jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) (09/29/84)
I wasn't involved in the input to the list of great philoso-bibs, but isn't Hegel missing? Or is he conspicuous ony in his absence? Granted, the guy got carried away and made an ass out of himself here and there, but for internal consistency his description of the universe is hard to beat. I know it's not popular to embrace Hegel (a bit ripe by now i would say), but consider that Marx, Nietchze, Kierkegaard, all the late 19th century biggies, were basically aligning themselves for or against Hegel. Consider the influence Hegel has had on the 20th century: the three branches of government are described by Hegel as the manifestation of what Frued would later call Id, Ego, and Super-Ego; Hegel stated that a just government must have this triumvirate balance. A third of the world, roughly, lives under governments structured a la Hegel, while another third lives underr governments structured a la Marx, whose early writings are primarily concerned with the idealism and lack of pragmatism in Hegel's works. For better or worse, the guy's a big number. A vote for the Begriffe is a vote for Universal Unity. Jim McCrae ...!hplabs!sytek!jtm
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/29/84)
> I wasn't involved in the input to the list of great philoso-bibs, > but isn't Hegel missing? Or is he conspicuous ony in his absence? I think the poster wanted books he or she could read. Kaufman (who is most well known for his translations of Nietzche), said that Hegel was better in English than German because it was impossible to structure such ponderous sentences in English. Be that as it may, it is possible that Hegel took many many words to say very little. It is better to read ABOUT Hegel than to try to read him directly. I read a book once called "Hegel, Kirkengaard, and Marx", which talked about the dialectic approaches each used. I lent it to a friend so I don't have the author at hand, sorry. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
horton@nmtvax.UUCP (10/01/84)
Just to put my two-cents worth in...
I sent mail to Greg Curry but for some ungodly reason, it didn't get
to him. So here is what I told him:
A few years ago, I took a philosophy course from a guy named Dr.
Bill Dragoin. (If any of you are behaviorists, then look for his name
in old periodicals. Ever hear of flavor-aversion? Many of us behaviorist-
types think Bill thought it up.) Anyway, Bill was one hell of a teacher,
and we had one hell of a textbook. The book was PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE ART OF WONDERING and it was written by James L. Christian. If you
are just getting into philosophy or want a good introductory book for
your personal library, then this is the book to get.
As for other material, check out PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, edited by
some guy named Loux (and some other guys). I just finished it and it
is a good mid-level philosophy book. It contains essays by different
philosphers (Locke, Hume, Marx, etc.) and is very informative.
Now, my personal preference of all philosophical topics is the
philosophy of technology and science, and since Greg did not have any
books on this, I will tell you all a good one. BROCA'S BRAIN by
Mr. Billyuns and Billyuns himself, Carl Sagan. It is a fun book to read.
Any flames, send 'em on. I love to eat fire!!!
Phil Horton
horton@nmtvaxjon@qusavx.UUCP (Jon Lewis) (10/05/84)
Unfortunately, I missed the list of all time great, mega-important, vitally significant philosophy tomes that I understand appeared on the net sometime during the two months we weren't polling. Does someone have a copy of this list? I should like very much to see it. Is it true that Hegel was absent? Were there any works of political philosophy (e.g. Gramsci or Lukacs) on it?
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (10/07/84)
<> >I wasn't involved in the input to the list of great philoso-bibs, >but isn't Hegel missing? Or is he conspicuous ony in his absence? >Granted, the guy got carried away and made an ass out of himself >here and there, but for internal consistency his description of >the universe is hard to beat. I know it's not popular to embrace >Hegel (a bit ripe by now i would say), but consider that Marx, >Nietchze, Kierkegaard, all the late 19th century biggies, were >basically aligning themselves for or against Hegel. Consider the > ......... > Jim McCrae ...!hplabs!sytek!jtm I missed the posting of the aforementioned list. Would someone be kind enough to mail me a copy. Thanks in advance. E. Hummel {ihnp4|allegra|cmcl2|...}!clyde!bonnie!emh