Those who know
me know that all of my house
is filled with books - there
is not a wall, or it is graced
with a bookcase. These are
books in 14 subjects -
philosophy, mathematics,
logic, psychology, sociology,
economy, religion, mysticism,
linguistics, physics,
medicine, literature, history
and computers - in which I
have been reading now
systematically for over 21
years. [1] This,
that is understanding reality,
especially in these subjects,
is what motivated me all that
time, clearly not to obtain
course points and get rich,
but because real science is
beautiful and joyful. How
joyful? I literally starved to
be able to buy books - for Russell's "Logic
and Knowledge" I did
not eat 2 days at some point
in my life. And it was worth
it. [2]
Unfortunately,
a really good scientific piece
of work is about as rare as an
honest man - "as men go,
one in tenthousand" (Shakespeare).
[3] And
thus it happened that in my
bookcases there may be found
at a few places morons who got
lost between geniuses, in the
form of some acadamic piece of
shit that I had to vomit up to
get course points in the University
of Amsterdam.
[4]
Because in the
University of Amsterdam I
learned nothing at all (and
yes, my marks were always
good, but I just as well may
have earned them for astrology
and magic as for psychology
and philosophy).
And you will learn little in
the University of Amsterdam -
unless you are so stupid that
you don't really belong in a
university, and even then you
learn little but some cant
that enable you to enact the
M.A. in psychology to naive
people ("laymen"). [5] If
you are not as stupid as that,
the best you can do is cut out
this text and hang it above
your bed, because from an
intellectual point of view
what is summarized and listed
here in this text - if you
read those books - is much
more educational than 6 years
of Dutch academic courses.
[6]
For I will try
to explain what you should
learn and read - and I do so
based on the very bitter
experience that the
"education" I received in the
University of Amsterdam and
compared with the intellectual
joys I found thinking and
reading for myself. [7] What
follows is in the spirit of
what I would propose as a
general propaedeutics
[preparatory teachings], in
some general and
propaedeutical and selective
first year (as in Norway),
that is the same for all
students. [8] The
question in the background
that I use for orientation is:
"What general knowledge do you
need to become a good
scientist?". And the criterion
is: "It must be wellwritten,
clear, sensible, interesting
and be of theoretical and
human interest". What follows
is tailored to psychology, but
of general application.
Background
knowledge: In the
first place, you need some
good understanding of two
things: The human civilization
in which you live, and the
knowledge on which it is
based. Two very good
renderings of these are given
in "The Ascent of Man"
by Jacob Bronowski (Polish/English
mathematician and
Blake-specialist), and "The
Condition of Man" by Lewis
Mumford (American
writer on the philosophies of
culture, technology and
architecture). Both writers
wrote many more books, that
are for the most part worth
reading as well - wich will
hold for most writers I will
mention. [9]
For a more
systematic insight and
overview you have to look into
books of reference. The three
best are:
"Encyclopeadia Brittanica",
"Encyclopedia of
Philosophy", Ed. P.
Edwards and the "Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary".
Most academic debates would
not have existed if the
participants had refreshed
their knowledge from the EB,
had acquired some
philosophical savviness from
the EoP, and had improved
their terminology by way of
the Shorter OED. (The
unshortened one is very
large and expensive.)
[10]
Next to
general background knowledge,
there are three human
interests about which you
should know more: Natural
science, happiness and beauty.
[11] Our
civilization is, at least as
far as technology is concerned
(that is used by everybody to
eat of, move with, live in,
get clothed by and watches
screenfuls of), based on physics.
There are many good
introductions but two
excellent ones are "The
Investigation of the
Physical World" by Toraldo
di Franca (Italian
physicist) and "Lectures on
Physics" by Richard
Feynman (American
physicist). [12]
Everyone wants
to become happy and everybody
looks for beauty. What is
happiness; what is beauty? All
best answers concerning
happiness are in "Analysis
of Happiness"; all best
answers concerning beauty are
in A History of Six Ideas"
(in esthetics, to be sure).
Both books are histories of
ideas, and both are by Wladyslaw
Tatarkiewicz (a Polish
philosopher with a very clear
mind and an enormous
erudition). Also both books
(like all of T's books) are
exemplary for how to write
philosophy and science: Very
clear, interesting, to the
point, honest and very
informative. [13]
History:
Whoever does not know history
does not know how to properly
judge what men are capable of
doing. In The Netherlands, the
teaching of history nowadays
is no longer a required
subject in school, apparently
because 1 Auschwitz does not
suffice - "for who does not
know history, is forced to
repeat it". [14]
The most
beautiful book of history is
one of the oldest there are: "The
Peloponnesian Wars" by Thucydides
(Greek, before -400).
Thucydides had a very clear
view of human beings, their
pretensions, their motives and
their capacities. The
Jowett-translation (19th C) is
the best. [15] The
only one who might compete
with Thucydides is Burckhardt
(Swiss, 19th C, much
admired by Nietzsche, and
whoever reads Burckhardt
intelligently cannot do other
than agree with Nietzsche in
this). Burchhardt got known
with a story about the
flowering and decline of the
Renaissance: "Die
Kultur der Renaissance in
Italien". He also
wrote (in 3 volumes) about the
Greeks: "Griechische
Kulturgeschichte". And
if we are interested in Dutch
academic talent - Johan
Huizinga's "Herfsttij der
Middeleeuwen" also is
marvellous. [16]
A modern
historian I hold in high
esteem is the recently
deceased Barbara Tuchman.
All her books are good, but in
case you think you can judge
politics, I recommend that you
read her "The March of
Folly". [17]
Philosophy:
is concerned with answers to
the most general questions
there are: What is truth; what
is probability; what exists;
what is knowledge; what are
good and evil etc. Most
philosophy is nonsense, and
especially such philosophy as
does not square with science
(that evolved from philosophy:
what is now called "science"
was called until well within
the 18th C "natural
philosophy"). [18]
Who wants to
delve deeper into philosophy
is best adviced to invest his
talents into W.
Stegmuller's "Probleme und
Resultaten der analytischen
und
Wissenschaftsphilosophie" (4
fat bound volumes or about 20
thinner paperbound
"Studienausgaben"). This is a
deutschgrundlich -
thoroughly thorough German -
overview of the subjects in
its title, and is clear,
throrough and rather complete,
if occasionally a bit long.
But all manner of fundamental
problems and procedures are
explained in it very well and
in really clear terms, and
many of these explanations are
difficult to find elsewhere.
[19]
Philosophy
of science: is
concerned with the question
what are the fundaments of
science = human systematized
theoretical knowledge. The
volumes by Stegmuller I just
mentioned are here as well the
best introduction. Whoever
wants to know more should read
"Treatise on Basic
Philosophy" (8 vols. on
the moment) - a very good,
sensible and informed version
of scientific realism. (You do
need a little knowledge of
mathematical logic.)
[20]
For
psychologists, sociologists
etc. it is especially
important to know something
about the methodological wars
in their fields of research.
By tar the most sensible abd
very well written is C. Wright
Mills (American socioliogist,
with degrees in engineering
and philosophy) "The
Sociological Imagination".
In this one should read the
essays "Abstracted
Empiricism", "Grand
Theorism" and "On
Intellectual Craftsmanship"
- excellent expostions of the
intellectual incompetence and
the fraudulent pretensions of
the sot sciences, and about
how one can become a good
scientist oneself. [21]
Methodology:
is more specific than
philosophy of science, but
closely related. I refer again
to Stegmuller and to Mills.
For Dutch would be
psychologists there is De
Groot's "Methodologie"
still very much better than
everything else that Dutchmen
put together on the subject
since it first appeared.
Another good work is Ernst
Nagel's - more
philosopht of science oriented
- "The Structure of Science"
(apart from chapter 6, that is
mistaken). But by far the most
useful book on methodology
takes barely 100 pages:
"Experimental Method"
by W.G. Wood & D.G.
Martin (2 English
professors Engineering): A
marvellous exceptionally clear
description of how to set up
good experiments. (A bit of
knowledge of differential
equations is required to get
all, but is not required at
all for the most part.) In
this book you may find within
a 100 pages what may take a
search through a full library
of methodological texts
without ever finding it.
[22]
Logic:
is the science of reasoning.
Since knowledge is constructed
by means of reasoning, logic
is the fundament of science.
There are many kinds of logics
and many introductions on many
levels. A simple and adequate
introduction for virtually
anyone is "Introduction to
Logic" by N. Rescher
(American philosopher).
Who wants to know more should
read Stegmuller's part I and
II and the beautiful "Naive
Set Theory" by Paul
Halmos
(Hungarian/American
mathematician) - which is a
marvellous introduction to set
theory (that is always
applicable to everything:
mathematics is the science of
arbitrary structures, and the
theory of sets is the
foundation of mathematics -
for everythin that is
(thinkable) is (in) some
structure, and therefore
mathematics is so important.)
Those who are really caught by
the subject (wuth some talent
for and capacity in
mathematics) I recommend to
look as fast as they can into
"Mathematical Logic" by
J. Shoenfield (American
mathematician) and into "Foundations
of Mathematics" by Evert
Beth (great Dutch
mathematician and
philosopher), for both books
are a kind o Beethoven
symphony in logic:
Marvellously clear;
esthetically/mathematically
correct and resonating on many
levels. And very informative,
civilizing and inspiring. Yes
- for that is logic as well,
in case you didn't know yet.
[23]
Mathematics:
is the science of arbitrary
structures. Everything is (in)
some structure, so everything
is - also - a mathematical
expression. Mathematics is
beautiful and enjoyable, if
you have some talent. Some
good general surveys of what
is mathematics (other than the
shite you got in highschool)
are What is mathematics?"
by Courant & Robbins and
three collections of brilliant
essays: ssays: 1. "The World
of Mathematics", Ed.
J. Newman; 2. "Mathematics:
Its Content, Method and
Meaning" (3
vols.) Ed. Aleksandrov,
Kolmogorov &
Lavrent'ev; and 3. "Mathematics:
People, Problems, Results"
(3 vols.) Ed.
Campbell & Higgins.
If you want to know more
mathematics, you should get
the volumes in Schaum
Outline Series: At
least 40 fairly priced usually
very clear, systematic and
complete expositions, always
accompanied by hundreds worked
out example problems (!!),
about all important
mathematical fields on all
levels. Together with Courant
& Robbins and item
2. in this paragraph you
should be able, if you have
some talent and persistence,
to get far into "the queen of
the sciences" (Gauss). I much
restricted myself here, for
real mathematics is real joy,
abd who does not understand
mathematics can not become a
good scientist. [24]
Psychology:
Most academic psychology is
ordinary fraudulence, in my
eyes. Acadamic psychologists
are hardly ever truly inspired
real scientists, but are
usually academically titled
bureaucrats who give boring
lectures and scribble boring
publications because they have
to in order to retain tenure
and reputation. As ever among
human beings, there are
exceptions, but these
exceptions tend to have a hard
life amidst their colleagues.
[25]
Those who want
to enjoy themselves and
acquire a well founded
judgment about the pretensions
and achievements of 20th C
psychology should read "The Principles of Psychology"
by William James (american
psychologist and philosopher).
Beautifully written, 1000
times more sensible, more
clear and more informative
than almost all psychology I
have read and moreover -
unlike most academic psycology
- based on mostly sensible
ideas about philosophy of
science. According to
Whitehead all philosophy is "a
footnote to Plato"; according
to me all psychology is a
footnote to James. (The
reason? James was a genius, as
was Plato. Who was a genius in
the 20th C. almost never set
out to study psychology, or
stopped quickly.) [26]
Even so, some
interesthing things have been
done in psychology in the 20th
C: By Russians (Pavlov,
Vygotsky, Luria) or by
non-psychologists. The result
of the sensible efforts in the
field is cognitive psychology
(that only now starts to come
into being), and whoever wants
to read nice stuff in this
subject I recommend five
books: 1. "Embodiments of
Mind" van Warren S.
McCulloch (American
medical doctor, together with
Pitt (logician) the
originator of the first
mathematical theory of the
brain). [27] EoM
is a collection of essays,
including poems, mathematical
expositions and a very fine
attack on psychoanalysis. A
considerable part of cognitive
psychology is concerned with
mathematical and logical
methods. A useful overview
here is 2. "Brains,
Mathematics and Machines"
by M. Arbib.
Meanwhile, this is over 20
years old. Much more recent
and also more simple, but
somewhat inspiring is 3. "The
Society of Mind" by Marvin
Minsky (American
mathematician and specialist
on A.I.) More mathematical,
also by Minsky, is 4. "Computation:
Finite and infinite machines"
(the mathematical theory on
which computers and some
models of the brain are based)
and finally, as general
background, and to help you
learn to think 5. "Mathematics
and Plausible Reasoning"
(2 vols) by G. Polya
(Hungarian/American
mathematician): A marvellous -
and mathematically elementary!
- treatise about heuristics (=
the art of guessing).
[28]
Personality
theory: Many who
desire to study psychology
desire to understand
themselves. The larger part of
the science of psychology, it
usually transpires rapidly,
does not help at all, and
neither does most of
psychiatry. Five sensible
books that may help you are 1.
"Maximes" by La
Rochefoucauld
(17th C, French nobility) - a
collection very sharp
aphorisms on human
incompetence, hypocrisy and
ways to deceive others and
oneself. 2. "Interpersonal
Perception" van Laing,
Philipson & Lee. In
my opinion, the best Laing
did: A formal theory about how
human beings perceive each
other ("I think that you think
that I think that... but
actuall I don't think so at
all" etc.) 3. "Dyadic
Communication" by Wilmott:
The same subject, but mostly
restricted to two persons, and
with a more comprehensive
theoretical perspective. 4. "The
Intrapsychic Self" by Silvano
Arieti. Most psychiatry
I read was intellectual
fraudulence and/or nonsense.
Arieti is a very prominent
American psychiatrist and
neither fraudulent nor a
writer of nonsense. Next to "Interpretation
of Schizophrenia" this
is his main work, and it is
quite good. And for whoever
seems to have some personal
psychological problems: 5. "Test
your own mental health"
by W. Gladstone (American
psychologist) is based on a
sensible commonsense theory
about mental health, that is
explained in clear terms, and
that is followed by a useful
selftest. [29]
Literature:
If you wanted to acquire
understanding of human beings
you will have learned little
in the academic study of
psychology - 20th C
psychologists earned their
incomes by "scientifically
ascertaining" that, on a level
of significance of .99, a
reward (excuse me: "positive
reinforcement") motivates
(excuse me: "positively
reinforces the antecedent
operant behaviour"). That's an
easy way to make money, but it
produced (Milgram
apart) hardly anything
of human or theoretical
importance. [30]
If you really
want to understand what moves
people you have to read the
great authors - that is: not
fashionable shite, but the
classical names. They
are worth it, because we know
them as such because they have
been filtered out as such, in
the course of centuries. I am
myself most impressed by the
ancient Greeks: Sophocles
and Aeschylos; by
Shakespeare (best
edition is a 3 volume set
Pelican edition); by Montaigne;
by William Hazlitt (English
essayist 1778-1830, only
comparable to Montaigne) and
by the one great Dutch writer:
Multatuli.
I learned more from each
of these persons than from all
academic education I received,
and that is part from the joy
- because each of those I
mentioned wrote like a
semi-divinity. [31]
Computers:
I have now since a bit more
than one year a computer and I
am seriously addicted. In that
year I learned more and
enjoyed more than I learned
from all the academic
education I passed through.
And one conclusion is that
whoever is not competent with
computers is running backward.
The sooner you know your way
in computerland - and that
means: a text editor; a
spreadsheet; a dbase-program;
a program to draw; and a
programming language (for the
lovers of the subject: my
favourites are, in the same
order, PCOutline, Lotus,
Reflex, Paintbrush and Turbo
Pascal) - the more effective
you will study, and may think,
write, reckon, draw etc.
[32]
Given the
level of Dutch academic
education the minister of it
would do wise to close all
universities and provide all
aspiring intellectuals with a
PC+software & a
dole-income instead. From the
perspective of social justice,
this would be much more fair,
since in fact only students
with rich parents can afford
to buy a PC or to study.
Another argument: 1 professor
= 20 PCs per year, in terms of
costs. The net yield of 1 PC
used during 1 year =
(minimally) 25 times that of 1
professor. Conclusion: The
organic professorial
intelligence is 500 times
inferior to artificial
intelligence, seen
costs-effectively. O well.
[33]
In
conclusion: When I started
studying (when I was 27) I had
given myself a great part of
what I listed above as
material for a propaedeutical
course, together with some
2000 other books. [34] The
consequence was one grand
horror-experience when
confronted with the acadamic
"education" I received in the
University of Amsterdam. It
was an education that totally
did not square with what I had
learned to know as real
science - and my sources were
not a few obscure Dutch
Masters of Art teaching at
some minor Dutch university,
but the best scientists,
philosophers and writers there
are in the world, as made
accessible by that most
excellent means of joy and
education that is called
"book". However that may be:
There is real joy and real
knowledge to be found in
science. And more than Buddha
I cannot do for you: Behold!
Paradise is there, where your
intellectual horizon tends to;
hell - the Psychotic Lab
[35] -
rules here. I wish you a lot
of pleasure and knowledge.
"All
that we are is the
result of what we
have thought. All
that we are is
founded upon our
thoughts, and formed
on our thoughts."
(Dhammapadda, 1.1)
