Tweet
Have a cookie. How about to the world?
-
-
Its not as simple as that. When doing the history of a discipline, like philosophy, physics or biology for example, being an historian is not enough: you have to be able to read and understand what Plato, Aristotle, Newton or Darwin wrote. Even though Mr. Fun is, I'm sure, a fine historian, he would have a hard time giving a course on the history of german idealism or logical empiricism. That means you ideally need a formation in both disciplines, in history and philosophy, in the case of history of philosophy; and history and science, in the case of sciences. Although it seems contemporary physicists have a hard time, it seems, reading Newton's Principia.Originally posted by Asher
Not at all. We can have a history class to teach us what they wrote. You should like that, as a history major.Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
do you know Ryan Beaton
Nope.
The only people I know who aren't within a couple of years of me are the newbies who work as my TAs.
It's a big department too. We Ancient folks are somewhat cloistered from the main mob.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
On another note. Why is every 3rd Canadian called Ryan?Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Because the rest are called Tim and Francois-Marie.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
I'd like to see a historian make sense of the Sophist.Originally posted by nostromo
Its not as simple as that. When doing the history of a discipline, like philosophy, physics or biology for example, being an historian is not enough: you have to be able to read and understand what Plato, Aristotle, Newton or Darwin wrote. Even though Mr. Fun is, I'm sure, a fine historian, he would have a hard time giving a course on the history of german idealism or logical empiricism. That means you ideally need a formation in both disciplines, in history and philosophy, in the case of history of philosophy; and history and science, in the case of sciences. Although it seems contemporary physicists have a hard time, it seems, reading Newton's Principia.
Q. When Plato asserts that kinesis is the same and not the same, and he says we aren't speaking in the same way both times, what ways are we speaking in?
A. Not as obvious as it seems....Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Because the rest are called Tim and Francois-Marie.
Only feebs vote.Comment
-
maybe Plato was a drunk when he wrote that...
Philosophy is like science... w/o all the practical experiments and such.Comment
-
The obsession with stuff like formal logic and the linguistic turn are on the way out, though. A lot of philosophers are sick and tired of it: thank God, we are moving to greener pastures!Originally posted by Whaleboy
The reason modern philosophy sucks is the obsession with formal logic and a distinct lack of wisdom... it's moved from cogitation toward what is effectively pedantic bean-counting... and, at least on some level, accountants are useful things to have laying around the house.Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
I doubt it. He was somewhat of a puritanical person.Originally posted by Japher
maybe Plato was a drunk when he wrote that...
Ancient philosophy is rather more like science. Contemporary philosophy is largely conceptual clarification and analysis, not really like science. Although if you believe Quine philosophy is simply the most abstract part of science rather than a separate discipline.Philosophy is like science... w/o all the practical experiments and such.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
I know some historians who studied in the best universities in France, in an élite Grande École and they tend to sneer at speculation in all its formsOriginally posted by Agathon
I'd like to see a historian make sense of the Sophist.
Q. When Plato asserts that kinesis is the same and not the same, and he says we aren't speaking in the same way both times, what ways are we speaking in?
A. Not as obvious as it seems....
Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
Well, there would be no point in reading Plato. The whole point of his dialogues is to get you to speculate on what he means.Originally posted by nostromo
I know some historians who studied in the best universities in France, in an élite Grande École and they tend to sneer at speculation in all its forms
Only feebs vote.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
POTM took a course on Philosophy of mind this summer. They covered Descartes and Hume, as well as discussions of androids, animals, etc. She thoroughly enjoyed it. Her teacher encouraged her to do more philosophy.
No wonder. Philosophy of mind is one of the most interesting and stimulating sectors of philosophy right now.
Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
-
I thought the point of his dialogues was to solve philosophical problems, or to show that some solutions don't workOriginally posted by Agathon
Well, there would be no point in reading Plato. The whole point of his dialogues is to get you to speculate on what he means.
Anyway, given the historian's distate for speculation, we won't see historians teaching history of philosophy anyday soon. And it would be pointless, since philosophers are doing a good job already. I don't even think they teach history of science in history departments. At my university, for example, they teach it in the Science studies department.Last edited by Nostromo; October 20, 2005, 16:18.Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – LessingComment
Comment