Western Philosophy Suggestions

Status
Not open for further replies.
AT

AT

Puritan Board Freshman
I looking to get acquainted with the philosophy of the western world starting from the Greeks. I came across a few lecture resources and was hoping if anyone could guide me on this.

1. A History of Philosophy, by former Wheaton College Professor, Dr. Arthur F. Holmes (81 lectures)

2. A History of Western Philosophy and theology by Dr. John Frame (39 lectures)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCO8dYuk6EXasu6QJlo7u8jElkNE89FrG

3. The Consequence of Ideas by Dr. Sproul (35 lectures)
Does anyone recommend his book on this subject by the same title? Is it a good introduction to philosophy?

3. History of Philosophy and Christian Thought by Dr. Ronald Nash (36 lectures)
www.biblicaltraining.org

History of Philosophy and Christian Thought - Ronald Nash | Free

This course provides an in-depth understanding of the history of philosophy and its impact on Christian thought, covering Pre-Socratic, Classical Greek,
www.biblicaltraining.org www.biblicaltraining.org

4. Modern Philosophy by Dr. Ronald Nash (28 lectures)
https://archive.org/details/podcast_modern-philosophy_412910038

5. The Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition (1992) (57 lectures) - 10 professors

6. Great Minds by Dr. Michael Sugrue (26 lectures)

7. Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 3rd Edition (84 lectures) - 12 professors
www.audible.in

Audible.com | Try Audible Free Today

Try Audible free for 30 days! Start listening to best-selling audiobooks, exclusive Originals, and free podcasts with the Audible app.
www.audible.in www.audible.in

Has anyone listened to some these? What are your thoughts?
I'm looking to start with Dr. Sproul's book "The Consequence of Ideas" and then move onto Dr. Holmes' lectures. Is there some place else I rather begin?
 
Sproul's book (or lectures) is a good start.

In terms of books, I suggest Coplestone's. the Great Minds is good; I have it in queue.

Nash is a fun speaker. I disagree with him on Aquinas but I love listening to Nash.

Frame is weak on historical philosophy but strong on modern stuff.
 
RamistThomist said:
Sproul's book (or lectures) is a good start.

In terms of books, I suggest Coplestone's. the Great Minds is good; I have it in queue.

Nash is a fun speaker. I disagree with him on Aquinas but I love listening to Nash.

Frame is weak on historical philosophy but strong on modern stuff.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

By the Great Minds, which book or lecture series are you referring to? The Sugrue series or the 84 part-12 professor series or the 57 part-10 professor series? Or is it a book?

I was going to begin with Sproul, then I came across his section on Hegel and he put forward the typical “Hegelian dialectic thesis-antithesis-synthesis”. John Frame, Thomas Sowell (and maybe Scruton?) among others have disputed such an element in Hegel’s thought. So I was a bit sceptical, hence the question.

How accessible is Coplestone to the beginner? The multi-volume work seemed daunting hence I didn’t mention it in the OP. My knowledge of philosophy, if at all any, is very basic.

Any idea on Dr. Holmes? Dr. Philip Ryken has some nice things to say of him. And the course seems very extensive.
 
Tychicus said:
I was going to begin with Sproul, then I came across his section on Hegel and he put forward the typical “Hegelian dialectic thesis-antithesis-synthesis”. John Frame, Thomas Sowell (and maybe Scruton?) among others have disputed such an element in Hegel’s thought. So I was a bit sceptical, hence the question.
Click to expand...

Very perceptive. Most people don't realize that about Hegel. Agreed. Hegel never said such a thing. You mentioned Scruton. His modern history of philosophy is excellent. Sproul is good on ancient philosophy and thomas Aquinas.
 
RamistThomist said:
Sproul's book (or lectures) is a good start.

In terms of books, I suggest Coplestone's. the Great Minds is good; I have it in queue.

Nash is a fun speaker. I disagree with him on Aquinas but I love listening to Nash.

Frame is weak on historical philosophy but strong on
Click to expand...
 
Tychicus said:
Thank you.

By the Great Minds, which book or lecture series are you referring to? The Sugrue series or the 84 part-12 professor series or the 57 part-10 professor series? Or is it a book?

I was going to begin with Sproul, then I came across his section on Hegel and he put forward the typical “Hegelian dialectic thesis-antithesis-synthesis”. John Frame, Thomas Sowell (and maybe Scruton?) among others have disputed such an element in Hegel’s thought. So I was a bit sceptical, hence the question.

How accessible is Coplestone to the beginner? The multi-volume work seemed daunting hence I didn’t mention it in the OP. My knowledge of philosophy, if at all any, is very basic.

Any idea on Dr. Holmes? Dr. Philip Ryken has some nice things to say of him. And the course seems very extensive.
Click to expand...
I have to say that I didn't like sproul on pragmatism so if you wanna know that don't go to him. Otherwise, besides Wittgenstein, he's a good source. Especially as Jacob pointed out on the early Greeks. Another source could be Gorden Clark, he wrote a wonderful history of philosophy (although he was horrible on both the prementioned things). Both of which I hold to.
As far as postmodernism goes James ka smith and Michael Horton are the only two that get it, that I've read and agree with. You could listen to William Edgar on the WTS page about modernity.
 
jwright82 said:
I have to say that I didn't like sproul on pragmatism so if you wanna know that don't go to him. Otherwise, besides Wittgenstein, he's a good source. Especially as Jacob pointed out on the early Greeks. Another source could be Gorden Clark, he wrote a wonderful history of philosophy (although he was horrible on both the prementioned things). Both of which I hold to.
As far as postmodernism goes James ka smith and Michael Horton are the only two that get it, that I've read and agree with. You could listen to William Edgar on the WTS page about modernity.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your suggestions. Will look into William Edgar. I do have Dr. Horton's In The Face of God on my shelf, tried reading it a year ago, didn't get too far, but your post now has reminded me to look into it. I believe he deals with Romanticism, Gnosticism, etc in evangelicalism.


jwright82 said:
(although he was horrible on both the prementioned things). Both of which I hold to.
Click to expand...
I’m not following you here. Gordon Clark was not good on early Greeks and pragmatism? And you hold to both?
 
Tychicus said:
Thank you for your suggestions. Will look into William Edgar. I do have Dr. Horton's In The Face of God on my shelf, tried reading it a year ago, didn't get too far, but your post now has reminded me to look into it. I believe he deals with Romanticism, Gnosticism, etc in evangelicalism.



I’m not following you here. Gordon Clark was not good on early Greeks and pragmatism? And you hold to both?
Click to expand...

Clark was excellent on the Greeks. What James meant to say is that James holds to pragmatism and Wittgenstein.
 
Tychicus said:
Interesting. I’ve always read “pragmatism=bad” in reformed circles.
Click to expand...
Well I appreciate the warm words from my friend Jacob. Although we disagree on those topics I have always felt like we were friends based on our interactions. I only posted pragmatism and Wittgenstein to show where I disagreed with Clark and as a vantillion I don't hate Clark. I would recommend reading primary sources in this area.
The reason I'm a pragmatist is from reading them. And I love William James.
 
jwright82 said:
Well I appreciate the warm words from my friend Jacob. Although we disagree on those topics I have always felt like we were friends based on our interactions. I only posted pragmatism and Wittgenstein to show where I disagreed with Clark and as a vantillion I don't hate Clark. I would recommend reading primary sources in this area.
The reason I'm a pragmatist is from reading them. And I love William James.
Click to expand...

I also value the friendship.

On Gordon Clark: he is such a fun writer (and a good speaker, if you like the old timey talk). He has a bizarre take on epistemology, but just get past that part.
 
RamistThomist said:
James and I disagree on that. I believe it is bad. To be fair, later pragmatists have so heavily qualified that it isn't the same as the bald form of William
Click to expand...
I completely agree on his, Clark's epistemology, views of knowledge being weird.
 
Someone mentioned Horton on philosophy.

Horton is outstanding on two particular points: speech-act theory and rebutting Hegel. My only caution is that his use of Westphal's Overcoming Ontotheology needs to have its limits. Not every philosophy is ontotheology.

I love speech-act theory, but if you are going to start using speech act theory, then you need to do the heavy lifting and read the main texts.
 
Tychicus said:
Thank you, anything particularly noteworthy about the author/book? In other words, why do you recommend him?
Click to expand...
He is familiar with all the sources in their original languages, he is strong on the middle ages and he appreciates the contributions of Christianity to western philosophy, he is a moderate realist that avoids the corruptions of modernism, and as a dissenter from dogmatic neo-scholasticism he is able to appreciate other perspectives.
 
Tychicus said:
That would be very helpful.
Click to expand...
Ok. Imagine you're walking down the road and you need to cross the street and all you can see is cars whipping by. You say out loud "I wonder if I should cross the street?" Two philosophy students overhear you and one says "no you shouldn't, you'll get hit by a car". The other says "no you'll be fine this an illusion anyway, the cars can't hurt you there an illusion".
Practically speaking, or pragmatically speaking, which one do you listen too? Ockam's razor here, you listen to the one who tells you the cars are real because either way its the safer bet. If person two is correct than no harm no foul the cars aren't real. If person one is correct than crossing the street could be bad for your health. This was a solution to certain metaphysical problems proposed by William James. There's way more I could say about the historical context but I won't unless you want me to, I'm happy to do it.
Linguistic Pragmatism came about by realizing the later Wittgenstein (There's more I could say on this as well) was right about language. Different ways of talking about things can either be more useful or not given the context. So the more useful a way of talking about something is, practically, the most "truthful" way of talking about it. It gives you results, but not exhaustively, to you're practical problems. I can explain to someone who speaks English quite articulatelly why they shouldn't cross the street but to someone of a different language I would adopt a more basic, and in this sense more useful, way of explaining it.
Now James was eclectic in his use of Pragmatism, see his lectures "Pragmatism" and essays "The Meaning of Truth". He also proposed Pragmatism as a theory of truth. Whatever idea is "true", whatever that means, is practically the most "true". The crossing the the street analogy, which idea will better work out for you?
Now Dewey took this a bit further in his Instrumentalism by proposing that ideas are simply instruments to practically get by with life. Although he believed in a correspondence theory of "truth", "true" ideas correspond to reality in some nebulous way, any idea regardless of "truth" value could work out and be true. So if some group of people blames another group of people for there bad luck and wipes them out, and prospers, than it must be "true" that they were the cause of the bad luck. Now Dewey wouldn't agree with that but I don't see how he or James could argue against it.
Now when people say Pragmatism=bad thats usually what they mean. But they haven't read the primary sources well enough to see that they aren't concerned with any and all ideas only a select group of ideas, however inconsistently. I'll grant that they never really made this clear but its hogwash to say that Pragmatism believes whatever works out is true, see James in "The Meaning of Truth" in his response to Lord Russell.
So from this people like Richard Rorty came to doubt and criticize the value, or usefulness, of the word "truth". Why speculate on some ethereal or nebulous thing called "truth" when we have far more concrete, or useful, ways of conveying the same idea (don't complicate things by unnecessary abstractions)? You could say "thats right" or "yep" and it concretely says everything you tried to convey by the nebulous word "truth".
Horton says some of the same stuff with regards to "theories" of "truth". He proposes a different, and more inclusive of all "theories" of truth, theory of truth. I believe its a revelatory theory of truth (could be wrong)?
Now, I hope I'm making sense so far, this bleeds over into my view of doctrine. No one believes that any creed or confession exhaustively captures the whole truth. But I propose that there are useful and non-useful ways to express this, Pragmatism. A more useful way should never replace the previous way of describing things but should add on and enlighten, further, our understanding of said doctrine.
I apologize if my 3000 foot overview of Pragmatism is confusing but I'd be happy to dig down and explain further any areas that I made confusing to you or anyone else. Just ask.
 
jwright82 said:
Ok. Imagine you're walking down the road and you need to cross the street and all you can see is cars whipping by. You say out loud "I wonder if I should cross the street?" Two philosophy students overhear you and one says "no you shouldn't, you'll get hit by a car". The other says "no you'll be fine this an illusion anyway, the cars can't hurt you there an illusion".
Practically speaking, or pragmatically speaking, which one do you listen too? Ockam's razor here, you listen to the one who tells you the cars are real because either way its the safer bet. If person two is correct than no harm no foul the cars aren't real. If person one is correct than crossing the street could be bad for your health. This was a solution to certain metaphysical problems proposed by William James. There's way more I could say about the historical context but I won't unless you want me to, I'm happy to do it.
Linguistic Pragmatism came about by realizing the later Wittgenstein (There's more I could say on this as well) was right about language. Different ways of talking about things can either be more useful or not given the context. So the more useful a way of talking about something is, practically, the most "truthful" way of talking about it. It gives you results, but not exhaustively, to you're practical problems. I can explain to someone who speaks English quite articulatelly why they shouldn't cross the street but to someone of a different language I would adopt a more basic, and in this sense more useful, way of explaining it.
Now James was eclectic in his use of Pragmatism, see his lectures "Pragmatism" and essays "The Meaning of Truth". He also proposed Pragmatism as a theory of truth. Whatever idea is "true", whatever that means, is practically the most "true". The crossing the the street analogy, which idea will better work out for you?
Now Dewey took this a bit further in his Instrumentalism by proposing that ideas are simply instruments to practically get by with life. Although he believed in a correspondence theory of "truth", "true" ideas correspond to reality in some nebulous way, any idea regardless of "truth" value could work out and be true. So if some group of people blames another group of people for there bad luck and wipes them out, and prospers, than it must be "true" that they were the cause of the bad luck. Now Dewey wouldn't agree with that but I don't see how he or James could argue against it.
Now when people say Pragmatism=bad thats usually what they mean. But they haven't read the primary sources well enough to see that they aren't concerned with any and all ideas only a select group of ideas, however inconsistently. I'll grant that they never really made this clear but its hogwash to say that Pragmatism believes whatever works out is true, see James in "The Meaning of Truth" in his response to Lord Russell.
So from this people like Richard Rorty came to doubt and criticize the value, or usefulness, of the word "truth". Why speculate on some ethereal or nebulous thing called "truth" when we have far more concrete, or useful, ways of conveying the same idea (don't complicate things by unnecessary abstractions)? You could say "thats right" or "yep" and it concretely says everything you tried to convey by the nebulous word "truth".
Horton says some of the same stuff with regards to "theories" of "truth". He proposes a different, and more inclusive of all "theories" of truth, theory of truth. I believe its a revelatory theory of truth (could be wrong)?
Now, I hope I'm making sense so far, this bleeds over into my view of doctrine. No one believes that any creed or confession exhaustively captures the whole truth. But I propose that there are useful and non-useful ways to express this, Pragmatism. A more useful way should never replace the previous way of describing things but should add on and enlighten, further, our understanding of said doctrine.
I apologize if my 3000 foot overview of Pragmatism is confusing but I'd be happy to dig down and explain further any areas that I made confusing to you or anyone else. Just ask.
Click to expand...
This is very helpful. Thank you. I will look into the primary sources you mentioned. I need some time to chew through it.

@RamistThomist, what do you think of @jwright82 's post? Would you object to his cars problem solution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
History of Western Philosophy
Replies
2
Views
2K
crhoades
crhoades
TylerRay
  • Locked
Philosophy Podcasts?
Replies
12
Views
2K
TylerRay
TylerRay
JS116
  • Locked
Refomed Philosophy
Replies
9
Views
3K
jwright82
jwright82
Repre5entYHWH
  • Locked
Intro Philosophy
Replies
8
Views
2K
Repre5entYHWH
Repre5entYHWH
JM
  • Locked
Islamic Philosophy
Replies
3
Views
3K
JM
JM
Back
Top