Funny how it works - all these philosophy posts (and the board was flooded this a.m.) has got me

See...I tend to go with Robert Fulgham. He's my kind of philosopher. I like it simple - like in kindergarten.

Dr Seuss

YES - brilliant.

Don't think you guys are going to get along too well with the new philosophy bunch. Best stay in this thread if you're going to get down and dirty with it.

I don't mind the new philosophy folks at all. I plan to get along with them all.

I think it is great they are deep thinkers. I just am not. I am a doer. I do try to think some before I do however.

I just confused myself.

The Tao according to Pooh

Hi Guys,
Very underrated Philosopher who has been influential in my life.
Henri Bergson.
I would recomend his essay (Laughter). A philosophical analysis and projection of why things are funny.
Cheers,
Russ

Available on the net, Gosh?

(Can I call you Gosh, or do you prefer Mr Dead?)

I often recommend Descartes.

There is such a thread discussing good books for those new to philosophy, and it can be found here:

http://able2know.org/topic/151298-1

Sorry, I'm still unfamiliar on "how to link', just yet.

Gosh, Russ, Mr. Dead = Whatever, I'm easy.

http://www.authorama.com/laughter-1.html

Oh, Descartes I know...but I shall certainly look at the thread you mention, thank you.

Great.

Thank you!

How do you know Gosh ever existed to die?

Bergson wrote (paraphrased) Metaphysics is the study of the non empirical, it is the only truely subjective thing, one experiences it through pure internal intuition. I suppose the best answer I have is I know because I have intuited it. Much like I know I have been alive because I have memory of it. Its a bundle of pure intuitive neuroses.

Mame,
Gustav Ratzenhofer was a philosopher and sociologist - care to start with him

With the sudden influx, I would think it would feel funny; perhaps I could say. I would also tend to think that as the system mixes--both materials with each other into one system--the influence will likely go both ways.

Oh, and going both ways, I've gotta send a PM to ...oops...can't recall the name at the moment (but I came here from her page) Talk to yall later !!

Right now I'm marathon reading a bunch of Douglas Hofstadter books in a row, currently on I Am Strange Loop. I'm enjoying the books, but they can get a bit involved. But I also usually have a few books going at once, so I'm also reading Wicked (by Gregory Maguire) for the first time and a collection of O. Henry stories as palette cleansers.

I would suggest reading Descartes first, simply because he is easier to understand, perhaps because he was writing not only for schoolmen, but the educated classes of his time as well. Moreover, Descartes can be considered the pioneer of "modern" philosophy, which is usually dated from his writings.

Of course, as an "existentialist" I would also suggest that you read Sartre. His Being and Nothingness is a cornerstone of the movement and has been very influential, but a better approach might be to read some of his essays, beginning with "Existentialism is a Humanism" or his literary efforts (for him, and for many other existentialists, literature was philosophy teaching by examples).

I just got done reading strange loop. It's kind of disappointing how him and Dennett never actually get down to the meat of the issue, which of course is inexplicable and rightly so. They just keep pumping out analogies hoping that people will get tired of saying "it's either random or deterministic, either way, no free will".