Doing Philosophy vs. Philosopher Top Trumps
Much of the discourse on the forum substitutes explanation and argument for Philosopher Top Trumps, which I find frustrating.
Surely, the history of philosophy is a means to an end rather than cultural capital that can be played in lieu of intellectual agility?
One of the the great historical questions of philosophy regards the causes of the cultural flourishing in fifth century Athens. Could it be that they weren't bogged down ostentatiously signalling their declarative knowledge, preferring instead to develop their reasoning faculties?
When Alfred North Whitehead described the European philosophical tradition as footnotes to Plato, perhaps he meant it as a criticism of his contemporaries rather than praise for the Greeks.
Surely, the history of philosophy is a means to an end rather than cultural capital that can be played in lieu of intellectual agility?
One of the the great historical questions of philosophy regards the causes of the cultural flourishing in fifth century Athens. Could it be that they weren't bogged down ostentatiously signalling their declarative knowledge, preferring instead to develop their reasoning faculties?
When Alfred North Whitehead described the European philosophical tradition as footnotes to Plato, perhaps he meant it as a criticism of his contemporaries rather than praise for the Greeks.
Comments (1)
I often fall back to interpretation in thinking through questions. Guilty as charged.
But I can offer a reason -- it strikes me that the people in the history of philosophy are better thinkers than myself.
There is the danger of doing the opposite -- to think without history. The problem there being that you're probably going to reinvent the wheel of mistakes that have already been made. And interpretation, in its own right, also sharpens one's reasoning -- because you have to make arguments for different readings.