What are /r/AcademicPhilosophy's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

What do you want to know? Outside of the Common Books they share, they're very similar, and the topics covered are pretty much the same. The Nicomachean Ethics includes stuff on theology -- Book X. That's the main difference, I suppose. But with a close comparison you will notice small differences. In the discussion of marriage, for example, Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics that a marriage can be similar to a virtue friendship, whereas in the Eudemian Ethics he seems to think it can only be a utility friendship (one merely for the sake of mutual benefit). Also in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle suggests that one can be friends with one's slave (qua human, but not qua slave), but in the Eudemian Ethics he does not say this. So, in general, the Nicomachean Ethics is more expansive than the Eudemian Ethics. This has lead scholars to think the Nicomachean Ethics was written after the Eudemian Ethics. But really, if you look around in the scholarship, you will find that every possible ordering of the three ethical treatises has been defended (if you think that the Magna Moralia is authentic). Anthony Kenny, who translates this edition of the Eudemian Ethics, is one prominent scholar who thinks the Eudemian Ethics is the only authentic treatise, which is why he includes the common books (which are normally just bundled with the Nicomachean Ethics) in his edition the Eudemian Ethics, and that's why OUP can deceptively claim that this is the first complete modern translation of the work.

> I am curious if it is as popular to academic philosophers as it is to those outside the field.

FWIW OP, you can always make a stab at this question by using an academic search engine to see who mentions it and how. So for example, you can plug the book title into Google Scholar and look at the reverse citations: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=274291519246936594&as_sdt=20005&sciodt=0,9&hl=en

If you scroll through the first few pages, you don't see a lot of heavy-hitting academic philosophy. In philosophy specifically, you can do a narrower search by using Philpapers: http://philpapers.org/s/%22zen%20and%20the%20art%20of%20motorcycle%20maintenance%22

There the results are much more useful, but also much more sparse, suggesting the lack of influence.

Exactly. The difference is that Kenny, the scholar who translated this edition, thinks that the Eudemian Ethics is the only genuine ethical treatise by Aristotle. You'll notice in the Barnes edition that the Common Books (the three middle books that the two share) are bundled with the Nicomachean Ethics, and omitted from the Eudemian Ethics; this has traditionally been the norm. Kenny bundles the Common Books together with the Eudemian Ethics --hence the claim that Kenny's edition is the first modern translation of the complete Eudemian Ethics.

The first book on philosophy I ever read was Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy. Looking back on it (and having completed a BA in philosophy), it of course has its problems (what doesn't?) but I am glad I read it. There are different sections on different philosophers, and you can do a little picking and choosing of what you're interested in.

Not Avant Garde, but one of my favorite obscure jazz collectibles is this children’s picture book that “explains” Giant Steps: https://www.amazon.com/Coltranes-Richard-Jackson-Atheneum-Hardcover/dp/0689845987

This is literally what Aristotle argues in the Nicomachean Ethics, a problem he sets up in Book I, continues at the end of Book V, and only finishes in Book X. Reporting one of his theses (an important one at that) is not reducing a complex view to "little better than a slogan."

Typing eudaimonia doesn't express any superiority on your part. There is a long literature as to whether eudiamonia is best translated by happiness, and I happen to come down on that issue in a particular way.

Good to know that you find bandying around insults to be critical to your flourishing,

Man's Search for Meaning is a phenomenal choice for highschoolers. If you do a section on existentialism I would also recommend coupling Frankl's work with The Stranger and excerpts from The Myth of Sisyphus, both by Camus.

Machiavelli is one. The argument from Quentin Skinner & the New Historicists is that Machiavelli continues a classical republican tradition. This involves taking some things Machiavelli says a bit too straightforwardly, imo. (Christopher Lynch's "The Art of War" introduction is a good place to see an overview of these issues.)

The complex structure of The Prince is meant to hide a republican, secularist, modern teaching of some sort. I think the combination is what Machiavelli is trying to shield. He'll take on being called the devil himself. I don't know that he wants republicanism to be associated with power calculations or anti-religiosity even though that's where the argument goes.

http://www.ashokkarra.com/2009/07/an-introduction-to-machiavellis-the-prince-part-1/

Locke may be another example. His backer's head was cut off for basically endorsing the same ideas.

Search on Google for course websites at colleges and universities. You can find syllabi, course readings, etc. Very useful.

Use Wikipedia as a jumping off point!

I'm a Philosophy major, almost done!

Ancient philosophy: (Foundational readings) Gogias Phaedo De Anima Nicomachean Ethics Theatetus

(Essential philosophers): Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Protagoras, Zeno, Thales, Parmenides, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle

Into Existentialism: No Exit, Sartre The Fall, Camus Either/Or, Kierkegaard The Gay Science, Neitszche

Contemporary philosophy: (Key philosophers) Nagel, Hempel, Churchland, Dennet, Chalmers, Rorty, Kripke

Ethics: TONS to look at here, many subdivisions. Too much to list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Find a first edition of William Zinsser's book "On Writing Well". He nailed it on the first try, but then listened to the wrong critics and added superfluous material to later editions in violation of his own rules.

>For example?

A quick google shows a number of articles (the first in the Journal of Linguistic Anthropology) in which Derrida is cited or referenced.

Being a security guard is an age-old solution to this problem.

Otherwise, I recommend Anki / another SRS system. Going through cards is still productive, even if you're half awake. Just be sure to answer them honestly.

https://apps.ankiweb.net

>So it is imposed -- by you -- after all, you did pick the starting point.

In this paper, I explain how there is no starting point. The whole thing is derivable from the properties of all tautologies of logic.

https://www.academia.edu/36052448/The_World_is_an_autology_derived_from_all_tautologies_2018_

So I am not inclined to say yes to this question.

Just in case you aren't aware, google scholar has a decent collection of papers. for example

Hello, your questions have now been answered quite explicitly in the paper. https://www.academia.edu/33079029/On_the_origin_of_physics_from_mathematical_logic

Specifically, I added section 5 and reorganized the proof of the physics - it is now much more palatable.

The entire book can be read here:

https://www.academia.edu/24872746/_Does_the_Concept_of_The%C3%B4ria_Fit_the_Beginning_of_Indian_Thought_In_Universe_and_Inner_Self_in_Early_Indian_and_Early_Greek_Thought_edited_by_Richard_Seaford

Ken Robinson gave a great talk about this topic. However, the interesting part is when he talks about college. It seems now that college is where you go to get a job, ironically, this means that each college education is less valuable, while simultaneously being more expensive.

College has become a way to become a job. Yet, we shoehorn the people that want to get a job with the kids that want to learn into the same institution (college). Our compulsory education does kill creativity, however some kids are more persistent than others. I think the modern university is an attempt to further quash that creativity. In the words of Foucault, this is an attempt to make you a docile body with which power can be exerted over you.

What does this mean for philosophy? The humanities seem "worthless", but those who study it seem to be more dedicated to their studies. At least, that is what the author is suggesting. I believe that the implication should mean that we should value otherwise "worthless" fields for their ability to produce better individuals. However, I don't think that really matters to anyone evaluating the university. These fields don't get jobs, and that's what every parent and most students are looking for.

Analysis and Thought for very short papers. Philosophers Imprint for longer work.

I'm not sure whether either would be interested in the feat or death. Depends more on how you approach the issue than the issue itself.

For more info, look here: https://airtable.com/shrWKotYTw0ezNN4N/tbl9E479DxjlJf2zJ

Absolutely yes. Don't listen to that close-minded prejudice about the ancient world being a small place where peeps didn't travel: the silk road is old as shit, and the beginnings of it dates back at least to the first Persian kingdom. Alexander took 10ks of Greeks with him, left behind colonies, influenced Buddhist art in Bactria for the next 400 years, introduced dialectic as evidenced in Nagarjuna and his school, on and on.

Read this: https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Philosophies/dp/1581152035

Yes. My practice is to write every day, even if just for 15 mins. Also, I recommend Jane Allen‘a book: Productive Grad student writing guide. She has so many helpful tips

The Productive Graduate Student Writer: How to Manage Your Time, Process, and Energy to Write Your Research Proposal, Thesis, and Dissertation and Get Published https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620368919/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_1RoXFbZDBV2EQ

"Beauty: A Very Short Introduction" by Roger Scruton is very good total overview of aesthetics. It's actually pretty long despite the name. (https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Short-Introduction-Roger-Scruton/dp/0199229759)

Rowe's and Draper's arguments from evil. Read them, and read the responses by Van Inwagen, Bergman, etc., and then read the responses to those responses. Then you will know the way.

Or, alternatively, buy this book: https://www.amazon.ca/Evidential-Argument-Indiana-Philosophy-Religion-ebook/dp/B016VZDARW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520521391&sr=8-1&keywords=the+evidential+argument+from+evil

You might check out Anthropocentrism and its Discontents by Gary Steiner. You'll likely find that Veganism is in contest with Anthropocentrism.

You might want to try Buddhist texts, particularly Zen Buddhist. They aren't strictly existentialist (actually, in some ways they can be quite opposite), but Schopenhauer was very influenced by Buddhism, and he in turn influenced Nietzsche greatly.

It is difficult to think of specific books (I've read only a dozen or so in the area), but perhaps Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, any of Dogen's writings, and any good introduction to the Buddha's thoughts would be nice places to start.

In my experience, most philosophers' favorite books are the books that have helped them the most to improve their philosophical thinking, or the books they have enjoyed the most.

I believe that there are no indispensable texts for the study of philosophy primarily for the reason that the field of philosophy is so large and diverse that for any text anyone cares to suggest, there will be a large number of very good philosophers who have no interest in it and no use for it. (This is true for the historical classics; it's obvious that there have been and will continue to be philosophers of the first order who have never read the Nicomachean Ethics and wouldn't care if they did.) And more generally, it's demonstrated by the great antipathy that the great philosophers often feel for one another, and the great ignorance that many great philosophers have about one another.

Perhaps it is necessary that within any substantial, coherent, well-defined body of philosophical discourse, at any one time, there are essential sources, but even then these do not always take the form of texts. So while perhaps there is an influence of Plato everywhere, as in Whitehead's famous quip, that doesn't mean that people studying platonism in modality, for example, need to read the Republic.

Jim Pryor's thing linked is pretty good. My basic strategy with philosophy papers is this:

Philosophy in all camps is about problems and their solutions. So your paper has to be about a problem. You don't always have to solve the problem but you should have a suggestion as to how to solve or it a number of possible solutions (or you should declare it insoluble!).

So you have to STATE the problem. SHOW that it IS a problem by showing how from it certain silly conclusions follow, or how one concept encroaches upon another in an untenable way, or how it seems that we are in a bind or contradiction. The best way to do this is with secondary literature. If other people think it is a problem then it probably is.

So you state the problem, show that it is a problem by reference to others, restate the problem, try and solve the problem. Boom, philosophy paper.

Aristotle, in this sense, was really great at writing philosophy papers. You should mimic his general strategy (in say the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics), although of course you should try to be more clear and verbose than Aristotle was. State that there is a problem, show how other people state and solve the problem. Say why all of them are wrong (or why most of them are wrong). Then say what is the right solution (and perhaps who has made it already).

Bernard Russell is both a great writer (clear, easy-to-read, knows what he's talking about) and he's one of the figures you're writing about.

He also wrote A History of Western Philosophy which has neat little chapters explaining and offering opinions on individuals.

I have Metaphysics, Physics, One The Soul, and Nicomachean Ethics, all translated by Joe Sachs, from my Aristotle class. The unidiomatic language actually helped some when I later took a class on Heidegger. All those Being-at-whatevers.

Hi, I'm into the same topics and I highly recommend this book, The Minds I. I just finished it and it was an amazing read, primarily about consciousness, do other beings have it, do we have it, and all the other big topics related to the issue.

I took an intro logic course this past fall St my community college and we used this textbook http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0205820379

My prof picked and chose chapters. I really really enjoyed the class and this book. I got an A in the class if that helps endorse it from a new philosopher's POV.

I've worked quite a bit with Davidson's stuff. As an overview of his work, this is the book you want to read. I'm a huge fan of the "Philosophy Now" series--it does a really good job of providing an overview of the work of difficult contemporary philosophers.

If you have any specific questions on Davidson, I'd be happy to answer them.

Additionally, I would suggest using this book: http://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Going-That/dp/0226038823/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422121402&sr=1-1&keywords=so+what+are+you+going+to+do+with+that

It can help you navigate the transition from academic--> corporate. Additionally, What Color Is Your Parachute is another good choice--cheesy as it is, working through the "Flower" exercise really helped me to be precise about what I wanted--and subsequently, it really helped me out while I was networking.