i would really like to read a book on economics that pitches the material at an introductory level without ceding the responsibility of being critical. but i keep finding that anything that presents more basic ideas does so in the manner of a teacher to a student (in the way that the student is just urged to play along until they find out later that the foundational justification for the tools they've been given is lacking), and that anything with more of an eye toward the dialectical change in the state of economics assumes a working familiarity with the tools that are supposed to be possibly suspect.
mark, i haven't really read it but if i had time i would read steven nadler's book with cambridge, 'spinoza's "ethics": an introduction'. the other books in that same series are fresh, accessible but not patronizing; and the ones on the tractatus and the investigations are even a little bold and novel.
the ethics is pretty short, so you could make quick work of it if you're just getting a look around, not bothered to understand and verify for yourself all the propositions and the proofs given for them (they're extremely elliptical and also perhaps not always right); and the scholia which are a part of it are much more expansive and address the questions about the upshot of his thought (viz. substance monism in which the one substance is god, and all ideas and material objects are part of it, and everything that 'happens' is naturally, causally determined) like the meaning of good and evil, human happiness, what people ought to do - that the answers are someone ineffable/zen-mastery, you might guess from the fact that there is only one substance. what would be harder to get from a quick reading would be a sense for what the argument is supposed to be. (on that point, i.e. the one philosophers generally care about, spinoza's regarded as among the hardest things to read.)
but spinoza's political writings are also extremely influential, and probably easier to read; some of the people you mention reading may often have them in mind more than the ethics. basically, spinoza is a very early and thorough proponent of rational criticism of the bible, and he defends a view of political toleration that accomodates the fact that rational criticism of the bible (etc.) seems to leave the state in a poor position to give preferential treatment to one religious faith over another. (there's another good bit to it that i'm forgetting.)
i don't intend to ever waste my time reading the damasio book.
nehemas is well-respected in my circles for his work in ancient philosophy, and for his book on nietzsche and the similarly-oriented book, 'the art of living' (which argues that there is an alternative, practical tradition to the theoretically-oriented one in philosophy - there are views on socrates, nietzsche, foucault to support his argument; see also 'philosophy as a way of life' by pierre hadot for different but similar readings of ancient philosophy - hadot was a contemporary of foucault's, known for his scholarship on hellenistic philosophy). the nietzsche book i'm sure is at odds with plenty of existing books on nietzsche, on points of doctrine, let's say, but its big plus is that it comes at questions about what the argumentative or persuasive force of nietzsche's writing could be, in a way that admits of rhetorical, formal, literary, and practical dimensions playing an essential part in the force of the writing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-11-07 05:34 am (UTC)mark, i haven't really read it but if i had time i would read steven nadler's book with cambridge, 'spinoza's "ethics": an introduction'. the other books in that same series are fresh, accessible but not patronizing; and the ones on the tractatus and the investigations are even a little bold and novel.
the ethics is pretty short, so you could make quick work of it if you're just getting a look around, not bothered to understand and verify for yourself all the propositions and the proofs given for them (they're extremely elliptical and also perhaps not always right); and the scholia which are a part of it are much more expansive and address the questions about the upshot of his thought (viz. substance monism in which the one substance is god, and all ideas and material objects are part of it, and everything that 'happens' is naturally, causally determined) like the meaning of good and evil, human happiness, what people ought to do - that the answers are someone ineffable/zen-mastery, you might guess from the fact that there is only one substance. what would be harder to get from a quick reading would be a sense for what the argument is supposed to be. (on that point, i.e. the one philosophers generally care about, spinoza's regarded as among the hardest things to read.)
but spinoza's political writings are also extremely influential, and probably easier to read; some of the people you mention reading may often have them in mind more than the ethics. basically, spinoza is a very early and thorough proponent of rational criticism of the bible, and he defends a view of political toleration that accomodates the fact that rational criticism of the bible (etc.) seems to leave the state in a poor position to give preferential treatment to one religious faith over another. (there's another good bit to it that i'm forgetting.)
i don't intend to ever waste my time reading the damasio book.
nehemas is well-respected in my circles for his work in ancient philosophy, and for his book on nietzsche and the similarly-oriented book, 'the art of living' (which argues that there is an alternative, practical tradition to the theoretically-oriented one in philosophy - there are views on socrates, nietzsche, foucault to support his argument; see also 'philosophy as a way of life' by pierre hadot for different but similar readings of ancient philosophy - hadot was a contemporary of foucault's, known for his scholarship on hellenistic philosophy). the nietzsche book i'm sure is at odds with plenty of existing books on nietzsche, on points of doctrine, let's say, but its big plus is that it comes at questions about what the argumentative or persuasive force of nietzsche's writing could be, in a way that admits of rhetorical, formal, literary, and practical dimensions playing an essential part in the force of the writing.