Philosophers - how prepared are you?

Scroll to see replies

I wouldn't recommend reading the "History..." from cover to cover, just read the relevant entry before boning up on that topic. It's important, I think, to know what was going on at the time of the philosophers rather than looking at them simply for what they wrote down.

Perhaps I'm being too much of a historian. :P

alex

Reply 21

lskdgjsj

Papa Egg

5.Rudolf Suffranski's biography of Nietzsche
Just finished reading it, a really interesting case study of a single influential philosopher, Nietzsche is someone who might have been difficult to read without some contextual knowledge
d

Although Safranski (not Suffranski) is very much cast in the mold of Kaufmann, I'd still recommend the latter's Nietzsche: Philosophy, Psychologist, Antichrist over the above work. Frankly I'm wary of Safranski's rather deterministic view of the origins and development of Nietzsche's thought.

I think a too assiduous contextualization of Nietzsche's work is, so far from being an aid, an impediment to a thorough understanding: it's apt to make one think of Nietzsche as nothing more than the result of particular social factors and the prejudices of his age, when he couldn't stand in greater opposition to them (though you shouldn't suppose that this means that he was defined by these mores, strictly speaking; his thought, developed on independent lines, stood, fortuitously, apart from his times).

The best thing with Nietzsche is simply to read everything by Nietzsche that you can get your hands on, in Kaufmann's translations, or Hollingdale's if you're unable to find them. That being said, Nietzsche, as with most Continental philosophy, is more or less ignored at Cambridge till Part II, in which there is an elective module that covers this sort of thing.

Reply 22

Adhsur

Reema

Papa Egg, I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy". From a personal point of view I have a preference for arguments rather than what X and Y philosopher said. I also think that it's too long and waffly, but that also might just be me.

:dito:

However, I do thinks it gives you a very good insight into the factual side. History of philosophy is important too as without it I suppose you wouldn't have the philosophical context to be able to analyse topics as well as you could.

Reply 23

Adhsur

svidrigailov

The best thing with Nietzsche is simply to read everything by Nietzsche that you can get your hands on...

Eeeeek, I'm so glad I won't necessarily have to study Nietzsche. Eyuckh.

Reply 24

Adhsur

Reema

(never heard of Smullyan, sorry Rushda!)

Smullyan Professor of philosophy/logic at Yale. Famous for his logic puzzles!

Reply 25

musicbloke

Adhsur

History of philosophy is important too as without it I suppose you wouldn't have the philosophical context to be able to analyse topics as well as you could.

the philosophical context is the here and now. The historical context is hindsight. The t are possibly incompatible.

MB

Reply 26

Adhsur

musicboy

the philosophical context is the here and now. The historical context is hindsight. The t are possibly incompatible.

MB

Well, I meant generally if you know what kind of ideas surround and preceded a given topic (what other philosophers said, how the idea came about, etc.) maybe you'll have a better understanding of it. History of western philosophy is good as it gives you an overall picture.