From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:30:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.171912.21763@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>In article <BuJyoq.75v@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu> jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu (Andy Fingerhut) writes:

>>"The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant - A good overview to get you
>oriented.

>I suggest Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy.

I have not read that one.  Is it pretty straight, or is it full of Russellisms?

>>"Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant - This should  give you a taste of
>>what Rand is so upset about.  It's hard to get through, but even if you just
>>read a bit, you will get the idea of where he's coming from.

>Kant is also dealing with some real problems, though, which are better
>understood from a historical perspective.  Read Descartes.

Well, Hume would be a good precursor too, but if you are trying to evaluate 
Rand, you've got to see for yourself why she's so aggitated about Kant.
Descartes is a good recommendation though.  I should have mentioned it 
myself.  Berkeley is probably a good idea too, to give some perspective.
I don't deny that Kant was dealing with real problems.  The problem was his
strange answers.

>>"The Portable Nietzsche" translated byWalter Kaufmann - This is a good
>>collection of Nietzsche's work.  I really like the "Viking Portable Library"
>>collections in general.  I also recommend that you avoid translations by 
>>folks other than Walter Kaufmann, his translations are much better than some
>>others I have read.

>I think that it is much more plausible to cast Nietzsche as the Enemy
>than Kant; but Rand was originally a dsiciple of Nietzsche.

Rand thought he was pretty bad too.  She (and other prominent objectivists)
are often asked about their relationship with Nietzsche, and the answer I have
always heard from them has been the same...he's a terrible mystic who
represents a philosophy diametrically opposed to objectivism.  Various folks
have written about Rand's supposed "Nietzschean Period", but I have never 
read anything that would lead me to believe she could ever have been considered
a "disciple".  She mentioned that she read him and liked a lot of things 
he wrote (as did I), but that doesn't make one a disciple.  Look, the guy's 
a great writer, but his philosophy is pretty disorganized and irrational.

>>"Tractatus Logico Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein - A simple exposition
>>of Wittgenstein's early views.  See whether the linguistic analysis positions
>>make any sense or not.

>The Tractatus does not exemplify a linguistic analysis position. (The
>latter, exemplified by later works of Wittgenstein, are indeed
>nonsensical).  

As I mentioned the Tractatus is "early" Wittgenstein.  I realize it's *different*
from his latter views, but as far as I have seen, makes abou as much sense.
The reason I recommended it was more to show the method in a brief book.
His mistakes are all there on the first and last pages for the world to see.

>It involves application of mathematical logic to
>philosophy, a much more promising route.  Wittgenstein did not do a
>very good job, however.  Read Bertrand Russell, _Principles of
>Mathematics_, or _Principia Mathematica_; but this is very technical
>stuff.  Along the same lines, read W.V. Quine, any book of essays and
>_Word and Object_.  This is sensible stuff, but always very technical
>(the applications to daily life are not clear).  Quine never wrote
>about ethics, alas.  Read Karl Popper on philosophy of science.

Yes, I should have mentioned Popper too.  I wasn't inclined to mention Russell
and Quine for the very reason that it has nothing to do with reality.  I
suppose it's important to see that first hand though.

>An early modern philosopher not mentioned is Spinoza; read _Ethics_
>with a commentary to tell you what the terminaology really means.  It
>can't be all bad; Peikoff even gives it a good word!

Actually, I kind of like Spinoza's methodical presentation, which I
believe is one of the things that Peikoff recommends it for.  Actually,
Leibnitz is a much more entertaining rationalist because his reasoning 
is so terribly absurd.  For absurdities, it might be good to read de Chardin
too.

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta