I’ve kinda just started Fear and Trembling so if that’s up I dip my end in to “poison/vitalise” the waters.

There’s a thread for Naming and Necessity? I’ll have to take a look see sometime.

I started Fear and Trembling not too long ago and didn't get through it. A thread on it might remotivate me. I got caught up in the weeds too much I think. I didn't see Abraham's faith in God as so heroic. I didn't even see it as faith actually. He had empirical proof of God's power, having experienced a direct miracle in Sara's pregnancy at 70 years old.

Anyway, I vote for that.

How about Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety? It explores the psychology of sin while looking at the limits of such an endeavor. On the way, he makes observations about adolescence and child rearing that are interesting in themselves, even if the reader rejects many of his premises.

I am currently reading Rand. I bought her book "Anthem" for 3 bucks. Its definitely worth the monetary value and more.

How about Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety? — Valentinus

Very nice pick. I'm in for that one.

It explores the psychology of sin while looking at the limits of such an endeavor. — Valentinus

Nice.

On the way, he makes observations about adolescence and child rearing that are interesting in themselves, even if the reader rejects many of his premises. — Valentinus

Provide some companion to work with if you don't mind. I want to see more psychologizing about psychologizing here.

Provide some companion to work with if you don't mind. I want to see more psychologizing about psychologizing here. — Wallows

As I understand his writings, Kierkegaard is mostly interested in pushing people (including himself) to accept a responsibility for themselves that goes well beyond any narrative they or bystanders could produce. There are only clues or excuses. Explanations can only serve one purpose or the other. No one gets out alive.

So, in thinking about contrasting points of view, there are a number of theorists of developmental psychology that look hard at what he observed.

Are you mostly interested in seeing what is there or talking about how we talk about it?

Are you mostly interested in seeing what is there or talking about how we talk about it? — Valentinus

Both. Given my recent thread 'On Psychologizing' and experience with the majority of reading groups on this forum, then I'm aware of not wanting to put in the effort, and rather a free observer with some guiding theme or companion.

If memory serves me well, then you were against the idea of utilizing the Blue and Brown Books in the Investigations thread.

I did not object to using the Blue and Brown books in that thread.

I have generally argued for reading original texts before considering commentary and have also expressed reservations about the use of author's notebooks. But the problems I have with those kinds of works are not at all the same.

Getting an outline made by some other reader of what is going on in a text is different from getting to see into the process of how the writer worked. Regarding the latter, authors vary greatly in their difference of expression between what is published and what is not. If one is looking to work less hard, pursuing notebooks is not the way to go.

But all that to the side, it would dilute Kierkegaard to let others speak for him. He worked hard to clear a place where his words pushed out others. Right or wrong.

Getting an outline made by some other reader of what is going on in a text is different from getting to see into the process of how the writer worked. Regarding the latter, authors vary greatly in their difference of expression between what is published and what is not. If one is looking to work less hard, pursuing notebooks is not the way to go. — Valentinus

My main reason for proposing companions is to have some guiding narrative for the reader to follow. That's about addressing the dialectics of jump discontinued or mistrued concepts arising in the text between individuals reading it.

Generally speaking, commentaries and companions are a bad idea in reading groups. Whoever takes part in a reading group should work through the original along with everyone else, and only consult the secondary literature occasionally, to supplement and clarify the reading.

If you're not willing to properly take part in a reading group, why would you think it okay to ask the people who are doing the work to do it in a way that suits you?

Generally speaking, commentaries and companions are a bad idea in reading groups. Whoever takes part in a reading group should work through the original along with everyone else, and only consult the secondary literature occasionally, to supplement and clarify the reading.

If you're not willing to properly take part in a reading group, why would you think it okay to ask the people who are doing the work to do it in a way that suits you? — jamalrob

I think Kierkegaard would be an exception. He himself warned against analyzing snippets of his writings. His use of pseudonyms, his occasionally rhythmic sermonizing, that there is a jargon that emerges over the course of his whole body of work, all these are reasons not to take it as some logical exposition that you can absorb one simple sentence at a time.

A companion is a good idea in this case.

You make a good case for companions or commentaries for help and guidance with Kierkegaard, but not so much for using one as the central, required, text in a reading group. Doesn't it make more sense for each member to use secondary work of their own choosing and use that to help them interpret the primary source before posting in the group?

Anyway, I'll butt out now: the participants can decide for themselves.

Doesn't it make more sense for each member to use secondary work of their own choosing and use that to help them interpret the primary source before posting in the group?

Anyway, I'll butt out now: the participants can decide for themselves. — jamalrob

Please don't butt out. I think this kind of thread about reading a philosophical text needs a bit of your common sense. As does the structure, content and process of any particular study group.
Any group will have members of varying competencies and perspectives.

Let's imagine that a book is being read by an amateur. How to proceed ?
----------
Short extract from:
https://existentialcomics.com/blog/1/How_to_study_philosophy_as_an_amateur

" Below I've listed many of the major works of philosophy, from those that require a lot of context to understand, to those that require very little. In addition, I've noted how difficult the texts might be for an amateur, which other philosophers you should be familiar with beforehand, and included a brief overview....

Works which assume some prior knowledge:

Kierkegaard generally works in the background of Hegelian thought, and Either/Or was the easiest work by Kierkegaard for me to understand. He can be very difficult to interpret, even for the experts, so going through secondary sources beforehand is immensely helpful.

Online General philosophy resources.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
My number one resource when I'm trying to better understand something I'm reading, or get an overview of something I'm unfamiliar with. It is written by professional philosophers, and the quality and depth far outshines Wikipedia...

...YouTube might have the most philosophical content of any single platform in the history of the world.

My process often starts with YouTube, then SEP, then podcasts, then reading primary material.

In closing, don't be an idiot who thinks you already know it all, or you will be destined to remain an idiot who thinks you already know it all."
----------

I reckon first rule of book skool would be:
Enthusiastic, Committed, Knowledgeable leader(s) who can keep things on track with an end view.

I, for one, do not appreciate the concept of ongoingness; stretching a single thread to eternity.
To avoid this:
Sensible Guidelines from the TPF admin and mods would be most welcome.

Hi, I'm with you 100% about YouTube. I don't believe in reading alone, I think it's the worst way to learn anything.

I like to assemble furniture, it helps me with my mind, I'm diagnosed bipolar. That's one instance where I find reading useful. But that's more about following directions, there is kinesthetic learning involved with that.

Watching and listening a YouTube video in my opinion is dramatically better than reading.

I copied out by hand a book by a philosopher: God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. He's a contributor here, Dfpolis. I transcribed 63 of 67 of his videos too, Open Philosophy, Dfpolis on YouTube.

Philosophy seems like the easiest thing in the world to me, I missed it because no one had ever taught me how to think properly. "Is this something I'm experiencing, is it an ongoing truth, or is it something else?"

In eleven years online I've seldom come across anyone who treats me as an end in of myself. The leaders of the groups all seem to come with an agenda that does not favor people, again, that's just my opinion.

I'm not much on sticking to rules, having mods & "leaders" curating my speech. Prior restraint is roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. God that last bit from the movie, The Big Lebowski. I like stretching into eternity.

Hi, I'm with you 100% about YouTube. — Daniel Cox

To be clear, the comment re the book study process starting with YouTube was part of the quote from
https://existentialcomics.com/blog/1/How_to_study_philosophy_as_an_amateur

I bolded it, though :wink:

I think everyone has their own preferred method and it need not be the same from one philosopher to another. So many ways...

Looking for people to talk to I just thought about making a post contrasting modern, analytic philosophy with Aristotelian intentional logic.

I don't believe that there are many ways. One way, the right way. Just talking to you out of loneliness until I make the post. Instantly everyone who checks for the most recent activity, how I found you, will begin tagging me! YAY!!

One philosophical way.

Dfpolis: Yes, this is the problem with the hypothetico-deductive method. In science we encounter this problem all the time, multiple theories make the same prediction so it's hard to tell what an experiment is confirming since it confirms multiple theories, but I've not proposed a hypothetical argument I've proposed a deductive argument. So, the shortcomings of the hypothetico-deductive method, the scientific method, are completely irrelevant of the deductive argument that I and others have made. As for any individual religions I don't think that any individual religion that I know of proposes that it be accepted on the basis of the hypothetico-deductive method. It's completely irrelevant to the acceptance of religion to the grammar of assent. - Dfpolis R-9 Have Reason, Will Travel (a response video to theatheistpaladin).

Philosophy in my mind is different than the hypothetico-deductive method. Philosophy for me is like unconditional love, the love of 1 Corinthians 13, there's only one way to do it.

This is my second week (?) and you're right about the long stretching comments, threads. For me today philosophy is the simplest thing in the world. One way. I do enjoy the fellowship most of all and then the myriad of ways.

I'm not much on sticking to rules, having mods & "leaders" curating my speech. — Daniel Cox

Was this in response to my:

I, for one, do not appreciate the concept of ongoingness; stretching a single thread to eternity.
To avoid this:
Sensible Guidelines from the TPF admin and mods would be most welcome. — Amity

I too like an open spirit of easy conversation. However, when it comes to a close reading of a philosophy book, then I think some structure helps progress an understanding of the ideas - as opposed to everyone arguing amongst themselves and talking past each other.

However, flexibility is also important - that's why I stated the need for a certain type of leader...
There has to be someone who ain't quite a dictator.

We're 100% in agreement.

One of my favorite sermons is by Joel Osteen, "The King is Looking For You." IT's the bible story of King David and Jonathan's son Mephibosheth. In that story above all others I see David as King, a leader, not a dictator. Joel really sells it.

Let's imagine that a book is being read by an amateur. How to proceed ? — Amity

This is an interesting question. Generally when someone asks me what to read in philosophy I find it difficult to give a good answer. Reading on your own if very different than reading with a competent teacher. In the absence of a teacher, secondary sources can fill that role. The problem is that in both cases we may become reliant on the opinions of the teacher or secondary source. We may come to see the book through their eyes. Adding additional secondary materials may counteract this, but this may also lead to greater confusion since the secondary sources do not agree with each other.

With some exceptions the philosophers are not interested in providing answers but in teaching us to think for ourselves by forcing us to think along with them if we are to understand them. Secondary sources may help but are too often used as source of answers that are parroted. Of course the philosophers themselves may be parroted.

With this in mind:

No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me. — Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

Secondary sources may help but are too often used as source of answers that are parroted. Of course the philosophers themselves may be parroted.

With this in mind:
No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.
— Wittgenstein, Culture and Value — Fooloso4

Strangely enough, given my Ongoing lack of interest in Wittgenstein, and total bemusement with the current TPF diiscussion threads, I have been motivated to order this very book !

The problem is [...] we may become reliant on the opinions of the teacher or secondary source. We may come to see the book through their eyes. — Fooloso4

That is a problem that can be overcome by being aware of its very possibility.
I would hope to have enough sense to be able to read a book bringing my own self and background to it, whilst also taking into account the views and suggestions of others. But then again...

Kierkegaard does for Christianity what Freud does for the Greek myths; as the Greek gods are many, so, to compensate for the unity of the Trinity, there are many Kierkegaards - discuss.

YouTube — Daniel Cox

Which made me think at once to read Kierkegaard as Jordan Peterson's secret crib-sheet.

I vote for Fear and Trembling, but am open to whatever, but let's choose something because the debate about what to choose and how to choose will likely go on for pages if we let it.

Can we read something by Jordan Peterson because I haven't and I'm curious?

Watching and listening a YouTube video in my opinion is dramatically better than reading. — Daniel Cox

Enjoy:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4960/bryan-magee-videos-on-youtube

Regarding the ism about how reading groups ought to go about. I suppose we can borrow the template from how MOOC's (really, the future of education for the poor) are conducted.

I have no bounty on my head here, so progress as desired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

Kierkegaard does for Christianity what Freud does for the Greek myths; as the Greek gods are many, so, to compensate for the unity of the Trinity, there are many Kierkegaards - discuss. — unenlightened

That is an interesting comparison. As a matter of translation, Kierkegaard was arguing for less of a summary than Freud did. Kierkegaard's often repeated complaint that Hegel got ahead of himself involved using the language of progress in a sarcastic way. That is not a register self identified psychologists employ.

Let's pause for a moment and agree to disagree I suppose?

If you're not willing to properly take part in a reading group, why would you think it okay to ask the people who are doing the work to do it in a way that suits you? — jamalrob

Please define PROPERLY, here.

Regarding the ism about how reading groups ought to go about. I suppose we can borrow the template from how MOOC's (really, the future of education for the poor) are conducted.

I have no bounty on my head here, so progress as desired. — Wallows

What do you mean by 'the ism' ?

Regarding free online education incorporating various media for reading, thinking, sharing, understanding, enjoying self progress, there is so much out there. You can test or taste to your heart's content or delight.

Consider just one example which sees learning as a way of life via interdisciplinary connections.
Yale.

[ This kinda ties in with your thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5669/has-progress-been-made-how-to-measure-it
I enjoyed Fooloso4's contribution:
'In my opinion, the only progress that can be made in philosophy is personal progress.' ]

Yale University

' For more than 300 years, Yale University has inspired the minds that inspire the world.
Based in New Haven, Connecticut, Yale brings people and ideas together for positive
impact around the globe. A research university that focuses on students and encourages learning as an essential way of life, Yale is a place for connection, creativity, and innovation among cultures and across disciplines.'

https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114

Also uses the Coursera platform where you can have free access as an auditor.
So, here is another potential learning experience which apparently integrates philosophy with religion, science...across disciplines.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/journey-of-the-universe/lecture/rTjAe/tucker-and-grim-cultural-cosmology-and-scientific-cosmology

https://www.journeyoftheuniverse.org

Wallows, thanks for your continuing inspiration.
When under a degree of control, it's not all bullshit :wink:

That is not a register self identified psychologists employ. — Valentinus

I think that is why I wasn't completely serious. With my hard hat on, I would have to say that Freud did nothing for the gods, rather he made them work for him, whereas Kierkegaard at least purports to be doing everything for his God.