You were insinuating that I was a waffle, which is clearly an insult. I don't really care, though. — thewonder

That's just a case of the pot calling the kettle a black waffle.

While I am willing to admit to being a talkative diletante, as I think that I am the only person of the opinion here that reading philosophical texts is only so enjoyable and that I have put better thought into existential literature, Criterion films, albums, and role-playing video games and clearly ramble, as well as thought that it was a good enough dig, I do think that people should generally object to the usage of "waffle", as it is effectively a euphemism for another four-leter word, and an often misued one at that, as in its proper context it refers to a person who is just simply a problem, that almost everyone takes as offhandedly sexist. I assume that Banno is from the U.K., though, where that sort of thing is, for whatever reason, considered to be acceptable, and have not taken offense because I thought that his joke was clever and have chalked the rest up to cultural difference.

I do think that people should generally object to the usage of "waffle", — thewonder

I just jumped in because @Banno is a pain in the butt. He just needs to be metaphorically smacked every so often.

I am not aware of any sexist meaning for "waffle" or any related word.

I assume that Banno is from the U.K., though, where that sort of thing is, for whatever reason, considered acceptable, — thewonder

No, no, no. It is much, much worse than that. Much worse. Banno is from (here, let me whisper in you ear ...Australia).

Oh, well, that'd make sense, I guess.

It basically has the same connotations as a certain expletive used to describe female reproductive organs. Oddly enough, what I object to is not its use, but how it is used. I have traced its usage to ascribe a certain intellectual fainiancy to a drunken letter that Guy Debord wrote to Charles Auguste-Bontemps, which has made it very difficult to explain that people shouldn't both shouldn't use it and that Debord had done so improperly. That a member of the Italian Socialist Party could use it to describe someone like Benito Mussolini would be apt, as, in the United States, we do know that it is reserved for people who create wholly unwarranted and unnecessary problems, but, as there are better ways to insult such people, I do think that people should avoid using it because of its clearly sexist connotations. For some reason, particularly within radical circles in the U.K., this is thought to be forthright heresay, however.

It basically has the same connotations as a certain expletive used to describe female reproductive organs. — thewonder

Waffle? So you thought I'd called you a cunt?

How odd. Rest assured, if I had desired to call you a cunt, that's what I would have done. There's a certain subtleness in conversational Australian that is lost in foreign parts, but for the most part we are pretty direct.

Well, okay, then. When I looked it up, though, the definition that I found does have the same connotations as that other term, at least, as it is commonly misused in the U.K..

To avoid derailing this thread and to return to the topic at hand, I went through a period of my life where I would compulsively read philosophical texts fairly rapidly without processing any of the information well whatsoever. I, now, tend to read texts fairly slow with kind of a lot of deliberation. I have only read so many texts because of that. Despite that having finished a book offers a person the semblance of self-confidence within conversations that refer to it, without having processed the information well, reading it at all seems to me to be entirely pointless. A personal example of this is my reading of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I am willing to admit that I did not understand a single word within it.

With some difficult philosophical texts, I find that I'll go through a process to gain an understanding them. I read Homo Sacer once, again while noting the references that were lost on me, again after looking some of them up and taking notes, and once more just straight through. From this, I have developed kind of a process so as to better understand texts that I find to be particularly difficult. It's also, perhaps, notable that my notes look kind of like a visualization of a concept from A Thousand Plateaus and greatly differ from what you would expect from your average Chemistry major. Taking them is more of a way of focusing attention and visualizing concepts than it is a manner of recording information. As only I can be myself, I am unsure as to whether or not I should recommend this to others. Most people would probably assume for them to be some sort of mess-aesthetic art.

An aside:

I came to a number of realizations about reading philosophy upon discovering that I knew absolutely nothing of the theories of one, Ludwig Wittgenstein, but, before doing so, a notable absurdity to my general approach to reading philosophical texts is that I read nearly every journal of Lacanian Ink on lacan dot com without ever having read a single work of Jacques Lacan or even watching one of his lectures. I have both come to appreciate and fear that this, along with the postmodern left-wing philosophy and books published by semiotext(e) that I breezed through have become embedded within whatever you want to call my subconscious.

---

Within the context of its use in the U.K., a "cunt" is a person who is psychologically and intellectually weak and lacking in integrity and resolve in a manner that is thought to be womanly. A "waffle" is just a euphemism for exactly the same sort of person. To describe speech as "waffle" is just to suggest that it is pretentious prattle. To call someone a waffle is just a euphemistic way of calling them a cunt, as "waffle" also denotes a vagina.

What I expect to have happened here is that Banno agrees with my assessment of the usage of the term and has chalked up his insinuation to colloquial speech in order to save face. Cleary I am correct and a "cunt" is just a fucking problem.

Being said, I did actually not take offense to his original comment as, as I have already stated, I thought that it was a pretty good dig and am not the sort of person who takes great offense at insults, at least, when I can rationalize their having been levelled. I am only so well read and do tend to ramble. Though somewhat philistine, I thought that his quip was fairly clever. I have only expanded upon this because I have devoted a considerable portion of my time to thinking about insults.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, by asking people about the role which reading has within their pursuit of philosophy. Of course, reading is only a means of communication of ideas, so the exploration of reading is really part of the process of becoming aware of the established thinkers from the past as a basis for developing our own ideas and understanding.

Consider that reading is also a form of dialogue with those philosophers. When you engage deeply with them it’s almost like a conversation - obviously they can’t really converse, but you can interrogate the texts, so to speak.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, by asking people about the role which reading has within their pursuit of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Good call. I think it might be interesting to differentiate between kinds of reading. In most cases reading philosophy is not effortless or breezy, like reading a brochure. Unless one is a genius, I imagine the reading process is punctuated by pausing and reflection and re-reading and cross referencing and pondering. Especially if it is a complex work in an intricate prose style.

I have noticed over the years that where people claim to have read key works, when you ask specific questions about an aspect of the text, they often seem not to remember this part. Have they not read closely enough? Should they have accompanied the reading with greater analysis? I guess this is why at university key works are taught, not just read.

To know a text well, it could take months, years, a lifetime of study and yet people (I'm thinking of a couple of friends here) often plough through philosophy texts like they are easy conquests.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, — Jack Cummins

Sorry for the distraction.

Really, I found 'Finnegan's Wake' almost completely unreadable. I spent a couple of hours skimming through it. I mainly wish to read it because I found 'The Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man' and 'Ulysses' to be fantastic. I am also interested in the whole idea of a stream of consciousness, going back to William James, although the two writers use it so differently.

I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background.

I have probably been guilty of reading certain texts and missing important parts. Funnily enough, part of the reason I began reading parts of certain texts was because when I was a student I was encouraged to do this. It was tutors pointing to what they saw as key chapters. However, when I read philosophy books now, I do like to read all the chapters, but I probably read some of them too quickly. I often take a book out with me and don't come home until the have finished it. I am sure that certain books really deserve much more analysis, but the problem is that there are just so many important books to get through.

It is interesting that you speak of certain texts being embedded in your subconscious. I have wondered about this, but not sure that whether this happens when we skim through them. It would probably depend how subliminal perception works, but my understanding is that in advertising this happens by certain images stimulate parts of fantasy, and the need to have certain objects in relation to this fantasy. So, I wonder how the subliminal works in our reading. It may mean that we are able to gain some of an overriding picture of a certain author. However, when we do skim ideas, the danger which I see is that it may be like being in a conversation with someone and not really listening attentively to what they are saying. However, I do feel that I seem automatically to skim read at times, almost looking at a paragraph or a page in one go, and I do get the impression that some of the ideas are absorbed in some way.

I do think that it is worth trying to not limit interpretations of texts just to their historical contexts. In some ways, all ideas are interlinked and thinking about ideas can be so much richer and imaginative if looked at in this way. I like seeing parallels in ideas which I so different, such as between Jung and Nietzsche. I believe that it is important to be aware of the contexts in which specific ideas developed, but it is also important to not become too narrow in interpretation because it may be that combining certain ideas from very different historical context, or even from different disciplines, may give birth to new ideas and perspectives.

Happy Tuesday!

I think you already arrived at the answer, in that, generally speaking, it's mostly about achieving a balance. And, one should try to be reasonable (treat like cases likely/different cases differently) in their approach or determination as to which discursive hat to wear. Obviously, some domain's or subject matter (like formal logic/abstract study of propositions, symbols, etc.) requires more technical knowledge than others (than say ethics). (Not that I'm an expert in any of them.)

But since nobody really broached this thought, I'll offer an analogy. Some may consider doing philosophy is a little like writing a book, writing music, or creating or inventing something/anything novel in their respective fields of expertise, etc.. Accordingly, an architect who copies Frank Lloyd Wright designs, or an individual songwriter/musician who exclusively performs cover music (copies pre-recorded original's) is doing simply that--regurgitating/copying something that was previously designed/written/recorded. That same individual can also decide to possibly design something novel or in this sense write their own music. That individual took those influences from the original design/recordings, and decided to make them their own. So just like Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant, Eric Clapton was influenced by B.B. King.

Since to me everyone here is unique, yet the same, I say bring to the dance your own influences and your own sense of creativity, where it's appropriate. In some cases, allow yourself to practice philosophy based upon not only your own formal training, but also your real world experiences, that is as much a part of your own truth (and your truth only), as someone else's truth that you read about.

Don't be afraid of yourself :smile:

Skimming is fine, for anything, I think. But that's just to get a general idea. Sometimes a philosopher/scientist/author is simply not for you.

Sure, technicalities in science are quite difficult for the non-expert, which is why popularizers such as Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and others are very, very helpful.

I've read Pynchon, which I've heard is as hard to read as Joyce, though this is debated. I think part of Finnegans Wake is simply meant to frustrate the reader.

I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background. — Jack Cummins

There was a joke at the engineering company I used to work for - an expert is someone who knows five things about a subject. There is truth in that. With only a limited amount of knowledge, you can often carry on a conversation on a technical subject so that you at least don't look foolish. That truth also applies here on the forum. If you have an idea and you don't want to look stupid, you should at least do a minimal amount of research. If you do that, you arguments will generally be stronger than those we often see here.

Recently it has become more important to me that I dig into the ideas I care about. I'm trying to get rid of "seems to me" and "I think I heard that" from my posts. That is the motivation behind my current thread on the Tao Te Ching. I've read it and thought about it for many years, but now I'm trying to really put in the effort to understand it and use it.

Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I try to keep a balance and I realise there are limits to how much it is possible to read, because I have to do other things as well. Recently, I listened to much less music because books have taken over. Fortunately, I don't have a television, because most of my friends say they spend so much time watching it. I think that my time on this site is giving me some idea about what texts in philosophy are essential, although we probably all have ones which really appeal to us individually.

I do believe that it important to be able to write from one's own angle, because it is authentic. At least, this site does give scope for us to experiment in such a way. When there is no possibility of this, having to write just seems so dull and monotonous. When I was doing studies for training in nursing the way we were expected to write was so dry and it was like everyone's work was almost identical. I think that I managed to squeeze some bits that were from the personal in at times, but I had to be careful.

It is so good to read all the different writers on this site, because it does seem that most have their own style, which comes through regardless of what is being discussed. It would be so boring if all different people writing sounded identical, even if they wrote like Kant or Wittgenstein. I probably would not rush to my phone to read them as soon as I get up in the morning.

I think that you are right to say that certain writers are just not meant for us. I think that it is also about reading them at the right moment. I remember how I used to look at Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' and think that I could not relate to it at all. So, it was a surprise when I began reading it recently and it seemed to really speak to me. It is the same with fiction and it was only about 3 or 4 years ago that I felt able to read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. However, I can't read all this heavy writing all the time, so I do read gothic fantasy, science fiction and steampunk too.

You are right that a certain amount of knowledge makes discourse possible on all kinds of topics. However, I do think that it can be the case when people keep referring to certain theories it is sometimes apparent that they are hiding behind it. I do even wonder sometimes if I read so much to block out my mum thoughts. I don't think I am doing that now so much, but when I had loads of stress at work, I used to spend practically all my days off immersed in my books. But, I do try to read mindfully, rather than as a way of shutting out certain thoughts.

You do seem to be doing a very detailed discussion of The Tao de Ching. It must be one of the longest running threads at present. I have looked at the book briefly but it doesn't seem to be the one I need at the moment, but it may be at some point. But I have always read a lot and have spent so much time in libraries. I remember discovering the shelves on psychology and philosophy when I was about 13. I really wanted to read these books then, and having to study all the range of school subjects was a bit of a nuisance. But, I have not worked since last May so I am able to indulge, and it will miss all the reading time if I get a new job.

Yes, I agree with this. I used to really like Heidegger. When I read him now, it does little to me. It doesn't connect nearly as much, though I do still find some value in him.

I had a "postmodernism" phase many years ago, in which I liked Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan. I now think Lacan and some parts of Deleuze are just awful, unhelpful and can quite literally make you think irrationality about how the world works. But my opinion on Derrida never changed, he just plays with words and tries to sound complex. Other would fiercely disagree. That's fine.

The opposite happened to me with Whitehead. I use to think his main work was mostly incomprehensible jargon, with little to no value. I now think he's very interesting, even if his verbosity takes away some extra value that would be there had he been better in expressing his ideas.

Yes, I agree with this. I used to really like Heidegger. When I read him now, it does little to me. It doesn't connect nearly as much, though I do still find some value in him. — Manuel

That's very interesting, Manuel. Can you tease this out? What appealed then and what do you think happened to that connection?

I had a "postmodernism" phase many years ago, in which I liked Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan. I now think Lacan and some parts of Deleuze are just awful, unhelpful and can quite literally make you think irrationality about how the world works. But my opinion on Derrida never changed, he just plays with words and tries to sound complex — Manuel

I never bothered.

I have not read any Heidegger but I do wish to, at some point. I definitely went through a postmodernist phase, in connection with sociology and art. I did not read all the main texts though. I may read more on Lacan and Baudrillard, but I think that postmodernist ideas of deconstruction went to far in some ways, ending up with a picture of cultural relativism. Some of the writings are extremely difficult. The one book which I have wanted to read, but could not get into, was Lacan's 'The Psychoses', but that is because I have worked in psychiatry.

I do really enjoy reading psychoanalytic writings, but not just Freud and the mainstream ones. I am really interested in the area in between psychology and philosophy. I found ' Beyond Freedom and Dignity' by BF Skinner to be interesting, but not that I agreed with it . I have realised recently that one of my main interests is the philosophy of mind. I definitely think I need to explore phenomenology, but the texts do look like heavy weather. I will probably need loads of strong coffees to even begin this.

That's very interesting, Manuel. Can you tease this out? What appealed then and what do you think happened to that connection? — Tom Storm

It's a long story, so I'll have to compress what I say. I stumbled on Heidegger via Hubert Dreyfus' interpretation. I thought he was doing something original, kind of offering an in depth analysis of manifest reality in a manner than was thoroughly philosophical, without basing his thought on modern science. I liked the idea of collapsing the man-and-world distinction, or at least, closing the gap in many respects.

He has an amazing gift of presenting very ordinary situations in a very thoughtful manner. Heck what could be simpler than someone using a hammer? But he made it stand out.

Over time and trying to explain his thought plainly, I discovered that I was mostly saying obvious things in different ways. And I could not see a way how to add to his project without continuing in a path that leads to what I think is a wrong way to think about how people relate to the world. I find his emphasis to exaggerate those moments of "flow" or not thinking about what we do things when we do them.

I still think his was a good way to try a new kind of philosophy and some of what he says still sounds impactful, but I think a more rationalist take on such a philosophy would be more fruitful for what I'm interested in.



You did well. Saved yourself from a lot of nonsense. Not all, to be fair, but much of it is just bad.

Yes, I think so too. Plus the way Postmodernism uses science is embarrassing, just look at Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense and The Sokal Hoax and you'll see what actual scientists have to say about what many of these figures said. It's not even wrong as the phrase goes.

Psychoanalysis has many branches, some of which seem to depart quite a bit from Freud. You'll gain much more by reading any of these than reading Lacan, honestly. I studied him for almost two years and I would be embarrassed to present Lacan's "thoughts", as they are so arbitrary and treated like gospel.

Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and these types actually have interesting things to say. But there's only so much time and many people to read, so you'll have to decide what type of thought you are most attracted to eventually, I think. But it's always good to read different views irrespective of what you may be sympathetic with.

I remember discovering the shelves on psychology and philosophy when I was about 13. — Jack Cummins

You were more advanced than I was. When I was 13, I was searching the library for adult books with sex in them. That and science fiction.

@Jack Cummins Life must and will be lived by everyone: we all go about our everyday lives doing the things we do, speaking with our ppl, having our transient thoughts. On the other hand, reading, true reading—that is, when you take a special book alone into a secret place and dwell on it for a good period of time—is not necessary, is ordinarily considered a luxury, is not attractive to most ppl, and must be done to the neglect of what others consider to be more important endeavors.

I am lucky to have lived a childhood free of necessity and full of the desire to learn. I had no chores as a boy, didn’t have to cut the grass or fetch water from the spring or eggs from the chicken house, etc, and had access to books from both school and public libraries, and from bookstores. I therefore learned from my earliest years that the key to life was contained in books. They have always remained my polestars, even now when I have become an old man and have less of the leisure I enjoyed as a child.

As far as independence of thought from what one reads goes, I believe that, to achieve such individuality, freedom and independence, all depends upon a couple things: first, your intimacy with the text: are you grazing the book to pick out things consonant with what you already believe, or is it rather a challenge? Do you approach the book as though, like Socrates’ lover in The Symposium, you are destitute of knowledge and in desperate need of a guide? That difference means everything. The second thing your independence hinges upon is your own native ability to discern the truth. Finally, when you have nourished yourself enough on the book, have gained enough knowledge and wisdom to dare consider that you see something a Plato or Aristotle, or Rousseau or Nietzsche didn’t see, then, and only then, should you believe it in your own heart, and publish it to the world...

...Machiavelli made such a dare and transformed the world—but was he right? Others have since questioned it—but, nevertheless, his idea took hold, and we all owe our secret belief that man really believes what his passions say he is, rather than what his reason does, is the ultimate truth...

...I think most ppl nowadays, especially philosophers, are conformists. In this day, it means throwing out a theory that is as entirely radical as possible, contradicting all norms as much as possible. This is the current badge of the philosopher: can I turn black into white, large into small, good into bad with a neat intellectual turn? When I see this sort of thing in this forum I instinctively turn away, ignore it. It is conformism parading as radicalism.