Higher Level Philosophical Studies

[Guest ASelameab]

The word that I have singled out in bold makes all the difference here. Please take what I say in the most positive way possible, but if your study of subjects is anything like your study of Ancient Greece, then what you've been doing is not "learning what has been already said and done".

There's a very big difference between studying a subject, and becoming a consummate expert in it, and I am in no way advocating that you do the latter for all of the subjects you've shown interest in.....

No, I understand what you are saying completely. Something just clicked in my mind when I read both yours and BL's post. I need to be a philosopher. I am not ready for anything higher. I have a lot to learn - there is a lot of Aristotle, Rand, Peikoff, etc. that I could spend time with. Once I have read or learned all that I can possibly learn from these giants, I can start to expand philosophy on my own. Thanks a lot for your help.

[Ed from OC 0]

It could be a problem if the list isn't tied to man's nature; it runs the risk of being aribitary. I get suspicious when I hear things like that. Then again, I haven't read the book, so this isn't a definitive statement.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is not merely a list of virtues. There is an identification of specific virtues, yes, but the work as a whole is a well-thought-out ethical treatise spanning 300 pages. My favorite philosophy class in college was one that spent one week on each book within the treatise -- and I think the class went by pretty quickly; we could have spent twice the amount of time on just this book. The bottom line is that there is a lot of gold in it if one is willing to dig for it. A cursory, first-order pass over the material will give you a general idea of what Aristotle had to say, but there are a lot of details worth examining.

Furthermore, where Aristotle and Ayn Rand part ways in their ethical views, the contrast casts further illumination on Rand's views. It is interesting, also, that in the entire span of western philosophy, only four philosophers have views on ethics that even come close to being egoistic: Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand. I submit that understanding the differences between their views would enhance one's own knowledge of the Objectivst ethics, from a historical perspective as well as a philosophical one.

[JRoberts 0]

Furthermore, where Aristotle and Ayn Rand part ways in their ethical views, the contrast casts further illumination on Rand's views.  It is interesting, also, that in the entire span of western philosophy, only four philosophers have views on ethics that even come close to being egoistic: Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.  I submit that understanding the differences between their views would enhance one's own knowledge of the Objectivst ethics, from a historical perspective as well as a philosophical one.

←

Would you mind explaining to me where Aristotle and Ayn Rand part ways in their ethical views (possibly create a new thread)?

[Free Capitalist 0]

There's a very big difference between studying a subject, and becoming a consummate expert in it ...

... I need to be a philosopher.

I am not sure how you made that leap, from anything said in this thread, especially when I explicitly noted that to study something is not equivalent to attempt to become an expert at it. The latter course is rarely necessary, unless for one's CPL (as defined by Burgess), but the former course is usually necessary for all or most important subjects in life. So just because it may be a good idea to go over some philosophical works in detail and absorb them on a deep level, it does not automatically follow that you should be a philosopher. Philosophers do things like study intricate differences between many major philosophies throughout history, and know by name all of the major issues and problems/conflicts in history of philosophy. Although that's not all they do, that is a part of what philosophers do, and personally while I am confident about my understanding of philosophy, I find the tasks of a professional philosopher rather daunting, and prefer to leave them to someone else.

So remember, I specifically outlined that there's a difference between simply studying something on a deep level, and attempting to become a full expert on it. No need to jump from flavor-oriented reading to attempting to become a full-fledged philosopher yourself (unless it is your CPL, and thus comes in conflict with your intention of being a lawyer).

[Guest ASelameab]

I am not sure how you made that leap, from anything said in this thread....

I don't mean literally. I mean more in the sense that I need to think as if I were a philosopher. I need to explore ideas as if I were going to write a paper on them.

[Guest ASelameab]

FC, I got it from:

To push philosophy forward, means to be a philosopher -- whether as a primary philosopher (like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Rand) or as a secondary philosopher (like Speusippus, Theophrastus, Kierkegaard, and Leonard Peikoff).

Your approach here is correct. It does pay to learn what some past philosophers have said about the particular philosophical problem that fascinates you. (If they all fascinate you, then you are a philosopher, as Ragnar was.)

[JRoberts 0]

I don't mean literally. I mean more in the sense that I need to think as if I were a philosopher. I need to explore ideas as if I were going to write a paper on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have honestly found this method very useful. I usually will read something, and then write about it. This helps me explore further avenues, consolidate my learning, etc. You don't even have to share; if you want, they could all be private. But, I'm sure the public will enjoy them too. There is quite an active network of Objectivist Bloggers who write on a multitude of subjects (not all just current events).

Blogging (both in public and private mode) I have found to be one of the most rewarding and enriching experiences of my life. If you are interested, I'd be more than glad to help you set one up. You may PM me, or email me at HomerReborn@Gmail.com

[SCS 0]

If you are interested in philosophy of law, Adam Mossoff (from THE FORUM's Ask the Experts) has a number of law reviews which you can download here. (You do have to register first - for free). His writing is very clear, his subject matter is always interesting, and I have found his analysis of intellectual property to be very enlightening.

[Ed from OC 0]

Would you mind explaining to me where Aristotle and Ayn Rand part ways in their ethical views (possibly create a new thread)?

←

That's not an easy task. There are differences in method, focus, scope, and content.

Although I haven't listened to it, Greg Salmieri's course "Aristotle as Ethicist" probably answers your question. The description from the Ayn Rand Bookstore:

"Objectivists often find Aristotle's ethics surprisingly mixed. He held that the "moral man is a lover of self" who lives for his own happiness, but he also endorsed slavery. He maintained that the human good is to live in accordance with reason, but he thought that ethics was an inexact science. He saw pride as "the crown of the virtues," but recognized no virtue in making money. In this course Mr. Salmieri surveys the essential content of Aristotle's ethics with a focus on his methodology, making frequent comparisons to Ayn Rand. We see how Aristotle approaches ethics inductively, and how this orientation leads him to grasp important truths. We also examine why he nonetheless falls into significant errors. Throughout the course we draw lessons for our own thinking from Aristotle's example. The course has no prerequisites, but advanced students will appreciate integrations with Ayn Rand's intellectual development and Dr. Peikoff's Objectivism Through Induction."

[Guest ASelameab]

Here is a final summary of what I have learned, taken from my website:

My participation of the FORUM for Ayn Rand’s Fans (specifically here) has taught me an important idea. Reading ought serve the basis of fulfilling one’s CPL, or Central Purpose in Life. Reading is the acquisition of knowledge; and the accumulation of said knowledge ought to build the context for some value. For instance, if one is interested in physics, then reading extensively on the subject is necessary to understand new achievements and their contexts. A value needn’t exclusively apply to one’s profession; values must be one of two things - primary or secondary. “Primary” I take to mean goals in one’s life which define one’s CPL; goals which are fundamental and which make up the sum of one’s happiness. “Secondary” I take to mean values which support the primary values; ex. reading philosophy to better one’s thinking. Most of the reading we do falls into the latter category.

The following is a list of reading goals I intend to embark on.

Primary Source Writers from Ancient Greece - Aristotle, Plato, Homer, etc.

Philosophy - “History of” and texts (”A History of Western Philosophy” by W.T. Jones, “An Introduction to Logic”, by H. W. B. Joseph, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Ayn Rand, Aristotle)

Physics -Speicher’s explanation of TEW (found here), “The Meaning of Quantum Theory”, by Jim Baggott, and some Feynman.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

May I be so bold as to ask, why are you leaving Rome out of your studies?

[Guest ASelameab]

May I be so bold as to ask, why are you leaving Rome out of your studies?

←

I haven't really thought of studying Rome. Sell the idea to me, if I may be so bold to ask.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

I haven't really thought of studying Rome. Sell the idea to me, if I may be so bold to ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rome helped to give birth to the modern system of laws, not to mention modern Government. In the Roman world you will find some of greatest philosophers, lawyers, generals, and politicians of the ancient world. Ranging from Cicero, to Cato, to Senneca, to Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger. People such as Plutarch and Polybius (Greeks) lived not under greek rule but Roman rule.

It just seems odd to me that you would leave out the nation that spread greek culture to the far reaches of the known world.

[JRoberts 0]

Rome helped to give birth to the modern system of laws, not to mention modern Government. In the Roman world you will find some of greatest philosophers, lawyers, generals, and politicians of the ancient world. Ranging from Cicero, to Cato, to Senneca, to Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger. People such as Plutarch and Polybius (Greeks) lived not under greek rule but Roman rule.

It just seems odd to me that you would leave out the nation that spread greek culture to the far reaches of the known world.

←

Not only that. Rome would appeal to your sense of heroism. Rome not only has a large number of virtuous men and women, but it also displays a virtuous society. These might very well interest you (later on).

But as Nathan Hale 1775 pointed out, if your interest is Law, then Rome would be a great place to start. Some of the most famous writings in history are Roman Law documents (such as Cicero the Lawyer's orations at court). I would wager that you will find their sense of Justice and Objectivity truly inspiring. To leave you with a teaser, from Cicero:

"As fire when thrown into water is cooled down and put out, so also a false accusation when brought against a man of the purest and holiest character, boils over and is at once dissipated, and vanishes and threats of heaven and sea, himself standing unmoved."

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him."

I'd take Cicero over John Grisham any day

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It just seems odd to me that you would leave out the nation that spread greek culture to the far reaches of the known world.

To be fair here, we are talking about a young man who is supplementing his soon-to-begin college education with study on his own. If Amse actually follows a goodly portion of what he has already outlined, I suspect that such will naturally lead him to much else. As they say, all roads lead to Rome.

[JRoberts 0]

To be fair here, we are talking about a young man who is supplementing his soon-to-begin college education with study on his own. If Amse actually follows a goodly portion of what he has already outlined, I suspect that such will naturally lead him to much else. As they say, all roads lead to Rome. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.

There is also another problem with Rome; a problem caused by our modern society. As opposed to the 1800's, few people today know anything about Cicero and Cato...Fabius and Scipio...Servius Tullius, etc. Instead, they know about Caesar and Cleopatra, Hadrian, etc. From this perspective, your average lover of liberty will say, "Why study Rome, the Empire? What's so great about Caesar?".

I'd bet that Amse wasn't aware (like most Objectivist I have met) that Greek authors such as Polybius, Dionysius, and Plutarch praised Roman culture and history...in some ways as superior to the Greeks!

So there is a treasure in Rome...but this treasure does not lie within the general body of knowledge taught today. It's not an accident that the Founding Father's education of Rome skipped from Augustus (first Emperor) to the Renaissance.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

In the Roman world you will find some of greatest philosophers ... of the ancient world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you mean by "greatest" -- and who are examples of such philosophers in the Roman world?

I do agree that anyone who wants to be a trial lawyer should probably, at some time in his life, spend time reading about the history of the development of Roman law, from the Republic, through the decaying Empire, and on to the recovery of that body of law in the later Middle Ages. Perhaps that is a subject Amse will consider in future summers or in a careful choice of course work in his undergraduate studies and in law school.

Also, anyone who chooses philosophy of law, as a field for his central purpose in life, will probably need to study the history of law to see how underlying principles of law changed over time.

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

What do you mean by "greatest" -- and who are examples of such philosophers in the Roman world?

I said "some of the greatest". I listed Cicero as an example. Do you disagree?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Let me also add, on the subject of Aristotle, that the Nicomachean Ethics is not just a list of virtues. Out of eight 'books' of the Ethics, only two and a half are devoted to outlining and discussing the virtues; what is left for the remaining five and a half books?

As for the subject of civilizations, people sometimes have a somewhat unrealistic (and rather idealized) view of Ancient Greece, if they omit the study of Greek history. By studying both the history of Greece and of the Roman Republic, a lot more 'roads' will 'lead to Rome' than may become obvious if one only knows the names like Aristotle and Homer.

But anyhow, I hope we don't get off-track in this thread too much. Amse you said that:

Reading ought serve the basis of fulfilling one’s CPL, or Central Purpose in Life.

Burgess and I actually had an interesting discussion about the role of CPL, found here. I argued for a less one-track minded ideal, and for a more well-rounded education, where CPL is just one, albeit important, part of a bigger picture.