Thinking in essentials

[RicardoSmith23]

After reading so much Rand, I find it so incredibly difficult, tedious, annoying, etc...to read anything written or said by anyone else. She addresses things by their essentials, and she focuses on these, identifying the most important parts of issues, so that every word on the page is relevant, and it is actually exciting to read. And then when I switch to another philosopher, it's just empty verbiage and babble, and my brain screams in protest and makes me want to throw the book down and forget its existence. Rand spoils my brain. When I'm forced to read Kant for my classes, and I can't understand what he is saying, I find myself using her essays as drugs that provide a temporary relief from all the bullshit.

[yentel]

After reading so much Rand, I find it so incredibly difficult, tedious, annoying, etc...to read anything written or said by anyone else. She addresses things by their essentials, and she focuses on these, identifying the most important parts of issues, so that every word on the page is relevant, and it is actually exciting to read. And then when I switch to another philosopher, it's just empty verbiage and babble, and my brain screams in protest and makes me want to throw the book down and forget its existence. Rand spoils my brain. When I'm forced to read Kant for my classes, and I can't understand what he is saying, I find myself using her essays as drugs that provide a temporary relief from all the bullshit.

To become bored, or rather uninterested in counterargument is not a good sign. Most academics do not write like Rand, I'd advise getting used to it.

Edited September 24, 2012 by softwareNerd
Quote tag edit

[Inspector]

To become bored, or rather uninterested in counterargument is not a good sign.

I don't believe that's the point he made. He was saying that other philosophers - most especially post-Kantian academics - are completely maddening to read because of their (often intentionally) muddled thinking (and therefore writing).

It's a real problem - my suggestion is that unless you want to become a professional intellectual, you should just save yourself the madness and avoid them. Life's too short.

[Benpercent]

I'm not too knowledgeable as to where you can find these types of books, but you may want to read second-hand sources first before you dip into the original philosophers. I have this problem too. Perhaps it's better to go in knowing what to expect and look for instead of trying to penetrate it like a coconut fresh off the tree.

Also, to reduce time, you may just want to read until where you find their base will not hold, that is, when the horse is dead (and there's no need to chase after the cart), because from there the argument crumbles. For example, I remember one time on this forum reading a small excerpt of an exhaustive essay against Objectivism. One person pointed out that near the beginning, which criticizes concept formation, the author puts formal names in his first categorical syllogism, and formal names are not concepts as they do not represent any units. As a result the horse was dead before it even left the gate.

[athena glaukopis]

Boy, can i relate to your problem. I barely passed "Modern Philosophy" and only was able to do so by oft referencing my copy of "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. I highly suggest you get it so it can clear up these philosophies for you (as Ben suggested)

I'm not too knowledgeable as to where you can find these types of books, but you may want to read second-hand sources first before you dip into the original philosophers. I have this problem too. Perhaps it's better to go in knowing what to expect and look for instead of trying to penetrate it like a coconut fresh off the tree.

[Hermes]

I yea-say the recommendation for a second-source outline of philosophy. When I was first a freshman in 1967, I relied on Bertran Russell. A few years ago, writing a magazine article, I compared and contrasted some sources and found him lacking. Russell is committed to Western science and the logical-positivist methods. Realize that logical-positivist is not the same thing as rational-empiricist. Rational-empiricist is closer to Objectivism. But for all that, Russell is dependable. The other readable and reliable choice would be DURANT (The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, 1926). The third option is the popular paperback series AGE OF (Houghton Mifflin. Morton Gabriel White, editor, 1955).

AGE OF REASON -- 17th century

AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT -- 18th century

AGE OF IDEOLOGY -- 19th century

AGE OF ANALYSIS -- 20th century

It won't make the ideas any more correct, but Russell, Durant or this set will make the reading more palletable.

I am back in college now, working on a new degree for a new career and this nonsense hasn't changed. If anything it has gotten worse. One bright spot is that I have an Objectivist professor of philosophy at my school, Greg Browne, author of Necessary Factual Truth. I don't need any philosophy classes, but it is nice to see him in the halls.