2/21/2019 – See especially bottom.
I want to go back to basics.
I want to consider the traditional problems of philosophy (for me) afresh.
I hope to comment on my main points of agreement or disagreement.
I will not be giving expositions of these philosophers – only my main reactions – positive or negative.
Also pointing out anything else particularly important.
First I plan to re-read several general histories of philosophy.
The Romance of Philosophy, by Jacques Choron
The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant
A History of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell
(I believe these are first three philosophy books I read.)
Then:
Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, by A. J. Ayer
A Hundred Years of Philosophy, by John Passmore
A History of Philosophy by Frederick Copleston (Volumes I-IX)
The Philosophers, by Ben-Ami Scharfstein
No doubt, I will get sidetracked at times.
I am already in other books and am in 4 reading groups.
Also, many of the philosophers that I intend to cover will not be covered by these histories.
I will also use primary sources in many cases.
Also, I, no doubt, will find Wikipedia useful to which I make a monthly donation.
Also of use are:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 21, 2019 – I am revising my purposes. I do intend to do some review of traditional philosophy, but not especially write on it. Also, I hope to review some physics. But I think I have little to say, myself, on these. Reading in The Skeptics Guide to the Universe, by Steven Novella: “Cutting edge science is too advanced for anyone to have a reasonable chance of making a significant contribution unless they first have a sufficient education in science. The pace of change in any active field of research is so rapid that a researcher must keep in contact with the community of scientists through journals, meetings, and seminars, just to keep up.”, p. 166.
The situation in philosophy is not quite so difficult, I think, but similar. I hope to do reading in philosophy and science yet. However, I have memory difficulties (especially names and dates – I usually do better with concepts – once I grasp them). I find my web site handy to remind me of names and dates – and chronology. If I write more, then I plan it to be mostly limited to philosophical logic. I will probably be studying quite a while before writing more. Presently, I am studying Isabelle, a Logic Theorem proving tool. It is extensional. I expect this will cause it to be inadequate for philosophical logic. But it is sort of a programming language and I enjoy programming. I also hope to clarify what I have already written on further (opacity, etc.). I still believe what I have written is, at least basically, correct. I think I have written enough, but perhaps it can be made more clear.
More importantly, I am interested in what might be called the “psychology of philosophy.” In particular, I would like to understand why, it seems to me, philosophers are so set in their ideas. And why they, who are so dedicated to reason, seldom are convinced by other philosophers with differing opinions.
Note: I do mean “psychology of philosophy” NOT “philosophy of psychology.” There are many books on the latter – I find none on the former!!!