late wrote:What I am talking about evolved out of the Pragmatic school. I think each of us sees in their school relevant work on the problems they think important.
I did like the description of traditional philosophers as regular people. I feel the same way about my guys.
If you could pick one guy you think I ought to read, I'd appreciate the suggestion. But, as is so often the case in philosophy, we will likely need to agree to disagree.
But I would like to thank you immoderately. I've been on the internet for about 30 years, and you're the first philosopher I've stumbled across. We may be like ships passing in the night, but you're my first ship.
Rorty's work was diverse, try some of his work outside philosophy. Perhaps the best place to start is Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. This would be especially true if you are not familiar with Neopragmatism.
This has really taken a turn for the better, I appreciate it -- it is also great that you are very familiar with someone that I know I have to read, but have never read.
I got both of my degrees in Korea, and my Master's is in Eastern philosophy. For the Bachelor's, probably something like a third of our mandatory philosophy is Eastern, another third is Western, and the remainder is up to us. Our university also was particularly strong in continental European philosophy and Neo-Confucianism. So I really found myself gravitating towards Eastern stuff (obviously), and the optional Western philosophy stuff I took was always either very traditional stuff or continental philosophy.
So, really, I will throw a few book recommendations out there depending on what you may be most interested in...
I got excited when you asked me the question and it resulted in me really racking my brain.
I think that you really look to a lot of the recent philosophy as being the climax of it, and that is totally fine. Most of my best friends, most of the guys I can really spend all night talking to, really deeply disagree with me on things, and that's invaluable. But I would recommend reading something that really tries to expand your appreciation of philosophy -- and may make you really want to sit down and just go through a classic Western piece (my favorite is Plato's Republic
) or take on Confucius (get the James Legge translation -- it is over a century old and remains the definitivie translation for very good reasons).
The most heartbreaking thing is I cannot find a place online that is selling the English version of Eastern & Western Cultures and Their Philosophy
by Liang Shuming, though that link includes a description in English. This was really the best and most definitive breakdown ever of the fundamental differences in Eastern & Western thought, and it was done by an Easterner who became incredibly familiar with the West, and was very discriminating in his tastes -- for instance, he classifies Indian philosophy as a its own thing, but also closer to Western philosophy,
which is an important distinction I think many don't get.
However, Intimacy & Integrity: Philosophy & Cultural Differences
by Thomas P. Kasulis is short and really explains the differences in Eastern & Western mental life succinctly, and more importantly, I think he gives a very good take on how logic can work differently in Eastern & Western thought. This book really has stood the test of time in my mind in he sense that I keep thinking about it, year after year, in spite of the fact that it is not flashy nor does it even really espouse some central doctrine... it just explains
something very well.
I think reading that could be really stimulating for you in regular life & politics as well, because it may make you really think about all of the unspoken differences
that rest behind conflicts. Of course, no pressure or anything, but maybe you wold read it and some sparks would fly.
I also want to add that I sometimes think Plato is closer to Eastern philosophy than Western philosophy if you are mostly someone thinking in terms of recent philosophy; it's done in a much similar style, and it talks about sort of the essence of man and truth, while a lot of the recent stuff takes away some of the fundamental assumptions that premoderns have & focuses solely on ideas of the truth.
I am going to bump Contingency, Solidarity, & Irony way up on my reading list and hopefully get to it sometime soon.
Thanks for this. ^^