|Originally posted by Lira |
Well, I've read more stuff about Merleau-Ponty than his actual works. Phenomenology of perception is a bit dense but the little I read was fascinating, and "Psychologie et pédagogie de l'enfant" is actually quite interesting, but I stopped somewhere in the middle for some reason I can't remember.
oh ok, it's always more fun reading ABOUT phenomonology philosophers anyway, as above, their actual 'works' are usually just painful. Wikipedia versions are usually far more interesting, and digestable
Doing bits of plato's republic now again, and he's just so annoying to read, mostly because the dialogues are like the laugh track in a sitcom... He tries to make one point, but uses these plebs to say "yes" constantly to attempt to trick the reader into thinking his point has been unequivocally validated.
why can't he just state his point without having these complete morons 'arguing' it??
because his points are idiotic of course
edit: ranting aside the analogy was meant to be cause shows with laugh-tracks usually aren't funny (like plato's works usually aren't particularly interesting (out of context of course)), so the sitcom puts in laughs to make us the audience think it's funny, like plato put in idiotic people to agree with socrates so we would think his points are valid