ok, post-breakfast-sandwich:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Well I think that is rather implied. What philosophy does not begin with a question? Philosophy, it seems to me, holds questions in a higher regard than questions. While this might frustrate less patient attentions, therein lies the love of wisdom.
|
i think you meant questions in higher regard than answers, i get it though. of course philosophy begins with questions. my point was that philosophy could begin not with reading the texts of its founders, but with a questioning of one's own circumstances-- which will eventually lead to the great-gramps.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Plato is exceptionally easy for me to read so I don't know why anyone would have a hard time. The questions dealt with, such as pinpointing the definitions of courage, justice, piety, or friendship, are eternal questions. I especially suggest beginning with the early Socratic dialogues as these famously aren't resolved by the end of the dialogues. Thus, the reader is forced to further reflect upon the reading. It fosters the internal dialectic, which I think Kierkegaard refers to but that is beside the point.
|
Yeah, part of the reason why it's very easy is because there are no references to previous philosophers that are necessary for its comprehension. Take Aristotle's Poetics (I know you said Plato, but still, I'm making the jump)-- he builds on the idea of what is tragedy purely on his own experience and that of people around him, and so it's a very accessible text, whereas reading Adorno's Aesthetic Theory requires a solid grounding on Hegel. So yes, Plato is a great place to start, but it's not the only one. It could start from anywhere that you can pose a question-- even a kid watching The Matrix and wondering what is real.
One of the problems of starting with Plato would be that you're confined to the questions that he asks-- e.g. what is courage, piety, friendship, etc.-- while you in your own circumstance could be looking at what is your place in the environment or what to do in the face of impending nuclear annihilation, or what are the politics of late-capitalist societies, or what should we do about genetic engineering, which are modern questions Plato had no access to. In that sense then, an introduction to philosophy based on the classics could prove too academic for someone interested in vital, pressing questions that are not included in those texts (not to say there are no vital pressing questions there-- just that we have some new ones).
In that sense, I prefer the "here and now" approach to the historical one, at least at the introductory level. Not saying that there is no place for a chronological approach, but that there is more than one entrance to the thing, and that's something Skuj might be interested in.
Speaking of which, there's this little magazine that migh interest him-- very down to earth, very accessible, kinda like New Scientist:
http://www.philosophynow.org/
I got some copies as a present some years ago, and maybe I should get a subscription...