You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher
I am a lazy person and a lazy philosopher. Yes, and I am, if not proud of it, at least resigned to it. This is reflected in one of my favorite quotes, from Franz Kafka, which I use often. I’ve even used it earlier today in @Bret Bernhoft's Gnosis thread.
It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.
I am very very good at not listening, not waiting, and not doing all sorts of other stuff. Maybe not so good at being wholly still...
So, I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself.
I add to this another of my favored positions - Most of the controversy in philosophy is related to differences in metaphysics and the fact that most philosophers don’t recognize that ways of seeing reality are not right or wrong, they are just more or less useful ways of seeing things in a particular situation. Free will vs. determinism. Pthhh. Realism vs. idealism vs. pragmatism vs. physicalism vs. materialism vs. phenomenology...Who cares? I haven’t read much philosophy and when I have read it, I haven’t gotten much out of it. I have been small “e” enlightened by Lao Tzu. “Pragmatism” by Willilam James has helped me put my thoughts into words. I love Emerson, although he is not much of a metaphysician.
In my defense, although I have not studied philosophy formally, I have been a practicing field epistemologist for 30 years. As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. Then I had to write summaries of all of those factors for other, sometimes non-professional, decision makers. I think this experience has given me insights that reading and studying would never have given me.
I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this.
It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.
I am very very good at not listening, not waiting, and not doing all sorts of other stuff. Maybe not so good at being wholly still...
So, I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself.
I add to this another of my favored positions - Most of the controversy in philosophy is related to differences in metaphysics and the fact that most philosophers don’t recognize that ways of seeing reality are not right or wrong, they are just more or less useful ways of seeing things in a particular situation. Free will vs. determinism. Pthhh. Realism vs. idealism vs. pragmatism vs. physicalism vs. materialism vs. phenomenology...Who cares? I haven’t read much philosophy and when I have read it, I haven’t gotten much out of it. I have been small “e” enlightened by Lao Tzu. “Pragmatism” by Willilam James has helped me put my thoughts into words. I love Emerson, although he is not much of a metaphysician.
In my defense, although I have not studied philosophy formally, I have been a practicing field epistemologist for 30 years. As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. Then I had to write summaries of all of those factors for other, sometimes non-professional, decision makers. I think this experience has given me insights that reading and studying would never have given me.
I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this.
Comments (331)
I don't particularly like advertising this but, it's relevant to the OP. As someone who has a PhD in philosophy, I must say, I think you are 100% correct. "Philosophy" is much, much broader than the Western tradition, and insights come from all aspects of life.
I would only put in the caveat that I think topics like free will or materialism are interesting - to those that find them interesting, which includes me. However, if that's not something that floats your boat, then that's perfectly fine.
People are different in this regard, some learn a lot from experience as is your case. We surely know of others who have plenty of experience, but apparently "know" very little of anything. Others learn from reading or talking to others or being alone, etc.
I don't think it is any pre-requisite to read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant and so on, to engage in and participate in discussion. It can help, but it can also hurt, in so far as you rely on philosopher X for your views, instead of thinking these things out.
You come from an Eastern perspective, which is enrichening. The one tricky aspect of this to me, are those people who post completely incoherent questions. Sure, we all begin somewhere, but I think articulation of what one's thinking about is important, otherwise quality takes a nose-dive.
:up:
Before I knew that philosophy was a thing, I read people that made me think. Turns out, some folks smarter than me called them "philosophers." Edward Abby comes to mind. Then I went to school and took an intro to logic class, and an intro to philosophy class. "The Last Days of Socrates" piqued my curiosity, but mainly because I could not fathom how smart people were 2.5k years ago, especially when 'Murica, and western history had lead me to believe we were the apex, relative to all those Neandertals that came before us. Turns out, not so much. But all this was around 40 years ago. Since then, like you, I've been lazy.
I don't wear lazy like a badge, but I also think that if you can't write something out long-hand, where a mutt like me can understand it, then I'll either have to put in the time like you did, or leave you to what I perceive as your gnostic ramblings. (cross-thread points)
I imagine my ol’ buddy Father Guido Sarducci would say....that’s just farging beautiful, man.
My take on your OP was that this would be quite close to quietism once all these issues become trite or redundant for you.
and it doesn't get very far. Most see philosophers as a select group of the non lazy.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting Manuel
Indeed, what power would decide otherwise?
We all have conceptions of what it is. And honestly, I don't think there's been a real clarity as to what philosophy is supposed to cover. We all recite the philosophy means "love of wisdom", yeah, that's fine as far as it goes.
But if you gain insight into the world reading novels, or listening to music or talking with strangers who have interesting things to say, then, I think you are a philosopher. Socrates wrote nothing.
The only requirement I'd ask for is to try an articulate what you're thinking. That's important. I mean, sure, you're allowed to ask nebulous or unclear questions, we all have them. It just shouldn't be the norm in one's thinking.
But that's just me.
I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing.
Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers.
I think that's probably also true for other fields including philosophy, if to a lesser extent. You need to read philosophy to do proper philosophy, in the sense that your ideas and arguments are not being bested by someone out there with the training. Or you can prove us wrong and be a paradigm shifter.
By the way, I don’t mean academic training, or that you have to master schools of thought. But you still have to read a lot and engage with what’s out there.
"Ofillimebonibodi . . .etc."
I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! After reading philosophy for years, the learnéd fellow will still put his pants on one leg at a time; he will still need to eat and drink about the same as ever; he'd best get up and move around periodically; he will still sleep around 8 hours a night; the cat box will still need to be tended, as will his own fecal habits.
Actually, a lot of the writings in any field are pretty tedious, whether it's a publication of the Internal Revenue Service explaining Form E-10923-B3, a post-modern journal article on the gender of protons, or the ten-millionth rehash of Hegel (or Hegel himself).
I am 100% in favor of learning -- from cradle to grave. And the world is a fascinating place, full of interesting things to think about. The important thing is that one investigate this world, and think about it.
If all the writings about Yoga, and all the people who know anything at all about Yoga were to disappear, it wouldn't be the end of Yoga. It would be rediscovered and redeveloped. The same thing goes for philosophy: If the whole field disappeared, it would be constructed again. Maybe better. Why? Because the the world abides, and humans will continue to have difficulty coming to terms with it and themselves.
I thought that was what you meant in the first place. I am saying that I agree with you 100% in that there is no single "correct" way into these topics.
Plato and Descartes are great and have lots to say. But if anyone specifically doesn't find anything (or much) of value, then there's no problem with that.
Quoting T Clark
You mentioned William James. He's fantastic. So you already have a figure in the tradition which you find useful. I can't say you have to read Plato or Descartes , because you don't.
I can only recommend someone depending on what topic you're interested in. If most figures aren't connecting with you, I don't see the problem. I think you have lots to say as it is.
I've read a few of the "greats"; it's sometimes like peering into an over-stimulated, obscenely fertile, profligate mind teeming with insights and associations. Likewise with poetry; at least as to the insights and allusions; but poetry is all the greater because it does not insist.
So the great philosophers are like insistent poets, quite often fucking annoying; but if you are in the right mood to brook the insistence, and flow with them where they want you to flow; something may come of it.
Whatever, we are never absolved from doing our own thinking if we don't wish to remain igorant. Nobody loves a regurgitator or an insistent mediocrity.
Sending in a proxy to do some work that you did not want done. CIA.
What do you think the philosophers that made contributions to science? Pierre-Simon Laplace, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Isaac Newton (just to name a few). Back then great thinkers that were empirical minded were called "natural philosophers". Currently (unfortunately?) "natural philosophy" has been largely replaced by "science".
There's also scientifically informed philosophy.
Most people are fantastically stupid about things they have not involved themselves with, and their intuitions about things they have not engaged with are almost certainly wrong and misleading. Unless engaged, most thinking, as per the fact that we're barely evolved animals, is a resort to cliche and heuristics that is adapted for middle-scale social engagement and is otherwise awful at most anything else.
The idea that one can sit in a room and have ideas sprout fourth like Athena from Zeus is naive at best, actively debilitating at worst. Genuine thought takes place under the pressure of constraints imposed by encounters that force problems upon us. Those encounters may not be philosophy, but they need to be encounters nontheless which are richly stifiling.
In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. If not philosophy then sociology, economics, anthropology, woodworking, social work, history, science, child-rearing, gardening, community-organizing, art making, or better yet, all of these together and more. Apes together strong. Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic.
Nice work.
A lot of folk read the 'big' philosophers for name dropping rights and I think there is an assumption made that in reading them you've read them correctly and understand them. How likely would this be?. Most serious philosophical works (Heidie's Being and Time, Spinoza's Ethics) require years of careful study.
I suspect someone will come on here and blast away at the lack of discipline and seriousness this approach displays. And how important subjects require hard work to understand properly. But I sympathise and have not privileged academic philosophy in my life. Nevertheless, I have often been curious to get a better sense of what I may have missed. Why I'm here.
Stanley Fish (a critic I am no real fan of) has a routine he calls 'philosophy doesn't matter'. His argument is while it is true that people hold views about things (derived from philosophical positions in a haphazard way), essentially no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc.
:up:
Fish picked examples of impractical philosophy. If that's all philosophy is, then it's like chess problems. But consider Hobbes. Agree with him or not, he doesn't waste much time on the petty stuff. His theory of knowledge is short and sweet, and then he applies it to fixing the world. Or consider the philosophes who freed us from the dominance of superstition. It may be that philosophy has won its major battles and has become something like (not-so--common) common sense --- and melted in science.
Actually I picked these at random. I forget what Fish said - I should have paid closer attention.
Quoting hanaH
Agree. Or consider the scientists who freed us from disease and gave us cell phones. I don't read any science if I can help it.
I can do that, a bit.
There is at least this: you can read philosophy, even systematic philosophy, not with the intention of "getting the answers", but only with the intention of watching another mind at work, an interesting mind, one hopes. I could say you can learn to think "better" by doing this, but it's not a matter of picking up re-usable techniques. It's certainly not a matter of adopting or rejecting whatever specific doctrine the writer is putting forth, if any.
That might seem strange because, going by this forum, people seem to think philosophy is almost entirely a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone else, or with some statement, or with some argument. That's the least interesting part of philosophy for me, and I try not to spend much time doing that. The more interesting part is learning to think differently. Sometimes that's trying out different terms and categories, a specific change like that; sometimes it's seeing an entirely different sort of approach to an issue or a problem.
You can get, from a book of philosophy, some specific alternatives to try out, but more valuable to me, I think, is just the example of working out such an alternative, to show that it's possible and how it can be done.
That reminds me of Pinker again. In that spirit,
As a species, drenched in superstition and scientifically infantile, we could barely keep half of our infants alive through most of our history.
Philosophers obsess over physics but simple medical science is hugely important. Consider the discovery and understanding of germs...or the invention of vaccines.
Quoting T Clark
You're a pragmatist. We get that. Not everyone has to agree with your pragmatism.
Much more pertinent to the empirical fields of inquiry than it is to philosophy (unless you mean academic philosophy, of course). I do agree that it always helps to familiarize ourselves with interesting minds (although which minds are interesting remains matter of taste).
I mean, the irony in this statement is dazzling.
"Stop learning about anything and engaging with people or material ... you benighted knave!".
benighted
/b??n??t?d/
adjective
adjective: benighted
1. in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance.
Not everyone can; it takes imagination, which the regurgitators commonly lack.
Yep.
This idea of cloistered genius demiurging their way to brilliance is just neoliberal entrepreneurial values transposed into philosophy like a virus. Self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue.
Again, no one has to read philosophy. But one had better be reading and/or engaging vigorously with a range of things besides.
Sure.
But who is saying that a person just need to be alone in a room with zero stimulus or just go to the mountain hiking with no thoughts in mind?
One thing is to say, you don't need to read the classical Western philosophers. Another thing is to say you'll be brilliant if you stare at paint drying.
Quoting T Clark
That's within a context of a certain experience and understanding. Everybody has these, it's kind of impossible no to, as long as you are alive.
Just a little further below, he said.
Quoting T Clark
That seems to me to be a considered position based on personal experience.
Not a tradition I share, but legitimate nonetheless.
Quoting T Clark
Of course this is Kafka's original thought not T Clark's. I wonder why Kafka thought that. Was he recommending avoidance of literature? Seeing is one thing; if you want to be good at communicating what you see, then obviously some familiarity with the ways other's have expressed their seeing will no doubt be helpful
He might have been tuned so that being alone was intense enough. Should be noted that he worked an office job and made the equivalent of something like 100K. So he was in the world.
Anyway, I understand that artists cherish time alone, which they might use to simply daydream.
That's one side of the polemic. As usual both sides have their truths.
True, and being in the world intelligently would certainly seem to be a prerequisite for genius. But no doubt there are many different ways.
Is it?
The first line you quoted makes the incoherent claim that ignorance ("benighted psyches") follows from "reading, arguing, writing" (!).
The second line is nothing but cliche which every 13 year old boy who has read Nietzsche once likes to claim at some point: 'we don't need all these systems and distinctions! Why can't people see see how things are?" Please.
Sure.
I guess I'm tying myself into knots thinking how can someone have an original uncontaminated idea? These days it's very hard.
I suppose I may be interpreting him too charitably. I've had the experience of having read so much in short periods of time that I do feel pretty stupid.
As for your last point, yeah, that's a reactionary attitude.
"Metaphysics", whatever it is, is quite hard.
I think you could have the idea without ever having encountered it elsewhere; but chances are that someone else already had it, and perhaps even 2000 or more years ago. One of the arguments I've heard for familiarizing yourself with the tradition is that you don't want to waste years coming up with ideas that you could have encountered in hours of reading. But it also depends, as you've already noted, what your aim is.
True, and pragmatists (or at least pragmatacists) certainly valorize the community of inquirers.
That's very likely true.
On the other hand, when you've come to an idea you think is original and then discover someone had said very much the same thing hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, then I suppose that is a sign you may be headed in a good direction.
:up: There's also something to be said for the process of arriving at such realizations yourself; regardless of whether others already have. It's not a matter of competition, but of grappling with the human condition. No hard and fast rules.
Or financing a stooge for Congress. :grin:
I think you're overthinking the Kafka quote. I read it as a description of a sort of meditation. I've certainly had moments in life where the world was writhing in ecstasy at my feet. Today, in fact. I went to Chinatown in Manhattan and ate a pork chop over rice and some wontons doused in hot chili oil. It was almost dusk, and I was sitting outside on a closed off street, watching the sun slowly set over the tenement buildings. I call that philosophy.
I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed).
In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends.
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
All empirical philosophy in general and cognitive metaphysics in particular, is contained right there. If the world can do no other than present itself, the fundamental paid attention needs be only to oneself, by oneself, in the receipt of such presentation. The benighted psyches diminish, making intellectual sand kingdoms predicated on them less likely, by the quality of attention paid, and the world necessarily becomes unmasked in direct correspondence to it.
Still, attention paid is the ends, which says nothing of the means. That attention is paid as ends is given, insofar as ignorance of the world’s presentation of itself is impossible, but the form attention takes and the method for its being paid, as means, are not. If the ends are deemed sufficient in themselves, insofar as we are taught about the world, the means under which the possibility of being taught, reduce to merely an interest, and, of course, interest doesn’t teach. The story could end there, under certain restrictive conditions, but in general, it doesn’t.
Interest in the means, can be called speculative metaphysics. Satisfaction in speculative metaphysics, theoretical philosophy. Satisfaction presupposes investigation relative to it, as is always the case, which reduces philosophy to investigation. At the very least, even if only in humans, the agency that pays attention to itself can be supposed to contain the capacity to investigate itself, though not necessarily, and at the very most it can be supposed that such agency actually exhibits that capacity. It follows as a matter of course, that the human agency can at least call himself a metaphysician, because he has an interest, and upon satisfaction with his investigations of that interest, entitles himself as a philosopher.
So here is exactly half the story, which supports the thread title. The other half, assuming the investigative pursuit of it, serves to support its negation. Are not other philosophers themselves presentations of the world, to be unmasked? Fundamentalist extremism aside, does the fact that getting run over by a philosopher carries different implications than a bus, make him any less something to investigate? Could be he’s just running over in a different way. And it could be that knowing something about buses and knowing something about philosophers, occurs by exactly the same method.
Cease fire!!!!
It does seem that way. Philosophy to some just means debate.
This didn't work 65 years ago when my mother told me in church and it won't work now.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sure, but there's more to it than that. I don't get much of the philosophy that's out there, but I know there is something to be gotten. I've been listening to interviews with philosophers. Many times the guys are really interesting. They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something.
Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that.
I think my "body of work," if I may laughingly call it that, shows I am not afraid to do my own thinking, for better or worse.
Quoting Janus
Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get a handle on. Take Kant for instance. I think he is one of your insistent poets. I've tried reading him and haven't gotten very far. But people I respect keep saying his work is central to intellectual history and the scientific revolution. Again, I worry I am missing something.
Well, I'm not proud of my ignorance in this regard.... Ok, well, maybe I am. But I guess I envy people who have the ideas of others at their finger tips. I love to quote people who's ideas I respect. It would be nice to be able to do that with more than just my usual suspects.
I make a separation between the kind of philosophy I am talking about and science. I understand what you're saying, but the distinction makes sense to me. I do read quite a bit of science. I can see how it underpins, or at least should underpin, my ideas.
Your thoughts are similar to mine, although I have been hoping someone will come and blast away. Those are the people I'm hoping to hear from. I guess I'd like to be challenged.
Quoting Tom Storm
As I noted in my OP, my philosophy, if I may call it that, is intimately connected with decisions I have made in my daily life. It's true that, for me, practice comes first and philosophy later, but writing it down makes it clearer to me and helps me pay attention when I need to use these ideas again.
:100: :lol:
Quoting T Clark
I've take the view that I take with so many other issues: I can't know it all, and while I will not surrender my right to critically and analytically consider something, I will often suspend it. As stated in another thread, doubt does not preclude action. I'll defer to those I deem experts, in my own arbitrary and subjective vetting process. I've no interest in knowing everything.
Quoting T Clark
:100:
This is a really well thought through and helpful post. I agree that philosophy is a good way of tightening up my thinking and learning to express my ideas better. Not arguing to argue, but bouncing ideas off
other people's. Seeing how they see things. That's the thing I like best about the forum. And I have been lead by philosophers to see another way of seeing things - Lao Tzu in particular.
Again, thanks.
Of course not, but that opens up an interesting question. Is my understanding that metaphysical questions are not matters of fact but of usefulness a metaphysical question? I guess it is....
Yes, well... the statement was intended to be ironic. I will add a quote here. I know it's right because it's from a philosopher:
[i]To pursue learning one increases daily.
To pursue Tao one decreases daily.[/i]
That's from Verse 48 of the Tao Te Ching. Ellen Marie Chen's translation. There are lots of similar thoughts in Lao Tzu's work.
Quoting Manuel
For what it's worth, I take Kafka seriously and, to a certain extent, literally. I'm sure he was very well read in philosophy and many other things, but at the bottom, it is our own experience we have to understand. Awareness is the goal, not erudition.
And yes, SLX, my OP tends toward self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue, although a lot of that, but not all, is intended as irony. As for "neoliberal entrepreneurial values,"... whatever my illusions or delusions, I don't think they have anything to do with neoliberalism.
Quoting Janus
As I noted in my previous response to @Manuel, I take Kafka seriously and, mostly, literally. I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of.
Maybe this is my inner pragmatist speaking, but I see philosophy from a practical perspective. It helps me think and express myself better in a way that has an impact on the way I live my intellectual and everyday life.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't understand.
Eh. I am being sympathetic to your views as you can see from my various posts.
:lol:
I don't think Kafka's thought is a testimonial to empirical philosophy, but I do think it has everything to do with the quality of attention paid.
Quoting Mww
Yes. As I said, I think attention, awareness, is at the heart of philosophy.
I don't think my use is idiosyncratic, but it also is not universal. A lot of people disagree with how I think of it. If nothing else, I think that leads to most of the disagreements and misunderstandings found here on the forum and in philosophy in general. Free will vs. determinism will never be resolved as a philosophical issue. Unless you are telling me that half the people in that argument are wrong, you have to acknowledge that there is value, usefulness, on both sides of the argument.
I agree with this.
I don't see your responses as unsympathetic to my positions.
Quoting T Clark
The answer to that question is in your OP. :brow:
Be a Scholar or a Thinker. Trying to be both will usually end up in a mess. Good scholars are probably hard to come by nowadays because it is not exactly fancy work they do.
By Scholar I mean explaining the views and opinions of a text/philosopher rather than forcing one's own views onto it. By Thinker I mean not taking any oppositional stance against a philosophy but rather looking at problems and questions in order to address them or clarify their meaning in a more crystalline form.
A lot of what I see today is 'this person/philosophy is wrong because ...'. I don't care for it. I want either a full analysis of a philosopher/philosophy in a dispassionate manner OR to just see someone go at a problem rather than act in pure opposition to this or that perceived ideological stance.
With too many people dallying between the two we end up with poor scholarly works (opinions cast as reporting) or a lack of original investigation (reporting cast as insight).
You've probably heard of the old reference to science being 99% stamp collecting. How would you analogise philosophy in this manner?
This sort of thing supposedly lead Siddhartha Gautama to some world-renown insights.
The OP didn't suggest to me at all that we should "blank-slate oneself to ideas."
If the answer is "yes" does that make it one of those liar's paradox propositions? "This sentence is false."
The proposition that metaphysical statements are not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation, is not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation.
Although I'm interested in lots of issues discussed here on the forum, epistemology is what matters to me most. What do I know? How do I know it? How certain am I about what I know? What are the consequences if I am wrong? As I noted in my OP, I've paid my epistemological dues during 30 years of professional work gathering, sorting, synthesizing, summarizing, trying to understand, and explaining data, facts, knowledge then using them to address real life problems in very practical terms.
Quoting StreetlightX
I don't disagree with this, but to a certain extent it misses the point. The point, as I understand Kafka, is that what matters is awareness. Awareness of the world. Awareness of ourselves. All the rest of philosophy is just there to help us do that. If you don't understand that, the rest is just building stacks of words and saying "what a good boy am I."
Mature, well read, urbane, intelligent people are like that. Those features are more important than the particular field of study--just my opinion. These features are often gifted by one's parents (or not). Genetics, sure, but also by their own style. And luck. One has to have patience and curiosity to read widely and well, but one also has to be lucky enough to be able to do so. Luck has something to do with maturity and urbanity too. If life is too short or too rough, one might not get either one.
Like 'garbage in, garbage out', nothing in, nothing out.
[i]What did he know, and when did he know it?[/I]
A critical piece of my wrestling match with faith, was whether or not we live in a 'knowable world'. I decided I wanted to live in a 'knowable world' without divine, esoteric mysteries. The turning point wasn't the usual youthful rejection of religion that many seem to experience. I was around 50 at the time. Not that I had been deeply immersed in faith up until then, but I had been struggling to get free of it altogether.
So yes, epistemology is what matters. There are a lot of practical applications in that sentence. It's also humbling to think about how long it can take "to know" something confidently. Curious people were noticing interesting things about rock types and layers well before geology became a science, 100 years on. It took 2 or 3 hundred years to get from an inkling that diseases might have specific causes (rather than 'vapors') to Koch's Postulates in 1875.
John Dvorak's How the Mountains Grew, a geologic history of North America from dust ball to the Anthropocene, is as good a read as a great novel. Putting together scattered bits and pieces of information to read uplift, or ancient erosion, is no small achievement in epistemology. Or, different field, that Sanskrit and ancient Greek were related languages.
I would have said so. In general I think it's better to do your own thinking and worse to let others do it for you. Although just to be inconsistent, I'll let Blake do my thinking for me on this: "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." Sometimes I think our own resident fool @The Mad Fool is getting there.
Quoting T Clark
Kant is hard to read. I think it's true his work is central to intellectual history; not sure how much it has mattered to the scientific revolution. ( That said, I seem to recall reading that Kant was the first to arrive at the current theory of the formation of nebulae). According to my limited understanding most of modern philosophy consists in, one way or another, of rejecting Kant. But I also think that most of modern philosophy is, one way or another, of limited relevance to the examined life. It can even be a distraction form self-examination. I like the adage: "The unexamined life is not worth living" but I also like its reversal: "the unlived life is not worth examining". I only worry that I might be missing something if there is something I really want to explore, but there are other things I want to explore more, and I simply don't have enough time.
Quoting T Clark
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Since the age of about 16 I have, off and on, written poetry. The writing of it has always been an attempt to flush my experience out of hiding and understand it. Since I began writing I have always read, desultorily, the few poets that attracted me. Over the last few years I have begun writing more, and due to a small group of fellow poetry enthusiasts I meet with every week, have begun to read many other poets, which has led me to realize that all poets are dealing with basically the same perennial themes in their own different ways (and the same may be said of philosophers). Self-awareness, self-examination and understanding is far more important than erudition (erudition may or may not be an aid to this). Everyone is the same, and yet different.
Sure.
We needn't even make that dichotomy though, someone may have a false belief and they may find it useful, even if they aren't aware it's false. An uncontroversial example should be something like Scientology or even Flat Earthers.
I don’t think these are the same, and although either of them is necessary for their respective doing of philosophy, neither is sufficient for standing at the heart of it. Both are empty, without something to which they relate, and that relation, is the heart of philosophy.
Sure. Which is why Lao Tzu is far more popular with yoga teachers and wellness centers for than anything resembling philosophy (I've read the Dao. It's fine. One book among a million in which to find some occasionally interesting things).
In any case it's telling that the defense of remaining stupid and ignorant is coupled with some woo woo religion and mysticism. Buddha included. All of this goes hand and hand. What better way to justify being dumb that indulging in some exoticizsed 'Eastern' Wisdom.
As for my quip about neoliberalism: its simply the atmosphere you (and I) breathe. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a neoliberal shill, but this atomization of the 'thinker' goes hand in hand with that attitude. Or perhaps it's a male thing. Or an American thing. Some rugged individualist nonsense.
Meaning the opposite problem would be to have a world where every philosopher approaches the same issues in the same manner tat everyone before them has done with little to no new insight.
From a personal perspective I'm unsure if I'd be in a better position viewing the thoughts of others on this or that philosopher/philosophy earlier or later. This is something that falls into all pedagogical categories really.
My advice to anyone reading any philosophical work is not to use a guide if they want to the most out of it. People do generally ignore me because it probably takes longer and is often more frustrating to read something you struggle to grasp/understand yet keep on keeping on. Then there is basic life experience. Some philosophical works make more sense with age.
NOTE: None of this is meant to say NEVER look at other people's perspectives and work on this or that area, it is more or less a warning that if you don't struggle and persist you may miss out on the reward of finding something fresh yourself and reaching a point where you can teach yourself how to learn mor efficiently in the future.
We do stand on the shoulders of giants for sure. Worshipping such giants isn't wise though (think of how Aristotle was revered and what Copernicus did). This is why I'm saying most are better off as Scholars or Thinkers not both. Trying to straddle both seems to result in the kind of blind worshipping expressed by those who opposed (or rather dismissed) Copernicus.
@jamalrob accused me of not being open minded. I wonder what he thinks about you. I've read Kant and Wittgenstein. They're fine I guess. To me, they're caught in the trap of many philosophers. They've mistaken words for reality.
What better way to justify believing what you're told to believe and not making up your own mind.
Yes.
This seems to have bled into many areas as some kind of weird 'feel good' rubbish that does little more than belittle those who have spend years and years honing a craft.
You are NOT a philosopher if you've never bothered to read any philosophical work. That said I don't think you're much of a philosopher if you merely the brief accounts of others work rather than the actual work itself. I'm reminded of one guy (who I respect to this day) that went on about Kant a whole lot ... after years of exchanges I actually got around to reading Kant (without guided assistance) and then challenged some of his thoughts after telling him I'd spent a whole year reading and rereading one of Kant's works. He then told me he'd never actually read any of his works in completion to get his degree in philosophy as there wasn't time to do so and nor had he found the time to do so late into his life and retirement. I was baffled by this because he had repeatedly spoke with such authority on the matter and berated others for not 'putting the work in'.
At least I thank him to this day for giving me a good reason to pick up A Critique of Pure Reason and challenging myself.
Yes he is very hard to read and it is a shame he couldn't be clearer in his Critique as it set forth a precedence of deep thought being connected to bad writing. This was then taken and abused by Hegel and company and is still an issue today. But Hegel pales to Kant.
Nevertheless, even if not Kant, the tradition he is involved (the Neoplatonist tradition which preceded him which said much of the same stuff) in and the problems he raised are substantial and of extreme philosophical depth, particularly the idea of "things in themselves" - to me anyway.
I think it would be unfair to say that he is stuck with confusing words with reality.
If I were you, I wouldn't start from here.
But maybe philosophy doesn't have one beginning, but a multitude, one for each of us.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Kant’s pre-critical period had much to do with the world, whereas his critical period had only to do with our human relation to the world, which pretty much left the world out of the picture. In that respect, one could say he was more concerned with words, insofar as no one before him had put so much focus on the cognitive system as a systemic whole.
It was said, or at least hinted, by his immediate peers that he was more concerned with words than the world, from the fact he was notorious for changing the meaning of established conceptions on the one hand, re: noumena, freedom, consciousness, etc., and severely restricting the domain of others, re: forms, ideals/ideal, the a priori, on the other.
Also, the times. Science was relatively new, just coming into that which is now taken for granted, which made empiricism the rule of the day. Kant comes along, invents a new philosophy which, while not rejecting empiricism, removes it from primary importance. So everybody, newly amazed at, e.g., the profound immenseness of the Universe, was then being told.....ehhhhh, it’s only immense because that’s how it appears to us. It wasn’t so much that he was more concerned with words, but rather, that he wasn’t concerned with the world. The world is. So what. What are we doing with it, is a much bigger deal.
Fun fact: it took more than two years for a peer review of the first edition of the first critique. Even his BFF Mendelssohn declined to comment, admitting that initially he didn’t understand a word of it, and subsequently, after becoming familiar, was reluctant to endorse so sketchy.....so blatantly radical....a metaphysical overhaul. The philosophical community in general, thought themselves not so much dazzled by brilliance as baffled by bullshit. Towards the end of his life, when asked who he would list as his “best defenders”, he picked not a single, well-published, known-name, chaired, philosopher, but instead, a credentialed mathematician.
So, putting it all together, it’s not all that hard to see how the folks from that era at least, claimed he was more concerned with words than with the world. These days, though, after all the study and microscopic dissection, it is quite unfair that Kant was, as you say, stuck with confusing words with reality.
IWhat you describe is not what most define as philosophy. It's sort of this Zen state of understanding and harmony you're trying to achieve as far as I can see. For example, how do you meaningfully respond to metaphysical, epistemological, or moral questions by just sitting back and absorbing? Do we just wait together all in silence in this Kafkaesque ideal, or do you listen to others and form your own thoughts internally without contribution?
I also don't see these tacks as mutually exclusive. Why can't I spend time in silent contemplation, but also read philosophy? Is reading others' epiphanies corrupting of my own? Wouldn't learning from others advance my own progess?
To the extent you argue that some answers lie within and should be sought by contemplation, I do agree, but to the extent you argue that formal study is unnecessary or even inferior, I don't.
Well no you don't, but surely helps.
I'd say that it forces us to think of what we call the "world" very differently.
As for the rest, excellent stuff. :up:
Re: "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher"
Everyone has a philosophy of life and about various subjects in life. In the same way that everyone knows and is more or less good in math, in some sport, etc. But these don't make someone an actual philosopher, a mathematician or an athlete. (Oxford LEXICO defines "philosopher" as "A person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.")
I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also.
Quoting T Clark
I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore or if you have never read anything about them. Whatever is the case, I agree that one does not need to stick to some philosopher and esp. quoting him every now and then in these pages and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is so widespread that it annoys me! I use to say to people "Think for yourself and let X [philosopher] think for himself!"
I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have interesting and strong philosophical views in a lot of subjects. It's exactly what philosophy reading can and must do for everyone, even if he is not involved in philosophizing, i.e. call himself a "philosophical thinker", participating in philosophical discussions, etc.
***
Now, about professional philosophers ... We all know about a lot of persons who are writing philosophy books and giving lectures on philosopical subjects but who never mention any known (or not) philosopher in their work or speeches. I don't know what's their background regarding philosophy. Neither do I care. The important thing is that they have something valuable to say to each of us individually (it's a personal think).
On the other hand, I believe that it is totally impossible for someone to have an academic career as a philosopher, not only if he has not read a lot of philosophy books or he does not know well the work (and even the life) of dozens of philosophers.
Yes, you're missing the "big picture" of philosophy.
Quoting T Clark
The pragmatic thing to do, as far as the study of philosophy is concerned, is to take up a course of study in philosophy at a university, or something as similar to that as possible. With proper guidance and testing of the student's knowledge of the subject matter.
A formal education in philosophy will provide one with that all-important big picture understanding of what philosophy is about, and this will properly contextualize all of one's further endeavors in philosophy.
Quoting T Clark
The bolded parts are two mistaken ideas about philosophy that are common for people who have not had a formal education in philosophy. They are based on the assumption that philosophy is solely a matter of ideology.
Quoting T Clark
For the purpose of what?
Quoting T Clark
That's not necessarily philosophy already, it's just thinking.
Quoting T Clark
Sure. But the way you talk about your understanding of the world has things missing, depending on whom you want to talk about it with.
Reinventing the wheel is overrated.
IOW, rely in whatever infromation has collected in your mind up until this point (much of it is probably trash) and whatever is currently available to you (also probably trash), and hold this to be the highest, the most relevant there is.
Certainly, in the quest for authenticity (their own, that of others), many people think that the best way to achieve that is not to expose themselves to any new ideas -- as if this would somehow guarantee authenticity. What they're forgetting is that this way, they're just leaving themselves with the ideas they have collected so far (which might not be very good ones; in fact, which probabbly aren't very good ones, given the dissatisfaction these people now feel) and are cutting themselves off to anything new. The ship of blank slate authenticity has sailed long ago, latest when one was born.
To read the works of a particular philosopher as an autodidact is overwhelming, to say the least.
Of course, some seem more readable than others (which is probably why Nietzsche is so popular among autodidacts and why Kant isn't), and based on this first impression, one might conclude that one should be able to master the whole of philosophy as an autodidact. But this way, the autodidact just sets the bar very low, and cuts himself off of everything that supersedes his current abilities and current knowledge base.
In order to improve, to grow, one needs to interact with people who know more than oneself.
Yes, that usually helps. And even people who "know less" in one particular area can also have much to say one wasn't aware of. You can learn from all places, but certain figures tend to more reliable.
Quoting baker
There isn't one formula for everyone, just tendencies for better results.
As you can certainly see, I am very verbal - wrapped up in words. I don't have any consistent meditative or spiritual practice. Actually, I do. This forum is my meditative and spiritual practice. Practitioners of yoga, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, tai chi use those practices to become more aware of the world and themselves. I use my intellect and my voice. But at bottom, that's it - awareness. Awareness is what's important. I don't even think that Plato, Kant, Kneechee, Rorty... would necessarily disagree with me. They're all dead, so I can say what I want about them. That's the essence of my metaphysics - awareness.
Quoting Hanover
I agree completely. I don't think I said anywhere that a more traditional western philosophical approach is not valid on it's own or in combination. That it doesn't work. I only said it hasn't worked for me.
I read what you said to be that you made a half assed effort, gathered minimal gains, then quit fully trying, and then declared your approach as valid as any other.
I have a friend who played professional tennis. He refuses to give lessons, claiming no one is really willing to learn. Real lessons, according to him, require grueling hours of practicing a particular stroke before moving to the next.
I think he's right that his method is the true path to excellence, but the truth is I'd quit within minutes of that painful regimen and therefore never improve at all. I'd stay a hack, never even getting mediocre, much less the professional he expects. My method requires that I chip back shots for about an hour while goofing off. Anything else would bore me. I'd improve a little probably.
So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior.
I have no argument with anything you've said. Whenever I call myself a philosopher, it is with a smirk at my presumption. I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." That doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I'm from science. I'm an engineer. That's where my interest in philosophy comes from. More importantly, that's where my measuring stick for judging philosophy comes from. My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science. Even more, the thing that draws me to a particular philosophy most is it's relevance to my understanding of science and the world. I value philosophy for very practical reasons. I have used it just about every day, less now that I am no longer working as an engineer. Philosophy is a tool.
I took a couple of philosophy courses in college. I've read a little bit of everything but not a lot. There are a few philosophers I like a lot - Emerson, pragmatists, Lao Tzu. With the rest, when I hold them up against the measuring stick of science, I don't see the value.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
This is exactly the issue I have been trying to address for myself in this discussion.
The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste.
Quoting Hanover
I'm not trying for excellence. I'm not sure what it even means in this context. Does it mean being able to quote a lot of philosophers? That's a set up question. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting that. For me it means having a clear and practical understanding of how the world works that I can use in my everyday life. For me, philosophy is a tool box. If the tools aren't a little beat up and oily, you aren't using them enough.
Quoting Hanover
That's the point of this discussion. Am I missing something? Is my philosophy half-assed? Take a look at the things I've written here on the forum, not just this thread, and judge for yourself.
That cart is in front of the horse. My intuition tells me that the philosophy you mention is culturally relevant.
The "big picture" comes first. Then comes philosophy. You have to be aware of the world and yourself first. Then philosophy can help you fill in the blanks.
Quoting baker
That's not pragmatic at all. I want a philosophy I can use in my life to help answer the only true question - What do I do now. That's pragmatic.
Quoting baker
I disagree, at least for the first bolded statement. Mistaking words for reality is a tendency I see every day here on the forum. I also see it in most of the philosophy I've read. It is the original sin of philosophy.
Quoting baker
For example.
That's not what Kafka said. Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy.
What I was thinking when I read Hanover’s post. Deliberate practice requires a high degree of structure and well defined goals. There are definitely well established methods for training in things like music and sports, but philosophy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking.
Yes. I like this way of putting it.
Bit of a tantalizing statement, TC. I can almost hear the terse response - 'But how do you know the world without philosophy!?' Your Kafka quote reminds me of a similar quote that always resonated with me and in fact often provide me with direction (or, should I say, provides me with calm).
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone," Blaise Pascal
In life I have rarely lost by using the principle, 'first do nothing'. Sit.
Yes. I think you, Kafka, and Pascal are on the same page.
It's not just that there are established training methods, there are no established methods for measuring performance.
If you want to engage with someone philosophically, though, it is a net benefit to anyone’s education to do it with the best philosophers the world has remembered, at least insofar as their works have been passed down to us.
So one needn’t read philosophy to be a philosopher, but that isn’t to say one shouldn’t.
This is the same teaching Allan Bloom made so many times, guided by Leo Strauss: a common-sense awareness of the phenomena is necessary before you can go beyond the common-sense world and begin to philosophize.
But the common-sense phenomena have been obscured by philosophy herself, for she transformed that world for her own benefit. Who understands what it means to be a gentleman anymore? or who can understand the impulse of an Alcibiades who, when his stingy manager objected to the amount of goods his master was offering a visiting dignitary, ordered that twice that amount be brought out? (cf Plutarch)
It is refreshing to hear someone like you bemoan the “grey network” of modern philosophy and its terminology that I and you and some others are put off by, but you can’t just go off into a solitary place alone and recover the true essence of things. You have to feel the need to go back to the time when and before philosophy was born, to recover a lost innocence, when men wondered...when they first became perplexed, or were amazed by the movement of the heavenly bodies, or recoiled against the rule of noblemen, etc.
As a modern engineer, you have had to deal with a lot of modern science, and a lot of modern politics. How are you to make your way through such a maze? The two are connected, intertwined in a way that is unsolvable...unless you go back to the beginning, and try to retrace the path, and understand how we got to the impasse that we’re at.
You overstate the subjectivity of academia (which could be alleged in any field except perhaps the hard sciences). I'd suspect that by and large (admitting for some occasional exceptions), there would be fairly consistent grading of examinations from professor to professor. "A" students typically get As across the board, as do C students typically get Cs
I appreciate the different perspective on the discussion in this thread. From the sound of it, you and the philosophers you discuss are talking about something similar to what I am. You did lose me when you started talking about going back to a time of innocence. My vision of the state of awareness I am talking about is right here, in front of us, right now. It's not mystical. It's just look at this. Listen to this. Pay attention.
I've got no shade to throw your way, but I can say that your admission in this thread to your limited exposure to academic philosophy didn't come as a revelation to me. Do you come across as irrational or unreasonable, no, I wouldn't say that, but you're not erudite in terms of knowledge of academic philosophy. Where you do seem to show some interest in text is in Taoism, and you have an affinity toward poetry and inspiring visual art and photography, so as to that, I find your comments more substantive.
My point is that erudition is a positive thing and I do consider my lack thereof in whatever area a negative. Your position here I take to be the sanctification of ignorance (not in its pejorative sense), suggesting that philosophical discussion between the well learned and the unlearned will be on equal footing. Except in the unusual moments when the fraudulent professor encounters the unschooled prodigy, I disagree.
So. I wasn't talking about scholarly excellence in studying and writing about philosophy (or any other field) but about what might be thought to constitute excellence in philosophy itself; about the content more than the form or presentation. As I said I think it's telling that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for philosophy.
Quoting Hanover
I appreciate you comments. They are fair and balanced. Small joke, but I'm serious. My lack of experience with academic philosophy is the primary point of this discussion from my point of view, so it would be perverse for me to argue.
It's not ignorance I sanctify, it's attentive awareness. There's language in The Tao Te Ching about the danger of learning which I think I understand and agree with. To me, Lao Tzu criticizes erudition because it blocks the direct experience of the Tao, the unfiltered, unspoken, unspeakable essence of nature. Some western philosophers, Kant in particular, acknowledge that quality, although I think their way of handling it is ambiguous.
Be that as it may, it seems clear to me that if there were, @Hanover doesn't think I would win it.
:100: :fire: :death:
:grin: I don't think any of us on this little forum would win it.
Yes, I like how you expanded from criteria of excellence to methods of practice. :up:
I don't know if you use the word "intelectual" in general or from a philosophical view. Because it is too general and it includes writers, artists, etc., as well as just people with a highly developed intellect.
Quoting T Clark
Interesting! Is this why most of the people in here --from what I have undestood in discussing with them-- are scientifically oriented? No wonder that all of them are physicalists!
Quoting T Clark
Right. Myself too.
Trying to do philosophy while rejecting the basic readings and any formal tutelage sounds like trying to build a car without training or looking up an instructions or even looking at the building plans for other cars.
Is it possible? Sure. Will you perhaps be freer from preconceived beliefs and therefore create a better or at least interesting and different car? Possibly, but rather unlikely.
Most likely scenario: you'll say the things that have said 100000times before, come to the same dead ends of everyone before you, make the same mistakes, and the end result will be this rickety thing held together with elastic bands and chewing gum that just maybe can putter down the driveway before collapsing in a smoke-billowing sigh of defeat. You'll add some more elastic bands and chewing gum and keep slowly inching your way down the road in exhausting, and nerve-wracking slowness.
But, if that's what you prefer to do, then have at it. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do philosophy. The books and the education just make everything a helluva lot easier.
If you've looked at them, is that how you would characterize my posts on the forum? I think they present a consistent and justifiable understanding of reality and, especially, epistemology.
However philosophy also has the equally common meaning of designating a vast collection of historical texts about beliefs and the world. So I think people who consciously construct and maintain systems of beliefs about life and the world are philosophers (while not necessarily claiming to be) in the former sense. And people who embrace written tradition can legitimately claim to be philosophers in the latter sense.
I'm confused: are we talking about whether one in general can/should do philosophy without training and/or reading the "canon," or are we assessing you and your views for their merit in particular?
If the latter is the case, I honestly don't have time to go through all of your posts and try to make sense of your worldview as a coherent whole.
I'm afraid you're also arguing from a precarious epistemological position: without having read the works of the canon, without having gone through the training, you lack the knowledge and insight to compare your current positions against what they could be after such work. Back to the car example, you may be very satisfied with your engine as it is, but without ever having explored some of the traditional engine models and having gone through training to learn the literal and figurative nuts and bolts of engine design, you simply have no clue if your own engine makes much sense.
I think it's fair to accuse some academic philosophy of concentrating on texts at the expense of paying attention to yourself and what's around you.
But, and this is a big but, I think the best philosophers do both. More than that, you can learn how to better pay attention by studying great philosophers. My own experience is that I learned how to pay attention more deeply and more productively from reading Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Plato, and others. And Proust, very philosophical as novelists go, though maybe he's more in the realm of psychology.
This is just a quick response. I'm not sure I'm up for describing exactly how those writers worked their magic on my perceptual skills, even though that might be interesting.
First of all, I don't really claim to be a philosopher. That was meant tongue in cheek. I'm not a philosopher, but you can only really judge whether my education is adequate by evaluating the quality of my thought on philosophical issues. And no, I don't expect you to go and read my previous posts.
Quoting Artemis
So, I should spend years studying writing I don't find satisfying or useful just to see if I can find value in it? So I can judge whether my understanding is adequate? Actually, there is some truth in that, which is what I'm trying to get at in this thread. A lot of really smart people, people I respect, have found value in the philosophical canon. What am I missing?
At bottom, philosophy is just the study of the world. The world is the yardstick by which ideas are measured. Boiling down what you have written I come up with "You can't possibly have a good understanding of the world without having read all these guys." And I say, "Show me where I'm wrong. Show me what is missing." No, I don't expect you to do that, but to judge me by the appropriate yardstick without doing it is presumptuous. Makes me think of a verse from one of my favorite poems. "Two Tramps at Mud Time" by Robert Frost.
[i]Men of the woods and lumberjacks
They judged each man by their appropriate tool
Except as a fellow handled an axe
They had no way of knowing a fool.[/i]
Well, no. I can only judge the quality of your thoughts expressed in your posts by going through your posts. Your lack of education is something I'm basing off of your own apparent admission in that regard.
Quoting T Clark
That's the epistemological conundrum: you can't know until you do the work. Sorry, there's no real shortcut to that.
Quoting T Clark
Philosophy is a study of the world in the way that I guess engineering is the study of engines. I never said you CAN'T have an understanding of the world/engines without books and training. I'm trying to point out that a) it's more unnecessarily arduous and b) you in all likelihood won't wind up with the best theories/engines you're potentially capable of.
Keep in mind too: The world is much more complicated than a car engine.
Suppose someone told you this about engineering. I'm a lazy person and a lazy engineer. If you're a lazy engineer, then you're probably not a good engineer. The same is true of philosophy. Philosophy, good philosophy, takes a tremendous amount of effort and time. It amazes me how many people jump into philosophical arguments without understanding the basics of the subject. Imagine if someone came off the street, with little to no understanding of engineering, and started telling you how to build a bridge. The arrogance is unbelievable. Of course no one has all the answers, but studying a subject with effort certainly gives you a lead, generally, over those who haven't.
There aren't many people who can do philosophy well, and most certainly you're not going to do it well without spending the time needed to study the subject, just like any subject. And, it certainly won't just come to you while you're alone, unless you're a genius. However, even geniuses have to engage with their ideas. Think of the amount of effort it takes to be at the top of any field, it takes a tremendous amount of effort. Most people have no idea how much effort it takes, and how much skill it takes to be one of the best. Wittgenstein agonized over his thoughts. It reminds me of people who come off the street thinking they can challenge experts in jiu jitsu, it's just laughable.
Now you may have said all this tongue and cheek, but there are many who think this way. You see it all the time.
It would be unlikely however, that you would not find a single Western philosopher whom you don't think is insightful. Again, I believe all you need is one to attach yourself to a tradition. And I think that's OK. We have to choose what makes most sense to us.
But I can't fault someone for not connecting with X historical figure. It happens.
Several people have mentioned this ‘expert training’ and I still left wondering about it.
A philosophy major is a humanities degree path that will challenge students to examine questions with no right answers. As they become familiar with notable thinkers and diverse worldviews, majors will learn to think critically, identify and evaluate arguments and engage in moral and ethical reasoning. Students can learn both contemporary and historical philosophy, and they will develop the reading and analysis tools necessary to understand philosophical writings from across periods.
Does a degree in philosophy make one an expert? If not, what might an expert training regimen look like?
I definitely don't agree with this, but I'm not going to get into this right now. However, I will respond to the following:
Quoting praxis
I've been studying two subjects for years, viz., NDEs and Wittgenstein, and I definitely don't consider myself an expert in either field. Although, I'm closer to being an expert in the field of NDEs than I am on the subject of Wittgenstein.
A degree doesn't mean you're an expert. It certainly puts you on the path, in terms of knowledge, but it takes years of study in a particular field to become an expert, which is why so many people don't consider themselves experts. I would say that if you've been teaching philosophy for over ten years, that certainly gets you close to being an expert, but not necessarily. The most important criteria is probably what your peers think, i.e., those who have also been studying the same subject for many years. And, in philosophy, as opposed to surgery, you can be wrong about a theory, and yet be considered an expert on that theory. You sure wouldn't be considered an expert in surgery if your procedures were done incorrectly. Even in physics, you can be considered an expert in a particular field, and yet, it could turn out that a particular theory you developed was completely wrong.
I think most can agree that it takes a lot of study and/or writing to become an expert in any field. There isn't a clear answer to this question, just some general things we can say. Others may be able to give a better answer, I'm no expert. :smile:
How dare you! :death:
Why are you calling it philosophy? Can you explain?
It’s that lack of clarity that makes me, and initially Janus, question the comparison to disciplines like tennis and jiu jitsu which have highly developed training methods for improving performance. Not a big issue because I think that advanced training methods could be developed for philosophy, and that it would included studying master works and mentoring, it’s just a little annoying.
You mean like.... getting a PhD?
(I'm trying hard to tell if you're just being sarcastic by suggesting we don't have advanced training methods for philosophy.)
A degree in philosophy is not really a degree in how to be a philosopher is it? It usually has a much narrower focus and perhaps allows you to have some deeper knowledge about a specific text or a few of them. Depends on the degree.
I don't think reading philosophy makes you a philosopher any more than reading Saul Bellow makes you a 20th century author. But reading is likely to be helpful - if you can fully apprehend what you are reading.
Probably depends on the quality of the program you enroll in... but generally speaking, Phil programs cover the how-to's extensively.
A PhD is advanced education, needless to say. What I mean is specific training methods to improve performance, similar to the methods used in the sports that have been mentioned. Critical thinking, for example, is an important skill for any aspiring philosopher to develop, I'm sure. What methods are used to develop it? and remember the 10k hour rule to mastery.
So wait . . . I got my degree in Political Science. Doesn't that mean I get to be a politician? You mean I have to get votes? WTF is that all about? I thought I was on the fast track to POTUS! Will the hazing never end?
Again, any quality undergraduate Phil program would provide this kind of training.
One can do philosophy without acquaintance with the literature. But one will not do it well.
I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. Generally speaking when I was in my late teens I ordered pretty much every philosophy book around. I ended up reading very few and remembering even less. Or did I? The one book I remember was Philosophy for Dummies, not only because it was so simple and easy to digest, well perhaps that was why. But it also highlighted or outlined certain "de facto" rules or common avenues of philosophical thought in a clear and easy to follow format that offered mainstream views on each "item" or idea as well as fun anecdotes and "what ifs" that really made me actualize the philosophical thought process .Without this turning into a product review, some books are a great starting point.
That said. I don't think anybody is arguing a mentally sufficient person devoid of any books or even modern education would be unable to be a brilliant philosopher or an otherwise incredibly educated and learned person with more wisdom to share than they have the time to.
Edit: After re-reading your OP (and still without looking through the discussion) I gather your prominent assertion is the value of non-Western (which one would assume would be Eastern) philosophy over Western philosophy, casting Western philosophy as "much ado about very little". Am I somewhat on the money here?
From what little disciplines and mainstream knowledge I have about both types (which you encourage and say is good, right?) it would seem, and correct me at any moment for the slightest reason, Buddhism/Eastern philosophy is about tackling the problems of life by humility and casting life as something designed to be difficult and by investing one's time and being into it only causes harm to one's happiness or life whereas Western philosophy states the opposite that it only happens to be difficult and by investing one's time and being we alleviate these difficulties if not for ourselves but for others who come after us. Something like that?
An engineer is someone who uses applied science to solve problems. Engineers in general do not design engines, although some do. There are mechanical, chemical, structural, biomedical, computer, electrical, aeronautical, civil, environmental, and many more types of engineers. I was a civil engineer who specialized in cleaning up soil and water contamination on industrial properties. I have a four-year bachelors of civil engineering degree. Many people I worked with had masters degrees, especially those younger than I am. Maybe the biggest difference between philosophy and engineering as professions is that each type of engineering has standards of practice and educational and experience requirements. Engineers can be held legally, financially, and ethically accountable for the work we do and for the consequences of any mistakes we make. There really is nothing like a standard of practice for philosophers. No licensing. If a philosopher makes a mistake... well, there's not really any way to tell.
And no, the world as addressed by philosophy is much simpler than a car engine.
You espouse a curious mixture of disdain for the discipline and the experts therein and yet eager desire to have your own (self-admittedly, uneducated) philosophical views seen as legitimate.
More I think about it the more silly the OP is. "You don't have to study architecture to be an architect"; "You don't have to study literature to be a literary critic"; "You don't have to study cooking to be a chef". You just need like, awareness maaan. Utter joke.
Sorry, but no, just because you're a lazy two-bit "thinker" doesn't mean a whole discipline has to be redefined to accomodate your fragile ego. You don't want to study philosophy, fine, no worries. But you're going to be trash at philosophy. Pretty simple.
Professionally, I am an engineer. I'm not a professional philosopher. If an engineer makes a mistake, there are potentially very serious consequences for which they would be responsible. If a philosopher makes a mistake, there's not even a good way to know. There aren't any standards by which to judge. It's silly to try to compare the two disciplines. There's probably no one on the forum who is a professional philosopher.
Quoting Sam26
I said I am not a philosopher, not that I have little or no understanding of philosophy. Perhaps that's your judgement, but I don't consider you a valid judge unless you've read what I've written and have comments. No, I don't expect you to do that, but to render judgement without doing it is presumptuous and arrogant. The only criteria by which you can judge my understanding of philosophy is the fact that I am not adequately well-read by your standards. Using that as your criteria is begging the question.
Quoting Sam26
I have no ambition to be one of the best, by anyone's standards. I'll settle for pretty good. Good enough.
I don't really understand your question. I've acknowledged I am not a philosopher, but I never said I don't have a personal philosophy.
Nothing you've said actually discredits the parallel between the disciplines we're trying to draw.
The only way you can tell if my philosophical views are legitimate is by looking at them. As I just told @Sam26, just assuming my views are not legitimate because I am not well-read by your standards is begging the question I asked in the OP.
See, the thing is, I have repeatedly now pointed out that I'm not actually discrediting the substance of your worldviews at all, because I haven't looked at them. I am merely and solely talking about the difference of how attainable and feasible it is to try and reinvent the wheel/philosophy/engines as a solo person versus by taking advantage of access to the knowledge and practice of literally all of human history.
If you repeatedly take this personally and misconstrue it, that's on you, I'm afraid.
I'm not objecting to you questioning my philosophy because it hurts my feelings. I object because I think it's a bad argument. Anyway, I think you and I are saying the same thing, just from different ends. I'm ok with that.
But I'm not even questioning your philosophy. :roll:
I'm asking about the specifics of what's provided.
Don't know anything about jiu jitsu but I've been practicing to develop skills in oil painting. That discipline and be broken down into various aspects of performance, such as shape, value, edge, color, and composition. Each of these elements can be focused on to improve overall performance. In order to improve edge quality, for instance, a practice method might be to study masterworks that excel in that quality and practice recreating them. Whatever method is used, specific goals for improvement and reliable feedback are essential, as well as lots of challenging practice.
Similarly, an aspect of philosophy that could be developed to improve philosophical performance is critical thinking. Of course, this skill is developed in academia, but how rigorously and what methods are used?
No, no, no. Why are you painting? You can become a good painter just by reflecting on the world around you. You just need to have some awareness. You don't need to paint or study other paintings to become a good painter.
I think the parallel would be that I don't need to study masterworks, or rather, asking what I’m missing by not studying them.
What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc.
Absolutely none. There is a whole community of artists who define art as the process and not result. Some of it appears to me to be absolute shit. But they have educated me on the fact that what I think doesn't mean shit. They didn't do it for me. They didn't do it for others. They did it for the process and burned the result. Some write words on the canvass which influence what is painted over it. Then it's sometimes shared with other like-minded artists, trashed, or hidden away. On to the next creative process.
Is that what you think I was asking for? OH, you’re being sarcastic, silly me.
But the way we look at the world has been determined by modern philosophy. You can hear it’s echoes in the language.
For example, when we speak of our “values”, we are using a term that was given prominence in the modern German (Weber, I believe) philosophical conception of “the fact-value” distinction, which argues that there are no moral truths, just different and equal “values” to morality assigned to it by different ppl. So when someone says, “These are my values,” he means that these things are what he holds to be true, and that they cannot be denied validity, because he believes them, and no rational argument can be levied against them, for they are outside the purview of rational analysis.
Similarly, when we speak of our “rights”, we are echoing a term drawn from Locke’s conception of political philosophy, and which has suffused its spirit into all modern liberal democracies. It has become instinctive to say, “I have my rights!” and everyone knows in his gut what that means—but it is not an ancient sentiment. To a pre-modern man, the idea that everyone has inalienable rights would have been quite laughable. Ancient societies were hierarchical and heterogeneous, filled with slaves and serfs, commoners and noblemen. Before the rise of modern philosophy, her concern was how to survive; after Machiavelli, she became a political activist, ultimately changing the very political phenomena, the ancient variegation of society, that her adherents, the philosophers, had always studied...
...it’s similar to that famous paradox of modern physics, where the very light you use to illuminate your subject—the electron in this case—disturbs the object of your study. So, by meddling in politics for its own benefit, modern philosophy altered the face of society, suppressing some aspects of it (the ones that held traditional privilege) while raising others up to supreme ascendancy (the ones that had traditionally been oppressed)...
...and you have to ask whether the traditional heterogeneity in society—the kings and queens and noblemen—was really gotten rid of in favor of the man (“person”, now) who is equal to every other person. For we see still great inequality in society, based now on wealth rather than on family. Yet the many still revere a prince or queen, and follow Harry and Megan, or William and Kate, etc, as though they were epitomes of excellence...
...There are many multi-billionaires, however, that have hardly ever been heard of: they are not nearly sexy enough. They own tech companies and buy up conglomerates and ride high up the Fortune-500, but the ppl want (and have always wanted) a man who is socially prominent: who hits the most home runs, puts a rocket into space or gets elected President. The need for heterogeneity and hierarchy has not died...
...but all this is just prolegomena to what I ask you now: when you say...
Quoting T Clark
...are you sure that you are not looking through the lens of their eyes when you look upon the world?
I legitimately do not understand what you're asking for, hence my request for clarification.
I think you apply James. It's hard to set forth strict criteria, but something like:
1) Willingness to be puzzled at "obvious things"
2) Often being unsatisfied with answers given
3) Being able to articulate what you're thinking in a relatively clear manner
4) Have some interest in "philosophical issues" which can be highlighted in the arts broadly conceived and in everyday living
5) Being able to consider perspectives which are at odds with each other and consider the merits and problems of both views
6) Admitting mistakes in your reasoning
7) Engage in dialogue with others who share similar concerns often coming from completely different backgrounds into the same problems.
It may look like a lot, but I think this is sensible. Perhaps points 1-4 suffice.
That's my problem with all this feel-good inclusivity of "staring at walls is philosophy". What, exactly is philosophical about it? Where's the specificity? What makes this anything more than an attempt to turn a personal failing into a dignified quote-unqoute principled "philosophical" stance?
These aren't questions for you, per se. Just using your words as a sounding board.
5, 6, and 7 are the tough ones for me. :grin: Work in progress.
No, it's fine. These are fair questions to ask. I should be able to reply or attempt to.
I don't think a bureaucrat or marketing manager would generally be puzzled enough about why there is something rather than anything at all or be bothered that things go down instead of going up. These things may, once in a blue moon, come to the fore, but these things aren't irritating to them a lot of the time.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well, that's the thing: what is philosophy?
Can you specify what it is? Is philosophy what Descartes had in mind when he was writing? I'd say there's good historical evidence to suggest that his main concerns were what we now call "scientific". What we haven't surpassed or improved on his science is what we call "philosophy".
You can stare at walls for many different reasons. If you're staring at a wall because you don't like the colours, then you might either be an interior decorator or wanting to call one to change it.
If you look at wall and think, if this wall is a product of my mind why can't I step through it, then I think you are approximating philosophy.
I think the opposite "gate keeping" stance is more dangerous: it narrows the field to academia only, into debates about the ontological status of irrational numbers or what possible world isn't Nixon Nixon and so on.
Some of these are of some interest. But soon it loses the immediacy connected with the human condition and will keep people who might otherwise be interested very far away from topics most people should find interesting, because they are intrinsically interesting.
I'll start out expressing my regret for the tone of my OP. I think it offended a lot of people and made it harder for them to give my ideas a fair hearing.
On to your question. Of course I am influenced by the culture I live in. How much does that make my search for an unprejudiced vision of reality quixotic? I can't be sure, I can only do the best I can. Purity of vision is probably not necessary. If my current understanding is irreparably intermixed with western philosophy, it hardly seems likely that further study will make things better.
As I indicated in the post you are responding to, being an intellectual
...doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Some other people here on the forum are strongly influenced by science. Others don't appear to be. For what it's worth, I am not a physicalist. At least not always.
But this doesn't follow. History is wildly interesting and vital. Yet people don't run around calling themselves historians. Law, which affects our lives at every point in a manner far more intense than philosophy, is interesting and important. Yet no one starts threads on how they are, in fact, a lawyer, by virtue of the world writhing at their feet. And no one then goes on to claim 'if we keep law in the hands of lawyers law will become uninteresting and unimportant'. I don't like people treating philosophy as a whore. No suprise it's usually men who do so.
As for 'what is philosophy?'- well you know as well as I do how contentious that is. But I'll be brave enough to lay out at the least a minimal condition for it, which is continual encounters with things which provoke and problemetize. Thought is excrcized under conditions of compulsion, constraint, and even inability. Philosophy, whatever it is, begins with failure, the other side of wonder - the failure to make oneself equal to the richness of what one is confronted by, and the subsequent attempt to work through the concequences of that failure. And failure requires risk, chance, encounter. With the material of the world. The problem with the feel-good 'we're all philosophers in our own way happy happy joy joy' bullshit is that it is safe, sanitized. Is it any wonder that the OP can be read simply as a post-hoc justification of simply being lazy? I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'.
I mean God, it is really so bruising to people's egos to have to simply say: I have an interest in philosophy, just as people say "I have an interest in history" without calling oneself a philosopher or historian? Like, you're not a philosopher in the same way you're not a historian. Get over it.
I see why you would say that but I think this misses something. The OP is very clear about the need to pay attention. This is not easy to do. I would venture to say that there are those who have been immersed in Kant or whoever without ever having thought to pay attention (a kind of critical reflection of experience and upon what can be noticed, about others, things, self.) and thereby missing a level of critical engagement with lived experience. The OP may resent this but it seems to me closer to a mystical tradition of the contemplative.
I agree. But I also think philosophy is different. It has branches in all fields of knowledge, which branched out of it. So fundamental issues in all domains, are often philosophical.
What was Socrates doing? He was asking questions to ordinary citizens. He's called a philosopher. Why wasn't he called a lawyer? Or a historian?
Quoting StreetlightX
I don't know where you're reading into my reply any "feel-goodness". I'm saying that if you look at many of the threads here, they are often made by people with little by way of knowledge of traditional figues, yet many times the question are perfectly legitimate and difficult.
I think T. Clark in general has interesting things to say. Perhaps he should've re-phrased his OP. That's fine, no additional argument from me on that end.
Things eventually sort out. "Woo"-people tend to leave or are ignored. So I don't see the problem. But feel-good is far from my intent in believing philosophy should include many traditions and perspectives not limited to the classical Western figures.
Sure, but Socrates was Socrates by doing the exact oppose the OP suggests - he most decidedly did not stay in his room and have the world 'writhe at his feet'. He literally wondered the agora looking for trouble.
Quoting Manuel
I agree. That's the cool thing about a forum like this, is that you can have philosophical discussions without being a philosopher. Most, if not everyone here, is not a philosopher. And that's OK (why is this not-OK for so many people? What fragility requires that they prostitute philosophy for themselves out of some feeling of inadequacy?). I also agree that philosophy should include lots of non Western-canon things - but I have never insisted that it should.
And if people want to go off and be mystics, by all means, mysticize away. But don't say that you sat in a room writhing for an hour and now you're a philosopher. I also think this 'attention' business is a MacGuffin. I have no idea what it means. A plumber pays attention when he fixes pipes. A CEO pays attention when she cuts staff for the sake of efficiency.
Didn't the Buddha sit and meditate for a long time under a tree? Parts of that tradition can be called philosophical. I do agree that sitting in a room doing nothing forever won't get you anywhere. So there is room for nuance here.
Quoting StreetlightX
Then what we have here is a matter of difference of how we are interpreting the OP. I think Cornel West makes a good distinction between "philosophy as a profession" and "philosophy as a way of life". We can add to that philosophy as a hobby or amateur philosophy, which needn't mean bad.
By now, if you aren't teaching in academia, it's hard for people to call anyone a philosopher. There are very, very few exception. Raymond Tallis is the only one that comes to mind and perhaps Bernardo Kastrup too.
But Socrates would not be called a philosopher today if he was not already in the tradition and it's clear that he was one. So that's problematic for the term.
I guess I'll I can call someone as a philosopher honorifically, while still accepting most of your concerns.
I guess I missed the "errors already identified." Can you tell me where they were identified.
Except here you're wrong, which means you've engaged in bad philosophy and you've failed to pay attention. If we can't decipher our mistakes, we have no philosophy as a field and we have no basis for rational debate. If you're correct and I'm wrong here, of course, you can save yourself a reply, as you've explained we have no way to know if what you said made sense. Pay attention: you've just argued argument is a futile waste of time.
Philosophers not being licensed has nothing to do with our inability to distinguish good from bad philosophers. It has to do with politics and attempts to advance some interest, like all laws do. The way one determines the reason legislatures decide as they do is to research why they do as they do, as opposed to giving it a good think and declaring what sounds reasonable.
I think we disagree on this. I think it is possible to philosophize alone with no texts. But he didn't say he was Spinoza.
I said that there is no standard of practice for philosophy. That would be a good subject for a discussion, not this one. Is there a standard of practice for philosophy? What is it? What makes good philosophy?
There are interesting questions to be raised by autodidactism - questions which are at once social and ethical, and go way beyond the question of the individual. There's this inverview with Reza Negarestani, where he makes the point that the autodiadact needs to be understood in the relation to an entire social system:
https://www.neroeditions.com/docs/reza-negarestani-engineering-the-world-crafting-the-mind/
The OP of course simply doesn't even begin to raise the same issues, because it doesn't even rise to the level of advocating for autodiadictism. It literally says that ignorance is fostered by learning. It's insane and intensely stupid and frankly embarrassing. But it is also understandable - as a symptom of a society where the only choices are that of engaging in a rarefied system that is cold, alien and inaccessible, or else heroically 'going at it alone', traditions be damned. The OP is a reflection of social failure, and a sadly understandable response to it.
:wink:
In the literature.
That's my point.
You wanna find out, you godda do the readin'.
I have expressed my regret for the tone of my OP in other posts. I tend toward the smartass and I didn't think what I wrote would be so controversial or offend people. I was naive.
Quoting Outlander
Perhaps you should.
As I've noted in several other posts, I regret the flippant tone of my OP. I've offended people and made it harder to have a friendly discussion about this. Forgetting about this discussion for a moment, based on my history on the forum, am I a two-bit thinker? Am I trash at philosophy? I don't think I am, but if I am, that answers the question I asked at the beginning.
Is this your persona list, or does it come from somewhere specific. Is it William James?
I am not a philosopher. I was being flippant when I referred to myself as one. I regret that now.
Sure, I guess. As I've said several times in this discussion, I think attention to the world has to come first, before the philosophy, i.e. the words, explanations, theories, reason. To me, that's the difference between western and eastern philosophies. Western philosophies are about reason. Eastern philosophies are about attention and awareness.
Agreed.
Talking of Cornel West, he wrote a piece in April that's even more pertinent, and an interesting angle on this topic:
Howard University’s removal of classics is a spiritual catastrophe
[quote=Cornel West]Upon learning to read while enslaved, Frederick Douglass began his great journey of emancipation, as such journeys always begin, in the mind. Defying unjust laws, he read in secret, empowered by the wisdom of contemporaries and classics alike to think as a free man. Douglass risked mockery, abuse, beating and even death to study the likes of Socrates, Cato and Cicero.
Long after Douglass’s encounters with these ancient thinkers, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would be similarly galvanized by his reading in the classics as a young seminarian — he mentions Socrates three times in his 1963 “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”[/quote]
Quoting T Clark
The sentence that I've bolded here: maybe you can see that it's mistaken, if you think about the difference between, on one hand, being unknowingly influenced, and on the other hand, reading the influential thinkers to understand how you and others are being influenced (and what those thinkers were reacting against, and so on). I suggest you read the short opinion piece by West that I quoted above, to get an idea of the value of the philosophical canon.
Here are some more quotes from it:
[quote=Cornel West]Students must be challenged: Can they face texts from the greatest thinkers that force them to radically call into question their presuppositions?[/quote]
[quote=Cornel West]As German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer emphasized in the past century, traditions are inescapable and unavoidable. It is a question not of whether you are going to work in a tradition, but which one. Even the choice of no tradition leaves people ignorantly beholden within a language they didn’t create and frameworks they don’t understand.
Engaging with the classics and with our civilizational heritage is the means to finding our true voice. It is how we become our full selves, spiritually free and morally great.[/quote]
It's interesting how West's focus on the black experience brings these things into focus. He implies that what might appear as the "decolonizing" of education has more to do with a utilitarian anti-intellectualism in the wider society. I think it's fair to say that there is more than a hint of this in your OP.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/19/cornel-west-howard-classics/
In an Eastern ‘your cup is full’ sense that is how I interpreted it. Ignorance being ignorance of one’s true nature. Realizing one’s true nature is regarded as the highest wisdom.
Also kind of like missing the forest for the trees:
Here's another angle. I think you've said a couple of times that you're seeking the insights of people here who you respect. So why not seek the insights of the people who have dedicated their lives to thinking things through?
No, because I don't think - thank God - you practice what you preach.
Sapere aude!. Dare to be wise!
Intellectual autonomy: You're on your own! Reason and, for god's sake, reason well.
Right, it depends with whom one has interacted and the topics that one choses to discuss ...
Quoting T Clark
Not always? :chin:
It's an interesting proposition and sounds different from what is usually associated with the term today but looks quite sensible.
I think self-learning can be excellent for some people, given the state of Academia in neoliberal terms, what with extreme competition, aiming for test scores, wanting flashy essays in journals only 2 people read, etc.
Na, just came to mind as something roughly reasonable.
There's a lot to be said about that. I mean, everybody's different, but learning that comes naturally, that is, reading and engaging in stuff you find intrinsically attractive and challenging and thought provoking, much more often than not stays with you in a way learning in a classroom rarely does. And it's also a lifelong thing.
Within the context of those figures quoted, it indeed was an act of rebellion and must have been liberating too.
Cornel West is fantastic.
In my experience, classroom learning works and sticks just fine. The students just need to be open to and ready for it. The current US-American educational system is shepherding through too many people who are uninterested and unready for philosophical (or otherwise academic) training. My best students always include (though are not exclusively) the older, non-trads who have lived a little and come back on their own dime.
Edit for clarity: I'm not suggesting classroom learning is right for everyone or that studying on your own is futile. I'm just saying that classroom learning works for those ready to do the work.
Kind like, people often suggest certain exercises or calorie-deficit diets don't work for weight loss because people don't stick to them. But really the diets and exercises actually work fine, IF you do them.
Sure. A good portion of it depends on the teacher being able to make this stuff stand out, which for philosophy can be especially difficult, given many topics can be quite abstract. Ethics, perhaps less so and is more pertinent for the everyday.
It makes sense that older students would be more interested in these things.
Each person is unique and I surely was not ready for philosophy in my first year in college. Had I the mentality that I have now, I would've taken a lot out of my classes which I missed out on. I ended up teaching myself, which worked for me, but could have perhaps been made easier with a different mindset.
Yeah, a bad teacher can tamper enthusiasm for sure. But spend an hour in the class of even the best teachers and you'll see an ever increasing number of students afflicted with "grumpy student syndrome." Pro-tip: You can usually spot them in the back, frowning intently at their laps (where they think we don't know they have their phones).
Whether I can itemize the criteria, I don't know, but clearly there are journalistic standards that one must adhere to in order to be published.
Your standard, and I don't say this to be snarky, is that you object to rigor. You'll read the posts here and respond to them, but you won't read Kant or Nietzsche. The only difference I can see between what those established philosophers have to say and what we have to say here is the level of complexity and the volume. I don't even see this as an East versus West distinction because I would expect there are countless volumes of rigorous analysis of Taoist thought that you would also decline reading.
Back to my tennis analogy, I see nothing wrong with being a weak tennis player who enjoys being on the court and working up a sweat if that's what you want to do. Where it becomes nonsense is if you'd start arguing that you're just as a good a tennis player as the professionals, but you just play by a different set of rules, and who's to say which rules are the ones we ought to follow.
For the record, I wasn’t offended, and I didn’t consider the tone flippant. It is my contention that the quote you used, “...be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking...” is precisely what happens when all one is doing, is engaging in pure thought. Which is itself, just daydreaming. Even if not often done, it is done nonetheless, and serves as a reference and fundamental ground for philosophy itself.
Regret if you wish, but I remind you......there’s no crying in metaphysics.
From the Cornel West piece that @jamalrob linked:
Quoting Cornel West
You offered @T Clark one of the standards for being a professional academic philosopher, but there's clearly room for doubt that this is the sort of standard he was asking for, and what Cornel West suggests here might be closer to the mark, something that might be pursued by academic institutions but that, West says here categorically, is not.
This whole discussion might have benefited from distinguishing two issues: @T Clark's regularly avowed discomfort with the Western philosophical tradition, and the professionalization of philosophy in academic institutions. It is perfectly obvious how the professionalization of empirical disciplines advances them, as those require tremendous resources to make progress, halting and uncertain as that progress may be. It is not obvious, not to me anyway, that the same model has been well applied to the arts or to philosophy.
The interesting comparison is mathematics, always the odd duck. Mathematics may not require expensive research facilities (no large hadron colliders needed) or hordes of grad students to do the grunt work of research, but to do original work requires a tremendous amount of quite specialized education. Is the same true of philosophy?
The question is whether philosophical thought is advanced by increased rigor, which would require one be intimately familiar with the underlying issues, the prior objections raised by prior philosophers, and what those responses have been. If I have the opportunity to speak with Person A who has read the pertinent literature and has taken course work and written papers with regard to Issue X or Person B who has only generally considered Issue X, but has read next to nothing and has taken no coursework and not written on the Issue, I'd choose Person A for the more meaningful response.
That is what professional philosophy is for.
In terms of empirical research, it really depends upon the particular field of philosophy. I would expect someone speaking on the philosophy of science to be knowledgeable of the history of scientific progress, for example. The same would be true of various other fields, often requiring some knowledge of neurology, evolution, or whatever the focus may be.
If we accept the notion that we're all on equal footing just by virtue of our natural intelligence and worldly wisdom such that any of us would do just as well as the other teaching our personal philosophy (as all philosophy is as subjectively valid as the next), then one must wonder why we're even here in this forum. Why listen to me and why listen to you? If we admit we may gain from one another, then we've contradicted our premise of the valuelessness of rigor. That is, if you can gain from listening to me, then it's time to dust off Kant's Critique of Pure Reason because we just might gain from reading that as well.
If rigorous analysis of the topic can be accepted as offering value, then rigor is what we need. I can think of fewer more rigorous approaches than hiring professionals who have committed their lives to their craft if one wishes to advance that craft.
But is this not the true nature of philosophy at its core? To question the rules, the benefit, the efficiency, not to dismiss or belittle the gold standard but to explore it with the hopes of finding paths yet unseen to unlock the true future of a better tomorrow. Sure sometimes we'll fail, and we should expect to be criticized when we do, especially with such elevated and perhaps even omniscient sounding sentiments like we may perceive from the OP. But as iron sharpens iron only by making mistakes, I'm reminded of Thomas Edison. Great guy. Never met him but I use his stuff everyday. One of his better known quotes, that weren't womanizing and self-centered was "I have not failed. I have only discovered 10,000 ways that won't work". And he was right. Imagine the first person who discovered or rather invented the candle. He literally lit up the houses and lives as well as the hearts and minds of an entire generation. But what if we failed to stop questioning and criticizing then? The candle was perfect, flawless, it addressed every need that was once left unanswered. Yet we continued to criticize what was established, what worked, and what solved problems beyond sufficiency. This was not arrogance, or perhaps it was. But dang it through this negativity or perhaps simple failure to be placated by what already solved our needs we discovered that which was truly great and in my view vindicated any arrogance or ignorance in the process. For philosophy truly is the love of wisdom, and love is an open ended action that never ceases. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to run around my house and turn all my lights on and off in rapid succession like it was my first time discovering electricity.
Kudos, OP. I can honestly say and feel TPF is a better place for you having posted this thread. Cheers. Keep up the good work. Don't ever let them get you down, kid.
I just have to add in OP's defense. Who influenced the influencers? Sure, other influencers. But somewhere up the line... there was nobody. Or was there? This singularity in philosophy and knowledge through generations and studies will not go away. OP offers an answer to this singularity by embracing what all great men do. Being open to possibility, even if that possibility is your own. For is that not the essence of what freedom is? I'll be the first to admit the OP leaves much to be desired, blindly following the sentiments of the OP will likely lead to not only ignorance but a life unlived. But at least in my view, the OP is redeemed because it has the spark of true wisdom and philosophy that, if nurtured and exposed to the right intellectual catalyst will grow into a raging inferno of enlightenment and with any luck, happiness. A spark that is smothered when we fail to ask a simple question, that one almost futile-sounding one word protest to all that is reprehensible and undesirable in this world that is "Why?"
One semester I decided to depart from my usual approach of reading a few select primary texts and taught a section without any books. Students were required to identify some issue or problem of philosophical importance, present it to the class, and defend their position.
Many were of the assumption that philosophy is simply a matter of having an opinion, that one's "philosophy" is one's opinion. In Socratic fashion, I moved the discussion from stating to defending a particular opinion, to an inquiry into the unstated premises and assumptions that extended beyond the specifics of the topic to more general assumptions about opinions and truth.
Out of a class of thirty, twenty declared philosophy as their major. The truth is, it was not an unqualified success and I did not repeat it. I think there is something to be learned from the philosophers that was missing. I don't know if anyone went on to study philosophy due to this approach or would have gone on to study philosophy based on a more traditional approach. It may be that this is not even a good measure by which to gauge success.
In my opinion, knowing that this philosopher said one thing and another something else is of limited importance. What is important is knowing how to think along with and evaluate what is said. But by doing the former one may increase her ability to do the latter. That others have thought about these things, and often with more insight than we have is not a resource that should be ignored.
Disagree. I think the OP is essentially asking about what matters. Does "building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand" really matter, or really lead to happiness? It certainly has the potential to lead to wisdom, at least wisdom in the Western sense.
Blindly following the sentiments leads to anti-intellectualism and poor reasoning, in my experience. In the zen community, people can become very accomplished meditators, with "a raging inferno of enlightenment", but often tend to be poor thinkers. A case of use it or lose it, I suppose, or that one's focus determines one's reality.
Ok. Here's my spiel, which I have explicated many times here on the forum. Physicalism (or materialism, pragmatism, relativism, realism, idealism, and on and on...) is a metaphysical position. As such, it is neither true nor false, only more or less useful in different situations, or as Janus put it, a matter of taste. I use physicalism when I'm doing my engineering act - F = ma. Perhaps idealism when I do math....
Contrary to the thrust of this thread, I do have a philosophical source I've found helpful - "Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood.
Well, I like the list. It represents my attitude towards knowledge in general.
Yes. I strongly agree with this. I appreciate your comment.
Quoting Mww
But a lot of whining.
...Yes, I think. I like the idea of soul-forming education.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Good point.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't think so, at least once you get past logic.
I like that. Like you, I won't pretend to know how effective it was, but I like it.
It brings up another issue: It seems to me that virtually every single endeavor of man (way beyond philosophy . . . I'm thinking Special Operations but it includes everything) has a hazing process, or a vetting process built in to it. It's a gate keeper thing. I'm sure it has a beneficial winnowing effect. I'm not questioning that. I get that. Wait, just in case someone missed that, let me repeat it: I GET THAT. Please, let's not circle back around to the "why" of why that is done. I GET THAT.
My point is, there is a fine line. You can make yourself feel superior by scaring kids away, leaving a balance of geniuses, sycophants, or those who think they can suck your dick for a good grade. You can close the gate because you feel threatened, proprietary, jealous of turf. Or you can entice them in with promises of intellectual curiosity, community, exploration, growth, mastery. You know; what they paid for. You know; what should excite you.
But for fucks sake, it should be grounded in the respective disciplines, and if you want to find out if a kid "has what it takes" to push through the difficult to get to the difficult, then you might reconsider starting with something less difficult. You don't dump Hegel on him and say you want a book report in the morning. "And no Cliff notes!"
I was given "The Last Days Of Socrates" and, while it did not propel me into a degree in Philosophy, it did show me how I think teaching should be done. You don't walk a kid into a corner with his own answers and make him slap himself in front of the whole class. You ask your questions with your own genuine sense of intellectual curiosity, and let the conversation go from there. After all, if you're the professor, you shouldn't be intimidated by some knuckle dragger who thinks he is just there for the grade. If and when the corner arrives, there is no humiliation in it, but, rather, light bulbs going off and maybe some laughter.
I remember professors in law school who used the Socratic Method for good, and others for ill. Yeah, life is tough out there. We know. We don't need some cloistered proff with patches on his elbows trying to show us how mean the world or some judge can be.
As much as my snarky tone may have covered it up, this gets to the heart of my OP. I have been diddling around with reading more pragmatism - James, Dewey, Pierce. I'll push myself a bit harder.
This thread has been fun, educational, and a bit humbling. Here are some things I got from it:
I appreciate everyone's input.
I've thought of a couple of other things I've gotten from this discussion:
No. Leaving aside "underlying" --- because I don't know exactly what it's doing there --- this is like arguing that the only way to get from your house to the Waffle House is by studying all the routes people have taken from their house when in search of a Waffle House.
You may learn 10,000 ways of not making a lightbulb before you make one, but 100 would have done as well. There may be other things to learn from those other 9,900 ways not to make a lightbulb, some of those 'failures' may provide unique opportunities for insight, but there are always a vast number of ways to fail so you can't define success as trying all of the wrong ways. The last part of your sentence is just not so intimately connected to the idea of rigor as you seem to think it is.
Understanding the issue you want to address, yes, of course, and otherwise you're not addressing it. Knowing what everyone has said about it, no, not even what everyone thinks are the important things that have been said about it. That makes you an expert on what people have said about it, and that is not the same thing as rigor.
It is confusing that so much of the academic practice of philosophy, from coursework to publishing, is actually the history of philosophy, but that doesn't make them the same thing. In the sciences, from mathematics to physics to medicine, history is not the central focus of study as it is in academic philosophy. If that's our model, why don't we follow it?
Quoting Hanover
You'll get a response that is more comprehensive, more informed of the current state of the academic study of philosophy, certainly. Whether it will be more "meaningful", whether it will be "better", is unclear. This is just "looking where the light is best", isn't it?
Quoting Hanover
I'm saying it's possible to disagree with @T Clark's view without mistaking the current academic practice of philosophy for philosophy.
Quoting T Clark
Cornel West does claim that there is benefit to studying the great minds of the past, and makes that claim exactly in the context of a critique of the current state of academia.
Quoting Fooloso4
Reading a great work of philosophy is not only of value for improving your own thinking, it is also a pleasure. Like all pleasures, a matter of temperament, even taste, but also one for which nothing else can substitute.
That makes sense.
Quoting jamalrob
I will.
Quoting jamalrob
I don't think I'm anti-intellectual at all. I live in my intellect. Everything good I've ever written on the forum comes from my intellect, reason, resting on a foundation of experience and awareness. I think there's a good case to be made that western philosophy is founded on distrust of experience and awareness.
I like this. Good, catchy, rhetoric. I will keep it for future use.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I will read West's article.
An intellectual is a person who "engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection to advance discussions of academic subjects."
So, you are in part anti-intellectual, because you reject the need for research. You do fulfill the rest of the criteria to a certain degree.
As far as I can see everybody is an intellectual, literally. Unless they're in a coma.
Hmmm... ok. Maybe... Actually, I don't reject the need for research. I've just done my research in non-philosophical-standard places. I think my 30 years as an engineer and my life-long interest in science are a big part of the foundation of my philosophical understanding.
It's like saying we're all scientists because we can boil a pot of water to make tea. Stretching the term beyond it's intended use isn't very helpful.
I partially appreciate where you're coming from, but still find that your valuation of engineering and the expertise that comes with it is at odds with your devaluation of academic philosophy and formal training in that regard. It doesn't add up.
You need a degree to employ the scientific method?
When I called myself an intellectual, I gave a specific definition of what I meant by that to avoid any confusion. As I noted, calling myself an intellectual "doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at."
No, but it helps.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm still reacting to the tone of the OP.
Quoting T Clark
There's some truth in that. Particularly a distrust of earthly, bodily experience. But here we are engaging with the tradition, and some philosophers within the tradition have addressed it.
The part of that post I feel bad about is its reliance on the word "great", as in "great minds", "great works". I think West has a way to gloss that, and I might if I tried. As it stands, I'm only saying that we can derive value from studying the sorts of works value can be derived from, which blows.
Can't solve every problem in every post.
As I wrote before, this has been a really helpful, interesting, and eye-opening discussion for me.
Thanks for your input.
:up:
The Critique of Pure Reason reading group starts tomorrow. See you there!
I think that's true in many cases, not here.
Why is the car mechanic who can fix a car engine that no Nobel Prize winning Physicist could not considered an intellectual?
Or a nurse that can help treat a patient who would die in the hands of much respected Journalist? That's not intellectual, being to able to know how to treat wounds and save lives?
On the other hand, many so called "intellectuals", specifically certain journalists, are the biggest frauds and liars of all. Aren't these the very same people who every time there's just even half of a chance to bomb a country in the Middle East, salivate and give all sorts of reasons as to why killing people is good for democracy?
So the word can be quite misleading...
I agree. It's a fine use of the word.
I wouldn't be too serious about the label, not that you are. It's a legitimate use of the word.
The analogy doesn't hold. There's no debate over how to get to Waffle House and it's not a question that has stumped us for ages. If, however, the question of free will (for example) had an obvious and simple answer it would be unhelpful to spend 1,000s of hours reading about it and hearing other people's theories about it, as it might be to locate your nearest Waffle House.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Assuming that other people offer no meaningful contribution, then sure, but I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming thoughtful responses from them. If other people can't offer thoughtful or helpful responses to your own thoughts, then why engage others or listen to others?Quoting Srap Tasmaner
You're losing me here. This argument of yours is against not just the enterprise of academic philosophy, but of philosophy generally for any purpose. My basic assumption is that philosophical thinking yields meaningful results. If it doesn't, then let's stop here as we're just wasting time.
If we accept that we can arrive at meaningful results, then sharing those with other will also be helpful and having a professional class of those working on those issues will be an even more helpful way of gaining insight into those issues. However, if you're saying that philosophical thinking offers nothing on the individual, group, amateur, or professional level, then I agree there'd be no reason to study anything on the topic at all. Is this what you're saying?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I've not read the West article, but if the gist of it is that the state of academia is in a state of disrepair for whatever reason and needs to be reconsidered, I'll leave that to those who are intimately familiar with it., but that seems like a political and ideological gripe, dealing with poor decision making by those in leadership positions. That is, that doesn't seem to address the OP, which alleges the insignificance of scholarship.
You're imbuing the word with a valuation it doesn't contain. Intellectualism doesn't entail anything about good or bad deeds.
In other words: no, dressing a wound does not make you an intellectual. And yes, maybe part of being an evil propagandist does entail being an intellectual.
You might have made the happiest man in the Bay State.
That's fine if you want to use that way, which is its normal use I think.
I think it could be used more fruitfully when applied to people who usually don't fit the common term. But that would be moving away from his thread.
But, you have a good case.
Precision in thought is only possible with precision in language.
That's generally true.
:lol: Alrighty then.
Right but nobody is disagreeing with that, not even OP, though he may believe so. See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! Yet by simply demanding more out of who and where we're expected to learn from he places himself on an amazing path of discovery he can't even see! Who knows what fertile lands, green pastures, and lush oases OP has the potential of reaching without the distractions of rigid instructions from times past. Sure, these were brilliant and great men who advanced not only themselves but entire societies writ large. We would be fools to ignore them, at least the "trendy" meme-ified versions of their wisdom whilst scrolling through social media and living our modern lives. He came, he saw, he questioned. And that opens one to a plethora of contentment that few who conquer nations and people will ever know. For if all we know is to take what we can, how will we ever know how to receive what we otherwise could not? This is the reality of a small child, one that philosophy helps us break free from. OP may be wrong, entirely and indisputably. Yet his desire to question the works of others and at least acknowledge the possibility he and he alone may educate himself to the highest degree of learning, is what I believe, is the goal of any real philosopher who ever lived, which is simply in a word, freedom.
Prospective lawyers.
Quoting StreetlightX
What do you mean? By having no texts immediately in front of you?
It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory.
I see how you use the term "physicalist". And indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position and also that it's opposite is idealism. I, on the other hand, I am based on official (standard) dictionaries, esp. when I am discussing about basic philosophical terms. (I prefer them to encyclopedias because they are too verbose and complicated. That is why it is difficult to refer to them in a discussion.)
So, from Oxford LEXICO:
1) Physicalism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.
2) Idealism (Philosophy): Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.
3) Materialism (Philosophy): The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
4) Dualism (Philosophy): A theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, especially mind and matter (Cartesian dualism).
5) Spiritualism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
From the above, I can see that
1) The meaning of (1) is almost the same as that of (2).
2) The contrast between (1) and (2) is not at all obvious. I can hardly see them as opposite positions. So I have to leave (2) "out of the equation", since it only complicates things.
3) The contrast between (1) and (2) is much more obvious, but of course. Yet, I can't tell that they are opposites.
4) The meaning of (4) is very close to that of (5).
Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict!
I seem to recall Clark fully acknowledging that he's a product of his culture.
I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.
Quoting T Clark
What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". A very popular term in popular "Eastern" spirituality, but highly controversial within the actual Eastern traditions themselves. See the passage I quote above from Buddhism.
@tim wood is the one who steered me to Collingwood. I've given him credit many times. Thanks for doing it again.
For me, and for Collingwood, a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. It has no truth value. It is a choice, one that depends on a particular situation. So, yes, I can be both a physicalist and idealist at the same time. I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism).
Yes. Thanks.
Here is some of the text about Buddha you quoted:
So it's important to understand that there's no such thing as bare attention in the practice of the Buddha's teachings. Instead of trying to create an unconditioned form of attention, the practice tries to create a set of skillful conditions to shape and direct the act of attention to make it appropriate: truly healing, truly leading to the end of suffering and stress. Once these conditions are well developed, the Buddha promises that they will serve you well — even past the moment of Awakening, all the way to your very last death.
I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details.
As I wrote in my previous post, I don't remember hearing the term "bare attention" before. Thinking about it, I can see that it could be a useful way of thinking about these issues.
This. And not reading from the cannon. Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.
Is studying the history of philosophy the same thing as philosophical thinking?
If we start from the position, as I do, that there are two distinguishable disciplines here, then we can look at how they inform each other. For anything beyond textual work, I think being able to do philosophy, to think clearly about philosophical issues, is necessary for interpreting and explicating philosophical works. The dependency in that direction seems perfectly clear.
It's the other direction that is causing us trouble, and I think I can now gloss my use of "great" in previous posts: a work that is worth allowing yourself to be influenced by. That's still circular, but at least it's clearer that "greatness" is measured in how it informs your philosophical thinking, that it's about the chosen dependence of practice on history.
It's possible to reject the whole idea that there are two disciplines -- there are people who punt and just define philosophy as whatever philosophers do, whatever philosophers have done -- so there would not be two disciplines just one, and that would in effect make the history primary. It simplifies things, to treat philosophy as a kind of literature, but I don't think it's just that anymore than it's a science. We teach it nearly as if it's literature though, except for the logic courses which we treat as science.
I'll stop there -- but I do want to register my reservations about the word "results".
You can organize the study of philosophy either by philosopher or by topic, which I assume you mean the former is a study in the history of philosophy and the latter as philosophical thinking.
A historical approach might be that you'll take a course in the pre-Socratics or in Aristotle or in Kant or in Hanover. You can then decipher all their nuances and maybe even learn about their odd quirks and where they lived and who they married. That historical approach would also require philosophical reasoning unless your professor was solely interested in your recitation of the works of those thinkers, but that's a fairly narrow approach to take. In a class on Kant, for example, you might be called upon to explain what some of the criticisms of Kant's ethical theory are, so you're not necessarily going to be protected from critical thinking in a historically based course. It just depends how it's done. Even if, though, you aren't being asked to exercise your own critical reasoning, you will require some philosophical intelligence to understand the arguments submitted by others.
On the other hand, you could do it by topic, and you could learn all about ethics, for example, but that wouldn't protect you from having to learn about Kant and knowing what the criticisms of his ethical theory are. That is, you are not going to be protected from the history of philosophy in a topic focused course either.
I suppose it would be possible to create a topic based course and to offer no attributions to any historical figure, but I'm not sure why you would do that because centering it around a person offers a reference point. It would be odd to teach Utilitarianism and never mention Bentham or Mill, for example, but it could be done if you had a need to rigidly keep history and topic seperated.
Logic is probably one topic that can be taught without reference to a historical figure, assuming the course is purely related to symbolic logic.
But anyway, I see the same sorts of skill sets being needed for either approach because at the end of the day you're being asked to understand and evaluate philosophical positions.
Is this what you mean by history versus doing philosophy?
Of course. Not only it isn't but also it can't. There's no such a thing as a universal, absolute or objective truth. As an opinion cannot be true or false, in general. It can only be true and only for its owner.
Quoting T Clark
You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always.
And this is what I forgot to notice in one of my previous replies: You are talking about using rather than on being. You said, e.g., "I use physicalism when I'm doing my engineering act - F = ma. Perhaps idealism when I do math....".
I don't have to be a materialist or physicalist to talk about, examine, treat, etc. my body. If I take medicine for some body condition, it doesn't mean I am a physicalist. As I don't have to be a dualist or spiritualist to handle my feelings (fear, anger, etc.) or be happy.
In short, what I use or do does not define what I am or believe in. (Although sometimes it does! :grin:)
I guess I'm confused. You agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value, but then it seems like you say that such a position, e.g. idealism, physicalism, realism..., reflects an actual state of being.
I think a pragmatist would say there is no difference between using and being. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist.
Of course you are confused. Because I, personally, didn't agree with that. What I said exactly was, "Indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position". But that was just in introductory remark! I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic.
So, instead of commenting on my position itself, you choose to comment on my introductory remark. OK, I said what I had to say. Now, I can ignore the issue ... :smile:
Now, now. Don't be tetchy. Or condescending for that matter. If you're not willing to deal with me misunderstanding sometimes, you are not obligated to respond, although I'm interested in hearing your ideas.
Since I have already done it, I will "patronize" you a little more, by advising you to stick to the facts instead of using "adjectives" ... (I say this in good will! :smile:)
It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And The True Way. The first half of #104 reads:
Each of the aphorisms (as noted by the translators) "were carefully written and numbered by Kafka himself on separate pieces of paper." In the context of what one needs to read or not regarding a subject of philosophy, Kafka, in this case, was intent upon tying the aphorisms together and read with the others kept in view.
So the confidence that the world will "give itself to us" in #104 has to be seen with the ease and depths of our capacity for illusion and harm. Consider, for example, aphorisms #25 and #26:
Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that.
I wonder why you think you are a philosopher. Your OP is very defensive and just screams 'please take me seriously' even though you have admittedly nothing to show for it. Better question is actually. why should we consider you a philospher?
PS. I found an essay on metaphysics by R.G. Collingwood very good too. That is sound philosophy. Why are you saying you read no philosophy then? Are you sure your OP is not just trolling?
1. Every theory must have a good "foundation".
2. Brain "architecture" is what interests.
3. The "structure" of Plato's metaphysics.
4. We must "buttress" our claims with good reasons.
5. Philosophy served as a "bridge" between religion and science.
6. I'm trying to be abstract but sure, a "concrete" example will aid us well.
7. This claim, if true, opens a "window" to realism.
8. This particular approach can be used as a "blueprint".
9. Kant's "plan" was to show that morality is basically logic.
So and so forth!
Ironically, if you bothered to do the reading all of your questions should be answered.
Darling, there's isn't much to read from the cannon.
How do you function without texts? By ignoring the fact that you read them in the past?
Quoting baker
It is sometimes said that learning how to pay attention appropriately is central to the Buddhist practice. The key term is "appropriately". There is a lot written on how to do that; and it's certainly not the kind of minimalist approach as sketched out above by your Kafka quote.
You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about.
It's the very structure of the learning process that bothers me. In general, an enclosed space is involved, in which children have to stay a large part of the day. Forced to do so, indirectly, by a government power institute, forced to learn abstract knowledge systems basically. Teaching nowadays is left to power-hungry teachers, who train the students in absorbing abstract ideas, in kinda nature-detached environments, to parrotishly repeat that knowledge without exactly knowing what is done. Schemes of knowledge are inserted in the poor child braines, by performing tasks and inventing solutions. Even language itself is thaught as an abstract entity, involving sentence analysis and categorization. Mathematical schemes of abstract entities are forced upon our young ones by law. Often the child's age and that what is thought are out of sync. Their knowledge gained is tested on the base of grades, that fearsome letters A-F. Their color- and playful reality is turned into a competitive reality of abstract knowledge. Nothing is left to the parents who usually are ignorant about the stuff their children learn, or .only is spent on extra teaching because of the fear they have that their children fail in school and won't have the possibility later to partake in the modern rat-race for material gain. I have witnessed this with my own eyes, trying to put some math and physics knowledge into high school children, the most of which had no intention to really understand, but were interested in the application of the abstract schemes only, to get that so beloved certificate of knowledge. The ones who wanna look outside of the window of the classroom and tend to drift away are considered as anomalies (ADD!) and questioning of the knowledge itself is carefully redirected as to conform to the right path. It's legally arranged to force the parents to send their children to the factories of scientific knowledge. In the name of the child and in the name of science. To be applied in the equally nature-detached reality of Western society, giving rise to strange human beings, spending their time with watching science-fiction movies, while the most beautiful reality of alien creatures can (could!) be found on Earth, on which nature is replaced in fenced territory and non-scientific cultures are redirected to lost-land territories, after most of them were already destroyed long time ago, and are offered pity excuses after having been damaged to the bone. Spending their time in long lines of cars, shopping in huge malls, staring at phones, unknowingly being watched in a huge modern paopticon, in service of the capital. A reality in which some make a 100 billion (!), earning 3 billion on a day, while others stroll around begging for food or looking for shelter. A society where there is a constant threat of total annihilation by the applied knowledge of physics. Be it by thermonuclear escalation or water and fire on the rise. A reality in which the world of advertisement is inescapable and the sky is filled with strange flying machines, containing seat-belled people with earplugs. A reality in which nature is reshape in a huge super LEGO-land. where the feeling of being powerless has taken hold. Where an abstract law tries to regulate our each and every action. Where inflation rules suppreme. Where children can play with a zillion different kinds of toys and stimulated to compete. A reality in which nature is tortured with mechanical devices, also used in maintaining the status quo. Where plans are made to leave this Earth after we have destroyed it (as in the scientifically inadequate Interstellar movie), calling this the inevitability to come: interstellar colonialisation. Like the whole globe was once colonialism with force, without spending a thought about the realities colonialized. A reality in which people sit a large part of the day behind computers, spending their time on philosophical forums and programmed entertainment. In which the training of pets bleaches in the light of the training of our children. But hey, as long as all these billions of people are happy... The world can provide for all. Nature is kind enough. But when we keep on whipping him, he will one day turn against us. The first signs are already there. The end is near...
I had never heard of this book. I found this link to a pdf version on the web:
https://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/KafkaKierkegaardBible/AphorismsFranzKafkatransJoyceCrick.pdf
I'll spend some time with it. I appreciate the information.
Quoting Paine
I am a fan of aphorisms. In presentation at least, the Tao Te Ching, a book that has had a strong influence on my understanding of the world, is very aphoristic. I'll read through Kafka's text and see if I have anything else to say.
Thanks.
You have a point. I read the OP and was curious. I will not read 10 pages of text though because I am busy reading pilosophy. :lol:
Maybe you could continue your reading in silence.
Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool.
I have self-educated for many years.
Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art.
I have read a lot of books but I only remember some impressions and the odd idea. To be honest I've enjoyed English literature more than the few philosophical texts I have read. Not sure any of this counts.
The reason I ended up here was to see what I may have missed and also to participate in some discussions - I was going to give it 4 weeks.
Which books do you recommend?
Or maybe you could appreciate the remark in the spirit it was made, with some irony. I conceded the point already. But anyway, the spirit of my remark was not really to investigate what makes a philosopher a philosopher, but why the OP shows disdain for reading philosophy. It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker".
What would spending time 'wisely' be?
Quoting Varde
Who or what in this scheme would be using the tool? In this scheme you are also reducing nature to a resource and raise consciousness to the level of a kind of formative cause. This scheme is in fact very old in the history of philosophy, but it is questionable whether it is a helpful representation. Especially recently a much more active role is ascribed to 'nature'.
Quoting Varde No jibe intended, but this as such says nothing. The question is, did it grant you the competence to reason philosophically? I have no opinion either way, or on you, but often I see self educated people loudly boasting about their abilities and I often wonder why.
Quoting Varde
That is of course fine. We all have our preferences.
Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise).
In and as of that scheme only!
I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid.
I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods.
Thanks, bookie away!
My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach.
Yes, but what is spending time wisely on the subject matter you want to learn about? Books are just a short cut. You read the thoughts of others, because the subject matter is too difficult to invent the wheel yourself time and again. Some people have more talent than others, but it is rare, if not impossible to find someone who is immeiately capable at grasping philosophical problems. Make an analogy with chess, which is a much more simpe human endeavour than philosophy. All the greats of chess have studied the games of others. They are themselves brilliant at chess, but they still find it necessary to study.
Quoting Varde
You were giving an analogy, my question was not 'is consciousness always a tool', but if you say it is, then you imply there is a tool user no? My question was who is that then? Or is the above a concession that the analogy was just a bit flawed?
Quoting Varde
Well, I doubt that, because within books you find all sorts of problems and solutions to them, which intellectuals tend to debate. Not knowing these shows you are not an intellectual. Just like someone who does not repair shoes is not a shoe maker. You might well be intelligent of course, or intellectually inclined, I am not saying you are not. I just find it interesting why people call themselves such and such while basically refusing to engage in the activity of such and such.
Of course, philosophical reasoning is by no means the only way to reason, not even a privileged way to reason as far as I am concerned. A carpenter has to use reason and all kinds of insight, especially spatial insight. I lack all the ability to reason in such a way. Perhaps that is it, people see 'philosophy' as a kind of badge of honor and feel they have to call themselves 'philosophers'.
I agree with that. What I dislike is the disdain by which people who use the intuitive approach discredit the rational approach. Of course one does not need to read Hegel to do philosophy (though it helps :p ) However, what is it thst one must do? I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. Just like a shoe maker must, as a bare minimum, make shoes and one must be able to at least walk in them. They do not have to walk well, but they should not be doll sized, or fixed to the ground etc.
I didn't read all of it, but I read about four pages. As I noted in my response, the idea of bare attention is interesting. It's an issue that comes up in the Tao Te Ching. What does it mean to experience the Tao? Lao Tzu writes about the sage "embracing" the Tao. I've always said "experiencing the Tao directly," which isn't very satisfying for the reasons the author of your link notes. It seems obvious that it's not possible to experience it directly, so what does the sage do and what can I do?
I don't think that undermines the meaning or value of Kafka's quote. I think his take is more in line with Lao Tzu's. I see Taoism as much more down-to-earth than many forms of Buddhism. It is intended for practical purposes, e.g. ruling a county. It isn't aimed at enlightenment so much as getting down to work.
So, where does that leave me? I don't know. Your comment has allowed me to recognize a hole in my understanding. I always knew it was there, but I waved my arms instead of digging in. Thanks for your help.
No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.
Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter.
Wittgenstein was an engineer. He had this analogy of philosophy as the engine of language idling. So engineers want to put their engines to work, but first there is the need to tune and adjust, which is done with the engine idling. A good engineer probably does not need the manual very often, does not need the advice of his fellows very often, but he does not despise or totally ignore these things either.
Well, the question of value is also a perennial one. I can only say it provided value for me, because I feel I have a better grasp of the structure of the world than I had without studying philosophy. the ancient Greeks thought the goal of philosophy was ataraxia or 'peace of mind'. Whether this is attainable through philosophy is an open question, but I guess people are drawn to philosophy, because they are bothered by questions that keep nagging. I see philosophy more like a mental discipline, much like working out is, or sports is.
I also use this site to practice my writing, sometimes launch an idea and sometimes to joust a bit. I tend to joust when I see people making claims that pose some sort of challenge. When one challenges I feel that it is ok to meet it. In addition I also joust wit posters whom I know like it and from whom I can learn. aan argumentative joust may yield insights.
But the question you ask is a good one, the question of value. when one starts thinking about it, one starts doing philosophy and possibly gets sucked into the labyrinth. The questoon leads to further questions: what kind of value are we talking about, is there one kind, or many, is there a way to measure it, if we feel we can measure it, does that entail there is something of absolute value we measure it against, etc. Before you know it you are up to your neck in metaphysics :)
Get me out of here!
:joke:
Philosophy is a bit like Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave... ;)
Oh, well. On to more wine.
Cheers.
Wine is always an option and a pleasuable one. Sex is too, and one so sorely underestimated on a philosophy forum. I myself am enjoying a water pipe right now, with apple tobacco, nothing illegal.
Cheers!
Nice post.
Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.
Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz:
Yes, we can of course and we all come to grapple with philosophical questions through different directions. Maybe where things go wrong is in the definition of philosophy. Now, if the OP would hold that one can be wise without reading philosophy, I would wholeheartedly agree. Just like one can become able bodied and fit without doing sports, but for instance by doing heavy physical work.
However philosophy is different from wisdom. It is not wsdom per se, but a certain way of becoming 'wise'. The discipline entails concerning oneself with philosophical problems in a philosophical way, using the tools handed to you by philosophy. Philosophy in this sense is a certain tool, or maybe toolbox. To be able to use the tool box one learns how to use them, by reading how it is done. I think it is strange for someone to say: "I need no stinking toolbox, I still am a carpenter, I just hit the nails with my bare hands". I just do not find it believable. I would find it believable, if someone just makes the claim that he or she is a handy person, despite never having used the toolbox.
It is actually way past wine o clock for me, it is past midnight, past one AM, so I am afraid it is time for bed. 'night.
Clark was admittedly being provocative in the OP and has been duly chastised for his choice of words and loose terminology. I’d feel sorry for him if it wasn’t so fun to watch. :lol:
Sweet dreams.
I don't want to read books or any other texts that way. I've always struggled to "read for pleasure", but in the last years, moreso than ever. By now, I want to read studiously, or not at all. If after reading, I don't have something relevant to show for (primarily this means important insights that I have implemented in life, and secondarily, systematically knowing at least the main themes of the text), then I don't want to read at all. I'm not a perfectionist. It simply seems like a waste of time to do something (in this case, read), and then have nothing to show for one's time.
And you let yourself be taught to drink and to put off your departure!
Heh. Nice of you to ask. Books that help one not waste time, but instead to do things effectively and efficiently.
In philosophy, there's no way around reading, and reading a lot.
This assumes that practicing philosophy must include written words. Which doesn't have to be the case. In an oral culture, you can still practice philosophy. By means of talking with one another, which is more or less done here too. And in an abstract sense, by reading a philosophical book you talk in a one-way direction with the author. And this talk is rather fixed, though of course interpretable in more than one way. You get subjected to philosophical frameworks, of which it's the question if your interpretation resides in the frame as thought by the writer. You cannot ask the writer questions, a necessary ingredient of philosophy as I see it. A good philosophical book must not explain a worldview, but instead must be used to free us from the tyranny of Truth. Of course you can also philosophize within a worldview itself, as western philosophy does within the frame of science. Once, in old Greece, philosophy, science, and math formed a smooth whole. Nowadays, these three are artificially separated and it happens frequently that people are redirected to one of the other two fields. I experienced that after I asked a question about the memory (on this forum, a few days ago). It was suggested this was not the place to ask. Because neuroscience, cognitive science, etc. must be addressed to understand memory. Even if so, why not bring it up? Anyhow, reading can do good as well as bad, like people can be both. It's not obliged though and in a world without books philosophy is possible.
Sounds very disciplined and productive. Mostly I only do things I enjoy.
Quoting baker
I'm not wishing to pry but would you feel comfortable sharing a title or two just to give me a better sense of what this looks like?
Normally, self-help books tend to gloss over the philosophical underpinnings of productivity and personal organization, but there are some that don't, or at least not so much. For example:
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Things-Done-Stress-Free-Productivity/dp/0142000280
https://www.amazon.com/Ready-Anything-Productivity-Principles-Getting/dp/0143034545/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
(The second one is a bite size rewrite of the first -- and interesting approach in its own right.)
https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success-Distracted/dp/0349411905/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1635600450&sr=1-1
I don't really have the time (nor do I think it would probably be very useful or productive) to address all of your concerns in your post.
So to sum it up:
I think you address many concerns I share, especially and primarily the commercialization of education. I share many of your core concerns about the impact and repercussions of capitalist agendas infiltrating education.
I do push back on the notion that this is tied to a) the classroom and b) "power hungry teachers." Obviously and absolutely, such teachers exist. Not denying that at all. But overall the vast majority of teachers are good and I dare say a handful of them are great. Anyone going into education for money... well, that's laughable. Anyone going into it for power... well, from the perspective of students I'm sure it often FEELS like we have more power than we do.
As to a), the basic idea of instruction is that you have a teacher and a student. You have a subject. You have resources you draw from, like texts. This has been the same since Plato, Pythagoras, even the Presocratics and ostensibly before that. The premise is simple: we're better off sharing our knowledge and insights and building upon what has been discovered before us than trying to discover the world as atoms/islands/rugged individuals. We are not omnipotent or capable of omniscience. Mortality precludes that.
It is, in sum, a pragmatic view of utility and results. But it is also an almost aesthetically pleasing view of human nature as a humble part of a greater whole, as a member of a greater brother/sisterhood.
I like this a lot.
Quoting unenlightened
Just to be clear, it seems like you are saying that an engineer needing a manual and help from others is analogous with someone learning philosophy needing philosophical readings. Is that correct? I don't think that is an apt analogy. As I've noted in this thread, science and engineering are different from philosophy. There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required. Since science split off from philosophy, what's left are subjects that exist inside people's minds. I am as likely to know what is going on inside my mind as anyone else.
As I wrote that ,I wondered, do I really believe the things I've just written. I'm not sure. I guess we'll see.
I don't see how that's different from philosophy.
To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur philosopher/engineer.
There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher
I have to smile. Inside your head is quivering meat, the way inside an engine is quivering metal. I am more a psychologist than an engineer, and psychology is not a science because it operates exactly in the contradiction you just neatly expressed there. It turns out that the the view of the inside of one's own head that one gets is a poor one at best.
We have to negotiate the science of engineering with the nonsciense of human nature, philosophers leap in where engineers and psychologists fear to tread and wonder what they themselves believe. Imagine a society of engineers who discover that their engines are destroying the planet; do they have the sense to turn them off? Or do they prefer to believe that it is not so?
Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy.
I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are.
I want to address the standards for being a casual non-professional philosopher. I keep referring to Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Fast thinking barely qualifies as thinking. It is a reaction, and most of our thinking is a reaction without much thought. Philosophy demands slow thinking, the accumulation of information, and pondering it with the skills of higher-order thinking.
Quoting Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
Core Education is not always about students learning higher-order thinking skills but is too often limited to preparing students to pass a test and relies mostly on memorization. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher-order thinking skills. Some Christain organizations also opposed education for high-order thinking skills. This is important to understand because...
Quoting Philip A. Pecorino
It seems obvious to me, that philosophy is best when we do it together.
I've been thinking about this issue and your post set me thinking again. I have not been satisfied with my answers to why philosophy is different than science. Thinking about a response to your post, it struck me - When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful.
Yes, of course, I know you and most of the others here disagree strongly. Maybe I should start a new thread.
You've jumped to a lot of conclusions just based on my acknowledgement that I was uncertain I was correct about what I wrote. I wasn't denying the value of my internal experience. I have claims to being a psychologist also - 3 years in college and 50 years of paying attention. Yes, psychology is a science. And the view one get's from inside one's head is the only view one gets.
Is that true or a fact? :chin:
Quoting T Clark
Hey, that's cool! Looking forward to your thoughts as they evolve and a new thread if you make one!
Neither. It's philosophy.
Is THAT true or a fact??
This is a good argument. I had a couple of ideas for a response, but was not satisfied. I'll work on it.
Quoting Athena
I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy.
Neither, all the way down.
:rofl:
Ok. Not the thread for that argument. I'll leave it there.
There most certainly is a difference between the east and west. I value both but have favored the west.
I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.
We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? And thank you for your post that causes to me think about this. I think in my later years it is appropriate for me to make a more determined effort to follow the path of yoga and deal with the fear that I don't know shit! I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in writing this, that is what came up for me.
As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world.
Wow, I love your comment! Absolutely love it! :heart: It is awesome how one word "awareness" can explain so much. People with no self-awareness drive me nuts, and that seems common in the US.
Now my thoughts are becoming a different thread so I better stop here. I will ponder what you have said.
Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin:
Yes. Youth is a time for exploring and risk-taking. It would be a shame to only ponder life instead of blindly leap out there and gain experiences that we can fondly remember or contemplate.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that we were talking about hiding away in a Himalayan monastery or whatever.
I think most people probably don't have time to read this stuff, and a lot of it is hard and strange. I like it as a hobby, and would never call myself a philosopher, but I have friends who I could never talk to about it because they think of it like math or something from school like homework. I've been recommended many books and I started with Plato/Socrates and I think that is where we should all begin, not with the books but with his way of questioning and talking about stuff.
You have a good attitude toward all this. Welcome to the forum.
Thank you!