Philosophy as an academic discipline

I think these guys possibly @unknown unknown and maybe Polaris

..Oh... When I hear it - 'academic philosophy' - I always try to stay calm, 'cause of my graduation.

Ok, I know some books, that I think, are good introduction to philosophy. So, here's my list:

Totally beginners:
T. Nagel 'What Does It All Mean?';
J. Teichman, C. Evans 'Philosophy: A Guide for Beginners'.

Beginners:
Aristotle 'Metaphysics', Plato 'Republic', Desсartes 'Discourse on method...'.
Russel's 'A History of Western Philosophy', A. Ayer 'Language, Truth and Logic'.

Polaris

Gotcha me!

Now I understand.

What does it all mean... That's the question...

I think it means that 'all' is needed to be analyzed more precisely.

I'll try to explain why. I guess, if something exists, it means something else exists too, because there's no way for just one thing to exist. Something must uphold existence of one thing, therefore something else exists too.
Ok, there are two things exist, but these things as one thing can exist without another thing that opposite them as the second to the oneness of two things... (well, I hope my words are not enough absurd, 'cause this is the right place to loose any reasonable words...)
So, we have a set of things, but it's not necessary to be a set. We can say very reasonable that two things exist, but what make them affirm their existence? I mean how exactly they represent their existence toward another? Aristotle accused many his predecessors that they didn't care about the method (or a way, or a path?) of development the universe (?). Something must 'move' these things. Where is the place and what exactly moves things?

Nevertheless of what we will get in the end of such (or different) reasoning, we have to understand that is the work of analysis. That's why analysis outruns every metaphysics.

Meaning, I guess, relates to something ultimate, something 'in the end', something eschatological (?). If it is true, we can understand meaning right after or precisely before 'the end'. If 'the end' is nothing but a myth, and we live in eternity, then, I think, there's no meaning at all, or meaning is just in our actions, movements... A good example of last thought is in Camus' "Myth of Sysyphus".

Thank you for your questions!

Polaris



No, I've told just about it (maybe, I as always said something very messy). But, 'light' or 'darkness' are complex forms.



On the one hand, 'one' to 'one' can't be if 'one' is the exactly the same 'one' as the previous 'one. So, every next 'one' thing is another thing;

On the other, 'one' to 'one' - there are two different things even if they equal to each other. 'One' and 'equalness' - that is the one.
I mean 'differencies' or 'equalness' is the solid argument for their existence. So, the question is - what makes thing to exist?

a) Another thing;
b) Differences, equalness...;

a) - materialism;
b) - idealism;

Both, recognizes that there's no way to exist for absolutely identical things. In this case, it would be totally pointless.

I don't even know what of these modes right, but as for me, there's something at the end, or the whole eternity...