What are you reading?

[GhostontheNet]

Yeah, but its not the way Nietzsche goes on saying God is dead, then suggesting that it is a good thing. I meant like Anti-Climacus is not inclined to suggest that nihilism is or could be right. Of course it is mentioned, it has to be, but the further possibility isn't as explored. It remains a possibility, not a nature, and Kierkegaard doesn't suggest that it could be correct within the book. I was looking for more of a large disproval of nihilism altogether. That would probably be impossible if working outside of Christian framework though, which is essentially what I'm looking for.

But I guess the book was written for those already in the faith, so it wasn't set out to deal with Nihilism's validity, as it would be expected for the reader to already have the framework presupposing that God was God. I'm just curious on the rationale that Nihilism has though. Would Nietzsche be the one to read to find out the reasoning behind it? Honestly, I just started reading into Philosophy, so I'm a noob. So I'll take any and all suggestions on reading material.

I'm dabbling in Philosophy to find if there is any bridge of framework that could connect the Christian thinking to the non Christian thinking, as I am trying to reach out to several atheist friends. I'm looking if there is a way to explain God in human terms to those who have already dismissed him. I very highly doubt it is possible, since its all so subjective, and words are not really all that strong and cannot cause true heart change. Which is why I guess the only true thing that could work is Prayer in the end. (And one's idea of its own effectiveness is subjective as well.) But apart from that, I am still curious in these things, and I probably will look up more

What's not to understand? If Kierkegaard is right about the ontology of despair, the subject of "The Sickness unto Death", then the philosophy of nihilism is built upon a categorical error in metaphysics. No consistent nihilist will talk about the "validity" of his or her philosophy, because "validity" implies an external standard of truth or meaning by which to judge the merits of a claim, and nihilism is the claim that there is no such standard by which we may root our existence. You are right in linking nihilism with Nietzsche's parable of the death of God. But you are wrong in assuming that Nietzsche is unaware of what a great and terrible claim he is making, a grim reality deeply akin to the earth becoming unanchored from the sun to drift into cold, dark space. Basically, the meaning of the parable is that as modernity has exploded the notion that God can provide an absolute foundation for values, but it is this foundation that the entirety of Western culture hitherto has been built on. Consequently, while values are a must for human survival, they can no longer be assumed to have eternal validity, but instead are created ex nihilo. As such, while for Nietszche the triumph of nihilism is the inevitable course of the future, the only path to human survival is for humanity to be transcended in the overmen, those courageous individuals who create values out of nothing, and assert them with the will to power, which is to say the will to more life. Like Arthur Schopenhauer, Nietzsche is an epistemological pessimist, so we should not make much of his view of the "validity" of values beyond their pragmatic usefulness. For Nietzsche, one might say, values are less a matter of "validity" than of viability.

For Kierkegaard too, the base human condition is a condition of despair without God, particularly because without God we know nothing. But like the Lutherans, Kierkegaard insists upon the transformational effect of the living God, as opposed to any philosophical construct of "God", upon the existent subject. As such, Christianity entails a fundamental change in the very mode of our existence analogous to our first discovery of aesthetic beauty or moral integrity. And because we are relating to a living being, the only way we can know if the promises of God are true is if we make that categorical leap to faith, to change our mode of existence to one in relationship with God. This is a very important corrective to the indefinitely delaying "one more book" syndrome, reminding us that we too are existent participants in this story, and it is intimately about us. Honestly, I have never been consciously responsible for catalyzing anyone's conversion, but when I'm talking with atheists and agnostics, I like to point out the ways in which they dehumanize themselves and others by inserting human existence into ontological brackets. This tends to leave quite an impression, because much of the appeal of atheism and agnosticism lies with its claim to be the paragons of humanism. If it's logical proofs you're looking for, you might be better served reading the work of William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. But there's a good reason I stick to reading in existentialism more than any other area of philosophy--it speaks to the condition of the heart. That's why it left such a mark on neo-orthodox theologians like Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. And because Kierkegaard was so influential, he tends to be a useful bridge for relating the insights of secular existentialists back to Christianity. For example, I fuse Kierkegaard's work in "The Sickness unto Death" and "Works of Love" to make theological application of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, which deals with the dialectics of gender oppression.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

@GhostontheNet - *claps* Bravo! Here, here! Good and sound words, sir. Seriously, that was a fantastic analysis. Your statement about traditional ontologies being demeaning to human beings was extremely provocative...I am going to be turning it over in my head for a while.

Finished W.V.O. Quine's "On What There Is" and am going to start his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and finish the last few pages of Ayer's "Language Truth and Logic" today and tomorrow. The first time I read Quine, I was appalled by his ideas (though he is a great writer). This time, though, I found a lot more of redeeming value in OWTI. I think he has a fair point about just how language figures into the disagreement over ontologies and choosing your own ontology. However, I still ultimately disagree with him since we do not share ontologies.

[Strafe]

Wow. That was really good, well said. I'm not sure if I can understand all of it, but I think I may have learned a lot just now on how to approach the reading and processing of philosophy. Admittedly, This is probably the first major philosophical work I am reading (I fall asleep in the Republic because I'm stuck on the introduction, which is REALLY dry and about everything I know about nihilism is Wikipedia'd or told by not very educated friends... eh heh...), and perhaps it means something that I was first attracted to existentialism to start. Maybe it is best to not look for proof then. I am curious on how we try to prove God, but I think I have experienced enough to know for myself that there is a true living God. In that then, perhaps I don't need to prove anything to others, but let my life talk instead. (That is another story altogether though...) I have tried talking over the "proof" of God much, but for that matter, I'm not too well read, and my friends don't see my life any different from theirs, so how could they take a leap of faith of their own when they cannot see mine? Perhaps it is more for me to take further steps of walking in the Spirit so that my life is radically different. Then perhaps, my friends will begin to become aware of their own despair. (Is that the right way to put it?)

Well thanks alot for the help guys, it really stretched my small brain to read your analyses, and I came to the same answer that my Pastor told me of Evangelicalism. I guess I am better concerned with the heart condition above anything else. I'll keep some of the suggestions on the reading list. I think its a good start. And sorry if I ever came out rude, naive or arrogant, well because I am all three. Perhaps later, when I am better read, I can begin to talk like I actually know something. I got called out on being wrong so much... and I'll probably get called out again... eh... k. I guess there's more to talk about then?

[the_wolfs_howl]

I finished Deathly Hallows and re-read The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Guess that's Harry Potter done for now.

And I'm getting close to page 400 in The Fires of Heaven. I chuckled when Jordan was still explaining stuff after 300 pages. There's been some more action, and now that the obligatory battle with Trollocs and Myrdraal (sp?) is over, I've probably stepped over the threshold and things will get more interesting now.

Also, on a whim and because I will soon be writing about a child prodigy, I picked up Matilda by Roald Dahl for the umpteenth time.

[shade of dae]

For Literature class, I've read Dicken's A Christmas Carol, Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and a very large amount of poetry. I enjoyed A Christmas Carol, but I was disappointed at how one-dimensional the characters were. It didn't seem realistic to me for Scrooge to go from thinking Marley was a bit of undercooked potato to wholeheartedly believing in the whole Christmas spirit thing so quickly. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was more to my taste. One thing that I found intriguing about the book was Jekyll's idea that Hyde was a different entity. He himself said that good and evil were part of man, yet when the evil part of him became separated, he refused to believe that he was responsible for any of the acts that Hyde committed. It frustrated me that he would not accept the blame for things that he did under the persona of Hyde.

With that said, I found it interesting to compare the ideas of Immanuel Kant's Conscience, a book I was reading for another class, to Jekyll's conscience. If, like Kant believes, conscience is feeling guilt for the deed committed that goes against our moral laws, rather than just feeling fear for the consequences of those actions, it would seem that Jekyll had no conscience.

Other than that, I have a large pile of books just waiting to be read, including G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, which I've read halfway through, but was interrupted by school. I also want to re-read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, and start Francis Schaeffer's How Then Should We Live?, because my Great Books teacher told me that I'd love it. There are also some books from the school library about Percy Bysse Shelley that I need to read, and an even larger stack of sci-fi books that I'd like to read just for fun. Sadly though, I doubt I'll get far into those.

[Lynna]

I'm currently reading 'My Sister's Keeper' I like it, though I don't like how much swearing is in it. I think the author is very talented

[Htom Sirveaux]

The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall. It's kind of like JawsxMementoxSerial Experiments Lain. Definitely one of the coolest books I've ever read.

Also, nearing the end of The Fifth Elephant by Terry Pratchett. Next in line for Discworld books is The Truth.
I don't know what I'm gonna do when there's no more Discworld books. I really wanna like fantasy, but no other series quite does it for me.

[That Dude]

The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall. It's kind of like JawsxMementoxSerial Experiments Lain. Definitely one of the coolest books I've ever read.

Also, nearing the end of The Fifth Elephant by Terry Pratchett. Next in line for Discworld books is The Truth.
I don't know what I'm gonna do when there's no more Discworld books. I really wanna like fantasy, but no other series quite does it for me.

Because of your discription, I think that I might have to read that Raw Shark Texts book...

Also you should try checking out the Farseer series by Robin Hobb. They are the best fantasy books I've ever read, and I'm a big Tolkien fan.

[GhostontheNet]

I'm currently getting started on Exile and the Kingdom by Albert Camus, following the lead of its appearance in a shot from The Lovely Bones

Wow. That was really good, well said...

Thank you. So you had trouble with The Republic? As with most of Plato's work, the main interest rests with Socrates and the questions he asks the people around him. As embodied by Socrates, philosophy begins by asking a set of questions, and then seeking answers to those questions. Therefore, what you should look for depends upon what kinds of questions you are asking. But if you're just starting out, I recommend you read Sophie's World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy by Jostein Gaarder, which will catch you up to speed on the basics. Also, a good Christian philosopher must be a good theologian, so I recommend you read Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright in addition.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was more to my taste. One thing that I found intriguing about the book was Jekyll's idea that Hyde was a different entity. He himself said that good and evil were part of man, yet when the evil part of him became separated, he refused to believe that he was responsible for any of the acts that Hyde committed. It frustrated me that he would not accept the blame for things that he did under the persona of Hyde.

With that said, I found it interesting to compare the ideas of Immanuel Kant's Conscience, a book I was reading for another class, to Jekyll's conscience. If, like Kant believes, conscience is feeling guilt for the deed committed that goes against our moral laws, rather than just feeling fear for the consequences of those actions, it would seem that Jekyll had no conscience.

Conspicuously, Immanuel Kant came before the advent of modern psychology beginning with Freud, who offers a much better clue to what's going on here. Basically, Mr. Hyde represents the qualities of Dr. Jekyll that he has repressed to his subconscious because they are threatening. Upon the monstrous return of the repressed by way of his experiment, the cat is basically out of the bag. Faced with such a profound threat to the man he believes himself to be, he defends his ego by means of denial, projecting these darker qualities of himself onto Mr. Hyde as a separate imaginary Other, rather than an extension of himself. As psychologists and other health care professionals know all too well, often those most in need of help are those who cannot even see that they have a problem.

Other than that, I have a large pile of books just waiting to be read, including G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy, which I've read halfway through, but was interrupted by school. I also want to re-read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, and start Francis Schaeffer's How Then Should We Live?, because my Great Books teacher told me that I'd love it. There are also some books from the school library about Percy Bysse Shelley that I need to read, and an even larger stack of sci-fi books that I'd like to read just for fun. Sadly though, I doubt I'll get far into those.

Good stuff. Do you go to a Christian school of some kind? My thoughts on Francis Schaeffer are ambivalent, but the basic gist of them can be found at http://www.shipoffools.com/features/2008/screwed_up_saints.html. For a contemporaneous theologian and philosopher who understood and dealt with 60's counterculture, he offers some excellent insight into "What's Going On", not to mention inspiration for people like me who like to pay our dues to the underground. On the other hand, I don't think I have to tell you why his inadvertent kindling of the inception of the Christian Right has done some serious damage. Actually, that in itself has a lot to do with the Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon...

[uc pseudonym]

I am back into TED Talks, and one of them has led me to a book.

Predictably Irrational by Dan Areily

This is fascinating, because it is basically the results of a large number of studies on human psychology. The theme is that in general, people are less rational than we commonly assume. Our brains are wired in such a way that we often make decisions based on irrelevant comparisons or trivial objectives. It has interesting ramifications for behavioral economics and especially the ethics of business (two chapters are devoted to how people rationalize dishonesty).

The writing style is humorous and easy to read, which leads me to my only real complaint. I wish that Areily would provide the raw data for more experiments, as well as move through his explanations faster. But I assume he's trying to bring the results of his research to the largest audience possible, and I can't argue with that.

[GhostontheNet]

I'm currently working on The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt by Albert Camus.

[rocklobster]

I'm going to start The Angel's Experiment, part of James Patterson's Maximum Ride series.

[Wikiwalker]

Rereading The Great Divorce, by C. S. Lewis

[That Dude]

Been reading
Absolute Surrender -by- Andrew Murrey.

Really good and refreshing read. Also very theologically sound and full of love for the readers. Great book.

[shade of dae]

Recently re-read The Great Divorce. I think I liked it better this time. While I don't necessarily subscribe to his ideas about heaven and hell, Lewis stated in his preface that it wasn't his intention to make theories about them. However, there are some very thought provoking sections of the book, several things to challenge myself on. I won't post my favorite parts of the book, mostly because all of it was my favorite. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do. Also, this week's Great Books selection was Karl Marx's Alienated Labour. I think that this was the hardest to read out of all of the selections. My main problem was the terminology that Marx used, like "Species-being" and "Species-life". While they might be terms used in Germany in the 1800's, I think it'll take a little more googling before I completely understand it. I stopped at a used bookstore last week and picked up Francis Schaeffer's The Church Before the Watching World and Pollution and the Death of Man, as well as a Selected Plato. My mom also bought me G.K. Chesterton's Heretics and an old 1922 version of What I saw in America. They're Easter presents, though, so I can't read them until then, which is probably for the best since I've been so busy with school I haven't even cracked the cover of my other books.

Conspicuously, Immanuel Kant came before the advent of modern psychology beginning with Freud, who offers a much better clue to what's going on here. Basically, Mr. Hyde represents the qualities of Dr. Jekyll that he has repressed to his subconscious because they are threatening. Upon the monstrous return of the repressed by way of his experiment, the cat is basically out of the bag. Faced with such a profound threat to the man he believes himself to be, he defends his ego by means of denial, projecting these darker qualities of himself onto Mr. Hyde as a separate imaginary Other, rather than an extension of himself. As psychologists and other health care professionals know all too well, often those most in need of help are those who cannot even see that they have a problem.

An interesting perspective. I've been doing some studying of Frued and his views lately, so if you have any articles or books that you can recommend, I'd be happy to hear about them. I mostly need biographical information, but if you have any other articles you think I should read, let me know.

Good stuff. Do you go to a Christian school of some kind? My thoughts on Francis Schaeffer are ambivalent, but the basic gist of them can be found at http://www.shipoffools.com/features/2008/screwed_up_saints.html. For a contemporaneous theologian and philosopher who understood and dealt with 60's counterculture, he offers some excellent insight into "What's Going On", not to mention inspiration for people like me who like to pay our dues to the underground. On the other hand, I don't think I have to tell you why his inadvertent kindling of the inception of the Christian Right has done some serious damage. Actually, that in itself has a lot to do with the Jekyll and Hyde phenomenon...

No, I don't go to a Christian school, just a small community college. I like to hang around after class and talk to my teachers though, so I get book reccomendations from them. I like the article you supplied, it was very informative. I wasn't entirely sure who Francis Schaeffer was when my teacher recommended him, but I did some research on him and I suppose I'll find out more when I actually get a chance to read his books.

[GhostontheNet]

Recently re-read The Great Divorce. I think I liked it better this time. While I don't necessarily subscribe to his ideas about heaven and hell, Lewis stated in his preface that it wasn't his intention to make theories about them. However, there are some very thought provoking sections of the book, several things to challenge myself on.

I think the most important contribution of Lewis' The Great Divorce to eschatology is that he out-Dantes Dante while setting Dante straight. What I mean by this is that whereas Dante popularized notions of hell as a kind of divine torture chamber (albeit one that dishes out hideously ironic "poetic justice"), Lewis moves the locus of hell to the internal, spiritual life of the subject, all the while keeping the element of irony intact. After all, the early Jews, like all Ancient Near Eastern societies, feared dishonor and shame far more than they feared personal suffering. As such, the apocalypse of Daniel speaks of the state of hell as "shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2) before God, the host of heaven, and the wise and righteous faithful. Even the text that introduces the metaphor of flames in hell (Isaiah 66:24) does so in reference to the worst possible shame to be incurred in the ancient world, that of one's dead body being left to rot unburied. This is what Jesus means by the image of Gehenna (very poorly translated as "hellfire" in the King James Version), which is a burning rubbish heap outside of Jerusalem where the bodies of dishonored criminals would be dumped unceremoniously. Because sin is separation from the life of God, Lewis work is excellent in its realization that hell is not a prison of the body, but of the mind, and so locked from the inside.

Also, this week's Great Books selection was Karl Marx's Alienated Labour. I think that this was the hardest to read out of all of the selections. My main problem was the terminology that Marx used, like "Species-being" and "Species-life". While they might be terms used in Germany in the 1800's, I think it'll take a little more googling before I completely understand it.

Ah yes, Marx's theory of alienation has been of great help in understanding my own sense of malaise and disconnection from the surrounding society. As you and your brother are such avid movie buffs, I recommend you watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis, The Matrix, and Fight Club, each of which illustrate the process of alienation within their own respective socio-economic contexts. Basically, to blatantly second-hand quote from Marie Antoinette directed by Sofia Cappola, a film conspicuously about the process of alienation and commodity fetishism among the aristocracy (and implicitly the American consumer, who statistically is much richer than the rest of the world), Marx's point is a further development on ideas proposed by Rousseau, albeit through the lens of Hegel. There in Cappola's film as Marie escapes from the pressures of Versailles to rest in her own private garden, she reads a passage from Rousseau, who is quoted as writing "If we assume man has been corrupted by an artificial civilization, what is the natural state? The state of nature from which he has been removed? Imagine wandering up and down the forest, without industry, without speech and without home." To Marx, the most direct expression our nature as human beings is the way we expend our labor to create artifacts of material culture. You might say that we're all a bit like artists in this regard, even if we are not directly aware of it, insofar as we all desire that our labor be dignified, and that we can enjoy its fruits. In an earlier age, a craftsman could be responsible production and sale of a commodity from start to finish. But under the division of labor in an industrial capitalist society, the laborer is relegated by the owner of the means of production to a single, repetitious task within the aggregate system, becoming themselves an expendable cog in the machine in analogy to interchangeable parts. Worse still, both labor and laborer themselves become commodities to be bought and sold on the market, effectively rendering the human subject as an object of consumption. And as ownership of the product of labor is presumed to belong to those who control the means of production, rather than those who labor for its production, the laborer is effectively cut off from the product of his or her labor. As compensation for this imbalance, a social exchange is made to convert concrete labor power to the abstract value of money, albeit bought at a dramatically decreased value (for the laborer) and sold at a dramatically increased value (for the seller) for the sake of profit. And as the owners of the means of production act as economic gatekeepers, they possess an inordinate amount of soft power to apply socio-economic pressures and coercions to maintain the status quo in their favor. Indeed, in the age of Marx factory conditions were so deplorable, they created a hell on earth far more analogous to Dante than to Lewis. The end result is that we are systematically cut off from one of the most intimate aspects of being human, and become alienated from our own being. This is the basic gist of Marx's theory of alienation. Marxist-feminists sometimes add the twist of demonstrating how woman becomes alienated from the product of her own labor through childbirth, which adds another important dimension. A lot of Christians seem to view capitalism as an almost divinely inspired order, perhaps under the lingering influence of what Max Weber terms the Protestant ethos. But I cannot help but view the process of alienation as tantamount to saying in effect that we are not really made in the image of the creator God, a grave systematic blasphemy. For how many times does scripture emphasize the remarkable importance of the fruits of one's labor?

An interesting perspective. I've been doing some studying of Frued and his views lately, so if you have any articles or books that you can recommend, I'd be happy to hear about them. I mostly need biographical information, but if you have any other articles you think I should read, let me know.

Freud is one of those authors you pick up here and there and in 1,000 places as other authors apply his work to analyze other works. His most popular work, however, remains The Interpretation of Dreams.

No, I don't go to a Christian school, just a small community college. I like to hang around after class and talk to my teachers though, so I get book reccomendations from them. I like the article you supplied, it was very informative. I wasn't entirely sure who Francis Schaeffer was when my teacher recommended him, but I did some research on him and I suppose I'll find out more when I actually get a chance to read his books.

I see, so like me, you're currently in community college; that's a very good place for you to be. My suggestion to you is that you make use of the comparatively low tuition rates to explore the curriculum based on your own interests and affinities. This will help prevent you from becoming a cog in the machine as so many "career college students" often do. Francis Schaeffer was a fundamentalist Christian philosopher back when fundamentalism was about sticking to the basic fundamentals of faith, as opposed to establishing an authoritarian ecclesiastical regiment. But just as Karl Popper accused Plato of being the architect of every totalitarian state, so Schaeffer may not be wholly innocent of the crypto-fascist tendencies of his ideological heirs. But also like Plato, he should continue to be read because he has many useful philosophical insights.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Chugging through Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales; I just read "Little Snow-White." I find it interesting that a lot of the princess stories and the ones we're most familiar with are called "little [insert princess's name here]". Little Red-Cap, Little Briar Rose, Little Snow-White. I'd also forgotten how closely the Disney version of Snow-White actually is to the original. Yeah, so the evil stepmother/queen/witch doesn't have to wear red-hot shoes and dance until she falls down dead, and she only shows up at the cottage once instead of three times, but a lot of it is actually really similar.

And I also rediscovered what I think must be the most beautiful fairy tale I've ever read, called "Fundevogel" (which means, apparently, "bird-foundling", because the boy was a foundling taken away from his mother by a bird). It's about a boy and a girl whose wicked stepmother wants to cook them up and eat them (kind of like Hansel and Gretel), but the children run away. The evil stepmother chases after them, but the children say to each other, "I will never leave you, if you will never leave me." First they turn themselves into a rose and a tree, then a church and a chandelier, then a pond and a duck. When the stepmother stoops down to drink the pond dry, they drown her in the pond and then turn themselves back into their original forms and go back home to live happily ever after. I was very touched by this simple tale, which probably sounds weird, but whatever.

I've read over 500 pages of The Fires of Heaven now, and I'm chafing for the climax, because those who have read it before tell me that it's especially exciting. I'm also wondering what the title means.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

...just as Karl Popper accused Plato of being the architect of every totalitarian state...

Just checking b/c I am not clear...you don't actually think Popper's claim here is true do you?
---
Am about to start Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. I'm looking forward to it b/c he is meant to espouse a radically different take on the "essence" (he wouldn't like me using that word) of philosophy and what the philosophical method should look like. When you have been reading Quine for the better part of two weeks, though, any sort of change is a good one!

[GhostontheNet]

Just checking b/c I am not clear...you don't actually think Popper's claim here is true do you?

No, Popper's claim is not literally true, but it isn't quite false either. We often forget that Plato's concept of how to create a utopian state includes such measures as the institution of strict ideological controls and censorship over the media, and the absolutist extension of his essentialist metaphysic of identity that you are who the State tells you that you are. In Plato's Republic, there would never be a Christian Anime Alliance. Not coincidentally, many of the ideas proposed by Plato for the institution of a utopian society are those implemented by a totalitarian state. So in that sense, Plato is the architect of every totalitarian state, even if this isn't the outcome the philosopher anticipated (for what is Plato's political career but a great disappointment to his expectations?).

[TheSubtleDoctor]

No, Popper's claim is not literally true, but it isn't quite false either. We often forget that Plato's concept of how to create a utopian state includes such measures as the institution of strict ideological controls and censorship over the media, and the absolutist extension of his essentialist metaphysic of identity that you are who the State tells you that you are. In Plato's Republic, there would never be a Christian Anime Alliance. Not coincidentally, many of the ideas proposed by Plato for the institution of a Utopian society are those implemented by a totalitarian state. So in that sense, Plato is the architect of every totalitarian state, even if this isn't the outcome the philosopher anticipated (for what is Plato's political career but a great disappointment to his expectations?).

Mmm, that interpretation of The Republic isn't the only one out there. In fact, I don't believe the "Popperian" interpretation is even the majority view among philosophers (or political theorists for that matter). The reading that I find most plausible (not that I'm an expert...only read The Republic twice, and only half a dozen or so secondary materials) is that the "city in speech" experiment is an extended metaphor for the soul. In other words, The Republic is not a work of utopian ideals or even political theory so much as a treatise on ethics. I think it helps to recall the pinnacle of the work, Book VII. The answer to the question: "What is justice?", the fundamental question of the book, is not, "Justice is the state." Plato's answer, however, is that justice is the proper ordering of the soul, and the ones who best achieve this are in communion with the ordering mechanisms of the universe, the forms (here, we have ascended above the city). The cosmic order facilitates psychic order.

BTW, Popper's (mudslinging) argument seems shaky. Let's restate it:

Prem 1: Plato says, "A good society will be based on x,y, and z."
Prem 2: For any totalitarian state, that state happens to implement ideals x,y, and z
Conclusion: Plato is responsible for the construction of totalitarian states

This argument appears analogous to the following:

Prem 1: Jim says to Mandy in anger, "I wish you would just die!"
Prem 2: Ronnie kills Mandy
Conclusion: Jim is responsible for Mandy's death

But the second argument is intuitively problematic, so this argument-structure appears clearly invalid.
---
I read some of "Philosophical Investigations" and also J.L. Austin's "Three Ways of Spilling Ink." "Three Ways" was pretty dull...like "P.I." a lot so far, though.

[GhostontheNet]

Mmm, that interpretation of The Republic isn't the only one out there. In fact, I don't believe the "Popperian" interpretation is even the majority view among philosophers (or political theorists for that matter). The reading that I find most plausible (not that I'm an expert...only read The Republic twice, and only half a dozen or so secondary materials) is that the "city in speech" experiment is an extended metaphor for the soul. In other words, The Republic is not a work of utopian ideals or even political theory so much as a treatise on ethics. I think it helps to recall the pinnacle of the work, Book VII. The answer to the question: "What is justice?", the fundamental question of the book, is not, "Justice is the state." Plato's answer, however, is that justice is the proper ordering of the soul, and the ones who best achieve this are in communion with the ordering mechanisms of the universe, the forms (here, we have ascended above the city). The cosmic order facilitates psychic order.

While Plato is greatly concerned about the condition of the soul, his view of government and its implementation of justice seems to be that it acts as trustee for its maintenance. If, therefore, censorship of the plays and myths is needed to preserve the purity of the soul, then so be it. And in political implementation, here's where the concept of the realm of ideals and forms gets nasty, for the essential human nature also conforms to one of these cookie cutter essences. The task of the city-state, therefore, is to spot who fits into which cookie cutter according to the prescribed division of classes, and their verdict is as absolute as the realm of ideals and forms it is based upon. Under these premises, the act of rebellion can be seen as nothing other than the rejection of one's own essential nature and soul, and so by definition cannot be tolerated by the "just" State. It would appear that the rule based upon the realm of ideals and forms is as absolute as those forms.

BTW, Popper's (mudslinging) argument seems shaky. Let's restate it:

Prem 1: Plato says, "A good society will be based on x,y, and z."
Prem 2: For any totalitarian state, that state happens to implement ideals x,y, and z
Conclusion: Plato is responsible for the construction of totalitarian states

This argument appears analogous to the following:

Prem 1: Jim says to Mandy in anger, "I wish you would just die!"
Prem 2: Ronnie kills Mandy
Conclusion: Jim is responsible for Mandy's death

But the second argument is intuitively problematic, so this argument-structure appears clearly invalid.
---
I read some of "Philosophical Investigations" and also J.L. Austin's "Three Ways of Spilling Ink." "Three Ways" was pretty dull...like "P.I." a lot so far, though.

Direct causation cannot be proved by these premises. But if Plato holds to XYZ, and Hitler brings grave moral harm through the implementation of XYZ, then Plato bears a greater or lesser responsibility for the harm caused by XYZ. And as Plato's influence over Western civilization is greater, his responsibility is greater. By stating to Mandy "I wish you would just die!", has Jim helped engender an environment hostile to Mandy? If so, then he bears a part of the responsibility for her death as a direct outworking of hostility toward Mandy he helped engender.

[TGJesusfreak]

Currently nothing, but I want to be reading the first Percy Jackson book. but I'm number 32 in line for it at the library... that's a long wait...

[rocklobster]

Getting ready to read the second Maximum Ride book: School's Out Forever

[TheSubtleDoctor]

While Plato is greatly concerned about the condition of the soul, his view of government and its implementation of justice seems to be that it acts as trustee for its maintenance. If, therefore, censorship of the plays and myths is needed to preserve the purity of the soul, then so be it. And in political implementation, here's where the concept of the realm of ideals and forms gets nasty, for the essential human nature also conforms to one of these cookie cutter essences. The task of the city-state, therefore, is to spot who fits into which cookie cutter according to the prescribed division of classes, and their verdict is as absolute as the realm of ideals and forms it is based upon. Under these premises, the act of rebellion can be seen as nothing other than the rejection of one's own essential nature and soul, and so by definition cannot be tolerated by the "just" State. It would appear that the rule based upon the realm of ideals and forms is as absolute as those forms.

Again, the political ideas that you are attributing to Plato can be subsumed under the "ethico-allegorical" interpretation of The Republic.

By stating to Mandy "I wish you would just die!", has Jim helped engender an environment hostile to Mandy? If so, then he bears a part of the responsibility for her death as a direct outworking of hostility toward Mandy he helped engender.

We have to agree to disagree here. If culpability (moral or otherwise) can be imputed onto Jim when his action can in no way (IMO) be tied to Mandy's death, then when is anyone NOT culpable? This is not what Dostoevsky meant! It seems to me that a "line of responsibility" must be drawn b/w speech and action, else we start down the road towards speech regulation. If there is no such line, then what about the supposed line b/w speech and thought? If Jim merely thought, "I wish Mandy would die," is he also culpable for Mandy's death? Where does culpability end?

[GhostontheNet]

Again, the political ideas that you are attributing to Plato can be subsumed under the "ethico-allegorical" interpretation of The Republic.

They may or may not be successfully subsumed under an "ethico-allegorical" interpretation, but the profound contemporaneous importance of the question 'What does a just city-state look like?' make it unlikely Plato would completely sidestep politics. This is especially true because of the formative trauma he endured as the city-state of Athens executed his teacher and lifelong hero Socrates, an act of grave injustice that calls the whole system under which he lived into question. So if Plato thinks he has a better way, he certainly won't hesitate to put up the cards.

We have to agree to disagree here. If culpability (moral or otherwise) can be imputed onto Jim when his action can in no way (IMO) be tied to Mandy's death, then when is anyone NOT culpable? This is not what Dostoevsky meant! It seems to me that a "line of responsibility" must be drawn b/w speech and action, else we start down the road towards speech regulation. If there is no such line, then what about the supposed line b/w speech and thought? If Jim merely thought, "I wish Mandy would die," is he also culpable for Mandy's death? Where does culpability end?

Jim cannot be tied to Mandy's death in a direct legislative-punitive sense, but he must bear the shame of the part he played in creating the hostile environment that killed her. In terms of everyday ethics, our speech plays a crucial role in defining who ourselves and others are becoming, so we must take great care in the things we say. To be honest, I'm going through a time of profound hurt, anger, and heartache these days. And while it would be easy to vent my rage on those around me, I know that is not what I want to do, because I am responsible for my words. Even if most of the Mandys of the world do not literally die, words like that leave deep emotional scars. I can still remember a time when someone told me I should go shoot myself on a forum long before I found the Christian Anime Alliance. So is Jim responsible for the thought "I wish Mandy would die"? That depends, is this a lingering belief that leads Jim to see, regard, and threat Mandy as a subhuman? If so, then yes, although perhaps to a lesser extent than if he verbalized this deathwish. Culpability or innocence is dependent upon the nature of our actions, which stem from our words and thoughts.

[rocklobster]

Just started Ptolemy's Gate, the final book in Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Finished "The Picture of Dorian Gray" this morning. Unbelievable book. I was really moved by it, but I was also a bit scared by it too: scared of how fascinated I was by Lord Henry (though, as Dorian himself says, fascination and liking are distinct). Yes, I found Lord Henry to be an incorrigible scene-stealer and spellbinder. Wilde brilliantly creates his own version of Mephistopheles here: a sweetly poisonous, charming gentleman. I should note that I disagree with LH's arguments and the lifestyle he promotes; however, I feel as if I, like young Dorian Gray, might be befuddled at LH's words. I also want to read some secondary literature concerning what critics believe Wilde's book claims about art as such. The ending of the book, BTW. was outstanding.

I am now beginning Pyle's "Robin Hood."

[Htom Sirveaux]

Chuck Palahniuk's Survivor. Not as good as Fight Club, but certainly worth reading.
Tim Dorsey's Florida Roadkill. Hilarious over-the-top social satire in the style of a Quentin Tarantino movie. If GTA: Vice City was a book, Dorsey would have written it.

[rocklobster]

Currently reading When the Wind Blows by James Patterson. It's not connected to the Maximum Ride series, but has a character with the same abilities and first name as the main character in the Maximum Ride series. Could this be a prototype?

[the_wolfs_howl]

Still reading the same things, and I've added Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card to the list as well. I've read it before, but I wanted to read it again because it's such an intriguing book.