philosophy

[Anatta]

To be more specific, in my experience, I generally find that the study and pursuit of philosophy and philosophical works often corresponds to minds more suited for reflecting the thoughts of others, rather than formulating thoughts of their own. For the naturally questing intellect, questions and concepts of philosophy will naturally and organically evolve and develop without specific exposure to philosophical works or predefined concepts. Essentially, I find that the study of philosophy usually ends up being a study of thinkers, rather than a study of how to think.

How does one learn "how to think" without examining the thought of others? Isn't there value in self-reflection, and isn't there some concern about uncritically replicating the dominant ideology without closer examination?

I'm always worried that I might not see the container whose shape I could be unknowingly assuming... How do you deal with this without engaging other thinkers and ideas?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To be more specific, in my experience, I generally find that the study and pursuit of philosophy and philosophical works often corresponds to minds more suited for reflecting the thoughts of others, rather than formulating thoughts of their own. For the naturally questing intellect, questions and concepts of philosophy will naturally and organically evolve and develop without specific exposure to philosophical works or predefined concepts. Essentially, I find that the study of philosophy usually ends up being a study of thinkers, rather than a study of how to think.

See, that wasn't that hard now was it? Congratulations, you've substantiated your bare statement of preference with something resembling an argument or line of reasoning.

Unfortunately, it is, as I suspected, simply naïve and uninformed; for one thing, you give absolutely no reason to suppose that "the study... of philosophy... often corresponds to minds more suited for reflecting the thoughts of others, rather than formulating thoughts of their own"- what is this assertion based on? Any evidence to back it up? Or is this just a personal anecdote based on a miniscule sample size?

And its absolutely ridiculous (and almost pathetically naïve) to suppose that, on your own and unassisted, you're going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon any sound solutions or concepts pertaining to philosophical issues- either naïve, or extremely narcissistic. You are not going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon the notion of transcendental deduction or categories of experience, of properly basic beliefs or family resemblances, of problems relating to the truth-functionality of ethical propositions or metaphysical reductionism. It simply isn't going to happen. And refusing to utilize the extensive resources that are at our disposal, as the result of 2500 years of greater minds than ours working on certain philosophical issues, is just impractical. You won't be able to reach the top shelf by jumping up and down and groping about blindly, but if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you may have a chance.

And moreover, this whole line of thought is operating on a faulty and naïve view of philosophy- philosophy, when it is on its good behavior, is not a body of results, like the sciences; it does not produce a body of truths, doctrines, or conclusions. Philosophy is, first and foremost, concerned with the method or process of thinking- of analyzing concepts and arguments, investigating logical consequences, and attempting to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Philosophy is, at bottom, a method- or, more accurately, a variety of methods- for proper reasoning.

 

[Anatta]

To be more specific, in my experience, I generally find that the study and pursuit of philosophy and philosophical works often corresponds to minds more suited for reflecting the thoughts of others, rather than formulating thoughts of their own. For the naturally questing intellect, questions and concepts of philosophy will naturally and organically evolve and develop without specific exposure to philosophical works or predefined concepts. Essentially, I find that the study of philosophy usually ends up being a study of thinkers, rather than a study of how to think.

Just to clarify, I have trouble with the notion of crediting individuals with "original" thought, because in my experience new ideas arise only during social discourse, not in the confines of individual awareness, which seems to be mostly a mechanism for replicating patterns.

As a simple example, can you recall for me an "original" thought you've had? (This is not an attempt at sarcasm, but honest, robust discussion.)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How does one learn "how to think" without examining the thought of others? Isn't there value in self-reflection, and isn't there some concern about uncritically replicating the dominant ideology without closer examination?

I'm always worried that I might not see the container whose shape I could be unknowingly assuming... How do you deal with this without engaging other thinkers and ideas?

There's certainly value in engaging the thoughts and ideas of others. The problem comes in when there is over-reliance on the thoughts, ideas, and conclusions of others, which can result in an inability to formulate one's own thoughts. I've seen this repeatedly over the years among many earnest students of philosophy. They come to rely on the collection of ideas they've gleaned from others, and parrot it back in discussions in place of fully fleshed-out ideas they've formulated and analyzed on their own. Thus, philosophy becomes a study of thinkers and ideas, and not a study of how to formulate thoughts and ideas.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Philosophy is, first and foremost, concerned with the method or process of thinking- of analyzing concepts and arguments, investigating logical consequences, and attempting to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Philosophy is, at bottom, a method- or, more accurately, a variety of methods- for proper reasoning.

Indeed, this an ideal definition of philosophy. Unfortunately, it often becomes nothing more than an intellectual crutch for students of philosophy - many of whom aren't particularly suited for independent reasoning. Nor, is the study of philosophy necessary for many intellects. Now not understanding this, is actually naive.

 

[Anatta]

There's certainly value in engaging the thoughts and ideas of others. The problem comes in when there is over-reliance on the thoughts, ideas, and conclusions of others, which can result in an inability to formulate one's own thoughts. I've seen this repeatedly over the years among many earnest students of philosophy. They come to rely on the collection of ideas they've gleaned from others, and parrot it back in discussions in place of fully fleshed-out ideas they've formulated and analyzed on their own. Thus, philosophy becomes a study of thinkers and ideas, and not a study of how to formulate thoughts and ideas.

I can certainly relate to your experience, especially when I think back a decade or so - plenty of friends idiotically thought Ayn Rand was the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, without ever soberly questioning her conclusions. I think this kind of philosophizing may have more to do with a search for a personal "image" rather than actual thought.

I find, however, that many philosophers are more in the business of asking questions than answering them. Especially of each other. So you can read Hegel, and get some ideas from him, maybe even get dangerously close to becoming a Hegelian for a while. But then you read Marx, and now all of a sudden, Hegel reads differently than before... And then you read Freud, leading to conclusions about Marx AND Hegel that weren't previously there...

Have you ever had this experience? Don't you think this is a valuable process?

 

[Willamena]

I find, however, that many philosophers are more in the business of asking questions than answering them. Especially of each other. So you can read Hegel, and get some ideas from him, maybe even get dangerously close to becoming a Hegelian for a while. But then you read Marx, and now all of a sudden, Hegel reads differently than before... And then you read Freud, leading to conclusions about Marx AND Hegel that weren't previously there...

Have you ever had this experience? Don't you think this is a valuable process?

Bravo.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Indeed, this an ideal definition of philosophy.

Not really. At least not in the sense of an ideal never attained. This conception of philosophy has become the prevalent one in analytic philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking world. But it is not just a contemporary view. It is the view of Wittgenstein, of Nietzsche, of Plato- and of Socrates.

Unfortunately, it often becomes nothing more than an intellectual crutch for students of philosophy

Again, this is simply a bare assertion- since you've provided no argument or evidence for this claim, I can simply respond in kind: philosophy is not an "intellectual crutch", but claiming that philosophy is superfluous is often a defensive maneuver on the part of those who are incapable of grasping philosophy at a sophisticated level- it is no more than sour grapes. It is also frequently an excuse for laziness and sloppy thinking, since one is either unable or unwilling to apply the rigor that philosophy requires.

Nor, is the study of philosophy necessary for many intellects.

If by "necessary" you mean that one doesn't desire to arrive at sound insights and informed reasoning, then I suppose not. But for most intellects, this is necessary, which is precisely why philosophy is NOT superfluous.

Now not understanding this, is actually naive.

Ah, the good old "I know you are but what am I". Dusting off an oldie, eh?

In any case, lets also note the pathetic false dichotomy you've presented; between studying thinkers and studying thinking, or how to think. Since when we study thinkers qua thinkers, we are studying them for their thinking- and in studying how great thinkers of the past have thought, we learn a good deal about how to think. (as if by studying, say, a great basketball player, like Michael Jordan, we wouldn't simultaneously be studying how to play great basketball) This is not an either/or choice. And after all, "great men's errors are to be valued as more fruitful than little men's truths". I think part of your view is motivated by a naïve egalitarianism- the thought that every person is equally capable at reasoning as any other- this simply isn't the case. The vast majority of people are NOT as brilliant or insightful as an Aristotle, a Kant, a Wittgenstein, which is why they can benefit from acquainting themselves with great thinkers who have come before them- if you are one of the few who ARE as brilliant as these historic individuals, then you are supremely fortunate, but most of us are not that lucky (including everyone on this forum, and quite possibly, everyone alive today anywhere).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Have you ever had this experience? Don't you think this is a valuable process?

Absolutely. I find this is a valuable process whatever the sources of the ideas and concepts that you're absorbing, analyzing, and applying. For some, the works of philosophers may be a relevant source. For others, different paths and sources may be more relevant and useful. Regardless, the most important elements are a sincere drive to understand along with a developed talent for critical thinking.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Not really. At least not in the sense of an ideal never attained. This conception of philosophy has become the prevalent one in analytic philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking world. But it is not just a contemporary view. It is the view of Wittgenstein, of Nietzsche, of Plato- and of Socrates.


Again, this is simply a bare assertion- since you've provided no argument or evidence for this claim, I can simply respond in kind: philosophy is not an "intellectual crutch", but claiming that philosophy is superfluous is often a defensive maneuver on the part of those who are incapable of grasping philosophy at a sophisticated level- it is no more than sour grapes. It is also frequently an excuse for laziness and sloppy thinking, since one is either unable or unwilling to apply the rigor that philosophy requires.


If by "necessary" you mean that one doesn't desire to arrive at sound insights and informed reasoning, then I suppose not. But for most intellects, this is necessary, which is precisely why philosophy is NOT superfluous.


Ah, the good old "I know you are but what am I". Dusting off an oldie, eh?

In any case, lets also note the pathetic false dichotomy you've presented; between studying thinkers and studying thinking, or how to think. Since when we study thinkers qua thinkers, we are studying them for their thinking- and in studying how great thinkers of the past have thought, we learn a good deal about how to think. (as if by studying, say, a great basketball player, like Michael Jordan, we wouldn't simultaneously be studying how to play great basketball) This is not an either/or choice. And after all, "great men's errors are to be valued as more fruitful than little men's truths". I think part of your view is motivated by a naïve egalitarianism- the thought that every person is equally capable at reasoning as any other- this simply isn't the case. The vast majority of people are NOT as brilliant or insightful as an Aristotle, a Kant, a Wittgenstein, which is why they can benefit from acquainting themselves with great thinkers who have come before them- if you are one of the few who ARE as brilliant as these historic individuals, then you are supremely fortunate, but most of us are not that lucky (including everyone on this forum, and quite possibly, everyone alive today anywhere).

I suppose we'll each have to be fine with our own bare assertions and agree to disagree.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I suppose we'll each have to be fine with our own bare assertions and agree to disagree.

You're the only one making bare assertions. I've provided arguments for my claims; arguments you've ignored, such as this-

In any case, lets also note the pathetic false dichotomy you've presented; between studying thinkers and studying thinking, or how to think. Since when we study thinkers qua thinkers, we are studying them for their thinking- and in studying how great thinkers of the past have thought, we learn a good deal about how to think. (as if by studying, say, a great basketball player, like Michael Jordan, we wouldn't simultaneously be studying how to play great basketball) This is not an either/or choice.

And this-

And after all, "great men's errors are to be valued as more fruitful than little men's truths". I think part of your view is motivated by a naïve egalitarianism- the thought that every person is equally capable at reasoning as any other- this simply isn't the case. The vast majority of people are NOT as brilliant or insightful as an Aristotle, a Kant, a Wittgenstein, which is why they can benefit from acquainting themselves with great thinkers who have come before them- if you are one of the few who ARE as brilliant as these historic individuals, then you are supremely fortunate, but most of us are not that lucky (including everyone on this forum, and quite possibly, everyone alive today anywhere).

And this-

And its absolutely ridiculous (and almost pathetically naïve) to suppose that, on your own and unassisted, you're going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon any sound solutions or concepts pertaining to philosophical issues- either naïve, or extremely narcissistic. You are not going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon the notion of transcendental deduction or categories of experience, of properly basic beliefs or family resemblances, of problems relating to the truth-functionality of ethical propositions or metaphysical reductionism. It simply isn't going to happen. And refusing to utilize the extensive resources that are at our disposal, as the result of 2500 years of greater minds than ours working on certain philosophical issues, is just impractical. You won't be able to reach the top shelf by jumping up and down and groping about blindly, but if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you may have a chance.

And this-

And moreover, this whole line of thought is operating on a faulty and naïve view of philosophy- philosophy, when it is on its good behavior, is not a body of results, like the sciences; it does not produce a body of truths, doctrines, or conclusions. Philosophy is, first and foremost, concerned with the method or process of thinking- of analyzing concepts and arguments, investigating logical consequences, and attempting to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Philosophy is, at bottom, a method- or, more accurately, a variety of methods- for proper reasoning

This conception of philosophy has become the prevalent one in analytic philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking world. But it is not just a contemporary view. It is the view of Wittgenstein, of Nietzsche, of Plato- and of Socrates.

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

Not particularly. Even if it were my aim to try to convince you of something (which it isn't), it is fruitless to argue with people who have a strong emotional investment in their opinions. There's some applied wisdom for you. I didn't even need to learn it from a great philsophical thinker - I figured it out on my own. Perhaps you'll eventually come across it in your studies.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not particularly.

Since you've shown no indication that you require your opinions or your posts to have any justification or basis in reality, it isn't particularly surprising that you're unable to defend your claims.

Even if it were my aim to try to convince you of something

Or to defend or substantiate assertions you've made...

... (which it isn't), it is fruitless to argue with people who have a strong emotional investment in their opinions.

Translation: I'm going to tuck tail and run but I want to save some face, so I'll provide a flimsy excuse for avoiding defending some silly statements I've made. Gotcha.

What an embarrassing thread this has become for you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What an embarrassing thread this has become for you.

Whatever helps you sleep better at night, kid.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It doesn't affect my sleeping, but it is at least mildly amusing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It doesn't affect my sleeping, but it is at least mildly amusing.

You seem more agitated and frustrated than amused, but whatever you need to tell yourself. What is amusing is your incessant need to get my attention and approval.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Still trying to distract attention away from defending your claims. Sad. You'll post these short vacuous responses all day, but ask you to defend your claims? No way!

You seem more agitated and frustrated than amused

Then your radar is broken.

What is amusing is your incessant need to get my attention and approval.

Right. Attempting to get you to act like a reasonable and mature poster by, you know, defending and substantiating patently false statements you've made (on a debate forum, of all places) is indicative of a need for your approval. Mmmk. Lol.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Right. Attempting to get you to act like a reasonable and mature poster by, you know, defending and substantiating patently false statements you've made (on a debate forum, of all places) is indicative of a need for your approval. Mmmk. Lol.

Says the poster who repeatedly flings insults, baseless assertions, and opinion as some rare species of fact. But, I understand your need for my attention. I have that affect on socially awkward types.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Says the poster who repeatedly flings insults, baseless assertions, and opinion as some rare species of fact.

As well as flings arguments (do you know what these are?)- arguments which, apparently, cannot be answered in kind, but can only be avoided. Such as by trying to change the subject, like this-

But, I understand your need for my attention. I have that affect on socially awkward types.

Seriously, are we 12 years old here?

Anyways, one last chance to act like an adult and defend your claim with arguments, rather than irrelevant (and obviously false) speculation about my psychological motivations-

...lets also note the pathetic false dichotomy you've presented; between studying thinkers and studying thinking, or how to think. Since when we study thinkers qua thinkers, we are studying them for their thinking- and in studying how great thinkers of the past have thought, we learn a good deal about how to think. (as if by studying, say, a great basketball player, like Michael Jordan, we wouldn't simultaneously be studying how to play great basketball) This is not an either/or choice.

And after all, "great men's errors are to be valued as more fruitful than little men's truths". I think part of your view is motivated by a naïve egalitarianism- the thought that every person is equally capable at reasoning as any other- this simply isn't the case. The vast majority of people are NOT as brilliant or insightful as an Aristotle, a Kant, a Wittgenstein, which is why they can benefit from acquainting themselves with great thinkers who have come before them- if you are one of the few who ARE as brilliant as these historic individuals, then you are supremely fortunate, but most of us are not that lucky (including everyone on this forum, and quite possibly, everyone alive today anywhere).

And its absolutely ridiculous (and almost pathetically naïve) to suppose that, on your own and unassisted, you're going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon any sound solutions or concepts pertaining to philosophical issues- either naïve, or extremely narcissistic. You are not going to "naturally and organically" stumble upon the notion of transcendental deduction or categories of experience, of properly basic beliefs or family resemblances, of problems relating to the truth-functionality of ethical propositions or metaphysical reductionism. It simply isn't going to happen. And refusing to utilize the extensive resources that are at our disposal, as the result of 2500 years of greater minds than ours working on certain philosophical issues, is just impractical. You won't be able to reach the top shelf by jumping up and down and groping about blindly, but if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you may have a chance.

And moreover, this whole line of thought is operating on a faulty and naïve view of philosophy- philosophy, when it is on its good behavior, is not a body of results, like the sciences; it does not produce a body of truths, doctrines, or conclusions. Philosophy is, first and foremost, concerned with the method or process of thinking- of analyzing concepts and arguments, investigating logical consequences, and attempting to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Philosophy is, at bottom, a method- or, more accurately, a variety of methods- for proper reasoning...

This conception of philosophy has become the prevalent one in analytic philosophy, which dominates the English-speaking world. But it is not just a contemporary view. It is the view of Wittgenstein, of Nietzsche, of Plato- and of Socrates.

Feel free to grow a pair anytime you like.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Intellectual dick measuring contests aside this particular tangent has gone on far too long.

Kilgore: You have not addressed the factual existence of tangible gains made as a result of philosophy of science and human rationality. You are either cherry picking whom you address, which means you are doing this for wholly emotional reasons; or you are unwilling to address this because you recognize it is valid (in which case your flippant comment is coming back to haunt you and you are just unwilling to admit to your original comment was made flippantly).

Philosophy is not superfluous.



enaidealukal: I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish here; it seems like you are trying to defend your own personal decisions and education as opposed to philosophy in general. A universal claim was made; any elements to the contrary render the argument invalid; stop trying to undercut people personally when the right thing to do is to avoid ad hominem.

It is never correct to engage in the trading of barbs. I can and do understand the mindset where being wrong tastes like poison, but that doesn't mean you can't walk away. Some dominance contests aren't worth engaging in, let alone winning.

MTF