I have read a lot of books but I only remember some impressions and the odd idea. — Tom Storm

I don't want to read books or any other texts that way. I've always struggled to "read for pleasure", but in the last years, moreso than ever. By now, I want to read studiously, or not at all. If after reading, I don't have something relevant to show for (primarily this means important insights that I have implemented in life, and secondarily, systematically knowing at least the main themes of the text), then I don't want to read at all. I'm not a perfectionist. It simply seems like a waste of time to do something (in this case, read), and then have nothing to show for one's time.

The reason I ended up here was to see what I may have missed and also to participate in some discussions - I was going to give it 4 weeks.

And you let yourself be taught to drink and to put off your departure!

Which books do you recommend?

Heh. Nice of you to ask. Books that help one not waste time, but instead to do things effectively and efficiently.

Glad to see you're getting something useful out of this.
In philosophy, there's no way around reading, and reading a lot.

In philosophy, there's no way around reading, and reading a lot. — baker

This assumes that practicing philosophy must include written words. Which doesn't have to be the case. In an oral culture, you can still practice philosophy. By means of talking with one another, which is more or less done here too. And in an abstract sense, by reading a philosophical book you talk in a one-way direction with the author. And this talk is rather fixed, though of course interpretable in more than one way. You get subjected to philosophical frameworks, of which it's the question if your interpretation resides in the frame as thought by the writer. You cannot ask the writer questions, a necessary ingredient of philosophy as I see it. A good philosophical book must not explain a worldview, but instead must be used to free us from the tyranny of Truth. Of course you can also philosophize within a worldview itself, as western philosophy does within the frame of science. Once, in old Greece, philosophy, science, and math formed a smooth whole. Nowadays, these three are artificially separated and it happens frequently that people are redirected to one of the other two fields. I experienced that after I asked a question about the memory (on this forum, a few days ago). It was suggested this was not the place to ask. Because neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. must be addressed to understand memory. Even if so, why not bring it up? Anyhow, reading can do good as well as bad, like people can be both. It's not obliged though and in a world without books philosophy is possible.

By now, I want to read studiously, or not at all. If after reading, I don't have something relevant to show for (primarily this means important insights that I have implemented in life, and secondarily, systematically knowing at least the main themes of the text), then I don't want to read at all — baker

Sounds very disciplined and productive. Mostly I only do things I enjoy.

Books that help one not waste time, but instead to do things effectively and efficiently. — baker

I'm not wishing to pry but would you feel comfortable sharing a title or two just to give me a better sense of what this looks like?

There should be a forum section for the philosophy of productivity and the philosophy of personal organization. Seriously. Doing (academic) philosophy is one thing, but if it doesn't translate into how one lives one's daily life, then either isn't worth much.

Normally, self-help books tend to gloss over the philosophical underpinnings of productivity and personal organization, but there are some that don't, or at least not so much. For example:

https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Things-Done-Stress-Free-Productivity/dp/0142000280
https://www.amazon.com/Ready-Anything-Productivity-Principles-Getting/dp/0143034545/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

(The second one is a bite size rewrite of the first -- and interesting approach in its own right.)


https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success-Distracted/dp/0349411905/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1635600450&sr=1-1

I don't really have the time (nor do I think it would probably be very useful or productive) to address all of your concerns in your post.

So to sum it up:
I think you address many concerns I share, especially and primarily the commercialization of education. I share many of your core concerns about the impact and repercussions of capitalist agendas infiltrating education.

I do push back on the notion that this is tied to a) the classroom and b) "power hungry teachers." Obviously and absolutely, such teachers exist. Not denying that at all. But overall the vast majority of teachers are good and I dare say a handful of them are great. Anyone going into education for money... well, that's laughable. Anyone going into it for power... well, from the perspective of students I'm sure it often FEELS like we have more power than we do.

As to a), the basic idea of instruction is that you have a teacher and a student. You have a subject. You have resources you draw from, like texts. This has been the same since Plato, Pythagoras, even the Presocratics and ostensibly before that. The premise is simple: we're better off sharing our knowledge and insights and building upon what has been discovered before us than trying to discover the world as atoms/islands/rugged individuals. We are not omnipotent or capable of omniscience. Mortality precludes that.

It is, in sum, a pragmatic view of utility and results. But it is also an almost aesthetically pleasing view of human nature as a humble part of a greater whole, as a member of a greater brother/sisterhood.

He had this analogy of philosophy as the engine of language idling. — unenlightened

I like this a lot.

A good engineer probably does not need the manual very often, does not need the advice of his fellows very often, but he does not despise or totally ignore these things either. — unenlightened

Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that an engineer needing a manual and help from others is analogous with someone learning philosophy needing philosophical readings. Is that correct? I don't think that is an apt analogy. As I've noted in this thread, science and engineering are different from philosophy. There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required. Since science split off from philosophy, what's left are subjects that exist inside people's minds. I am as likely to know what is going on inside my mind as anyone else.

As I wrote that ,I wondered, do I really believe the things I've just written. I'm not sure. I guess we'll see.

There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required — T Clark

I don't see how that's different from philosophy.

To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur philosopher/engineer.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher

I am as likely to know what is going on inside my mind as anyone else.

As I wrote that ,I wondered, do I really believe the things I've just written. I'm not sure. I guess we'll see. — T Clark

I have to smile. Inside your head is quivering meat, the way inside an engine is quivering metal. I am more a psychologist than an engineer, and psychology is not a science because it operates exactly in the contradiction you just neatly expressed there. It turns out that the the view of the inside of one's own head that one gets is a poor one at best.

We have to negotiate the science of engineering with the nonsciense of human nature, philosophers leap in where engineers and psychologists fear to tread and wonder what they themselves believe. Imagine a society of engineers who discover that their engines are destroying the planet; do they have the sense to turn them off? Or do they prefer to believe that it is not so?

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy.

I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are.

To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur philosopher/engineer.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher — Artemis

I want to address the standards for being a casual non-professional philosopher. I keep referring to Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Fast thinking barely qualifies as thinking. It is a reaction, and most of our thinking is a reaction without much thought. Philosophy demands slow thinking, the accumulation of information, and pondering it with the skills of higher-order thinking.

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of thinking skills, the goal is to move students from lower- to higher-order thinking:

from knowledge (information gathering) to comprehension (confirming)
from application (making use of knowledge) to analysis (taking information apart)
from evaluation (judging the outcome) to synthesis (putting information together) and creative generation
This provides students with the skills and motivation to become innovative producers of goods, services, and ideas. This does not have to be a linear process but can move back and forth and skip steps. — Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Core Education is not always about students learning higher-order thinking skills but is too often limited to preparing students to pass a test and relies mostly on memorization. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher-order thinking skills. Some Christain organizations also opposed education for high-order thinking skills. This is important to understand because...

Philosophy is not a picking and choosing what body of thought one would like to call one's own or would like to believe in; a choice based upon personal preferences or feelings. Philosophy is a pursuit....

Philosophy as a critical and comprehensive process of thought involves resolving confusion, unmasking assumptions, revealing presuppositions, distinguishing importance, — Philip A. Pecorino

It seems obvious to me, that philosophy is best when we do it together.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher — Artemis

I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science. Thinking about a response to your post, it struck me - When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful.

Yes, of course, I know you and most of the others here disagree strongly. Maybe I should start a new thread.

I have to smile. Inside your head is quivering meat, the way inside an engine is quivering metal. I am more a psychologist than an engineer, and psychology is not a science because it operates exactly in the contradiction you just neatly expressed there. It turns out that the the view of the inside of one's own head that one gets is a poor one at best. — unenlightened

You've jumped to a lot of conclusions just based on my acknowledgement that I was uncertain I was correct about what I wrote. I wasn't denying the value of my internal experience. I have claims to being a psychologist also - 3 years in college and 50 years of paying attention. Yes, psychology is a science. And the view one get's from inside one's head is the only view one gets.

You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact — T Clark

Is that true or a fact? :chin:

I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science — T Clark

Hey, that's cool! Looking forward to your thoughts as they evolve and a new thread if you make one!

Is that true or a fact? — Artemis

Neither. It's philosophy.

Is THAT true or a fact??

Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy. — Athena

This is a good argument. I had a couple of ideas for a response, but was not satisfied. I'll work on it.

I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are. — Athena

I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy.

Is THAT true or a fact?? — Artemis

Neither, all the way down.

:rofl:

Yes, psychology is a science. And the view one get's from inside one's head is the only view one gets. — T Clark

Ok. Not the thread for that argument. I'll leave it there.

I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy. — T Clark

There most certainly is a difference between the east and west. I value both but have favored the west.

I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.

We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? And thank you for your post that causes to me think about this. I think in my later years it is appropriate for me to make a more determined effort to follow the path of yoga and deal with the fear that I don't know shit! I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in writing this, that is what came up for me.

I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.

We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? — Athena

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world.

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world. — T Clark

Wow, I love your comment! Absolutely love it! :heart: It is awesome how one word "awareness" can explain so much. People with no self-awareness drive me nuts, and that seems common in the US.

Now my thoughts are becoming a different thread so I better stop here. I will ponder what you have said.

I think in my later years it is appropriate for me to make a more determined effort to follow the path of yoga and deal with the fear that don't know shit! — Athena

Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin:

Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin: — praxis

Yes. Youth is a time for exploring and risk-taking. It would be a shame to only ponder life instead of blindly leap out there and gain experiences that we can fondly remember or contemplate.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that we were talking about hiding away in a Himalayan monastery or whatever.

I think most people probably don't have time to read this stuff, and a lot of it is hard and strange. I like it as a hobby, and would never call myself a philosopher, but I have friends who I could never talk to about it because they think of it like math or something from school like homework. I've been recommended many books and I started with Plato/Socrates and I think that is where we should all begin, not with the books but with his way of questioning and talking about stuff.

You have a good attitude toward all this. Welcome to the forum.

Thank you!