|
I am a Strange Loop. [Philosophy/Logic Content] (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| iammesol |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Nah, it will actually probably just highlight my own idiocy and lack of comprehension skills. |
lol
Well of course man. I'd absolutely LOVE for you to send it to me when you're done. My only pang is that I don't know how to repay you for your kindness. :( |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Hofstadter essentially argues that our concept of who we are can effectively be distilled down to a series of self-referencing "loops" rooted entirely in physicality (i.e. reductionist materialism) and (so far) it seems as if he'll argue that what a soul consists of are really little more than degrees of reference.
So far I really, really like the concept of existence he is developing, as the idea that cognition, consciousness, and mentality are little more than self-referencing loops based on previous experience seems to adhere to an Occam's Razor approach to the idea of "I." |
Sounds interesting. I skimmed over some more reviews from Amazon, and they got me even more interested.
Is his approach in any way similar to that of the American pragmatists? I mean, William James thought that consciousness was a process rather than an entity, and John Dewey used to say that the mind belongs to experience the same way a mountain belongs to the world — are Hofstadter's arguments related to these ideas? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Perhaps it's due to the translation, but in French Proust is so subtle and well-written. The book is full of emotions & sensibility. Proust is art, Hofstadter is philosophy. Both are respectable but I prefer art! :)
|
See, this is probably my biggest issue with reading Proust, Kant, or Nietzsche - the translations to English lose so much simply because of the importance of subtlety in native languages.
But one thing I guess I'd say is that while I'd generally agree with your assertion that Hofstadter is a philosopher, he seems to be a reluctant philosopher who's far more comfortable describing himself as a technologist, or even scientist - as opposed to a philosopher.
I do, however, think that's why his writing is so accessible - because he isn't overly concerned with using technical jargon to convey his point, but rather being absolutely and utterly clear in the simplest language possible.
One of my favorite ideas to watch develop further is monism, as it seems this sense of functionalist materialism is really the realm that is being pushed as far as concepts of mind/mentality in contemporary metaphysics. Just being able to see so many contemporary philosophers revise and develop new and more intricate monist gestalts for reality is pretty neat to me.
Reading my first Kierkegaard this semester, "Fear & Trembling", but "Repetition" sounds like it would be right up my alley as well. Thanks for the heads up. :) |
|
|
| Blake |
| sounds fascinating. not sure you posted it in the right place, but i'll definitely look into the book myself. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
I always wanted to get into philosophy. First I'd enter from an established starting point, then I'd slowly expand on what I've read in a logical manner.
Would it be practical to do this on my own? I don't want to do this half-assed and look like a fool a few years down the line. Would it be like learning an instrument? Teaching yourself how to play piano isn't impossible, but there's a very real chance of picking up bad habits and doing things inefficiently if you don't have a teacher. Would philosophy be anything like this, or am I okay if I do things carefully?
| quote: |
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2] |
|
|
|
| Lira |
 :D
"Sickness Unto Death" is one of the deepest texts I've ever read, although sometimes I wanted to pat Kierkegaard in the head for playing too much with words :p |
|
|
| RJT |
The difficulty with just "getting into" philosophy for many people (certainly not all) is that so much of the fundamental reading is very, very dense and difficult to initially interpret without someone to help you begin to understand how different philosophers use language.
This was one of my biggest stumbling blocks initially, but fortunately I had many people around me who very much helped me to "get it" (at least initially - though part of "getting it" for me was understanding life was going to hand me far more questions than answers), and it's become more than just an academic pursuit for me - it's become part of who I am and what I love.
I'd never discourage someone from trying to educate themselves further - so in the end, I say go for it. It might turn out you have a real affinity for it.
:) |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
oooo
is this easily readable cause i haven't read anything philosophical for a long time? |
|
|
| Zild |
Have you read Godel, Escher, and Bach?
I'm personally more interested in the mathematics than the philosophy, but he deals with 'strange loops' and crap like that. |
|
|
| wizniz |
indubitably
indubitably
inDUBitably
indubitably
doob |
|
|
| Clovis |
| Excellent, I need a new book to read on the way to work. |
|
|
| Dervish |
Sounds interesting, I'll defo look into it.
But I just had a thought reading this. Is philosophy ever proved of disproved or will it forever be theory? I mean on the big questions (maybe questions) like "who am I what am I?".
Or will it forever grow legs like a fractal pattern?
Comment brought to you by Berberaba - Etiqueta Megra... Reserva 2003 lol :p |
|
|
|
|
