/ misunderstood what you said. its a nasty peer pressure device.

 

im sure more than half of you were surprised about the comment chiki was replying to and when he is the first to speak our mind, we pretend he is being sacrilegious.

 

Not that this matters, but I wasn’t the one who downvoted him (I can’t even see a downvote on his post).

 

Anyway, just to be clear, I don’t see why someone who did not read Descartes’ Meditations or any other classical work would be a so surprising state of affairs. I’ve actually taken many courses on the history of philosophy and have read many classical works, but have also missed many important and central ones that you just don’t have the time to read in four years of study. It seems to me merely arbitrary to make some sort of list of important works to read. Philosophy has more than 2,000 years of history and it would require an entire life just the read the really “important” works.

Edited November 20, 2014 by reixis

[MorganFreemanlives]

oh the irony of the righteous down voters. its like the Salaita case and civility all over again.

 

maybe i missed the memo but human communication doesnt revolve entirely around the habitual sharing of factoids. anyways i hope people really do reconsider spamming that down vote . its just a silly power that works like the  cyber-civility police.

Edited November 20, 2014 by HegelHatingHegelian

[MorganFreemanlives]

Oh no, I did read it a few times before. It's just that it's been a few months since I read it for the last time (actually, it was in 2012), so I decided to read it all over again. Same thing for Plato's Theaetetus.

reixis, i apologize if i was coming of as against you . its just that this ridiculous down vote stuff has to be addressed by now. its mostly a bad prejudice.