Would an “independent” thinker be wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?
First, by wise, I mean the ability to have a vision of the world that’s the least contradictive as possible, based on the current knowledge of the world we have. Someone who could “answer” philosophical questions by fitting the problematics into their theories/concepts and that, all these together would logically make sense. And of course, they would also include uncertainties and questions unanswered because of the lack of knowledge, which could also be part of their theories. So, the wisest person would have the most knowledge with the least contradiction.
An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic).
I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom?
Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom?
An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic).
I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom?
Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom?
Comments (112)
1. For followers: Tim Toady!
2. For trailblazers: Bicarbonate!
3. For both: Tim Toady Bicarbonate!
Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular.
I used the word "independent" because it's the best adjective I could find to describe the profile I wanted to talk about, but of course it's impossible to be completely independent of social norms etc, we're humans... If that makes it easier to understand my point, imagine a person who has access to everything but philosophy, and doesn't have a clue about their method, etc. Imagine they're trying to paint a picture of reality, they're going to have to use other resources, which could be by other disciplines (science, psychology,...) or their personal experience by exploring nature, cultures, talking to a lot of people,... Do you think their theories would be wiser than those from philosophy ?
And what you're trying to say is that science is more dependent of social norms etc than philosophy ? Because in that case I totally disagree, the fact that scientific theories keeps being test by experiments is, in my opinion, a more objective window to the world then the endless debates of philosophers which are based on other debates, which are based on other debates and on and on where no one really knows where a theory comes from except from pieces of logic and imagination.
Well philosophy of science mostly studies science itself, the aim isn't to come up with theories that have scientific grounds. And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. At least not that I know of, if you know a branch of those which focuses on what I just explained, please tell me.
It does.
Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ?
I lost the point you were making.
I wasn't trying to make a point yet, you reacted to a part of my post which said philosophical theories don't try to have scientific grounds but mostly have philosophical grounds, then you said it does, then I asked for an example, as simple as that. Do you have one or not ?
This is a good time to do so.
I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic.
Quite the reverse. Someone who is arguing with no point is.
No, I don't think it is by itself, but it's a contributor. I think you are fundamentally correct in your OP.
In my teaching career, I found that the teachers who took the time and made the effort to understand the character and personality of the pupils they taught, had the best chance to progress them both academically and socially (perhaps a more important responsibility as it can be abused).
I met some teachers who were highly qualified in their subject but could not teach for toffee, almost useless. Wisdom needs breadth, depth, experience, emotional balance, etc, etc.
I don't think anyone who is truly wise knows that they are truly wise.
If you are labeled such by the vast majority of people you encounter in your life then I think you are quite rare.
Quoting Skalidris
Yes, I agree that being consistent is very important and demonstrating acceptance that you can be wrong and that you have the ability to consider new valid information and be willing to challenge your own deepest held viewpoints, are also attributes I would consider wise.
Quoting Skalidris
Wise words!
I'm not sure what the word "Would" in the question of your topic actually means; it's somehow dubious. It indicates a condition or imagined situation. It would be more clear to me if the question asked "Can ...?" That is, is it possible that an “independent” thinker is wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?
To which I would answer: "Certainly yes!" :smile: (The reasons are quite obvious ...)
I used would instead of can to picture a "perfect" version of both, but maybe it wasn't obvious. Because you could have an academic philosopher who isn't wise simply because he isn't good at what he is doing, then a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge.
To produce original ideas there has to be a starting point i. the form of a contrast with and critique of an existing philosophical stance. So typically an original thinking has read a great deal concerning the leading edge of thought in philosophy as well as many other domains, including the sciences.
Quoting Skalidris
A credential implies the achievement of skills associated with a discipline. This requires engaging with the ideas of others, but can also include original work. A number of top philosophers introduced their original ideas through their doctoral thesis.
Quoting Skalidris
Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds?
I don't think so.
But what if the starting point isn't philosophy? It could still be original and wise, couldn't it?
Quoting Joshs
Do you mean : is science closer to wisdom than philosophy? Because that can't really be compared, it's not the same field of study. But if you mean : are theories with scientific grounds closer to wisdom than theories with philosophic grounds, for the same subject? To me, yes, because to be honest, can anyone really tell what the philosophical grounds are? It's never (rarely?) explicit. So how can we build a good logic if we don't even know where the theory came from? At least in science, we know we build it from experiments.
Science is more objective from the point of view of science, which means, from its own point of view, which means self-referential. Even a drunken man is objective from his own point of view.
Some philosophers try to make a difference by admitting their dependence on their own point view; as a consequence, they are aware that everybody and everything is conditioned by their point of view. In this context, the fact that science is based on experiments doesn’t make it more objective at all, because, at this fundamental level of criticism, we don’t even know if reality exists, we don’t even know what the meaning of “reality” and “exist” is; so, how can any experiment make science more objective, since it is based on something we don’t even know if it exists?
Quoting Skalidris
This is true for science as well: if we go backwards on and on, asking for the base of every answer we receive, we end up in infinite and totally ungrounded theories and postulates; one of the most basic of them is the assumption that reality exists and that we know the meaning of “reality” and “exist”.
Funny. I like that.
In theory anyone can be wiser than someone else, right? In other words, why couldn't a janitor be wiser than Slavoj Žižek?
But perhaps the key matter is what does 'wiser' actually look like and in what context? I tend to think that academics write for each other and their work is often separate to their life and the choices they make. The philosopher Richard Rorty has said that even philosophers often ignore philosophy outside of academe. Wisdom, and how this might apply to living in the world, making choices, is easily imaginable as an entirely separate affair.
Especially a drunken man. Nothing like substance use to embolden certainty.
How does one do the exploration without relying on stories or explanations from those who came before? Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former.
Quoting Skalidris
And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it.
Quoting Skalidris
Why does 'having scientific grounds', whatever the convoluted phrase may mean, have to do with wisdom? It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you. What you are doing at best is criticizing philosophy professors for not being scientists... but they aren't they are philosophy profs. They keep to their discipline and do not try to piecemeal together what little knowledge they have of science. they are indeed wise, they know their limitations.
Quoting Skalidris
I do not know what reaching wisdom means. You seem to have some hermetic knowledge of that. I believe you say "having the most knowledge with the least contradiction", but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise.
Well from my sarcasm you can already deduce my answer to the question that is the title of the OP. No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. Unless he happens to be one of those exceedingly rare wandering geniuses, my hunch is the independent thinker just needs an excuse to feel good about himself because he senses the inferiority of his philosophical skills and resents the prof.
He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life.
Perhaps it could be said that academic philosophers generally know more about philosophy (at least their own specialist niche but probably also some, if not considerable, general background) than "independent thinkers", if by "independent" you mean to indicate someone who is not interested in familiarizing themselves with the history of ideas, and thinks they can start themselves from scratch.
If you try to start from scratch you will probably repeat mistakes which have already been corrected within the tradition, or come up with ideas which are well-worn and could have been acquired with far less effort by being familiar with the tradition. Would it be wise not to avail oneself of the fruits of sustained philosophical efforts others have made?
One important aspect of academia is that it is a social environment in which researchers converse with one another, sharpening arguments and discarding mistakes. Usually.
Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that.
Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages?
Quoting Tobias
By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing...
Quoting Tobias
Yes, that was arbitrarily but don't worry, I don't plan to take over the dictionary and change the definition, I'm just trying to communicate on a forum over the internet ;)
Quoting Tobias
Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions.
Quoting Tobias
What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy?
Quoting Janus
Yes, I meant a "perfect" version of both.
Quoting Janus
Okay, imagine you live during the Middle Age and try to understand the world around you. Would you study the thoughts of the many ecclesiastics around you? Would you criticize bits of their theories or would you start from scratch? This example is a bit extreme but do you get my point? If you've found a method that is totally different from what already exists, it doesn't make sense to try and criticize a theory that uses another method. That's exactly why creation-evolution debates are pointless to me.
:up:
You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine.
No. I have been in academia. Many of us listen and respect each other.
I get what you're saying but I didn't have in mind so much that a philosopher should focus on working within and/or critiquing the ruling paradigm of her day, but should become aware of the whole history of thought. So, perhaps it could be said that many academics today are too narrowly focused on contemporary debates while ignoring the evolution of philosophical thinking. On the other hand it could be said that some moments of philosophical thought are rightly thought to be mistaken and/ or unlikely to yield any further conceptual progress, for example dualism, nominalism and platonism.
Is your "independent thinker" aware of philosophical history or not, because I think that is a crucial point to consider.
Silly boy. I spent thirty enjoyable years in that environment. But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates.
In an academy where nothing happens yes. But look if you put a new theory up. A theory with great potentiality but against established standard...
I do not agree.
Silly man... :lol:
You're free to! There is jealousy, career-loss fear, inability and incapability to understand, competition. Where in academy did you stay?
Exactly! And there the viciousness has a grip.
Like every profession.
Ah! You see?
Why do you think you are capable of making this judgment about others?Quoting Hillary
Not at all. Scientific progress is made in a community, by discussion with other scientists. Of course there are rare geniuses, but if science would depend on them no progress would be made. There are scores of under laborers, fine tuning ideas. Why would I be envious? I am part of such a community, unlike some others here.
Quoting Skalidris
No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance.
Quoting Skalidris
Yes, I know you quite well. You pop up around the forum a lot. Legion your name is, for you are many.
Quoting Skalidris
Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? International relations scholars might have a global vision, as o earth systems scholars, but in a different way. Do you mean a philosopher should combine all of those, or is there a specific bigger picture she should have? Theories are generally not counted as knowledge. What you describe is generally not considered knowledge, but seems more akin to worldview. That is no problem, I am not here to quibble about words but it is good to be precise in what we are talking about. I would still like to invite you to think about the question posed above, what kind of global vision should a philosopher aspire to?
Quoting Skalidris
But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. Kant, a towering figure of Western thought, did not conceive of his thoughts all alone. He was employed at university, he got to read the metaphysics of Wolff and Leibniz, he was challenged especially by the works of Hume. Had it not been for all of those, Kant would never produce his works.
In a bit I am going to discuss a paper in a small group of researchers. I did before and asked the person working on a research grant a thorny question. Two weeks later he came to me knocked on my door and said "hey, good question, I addressed it in the research proposal!" I gave him a thumbs up. Now, when he gets that proposal he might have gotten it, partly due to addressing my question. Otherwise maybe a commission member would have asked it and he would have had no answer and he would not have gotten the grant. Perhaps. Or they would have been asked one of the 1000 other questions posed to him by others that he also addressed in the proposal, due to other seminars and lectures he participated in. Eventually the proposal might be granted giving him the opportunity to write a book. Maybe that will be a pathbreaking study, perhaps, emboldened by all the tiny inputs provided to him by those under laborers. A thousand ifs, but that is how science and philosophy work. Could you skip those steps? Perhaps if you are an exceedingly rare genius, if they exist. Otherwise, a simple 'no' is the answer.
Obviously.
Quoting Skalidris
Do you mean between spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world ... and pursuing an academic career?
If I understood well, talking with philosophy professors, their credentials, etc. you were not sure if all that get them closer to wisdom. Right? If so, then ... yes, it is right! :smile:
Pursuing an academic career in any field does not make you necessarily an expert in that field. Professors have to know well the material tey are teaching. Even "by memory". A math professor is not necessarily a good "problem solver" himself. A IT professor is not necessarily a good programmer --also a "problem sover"--himself. What makes a good "problem solver" is the ability to analyse a problem and think about (logically or using imagination or intuition), design and produce a solution himself. It requires a lot, a lot of practice, with which one acquires experience and becomes an expert.
The same happens in the field of philosophy.
Pursuing an academic career in philosophy -- e.g. graduating from a University-- doesn't make one a philosopher. I believe that a lot if not most of the great philosophers of the past we know were self-taught, i.e. they were not teached philosophy in a school or under a teacher, in a systematic way and for a long period (as today is done in Universities). What makes a philosopher is what you said about "independent thinkers" --BTW, I like and use the word "thinkers" myself-- namely, spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world .. And those who are pursuing or have pursued an academic career may well do that themselves.
It's not a judgement. It's the truth. Especially in physics. Many attempts to give a diverging view is cut off, banned, or closed to further giving the idea space. If you have a career in physics and you promote a genial idea, one not helps to explore it. On the contrary, competition, self-righteousness, envy, career, etc. limit the idea, contrary to the scientific imperative to know. It's a sad situation, on the forums and academia world even more. The Perimeter institute in Canada seems to be a welcome exception. It's a sad sad situation...
Not in quantity no. But in quality. All physicists love the genius physicist. When they're dead...
No, no kidding. The Dutch Erik Verlinde got a 2 000 000 (no kidding!) euro prize for a so-called revolutionary theory on emergent gravity and dark matter and energy, not realizing he has it backwards. A genius, so is thought. It turns out he's no genius after all. But he got the origin debate of gravity, DM and DE redirected and refreshed. He might have caused a paradigm shift. How will a community cause such a shift. It's mostly a genius, and probably an outside genius, causing the shift because they're not bound.
It is written by many people, so many not even all the names are listed. The man is a genius of course, but not independent. Just a wonderful professor who probably works in the way I outlined to Skalidris. He was not drinking his cognac in front of his fireplace dreaming up he revolutionary theory but worked on it within a comunity of which he is probably the leading light.
Edit: why do you think he gets the 2000 K? Not to buy a villa in South of France... he gets it to set up a research community, so that his ideas can be expanded upon and refined because they are apparently promising.
What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle. It are the circumstances that make it flourish. An academic milieu is not really stimulating. Verlinde has it the wrong way round by the way. Two million euros thrown away.
And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one...
No we aren't. A genius is someone of superior intellect or creativity. We can't all be superior, so no we are not all geniuses.
Quoting Hillary
As well as talent. Some people are just slow.
Quoting Hillary
Of course assembly line work is much more stimulating.
Quoting Hillary
I doubt you know it, since you have shown to have no idea how academia works.
Quoting Hillary
Apparently a rigorously selected committee consisting of his peers and probably experts in other fields think it is not. They should have of course listened to a dude named Hilary from PF...
Quoting Hillary
Full profs earn a nice salary and who cares whether he been awarded some of it for himself? You gave him as an example of an independent thinker (although you seem conflicted on that score) and I pointed out he works within a research community... Or did you give him as an example of a prof that got it wrong? Certainly profs get it wrong, that is also how science works. Promising theories get refuted... that is the way it goes, You can be and a genius and wrong...
Indeed. Einstein had his best ideas at work.
He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never.
And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal? No geniuses can be wrong, also people with exceptional intellect can be wrong. Being a genius is not dependent on whether your theory survives empirical attempts at falsification. Indeed the research program it spawned may still be worthy of funding with 2000 k euro's.
No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here.
What happened afterwards?
I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. But its conspicuous that galaxies without dark matter have been found and the bullet cluster contains two separate DM volumes. You could ad hoc change the theory, but his room to move gets smaller and smaller. His claim is that information on a surface comes first. Which is the wrong way round. I wont write him again. Small black holes arethe simplest solution.
Quoting Hillary
At least you are honest, that is more than most. There are two options. One you are a genius and you have figured out something that other amateurs but also that prof did not see. Or two you are a well meaning amateur but your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously. The forums are populated to an overwhelming degree by the second kind. I do not exclude the first option, but given the odds it is unlikely. That is why you should write an article about it and see how well received it is by a community of knowledgeable people.
You may well be good at physics, I have no idea. I can also not judge it. That is why I asked for a publication because it is peer reviewed, so it is a marker that others who know about the subject think you should be taken seriously. That is handy in such discussions.
But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community. Why do you think academia is not a stimulating environment? I have never gotten paid to read high class work from actual philsophers and gotten paid for doing so until I landed an academic job.
Okay, I'll try one more time. I've only been talking about an independent thinker from philosophy, meaning they could have knowledge about everything, science, psychology, history, but would discuss "philosophical" topics without following the method in philosophy, without trying to criticise previous philosophers. But yes, there's still a problem because philosophy is part of history, so they couldn't be totally unaware of it, let's just then say that they could study it to understand the historical context, but for example, if they're trying to figure out what consciousness means, they're not going to check out what philosophers say about it, or at least not as a basis of their work.
Quoting Tobias
Now I feel like you're not making any effort to understand what I mean. Is an illiterate going to become a famous writer out of his pocket? Of course not. But imagine they're trying to make a faster vehicle. You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect).
Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance?
Quoting Tobias
Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example.
Quoting Tobias
They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method.
Quoting Tobias
Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays.
Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea?
No it is not perfect indeed... that is why I do understand. The scientists and engineers are not independent of each other. The ones leaving the horse drawn carriage and focussing on combustion and steam got better results...
Quoting Skalidris
Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers?
Quoting Skalidris
Those are not topics discussed in philosophy. Human behaviour is discussed in sociology and psychology. A global vision of life seems theological, but might be philosophical, as it stands it is imprecise and space is only discussed in philosophy from a certain angle, but objects in space are subjects of physics or mathematics. What you seem to hope for is some sort of homo universalis, but indeed academic specialisation weeded them out. Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime.
Quoting Skalidris
Oftentimes they say they are doing philosophy and just aren't. They perform their own discipline and call it philosophy. But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training.
Quoting Skalidris
Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand.
He might be such a genius, though I would have to know something about Einstein's biography and I really do not. I do know that at 22 he became a physics teacher. He formed club around him to read and discuss books and at 28 he became a teacher at university. Three years later he became an assistant professor and another 10 years later he received a nobel prize. Of course the man is a genius and he may well for all I know have been very independent. However he was also linked to academia. In how far this influenced him or not I have no idea. Of course geniuses do exist, those people who on their own provide a new perspective. However they are extremely rare and it seems in the current day and age, tied to academia or other prestigious research institutes, rarely at some mundane 9-17:00 job.
I never understood why he didn't get the Nobel prize for general relativity. He made that on his own! Of course the math was there, and the Lorenz equations. Coming to think of it, he only said the speed of light is constant in every frame... leading to curvature of space.
I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks?
Quoting Tobias
Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology.
Quoting Tobias
Does that mean no one should start doing it?
Quoting Tobias
What? No, that's not what I implied, it can't be compared, it's not the same field of study, how can one be better than the other? But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself?
Quoting Tobias
No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher.
Well, in my opinion they would probably produce less good philosophy. They have at their disposal the philosophical works, but not the training in philosophy. That is not to say that they will invariably produce bollocks. Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field.
Quoting Skalidris
I do not think Nietzsche studied human behaviour but that is beside the point, agreed. Ok, metaphysics. Well what would happen if someone well versed in metaphysics would write her thoughts on a metaphysical subject, let's say the problem of (personal) identity and compare it with someone versed in chemisty but not metaphysics. Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff.
Quoting Skalidris
Of course you can if one needs a hobby. However what comes out of it in terms of things interesting and novel to read is probably little. They will get the science wrong, or the philosophy, or the practical side of things.
Quoting Skalidris
They can, but they would have a much harder time of it. Indeed I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument. You can learn how to play soccer by yourself but it is much better and easier to learn while playing soccer with others.
Quoting Skalidris
No. The fact that you can do science without philosophy does not imply that everyone is a philosopher. How does that argument run? Maybe we are talking past each other now...
Your question was who would be wiser, the independent thinker or the philosopher. I am not saying that one needs philosophy to do science... You can do it very well without doing philosophy, though it might help if you have learned a thing or two about it, but the other way around is equally true.... What I do contend it that being 'independent' is no advantage, not for doing science neither for philosophy.
That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins.
Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature.
But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way.
Quoting Tobias
But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself...
Quoting Tobias
Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that.
Philosophy structures thinking. When they start doing philosophy they will do it philosophically. Philosophy also does not have one methodology, generally it refers to asking questions. Would they be wiser? Why would they? Just because someone starts from a different discipline?
We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have. Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. If I see what they generally have in common is that they challenge presuppositions and assumptions and they make some logical or dialectical deductions. If a scientist would start asking philosopical questions he would be doing philosophy as philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed.
Quoting Skalidris
No, you question others and open yourself up to questions by others, otherwise it is just navel staring.
Quoting Skalidris
Nor did I say you did, what I dispute is the proficiency of the independent thinker...
Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case.
Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy.
I don't mind. I'm not into arguing.
Every philosophy is one's own. There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear.
Let us say someone has been reading Hume's Treatise on his own for a month. He presents his ideas to another philosopher and is told Hume rejects that interpretation on page 126. So a month wasted.
Why would that be more interesting? It completely depends. Who tells the best story. That doesn't need to be the metaphysician.
Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)?
Quoting Tobias
Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community.
Quoting Tobias
What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... How do you think they decide who's going to be published and who's not? If there is no method, how can it be a discipline?
Quoting Tobias
Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so.
Not method but a standard of how a philosophy article is written. Very few philosophers believe there is a method to philosophy.
Indeed!
Quoting Hillary
Huh? You are confusing 'a philosophy', a popular, but meaningless usage of the term, with 'philosophy', a certain discipline relating to questioning fundamental assumptions about the way the world is again.
Quoting Hillary
No, there is not, but you are aware that this sentence is not related to the one just before it are you?
Quoting Hillary
You sentence does not even make sense syntactically. Anyhow, no I do not think philosophy is about arguing. I do think that philosophers should present their ideas an open them up to criticism. Though you are by all means free not to and keep it as 'your philosophy'. Bandying it about on a phil forum is maybe not such a good idea... but hey, suit yourself.
It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show.
Get people to write about it. Same in philosophy.
Art shows creativity, it does not produce knowledge, unlike philosophy... Art doesn't publish papers... Where do you live? Have you ever been in academia in philosophy? Because here in Europe, I can assure you there is a method and you wouldn't be able to publish anything if you don't follow it. They take that very seriously. They almost see it as a science, certainly not as art.
I don't agree.
No I am telling you they work in unison, probably in a network of equally strong minds, probably now attending a serious philosophy conference.
Quoting Skalidris
They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic.
This has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Quoting Skalidris
Well, there are different philosophical methods, or better, standards on how to write a philosophy article as @Jackson pointed out. One can for instance employ discourse analysis, or phenomenology, or an analytic kind of logic chopping to a certain philosophical problem. I am not saying there is no methodology whatsoever, I am saying that there is not one methodology. Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences.
Quoting Skalidris
No, you do it with a certain rigor an you place yourself within a certain philosophical debate. You elucidate your terms, you examine the presuppositions held in the debate and scrutinize them. None of that can be done when you are not well versed in the subject. I have never heard of 'the philosophic method' but that does not mean anything goes. Presenting a false dilemma... so unphilosophical.
Yes, I have an MA in philosophy.
Then whose is it?
Oh dear mother of god... This shows even clearer your seriously distorted and hopelessly confused ignorant attitude towards a discipline you cowardly conforming reduce to a set of prescribed standard rules with with you measure to eagerly show fallacies, syntax errors, logical flaws, contradictions, inconsistencies and incongruencies, non sequiturs, and other made up gimmicks to proof your inherent superiority. I leave it here. Nothing to be gained here. Neither philosophically, scientifically, or theologically. Goodday...
And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion.
Quoting Tobias
Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"?
What is your standard for philosophical knowledge?
What do you mean?
You said, "Why not try to produce actual knowledge?" My question is, what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is?
Something that can't be compared to art xD That is created following a rigorous method, which you and Tobias seemed to say was absent in philosophy. And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking.
There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy.
Yeah okay, I didn't use the right words. I meant based on scientific theories that are based on experiments, so the field itself wouldn't do experiments. I don't see how you could hope to prove such abstract concepts with experiments...
In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion.
Quoting Skalidris
Because there will not be one method to rule them all. It depends on the questions asked. Indeed also methods are a result of communal thinking and not one guy on a philosophyforum. That philosophy does not have sharply delineated methods might be problematic or it may not be. There is discussion about it in the community of philosophers.
Quoting Skalidris
Ohh golly the man thinks we should do experiments. Well I better pack up and go then since I am a discourse analyst. Well Hillary now you see what happens when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy. It leads to unsubstantiated spouting of opinion...
Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion.
In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here!
Quoting Tobias
You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia.
Quoting Skalidris
There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy.
Quoting Jackson
Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.
You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion.
Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation.
What are these rules?
Quoting Jackson
That seems like a rule to me. I can't limit it to the physical world, that's what you said.
Quoting Jackson
Well, you keep telling me my ideas already are part of philosophy, until the point where you say I can't do that (in the previous quote). Like a religious person would tell you everything is in the bible, except for what the bible doesn't allow.
Yes, correct.
I never said that.
There :
Quoting Jackson
Quoting Jackson
You referred to these branches of philosophy when I exposed my ideas (but never succeeded to prove how it matches).
Quoting Jackson
Okay, but I don't want to follow these rules, that's the point of the topic.
No offense, but I do not think you have a point and just want to bash philosophy.
I'm trying my best to explain the method I would use, which would be based on scientific theories, but you do not seem to want to know more about it. Shall I explain it in more details? Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it?
Please do.
Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore.
I will read it.
I have given you all I could give. Indeed I do not know how to respond to you. You have an opinion, an unwavering one, so what can I do?
Quoting Skalidris
You indeed do not and will never do. You will be a philosopher of your own definition in the depth of your thoughts, speaking to yourself in your own private language.
Quoting Skalidris
Which you have made abundantly clear here.
Quoting Skalidris
And you have given us nothing.... You are talking about rules you do not want to follow, but do not tell us what they are except that silly philo profs follow them. You want to break a lance for independent thought, but you have given us no original argument whatsoever. You want a better way of thinking about abstract topics, but have given us no example of such a better way.
Now you accuse me and Jackson of being obsessed with philosophy and not seeing other possibilities, treating it like a religion, however where did I tell you what to do? I have taken your claims to task and gave you a chance to expand on your thoughts and display your alternative. You have only muttered something about that there should be experiments.
So, what will be this hypothethical independent philosophical thinker's starting point and guide, then if not previous philosophical attempts to understand consciousness? If he or she is relying on other academic disciplines: say neuroscience and empirical psychology (what else is there apart from philosophy and perhaps anthropology and linguistics which are also, like philosophy, neuroscience and psychology, academic disciplines?) and ignoring philosophy, then they will be ignoring a fair philosophical history of reflective inquiries into human experience as it is experienced. Now there are philosophers like that, of course, who say all past philosophy is simply wrong or misguided and we need to just look at the science, but that is necessarily a one-sided approach; a case of not availing yourself of all the resources available. Is that what you are advocating?
The smartest philosophers are probably in academia because usually very smart people want to get an education. But if you did want to find a very smart philosopher not in academia, it would be difficult because he would probably keep most of his work a secret, not because he didn't want to share it but rather because he knows that no one would understand the information.
Interesting tidbit from Harvard: To apply for admittance to the PhD program in philosophy one must submit (roughly) fifteen pages of writing. No particular subject. Draw your own conclusion.
Writing Sample
A writing sample must be submitted with the online application.
Scope: The sample must address a substantial philosophical problem, whether it is an evaluation or presentation of an argument, or a serious attempt to interpret a difficult text.
https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-of-study/all/philosophy
Still time to send in your revised paper!