How to study philosophy?
I don't quite get yet how philosophy should be studied?
Do you just pick up a work and plow through it? I've always wondered how ancients and the great philosophers before us have studied philosophy. Is there some method to it?
I'm going to try and take some units of philosophy for fall and was wondering how do you go through getting the best out of it. My impression is that guided studies are the best, as with anything that allows for some guidance. But, in my free time, which I have an overabundance of, I was wondering how to follow through with studying philosophy out of academic constraints? Thoughts?
Do you just pick up a work and plow through it? I've always wondered how ancients and the great philosophers before us have studied philosophy. Is there some method to it?
I'm going to try and take some units of philosophy for fall and was wondering how do you go through getting the best out of it. My impression is that guided studies are the best, as with anything that allows for some guidance. But, in my free time, which I have an overabundance of, I was wondering how to follow through with studying philosophy out of academic constraints? Thoughts?
Comments (82)
It seems to me that philosophy in a very serious sense has become institutionalized and academized to the point where dogma and presupposition dominates. It seems that philosophy is often seen as legitimate only if it coincides with the conventional display of it, that academic paradigm of reference after reference after reference.
This seems to me to be incredibly anti-philosophical.
I picked up philosophy after questioning science as a teenager. Interestingly, Nietzsche's was the first philosophy I picked up. I knew about 10% of what he was talking about. I re read and had a dictionary next to me looking up words and cross referencing the ideas.
I developed my own philosophy based on my own experiences, not based on the explorations of previous philosopher. My philosophical reference is myself. I use other philosophies as a reference for my own references.
Getting the best out of it is through finding principles of philosophy and forming your own conceptions, with reference to what other philosophers have delimited.
Philosophy is true in the act of philosophy.
Perhaps I'm voicing my influence by Wittgenstein, but, I fail to see how philosophy can be taught or learned if not practiced in everyday living or life. I used to be an avid Stoic wannabe, and feel most confident about talking about Stoicism due to trying to (unsuccessfully) implement it in my day to day way of living.
I might just be confusing ethics from the rest of philosophy here; but, what would philosophy be without ethics?
Nietzsche is a great example of this. He critiqued everything, and polemicized everything.
Never read him. Care to elaborate on your own studies? Genuinely interested.
Anyway, there are many philosophers I have come into contact with, but only a few really resonated with me, the ones I listed.
If you want me to give you an overview of my own philosophy I can, with regard to all of those people.
Sure, why not?
Thanks. Interesting approach.
Is it not true the Sartre interpreted Heidegger and created a whole system of thought from which some people say was a misinterpretation?
"There are no facts, only interpretations" -- from the letters of Nietzsche
What courses are you thinking of taking? Have you done coursework before in philosophy?
Quoting Posty McPostface
It's a really great question! The ancient Greeks only left about 10,000 pages worth of extant works and of course very little work was done between antiquity and the Renaissance, so I think that it was actually possible until about 1800 or so to have read almost everything worth while by the time you were in your twenties, especially with much stricter and longer K-12 education.
As to habits, like when and how often did they do their thinking and writing....well gosh, now I am curious.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Daily reading and writing? Trying to remain calm and joyful in your work? Engaging some secondary literature so you're not too far out on a limb?
Quoting Posty McPostface
What are you looking for that you're not getting now? Your Wittgenstein thread is exemplary!
My own philosophy :
Identity
Personality
Sexuality
Language
Perception
Epistemology
Relationality
I don't want to go to deep into my own philosophy for fear of plagiarism, as it is not published, but I will give you an overview.
Basically, in terms of identity and sexuality, I have created an understanding based upon Lacan and Jung, which seems to be an unlikely combination.
My assertion, which is not 'mine,' is that identity is plural. There is no singular identity of the individual. But the way I explain it is my own.
The personality is ever changing. And this is the only singular 'identity,' but is not an identity but more of a psychological amalgamation of reference and identification.
Sexuality is not dual. Sexuality is not heterosexual or homosexual. Gender has nothing to do with sexuality, and nor does sex. Sexuality is also communication.
Language is abstraction. Language is furthermore, a connection. Language connects people together. This is not metaphorical: it serves a psychological purpose and is fundamental to human existence. It is not something we do or not do. It is a fundamental component of both identity, knowledge, sexuality and personality.
Perception is infinite. The finiteness of a perception is only with reference to the infinite. Furthermore, our understanding of our perceptions, and what things are, are dictated by a certain psychological process that I call Psychoconstance.
Knowledge is based on "personal paragons"... Philosophically it is kind of like Plato's forms.
Relationality is not based upon the subject object dualism.
Heidegger's letter on humanism is when he takes a step back from what is considered Existentialist. Being and Time is loaded with existential thought. It is one of the most important works of existentialism.
Just some community college courses. The classical mind, living and dying, and social and political philosophy. I'm really keen on the living and dying course.
Quoting John Doe
I've always held that the art of philosophy entails the profession of the deep mood called contemplation, sincerity, and self-reflection. Some philosophers might differ, but, it takes a certain type of personality to be a good philosopher, in my humble opinion.
Quoting John Doe
Sounds like good advice. I definitely have a low tolerance for frustration; so, sometimes I just consult with explications of a philosopher or philosophy. I like to read as many interpretations of philosophers as I can so that I can gauge how far are differing views held about philosophy.
Quoting John Doe
I guess it's engagement that's my biggest enemy at the moment. I feel a slight decline in my philosophical 'deep mood' as I called it. Maybe I'm just tired of the mode of presentation of philosophy that I'm accustomed to, which pretty much entails doing everything dialectically, on this forum. The 9 units I'm taking should liven up my spirits a bit, I hope.
Thanks for the compliment. I really am sad that the thread died; but, I might return to it, and just post an elongated monologue and hope someone pikes their interest to participate in.
Interesting! I've always held that Wittgenstein was the epitome of what you are describing (a philosopher who treated the whole field of philosophy as one big problem), and hence the resolution of said problems was found in quietism. So, sometimes I feel that my questions are often ill-phrased or motivated due to the wrong perception of linguistic analysis.
If one goes about treating the very questions of philosophy as problems, per se, then how do you ever lift yourself out of that sorry predicament that philosophy imposes upon you?
Not until that thread is completed. Heh.
The extension of the identity into a symbolic language. An, ancient spirit, capable of saying things through us beyond our own full comprehension. Beyond our individual intention. Live as a hero, as you're immortal in this realm, and forever resurrect. Approach what you should avoid, affront the most loved. Be everything and everyone. Absorb, wait and digest, absorb wait and digest. Take in anyone, anything, don't expect to understand it the very instant of absorption, just take it in, and let it stir. Practice your philosophy, attune your body to it. Then, some day, perhaps, the stars will align, the gods will smile upon you, and the information you've acquired, in conjunction with the practice of it, will give birth to a muse, a personification, and signification of your mastery, and you will then understand.
Sounds good. But how does one come to an understanding of philosophy? Supposedly through living a body of work or practicing it? This is where religion has the upper hand over philosophy, as it's applied ethics...
Yes, I think so, on both points.
Well, that's hard to say. Religion borrowed everything that it could from ancient philosophy and turned it into a living practice. There are astoundingly more worshipers of Christ than of Plato or Socrates. Just food for thought.
I don't understand. Is a purpose required? To edify the mind, body, and spirit perhaps?
It means, living a good life.
Plus, the number of people under the label 'Christian' does not mean that these people are united or even remotely similar. Look at what happened in Ireland. People murder each other because of small differences. Freud called this the narcissism of small differences
That can't be true. Actually, that makes little sense at all.
Quoting ?????????????
Why do you say that? I feel as though philosophy guides one to a way of life. There are applied ethics in the field of philosophy, such as virtue ethics, utilitarianism, or deontological ethics. Those seem well apt at answering questions at/about how one should live their life.
Quoting ?????????????
See the above reference to applied ethics.
Yes, and no. How does one answer such a question?
It's an ideal. I don't know how it looks like and is hard to attain if I don't know what it looks like.
I guess so. I'm just uncertain if it's truly good.
That what is contrary to how I am currently living my life, call them alternate realities if you wish to.
Both. I'm uncertain if the way I'm living or the ideal I'm striving towards is actually good.
I don't know. It's not that I feel depressed, angry, or anything. I don't feel much at all. I just spend my days here on this forum reading stuff and apathetically wallowing. But, hopefully, tomorrow my classes start and I might feel a renewed interest in philosophy again. Speaking of which, it's time to hit the sack. Night!
Are you referencing Plato directly with this talk of "the good", or is it coincidental?
Yes, both and somewhat unintentionally.
Yes, I think so. But is t that the bane of philosophers to feel that way? Not saying Im a philosopher, just in general.
It's quite similar to what we both we talking about. As itself obscured, it is not clearly identifiable, or explicable, but like the sun, it is required to see everything else. It is that which, upon recognition, moves one from student to master.
I think your overpsychologizing the issue. I just want to live a good life. If philosophy can't answer that question then what would? Besides you haven't addressed the OP...
Yes, interesting.
I'm not confused. Just in wonder.
Confused about me saying that I'm not a stoic or what?
Well now that you put it that way, I guess all the CBT or metacognitive therapy along with the stoicism has come to some fruition. It's just that there's some nagging uncertainty about the issue of whether I'm actually flourishing...
Definitely not, as you'll probably forget most of what you've ploughed through. See here.
Quoting Blue Lux
Disregard bad advice like that contained in the quote above.
That's how all the guys we can list on a whim did it, I think, so not that bad of advice.
I didn't say, "Don't try to understand anything, just remember as much as you can!".
You did not, but the link suggests that. As it is about remembering particular details necessary for passing a test in school. Memorization, repetition, mnemonic devices and such.
It's not a sorry predicament at all. Particular 'philosophies' are nothing but problems taken to the very end: problems explored for all their implications, for all they say about the world. And the field of problems is open-ended and constantly evolving, calling each time for a creative endeavour equal to it. To study philosophy is to learn how to occupy these problems, and implicate ever vaster swathes of the world into them.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't think there's anything particularly exclusive to Wittgenstein about this. As much as I love Witty - I count him as a formative influence - he doesn't differ in kind from a Plato, a Leibniz, or a Arendt: each inhabits a field of problems through which the world is viewed, and through which it is made sense of. A problem is not something to be solved as if once and for all: it it something to work-through, to occupy, to inhabit. Life as a problem to which individual lives are diverse solutions: philosophy is not unlike this.
As an aside, I don't think quietism qualifies as philosophy. It's intellectual failure hardened into pseudo-philosophical position. The failure of thought masquerading as the thought of failure. Wittgenstein which much more than his 'quietism', which was nothing more than a weakness of nerve.
Failure to do what? I thought philosophy was not about solutions?
So how do you describe 'sucess' in such a way as it would not be possible to re-phrase as a solution to a problem?
I want to believe that this is the true purpose of philosophy; but, then I am taken aback by how many more problems appear if there are no real solutions. It places philosophy behind more pragmatic endeavors such as science or religion (depending on how you define pragmatic here, or rather applicable). But, if one goes down this route, then one can posit, why aren't all philosophers utilitarians then? Don't know if you got the gist.
Quoting StreetlightX
Well, this just gives philosophers a bad rap if you will. There are new paradigms and vistas that get opened up through new lines of thought, in my opinion. So, yes, philosophy is an art, although it would not seem so in academia, I would surmise.
Quoting StreetlightX
This is something I would disagree on. Language games have their context, where they derive meaning from; but, no philosophy is so all-encompassing as to endow meaning on any and all sentences. So, we are restricted to always delineating where and when meaning, truth, or validity (applicability?) starts and ends. The premise being, that one be unbiased towards every language game by professing quietism.
Problem: There is need we feel to show why each problem matters
Solution: The relevant work showing why some problem matters
Problem: We don't know what purchase a problem has on what it aims to come to grips with.
Solution: The relevant work showing what purchase can be had on what a problem aims to come to grips with.
Problem: We don't know what happens when such categories are distributed in this way rather than that.
Solution: The work showing what happens when such categories are distributed in this way rather than that.
It's all very interesting exploring different ways of describing the same issue, but it's in bearable arrogant to go around claiming every other way is 'infantile' and not even proper philosophy.
Depends how you enumerate them, but that's not the point is it?
'Raps' are for idiots.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Then forget the very idea of a 'real solution' - a chimaera that leads one to think 'quietism' has any content other than its own guilty conscience. The only question is what the real problems are.
Quietism is simply a veil that one ought to 'profess' to be able to unbiasedly address different contexts (and their content too) in philosophy. That's how I reason through the issue at least.
Do you recognise a difference between intellectual bravery and arrogance?
Read: to be able to have a minimal grasp of philosophy. If this is quietism - and its very questionable that it is - then philosophy has never had any need for it.
Yes, but without bias and other luggage, please.
No, but it looks super interesting. I'll take a gander and see if I can muster up anything.
No, I don't think that it suggests that at all. Memorisation techniques are an important part of studying. Just because it's about that doesn't mean that it's suggesting that understanding the material doesn't matter. That's a non sequitur.
1) Forget about all dead philosophers.
2) As to living philosophers, check to see how much they've written about nuclear weapons. If not much or none, discard them too, as they're not capable of basic reasoning.
Pay no attention to whether a writer is famous or not. Think of fame like you do popularity contests in high school.
This procedure will clear the investigation of a lot of dead wood wasted space. You may be left with nobody to study except yourself, which would be great.
There is a difference between learning to philosophize, which is much broader in scope, and learning philosophy. The former can be done anywhere and in most any context and just involves critical reflection and opinion taking/opinion defending. It's learning how to be cogently disagreeable. Learning philosophy is learning how to be disagreeable along with methods of argumentation, argument analysis, and historical or contemporary philosophical positions on philosophical topics. The classes involve reviewing, critically and in-depth, the position of early or contemporary notable thinkers on some topic or topics. You learn to philosophize through the discussions and take-home writing assignments, which involve articulating an author's argument and then forming your own on a topic or a thinker's position. You learn how to represent and dissect arguments, and how to critically reflect. If you get a really good professor, most of the lecture turns into open discussion.
Didn't realize writing about nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for good philosophers to abide by. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against war, so no harm done if the deterrent is strong enough to prevent warfare. Furthermore, given that it's pretty hard to convince the general public about anything beneficial about war, then we're living in one of the most peaceful periods of human history, in large part due to nuclear weapons.
Hope I clarified that issue somewhat.
Yeah, most of the classes I'm taking involve a lot of discussions in an open format. That's pretty cool to me. Although, I don't like talking that much, I sometimes add in one or two things I have to say.
Well, now you know, so that's good. If a philosophical "expert" can not focus on the issue which can quickly end all other issues, they aren't a logic expert after all, and thus do not merit any particular attention.
Quoting Posty McPostface
You clarified that you are a member of the philosophy culture group consensus in good standing. You also have an excellent screen name! :smile:
It may help to make the distinction between philosophy and reason. As example, writing an article about Plato as your kitchen catches on fire could be labeled philosophy given that Plato is generally seen as an important philosopher. But surely such an activity could not be labeled an act of reason.
If a philosopher can spout facts and analysis about Plato all day long in great detail, but they aren't capable of simple obvious common sense reason involving issues of the greatest importance to the largest number of people, are they really experts in the art of reason?
If members wish to define philosophy as an activity with no necessary relationship to reason, then in such a case my points on this subject can be discarded. If members wish to read philosophers who would keep on writing a Plato article while their house burns down around them, surely that is their right. Personally, I choose not to give much attention to thinkers who can't reason their way to grasping that the kitchen fire is a more pressing matter than their Plato article.
What nuclear weapons can teach us is that as human beings we have a very tenuous relationship with reason. We think we are reasoning, but usually what we are doing is referencing authority, typically in the form of the group consensus. As we look through that group consensus lens we see that the culture at large including almost all intellectual elites are not focused on nuclear weapons, and so we assume we shouldn't have such a focus either.
If we were to instead look at nuclear weapons through the lens of reason, an entirely different picture emerges. There's really little logical basis for largely ignoring one issue that could almost immediately bring an end to all other issues.
What can obstruct such an observation is that it can quickly reveal than we, including almost all the so called "experts", are not the intelligent rational people we like to assume ourselves to be. When we observe ourselves and the "experts" what we're really seeing is not the processes of reason, but a carefully constructed pose of pseudo intellectual sophistication. Academics have mastered this pose to such a degree that they can charge for it.
If members wish to study thinkers who have mastered the projection of authority but aren't capable of simple common sense reason, it would be wise to at least know that's what you're doing.
Quoting Jake
Quoting Jake
Quoting Jake
I agree, these are all very pressing issues. I just wish society could figure it out where we have some group of people dedicated to questions like "What is reason?" so that we can enable more practically minded people to learn from and use that accrued wisdom in dealing with the very serious moral, economic and political issues facing the world.
It seems difficult to get hold of the WT Jones 5 volume set. It is also very expensive.
How about Anthony Kenny's 4 volume History of Western Philosophy?
Being a newbie to the discipline myself, neither do I :grin: . Hope someone else out there could put everything into perspective for us - assuming there's an answer to that question.
Nevertheless, for the sake of entertainment, may you permit me two minutes of your precious time to share my point of view on the matter based upon my limited understanding? And in doing that there I think lies the foundation of all philosophies - point of view.
Bare with me; I'll eventually get to the point. It's my point of view that the capacity of freedom to express one's point of view in the realm of their private cognitive domain and in extension to others in order to determine the answers to what appears elusive and contradictory demonstrates a natural ability and rewarding exercise for most of us. Hence though we tend to gravitate frequently to experts' cognitive bibliographical expressions, which I regard as invaluable insights not to be rejected, we naturally possess these skills as well.
Follow me so far? I surrender to guidance in saying that science emerged from philosophy, if not philosophy is a science. Again - point of view. They both bare elements of hypothesis and prove.
But prove is acceptance and not the answer to our question. For instance in science so many ideas were developed and actually put into practice, but despite the progress mystery still lingers. And even when all mysteries are solved, it is possible that, as oppose to a single point of view, a variety of point of views, all providing apparent solutions/answers to the same problems/questions, may still exist - questioning the validity of the acceptable solutions/answers themselves.
With that said, what I'm really trying to say is in philosophy it seems there is no distinguishable method of study in the context of a specify sequence of topics to follow other than to gain familiarity with the chronology of development and the derivation of some concepts. Like science there is no need to know how a system works by referring to its development, but rather the desired knowledge may be gained by understanding the concepts alone. And like science because contradictory point of views may offer alternative solutions to the same problem, setting to prioritize their sequence of study is unnecessary.
In other words let's postulate that the history of development could've been reshuffled yet the solutions
may still have arisen. In a manner of speaking, this emphasizes the pointlessness of prioritizing.
Nevertheless establishing a strong vocabulary in philosophical lexicon is good.
That's my philosophy. What about yours? Hope I took your question from the right point of view.:lol: