Philosophy@Utah State

Home » Uncategorized » De-reading philosophy

De-reading philosophy

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 108 other followers

Old Main, USU


You need a Philosophy T-shirt! For more information, please click here.


* Interested in presenting a paper at an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE or publishing in an UNDERGRADUATE PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL? You should consider it! To see what options are available, both in state and out of state, click here.


• Is the world eternal? YES
• Do humans have contra-causal free will (i.e., can humans do otherwise)? NO
• Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? YES
• Do humans have souls? YES
• Are there natural rights? YES
• Is it morally permissible to eat meat? NO
• Is the unexamined life worth living? NO
• Is truth subjectivity? YES
• Is virtue necessary for happiness? YES
• Can a computer have a mind? YES
• Can humans know reality as it is in itself? YES
• Is hell other people? YES
• Can art be created accidentally? NO
• Can we change the past? NO
• Are numbers real? NO
• Is it always better to know the truth? YES

Blog Stats

  • 196,778 hits

from Jose Ortega y Gasset, What is Philosophy?

“Philosophy cannot be read, it must be de-read – that is, one must re-think each phrase, and this assumes that you break it into the words which form its ingredients; you then take each one of them, and instead of resting content with surveying its agreeable surface, you must throw yourself headlong into it, submerge yourself in it, go down into the depths of its meaning, look well to its anatomy and its boundaries in order to emerge again into the free air as master of its secret heart. When one does this with all the words of a sentence, they stay united not side by side, but subterraneously, joined by the very roots of their ideas; only then do they truly compose a philosophic phrase. For horizontal reading, the kind that slips along, for simple mental skating down the page, one must substitute vertical reading, immersion in the small abyss which is each word, a fruitful dive without a diving bell.”




  1. sandiatwood says:

    Reminds me of the directed reading we did for Spinoza’s The Immendation of the Intellect. We read it one sentence st a time and literally considered and discussed every word. We didn’t get through more than a third of the way through but that experience remains the most satisfying and mind bending of my academic career. We got in Spinoza’s mind it seems and I swear at times I could hear him whispering what he meant by each word. (I know you will explain what I heard otherwise haha but for me, it was Spinoza.)


  2. Huenemann says:

    It’s amazing how much comes out of slow reading!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: