Jump to content
Catec01

Literature

Recommended Posts

So I am a second year debater that is getting into the high level LD, and I am just confused on how the people who run the very policy type arguments find the literature for there non statistic or empirical analysis. Where do you get all these weird authors that say all these random things?? Also, what is a good place to start to read to get really into reading philosophy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading philosophy with Foucault, he is pretty easy to read and some of his concepts are cross-applied to a lot of authors, i.e. Agamben. (which will be prevalent on the jury nullification topic)

 

Another good starting place would be Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals as it is the foundation for a lot of popular authors as well, i.e. Deleuze and Guattari. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading philosophy with Foucault, he is pretty easy to read and some of his concepts are cross-applied to a lot of authors, i.e. Agamben. (which will be prevalent on the jury nullification topic)

 

Another good starting place would be Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals as it is the foundation for a lot of popular authors as well, i.e. Deleuze and Guattari. 

Disagree with reading Nietzsche as a new reader. He's pretty difficult to read and understand because of his poetic writing style.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with reading Nietzsche as a new reader. He's pretty difficult to read and understand because of his poetic writing style.

Disagree with that. While it's a bad idea to start with a book like Genealogy of Morals, it's hard to get into modern philosophy without Nietzsche.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a good starting place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with that. While it's a bad idea to start with a book like Genealogy of Morals, it's hard to get into modern philosophy without Nietzsche.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a good starting place.

I understand that, but why not read something else before Nietzsche?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree with that. While it's a bad idea to start with a book like Genealogy of Morals, it's hard to get into modern philosophy without Nietzsche.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a good starting place.

 

I certainly agree Thus Spoke Zarathustra is fun.  Maybe not the best starting point.

 

Honestly, I recommend one of three strategies, depending on your goals (knowledge of philosophy vs. weaponizing philosophy for rounds vs. fun to read)

 

Knowledge of Philosophy:

Start with Plato (suggestion Republic) and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics).  From there I'd go to Augustine (recommend De civitate Deiand Aquinas (Summa Theologica).  (Optional at this point: Averroes, Avicenna, Duns Scotus, and/or William d'Ockham).  Then we get to the start of modern political philosophy with Machiavelli (The Prince) and Hobbes (Leviathan).  From there, the pre-enlightenment, notably Descartes (Either Discourse on the Method or Principles of Philosophy) and Locke (Two Treatises on Government), with Spinoza and Bacon as potential additions.  The enlightenmnent key philosophers that followed are Rousseau (Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract), Kant (recommend Metaphysics of Morals), Smith (Theory of Moral SentimentsWealth of Nations), and Hume (A Treatise on Human Nature), with Voltaire and Montesquieu being worthy additions if you have the inclination or time.  That sets the stage for the 19th century, where we have Marx, Hegel, Bentham, Mills, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, James (pragmatism), Comte (positivism), Thoreau (Transcendentalism), and Frege (logic, philosophy of language).  The 20th century is too fresh to have a sense of which philosophers will be the ones who endure, but the 'high notes' would certainly include Wittgenstein, Popper, Foucault, Hayek, Rawls, and Nozick.

 

'Fun':

Montaigne (Essais) is perhaps the most readable of the renaissance philosophers, one of the early skeptics, and his essays are still quite influential.

Nietzsche Thus Spoke Zarathustra

de Toqueville Democracy in America is very readable and still relevant today.

Thomas Paine is pretty much the common man's rendering of Locke.  (Not that Locke is particularly unreadable, but Paine is more fiery)

Machiavelli The Prince

Rawls (A Theory of Justice) and Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia) are both very readable and very relevant.

Noam Chomsky is generally pretty readable.

Ayn Rand is primarily a novelist.  Her philosophical works are all short essays in plain language.

There are a number of analytical philosophers working today or in the not distant past who rely on thought experiments and write in plain language.  Searle, Dennet, and Putnam come to mind.

Kors and Silverglate The Shadow University is something I read recently which was quite engaging, easy to follow, and a critique of the modern university 'justice' system.

 

Weaponizing: Depends entirely on the kinds of arguments you want to make and what kinds of arguments you go up against in your circuit. To choose an extremely specific example, Hume's Bundle Theory is kryptonite to OOO (Object-Oriented Ontology).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd recommend just reading some summaries of some of those books, for example a full copy of Summa Theologica is like 3,500 pages, which isn't really all that useful to read all of unless you want to become a dedicated theology student. Similarly, Kant is both an extremely dense read and not cited directly or even indirectly [with any nuance anyways, basically just 'experience=/= reality' and so on] in debates, so it's less important to read full texts if you want to understand what everyone is shouting about for background reading (although this may be different in LD versus policy).

 

Reading full texts becomes more important with the arguments and authors that you actually want to deploy, but I fear that the average high schooler has a limited amount of philosophical capital that they're willing to expend, and as a judge I'd rather see a debater who's read 'Genealogy of Morals' cover to cover but only read summaries of the works of those that it builds upon, than someone who read Plato's The Republic but only the first 30 pages of Simulacra and Simulation and was going for Baudrillard, as it were. (Although both of those sound like they could get real bad real fast, knowing high theory debate tendencies). 

 

Honestly, I think the best place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and then find a few authors you think would be interesting. Then look up books along the line of 'Introduction to X' and then go from there to their actual work. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like honestly as long as your author was writing after Marx was born and is a leftist you need to know them to be #1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two questions what purpose do you want your k to be? 

like the literature will go on from their 

i tend to say starting with genealogy of moral or beyond good and evil are good 

-  but i think mills on util is one idk why it helped with reading everything else 

from their reading agamben homo sacer would probably help you understand many critical theorist 

 

--- but if you have specfic desires ask away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree Thus Spoke Zarathustra is fun.  Maybe not the best starting point.

I think the "Fun" books are the best to start with, as it produces an interest in philosophy. If you start by reading some OG, boring ass philosophy, you will lose interest quickly.

My sole reason for Thus Spoke Zarathustra is that it is my personal favorite fun book. I found it easy to read and it got me into reading other philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree Thus Spoke Zarathustra is fun.  Maybe not the best starting point.

 

Honestly, I recommend one of three strategies, depending on your goals (knowledge of philosophy vs. weaponizing philosophy for rounds vs. fun to read)

 

Knowledge of Philosophy:

Start with Plato (suggestion Republic) and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics).  From there I'd go to Augustine (recommend De civitate Deiand Aquinas (Summa Theologica).  (Optional at this point: Averroes, Avicenna, Duns Scotus, and/or William d'Ockham).  Then we get to the start of modern political philosophy with Machiavelli (The Prince) and Hobbes (Leviathan).  From there, the pre-enlightenment, notably Descartes (Either Discourse on the Method or Principles of Philosophy) and Locke (Two Treatises on Government), with Spinoza and Bacon as potential additions.  The enlightenmnent key philosophers that followed are Rousseau (Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract), Kant (recommend Metaphysics of Morals), Smith (Theory of Moral SentimentsWealth of Nations), and Hume (A Treatise on Human Nature), with Voltaire and Montesquieu being worthy additions if you have the inclination or time.  That sets the stage for the 19th century, where we have Marx, Hegel, Bentham, Mills, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, James (pragmatism), Comte (positivism), Thoreau (Transcendentalism), and Frege (logic, philosophy of language).  The 20th century is too fresh to have a sense of which philosophers will be the ones who endure, but the 'high notes' would certainly include Wittgenstein, Popper, Foucault, Hayek, Rawls, and Nozick.

 

'Fun':

Montaigne (Essais) is perhaps the most readable of the renaissance philosophers, one of the early skeptics, and his essays are still quite influential.

Nietzsche Thus Spoke Zarathustra

de Toqueville Democracy in America is very readable and still relevant today.

Thomas Paine is pretty much the common man's rendering of Locke.  (Not that Locke is particularly unreadable, but Paine is more fiery)

Machiavelli The Prince

Rawls (A Theory of Justice) and Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia) are both very readable and very relevant.

Noam Chomsky is generally pretty readable.

Ayn Rand is primarily a novelist.  Her philosophical works are all short essays in plain language.

There are a number of analytical philosophers working today or in the not distant past who rely on thought experiments and write in plain language.  Searle, Dennet, and Putnam come to mind.

Kors and Silverglate The Shadow University is something I read recently which was quite engaging, easy to follow, and a critique of the modern university 'justice' system.

 

Weaponizing: Depends entirely on the kinds of arguments you want to make and what kinds of arguments you go up against in your circuit. To choose an extremely specific example, Hume's Bundle Theory is kryptonite to OOO (Object-Oriented Ontology).

yaaaas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...