I have been rather taken with the idea of launching a series of what I will call Appreciations -- which is to say, not tutorials, or mini-tutorials, or even micro-tutorials, but rather subjective discussions of a number of boks that I have, over the years, found especially rewarding. There would be no suggestion of expertise on my part, simply a sharing with all of you of my appreciation of some texts. If that strikes you all as a good idea, I will undertake some of them when I return to Chapel Hill in a week's time.
Here are some of the titles that have occurred to me as candidates for the Appreciations:
Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments
Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Every-day Life
Paul Goodman, Empire City
C. I. Lewis, Mind and the World Order
Leon Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long
e. e. cummings, Collected Poems
Plato, Gorgias
William Golding, The Inheritors
Erich Auerbach, Mimesis
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Please do.
Why is Kierkegaard considered a philosopher and not a theologian, or Christian Apologist? Or, just, any other form of theistic writings (ramblings)?
It might also be interesting to hear about some of the books that have been admired by others, but you thought to be worthless, stupid, nonsense, or in some other way, vice ridden.
It sounds like a good idea -- both Philosophical Fragments and Gorgias are underappreciated despite being a treasure-trove of ideas.
I like it. Mimesis is a personal favorite.
And Chris, since when did being a Christian exclude one from being a philosopher (said the atheist...)? I find Kierkegaard fascinating despite disagreeing with him, and I'm always shocked at how poorly some people think of him.
Goffman and the Gorgias ( an odd collocation, I suppose) would be appreciated. What about Sheldon Wolin's "Capitalism Incorporated" and David Harvey's "The Enigma of Capital," which are rather newish books. Do you know them?
Great idea. A shot-gun of brilliance. What about the Manuscripts of 1844 and/or something that illuminates the creative process?
I thought everyone had read the 1844 manuscripts!
This sounds great!!
Sounds wonderful. The only one of those works that I know well is Philosophical Fragments. I'd be curious to hear your take on it, and I'd also like to be introduced to the rest.
Everyone ought to read them Wolff!
Michael, misunderstanding me. I'm asking what makes him a philosopher, I'm not saying he can't be one. I'm ignorant of his work, and the little I have read, was entirely apologetic, and not philosophical.
My vote is on Kierkegard!
He had, if I'm not mistaken, some quarrels with hegelianism which I'm sure can be interesting from a marxian point-of-view.
I would also have to vote for Kierkegaard. The Philosophical Fragments and the Concluding Unscientific Postscript are his most philosophical. Chapter 3 of the Fragments is quite intriguing to me.
Chris, Kierkegaard is considered a philosopher because his early writings contain influential and profound philosophical thought. The Fragments and the Postscript alone guarantee his reputation in philosophy is assured.
Kierkegaard is also considered a theologian for the purposes of theology when one considers his late writings, like The Attack Upon Christendom, Works of Love, Practice in Christianity and the Discourses. These works alone guarantee his reputation in theology is assured.
Personally, I find Kierkegaard's works to be very fascinating. And while I don't believe in God, I definitely respect Kierkegaard's own belief to do so.
Kierkegaarde would be welcome, as would Goffman.Actually, any of them
Post a Comment