What are you currently reading?

[AnotherSpin]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

See how easy that was?

No doubt about it. The less one understands, the easier it looks

[Todd]

Putin is probably one of Orwell's most diligent readers. At least he knows perfectly well how to disguise a lie as truth, dissolving the latter into the former.

What?

[LKB]

No doubt about it. The less one understands, the easier it looks

I'm fairly well acquainted with him, since the 1970's. I think l have a reasonably good bead on the guy, and his contributions to quantum physics are unquestionable.

But like more than a few " deep thinkers ", his explorations into other disciplines ( such as philosophy, in his case ) tend to be superficial.

The cat in the box was pretty good, though.

[AnotherSpin]

I'm fairly well acquainted with him, since the 1970's. I think l have a reasonably good bead on the guy, and his contributions to quantum physics are unquestionable.

But like more than a few " deep thinkers ", his explorations into other disciplines ( such as philosophy, in his case ) tend to be superficial.

The cat in the box was pretty good, though.

It seemed to me that in this part Schrödinger overlaps quite closely with the understanding of Self (Atman) in Vedanta. If one looks at it from this angle, one can see the limitations of the Western type of thinking.

[Florestan]

"Consider these four questions, which cannot, as a whole, be satisfactorily answered with any combination of 'yes' and 'no', but rather lead one on in an endless circle.
    (1) Does there exist a Self?
    (2) Does there exist a world outside Self?
    (3) Does this Self cease with bodily death?
    (4) Does the world cease with my bodily death?"

(1) Yes
(2) Yes
(3) No
(4) No

Easy-peasy indeed.

[Florestan]

like more than a few " deep thinkers ", his explorations into other disciplines ( such as philosophy, in his case ) tend to be superficial.

Amen, brother! High competence and skills in a scientific field do not in any way guarantee knowledge (let alone wisdom) about life and death. An illiterate peasant might be more experienced in this respect than all the Nobel Prizes in Physics combined. 

[AnotherSpin]

Amen, brother! High competence and skills in a scientific field do not in any way guarantee knowledge (let alone wisdom) about life and death. An illiterate peasant might be more experienced in this respect than all the Nobel Prizes in Physics combined. 

You're not seriously suggesting that Schrödinger had a harder time answering questions about life and death than forum members, are you? The book is freely available online, and the author explains quite succinctly why a yes or no answer to each of the four points is not definitive. I see another problem here though - the inability of the intellect to grasp the obvious

[Florestan]

You're not seriously suggesting that Schrödinger had a harder time answering questions about life and death than forum members, are you?

What I'm suggesting is that forum members, or any common person for that matter, are just as competent to answer questions about life and death as Schroedinger, or any other famous scientist for that matter. High competence in physics does not translate into any special competence in answering those questions.

[AnotherSpin]

What I'm suggesting is that forum members, or any common person for that matter, are just as competent to answer questions about life and death as Schroedinger, or any other famous scientist for that matter. High competence in physics does not translate into any special competence in answering those questions.

Of course, everyone tends to believe their own answers to any questions, including those formulated by Schrödinger. It is most natural and unobjectionable. Nevertheless I was a little surprised at the attempts not just to simplify the issue, but to bring it to absurdity. After all, one does not need to be a great scientist to assume at least that these questions do not imply simple definitive answers.

For instance, the existence of Self in the sense that Sch. is talking about is not obvious to most people. Self and self are not the same thing here, more, Self is not a thing at all..

[vers la flamme]

I'll be the first to admit my almost total ignorance in philosophy but this book was an absolute pleasure to read.

I finished War and Peace over the weekend—I must admit, to AnotherSpin's credit, that the book became substantially more serious in tone in its second half. Regardless it was an absolute pleasure to read, and I can't wait to read it again, perhaps in a different translation.

[AnotherSpin]

I'll be the first to admit my almost total ignorance in philosophy but this book was an absolute pleasure to read.

I finished War and Peace over the weekend—I must admit, to AnotherSpin's credit, that the book became substantially more serious in tone in its second half. Regardless it was an absolute pleasure to read, and I can't wait to read it again, perhaps in a different translation.

Besides philosophy, Plato texts are good literature.

It is difficult for me to decide what Tolstoy is like in translations. I don't want to tease, but his Russian is simply magical, no other Russian writer has used the language with such power. I can only mention that Tolstoy at the end of his life studied Greek and took up Hebrew. He wanted to read Bible without translation.

[vers la flamme]

Besides philosophy, Plato texts are good literature.

This was my impression as well. The end of Phaedo where Socrates drinks the hemlock is quite dramatic, made me think that Plato could have been one of the great tragedians if he was not so busy philosophizing. I wonder if you have any recommendations of where to from here? This book contained Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, and amounts to all of the Plato I've ever read.

[AnotherSpin]

This was my impression as well. The end of Phaedo where Socrates drinks the hemlock is quite dramatic, made me think that Plato could have been one of the great tragedians if he was not so busy philosophizing. I wonder if you have any recommendations of where to from here? This book contained Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, and amounts to all of the Plato I've ever read.

It is difficult to single out something in particular. Plato's cycle is quite coherent. I've been fascinated by different works at different times. I am less interested in his political doctrines contained in the Republic, Laws, etc., but you can find interesting things there too.

[JBS]

This was my impression as well. The end of Phaedo where Socrates drinks the hemlock is quite dramatic, made me think that Plato could have been one of the great tragedians if he was not so busy philosophizing. I wonder if you have any recommendations of where to from here? This book contained Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, and amounts to all of the Plato I've ever read.

The Symposium is probably the next logical step in terms of literary atmosphere. Bonus: you get to see Aristophanes and Alcibiades having a good time (or at least, Plato's version of them).

Problem is, the ones you read are probably* the first ones he wrote, and he get more abstract in the later ones. But among those the Republic is probably the one to prioritize.

*I'm going by what I was taught as an undergrad. It's quite possible scholarly consensus has changed in the intervening 40 years.

[vers la flamme]

Thanks! Think I'll check out Symposium and Republic.

Today, I also started reading something that was a conspicuous gap in my knowledge: Homer's Odyssey. I went for the Robert Fagles translation, hearing that it was easy to read, and they weren't kidding; it's a breeze, quite easy to follow what's going on at all times. As for the story itself, it's not at all what I expected it to be. I'm enjoying it just as much as I'd hoped to, though not for the reasons I expected.



I haven't read the Iliad, either; hoping to get to that soon as well. I do realize I read them in the wrong order.

[AnotherSpin]

[LKB]

Thanks! Think I'll check out Symposium and Republic.

Today, I also started reading something that was a conspicuous gap in my knowledge: Homer's Odyssey. I went for the Robert Fagles translation, hearing that it was easy to read, and they weren't kidding; it's a breeze, quite easy to follow what's going on at all times. As for the story itself, it's not at all what I expected it to be. I'm enjoying it just as much as I'd hoped to, though not for the reasons I expected.



I haven't read the Iliad, either; hoping to get to that soon as well. I do realize I read them in the wrong order.

I've always found The Illiad much more involving than The Odyssey. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. 😉

[SimonNZ]

I've always found The Illiad much more involving than The Odyssey. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. 😉

+1

[Mandryka]

Thanks! Think I'll check out Symposium and Republic.

Today, I also started reading something that was a conspicuous gap in my knowledge: Homer's Odyssey. I went for the Robert Fagles translation, hearing that it was easy to read, and they weren't kidding; it's a breeze, quite easy to follow what's going on at all times. As for the story itself, it's not at all what I expected it to be. I'm enjoying it just as much as I'd hoped to, though not for the reasons I expected.



I haven't read the Iliad, either; hoping to get to that soon as well. I do realize I read them in the wrong order.

One thing I'd be interested to get your thoughts about is whether Odysseus's behaviour at the end, where he kills the suitors, is morally acceptable. Is Odysseus just a baddy?

Re Plato, Symposium's quite fun - especially when Alcibiades comes in and turfs the drunken Socrates out, and everyone enjoys Aristophenes's contribution. The Republic is a serious study, people spend their whole lives trying to make sense of it. I think Aristotle's Nichomachen Ethics is more accessible - and better philosophy too!

This is a good way in to Plato's Republic

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/platos-republic/9780231160162

The Illiad is very much like Blood Meridian - they're always hacking each other to bits. And Achilles is totally mad.

[Jo498]

The Odyssey is far more entertaining. The Iliad is mainly battle, lists of ships and shiny shields. or the Sack of Troy. There were more epic poems by unknown authors describing that stuff but they were lost at some stage.)

The killing of the suitors certainly seems an excess of revenge.
After all, they didn't touch Penelope and for the material damage (and some seduced/raped maidservants) compensation could have easily been paid. And afterwards the whole island threatens to fall into civil war because of the revenge from the suitor's families against Odysseus. But apparently honor demanded a violent ending.
And it admittedly makes a better story than negotiating in hexameters how many oxen, sheep or tripods should be given in compensation for years of feasting and bothering Penelope...