4/19    Any philosophy minors out there?  I'd like to figure out how to
        think without resorting to for statements and recursion.  Are
        there any good books to start off with, or any particular thinkers
        that you have enjoyed?  I took some ancient greek philosophy class
        for my AC, hated it with a passion, but I look back now and realize
        that I like knowing about Aristotle's (?) cave and Plato's idiotic
        Republic.  Anyway, I'm more interested in more modern thought now.
        Thanks.
        \_ It's not Aristotle's cave.  If you want to study laws of thought
           study logic, probability theory, and decision theory.
           Philosophy is very good to study, but not for that reason.
           \_ Well, I definitely want philosophy.  For whatever reason.
              Any good books?
              \_ While modern philosophy is interesting, it's difficult to put
                 it in a proper context without reading the greeks and
                 christian philosophers like Acquinas.  I would start there.
                 \- i dont think this is true in the case of Acquinas [sic].
                    the scholastics are a big detour. --psb
        \_ A related note.  Anybody watch West Wing?  The two times I saw it
           I heard the characters talk about John Rawls and a theory of
           justice and the veil of ignorance.  And also Immanuel Kant and
           a critique of pure reason.  I strongly doubt the average couch
           potato even knows what that means.  I'm wondering how the show can
           be a big hit if people don't even understand what they're talking
           about.
           \_ Note that "For whatever reason" above includes the West Wing.
              There's a middle ground b/w encouraging further investigation
              and talking down to viewers. -op
           \_ Ever watch Fraiser? You think think the average couch potato
              knows who der fliegende hollander is or who wrote the opera?
              Probably not. A show can be a hit despite the fact most of
              the content is way over the heads of the average fan.
                \_ hello psb. I know die fliegende and I even named your fav
                   aria from Mozart's Don Giovanni. -psb #2 fan you know
                   who I am
                \_ hello psb. I know die fliegende and I even named your
                   fav aria from Mozart's Don Giovanni. -psb #2 fan you
                   know who I am
                        \_ I'm not psb.
                           \- i think it is more important to take away
                              "tools and frameworks" in which to understand
                 \_ If you had pointy ears or an extremely pale
                    complextion with yellow contacts it would all
                    make sense to you.
              \_ puccini or donizetti?
                 \_ wagner
                 \_ wagner  \_ elixir or lucia?
                              the world [e.g. per ST2:TWoKhan, does the good
                              of the many *always* outweight the good of the
                              few?] and thoughtful answers to Big Questions
                              [like what do the Homeric Epics tell us about
                              "what is good in life?" or "what merits respect
                              or constitutes excellence?"] rather than getting
                              random cultural reference on tv. one is a game
                              the other is wisdom. --psb
              \_ Yeah, just look at Star Trek.  It's not only over
                 peoples heads, it's all total bullshit.
        \_ If you are interested in epistemology (how do we know what we
           know), you can check out the big hitters like Hume, Kant, and
           Wittgenstein, but they might be difficult to read without
           some instruction. Some modern philosophy of science would also
           be interesting, like Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
           Revolution. However, it seems that you are more interested in
           how to reason informally than epistemology. For that, I'd
           recommend a Rhetoric 1 textbook.
              \_ how about the metaphysics, epistimology, and logic of
                 kissing partha?
           \- with some trepidation about casting pearls ...
                  \- respectively, rawls: green monster and nozick: anarchy
                     state utopia, posner: econ analysis of law, hard one...
                     maybe laski or e.h. carr, kant: crit pur reason.
              if you give a specific example of some kinds of questions
              you are interested in ... "what is the philosophical basis
              of progressive taxation" "what kinds of contracts should not
              be legal" "what is the basis and limits of state soverignty"
              "is there a possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge" ...
              it will only then be possible to make recommendations beyond
              "start with plato". in other news, kant's birthday is next week
              and john rawls died quite recently. --psb
                     limits of philosophy, or something my michael sandel.
                  \- okay, let's assume those are the questions to be
                  asked. what do you recommend?
                  \- respectively, 1. rawls: green monster and nozick: anarchy
                     state utopia, 2. posner: econ analysis of law, 3.hmm...
                     maybe laski or e.h. carr ... hobbes locke and plato
                     of course are a given; 4. kant: crit pur reason.
                     but really you should ask your own questions.
                     i think you might be better off taking an econ1
                     type course. try reading the baulmol and blinder
                     econ textbook. or maybe take a philosophy class
                     at a community college. based on this conversation
                     you will not get through wittgenstein, hume, kant etc.
                     you might be better off reading someone modern who writes
                     in normal english ... maybe williams: ethics and the
                     limits of philosophy, or something by michael sandel.
                                                        --psb