From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:30:07 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:
>[...]
>>One general recommendation I can offer is that it almost always more 
>>enlightening to read the original works than commentaried by other
>writers.
>
>Amen!
>
>>That said, I suggest the following:
>>
>>"The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant - A good overview to get you
>oriented.
>
>I suggest Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy.
>
>>"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.
>
>>"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.
>
>>"What does it All Mean?" by Thoman Nagel - This is a very short book which 
>>gives a good summary of the important philosophical issues from a pretty
>>conventional modern viewpoint.
>>"Arthur Schopenhauer - Essays and Aphorisms" from Penguin Classics - This 
>>should be more Schopenhauer than you can stomach.  The Penguin Classics
>>series is quite good in general.  I have a couple dozen of them.
>>"On Liberty" by John Stewart Mill - It's a pretty straight forward view of
>>utilitarianism.
>>"Confessions" by St. Augustine - Where did the Christians get such strange
>>ideas?  Read this and find out.
>>"A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls - Judge for yourself whether Rand's 
>>critique was correct.  Typical modernist muddled thinking on social
>issues.
>
>I agree; loony.
>
>>"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).  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.
>
>>"Being and Nothingness" by Jean Paul Sartre - Shows the kind of thinking
>>being done in the Existentialist school.
>
>I suggest _Being and Time_, by Martin Heidegger.  This is terribly
>hard to read, but Heidegger is (technically) better, and occasionally
>the real issues comne through:  it can be very scary.
>
>>I also recommend reading collections by Plato and Aristotle to help get a 
>>grounding in their perspectives (I have several and I wouldn't recommend
>>one over another.)
>
>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!
>
>>
>>
>>How much of Rand's writings have you read?  I wouldn't say that by reading
>>just Atlas and the "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" pamphlets you can get a very
>>thorough view of Rand's views in much depth (though you probably have a good
>>overview now).
>>
>>Good luck!
>>
>>--Brian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
>above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
>opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
>or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu

For an overview of the intellectual history leading up to the current
state of things, read Allan Bloom's _The Closing of the American
Mind_.  One may or may not agree with what he says, but he has read
the philosophers involved, he is "on the side of reason", and he
apportions the blame rather differently than Rand does.
-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta