All this practice of the sciences has precisely this power to direct the best element in the soul upwards toward the contemplation of what is best among the things that are
The most interesting thing to me was Plato’s warning (and rule) that people should not study philosophy (in the form of dialectics) until after age 30 (and only certain people!). His warning being that it is dangerous to the individual’s ability to effectively participate in society if they are introduced to it too early. This is because they will become argumentative (for the sake and fun of arguing, a thing my 4 year old seems to quite enjoy already!) and having no respect for traditions.
Can we see this effect in modern society, given how early people can access a wide range of philosophical thought from quite a young age? I think we can see the outline of it
Are you saying that, for Plato, philosophy (in the form of dialectics) undermines most people's ability to participate in society and leads them to nihilism? Sounds ridiculous on the face of it. If age is Plato's main worry, then why restrict philosophy to only certain people even above 30? I guess what I am really asking are two questions: who exactly is qualified or suitable to study philosophy? and is there a non-dialectical form of philosophy for Plato? I don't think we can find a person who loves to argue more than Socrates!
My own reading shades my interpretation here, but it reads almost as a warning that exposing oneself to philosophy too early is a gateway to nihilism or adjacent worldviews. By arguing everything “they soon slip into the belief that nothing they believed before was true” - a dangerous place to be, especially for Plato’s city. That sounds like a pretty nihilistic worldview to me
I believe Plato's comment stems from his dislike for the Sophists. They prioritized persuasion over truth and taught their students how to win arguments instead of seeking knowledge. Plato saw this as dangerous, especially in young minds, which then could lead the students to relativism.
Glad someone mentioned that part! Just wanted to share a couple memories
Sometimes I see what I feel is "intellectual posturing" being used on twitter, people name-dropping tonnes of philosophers or writing really dense, argumentative, cryptic philosophy tweets – this was the first thing that came to my mind when I read that passage. I feel sometimes it's just done to look smart rather than to seek truth
It's also how I remember a lot of "high school communists" who seemed to be more into arguing with their dads about class struggle than actually any real care for workers or a believe in a political movement.
I’ve been digging into C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, where he critiques modern education and philosophy. He argues that they are undermining moral values by reducing them to subjectivity. The ultimate consequence of this is to reduce man to raw materials.
I noticed how Plato’s tripartite soul of reason, spirit, and appetite were reflected in Lewis’ use of the head, the belly, and the chest. Then there was their connection about the loss of objective standards, the decline of the human soul along with the decay of society, which leads to tyranny and servitude. The difference I see between the two is that Plato had the entrance remaining open where truth could shine in to lead people out. With Lewis, he sees a future where the truth cannot be discerned as it has been systematically dismantled. That the entrance to the cave has been removed, leaving man stuck inside. Perhaps to the point that man cannot imagine anything beyond it.
In the end, I find Lewis’ warning to be more chilling.
I believe the central philosophical question for modern man is whether an "objective" standard can be found outside of religion, which is Lewis's answer.
Personally, I believe the traditional dichotomy between objective and subjective is unfortunate because it misleads people into thinking that there cannot be a third alternative--intersubjectivity; the life-world that we live in. As both Heidegger and Arendt, and numerous other contemporary philosophers insist: humans are inescapably born into concrete communities formed by specific social conventions and traditions. This context of community provides us with an intersubjective set of values and standards that we live by; until we decide to modify or abandon them for a different set of values and standards inherent in another community.
It is interesting. I can fathom that there may be some genetic component to morality. It could be that some moral instincts such as reciprocity, fairness, and caring for others are hardwired into human genetics over the ages due to the cooperation that is essential to human survival. This could explain why moral norms have similarities across different cultures while having differences in the specifics. Lewis mentions "the Tao" to refer to an objective moral order, a set of universal principles that appear in many cultures. He would argue that it isn't a product of social traditions, but rooted in an underlying truth that needs to be maintained. I do agree with Lewis that if objective morals are abandoned then people become vulnerable to manipulation.
I think you would be interested in checking out this book- The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This book explores wonderfully on how and why we are divided so much politically and in religion. Further his proposed theory on "Moral Taste receptors" which there are six of: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. This is the Moral foundations theory that explores in depth across different cultures, evolutuon, and even philosophy.
All important questions and reasonable points that you are raising!
Perhaps I am even darker than Lewis. I think that even if objective morals are NOT abandoned, then people will still become vulnerable to manipulation.
To be honest, I don't have a fixed mind on any of these questions; still very much searching. In any case, I hope you will stay and participate in the read-along about Chuang Tze and Taoism.
I hasten to add: Lewis's warning is chilling indeed. But we cannot give up hope. We must persist in keeping a philosophical dialogue going so that the entrance/exit of the cave will leave at least a small crack.
I think there might be hope with the interest about reading the Great Works of the Western World and reading the Harvard Classics. I developed an interest after reading about St. John's College's reading list. It seems that there may be a trend where people want to expand their knowledge and learn how to think better. Well, at least I hope so. That is what led me to Jared's YouTube channel.
I like Plato's views on education, I guess specifically in educating philosophers about the virtues, like the virtue of good.
"Education isn't what some people declare it to be, namely, putting knowledge into the souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes."
"... the power to learn is present in everyone's souls and that the instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light without turning the whole body...."
"Then education is the craft concerned with doing this very thing, this turning around, and with how the soul can most easily and effectively be made to do it. It isn't the craft of putting sight into the soul."
As I understand it, education prepares us to learn these things, using dialectic, but is not the learning itself. Once one's soul has turned, we can learn on our own.
I do wonder: am I sufficiently turned away from the dark to be studying the virtues?
I also like these comments about education very much.
I taught fifth-grade for over 10 years. The children, all around 10 years old, are mostly still too young to have formed solid prejudices, and yet mature enough to learn to think for themselves. I made it a point to tell my students that, in the nine months or so that I have them in my classroom, my goal is to teach them how to learn for themselves, to help develop in them some faculties that they can continue to use for the rest of their lives; e.g., a passion for reading, the courage to ask questions, the willingness to stand up for what they believe in, etc. I insisted on working as a home-room teacher because I wanted to have my own group of students for the entire day; that is the only way I could have enough time and opportunities to try to have an influence on my students' minds and souls.
Obviously, education should be a life-long process; not just for children or youths. As Plato says, the power to learn is present in all of us. The challenge is that each one of us has to find our own way to turn from darkness to light. Perhaps that's why we subscribe to Commonplace Philosophy!
Regarding mathematics, Socrates says at one point:
".......and as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being --geometry
and the like --they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which they use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them." (Benjamin Jowett translation).
The comment seems to anticipate by more than 2,000 years Kurt Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem which proves a mathematical system is not consistent unless an outside, unproven, "hypothesis" is introduced.
The observation about it being a dream anticipates Giambattista Vico's Verum Factum principle that humans only have full understanding of what they make. We understand mathematics as the prime example of a human creation but are ignorant of the extent, if any, to which it truly reveals Reality, or Plato's Divine Ideas.
Regarding mathematics, at one point Socrates says:
“…..and as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being--geometry and the like --they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which they
use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them.” (Benjamin Jowett translation).
I was struck by this comment because it seems to anticipate by more than 2,000 years Kurt Gödel’s famous 1931 proof that mathematical systems indeed can not prove themselves; to be consistent they require the introduction of unproved “hypothesis” (Incompleteness Theorem).
His description of mathematics as a dream anticipates Giambattista Vico‘s assertion that mathematics is the prime example of a fully human creation; we made so we understand it (Verum Factum principle) but at the cost of remaining ignorant as to its relation, if any, to Reality (in Plato’s case to the Divine Ideas).
I think something interesting happens if we apply the whole city as metaphor for spirit technique again here. Is Plato suggesting that in the same way the philosopher king (representing reason) needs to return to the cave, learn to discern the shadows better than ever before, and to help the people around him, we need to "descend into the cave" with our newfound reason to better understand our physical and emotional needs?
I like the idea of the intellect not just staying isolated in an ivory tower, and rather it being crucial to "lower" your reason to the messy and illusory world of politics, physical desires, etc. If anyone else picked up on this or had a different reading I'd love to hear about it
1) Jared's recent video on learning and "what to think vs. how to think" has its less catchphrasey equivalent here, with the lines about how learning is not injecting knowledge into the soul but turning souls towards the light; to gain knowledge that is already out there (or, cross-referencing the Phaedo dialogue, "remembering" what the soul already knows.) It's expounded more in the highest form of education being in mastery of the dialectic, of thinking towards knowledge. One might recall Aristotle's highest goal is the life of contemplation!
2) Since I just finished the CS Lewis Miracles read-along with Parker Settecase, and others have mentioned CSL here, I thought it pertinent to point out the parallels when he talks about one that we generally see a shadow of the real stuff, and more importantly, when Socrates describes the virtue of rational thought as being "made of some more divine material" aka the Argument from Reason. Just fantastic timing on these two readings!
As the allegory of the cave is often considered the pinnacle of Plato’s philosophy, I have been going over its details carefully. One part really bothers me. I want to share it here, hoping that someone can help me think it through.
Plato begins the allegory with a depiction of men in a cave shackled so that they couldn’t move or turn their heads. Regardless of whether this scene is Plato’s metaphor for the human condition or the human soul, should we accept it without any examination or interrogation?
We belong to this forum because we are interested in philosophy; but are we justified to view people who don’t share this interest as living in necessary enslavement? Isn’t it possible for non-philosophers to lead a happy, rewarding life? Plato calls the affairs of our everyday world “the evils of human life” (517d). I find this contempt for everyday human affairs extremely troubling.
People in the cave can be "happy" in a shallow sensory way, but not have eudaimonia/flourishing because the cave is a life of, at best, half-truths, if not outright lies, and flourishing requires living the life of the mind, a contemplative life, whatever you want to call it, and that life is a life of truth-seeking.
It is an interesting question though, are the shadows "lies" or "different perceptions?" If the former, then yes, the cave is a net negative. If the latter, it may be alright, provided that nobody has left.
I think Socrates would be the first to leave open the idea that he/we might not be out of yet another cave, though.
David, thanks for chiming in. Two sets of questions keep coming back to me.
First, is leading a life of the mind the only path to seek truth? Can it be gained through avenues such as art, science, literature, sports, etc.? And can there be truth by intuition or epiphanies and such?
Second, what is the relationship between truth and happiness? This is the question that Plato poses at the beginning of REPUBLIC, but I don't believe he has answered it yet. It seems to me that until we have found a clear and convincing answer to this age-old philosophical question, it is premature to render final judgment on the relative worth or value of our everyday existence.
During the Zoom call on Sunday, Eric told us that Heidegger has a commentary on Plato's Allegory of the Cave. As I am a fan of Heidegger, I searched for it immediately afterwards. Turns out that Heidegger gave a series of lectures on Plato's REPUBLIC and THEAETETUS, another dialogue. It is contained in his book THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH. I started reading it right away and have now finished about half. I should wait till I have finished the whole book, but I can't because I am too excited to share. Here's why:
1. Jared is correct: we need to read deeper into Plato. And Heidegger shows us how and why; step by step. It is a fascinating experience to be able to follow every step in the thinking process of a philosophical giant! Nothing is taken for granted. There were so many details in the dialogue that I simply didn't think about; I am now amazed, even ashamed, that there is so much philosophical insight hidden in them! It's only by thinking through every nook and cranny in Plato's thinking that we can fully appreciate both the strengths and weaknesses in his philosophy.
2. If you have any interest in Heidegger at all, you would love this book. It took me one whole year to read BEING AND TIME, and I only walked away with a rough outline of an understanding. We have all heard that Heidegger is phenomenally difficult; well, not always true! THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH is clear and direct; as long as you read slowly and patiently, everybody, including those without formal training in philosophy, will be able to follow Heidegger step by step. There is no other way we can experience this kind of intellectual adventure.
3. Many people have asked what is the best way to get into philosophy and what to read. I love Heidegger's answer: we can only learn how to think by thinking. So the best way to learn philosophy is to jump into it with both feet. THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH presents a wonderful opportunity for us to jump in. Heidegger holds our hands and lead us through all the fundamental issues of philosophy--metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. I don't think there is a better way to begin to do philosophy.
Eric, thank you for the introduction. The resource is just too good for me not to share with everybody right away!
The most interesting thing to me was Plato’s warning (and rule) that people should not study philosophy (in the form of dialectics) until after age 30 (and only certain people!). His warning being that it is dangerous to the individual’s ability to effectively participate in society if they are introduced to it too early. This is because they will become argumentative (for the sake and fun of arguing, a thing my 4 year old seems to quite enjoy already!) and having no respect for traditions.
Can we see this effect in modern society, given how early people can access a wide range of philosophical thought from quite a young age? I think we can see the outline of it
Are you saying that, for Plato, philosophy (in the form of dialectics) undermines most people's ability to participate in society and leads them to nihilism? Sounds ridiculous on the face of it. If age is Plato's main worry, then why restrict philosophy to only certain people even above 30? I guess what I am really asking are two questions: who exactly is qualified or suitable to study philosophy? and is there a non-dialectical form of philosophy for Plato? I don't think we can find a person who loves to argue more than Socrates!
My own reading shades my interpretation here, but it reads almost as a warning that exposing oneself to philosophy too early is a gateway to nihilism or adjacent worldviews. By arguing everything “they soon slip into the belief that nothing they believed before was true” - a dangerous place to be, especially for Plato’s city. That sounds like a pretty nihilistic worldview to me
I believe Plato's comment stems from his dislike for the Sophists. They prioritized persuasion over truth and taught their students how to win arguments instead of seeking knowledge. Plato saw this as dangerous, especially in young minds, which then could lead the students to relativism.
Glad someone mentioned that part! Just wanted to share a couple memories
Sometimes I see what I feel is "intellectual posturing" being used on twitter, people name-dropping tonnes of philosophers or writing really dense, argumentative, cryptic philosophy tweets – this was the first thing that came to my mind when I read that passage. I feel sometimes it's just done to look smart rather than to seek truth
It's also how I remember a lot of "high school communists" who seemed to be more into arguing with their dads about class struggle than actually any real care for workers or a believe in a political movement.
I’ve been digging into C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, where he critiques modern education and philosophy. He argues that they are undermining moral values by reducing them to subjectivity. The ultimate consequence of this is to reduce man to raw materials.
I noticed how Plato’s tripartite soul of reason, spirit, and appetite were reflected in Lewis’ use of the head, the belly, and the chest. Then there was their connection about the loss of objective standards, the decline of the human soul along with the decay of society, which leads to tyranny and servitude. The difference I see between the two is that Plato had the entrance remaining open where truth could shine in to lead people out. With Lewis, he sees a future where the truth cannot be discerned as it has been systematically dismantled. That the entrance to the cave has been removed, leaving man stuck inside. Perhaps to the point that man cannot imagine anything beyond it.
In the end, I find Lewis’ warning to be more chilling.
I believe the central philosophical question for modern man is whether an "objective" standard can be found outside of religion, which is Lewis's answer.
Personally, I believe the traditional dichotomy between objective and subjective is unfortunate because it misleads people into thinking that there cannot be a third alternative--intersubjectivity; the life-world that we live in. As both Heidegger and Arendt, and numerous other contemporary philosophers insist: humans are inescapably born into concrete communities formed by specific social conventions and traditions. This context of community provides us with an intersubjective set of values and standards that we live by; until we decide to modify or abandon them for a different set of values and standards inherent in another community.
It is interesting. I can fathom that there may be some genetic component to morality. It could be that some moral instincts such as reciprocity, fairness, and caring for others are hardwired into human genetics over the ages due to the cooperation that is essential to human survival. This could explain why moral norms have similarities across different cultures while having differences in the specifics. Lewis mentions "the Tao" to refer to an objective moral order, a set of universal principles that appear in many cultures. He would argue that it isn't a product of social traditions, but rooted in an underlying truth that needs to be maintained. I do agree with Lewis that if objective morals are abandoned then people become vulnerable to manipulation.
I think you would be interested in checking out this book- The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. This book explores wonderfully on how and why we are divided so much politically and in religion. Further his proposed theory on "Moral Taste receptors" which there are six of: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. This is the Moral foundations theory that explores in depth across different cultures, evolutuon, and even philosophy.
Thank you! I will take a look at it.
All important questions and reasonable points that you are raising!
Perhaps I am even darker than Lewis. I think that even if objective morals are NOT abandoned, then people will still become vulnerable to manipulation.
To be honest, I don't have a fixed mind on any of these questions; still very much searching. In any case, I hope you will stay and participate in the read-along about Chuang Tze and Taoism.
I hasten to add: Lewis's warning is chilling indeed. But we cannot give up hope. We must persist in keeping a philosophical dialogue going so that the entrance/exit of the cave will leave at least a small crack.
I think there might be hope with the interest about reading the Great Works of the Western World and reading the Harvard Classics. I developed an interest after reading about St. John's College's reading list. It seems that there may be a trend where people want to expand their knowledge and learn how to think better. Well, at least I hope so. That is what led me to Jared's YouTube channel.
I like Plato's views on education, I guess specifically in educating philosophers about the virtues, like the virtue of good.
"Education isn't what some people declare it to be, namely, putting knowledge into the souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes."
"... the power to learn is present in everyone's souls and that the instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light without turning the whole body...."
"Then education is the craft concerned with doing this very thing, this turning around, and with how the soul can most easily and effectively be made to do it. It isn't the craft of putting sight into the soul."
As I understand it, education prepares us to learn these things, using dialectic, but is not the learning itself. Once one's soul has turned, we can learn on our own.
I do wonder: am I sufficiently turned away from the dark to be studying the virtues?
I also like these comments about education very much.
I taught fifth-grade for over 10 years. The children, all around 10 years old, are mostly still too young to have formed solid prejudices, and yet mature enough to learn to think for themselves. I made it a point to tell my students that, in the nine months or so that I have them in my classroom, my goal is to teach them how to learn for themselves, to help develop in them some faculties that they can continue to use for the rest of their lives; e.g., a passion for reading, the courage to ask questions, the willingness to stand up for what they believe in, etc. I insisted on working as a home-room teacher because I wanted to have my own group of students for the entire day; that is the only way I could have enough time and opportunities to try to have an influence on my students' minds and souls.
Obviously, education should be a life-long process; not just for children or youths. As Plato says, the power to learn is present in all of us. The challenge is that each one of us has to find our own way to turn from darkness to light. Perhaps that's why we subscribe to Commonplace Philosophy!
Regarding mathematics, Socrates says at one point:
".......and as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being --geometry
and the like --they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which they use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them." (Benjamin Jowett translation).
The comment seems to anticipate by more than 2,000 years Kurt Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem which proves a mathematical system is not consistent unless an outside, unproven, "hypothesis" is introduced.
The observation about it being a dream anticipates Giambattista Vico's Verum Factum principle that humans only have full understanding of what they make. We understand mathematics as the prime example of a human creation but are ignorant of the extent, if any, to which it truly reveals Reality, or Plato's Divine Ideas.
Regarding mathematics, at one point Socrates says:
“…..and as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being--geometry and the like --they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which they
use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them.” (Benjamin Jowett translation).
I was struck by this comment because it seems to anticipate by more than 2,000 years Kurt Gödel’s famous 1931 proof that mathematical systems indeed can not prove themselves; to be consistent they require the introduction of unproved “hypothesis” (Incompleteness Theorem).
His description of mathematics as a dream anticipates Giambattista Vico‘s assertion that mathematics is the prime example of a fully human creation; we made so we understand it (Verum Factum principle) but at the cost of remaining ignorant as to its relation, if any, to Reality (in Plato’s case to the Divine Ideas).
I think something interesting happens if we apply the whole city as metaphor for spirit technique again here. Is Plato suggesting that in the same way the philosopher king (representing reason) needs to return to the cave, learn to discern the shadows better than ever before, and to help the people around him, we need to "descend into the cave" with our newfound reason to better understand our physical and emotional needs?
I like the idea of the intellect not just staying isolated in an ivory tower, and rather it being crucial to "lower" your reason to the messy and illusory world of politics, physical desires, etc. If anyone else picked up on this or had a different reading I'd love to hear about it
Two notes:
1) Jared's recent video on learning and "what to think vs. how to think" has its less catchphrasey equivalent here, with the lines about how learning is not injecting knowledge into the soul but turning souls towards the light; to gain knowledge that is already out there (or, cross-referencing the Phaedo dialogue, "remembering" what the soul already knows.) It's expounded more in the highest form of education being in mastery of the dialectic, of thinking towards knowledge. One might recall Aristotle's highest goal is the life of contemplation!
2) Since I just finished the CS Lewis Miracles read-along with Parker Settecase, and others have mentioned CSL here, I thought it pertinent to point out the parallels when he talks about one that we generally see a shadow of the real stuff, and more importantly, when Socrates describes the virtue of rational thought as being "made of some more divine material" aka the Argument from Reason. Just fantastic timing on these two readings!
As the allegory of the cave is often considered the pinnacle of Plato’s philosophy, I have been going over its details carefully. One part really bothers me. I want to share it here, hoping that someone can help me think it through.
Plato begins the allegory with a depiction of men in a cave shackled so that they couldn’t move or turn their heads. Regardless of whether this scene is Plato’s metaphor for the human condition or the human soul, should we accept it without any examination or interrogation?
We belong to this forum because we are interested in philosophy; but are we justified to view people who don’t share this interest as living in necessary enslavement? Isn’t it possible for non-philosophers to lead a happy, rewarding life? Plato calls the affairs of our everyday world “the evils of human life” (517d). I find this contempt for everyday human affairs extremely troubling.
What do you think?
People in the cave can be "happy" in a shallow sensory way, but not have eudaimonia/flourishing because the cave is a life of, at best, half-truths, if not outright lies, and flourishing requires living the life of the mind, a contemplative life, whatever you want to call it, and that life is a life of truth-seeking.
It is an interesting question though, are the shadows "lies" or "different perceptions?" If the former, then yes, the cave is a net negative. If the latter, it may be alright, provided that nobody has left.
I think Socrates would be the first to leave open the idea that he/we might not be out of yet another cave, though.
David, thanks for chiming in. Two sets of questions keep coming back to me.
First, is leading a life of the mind the only path to seek truth? Can it be gained through avenues such as art, science, literature, sports, etc.? And can there be truth by intuition or epiphanies and such?
Second, what is the relationship between truth and happiness? This is the question that Plato poses at the beginning of REPUBLIC, but I don't believe he has answered it yet. It seems to me that until we have found a clear and convincing answer to this age-old philosophical question, it is premature to render final judgment on the relative worth or value of our everyday existence.
I loved reading The Republic. The search for knowledge and truth should always be top priority above all else; what a great idea!
I can't wait to share my excitement with you!
During the Zoom call on Sunday, Eric told us that Heidegger has a commentary on Plato's Allegory of the Cave. As I am a fan of Heidegger, I searched for it immediately afterwards. Turns out that Heidegger gave a series of lectures on Plato's REPUBLIC and THEAETETUS, another dialogue. It is contained in his book THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH. I started reading it right away and have now finished about half. I should wait till I have finished the whole book, but I can't because I am too excited to share. Here's why:
1. Jared is correct: we need to read deeper into Plato. And Heidegger shows us how and why; step by step. It is a fascinating experience to be able to follow every step in the thinking process of a philosophical giant! Nothing is taken for granted. There were so many details in the dialogue that I simply didn't think about; I am now amazed, even ashamed, that there is so much philosophical insight hidden in them! It's only by thinking through every nook and cranny in Plato's thinking that we can fully appreciate both the strengths and weaknesses in his philosophy.
2. If you have any interest in Heidegger at all, you would love this book. It took me one whole year to read BEING AND TIME, and I only walked away with a rough outline of an understanding. We have all heard that Heidegger is phenomenally difficult; well, not always true! THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH is clear and direct; as long as you read slowly and patiently, everybody, including those without formal training in philosophy, will be able to follow Heidegger step by step. There is no other way we can experience this kind of intellectual adventure.
3. Many people have asked what is the best way to get into philosophy and what to read. I love Heidegger's answer: we can only learn how to think by thinking. So the best way to learn philosophy is to jump into it with both feet. THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH presents a wonderful opportunity for us to jump in. Heidegger holds our hands and lead us through all the fundamental issues of philosophy--metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. I don't think there is a better way to begin to do philosophy.
Eric, thank you for the introduction. The resource is just too good for me not to share with everybody right away!