A Method to start at philosophy
To start at philosophy one should....
1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)
That sound about right?
1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested!
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)
That sound about right?
Comments (131)
:up:
I like the mix of reading and writing. I might add that it's great to read writers that attack one another.
Philosophy involves dialogue. It's inherently social in a way not captured by your four points.
Then, if you want to do some reading, you can.
Where to put it in the sequence?
I don't much mind, so long as you do not take 's advice.
then how about this:
1. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it.
2. Read a different philosophy text, even by the same author, and attempt to understand it.
3. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. [s]Share it with anyone interested![/s] Share it with someone whose at least read the texts too and start a dialogue.
4. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)
:wink:
The most common congenital deformity of philosophy is "making shit up". The remedy is exposing one's ideas to criticism. The natural home of philosophy is the symposium, not the text.
Then:
1. Read novels and watch movies that ask philosophical questions. Not explicitly, that's boring but implicitly. Stuff like The Matrix, Sophie's World, Memento, Dune. Next up is Borges, Ursula Le Guin, Kafka, Catch 22... In any case, literature first.
2. Read a philosophy text and attempt to understand it, but not from a primary source, a text about the history of philosophy or Phil of Science, of language, political phil. anything really but not primary.
3. Read a primary source, something like Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Habermas, Rawls...
4. Read a different philosophy text, and attempt to understand it.
5. Compare and contrast the two texts. If able write some things down to attempt to solidify your thoughts. Share it with anyone interested! Repeat 3 and 4 a couple of times. Go to Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Popper, Gadamer or some of those wildly obscure analytics ;)
6. Find a mentor, a 'demon' who you can spar with but is above your level
7. Read more, different texts, compare and contrast but most of all discuss.
8. Dispute with your mentor, question him or her. Find your own inspiration.
9. become a mentor for someone else.
10. Repeat, if desired, or add a rule. (Purposefully ambiguous)[/quote]
...maybe.
Reading is a form of dialogue.
Descarte wasnt doing philosophy in his solitary meditations? When you say inherent, wouldnt that make it a pre requisite for philosophy? So what was Decarte doing in his cave, if not some kind of philosophy?
Amusing himself, one supposes.
Its by definition not a form of dialogue, not in the sense of a philosophical dialogue anyway.
:up:
Me and the author. Me and me. The author and the author. The self is a chaos of voices.
Oh come on. Lol
Is sociality really inherent to philosophy if it can be done alone? Maybe we are using inherent differently?
And it's not always easy to find anyone who gives a shit about this stuff in the first place. So it's a huge luxury or privilege if you just happen to have a boatload of educated peers available to discuss the finer points of Heidegger or Popper with. That's probably why I find this forum so addictive. It's such a relief to find others for whom philosophy actually exists in a significant way.
Best, there is much to be said for the... fixity... of text, as a jump-off for critique.
Then you don't understand what philosophy is.
Believe me, I hear you. Hardly a day goes by when I don't think, why am I [s]wasting[/s] spending so much time on this Forum? Surely there are many more important things I could be doing. But
Not what I said at all, but you know that. Is there just no more chance of you and i having an actual exchange? Remember? Im a human being? In your world doesnt that at least deserve the courtesy of telling me to *insert Banno speak for fuckoff*? I mean, I would respect your wishes and leave you be. If not, engage. Maybe itll be worthwhile.
I think so, given that language is already a social technology, and that's what we usually do philosophy with. Speaking alone is like Robinson Crusoe -- he learned how to do the things on the Island from the place he came from where he learned those things.
Speaking alone is still speaking. Philosophy might differ when its in solitude but I dont see how it would cease to exist.
Sure, its both imo. If its both, neither can be inherent to philosophy since the two are mutually exclusive. Obviously there are different ideas about what philosophy is but one that says its defined by (inherent) talking or not talking to people is very strange.
According to my philosophy prof many years ago this is entirely the wrong approach. Read commentaries first, then the originals. You Kant fail.
Interesting idea. I suspect different personalities need different approaches. I would struggle to finish most texts as they are either largely incomprehensible or dull (to me). Obtaining a useful reading of a great work is not something you can readily do unassisted.
I think a good beginning might be to get an overarching sense of what philosophy does, the questions it examines and then perhaps look more closely at some matters - morality or aesthetics, say, and see what some key thinkers have said. I might then start reading some papers and gradually work my way to a full text.
I would not attempt to actually 'do ' philosophy, I don't have the expertise. I think for most people it is enough to be aware of some of the central questions and have some idea about the direction philosophy can take in resolving or dissolving such questions. And perhaps even develop some sympathies for one approach or another, recognizing such views are likely to be tentative and incomplete.
You think Descartes lived in a cave? He corresponded with the greatest minds out there. I agree with Banno that philosophy is social. All those ruminations of Descartes drinking his cognac in front of the fireplace starting to doubt stuff is just a literary device...
2. Ask others to clarify and explain.
3. Get them in a muddle about it.
4. Start reading up down and all around about it.
5. Notice that it is a topic in philosophy.
Philosophizing is social.
is doing the approach to philosophy; when such introspection arrives at a conclusion, philosophy is being done.
Havent you ever noticed how much you can get done when nobodys bothering you? In the zone ring any bells?
echoes your profs suggestion, and I see its merits. A lot of times a person will become bogged down by an original text and it won't excite the mind to do the work, and that love of the work is a part of it I think.
Oh certainly. But I hesitate to call my reveries of thought philosophy. A lot of the times, when I subject it to scrutiny, it's not really worth sharing. Which isn't to say it's not valuable! It's just more of a spiritual thing than a philosophical thing. Like when I go for a walk to think about a question: I need that time to think by myself, but then I'll want to bring my thoughts before a body of persons who like to think about the same question and see what they say. But even if the product of that walk is worthless I'll still have enjoyed the walk and the reveries of thought.
But I want to note that "hard" is not "impossible" -- there are some people who manage to unite their spiritual reveries with reason and write some amazing philosophy. But it's definitely hard to do.
I might go the other way, and surmise that all my reveries of thought have philosophical implications.
I thought he did his meditations alone in a cave. I blame Trump for my mistake.
The point being, one can engage in philosophy alone. Gurus, yogis, monks contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions without a dialogue. Thats not philosophy? What is it then?
5. Try to search for a definition of a concept if it is not understood. :smile:
... And after about 10 years one would be able to say, "Well, I know a little what philosophy is about."
I started really learning philosophy in college, by taking a philosophy course for one semester, which was optional for and irrelevant to my studies (*Business Administration"). The teacher was the brother of Iannis Xenakis, the known modern composer, and the whole course was about the stoic philosopher Epictetus. I was very lucky, because I gained so much by learning about a whole system of philosophy (stoicism), and a way of thinking about life and the world, that I was so thirsty to learn more so, in that same semester I read about 10 books from other philosophers of the same period. Then I read, read and read pages after pages, books after books from all kinds of philosophers and philosophical schools ... I also started to have my own ideas about mind, ethics and life.
You don't learn philosophy by browsing books and philosophical texts, like wetting your feet before starting to learn how to swim. You start to learn how to swim by swimming.
You learn philosophy by studying whole books by one philosopher and then by another one and so on.
A couple of years after I graduated I started to study Eastern philosophy. I must have read about 40 books or so from all major Hindu philosophers. And I had read and listened to almost all the works of Krishnamurti. I could really think like him. I could then say for myself that I know about Eastern thinking. Because this is what is most important in philosophy: philosophical thinking, not philosophical knowledge. You can know about all the philosophers of the world and what they have written, but if you don't know how to actually think philosophically --in the same way one does in mathematics-- it's all on the surface. Very little useful. It's encyclopedic versus operational knowledge. And to operate philosophically is to think philosophically.
Sorry, I shouldn't have barked. I love that Kafka quote. It points out that you have to bring something to the philosophy game. You have to have developed a world view, a perspective, before you start. You can't just pick a philosopher at random and start believing what they say. You see that a lot here on the forum - people quoting philosophers without really understanding the implications and consequences of those beliefs. Other philosophers can help you find the way, but it's your path.
Quoting Moliere
You don't need books in order to seek. They can help, but they can't do it by themselves. They can also misdirect if you don't have a strong enough vision of your own.
Ahem...
It always annoys me when you say something like this. You're one of the most widely read, open minded, observant, and genuinely curious people here on the forum. You do philosophy for the reasons people invented philosophy in the first place. And you like "Annie Hall."
I think that Kafka quote provides a good example of how philosophy is done, at least how I try to do it. I was rummaging around, thinking, talking to other people. Then I read that quote and it was as if a door opened. "That's what I'm doing! Someone else is doing it too." Reading philosophy is all about finding kindred spirits, not following gurus. My kindred spirits - Emerson, Lao Tzu, R.G. Collingwood, P.W. Herman, Kafka...
Well put. I'd go one step further and say you have to know how to use philosophy in your everyday life in order to really be able to say you do philosophy. Your analogy with math is a good one. Reading and understanding the fundamental law of calculus is fine, but you have to be able to do the calculations.
Ick.
1. Be curious about the world.
2. Be curious about how you think about the world.
3. Learn about the world however you can (looking, asking people, reading).
4. Learn new ways of thinking and, one hopes, get better at it by talking to people, reading, reflecting.
5. Make sure you don't forget (1) and (2), ever.
6. Don't worry if it's called "philosophy."
Your quote hits the sweet spot in me. Which is sort of a euphemism for spending a long time in the dark between the ears.
But you and I both may have missed the mark, insofar as the OP asks how to start philosophy, not so much how to actually do it. In which case everyone else is more correct then we are, for to start philosophy presupposes someone else has already done it, and left a record to be subsequently treated as a mere experience, like any other.
Nahhhh .if philosophy is to be done, shut the hell up and go dark, I say. Otherwise, all thats being done is recounting history, and any ol fool can do that.
Good point. One must always have examples in life regarding a philosophical truth and be able to apply it in life.
I like it. I started a thread a year or so ago about how you don't need to read philosophy. I overstated my case. I think reading other philosophers is useful, but everything has to start the way you've laid it out.
I love books, and I love not just learning from them but the chance to spend time in the company of an interesting mind.
But when I look at SEP, I see too much philosophy that starts on paper, lives on paper, passes into oblivion on paper. Maybe there's a glance out the window of the library now and then, but the impetus behind the work is entirely within, tweaking a theory you read about, to respond to an argument you read about, and on and on.
I think good philosophy begins with life, encountering a problem that doesn't yield to the usual approach, finding something that works and wondering why it works, noticing something peculiar, or noticing the peculiarity of something ordinary. It begins, so to speak, with things, not with ideas about things. And the test of an idea is again things, not whether there are arguments for and against the idea, of course there are, but if it changes the way you see things.
Anyhow, that's my prejudice.
But then there could be other ways of introducing discipline -- say as @unenlightened pointed out in our bringing our muddled thoughts together we challenge one another. (EDIT: Also, @Srap Tasmaner by introducing learning and curiosity not just about the world, but about how one thinks about the world)
Philosophy is certainly about more than books! But that discipline of thought, so I think, is also a part of it.
The bug bit me in college, too, and I just went from one book to the next in a historical list from the pre-socracratics to Marx, skipping the majority of the medievals like a good student of modernism. ;) But I was definitely motivated to do that -- it wasn't even related to my major, which was chemistry! I just loved what I was reading and couldn't get enough of it. Plus it ended up dovetailing nicely eventually with chemistry because of all the phil-o-sci stuff.
And yup. My own ideas which then, upon picking up another book, were once again smashed against the rocks of reason! :D
Quoting DingoJones
Spirituality.
The Catholic and the Buddhist priest have different rituals for contemplating the universe and life's deep meanings and questions within their respective religious practices. But philosophy would hope to be able to be able to appeal to either spiritual practitioner through the power of reason.
That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.
The bookish nerd historicist that I am I just say "read the books!" :D -- but that's not enough.
Be homo sapiens. Other species mostly suck at it, and don't get me started on the inarticulacy of rocks.
Nope, you added to what I said in order to apply spirituality. I didnt specify within their respective religious practices, you added that after the fact as an ad hoc support for your spirituality answer.
To repeat my question:
Quoting DingoJones
Make it just a guy instead of yogis and gurus if its easier, that way your not tempted to reference the spirituality those folk practice in addition to any philosophizing they might do. [
quote="Moliere;831440"]That is -- there's the public side of philosophy that would bring back our worshipers and spiritual reveries to the people we live around who we then would engage in dialogue about the answers we might have found to those questions.[/quote]
The public side? Whats the other side, the not public one? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about re the guy in a cave contemplating life and the universe?
I'd say the same, I think. I've already stated that I have mental reveries on my own. I'd say that's spirituality in a way more than philosophy. Philosophy deals with others.
Quoting DingoJones
Yup. But if someone only does that I think I'd be tempted to call that spirituality rather than philosophy. There's something about revealing one's thoughts to others for scrutiny and growth which is part of philosophy, which I didn't include in my initial list.
That's generous of you. Thanks. (love Annie Hall!) I guess I feel in philosophy there is so much to know and understand and so little time, that the situation is almost hopeless for someone like me who hasn't read significant texts and fully understood the ramifications of key concepts. But the good thing is life continues and I am content doing my thing, thinking my thoughts... I'm just aware that every supposition and belief I hold can likely be undermined by robust philosophical reasoning, much of which I don't fully comprehend. It's the conundrum of the layperson.
Ok, I see. You agree with my conclusion but not my example? Is that right?
I think @Banno is right in that there is something social to philosophy. "Inherent" is good enough for me, but I wouldn't say "necessary at all times". There are times we aren't together, that we think thoughts -- but to make it philosophy I think I'm still on the "gotta present it to others" track. Or, maybe there are some who are just that good, but there is definitely a huge benefit to being a part of a community for growth and knowledge.
Take @Tobias point that eventually you should find a mentor. Isn't that a social relationships there? I don't know if it's necessary, but I can say I've had more than one mentor with respect to philosophy and it's always helped me. That community part of philosophy is a big part of growth, though of course we're supposed to be able to think on our own too.
I agree it's your path. I wouldn't like the existentialists if I didn't think that there's something true to that.
I'm not sure if you do need to bring something, though here I'm thinking about Socrates Cafe style meetings as a possible counter example. It was a social setting where people who were interested enough in philosophy to listen could listen to people discussing questions in a safe public environment.
I'd say that philosophy can help in developing a worldview, and there should be more public access to philosophy for that very purpose.
Still: I quote philosophers all the time and may miss implications. I think it's an important part, but you're right to say it's not everything.
Quoting Tom Storm
Then for you I think both @unenlightened and @Srap Tasmaner have outlined better methods, if you're interested. If not, then that's fine too. But I'll echo @T Clark in saying that you're very open minded and seem to have something of the philosophical desire in you :)
"So little time" is probably the biggest problem with my method. I happened to get bitten by the bug at a relatively early age, mostly due to my upbringing and my weird way of just wanting to know things. But it's not like you need to read all these books to have a solid grasp of philosophy. Look at Wittgenstein! (Or Socrates)
I agree that it is highly useful, perhaps the best way to do philosophy and of course exposure to the ideas of others is invaluable but it seems very strange to say those things are necessary for philosophy. Like, hey Roger, do you think we have free will is philosophy, but hmmm, I wonder if we have free will isnt? Huh?
I understand that was Bannos claim not yours, but we kind of started there so ya.
I'll take the extra step and say it's more than useful, and actually necessary. Not at all points, but at some point if you want your thoughts to qualify as philosophy then you have to share it with others. Further, even if you do not want it to qualify as philosophy it's that sharing which makes philosophy what it is. Think Socrates here -- by our records he only wrote in public. Surely that's important?
I find SEP really helpful, but I never go to it until I want the detail it provides. I also use it and Wikipedia when I come across something new I'm not familiar with.
That's pragmatism, or at least it's foundation. I come from science and engineering, so my focus is on knowledge - how to get it and what to do with it once you have it. Very concrete - problem solving.
I spend time on the r/Taoism subreddit on reddit. People are always asking how they can solve personal problems using Taoist principles. As I see it, Taoism is a path without a goal. It's a process to follow to make you the kind of person who can solve those problems. I think other kinds of philosophy are similar. Perhaps that seems at odds with what I wrote in my previous post:
Quoting T Clark
I don't think it is. Pragmatism is also about process, not answers. Answers are what science provides.
I don't believe in philosophical blank slates. World views come as standard equipment, along with the accessories required to grow and develop them. Philosophy just helps us sharpen our pencils.
Note - three different metaphors in three sentences.
Ok, so you are saying its necessary now. So if I am sitting in a cave by myself contemplating whether or not I have free will im not doing philosophy? Sorry, I just dont buy that. Its the exact same thing but just by yourself.
It seems like a totally unnecessary distinction to make and I dont understand what purpose is served by restricting philosophy to its social aspects. Thanks for taking the time though.
Nice!
And you used the right word: "motivated". It's the key to all knowlegdge and excellence. This is very evident in school, where the majority of students are bad in some areas, esp. in Math. No motivation. They have no use of Math. During the whole duration of the school. And Math teachers --in most cases-- ignore this vital factor or they are not even interested in creating such a motivation to their students. And then, they expect from them to excel in Math! What an irony, if not a stupidity!
One can explore inner space alone, but one can get very badly and irrevocably lost. Better to have a companion on the outside holding the end of a thread that one unwinds as one goes, thus enabling one to retrace ones path. One needs solitary homework, and one needs tutorials in an education, spiritual or philosophical.
Yesterday the idiot box had a discussion. "Is a degree worth it these days?" There was much talk about how much they cost, and whether or not work experience, was worth more to employers. No one was able to step outside the confines of the economic value-system to even wonder whether education might have intrinsic value. That's the value of philosophy - to see things invisible to the merely clever.
Mysticism.
Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it.
Before Socrates what was philosophy? It's difficult to say, but the fragments seem to indicate that there were schools, that people talked with one another about ideas, that they disagreed with one another frequently and posited all kinds of different ideas and explanations to one another. And then Socrates changed the face of philosophy by bringing it into the public square -- it was a social activity prior, but Socrates brought those ideas into the public life of the city and began to use them to corrupt the youth for which he was condemned to die.
So there's even a precedent based upon one of the indisputable examples of a philosopher to claim that philosophy is performed in public. Though there's certainly the dialogue writers, they are written for people to read and contemplate.
Quoting Moliere
If that's true, then you don't consider Taoism and Buddhism philosophies, is that correct?
Though there's funny cases, too -- not just [s]to[/s]from Eastern religions, either. Consider Augustine and Martin Luther as interesting cases that will test our notions about what these human activities consist of.
But generally I believe spirituality and philosophy to be different, especially because it seems to me that any religion should be able to engage in the practice of philosophy, whereas to be a member of a religion you usually have to leave any other religion behind. They're kind of total ways of life which won't get along too well (unless you're a Universalist Unitarian, dedicated to the notion that they can get along).
Your argument seems to be that eastern philosophies are not philosophies because they are religions, but they're not, or at least they don't have to be. Taoist philosophy is separate from Taoist religion and came first.
Quoting Wikipedia - Taoism
Stare intensely into the flames it while thinking really, really hard. Full mind sprint.
Continue until you collapse or achieve the Gnosis. :cool:
But that says more about me than your notion of philosophy.
Staring at fire in the dark is a good source of calm and inspirational thoughts.
I suppose in making my distinction between the mystical or the spiritual versus the philosophical I'd say that this method won't quite do. But then you're something of a counter-example, because you think about the thoughts and express them with others and such without actually expressing a Gnostic spirituality -- you stick to the philosophy.
Is that how you began?
I do not know enough about them. I also do not know if they are in the same boat. I know that thinking in solitude about life the universe and everything does not make you a philosopher yet. There needs to be rigor in that thinking and that is hard to acquire on your own. Nigh impossible I would think.
Whether you buy it or not is completely irrelevant. My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue but not that every dialogue is philosophy. Your objection is logically unsound. Your apology is conceited because it is not meant.
Quoting DingoJones
This is a good example. In this particular example both are not yet philosophy, because just asking a philosophical question does not make you engage in the discipline of philosophy. However the first sentence is at least on the way. Roger will give an answer, something in the vein of "hey I do not know, what do you think?" Then the person asking the question must make her position explicit and articulate the reasons and arguments for taking that position. Since philosophy is an argumentative practice we are at least getting somewhere. Ruminations that just run around in someone's mind are not philosophy, only arguments are because they can be countered by other arguments.
That is a good point. Although I think an appreciation for critical thinking and reading can get people a long way.
Not if your are trying to convince me. You arent making an argument, you are asserting something about philosophy: that its defined by dialogue. So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they arent doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense.
Quoting Tobias
Logically unsound in what way. Not wrong, you arent saying Im wrong you are saying what I said is not logically sound. Point out to me where ive been logically unsound.
Also, get your head out of your ass, youre not a mind reader. Me saying sorry was a sincere way of trying to tell you I was not convinced. And what do you think conceited means? Please explain this bizarre relation between conceit and insincerity.
Quoting Tobias
You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.
You can ask yourself questions, and answer them.
Ok, let me try one last time.
Larry contemplates the matter of free will and comes up with some really interesting answers, his answers consider angles no one else on earth thought of.
Not philosophy.
Some clueless moron walks in and makes a bunch of bad arguments and asks Larry questions and dialogues with him. Now its philosophy?
Or even just some guy comes in and dialogues with Larry and Larry just keeps saying I know, I thought of that already, I wrote it down, see? Over and over and over again thats philosophy but it wasnt when Larry came up with the stuff on his own?
These are the absurdities you commit yourself to when you have the position that philosophy requires dialogue.
And again, all you have done is describe dialogue and call it philosophy as an argument that philosophy requires dialogue. That is a pretty basic breach of logic, you must have come up with it all by your lonesome cuz its surely not philosophy. :wink:
Larry the brilliant thinker comes out of his cave with a treatise on ethics and runs into Bob who has the exact same treatise (it can even be vastly inferior in your mad world) and so Larry gets excited and exclaims
neat, we both philosophized the same thing! What are the odds?!
And Bob says
oh no Larry you knucklehead, what you did isnt philosophy. I did philosophy, not you
So Larry says
but they are the exact same ?
And Bob says
Yes they are, but I talked to Ralph about mine.
That last line of Bobs is a punchline, because the claim dialogue is necessary to do philosophy is a joke.
If you respond to anything in this post, please start with this:
You are describing dialogue and calling it philosophy as an argument that philosophy is defined by dialogue.
THAT is logically unsound.
If you cant address this then I dont think anything else needs be discussed. Thank you for your time though, and thats a sincere thank you just in vase you're tempted to use your unreliable mind reading powers again.
Obviously it's unpersuasive, given your response.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's logically unsound. Where the form of argument ends and the example or explication begins isn't easy most of the time. I'll go back to the differences between Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to make the case for the publicity of philosophy. Socrates invented philosophy as we know it, Plato invented it as an academic discipline to corrupt the youth in the long term, and Aristotle realized how good a life being an academic is and dived into justifying his position through Reason alone. (a clear fable that ought be perfected, but I hope that it makes sense)
Dialogue is a part of philosophy because there's always been this call and response, or back and forth, between those we consider philosophers.
Well, its circular. Thats a fallacy if logic so i think logically unsound fits unless Im missing something.
Quoting Moliere
Im desperate to understand what Im missing here.
Im not saying dialogue isnt a part of philosophy, Im saying that it isnt a necessary part of philosophy. I could even agree that dialogue is necessary for the best philosophy but to me its very clear that some philosophizing can and does happen without dialogue.
Look above for the absurdities that come with the position that philosophy requires dialogue. And what do we gain in return for this concession to absurdity? I dont see a single thing, and I do not mean we gain nothing from dialogue I mean we gain nothing by making dialogue a prerequisite to philosophy.
No convincing you is not the main point. We are writing on a forum, we write for a whole group of people. What I am trying to do is teach a bit, because convincing someone is very difficult. People tend to stick to their own positions even if the cause is hopelessly lost. I am arguing, you on the other hand are not. You are speaking from opinion: "I do not buy it". Well that indeed is irrelevant. It is about the arguments you provide. Arguments have a certain structure. My argument can be written down in the basest form as follows.
"Philosophy needs dialogue, because philosophy is a discipline that requires making arguments for your claim. Arguments are made in response to someone else or at least are provided to other people orally or in writing. That is my argument. An objection you could then make is: "But what if someone plays out all the arguments in their head?". I would then say "That is nigh impossible to do, because it requires a brain that would outmatch all these brains that one could bring into play when one would conduct philosophy in a social group". That is why also philosophy was developed in conversation with others.
Secondly I would say that philosophy is a certain discipline with certain marks of the trade, just like law is or medicine. One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher is that you have displayed a certain level of rigor in your analysis of philosophical questions. Now if you never offer these arguments for scrutiny there is no way the community of philosophers can assess them and you cannot be considered a philosopher.
That rigor is important can be shown by pointing to your own post: "So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they arent doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense." Here you confuse having a certain property, philosophical brilliance, with performing a certain act, doing philosophy. Indeed the philosophical brilliance a person has does not matter one iota if they are not doing philosophy.
Acquiring a certain rigor in analysis requires training and that training is I think impossible to obtain on one's own. Even empirically it is shown that for thinking to develop one needs to be in a social environment that stimulates it. Feral children who live with animals in the formative years of their life almost without exception do not learn language, let alone the alone the ability to pick apart a philosophical text.
Comtemplating God the universe and everything is a practice too. It is called mysticism. There are of course mystics who were also brilliant philosophers. Thomas Acquinas for instance of Ibn Ghazali, Lao Ze maybe also but I do not know enough about him. What sets them apart from other mystics is precisely that they adhered to the philosophical requirements of sound argumentation offered to others, as against mere assertion.
Quoting DingoJones
Spoon feeding is such boring work...
Well my assertion was that philosophy required dialogue. In your rather short not very thoughtful, but still condescending reply you stated this:
Quoting DingoJones
You infer from my assertion that philosophy needs dialogue that I apparently also hold that if someone starts a dialogue then it becomes philosophy. That is unsound reasoning. That I think that for philosophy dialogue is required does not mean I hold that dialogue is the only condition that must be met. That I consider that all X must have property Y, does not imply that everything that has property Y is necessarily an X.
I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality." Is Taoism spiritualism? I'm willing to say it includes mysticism -The belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as self-awareness, intuition, or insight). It's fine if you decide that kind of philosophy is not your cup of tea, but it's unreasonable for you to claim it is not tea at all.
Are we talking about whether I am a philosopher - I've never claimed to be. I was talking about whether Taoism is philosophy.
Quoting Tobias
Philosophy is not the only method for learning how to think rigorously.
Philosophy is a social activity, but who do you keep company with? Even keeping company with books can be a social activity. More often than not, an author writes in order to be read, even if they are selective with regard to who the intended audience is. The dialogic nature of philosophical writing is not always apparent. Even if the author is not able to respond, a text can be interrogated, and the best philosophers often anticipate our questions and objections. The circle extends to other readers as well, and takes different forms including teacher/student relations, secondary literature, and more recently online forums.
As to the question of whether books are necessary, I know of no prominent philosopher at any time who did not read or hear the work of other philosophers. They do not simply read in order to know what others think but in order to think along with and against what they read.
This is clearly not true. You say "My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue..." @DingoJones gives counter-examples, which is a valid method of argumentation. You may be unconvinced, but I've heard that isn't the standard by which we should judge philosophy.
Quoting Tobias
I don't think we are talking about whether or not we are philosophers. We are talking about what philosophy is.
Quoting Tobias
Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin.
Quoting Tobias
A good case of the philosophical pot calling the philosophical kettle black.
Perhaps, but I think brings up an important point with the following quote, in that developing skills at communicating about philosophical topics requires relevant skill developing social experiences including exposure to unfamiliar ways of looking at things.
Quoting Tobias
I.e. two heads are better than one.
In its religious form, yes. Though you seemed to indicate that there's a philosophic form to Taoism which wouldn't. I'm not putting out necessary/sufficient conditions here because both categories are vague categories which require some amount of judgment to the particulars, and noticing that there are times when there's some amount of overlap between both. I stuck to Augustine and Martin Luther because I'm more familiar with them, and I'm more comfortable with dissecting my own religious tradition than others'. Taoism is something I really only know in passing, so it's easy to make mistakes with respect to how to categorize.
But surely you can see that just because the categories are vague that doesn't mean they are the same, yes?
I'm guessing that we could probably, just to make things even more confusing, even take what's considered a philosophical text and treat it in a spiritual manner. We could hold to the text as a truth because we find something deeply fulfilling about the text's relationship to our own life. That is we would no longer be doing philosophy then, either, though pinning down when is what will be a matter of judgment and some amount of drawing lines in the sand.
Now you're getting it! :D
True. I mean I consider what we do here to be a kind of relaxed philosophy, so even sharing here makes it "count" as philosophy in my way of thinking. It's not the venue as much as that it's shared at all.
That's a good point -- so there's at least two ways we might read a text: one in which we're reading it as a historical document, and the other in which we are reading it as a philosophy text to be thought through.
Did anyone in this discussion indicate or imply that this isn't true? I don't think so.
.and both are no more than mere experience. Philosophy is a system, and a system is not an experience, even if all experience is by means of it.
IknowIknowIknow .Im in the minority set, which I make up for by being boisterous about it. (Grin)
Not that I know of, but I saw Tobias' point as worth emphasizing.
Quoting T Clark
No, I was not referring to you specifically. Taoism may be philosophy. I do not know enough about it to say so.
Quoting T Clark
That is the same fallacy as Dingo committed. I am not saying that philosophy is the only discipline that requires rigorous analysis. Law, mathematics, actually every scientific endeavour does. I am saying rigorous analysis is a part of philosophy. It is actually what sets it apart from mysticism or faith. Mysticism does not require argumentation, but revelation.
Quoting T Clark
What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. People who contemplate life universe and everything on their own without engaging in argument do not do that. Sure Yogis, monks, bishops can and often were philosophers, but they were when they engaged in philosophy. Not when they contemplated on their own. It may be a definition question. You might say "everyone who thinks about philosophical questions is a philosopher". Fine, but completely unhelpful because everyone at one time or other thinks about philosophical questions.
Quoting T Clark
He wrote them down didn't he? If he never wrote his ideas down then no, he was not a scientist. He did and preserved them for others to read, presented arguments, proofs and what not and sure, because it made sense what he wrote, he was a scientist. Same with Dickenson, mutatis mutandis.
You've missed my point. I spent my career as an engineer formally and rigorously making and defending arguments very similar to the ones I do here on the forum. I didn't have to do professional level philosophy in order to gain that experience and skill.
Quoting Tobias
I make rigorous arguments about mysticism here on the forum all the time. It is one of the main subjects I'm interested in. Equating mysticism with faith is either a cheap rhetorical trick or a display of lack of understanding.
Quoting Tobias
As the comment you quoted from my post notes, @DingoJones did present a thesis and argue for it.
I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom.
Sure, but I never challenged you on that... There must be some kind of misunderstanding. I never addressed you in my posts as either a philosopher or not.
Quoting T Clark
Yes exactly... you make rigorous arguments about mysticism. At such moments one practices philosophy, not mysticism. I am a lawyer and I also write about law sometimes from a philosophical perspective. When I am practicing law I am not doin philosophy but law. When I write about a certain presupposition in the law I a doing philosophy of law. Philosophy of religion is a very worthy philosophical subject.
Quoting T Clark
The only posts of his I saw in this thread contained only a couple of lines and came down to the idea that whenever you wonder about a philosophical question you are doing philosophy. You can take that position, but I think it is inadequate. It makes everyone that wonders about some phil question from time to time a philosopher which makes the term as a term with which we differentiate among people and practices rather meaningless. It is like calling everyone who sometimes wonders about law a lawyer. Since we all wonder about law from time to time we are all lawyers.
I think the best way forward is to consider what philosophy consists of as opposed to other branches of thought and other disciplines, such as mysticism, art, religion, science, law etc. Then the question became whether philosophy is by necessity social. Well, philosophy had its origins in social praxis and dialogue. Early philosophical texts were set up as dialogues. A reason I guess why Banno referred to the symposium as its natural home. Of course we have drifted from it now and it is possible of course to have a truely natural talent who manages to think up everything from scratch. It is highly unlikely but of course possible. Normal human beings though need introduction to the practice just like they need introduction to the practice of law and of scientific enquiry. That was what the OP asked for, a method to do philosophy. Is sitting in your cave all by yourself adequate? No, unless you are the philosopher Hercules.
What is necessary is to engage with philosphers or at least an audience and explain your ideas in argumentative form. An oracle or a prophet is not a philosopher. A mystic gaining access to the truth by meditation is not a philosopher. Of course all these people can be philosophers as well as mystics. That happens when they translate their mystical experience in argumentative clear language and offers them to the community of philosophers for scrutiny and analysis. Again, it may be that someone produces PhD level work alone in a cave, but how likely is it? My thesis is that just pondering philosophical questions is not enough to qualify as a philosopher. You need to conform to some extent to the standards laid down in the philosophical community. Just like a child who draws is not yet an artist just by engaging in the artistic practice of drawing.
:up: :100: exactly!
Quoting Tobias
Exactly!
I hadn't expected the "What is philosophy?" question in setting out my method. I was hoping to avoid categorical questions in favor of something which is a little more helpful for people who are interested, but might benefit from some program or something like that. Not algorithmically, but just some guidance that sets someone on the right path to actually doing philosophy rather than things that look like philosophy but are not.
What is 'free and open enquiry'? We are always shaped, whatever method we choose even if we do not choose one. Seems to me to be part of the human condition. I do not know anything that is 'free and open'.
That seems sound. But sans method can we articulate any kind of approach without being at least partially subject to this concern?
There we go! That's the stuff. I had Against Method in the back of my mind in writing this, and began to wonder about the place of method in science (as pedagogical tool, as research program), and especially as pedagogy I think method has a place. Not The Method, but A Method among methods among non-methods. And in that looser sense I began to wonder about a method in philosophy, more along the lines of Stanislavski's method than an algorithmic or programmatic method.
Your final question is why I appended "Add a rule" -- because eventually one can add the rule that methods aren't everything, and let go of method entirely -- thereby building into the method an ability to let go of it when the training wheels are no longer needed.
It is a kind of play that is not determined in advance by how one should play. Some might object that wandering about is not productive, but where one might go and where it might lead and what one might find along the way has its own beauty.
My thinking reflects my character or temperament and includes the idea that rather than attempting to exclude such idiosyncrasies they should be recognized and admitted as being at the heart of what philosophy is for me. This is not to say that they should be accepted as whatever they are, but rather as material to work with, to alter and develop. The goal is not some abstract ideal of universal objectivity but self-knowledge.
Here I would emphasize the productive aspect of knowledge - to make or produce. We must work with what we have. The question arises as to how best to work with and cultivate my rebellious and anarchic, anti-methodical temperament.
In the long run I tend to believe that methods are for training, and not for production. There's no method for making methods, right? So someone has to be the method-maker, if methods are applicable at all, and that person will simply be doing creative exploration as to what's best rather than following a method to generate methods. (or, if we're incredibly method-phillic, the buck will stop somewhere with the original method writer who wrote the method on writing methods on method writing :D)
And you're right to point out that we must begin somewhere, and sometimes that somewhere is rebellious, anarchic, or anti-methodical. In which case offering methods would preclude a kind of philosophy from the outset, and that kind of philosophy would be perfect for those of a rebellious, anarchic, or anti-methodical spirit given that philosophy deals with knowledge of the self. (more or less you'd be turning away the openly inquisitive from the outset by insisting upon methods as discipline)
How would you answer your own question? How best to work with and cultivate a rebellious, anarchic, and anti-methodical temperament?
I have developed a method for that ...
Seriously, I'l start with a point of clarification: by cultivate I mean manage, that is, not allow it to grow or increase uncontrolled.
Touching on the question raised by @Tobias, the dialogic nature of philosophy means that one should not simply accept or reject the work of the philosophers, but rather to remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions.
Well put! :100:
Ah OK. I thought, because you had said your nature that you were affirming it as a positive thing, which would certainly not get along with any sort of methodical approach (at least, a method which sets out step-wise, even loose steps, what to do). Whereas you're saying that it can be worked with, though the goal to ensure that it grows in a managed manner, is cultivated towards what is good. (Also, I want to note that I read "anarchy" in a positive light at first, furthing the confusion)
Which brings my mind around to the other way to counter method -- mentorship. Which @Tobias mentioned as well, and would get along with your closing. At least this is where my mind goes, but now I want to ask, since my first guess was wrong and so this one could be as well: Can one learn philosophy at all? And if so do you care to say more about that?
I'm quite impressed with this and have not heard many people with a philosophical education make these points so clearly.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. And I've sometimes wondered if there are answers without problems...
Can you say a little more about your idea of a method - what might this look like on the ground (in dot points, perhaps)?
If philosophy is a knowledge of the self, and a work on the self, and further the self is not an isolated, simple subject but is instead found in others', and further that this self cannot be elucidated by the modern methods of psychology (the self doesn't exist there), then acting theory is the most worked out theory of self-generation that I know of. Which is why I keep going back to Stanislavski as a kind of guide. Further he's even more appropriate for philosophy because Stanislavski wrote dialogues with the express intent that he didn't want to become the law giver of acting, but wanted to write some things that would help actors learn, reflect, and grow -- and in turn to add to what was written. That is he was a kind of philosopher of the theatre, and a natural teacher.
Though mentorship is naturally built into the theatre. It's impossible to do theatre without others, though you certainly practice your lines at home.
One of the downsides of mentorship, though it may just be a necessary downside, is that it makes the art more exclusive. Much of the time the arts of various kinds have been reserved for the children of the well-to-do, just like philosophy. Mentorship is possible within an institution supported, but many of the masses don't have that opportunity. I myself really just lucked out in meeting up with a mentor who was kind enough to help me in spite of not being a part of his institutional program (and, for all that, it's still coming under attack by the powers that be...). But I wonder to what extent is it possible to spread out the wisdom of philosophy to people who aren't so lucky?
So I land back on method in spite of myself.
I think of philosophy as a kind of art, though it's a unique one worth distinguishing.
Now I stopped reading books. I still do some reading, but it is really too little amount compared to past. I try to avoid complicated concepts, theories and systems.
I try to look at the problems from my own point view, my own reasoning and thinking, and compare with other peoples arguments, points and reasonings. So dialogues and discussions are always helpful.
Mostly my arguments tends to sound grotesque, simple and basic, but that is what I seem to be doing with philosophy recently.
in another place, we are having some dialogue about a book that is concerned with foundations, which I suspect is part of what philosophy is concerned with. I quote below the two axioms on which the formal system of the book is constructed.
George Spencer-Brown, The Laws of Form.
I make an illustrative implementation of these axioms in the following form, which is particularly relevant to your discussion.
Quoting unenlightened
I have to suggest that silence might at least be as good as declarations of not needing to convince, and so on, back and forth, and that this application might go some way to explaining the frustration that is commonly the result of enquiries into the nature and definition of philosophy.
What is an example of such a method? Socratic? Phenomenological? Seems that a method is like a recipe by way of presuppositions.
Fair point. You hooked me with your application of the book to this problem ;)
And yup I don't think we're disagreeing. Maybe that's what's hard about distinguishing philosophy, too -- we're so used to the engine being disagreement that continual agreement upon things that look disparate seems to run counter to what we usually call philosophy, and it may just be a case of the snake eating its own tail and becoming incoherent.
I'd say any of the offered lists here, and even the reactions to the lists, could be considered methods of the sort I'm thinking. There are philosophical methods, like the Socratic and the Phenomenological method, but I was thinking more pedagogically -- how to learn philosophy at all?
Please forgive the requote, but I think this a sound bit of advice worth highlighting. "Remaining open" is key!