This post is strange. The title lead me to expect some general essay about learning philosophy for the first time, then I thought that it would be a review of a book by Descartes after the first half of the first paragraph, a treatise on postmodernism after the second half, analysis of learning techniques after the third paragraph, and I became completely confused somewhere in the middle of the article.
In the spirit of Descartes, the ideas in this post are literally meditations. The guy who taught me Descartes managed to conclude the real message of Descartes’ meditations was atheism, which is one of the most far-fetched things I have ever heard from a professor inside a lecture hall.
Descartes said quite explicitly he believed in God and an immortal soul. The professor insisted Descartes was being satirical. He did this quite furiously, as many of the students were capable debaters.
the real message of Descartes’ meditations was atheism
I was rather asking for the message of your meditations. (I suppose you have some experience with reading postmodern philosophers, which may lead you to prefer indirect communication. Such a style is a bit unusual here.)
In the spirit of Descartes, the ideas in this post are literally meditations.
The style isn’t really working for me either. I go in reading posts expecting them to have one thing they are primarily about. This one doesn’t really set up the different expectations it’s apparently supposed to, and ends up looking like it’s just rambling. I’m not charitable enough to assume that the essential rambliness is due to a meta-level narrative device rather than just writing a post without really having an idea what it should be about.
This post is strange. The title lead me to expect some general essay about learning philosophy for the first time, then I thought that it would be a review of a book by Descartes after the first half of the first paragraph, a treatise on postmodernism after the second half, analysis of learning techniques after the third paragraph, and I became completely confused somewhere in the middle of the article.
What is the real message?
In the spirit of Descartes, the ideas in this post are literally meditations. The guy who taught me Descartes managed to conclude the real message of Descartes’ meditations was atheism, which is one of the most far-fetched things I have ever heard from a professor inside a lecture hall.
Descartes said quite explicitly he believed in God and an immortal soul. The professor insisted Descartes was being satirical. He did this quite furiously, as many of the students were capable debaters.
I was rather asking for the message of your meditations. (I suppose you have some experience with reading postmodern philosophers, which may lead you to prefer indirect communication. Such a style is a bit unusual here.)
The style isn’t really working for me either. I go in reading posts expecting them to have one thing they are primarily about. This one doesn’t really set up the different expectations it’s apparently supposed to, and ends up looking like it’s just rambling. I’m not charitable enough to assume that the essential rambliness is due to a meta-level narrative device rather than just writing a post without really having an idea what it should be about.
Er, Meditations on First Philosophy is one of the most organized, methodical works of philosophy ever.