All About Books discussion

I will be reading this as part of my Philosopher's challenge for 2014. So far Gill is joining (Gill, do you realize how similar our 'currently reading' shelf will look this month? ;)) Feel free to join if you like!

Gill, should we have a rough schedule or just see how it goes?

I know, we must be 'twinnies'!

I think a rough schedule would suit me, if that's ok with you, Jenny.

Great, I'll have a look and think of a way to divide it in parts.

I think that with philosophy I'm done for a good deal - after The Republic!!!
This particular one though I studied ages ago in Universiry. I'll come every now and then and give a look at what you're saying!

Do feel free to jump in and comment if you feel like it! I am mostly looking forward to 'Meditations', did you read both texts Laura?

no, actually only the method!!!

Are we starting with Discourse on Method, Jenny?

Yes we are, I am sorry I am terribly behind aren't I?

Apparently both Discours and Meditations consist of 6 parts each.

How about:
week 1 - Discours Part I,II & III
week 2 - Discours Part IV,V & VI

week 3 - Meditations I,II & III
week 4 - Meditations IV,V & VI

if we realize it is too much, we can always adjust and pull it over into May as well.

Alternatively we could decide to read and discuss one part over the course of 3 days each which would blend into the first week of May.

Which version would you prefer?

Let's go with what you have set out over the four weeks. Like you said, we can always adapt it if necessary.

No, you're not behind at all! How was your weekend in Dresden?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like version 2, no need finish this in April whatsoever.

Should we start the discussion with 1 part every three days and then re-adjust if we feel like it? Since it is only the two of us, we can play it by ear quite easily.

LOL, crossposting AGAIN!!!!! Ok, the weeks it is, and if we feel it is too much, we go with the slower system :)

No, let's go with version Two, Jenny. I'm happy with that. It might make it easier in terms of spoilers also. Now I need to find it on my Kindle!

Btw, just seen that it's Rene D's birthday today. That makes it a very good day to start!

Alright! I am just downloading Discurs for my Kobo now, it is free on Gutenberg!

I am reading through Part One for the second time now. I'm finding the language quite hard to follow (but no harder than I found Russell!)

Do you!? Oh that's so interesting! I was too tired yesterday to comment on the first part, but thought the fact that it was written very much like the opening chapter of a biography made it very readable, and, which was a relief after Russell, I thought it was quite humble? Whether that is just an act or actual modesty I can't yet tell. Maybe after all that Russell and Plato nothing much can shock me anymore ;)

I'm still needing to gather my thoughts on Part 1, but yes I agree Descartes seems a modest man. One thing that struck me is how much less knowledge there was for the 'educated' person to investigate in Descartes' time. Nowadays you could never read all the books on a particular subject.

Absolutely!! I am just reading 'A Brief History of Time' and it speaks of the fact that just a few hundred years ago, the philosopher's job was to explain the world, which, following the old tradition of ancient philosophy more often than not meant that they were Universalgelehrte (polymath?), combining philosophy, theology and natural science until around the 19th century natural science started to advance at a pace that hardly anyone could keep up with unless they've specialized on a field of expertise.

Yes, I liked Part One and think I would quite like to meet Descartes. I like that he isn't telling people what to do; instead he is explaining about his own 'journey' to knowledge (to use a modern word!)

There are lots of bits I like eg:

For ’tis not enough to have good faculties, but the principal is, to apply them well.

And those who move but very slowly, may advance much farther, if they always follow the right way; then those who run and straggle from it.

That I beleeve my self very happy, (would all philosophers say this?!)

perhaps it is but a little Copper and Glass which I take for Gold and Diamonds.

Actually, I could quote pretty much all of Part One! Here's a final quote:

reading of good books, is like the conversation with the honestest persons of the past age, who were the Authors of them, and even a studyed conversation, wherein they discover to us the best only of their thoughts.

Ha, I underlinded that bit as well!

I agree, so far I think he's one of the most pleasant philosophers - and by that I mean one I would have a cup of tea with - of the ones I've read.

I might get to part 2 on my journey tomorrow!

I'm on my second read of Part Two. I really like D' s style, but keep getting diverted by the practical analogies that he gives. For example, do I prefer a mish-mash of architectural styles, or everything in keeping and built at the same time? I think I prefer the former.

So, does this invalidate what D says? Well, if it had been Russell that said it, I'd probably have thought so! But I like D so much more I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. (I think this is probably a good example of why I'd never be a good philosopher!)

Never mind my concerns re architecture, I think Descartes expresses his conclusion so succinctly:

'But as for all the Opinions which I had till then receiv’d into my beleef, I could not doe better then to undertake to expunge them once for all, that afterwards I might place in their stead, either others which were better, or the same again, as soon as I should have
adjusted them to the rule of reason.'

Gill, I'be read the chapter last night as well and was contemplating the same thing with the result that I Foundation myself agreeing and disagreeing in equal messures depending on the chosen example. How do you like the method he proposes?

I love the quote in comment 20, Gill :)

First precept sounds good to me, Jenny. Well, actually, all four seem a sensible way to approach this.

I like the way Descartes says he is only describing how he did things and what suited him, and that it might not suit everyone. And if I remember this correctly, he was only 23. Remarkable!

Gill, I so thought of you and our conversation here when visiting a church with Laura in Ravenna today. Think somber Baroque church design meets stunning Byzantin (it is probably spelled differently but you know what I mean?) colourful mosaics in the same church!!! Disaster!! And at the same time they create a tension that though not beautiful make it so interesting to look at. You see I was going to talk about the fact that 5 people together trying to create a theory on something might - since you are going to have to compromise - water something down so much it becomes less interesting than any of the truths of the individual 5, but in this case it seems two astethic styles working in one building refused compromise all together and the result is utterly weird but all the more interesting to look at.
As for his method: I agree, it sounds rather smart in it's simplicity, but at the same time I wonder whether applied to numerous problems and question it stands the test (I am actually practicing on examples ;))

Finished part 3 yesterday. Have you read it yet Gill? I might be a wee bit ahead of schedule there.

I've had a quick look at it, and will re-read it today. How did practising his method go?

Re Part 3

I'm still enjoying reading this, and am very taken with Descartes as a person.

He seems very taken with the analogy of taking down and putting up buildings, doesn't he?

He says he has 3 or 4 maxims, I couldn't really work out what the fourth one was, did you spot it, Jenny?

Maxim One I liked the idea of taking the middle road, not the extremes, although I have to say it's not necessarily what I do.
I especially liked the part 'that I might truly know what their opinions were, I was rather to observe what they practic'd, then what they taught. How true!

Maxim Two, re being constant and resolute, Sounds fine but it's another time when I don't agree with his example , in this case about being lost in a forest. I've a feeling there's a method when you are lost of taking bearings to and fro, not straight ahead, that is more successful. I've forgotten its name though.

I like the sentence about following the most probable opinion, if you can't discern the truest one.

Third maxim, definitely 'Yes' to 'That there is nothing wholly in our power but our thoughts'. It's made a big difference to me since a couple of years ago when I realised my thoughts were in my own power.

I like the fact that D says it takes a lot of exercise and meditation to 'accustom us to look on all things with that byass'.

I can't really see a 4th maxim, though.

I do like D's style of writing, eg 'to avoid quick-mires and sands, that I might finde rock and clay'.

On to Part 4; this is with the famous sentence isn't it?

I'm enjoying this, how about you, Jenny?

Just started Part 4
(view spoiler)[ I loved the part up to 'I think therefore I am', especially 'that the same thoughts which we have waking, may also happen to us sleeping, when as not any one of them is true. I resolv’d to faign, that all those things which ever entred into my Minde, were no more true, then the illusions of my dreams.'

But I don't understand how D moved from that to 'That those things which we conceive cleerly and distinctly, are all true;' I just don't follow how he moved from one to the other, do you? (hide spoiler)]

I'm not reading this at the moment, but wanted to say how much I'm enjoying following the discussion :)

Gill wrote: "Re Part 3

I'm still enjoying reading this, and am very taken with Descartes as a person.

He seems very taken with the analogy of taking down and putting up buildings, doesn't he?

He says he has ..."

Gill, I had the same problem: where's n° 4?
I wonder whether it is sort of hidden in his saying that he's only practicing his method to obtain knowledge of truth and if our will only wants and executes (it is not our will that executes so I stumbled over that phrase somewhat) what reason teaches us to be good or just he feels he can't go wrong, and will achieve all that is to be achieved and longed for.

Re: the forest. His example actually does make sense to me, especially because this way you'd be sure to avoid running in circles which is something likely happening to me with my poor sense of orientation.

I think his second maxime makes more sense for some then for others, because if you never pause to reflect, the stubborn 'follow through no matter what and stick to what you've decided to do' can also be rather dangerous, and infact the enemy of knowledge of truth. I don't trust anyone who doesn't allow doubt on occasion personally.

However what rings true to me is this: you can't question every step you take if you ever want to get anywhere. And often one can't figure out what's right or what's wrong in theory, sitting on a chair merely staring at the cross road ahead. Often all that helps is to pick a road to your best judgement, and start walking.
Looking at life decisions ahead is often like trying to figure out what the universe thinks is right for you or not. Personally I don't think wrong or right exist in that sense though. I think we make things 'right'( or 'wrong') in the process of walking the road and in order to do that we must first decide to start walking.
Another thought that came to me: I have this dear friend who unfortunately has a real decision issue. He never makes plans because something better might come up. The problem is: because he doesn't commit to a single thing, more often than not NOTHING HAPPENS.

On to part 4 now.

@Jean, you would have enjoyed this so much more than the grump Russell!!

I'm beginning to think that myself :)

Jean wrote: "I'm beginning to think that myself :)"
To me, the real advantage of having read Russell is that it gives something to compare to. I wonder whether it is the case that 'difficult' person results in difficult to read/ understand philosophy and 'pleasant' person ditto. I guess you shouldn't generalize on the basis of 2 philosophers.

Jean wrote: "I'm not reading this at the moment, but wanted to say how much I'm enjoying following the discussion :)"
Nice to have you here with us, Jean.

I'm just "eavesdropping" really :D But you two are inspiring me...

Maybe we can be-flirt you into reading the Meditations on First Philosophy with us? *fluttering eyelashes*

@Gill, I've just finished part 4 and yes, some of his jumps in conclusion there are rather hard to follow. It's hard to tell whether he's chosen to spare us the inbetween steps of his deduction or whether he's skipped them all together?
A lot of what he's talking about in this chapter are thoughts we've come across with Russell as well. To which extend can we trust our senses to deliver a true impression of reality? His attempt to proof the existence of God (again, many jumps to conclusion it seems, also I find myself constantly replacing God with Nature)

However, I genuinely enjoy reading this. It is early in modern philosophy, and a lots of it is philosophy in baby shoes but I find it really interesting to see how these ideas later evolved. Did you ever see his theory regarding the soul and what we'd now call neuroscience? So interesting and weird from todays perspective:

Here is a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pin... (jump to 2. to get the body - soul theory)

and here is a similar article from Hubpages: http://johnsarkis.hubpages.com/hub/De...

I've checked a commentary (well Wikipedia actually) and it gives 3 maxims for Part 3, not 4. So maybe there isn't a 4th one after all.

Having re-read Part 4, I do think some of the leaps and links are hard to follow. Also, re God; I do wonder whether Descartes did as he said he should, and cleared his mind of what he believed, before he set out to show God's existence. Or did he believe in God, and so continued with this thought deep-down, which hence affected his conclusions?

I'm about to re-read it with 'nature' instead of 'god, to see how that feels.

I've just realised what you meant about God and Nature, Jenny. My latest re-read didn't make it any clearer. So on to Part 5 now!

I liked the Hubpages article, Jenny.

In the middle of part 5 now, lot's of arteries and hearts and general blood pumping one way or the other ;)

I think I will try to finish the last 2 parts before Tuesday, when we start the Otto Dov Dulka book together.
It's kind of fun having a reading companion for the entire month I must say ;)

Jenny wrote: "I think I will try to finish the last 2 parts before Tuesday, when we start the Otto Dov Dulka book together.
It's kind of fun having a reading companion for the entire month I must say ;)"
Gosh, we are twins, I was thinking both those things just now! And if we start Zola at the beginning of May, who's to say how long we can carry on reading together!

True!!!!

Ok, I've just finished Part 5. I must admit I rather zoomed through the part about blood and the heart. It seemed a very roundabout way of reaching the section about how we are different from animals. I think Descartes could have done with a good editor for this section.

I've been thinking how different the world was at the time Descartes lived (in all sorts of ways, but I was thinking about the world of publishing books, articles etc, and concomitant with that, the size and make-up of the reading audience) It's around the same time as Milton isn't it?

I'm halfway through Part 6 now. Apparently the part at the beginning about delaying publication refers to the trial of Galileo. That certainly gives a context to the time Descartes was working in.

If I've read him correctly, he says there's no point publishing to get other people's responses and objections, because he's already discussed his views with people and he's already thought of all the objections. Have I read that correctly?

I've finished Part 6 now. I know D didn't mean anything amusing when he wrote it, But I smiled when he said if his readers don't agree with him, they should contact his publishers and he'll try to reply to their comments. I'm sure he wasn't expecting to be read more than 300 years later!

How have you found it overall, Jenny?

I'm going to leave reading the next Descartes book until after we have read Otto Dov Kulka, Jenny.

Same plan here Gill! :) I lines the first 4 parts much better than the last two to be honest. On tour and therefor on phone again but will comment some more when i am back in 2 days, or when I get my hands on a computer in the meantime.

Gill, I just realize I had forgotten to post my thoughts on the last bit!

I liked part 5 and 6 much less than the first 4 parts, and I was particularly confused by the 6th which strongly made me doubt the humble natured man we suspected him to be.

He sounds extremely protective of his knowledge, and though in theory a lot of things that he names as reasons for NOT publishing do on some level make sense, on another they sound like a well polished hybris and the cliché of the genius knowing that no mind will fully understand just HOW brilliant a mind he his and instead he'll then have to waste time explaining why all those mediocre minds are wrong and he's right. Am I too harsh? Because the fact that it is not really humble doesn't necessarily make him wrong.
It is another illustration though of his idea of 'one building- one architect' which we've already discussed.

I am really looking forward to the Meditations on First Philosophy though, which I think I will be starting on Tuesday maybe or whenever else suits you.

Tuesday sounds good. It gives a day's breathing space!