User talk:David Tornheim/reading suggestions

Made a sub-page here. I didn't want to clutter your talk page

Meta-Meta-Physics
I have read it, and discussed the topics in-depth. Some of my ideas even made it into a few drafts for some papers that might not ever get published, really depends on my old professor. Having to do the quantifying levels of relative existence. XD. Endercase (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I really suggest that you read meta-meta-physics ISBN 978–0–19–954600–8. If your enjoy this sort of thing this is a wonderful read. Endercase (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting. Have you read it?  If so, would you mind putting the recommendation on my talk page, so I can find it later.  I have no time to read something like that right now.
 * I did start taking a graduate level class on Metaphysics from the Philosophy Department of San Francisco State University. I remember the instructor said, "This subject may or may not be useful at all."  I found that pretty amusing.  I can't remember why I chose not to continue it, possibly I found another class at the same time I liked better or found the instructor tedious.  I have always had interest in the subject though.  It takes time to keep being exposed to the numerous ways metaphysical problems are addressed with different theories and the problems with each one.  Parmenides theory that nothing changes--only appearances--is one of my all time favorites.  When I first hear it was completely absurd, but there is more to it than one might think.  Just like Heraclitus theory that everything is made of fire.  Sounds crazy, until you think about Modern Physics, where the two basic components are matter and energy, and since matter can be converted to energy with E=mc^2, it is fair to say that everything is made of energy.  It is not less crazy than Democritus's theory that everything is made of atoms.  Very popular in classical physics.  I think someone said everything is made of earth, which is a bit like saying all is made of matter.  That's viable too.  Then there is another that is the opposite of Parmenides saying all is change (like a river)--I forget who that is.  Or Pythagoras and his cult, who more or less believed that the universe was made of math (a bit like Platonism which still has much sway today.  I'm not sure exactly where Aristotle lands on these key questions--he seems more to assemble all the theories, like an encyclopedia in his book The Metaphysics.    Leibniz's theory of Monads is pretty cool too--and one of the most bizarre.  :)   I thought it ridiculous too, but over time, I came to see it is not as crazy as it seems on first glance--after all Leibniz was a genius!    Yeah, Philosophy can be quite interesting.  Almost got a Master's in it... --David Tornheim (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)