• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Philosophy and Spirituality Book/Article Thread

drug_mentor

drug_mentor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
7,536
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Following a post made by Sigmond in the P&S Suggestions thread, I thought I would make a thread for posters to share what they are reading, and to recommend books and articles to others.

Currently I am reading two philosophy books:

Thinking Clearly: a guide to critical reasoning by Jill LeBlanc

Beginning Logic by E. J. Lemmon

I would recommend Thinking Clearly to anyone who is looking for a book on critical thinking. It is a clear and concise book which makes the subject matter easy to consume. The back of the book has a website you can go to and work through exercises which relate to each of the chapters, which is a nice bonus.

I have not made much of a start on Beginning Logic, and being otherwise relatively unfamiliar with formal logic I can't comment a great deal on the quality of the book. I would note that this is the prescribed text for the entry level symbolic logic unit at the University I attend, so I would infer from this that it gives the attentive reader a reasonable grounding in formal logic.

At times I don't find this book particularly clear, but I think part of the problem is the book assumes a background knowledge of mathematics, which I don't have much of.

Could anyone recommend a good, relatively short introduction to Continental philosophy? So far my exposure has mostly been limited to the analytic tradition.
 
Last edited:
The last two books I've (re)read:

Cosmic Consciousness by Richard M. Bucke.

The Conquest of Illusion by J J Van der Leeuw. This is an old book, and free as a pdf though I prefer my hardback copy. http://www.med.wayne.edu/degracialab/metaphysics/Conquest_Of_Illusion.pdf


Both are definitely required reading material for any genuine seeker of Truth.

The first is a compilation produced by Bucke of individuals through history who have experienced Cosmic Consciousness, based on the written accounts of and by these persons. Bucke makes comparisons and attempts to analyze the depth of experience of the individuals based upon certain criteria. Some of the accounts are fascinating to read simply because they are 100-200 years old, and you get a feeling of what the world was like for people back in that era. What is fascinating is that not all of these people were seekers of truth by any means, though most were intellectually active or passionately productive in some respect.. and the nature of the experience, how it descends upon them without warning.. and then leaves after a short period of time (hours to days).

The second is a great book for getting you as the reader to think seriously about the nature of your own perceptions and how all of this works. This book is wonderful. It is almost completely devoid of the pretentious nonsense that fills many modern spiritual books, written in a language from a time of greater sophistication of thought (about 90 years ago). Below is one of the simple diagrams contained in the book, which when I first saw it was impressed by its message.

conquest2.jpg
 
SS, that diagram intrigued me slightly, even though I must admit that I have no concrete idea what it is supposed to represent. It seems to suggest that objects we encounter in the world are projections of innate images in our head, is that how you read it?

Innate knowledge is a concept which I find fairly fascinating, although I have not done much reading on the topic thus far.

Anyway, I followed the link to the second book which you provided (thanks for doing that!). I noticed in the contents section that there was a chapter devoted to intuitive knowledge and logical truth, you can probably guess that I skipped right to this section. From this point it did not take long before I encountered some statements which I found to be highly problematic.

I don't really want to debate the content of the book (that isn't what this thread is for). But, as someone who is presently studying logic you can probably guess what I think of the attempts by the author to discredit logic. I appreciate your contribution to the thread though, and would encourage those with an interest in spirituality to check out the link provided.

Ninae I had not initially realised the link you provided was to a pdf of the book you mentioned but I appreciate you including that as well. :)
 
Last edited:
The "Mystic Text" thread also has some good material. But on the whole what I would recommend the most is:

- Peter Deunov books
- The Prosveta series with Omraan Mikhail Aivanhov
- The Aquarian Testament


I've only made it halfway through The Aquarian Testament yet, as it's plenty heavy, but has a great deal of food for thought. It seems to me like it would have been the original testament.

There are over 10 times as many words by Christ and they are presented in a more accessible way. He really comes alive in these pages, his divine nature really shines through, and I have a new appreciation for him.
 
Do you read much philosophy Ninae?

I have no issue whatsoever with people sharing spiritual books in this thread, it is a philosophy and spirituality forum after all. However, my personal interest lies almost entirely within the realm of philosophy, with only a marginal (at best) interest in most aspects of spirituality. For this reason I am much more likely to engage in conversation about books relating to philosophy.
 
Yes, I read all across the board. I like Plotinus, Pythagoras, all kinds of mysticism. I see the great mystics as the best philosophers, though.
 
That's cool, I am familiar with a few of Plotinus ideas.

I find the idea of platonic ideals pretty intriguing. I don't necessarily adopt the view of platonism but in general I find different conceptions of abstract objects fairly interesting.

I have not read his work. Would you recommend a particular text?
 
drug_mentor said:
Anyway, I followed the link to the second book which you provided (thanks for doing that!). I noticed in the contents section that there was a chapter devoted to intuitive knowledge and logical truth, you can probably guess that I skipped right to this section. From this point it did not take long before I encountered some statements which I found to be highly problematic.

I don't really want to debate the content of the book (that isn't what this thread is for). But, as someone who is presently studying logic you can probably guess what I think of the attempts by the author to discredit logic. I appreciate your contribution to the thread though, and would encourage those with an interest in spirituality to check out the link provided.
Click to expand...

Intrigued to know what your issues with it were, I thought it was balanced personally; logic being necessary and a useful tool in exposition but ultimately not capable of generating or leading to the Truth on its own. Regardless the whole book is fantastic philosophical material for contemplation on for that very reason; the path to Truth requires challenging held beliefs in order to shed falsehoods so that one may retreat into the Truth (as opposed to forging towards something predefined).

What I like about the book in particular is it deals with perception quite a lot, that diagram being one example, and trying to get the reader to see just how flawed our perceptive ability really is.
 
I want to keep debate over the content of particular texts out of this thread. I will happily discuss this with you via PM. I am bent right now but will send a message when I have time. If I happen to forget and you are particularly eager to discuss it then don't hesitate to shoot me a PM.
 
Last edited:
loved the thread idea! i saw Sigmond's post too and thought "i hope someone does make this thread"

hum... i haven't been reading in the past few weeks at all, but i had been reading (and will resume) Music at Night by Huxley. it consist of 26 short and light essays with reflections and thoughts on different subjects. i like it a lot. i'd take it on a bus ride or if i went to take a shit, and read one essay and that was enough. daily doses of 'philosophy'. i know this is very likely not the 'philosophy' you want, but i feel it still belongs here...

i don't really like the more academic " "philosophy" ". an ex high school philosophy teacher of mine (and later friend) borrowed me several books on logic, which were apparently with the intent to help people think rationally... that's what bugged me. if and only if, for all, inductive, tautology... man... :\ those would definitely help you look into mathematical philosophy or theoretical computer science, but not day to day thinking IMO. i feel the human mind operates reason in a very different manner, and that's what this guys were missing (and several other philosophers i have read...).

that and the college philosophy teachers being complete pretentious douchebags completely turned me off... i LOVE philosophy, just don't like how some people do it.
 
neurotic said:
i don't really like the more academic " "philosophy" ". an ex high school philosophy teacher of mine (and later friend) borrowed me several books on logic, which were apparently with the intent to help people think rationally... that's what bugged me. if and only if, for all, inductive, tautology... man... :\ those would definitely help you look into mathematical philosophy or theoretical computer science, but not day to day thinking IMO. i feel the human mind operates reason in a very different manner, and that's what this guys were missing (and several other philosophers i have read...).
Click to expand...

The issue I have with this idea is that modern psychology shows that the human mind operates in ways that have generally been adaptive in an evolutionary sense but also can be maladaptive in relation to critical and scientific thinking. Science and philosophy are oftentimes contrary to day to day thinking, that is why they are academic disciplines which take rigorous study to master, the notion that this somehow makes them irrelevant to day to day reasoning is extremely misguided.
 
drug_mentor said:
The issue I have with this idea is that modern psychology shows that the human mind operates in ways that have generally been adaptive in an evolutionary sense but also can be maladaptive in relation to critical and scientific thinking. Science and philosophy are oftentimes contrary to day to day thinking,
Click to expand...

up to this point, i agree completely. the thing is, i think that the way to counteract this day to day irrationality is different than the one you defend. i.e. i don't think that understanding the names of logical concepts (most of them, such as fallacy, one can understand already without having studied it on a book or knowing the name) will help one think more critically and rationally.

i have to go now but later i'll talk about what i feel is a better way, at least one that worked for me. just this: during moments when emotion is clouding our judgement, the 'rational' mind is incredibly capable of coming up with logic arguments to prove whatever it wants to prove (that's why i don't think the study of cold hard logic works), so i think that the problem is on a deeper level...
 
drug_mentor said:
The issue I have with this idea is that modern psychology shows that the human mind operates in ways that have generally been adaptive in an evolutionary sense but also can be maladaptive in relation to critical and scientific thinking. Science and philosophy are oftentimes contrary to day to day thinking, that is why they are academic disciplines which take rigorous study to master, the notion that this somehow makes them irrelevant to day to day reasoning is extremely misguided.
Click to expand...

I don know.. I agree with neurotic about philosophy, the way it is presented academically.. it kind of misses the point of actual philosophy IMHO. And also agree with the point about many philosophers (and teachers).. just because someone is revered or teaches doesn't mean they actually know anything. Enlightened individuals don't need credentials or thousands of pages in published materials.

The point about philosophy being divorced somewhat from day to day thinking also applies to psychology.. both modern psychology and philosophy have a lot to answer for, given that they are both sacred sciences!

Anyway.. some more books I've read for the list:

The Law of Suggestion by Santanelli. This book is very old, and again freely available as pdf. It deals with hypnosis and offers a perspective on what the human mind really is. http://selfdefinition.org/rose/Santanelli-The-Law-of-Suggestion-hardcover-scan.pdf

In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky. Interesting book that deals with Ouspensky meeting George Gurdjieff, a man who seemed to apprehend human psychology well.
 
I didn't make this thread to promote academic philosophy, I made it so P&S posters could share books and articles they enjoy with other posters. I think it is fairly clear that I am a fan of academic philosophy, but that doesn't mean I am not open to reading sources outside of academic philosophy.

I understand where your criticism comes from SS. However, I wonder if you are evaluating it realistically in the context of being an academic discipline. Philosophy has traditionally had a major focus on enlightenment, about how to live a good life, etc. However, in today's day and age (if not for the totality of human history) it would be difficult to exclusively teach these ideas without being fairly dogmatic. Aside from that, the scope of philosophy is extremely broad, and it only makes sense that philosophy departments will cater to this reality. An obvious side effect of this is that the important questions get much less attention than they would if they were the exclusive focus of philosophy as a discipline.

The point of philosophy as an academic discipline is to teach people to think about things rigorously, logically and how to analyse complex ideas and problems and distill them into simpler ones which can be more easily explained or solved. The idea is to structure the way you think in the most efficient manner. This by no means guarantees enlightenment, but I think someone with these skills has much better odds of attaining enlightenment at some point in their lives than someone who doesn't have them.

Anyway, I would really prefer if this thread didn't turn in to another academic philosophy bashing exercise. If anyone feels that strongly about it they are free to make a relevant thread. I appreciate that not everyone shares my views, but now that I have said my piece I am not going to be drawn into a back and forth debate about the value of academic philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see this thread and appreciate the recommendations. I am going to check out the cosmic consciousness book when I make my next order from the library.

Last book I read was: Consolations of Philosophy - Alain de Botton

It's more of a self help book rather than a philosophy book but I thought the chapters on Epicurus, Montaigne, and Schopenhauer were worthwhile. I noticed there is a TV program on youtube which is based on the book - I imagine its rather slow and boring. I suppose 'Epicurus on happiness' is the highlight of the book, his thoughts are pretty simple.

"Epicurus makes an important distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are those which are necessary to produce happiness, such as desiring to get rid of bodily pain, or desiring a state of inner tranquility. He writes that “the end of all our actions is to be free from pain and fear, and once this is obtained the tempest of the soul is quelled.” Only when we are in pain do we feel the need to seek pleasure, a need which inevitably only produces greater pain.

In order to get rid of this pain-pleasure-pain cycle, we need to cultivate a mindset in which there is no pain. Thus the aim is not the positive pursuit of pleasure, as it was for Aristippus. The aim is rather the attaining of a neutral state which is best described as “peace of mind” or even “emptiness,” to use a Buddhist expression. The Greek word Epicurus uses for this state is ataraxia, which literally means “freedom from worry.”

Necessary conditions for happiness would be freedom, thought, friends, food, clothing, shelter.

The chapter on Montaigne is humorous but not all that informative it address topics such as impotence, farting, boredom, the different behaviors of 'primitive' cultures such as American Indians around the time of the Mayan civilization.

If you haven't read any of these philosophers its a decent introduction although I wouldn't buy the book.

Hope you guys are doing well.
 
Last edited:
Just located a pdf of Cosmic Consciousness by Bucke. I wasn't aware that if a book was published before 1923 in the USA that you can use it for free without copyright permissions. Convenient =D

http://djm.cc/library/Cosmic_Consciousness_edited02.pdf

Contents on page 15. I would still recommend the hard copy though as it's a book worth having for the library and to pass to friends/someone interested in philosophy and seeking Truth.
 
Yes, there is an incredible amount of quality books available at Project Gutenberg and Open Culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top