Now Reading Thread

[speed]

Originally Posted by derbeder

Foucault is not really a philosopher and his discussion is usually less rigorous than one may hope for. But there are many important insights here and these insights make Foucault's work more important than many carefully written philosophical writings on the topics discussed. This book is not dense and hard to penetrate, and is actually a very pleasurable read.

I think Foucault is a philosopher (if not more a philosopher than almost all other philosophers), and whats wonderful is that he never pigeonholed himself into academic philosophy, or any one set philosophical theory or field. If philosophy means lover of wisdom in Greek, and Foucault was smart and dynamic enough to cover multiple areas of philosophy (like the greats, Aristotle, Plato, etc), and areas directly related to life, society, and practical matters, as much as logic and other purely theoretical matters, then how is he not a true philosopher? But of course, I come to this conclusion from a purely non-academic perspective.

[derbeder]

Well, I remember him saying in an interview that he is not a philosopher. I don't recall the reference, though - I'll try to dig it. There is also no point in arguing over this - labels of this sort are just labels. It doesn't make any difference to understanding or evaluating anything he's written if one calls him a "philosopher", "social thinker" or something else. Let's also not forget that he is also very much an academic in his more theoretical writing in The Order of Things and The Archeology of Knowledge.

[speed]

Originally Posted by derbeder

Well, I remember him saying in an interview that he is not a philosopher. I don't recall the reference, though - I'll try to dig it. There is also no point in arguing over this - labels of this sort are just labels. It doesn't make any difference to understanding or evaluating anything he's written if one calls him a "philosopher", "social thinker" or something else. Let's also not forget that he is also very much an academic in his more theoretical writing in The Order of Things and The Archeology of Knowledge.

I agree, he covers all spectrums.

Derbeder, I am frankly a bit confused about First Order Logic. I know my Aristotle, but my knowledge of logic hits a dead end after him. I imagine this is what you specialize in, and thus, I was hoping one day, you could possibly explain it in plain english, or in relation to classical syllogisms.

[derbeder]

Sure, I will write up a short introduction to elementary logic. I tend to introduce this material to people in a way rather different than what I have seen in typical logic textbooks. This may be of some use to me later on as well.
But this may take a little time, since I am ridiculously busy right now.

Just to make sure I cover all your questions: have you looked at a textbook or are you just going over someone's notes? and what exactly have you had a problem with in what you have read?

[Justin S.]

I'm interested to see your approach derbeder, as I had the displeasure of very formal instruction in sentential and predicate logic.

[Justin S.]

Currently reading:

Bleak House- Dickens

I am having to go through it faster than I would like (several hundred pages to get through by tomorrow evening's class) but am enjoying it. I find it pointless to adjust my pace (and quality) of reading, so it is taking quite a bit of time.

[speed]

Originally Posted by derbeder

Sure, I will write up a short introduction to elementary logic. I tend to introduce this material to people in a way rather different than what I have seen in typical logic textbooks. This may be of some use to me later on as well.
But this may take a little time, since I am ridiculously busy right now.

Just to make sure I cover all your questions: have you looked at a textbook or are you just going over someone's notes? and what exactly have you had a problem with in what you have read?

No college textbook. No sir. I've just picked up a few books on Logic, and found they sort of assumed a great deal of prior knowledge. I studied logic in high school, which was almost 10 years ago (i went to one of those excellent jesuit schools, that teaches one everything); so I suppose I am trying to refresh myself.

But i would greatly appreciate any time and effort you put into such a thread.

[derbeder]

What are the titles of the books you picked up, then?

[JColtrane]

Currently reading:

Derrida-The Gift of Death

[speed]

Originally Posted by derbeder

What are the titles of the books you picked up, then?

An introduction to Logic book from a Hodges fellow. Cant remember his first name.

And I'm a frequent visitor to the Stanford Online Internet Encyclopedia, which sometimes is decent, sometimes not.

[Scourge of God]

Originally Posted by speed

I think Foucault is a philosopher (if not more a philosopher than almost all other philosophers), and whats wonderful is that he never pigeonholed himself into academic philosophy, or any one set philosophical theory or field. If philosophy means lover of wisdom in Greek, and Foucault was smart and dynamic enough to cover multiple areas of philosophy (like the greats, Aristotle, Plato, etc), and areas directly related to life, society, and practical matters, as much as logic and other purely theoretical matters, then how is he not a true philosopher? But of course, I come to this conclusion from a purely non-academic perspective.

I dunno. He was a historian by training (and, I suspect, by inclination as well). Most of his writings were focused on historical subjects and he wrote about them in the manner of a historian. His basic methodology was historical, and while many of his conclusions have a philosophical ring to them (in that they fit quite well within the intellectual context of French philosophy in his era), the centrality of how society works currently and the origin of certain patterns and social interaction and function is, at its core, a form of historical rather than philosophical investigation.