I like Tori-kun's "sociopathic tadpole" too! That Russell quote could fit in the anti-feminist threads too... ;p

@fabrice - you might enjoy a book called "A Mind So Rare" by Merlin Donald - it's written for a general audience on evolution of consciousness by a cognitive neurologist with a background in philosophy. To him, consciousness plays a more important (although limited) central cognitive role than the passive (eg mere sensory awareness) roles others would allot to it.

Even if you don't agree with his model of consciousness, sections of the book provide accessible and often amusing overviews of the various theories and different disciplines related to consciousness. He references many theorists (including the guys mentioned in this thread), so it might be another way to identify more specialized readings that interest you.

His view of the interdependent roles of culture and biology form the bases of his work on the evolution of language. He discusses the relationship between language and consciousness, disagreeing with idea that language is a prerequisite, but not suggesting it plays no role. (We only need to look at languageless deaf people to realize they aren't living their lives unconsciously or without thought.)

He discusses the logical gymnastics required to reconcile the notion that language is unconsciously generated in some Chomskian language module with the idea language is consciousness. (He views language as distributed neural networks - there is no language module.)

I found the stories of patients with neurological disorders or damage quite fascinating (inspiring even). They also help bring some of these philosophical theories back down to the level of human experience and allow us to assess their plausibility.

He ends with a note about the role of enculturation in consciousness and how an awareness of that interdependent process helps us understand the interconnectedness of consciousness. It's still our biology, this isn't Cartesian dualism, but it's also not the myth of the isolated mind:

Quote:We like to think of ourselves as self complete thinking monads dwelling inside our sealed biological containers, peering out at the world from the safe haven of consciousness. [...] But we are edging closer to the truth. We are collective creatures, even to the texture of our awareness.

I couldn't help but wonder if there aren't some parallels in Buddhist ideas of oneness and selflessless?

I enjoyed the book b/c I don't have the time or the ability (I struggled with stuff like Kant in school) to read many primary sources. I'm more interested in learning about language and the brain than in any personal philosophy for living, but on some level being reminded of our fundamental inconnectedness had personal resonance.

Thora Wrote:I couldn't help but wonder if there aren't some parallels in Buddhist ideas of oneness and selflessless?

I enjoyed the book b/c I don't have the time or the ability (I struggled with stuff like Kant in school) to read many primary sources. I'm more interested in learning about language and the brain than in any personal philosophy for living, but on some level being reminded of our fundamental inconnectedness had personal resonance.

I believe Sam Harris writes about the parallels between Buddhist thought and the modern scientific understanding of consciousness. As you said, the human mind is a set of scattered and sometimes conflicting processes; there is no one, fixed thing which can be pinned down and called the "self." I am not sure what you mean by "our fundamental interconnectedness" though.

Tzadeck Wrote:

Tori-kun Wrote:I also have a question about philosophy!
We started talking about Nietzsche in German class and I get the impression this guy must have been quite a sociopathic tadpole for saying at least that there is no moral, life is incontrollable in terms of planning it rationally/being rational...... what do you think?

You should read Bertrand Russell's take on Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy. It's fun because Russell is pretty mean to him, haha.

Here's a particularly fun paragraph:
(The quote of Nietzsche's that Russell refers to is "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip.")

"Nevertheless there is a great deal in him (Nietzsche) that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac. Speaking of Spinoza he says: 'How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!' Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. "Forget not thy whip"--but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks."

Anywhere, he's a PDF of Russell's whole book:
http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Hi...osophy.pdf

Although Russell's History of Western Philosophy is amusing to read, I wouldn't recommend it as a serious introduction to Western philosophy. The book essentially consists of Russell singing the praises of his favorite philosophers and launching tirades against philosophers he dislikes. Neither the praises nor tirades are supported by strong arguments, if any arguments at all. Although I hold deep respect for Russell, especially his work on logic and philosophy of language, his forays into the history of philosophy and ethics are disappointing to no end.

@thora: I quickly read the paragraph about Nietzsche Tzadeck posted and I find his sociopathy is being undermined by the following sentence "Nietzsche was against compassion/not a friend of compassion" (not an exact quote, but that's the content of what Russel wrote about him).
So, etymologically 'compassion' comes from the latin and clearly means to carry something [a burden] along with another human being, in any sense. Isn't compassion something deeply human and evolutionary necessary for us to survive? People showing no compassion could be easily judged as coldhearted, no matter what their ethical and moral stands might be. (Perhaps this is a social-thingey?!) At least I do imagine people living after Nietzsche's words 1:1 are sociopathic leprechaun....

It's true that Russell's History of Western Philosophy is probably not a good first-time introduction to philosophy.

I don't think Nietzsche is a sociopath, by the way. His writings about ethics show that intellectually he did not care much about the suffering of common people, but that doesn't mean he didn't actually care about the people around him in his everyday life on an emotional level. It seems like the latter would be the factor that you would consider if you were assessing whether he is a sociopath or not.

[ファブリス]

Prof. Jonathan F. Bennett's "plainer and more straightforward" classics of early modern philosophy, in PDF.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com