What Are You Reading

Ken Binmore’s Game Theory and the Social Contract. Pretty interesting stuff.

I’m not a Tillich fan in the least, although I’ve only read a smattering of his writings – and long before I was really versed at all in German Idealism.

Regarding Heidegger, I have the Stambaugh translation as well. I keep meaning to pick up the Macquarrie translation but somehow never get around to buying it. That said I think with Heidegger you often have to just accept that no translation will be satisfactory. They all kind of twist terms a bit – this was partially the point of that Sheehan paper I linked to on the sidebar a few weeks back. Most of the terms end up being misleading and distorting and, in some cases, turn one to a kind of word play that is unfortunate. There’s far less going on than any translation makes it appear. The key (IMO) to reading Heidegger is to read him as doing phenomenology. Then you conduct the phenomenological “experiments” yourself. That is read him to figure things out yourself about the world rather than about Heidegger. Do that and even if you get a few things wrong you’ll get more things right than the typical reader gets.

So while there are some places where Stambaugh was definitely hard to figure out, when I threw in a few commentaries and then tried to read it in terms of what Heidegger was getting at rather than the nuance of his prose everything made sense. And in some places, as awkward as Sambaugh was, Heidegger’s argument made more sense than in the Macquarrie translation.

I’ll check out that Hardy book. I’m still behind on my Mormon reading. I finished the Greg Prince book finally. While it was interesting, I didn’t like it nearly as much as when I’d started it. I have the Mountain Meadows Massacre book to go as well.

Marion’s an other one like Hegel and Badiou I ought read more of. I’ve read several papers of his. Including his debate with Derrida. I get what he’s getting at. But I don’t like him nearly as much as everyone else seems to. (Maybe it’s because he makes too much of the phenomenology into religion?)

I need to write up some posts on Kierkegaard and let folks attack me on it. I just don’t get all the Kierkegaard love everyone has.

Jeff, is that tying Game Theory to Hobbes? That would be interesting. I like game theory a lot but I tend to think it gets overplayed a lot as well.

I’ve never read any Givens. One day I need to reconcile that.

Hey Clark, I have to say that I was excited to see that you’re reading Solomon’s book on Hegel’s Phenomenologyz. It is, unlike every other book I’ve ever read on or by Hegel, really fun. It’s inspiring, even. I wouldn’t have read any of the unfun stuff if I hadn’t read Solomon’s book first. Plus it’s really informative and provides what amounts to a pretty nice key to the cipher that is Hegel’s terminology. I had to read the Phenomenology for a class before I found Solomon’s key, and it was a struggle.

Let’s see, I am reading Tom McCarthy’s Men in Space, which is also fun (and odd), McDowell’s Mind and World, and I just started working on Cavell’s The Claim of Reason.

Right now I am reading:

-Sophie’s World by Gostein Gaarder (easy reading; quite enjoyable)

-History of the Concept of Time – 1925 lecture course by Heidegger (quite good from what I have read)

-The Embodied Mind – Rosch, Varella, Thompson (classic)

-Tool-Being – Graham Harman (Interesting, but I am very skeptical)

-Political Affect – John Protevi

-Why Atheism? – George H. Smith

As you can see, I always have too many books going at any given time.

Gary, I’m curious as to whether you think Harman gets Heidegger’s Fourfold right in Tool-Being. That’s always been reasonably mysterious to me but Harman thinks it’s really what Heidegger was getting at. (I’ve always taken it more as a kind of riff on Aristotle’s four kinds of causes)

Ben, you made it through Quicksilver? I tried but gave up about 2/3 of the way through. Cryptonomicom is one of my all time favorite books but his recent stuff has been hard slogging for me.

Oh, oh, I love The Varieties of Religious Experience, but then I’m a huge fan of James in general.

Also, I meant to say something about Kierkegaard. There are a lot of reasons I like Kierkegaard, not the least of which is his psychological insight (something that philosophers have tended to be lacking in, with a few notable exceptions like Nietzsche), but also because I think his stages are a powerful tool for life, as is his discussion of willing one thing. But I think the reason he’s as popular as he is has less to do with his philosophy than with his writing, which is exceptionally beautiful, especially in Either/Or (and in that work, particularly the Diapsalmata, the discussion of the erotic, “Rotation of Crops,” and the “Seducer’s Diary”). It’s really some of my favorite writing ever, and I’ve spoken to many philosophers, writers, and even scientists who have no real affinity for Kierkegaard’s philosophy but who love reading him anyway.

You remind me of how little I’ve read over the last year. Pretty pathetic. At the moment I’m making my way through Ramond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah.

“I need to write up some posts on Kierkegaard and let folks attack me on it. I just don’t get all the Kierkegaard love everyone has.”

I’m looking forward to these posts. I certainly don’t think Kierkegaard has the final word on everything. However, (and I’m not accusing you of this) if one’s position is that a certain thinker has nothing of significance to say on any subject whatsoever, this view is shortsighted to say the least, especially concerning thinkers that have staying power over such long periods of time. My personal experience has been that when I am dismissive of a particular thinker it’s usually because I have fully understood him/her. I’ve found this to be the case most recently with Hegel, who has come up numerous times in my Tillich and Heidegger classes. This hasn’t led to wholesale agreement with Hegel’s thought in general but I have seen him in a new light and I’ve had to reconsider former perceptions of him. FWIW.

Jacob, I think he has something significant to say. I just think it’s wrong.

I should add that I think one can appropriate his thought for other uses although one certainly transforms it extensively when you do that. Heidegger for instance appropriates Kierkegaard quite a bit. You can see this in places like his discussion of angst among many other places. I just think Heidegger transforms Kierkegaard’s thought at least as much as he transforms Aristotle or Kant – both of whom are at least as influential on him.

What actually clicked for me on Saturday during Blake’s presentation was the issue of externalism in Heidegger. (See, for instance, this post from a few weeks back) I think that Kierkegaard’s view is essentially wrapped up in a kind of internalist conception that makes Blake’s discussion problematic for me. But… Well, that’ll have to wait for the future post.

That’s fair Jacob. I haven’t found him as interesting on religion but that may just be my highly materialist biases showing. (Or maybe I just haven’t read the right text)

I’m glad you brought up fideism Martin as I just can’t understand how Mormons reconcile that to our religion.

With regards to James epistemology I think Peirce is actually helpful there. James has pretty much a similar conception but doesn’t always phrase it well. So many read James as espousing a short term utility conception of truth when that’s just not the case. I am thinking, if I get a moment, to write a paper for Element on Peirce and Mormon epistemology as I think he offers a great deal there.

Hopefully you comment on the post I’m working on then. I value the feedback. As you know I much prefer to be wrong than right since if I’m wrong at least then I’ve learned something.

Lama Tsong Khapa, Ocean of Reasoning
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, Ruling Your World
Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness
Lama Zopa Rinpoche, The Bliss of Inner Fire
H.H. the Dalai Lama, Illuminating the Path to Enlightenment

I guess it isn’t quite “public knowledge” yet, but I’ve become a practicing Buddhist. As much as I have respect for the Church and for the great nuance and realm of possibilities for LDS doctrine, it was never a very good fit. I never felt like I fit in (i.e. there wasn’t much resonance, in addition to my issues with LDS culture) and it never seemed to provide the comfort, peace, and help that I needed in various parts of my life, even with diligent effort in following the “fundamentals” (read scriptures, pray, fast, etc.).

Buddhism seems to be one of the most coherent “worldviews” out there and, while I don’t accept reincarnation and chakras (among a few other things), it has really opened me up to truly living, rather than always being afraid, being overly self-critical (really self-hatred), etc. It has truly transformed my life on many levels: I’m more at peace, have more confidence, am more willing to take healthy risks, am more open to friends and family, am happier and more joyful, in short, having most of the qualities that are said to be the “fruits of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-23). And, yes, I find the philosophy to be fascinating and an accurate description of the human condition (which has always been my primary philosophical focus). So, it is for research, personal enjoyment, and “religious” practice (there is a lot of fun debate on whether Buddhism is really a “religion”).

So, yeah, that’s about it. :o)

I didn’t realize that Kevin. As Christine said, we’ll miss you. But clearly there are many affinities between Buddhism and Mormonism. Indeed of late it seems like Buddhism has been discussed on LDS-Herm nearly as much as formal Mormonism. That’s partially because of Adam’s own work, which I’ve enjoyed reading. Of course he also pointed out just what it is about Buddhist philosophers that gets to me: too many lists! (grin)

More seriously though while I don’t find the intellectual engagement by philosophers with Buddhism interesting I find Buddhist practice, especially in Zen, very helpful. (Which obviously goes beyond meditative practices) To me it is very conducive to my personality but also well in tune with the basic optimism of Mormonism.

One thing I’ve found in my own life is that especially in my late 20′s when still single that the social aspects of Mormonism were more trying. So I think many people go through a bit of a struggle there – although I’m sure the details vary from person to person. However I also found that the things that were most important to me stayed with me and kept me close. Once I settled down, married, and had kids, I think I found that the social aspects of the church somehow became much less significant. Whether that was just how I viewed others changed, whether I just had my social needs met, or something else I can’t say. But I hope you’ll continue at least your philosophical engagement here and elsewhere.

Interesting. I loved Tipler’s textbooks. (I still think it the best Freshman physics text – and I’ve read a lot) His more philosophical works I have to admit I had a lot of trouble with.

Well if you are interested LDS-Herm is actually doing a reading club on the teachings of the Buddha. There are several people online who have done a lot with Mormon/Buddhist parallels (such as Adam Miller). I don’t have time to add yet an other book to my reading list but will follow the discussion with interest. You can subscribe via Google Groups. There’s a lot of great folks in the discussions including Mark Wrathall, Jim Faulconer, Adam Miller and more.

Sorry, I put the wrong link in the above. Try this one. You have to join Google Groups in general first (i.e. have a GMail account)