

Moderators: mogers, scorch-, Cory Cory! Price, laura






I don't know. I love philosophy more than any other topic, whether that's nonfiction or fiction. ZAMM is a nonfictional narrative tied into heavy philosophical concepts. History of Western Philosophy is just a review of western philosophy. I assume you've heard of Bertrand Russell, so you probably know what he's like at least somewhat.mg_ wrote:What specifically are you looking to read, Kirk?
On September 18, 2007, computer science professor Randy Pausch stepped in front of an audience of 400 people at Carnegie Mellon University to deliver a last lecture called “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams.” With slides of his CT scans beaming out to the audience, Randy told his audience about the cancer that is devouring his pancreas and that will claim his life in a matter of months. On the stage that day, Randy was youthful, energetic, handsome, often cheerfully, darkly funny. He seemed invincible. But this was a brief moment, as he himself acknowledged.
Randy’s lecture has become a phenomenon, as has the book he wrote based on the same principles, celebrating the dreams we all strive to make realities. Sadly, Randy lost his battle to pancreatic cancer on July 25th, 2008, but his legacy will continue to inspire us all, for generations to come.
[youtube]utYcFf93Srs&feature=related[/youtube]moosh wrote:Just finished:
I did not want it to end, but read it in days. Decided to re-visit a book i haven't read in a decade:
What kind of philosophical concepts come up, exactly? The books I'm reading are almost more essay-esque. Not really dancing around it; very blunt. "Here are the philosophical concepts we're going to be talking about," sort of stuff.mg_ wrote:You might like Philip K. Dick, he's a sci fi fantasy author, but it is heavy on the philosophy. He's pretty much the patriarch of legitimate sci fi fiction. The general rule in English is skip Huxley and read Dick. None of his characters are developed which is really interesting. You don't care for them at all, it's all about the other stuff really.
The Ask is just modern dark comedy. It was okay. Sam Lipsyte's Home Land is top 5 books of all time for me. I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10.
Bingham is a former Law Lord in the U.K. He does a fairly interesting and basic discussion into the concept behind the Rule of Law. It draws heavily on Raz.
The Castle of Otranto is like the pinnacle gothic horror novel. The writing style is somewhat hard to follow, but interesting nonetheless.
Which one should I look into first?mg_ wrote:Well, just read it. It is fiction, it won't be like that. It's only like a 135 pages or so.
Blade Runner is based on Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" A lot of it has to do with reality, perception, real, fake, humanism, and quite a bit of existentialism/post-modern thought thrown in.









now i see what youve been doing in the office everydaysevEN wrote:this book applys greatly to personal/romantic relationships and also your professional careers.
What are you... still in highschool?fghtffyrdmns wrote:
and

You just ruined the last few chapters for me.joeledmunds wrote:SPOILERS
He does go in the basement, but it all works out in the end.

My girlfriend recently read Blink and had good things to say about it.showtime wrote:[img]http://images.indiebound.com/930/017/97 ... 30.jpg[img]
Anything by Malcolm Gladwell is good


Not Nelly nor jelly. I wouldn't care a WHOLE lot about meeting scientists or empirical thinkers, despite me being a practitioner in empiricism and pursuing a career involving the scientific method. I'd much prefer to meet philosophers and those who have unbelievable wisdom. I had a professor who is probably one of the most thought-provoking and interesting people I will ever come across in my life. He taught theology and philosophy. Unbelievable man. Just the kind of people who I gravitate towards when trying to enlighten myself.Sears wrote:I've met both Malcolm Gladwell and Bill Bryson. Chill dudes.
[img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 79.png[img]
One of the reasons why I think he's amazing. He's not an armchair philosopher. He's participated in the publishing process dozens, if not hundreds of times, and he still spends most of his time traveling and getting out there.Rob wrote:Just put your head out the window and shout "Looking for a guest lecturer!"
Cornel West will show up at your front door in 10 minutes, guaranteed. He's more ubiquitous on the lecture/talk show circuit than Desmond Tutu was.
funny you said that, my favorite professor to date taught a chirstian philosophy course.alex kirk wrote:I had a professor who is probably one of the most thought-provoking and interesting people I will ever come across in my life. He taught theology and philosophy. Unbelievable man. Just the kind of people who I gravitate towards when trying to enlighten myself.
This guy was a major Christian, but on the opposite end of the spectrum as when people typically think of Bible-thumpers. I seriously think he was a Communist-hippie (definitely hippie, and definitely socialist in many matters). He's written a few books on the Christian moral imperative regarding the protection of the environment. Introduced me to Barbara Kingsolver. Knows everything about everything from mathematics to linguistics to religion to physics to philosophy. It'd be tough for people to not get along with him regardless of your beliefs/non-beliefs: he was all-accepting.Swiss wrote:funny you said that, my favorite professor to date taught a chirstian philosophy course.
he was a christian as well but conservative while interestingly enough coming to similar conclusions. hes also written one of the key textbooks on reason that they use around the nation. awesome seeing the christian stereotype broken. it seems he covered the same topics as your prof (we talked about a ton of physics, reason...etc) while coming to the conclusion that so many other philosophers want to avoid. its not just that they "cannot" know the truth (in a relativistic way), but that truth there is truth that should be found through other methods outside of "empiricism." talked a lot about thomas aquinas who was remarkably forward lookingalex kirk wrote:This guy was a major Christian, but on the opposite end of the spectrum as when people typically think of Bible-thumpers. I seriously think he was a Communist-hippie (definitely hippie, and definitely socialist in many matters). He's written a few books on the Christian moral imperative regarding the protection of the environment. Introduced me to Barbara Kingsolver. Knows everything about everything from mathematics to linguistics to religion to physics to philosophy. It'd be tough for people to not get along with him regardless of your beliefs/non-beliefs: he was all-accepting.Swiss wrote:funny you said that, my favorite professor to date taught a chirstian philosophy course.
Beyond book smarts, though, the guy was just wise. Those are the brains that attract me. The kind of people who can kind of see through the mass amounts of shit in life/society and nab the truth between the lines. They have a deeper and more fundamental understanding of the world and humanity as a whole. They aren't constrained by rational and empirical thought, they acknowledge that empiricism doesn't provide all the answers. Truly a genius in my mind.
This is where I branch off from Western philosophy and its adoration of rationality and merge to Eastern philosophy and its adoration of quality and goodness. There is an inexplicable nature to the truths behind Eastern philosophy.mg_ wrote:Truth outside of empiricism is the intellectual way of saying I don't have a good argument.
I like deconstructionism when applied to literature/art. Derrida's work is interesting, but I don't subscribe to it for everything.mg_ wrote:Zen is okay. I ready it a while ago. I just don't buy it.
It's a slipshod argument that ultimately underscores all metaphysical explanations of our world, and, ultimately what makes them all the same. Just not impressed, but it probably explains why I'm a nihilist to the nth degree and wish Derrida and Foucault had been my 2 gay dads.
What about empirical meaning? If people say we're here to reproduce and pass on our genetic material as intended by nature, would you disagree or agree?mg_ wrote:I don't believe in objective existence. So, we're all here, but meaning is definitely applied, and how that meaning is applied should be explored. Speaking of which, I should re-read On Grammatology.
Reality has far more to do with our preconceived notions than we're comfortable admitting to.