/lit/ - Literature

[OP No.4247221]

Hey /lit/, how are you doing?

I have an eight-page paper on Modern Philosophy to deliver by the 17th this month, where we have to focus on a specific problematic of our choice found in one of the philosophers we studied (we went through Descartes, Espinoza, Locke, Hume, and Hobbes), whilst relating it to the concepts of "system" and "method" (the teacher didn't really develop on what these are, unfortunately).

Thing is, I'm not in a Philosophy major. I'm doing this as an optional course within my Translation major. My problem is that I might be at a disadvantage here because regular concepts and ideas might pass me by. I chose this course because I'm not the least bit unmotivated, quite the opposite: I'd love to study Philosophy in my free time if I didn't have shit to do from my own major, so I chose it out of pure interest.

I guess I'm asking for pointers then. I kinda liked Espinoza so I might find something there to work with, but I'm open to any suggestions (within these philosophers I mentioned above).

Also, why does Hume have a jew bag on his head? Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4247235]

Locke would be a really simple one to do you can write pages and pages on the flaws and merits of his political phil.

[Anonymous No.4247255]

I realise it's anachronistic, but I've always thought that portrait of Hume looked like his terrible, cheap attempt at a Lord Byron Halloween costume.

'Sure, Dave! You look, uh, you look just like him.'

[OP No.4247334]

>>4247235

Sounds like a decent idea, duly noted. I'm still trying to get my head around the "system" and "method" thing though...

>>4247255

Shit, it's uncanny.

[Anonymous No.4247384]

>Modern philosophy
>not covering Berkeley

Your professor should go fuck themselves.

[Anonymous No.4247390]

>>4247384

Go kick a rock, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4247391]

>>4247255
y is byron dressed like some persian prince

[Anonymous No.4247406]

>>4247390
OH MY GOD WHAT A BRILLIANT REFUTATION, I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT

[Anonymous No.4247423]

>>4247221
>I have an eight-page paper on Modern Philosophy to deliver by the 17th this month

[OP No.4247435]

>>4247423

I'm not worried, I know I can do a good job fast. The issue is just figuring out what to do and how to connect it to what the teacher wants.

[OP No.4247997]

Bumping one last time for tonight, will check in the morning for any other replies.

[Anonymous No.4248166]

Best thing I can think of is:
Did you read Spinoza's Ethics? Or parts of it? It would be interesting to look at how his axiomatic, heavily systematic style of presentation meshes with his thoughts both on the universe (Substance, God, whatever you want to call it) and with his thoughts on the mind and human knowledge and so on.

To put it simply: why did Spinoza have to write out his system like Euclid rather than writing like, say, Aristotle or Hume or something more traditional?

[Anonymous No.4248181]

>Espinoza

Do you mean Spinoza?

[OP No.4250348]

>>4248181

In portuguese we call him Espinosa. My bad.

[Anonymous No.4251175]

>>4247255
I thought you ought to know...

[Spinoza Bro No.4251238]

>>4248166
This is a really great question, and honestly the best question to ask after reading the Ethics I think. While exploring Spinoza's "system" I highly suggest exploring his ideas of rationality (ie reason) vs. superstition (I believe he relates superstition to the first kind of knowledge in the Ethics: imagination/opinion. If he doesn't make this explicit it would be interesting to explore the relation between superstition and imagination).

Thus: How does a deductive, geometric system of the world (God and mind) relate to the second kind of knowledge (reason)? Why is this the superior perspective according to Spinoza? Relatedly, where and when does the third kind of knowledge (intuition) come into play, and why does Spinoza privilege this kind above the others?

For a paper dealing with systematic philosophy Spinoza really is the best bet. The others you mentioned aren't nearly as neat as him. I would consider them attempts along the way to systematic, analytic philosophy, which probably culminated in Kant (in the continental tradition). Good luck bro, sounds like a fun paper. Spinoza is my jam, so if you need help or have questions post them here and I'll try to answer them.

One last thing: why is deductive mathematics regarded so highly? Why is it crucial for mathematicians (Euclid, Newton, etc) to start with a limited number if axioms/definitions and BUILD a system of mathematics that is internally coherent and logically flawless?

[Anonymous No.4251524]

If you are looking for an easy grade just do Locke. Everything he says is pretty much fuck off muh freedoms, but that is just my opinion.

[OP No.4252614]

>>4251238

Will do, man. Thanks for all the support, now I can get started. If I get stuck with something I'll be sure to come here on /lit/ and ask again.

[Anonymous No.4252626]

>>4247391
he's dressed like a greek, greeks of the time wore that type of stuff because ottoman turk influence

[Anonymous No.4252634]

>>4252626
actually my mistake, that's an albanian dress, this is him as a Greek

Romantics dressed sharp nigga

[Anonymous No.4252648]

>>4252634
That's where the whole muh authentic peoples find urself backpacking in the East shit started.

[Anonymous No.4252850]

>>4252648
I guess but it also has a classicist flavor because muh greeks

[Anonymous No.4254620]

http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ulfp/Review/philomethod.pdf

Or you could read:
R.G. COLLINGWOOD, An Essay on Philosophical Method
N. K. SMITH, The Philosophy of David Hume.

About the word 'system', I don't know if in English it has 'that' meaning in philosophy. In the spanish philosophical jargon, system is a synonym of 'doctrine', eg thomism, marxism: all of the philosopher's ideas and how you can address different gnoseological, ethical, etc problems with them.