[candystrippa]

out of curiosity, which philosophers have suffered some kind of psychological problems? (pensive melancholy-ish/solipsist thoughts etc.)
any books from which i can read about these?

i heard somewhere hume has gone through something like this, but cant seem to find any books mentioning it!

[Reema]

John Stuart Mill famously suffered from a very early nervous breakdown due to the amount of academic pressure he was placed on by his father James SM. from a very young age. The story is actually incredible, and very interesting. You may be confused between him and Hume? From what I know, Hume was quite a jolly guy.

Then there's Nietzsche, who later turned insane.

Those are the ones I can think of, off the top of my head.

[andy5788]

Nietzsche is the biggie!
Turned into a syphilltic loon.....

[Zarathustra]

(Original post by Reema)
Then there's Nietzsche, who later turned insane.

Well yeah but that was syphillis...I can't think of any "pensive melancholy" sufferers that spring to mind, candystrippa

ZarathustraX

[Reema]

Yeah, the pensive melancholy ones usually tend to be the writers, musicians and artists - Sylvia Plath, Kurt Cobain anyone?

Most philosophers seem a little eccentric, but on the whole, remarkably sane .

[LondonSteve181]

Ludwig Wittgenstein broke down when someone raised two fingers at him, tihs was because it defied ihs theory of language being of a cognitive, pictorial nature. He believed that language was merely picturing reality and when someone raised their fingers it didn't, it was a reflection that language is conditioned by social context. Thus we get the transformation from verificationism to language games.

[candystrippa]

what happened to Nietzsche??

i know absolutely nothing about this guy, though i have heard this name many many times... what are his main works about?

[Reema]

Wittgenstein actually broke down over it? Wow, that, I didn't know .

Nietzsche is a continental philosopher, famous for his inspiration of nihilism. To the extent of being misinterpreted a lot... I don't know a vast amount about him, but he's famous for his declaration that "God is dead!", and that even if he is, we need to find an alternate morality to replace that of religion. This, he argues, can be done only if humans can transcend their flaws and weakness, to become the "Ubermensch" (Superman). From what I know, it is highly individualistic, but his work defies categorisation and people keep posing different interpretations of his theories. He is very well known for his less than precise, poetic and literary language in his works.

I know of "Beyond Good and Evil", "Thus Spake Zarathusthra" (presumably his magnum opus), and that there are a few (couple?) more...but generally Zarathusthra is his famous one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche for detailed information.

[candystrippa]

do analytic and continental only refer to which philosophers have written the work??
for example, anything by bertrand russell would be analytic?

[candystrippa]

by the way.. how do i pronounce nietzsche?

[Reema]

Nietzsche = Neet-chey, for pronunciation.

Analytic and continental philosophy isn't necessarily attached to one philosopher's style. Say, Russell wrote once off in the style used by Nietzsche (prose, heavy poetry, vagueness), it would not still be analytic just because Russell wrote whatever it was. But Russell on the whole pays attention to detail, to clear logical argument, and to conceptual analysis. Let's take Wittgenstein as another "analytic" philosopher - his approach is purely argumentative; so when you open the Tractatus or Philosophical Investigations you'll see the numeric form of his presentation of argument - he presents them "logically" so to speak. Even though Descartes is from the "continent" (French), he uses such an approach, and is therefore regarded analytic.

Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is associated with the work of Nietzsche as mentioned, Sartre, Heiddegger, Marx, et al. I find that with continental philosophy, there is much more focus on the work of a specific philosopher, rather than the actual debate or discussion at hand. Most continental philosophy nowadays is part of a literary, historical, sociological etc context, and is used as criticism for this. eg Neo-Marxists in history, etc etc. Also, the style of writing by continentals is remarkably different, it is harder to pinpoint precisely what they are saying and for what reason sometimes (often poetic, and can be a pleasure to read - from a literary point of view.); Sartre often wrote in forms of novels, and his "Being and Nothingness" is quite difficult, Heidegger/Hegel were tricky to interpret. The issue of interpretation of what is being said is much more difficult, so focus on the actual philosopher is there more, than say, on analytical philosophy.

From my perspective, I am very sceptical of continental philosophy as *philosophy* because often I just fail to see where certain philosophers are coming from, since there is very little of the pure argument and analysis. However, from a literary and historical point of view it can be well worth reading. As a philosopher and someone who pays a lot of attention to debate and discussion, I'd read analytic any day .

[candystrippa]

Reema...are you really 18 years old??? how have you found the time to acquire sooo much knowledge about philosophy ALREADY!!???? you make me feel very, very behind... but.. THANKS

[coldfish]

She makes me feel very behind too. :|
And I'm going to be in her lectures with her, and possibly discussion groups and so on. :|

*will hide behind her*

[Reema]

(Original post by candystrippa)
Reema...are you really 18 years old??? how have you found the time to acquire sooo much knowledge about philosophy ALREADY!!???? you make me feel very, very behind... but.. THANKS

No worries . I really don't know that much, but I am a bit crazy about philosophy. And lectures and discussion groups - I'm supposed to be a bit quiet. I'm sure that I will be just as intimidated as you coldfish. I'll hide behind rushda; she knows way more than I do .

[wanderer]

(Original post by candystrippa)
out of curiosity, which philosophers have suffered some kind of psychological problems? (pensive melancholy-ish/solipsist thoughts etc.)
any books from which i can read about these?

i heard somewhere hume has gone through something like this, but cant seem to find any books mentioning it!

He does mention it in the treatise (why do I keep harping on about this book? Its not like its the only one I've ever read!) but just to point out that depsite the fact logic leads him into scepticism and a general lack of certainty about anything, which is quite depressing, all he has to do is go off and do normal stuff and he finds it impossible to maintain the melancholy, sceptical mood - its not in human nature to stay depressed about abstract philosophising.

[Calvin]

(Original post by Reema)
No worries . I really don't know that much, but I am a bit crazy about philosophy. And lectures and discussion groups - I'm supposed to be a bit quiet. I'm sure that I will be just as intimidated as you coldfish. I'll hide behind rushda; she knows way more than I do .

Ah there's always one person in lecturers who ask a bazillion questions and generally annoys the hell out of the rest of the year. The quiet ones are often the ones you need to watch out for, not always, sometimes they've just fallen asleep, but there are the kung fu philosophers who sit there taking it all in and then say something that completely demolishes somebody's argument. That's always fun to see. But lectures are very clear and discussion groups are well led. Chances are if you get confused it will be doing reading for an essay not in lectures of Disc Groups. Nothing to intimidate in a group environment and if you get stuck in an essay there are other people you can go talk to- people in you year, college parents maybe, other years, other unis, on here, your Dos/supervisor etc etc.

[Zarathustra]

(Original post by Reema)
Nietzsche = Neet-chey, for pronunciation.

Neet-chuh!! (2nd syllable rhymes with 'ugh' not 'chew', btw - not sure if that's clear.)

ZarathustraX

EDIT: Incase Reema disagrees, I've gone and got a source: clicky

[Reema]

I always knew my RS Phil teacher knew less than she let on . Thanks Zara! Besides - evidence that I don't really know that much for candystrippa !

Calvin - Kung Fu Philosopher I am not. The person who asks a bazillion questions? Certainly not me, although I'm quite enthusiastic, but generally quiet. My poor books usually bear the brunt of my enthusiasm...I'm glad to see that lectures and discussion groups are good, but then I'd expect that of Cam . What about logic classes? I was reading p28 of the Hodges Logic book, and I got completely lost. Everything was fine up until that point...and then I just didn't understand .

[musicbloke]

(Original post by Reema)
I was reading p28 of the Hodges Logic book, and I got completely lost. Everything was fine up until that point...and then I just didn't understand .

Well the 'not' can refer to either of the verbs in the sentence - it can be 'ought not', or 'not do'. They have radically different meanings. If you write it as a parsing tree you'll see the difference.

MB

[candystrippa]

(Original post by wanderer)
its not in human nature to stay depressed about abstract philosophising.

i feel quite inhuman then... but this depression is kind of enjoyable too.. does anybody know what i mean??