I have read a few of the Durant books. Some years ago, I read (darned if I can remember where, I read about books all the time in my profession) that much of the information in them had been superseded by subsequent scholarship. I don’t know if that’s really true, if it’s because they are no longer politically correct, if the writer just didn’t like popularizers, or what. Have you heard anything about it?

Philosophy. I’m sorry, but if observing reality and drawing conclusions is all that’s required, I’ve been practicing philosophy without a license for years. But can that definition be stretched to include Plato, Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzche, none of whom are noted for actually checking their diktats against reality?

I don’t say philosophy can’t be stretched to include some interesting and useful writing, but Locke seems better placed with Hobbes, Parkinson’s EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL THOUGHT or even PJ O’Rourke–and wherever that is, it’s not the center of Philosophy, though it could be off in the hinterland.

Reason leads to conclusions. If debate continues unendingly, either there is inadequate evidence, or the problem is a matter of taste, not reason. (A lot of philosophy, even some I like, seems to be a veneer of reason over a core of taste.)

As for Literature, a few months ago it was worth studying for its own sake–like dance and porcelain–and we were to study the best specimens of each type. I say again, the best written story of a type is not necessarily the civilization-defining narrative. The lists may overlap, but they are not the same–maybe not even close.

If we’re only talking preferences, fine. But if we’re saying you need to read these works to be considered educated, to graduate from a university, and–by implication–to teach anything at a university, we should have and apply a consistent standard. It has to do with observing and reasoning, and not saying “because the English Department says so.”

LOgid says A believes P is true. A believes IF P, then Q, therefore A should believe Q.

Johnson shows that History says trying to build a sociual system on Q without checking whether P is true leads to disaster.

Jane wrote
“If this was thirty years ago, I’d suggest you start with Will and Ariel Durant’s eleven-volume The Story of Civilization. It’s now out of print and costs a mint, ”

I checked amazon and used copies of the whole set are avaukabke for about $100.

John said some interesting things about modern philosophers and truth and justice, which I want to get to tomorrow.

That was in a letter to Jane, But she should feel free to quote or paraphase me. :)

Either category could include Freudians, I suppose, although I think technically in order to become a Freudian analyst you have to be analyzed yourself, which would add another twist to the lengthy training period for psychiatrists, if not psychologists. In my limited experience, psychiatrists don’t go in for analysis, they hand out pills and, if they think the patient needs to talk to someone, refer them to a social worker or psychologist – preferably one who isn’t trying to figure out how neurotransmitters affect anxiety in rats, but who has some training and experience in talking with troubled people.

Mostly I agree with you on philosophy and hate speech, so I can’t think of anything else to say right now.