First, I have listened to others about who is important to read and study. I will work to change that. Second, I think about ontological solitude and all that it entails and does not. Human existence as a basis for aloneness is crazy to think about, given I am alone as myself and at the same time, by necessity, connected with others (sometimes it's nature, mostly it's people). Third, dictionaries help me a lot; a high-level summary also helps paint the landscape. Fourth, a few years ago, I began taking non-academic online philosophy courses. Thankfully, there are several online academies to explore Western philosophy, i.e., https://sphil.xyz/courses. Fifth, I have a few history-of-philosophy books and suggest considering autobiographical works, such as Rousseau's Confessions, as well as biographical works. Biographies help me connect the dots between the person and their ideas. One example is Terry Pinkard's bio on Hegel.
You reminded me of John Passmore's A Hundred Years of Philosophy, reading your post on Analytical and Continental Philosophy. In chapter four, Passmore writes, "that which holds the world together." Who cares what he is writing about (yes, it is important, simply not for my point here) - I am drawn into how to understand what it is that holds the world (reality) together. I've reframed the question, too: what is that which holds X together? Similar to a "what is" question, but has more weight without throwing shade on Plato's ti esti.
Lastly, I recently read Beyond Argument: The Creative Craft of Philosophy Writing by C. Thi Nguyen, which explains the difference between philosophical and creative writing. As I reflected on your PhD reading a couple of weeks back, I saw a clear example of how philosophical writing has its own method and tools, and I want to give that process more attention. Why? I lack clarity in my thinking, and it shows in my writing. Listening to your breakdown of the philosophical structure of grief, without resorting to psychologism, gave me much-needed insight into philosophical writing. So, thank you for sharing your PhD journey with us.
Thanks for this Michael. A few responses. I think your framing of the question you’re interested in needs a little refining. “X” could be a person, a world, a concept, a relation, a practice, or reality as such, and each one changes the question slightly. So a natural question that many would ask you is: what kind of unity are we asking about? Logical unity, existential unity (such as meaning making or starting from Sartre’s view that we exist first?), metaphysical dependence (for example, a property may depend on there being an object), social coherence, or something else? Until that is specified, the question sounds weightier than it is. Don’t get me wrong, that does not make it a bad question. It means the next philosophical move for you is to discipline it, and refine it. Here is something that may help you: In what sense can human existence be ontologically solitary if the self is formed, sustained, and made intelligible through relations? That, I think, is close to what your after but definetly think about it a bit and try to pin it down in as precise a way as possible.
I would also be cautious about biographies. Biography can help us understand the pressures behind a thinker’s work, but it can also introduce the separate problem of whether we can, or should, separate the writer from the writing. Heidegger is the obvious case here. Once biography enters too early, the topic can drift from the argument to the person. I would rather begin with the thought itself, then bring in biography and context once the philosophical issue is already in view. For example, you can read Sartre without caring about his life, and still understand large parts of the argument. You can also become interested in his life afterwards because it helps explain why those questions mattered to him. But, I would say, the argument has to be grasped first.
Your point about solitude also needs spelling out a little. If by ontological solitude you mean that each of us exists as this particular self, never transferable into another’s standpoint, then that is an interesting route into philosophy. But if the claim is that human existence is fundamentally alone while also necessarily connected to others, then the relation between aloneness and connection needs a little more precision. Are others added onto an already solitary self, or is the self partly constituted through relation from the beginning? Those are very different positions to have. Work that kind of deals with this issue: Sickness unto death, Phenomenology of Perception (the final part), Sartre’s third part of Being and Nothingness. Those are worth your time mulling over.
And thank you for the point about my PhD work. I think you might get a lot out of De Unamuno’s tragic sense of life - especially chapter 1.
Nice one, Andrew, really useful stuff for those not just at the start but also partway their philosophical journeys (or those whose are somewhat dormant and will hopefully soon awaken...)
First, I have listened to others about who is important to read and study. I will work to change that. Second, I think about ontological solitude and all that it entails and does not. Human existence as a basis for aloneness is crazy to think about, given I am alone as myself and at the same time, by necessity, connected with others (sometimes it's nature, mostly it's people). Third, dictionaries help me a lot; a high-level summary also helps paint the landscape. Fourth, a few years ago, I began taking non-academic online philosophy courses. Thankfully, there are several online academies to explore Western philosophy, i.e., https://sphil.xyz/courses. Fifth, I have a few history-of-philosophy books and suggest considering autobiographical works, such as Rousseau's Confessions, as well as biographical works. Biographies help me connect the dots between the person and their ideas. One example is Terry Pinkard's bio on Hegel.
You reminded me of John Passmore's A Hundred Years of Philosophy, reading your post on Analytical and Continental Philosophy. In chapter four, Passmore writes, "that which holds the world together." Who cares what he is writing about (yes, it is important, simply not for my point here) - I am drawn into how to understand what it is that holds the world (reality) together. I've reframed the question, too: what is that which holds X together? Similar to a "what is" question, but has more weight without throwing shade on Plato's ti esti.
Lastly, I recently read Beyond Argument: The Creative Craft of Philosophy Writing by C. Thi Nguyen, which explains the difference between philosophical and creative writing. As I reflected on your PhD reading a couple of weeks back, I saw a clear example of how philosophical writing has its own method and tools, and I want to give that process more attention. Why? I lack clarity in my thinking, and it shows in my writing. Listening to your breakdown of the philosophical structure of grief, without resorting to psychologism, gave me much-needed insight into philosophical writing. So, thank you for sharing your PhD journey with us.
Thanks for this Michael. A few responses. I think your framing of the question you’re interested in needs a little refining. “X” could be a person, a world, a concept, a relation, a practice, or reality as such, and each one changes the question slightly. So a natural question that many would ask you is: what kind of unity are we asking about? Logical unity, existential unity (such as meaning making or starting from Sartre’s view that we exist first?), metaphysical dependence (for example, a property may depend on there being an object), social coherence, or something else? Until that is specified, the question sounds weightier than it is. Don’t get me wrong, that does not make it a bad question. It means the next philosophical move for you is to discipline it, and refine it. Here is something that may help you: In what sense can human existence be ontologically solitary if the self is formed, sustained, and made intelligible through relations? That, I think, is close to what your after but definetly think about it a bit and try to pin it down in as precise a way as possible.
I would also be cautious about biographies. Biography can help us understand the pressures behind a thinker’s work, but it can also introduce the separate problem of whether we can, or should, separate the writer from the writing. Heidegger is the obvious case here. Once biography enters too early, the topic can drift from the argument to the person. I would rather begin with the thought itself, then bring in biography and context once the philosophical issue is already in view. For example, you can read Sartre without caring about his life, and still understand large parts of the argument. You can also become interested in his life afterwards because it helps explain why those questions mattered to him. But, I would say, the argument has to be grasped first.
Your point about solitude also needs spelling out a little. If by ontological solitude you mean that each of us exists as this particular self, never transferable into another’s standpoint, then that is an interesting route into philosophy. But if the claim is that human existence is fundamentally alone while also necessarily connected to others, then the relation between aloneness and connection needs a little more precision. Are others added onto an already solitary self, or is the self partly constituted through relation from the beginning? Those are very different positions to have. Work that kind of deals with this issue: Sickness unto death, Phenomenology of Perception (the final part), Sartre’s third part of Being and Nothingness. Those are worth your time mulling over.
And thank you for the point about my PhD work. I think you might get a lot out of De Unamuno’s tragic sense of life - especially chapter 1.
Nice one, Andrew, really useful stuff for those not just at the start but also partway their philosophical journeys (or those whose are somewhat dormant and will hopefully soon awaken...)
I would actually get a history of philosophy; Russell or Will Durrant. Once something hits your interests, THAT'S what you read.
Russell’s history sucks 😂