So I go and make a big deal about how I'm going off list and what do I start with? Some of the first selections that I would have started with even if I'd stayed with the list. Maybe this is my way of disproving free will...
Anyway, it feels right to start off with the big guys, so that's what I'm doing.
I think I'm starting with:
Plato - Phaedo
Plato - Symposium
Aristotle - On the Soul
Aristotle - Categories
Aristotle - Metaphysics (Book VII)
Any advice on these works is appreciated.
Last week I reread the last 100 pages of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. (I recommend the whole book.) In this portion of the book, the protagonist goes on a search for Quality and tangles with members of the University of Chicago in this search. This leads him to a deep dive into Plato, Aristotle and the important thinkers that came before them in Greek thought.
One of the points that he makes is that the 'dialectic' is used more as a weapon to prove a point than in its idea sense where it uses rules to keep a discussion on track in search of the truth. This sticks out all over in Socrates discussions. He almost never (possibly never), hears something that changes his mind. Instead, he turns the discussion into syllogism that aids him time and time again. This makes him frustrating to read but so, so worthwhile.
Anyway, it feels right to start off with the big guys, so that's what I'm doing.
I think I'm starting with:
Plato - Phaedo
Plato - Symposium
Aristotle - On the Soul
Aristotle - Categories
Aristotle - Metaphysics (Book VII)
Any advice on these works is appreciated.
Last week I reread the last 100 pages of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. (I recommend the whole book.) In this portion of the book, the protagonist goes on a search for Quality and tangles with members of the University of Chicago in this search. This leads him to a deep dive into Plato, Aristotle and the important thinkers that came before them in Greek thought.
One of the points that he makes is that the 'dialectic' is used more as a weapon to prove a point than in its idea sense where it uses rules to keep a discussion on track in search of the truth. This sticks out all over in Socrates discussions. He almost never (possibly never), hears something that changes his mind. Instead, he turns the discussion into syllogism that aids him time and time again. This makes him frustrating to read but so, so worthwhile.
No comments:
Post a Comment