/lit/ - Literature

On the one hand you have Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, Swift, Blake, Coleridge, Carlyle, Whitman, Yeats, Pound, Poe, Tolkien, etc etc, plus philosophers like Emerson, Royce, James, Dewey, Bradley, and so forth. On the other hand you have the empiricist positivist type and then analytic philosophy. It feels as if there are not one but TWO completely different brands of Englishness and Americanness. One is very spiritual, sentimentalist, romanticist. The other lacks that as far as possible. What's up with that? Is one native, one an imposition? What's the explanation?

>>22121989
Hi anon I have some teaching experience since I am a PhD student who's taught actual college students. My recommendation is that with high schoolers you don't teach so many authors and certainly not so many difficult ones. It's an introduction class, so teach them a little bit of Plato (Euthyphro and Meno, maybe Crito would be good), Descartes, maybe easy bits from Hume and Kant on morality or skepticism, you can add a little bit of Nietzsche if you'd like, and maybe pick some more contemporary articles. Nagel's got like three that are good for intro students: the moral luck one, the bat one (irreducibility of subjectivity), and the one on the absurd. You could also have them read some philosophical fiction, Sartre's No Exit would be good if you can give them a basic rundown of his views on bad faith and the look. If you want to get political maybe you can show them a bit of Marx just to talk about it, or something from Aristotle's ethics. If you need to discuss God just use Anselm and Gaunilo's reply. Don't be heavy on these kids, there's no reason for them to read the heavier parts of Kant or something, or for them to read Aquinas or Heidegger or Deleuze or something like that. You can spend a short period discussing basic deductive logical argument forms, the difference between deduction vs. induction, and some fallacies, and give them simple exercises. Seriously don't teach high schoolers hard stuff. You can always create dream curricula for yourself to teach later if you get the chance. But you have to think about optimizing if you're teaching a bunch of kids.

>>20247652
No he is definitely a linguistic idealist. Nagel specifically calls him one so I'm not dreaming it up. Davidson's world/scheme monism effectively erases the possibility of a world beyond us that we could fail to grasp. He is so opposed to the ineffable or incommensurable that it shouldn't come as a surprise that his position counts as linguistic idealism.
>>20247705
Kripke isn't stupid.
>>20247912
Thanks for this. I'm not a fan of the Brandom/Pippin reading of Hegel but I'm wondering if his book would be good to check in it's own right. Dummett's book on Frege is fantastic as scholarship and also as a look inside his mind and at his systematic way of thinking, worth reading in its own right not just as Frege scholarship. But doing that isn't common. Will see eventually if Brandom makes it.
>>20247971
>that Sellars is basically correct that the only form of epistemic warrant is based in propositional inferential connection
This is the big mistake of Sellars', and from the start of EPM he makes it clear that this is his view, that somehow acquaintance can't be knowledge because it's not sentential but objectual. I'd like to see Sellarsians think a bit harder about Hume's footnote 20 to the Treatise of Human Nature some time. But they're unlikely to do so, since it also requires a big revision of how we interpret sentences of the form "S exists" not as existential sentences or even predicative sentences but as subjects considered under a kind of assertoric force. For contrast, sentences themselves have assertoric force by default, but it is possible to imagine those sentences divided into sense and force, work that Wittgenstein began and Tugendhat carried out (Dummett who I mentioned earlier talks about it). The Quineans who dominate analytic philosophy today probably won't want to countenance it. However, in ordinary language and pre-analytic philosophy alike for YEARS it was considered quite appropriate to use truth, negation, and belief as properties of objects not just sentences or propositions. People like Hegel himself, who Brandom the Sellarsian should know well, and earlier German Idealists than Hegel, speak of truth like that, and more obviously of negation (an object can be negated: this is through and through obvious to the German Idealists). As for belief, to this day it's common place to speak of belief IN not just belief THAT. Even in the early days of proto-phenomenology such as Brentano, the so-called propositional attitudes were not yet so-called: their intentionality was recognized to be objectual as well, i.e. belief could have objects (intentionally inexistent objects). The point is: this idea that the sub-sentential object and the sentence or proposition (or its correlate the fact) are somehow distinct categories is itself just another one of those "dogmas" a la Quine that ought to be criticized and ultimately dropped. Hume was willing to do that, and abolish the dualism, in that old footnote.

>>19526645
>Irish and Scottish respectively
you seem to be the one coping, anon.

.

NO MAN EVER THREW AWAY LIFE, WHILE IT WAS WORTH KEEPING

You can't refute him.

How would Aquinas - that dumb ox - ever recover? Pro tip: he won't. It's over.

Does being fat change your worldview?

>taking metaphysics seriously

Why did no one tell me he was an idealist?

>sat on germany and flattened it
>nearly 3 centuries later, his assprint is still there, and the smell of haggis and empirical rigour hangs in the dutch yet
>providently btfo'd everyone else that attempted to criticise him, all of whom made themselves look like schizos in the process
CLEAN IT UP GERMY CLEAN IT UP GERMY CLEAN IT UP GERMY

>>18705908
>causation
Doesn't exist
>relation
Arbitrary without causation
>categorization
Mental construct

>>18703625
Read Hume before Kant. If you plan on reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I recommend you read Hume's Treatise of Human Nature instead (or as well as) his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. T. H. Green once said that these two books are the propaedeutic (there's that word again, but he really used it in this case) for any serious modern philosophy. And he was right.

>>18591655
Use all the ad hominems you want, you cannot show me a cause. Therefore I will go on assuming they do not exist.

It has for years excited the curiosity of the publick, to inquire as to the reason for why the janitor does it for free, a question that is equally popular amongst todays philosophers. There has been a common supposition, towards the janitor believing that he may eventually be paid for his efforts, but, in accordance to the principles of human understanding I have previously proved, this is a mere sophistry. For, according to the three primary faculties of reasoning, that of resemblance, contiguity, and causation, it is impossible the jannie should find himself under this impression. There is nothing the jannie knows that bears resemblance to money, nor anything found in his life which may have excited his senses with the impression of money, and as such he has never experienced a connexion of any sort, be it of relation or tradition, between himself and payment. The objection may be made, that the janitor is incapable of human reason, or that he may actually be inhuman himself, and while I must confess it is impossible to disprove this objection, I find myself in want of a more satisfactory answer. To pursue this may be in err, an act of pure foolishness informed by a lively and untamed chimera, but as has been previously made evident, all philosophy must never ignore human nature, lest you should find yourself mired in pure skepticism, in which truth cannot be found. I believe an explanation exists within the boundaries of human understanding established thus far, which will shew the reasoning behind the janitors mad behavior; which is that his work, by a pathology foreign to most men, excites the passion of pride, and it is this hypothesis I will venture to prove.

>

Do you think being fat changes your philosophy?

>>18457096
read hume and understand that rationality is but a quiet sensation subject to the whims of the passions, and that any attempt to overcome the passions in favor of "rational thought" will lead only to sophistry.

what about my nigga hume

>>18436072
"No"

How do you feel about this guy ROPE-A-DOPING theology before turning abound and POWER BOMBING ethics with the STONE COLD STUNNER, ordering a three-course meal of epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics, and SUPLEXING INTO OBLIVION 99.8% of ALL philosophy? philosoCOPE BTFO'd with a SUCKER PUNCH SUMO SLAP by the EDINBURGH ANNIHILATOR.

maybe this is only humorous to me but this guys face and head make me laugh every time.
hahah fat egghead