Writing about philosophy: what are the basic standards and expectations?
It's pretty common for writers to write about writing, but what I'm interested in here is what do philosophers have to say about writing. Part of the reason why I question this is that sometimes, even from modern people, you read stuff like this (taken from @Pantagruel's thread):
Quoting Pantagruel
Hegel's ideas accrued a lot of fame overtime, but what exactly can we make of such a complex and multi-dimensional proposition? For me, to really get this, i would have to break it down word-for-word and ask a ton of questions, even for this very small section. People have criticized Aristotle's Metaphysics for being too impenetrable, but I think his Metaphysic's, even though I have only read a few small sections, is much more common-sensical than the above Hegel quote. Aristotle basically was the first of the Greeks to lay down our modern scientific process (feel free to attack and debate this...).
With writing in general, I think the most popular principal is concision: you try to take something you write and remove as many words as possible, getting a similar message across. However, many would argue that such an approach doesn't always work, especially when describing something complex.
To make the question more direct and concrete, what philosophy writing will make your writing survive better through the ages, what philosophy writing will receive little in the way of fame, praise, or hostility? I'm not assuming that the former is a good thing on its own, yet what survives and doesn't is still something to consider. For example, The Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad are all approaching 2,000 years old, and more recent figures will probably never reach their levels of fame (except perhaps Adolf Hitler). People like Plato and Nietzsche are very familiar in philosophy circles, but their writings are not taught in any elementary school curriculum that I am aware of.
Quoting Pantagruel
§ 465. Intelligence is recognitive: it cognises an intuition, but only because that intuition is already its own (§ 454); and in the name it re-discovers the fact (§ 462): but now it finds its universal in the double signification of the universal as such, and of the universal as immediate or as being, finds i.e. the genuine universal which is its own unity overlapping and including its other, viz. being. Thus intelligence is explicitly, and on its own part cognitive: virtually it is the universal, its product (the thought) is the thing: it is a plain identity of subjective and objective. It knows that what is thought, is, and that what is, only is in so far as it is a thought (§ 521); the thinking of intelligence is to have thoughts: these are as its content and object.
Hegel's ideas accrued a lot of fame overtime, but what exactly can we make of such a complex and multi-dimensional proposition? For me, to really get this, i would have to break it down word-for-word and ask a ton of questions, even for this very small section. People have criticized Aristotle's Metaphysics for being too impenetrable, but I think his Metaphysic's, even though I have only read a few small sections, is much more common-sensical than the above Hegel quote. Aristotle basically was the first of the Greeks to lay down our modern scientific process (feel free to attack and debate this...).
With writing in general, I think the most popular principal is concision: you try to take something you write and remove as many words as possible, getting a similar message across. However, many would argue that such an approach doesn't always work, especially when describing something complex.
To make the question more direct and concrete, what philosophy writing will make your writing survive better through the ages, what philosophy writing will receive little in the way of fame, praise, or hostility? I'm not assuming that the former is a good thing on its own, yet what survives and doesn't is still something to consider. For example, The Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad are all approaching 2,000 years old, and more recent figures will probably never reach their levels of fame (except perhaps Adolf Hitler). People like Plato and Nietzsche are very familiar in philosophy circles, but their writings are not taught in any elementary school curriculum that I am aware of.
Comments (69)
So how to read them? I confess, I'm more of a philosopher that creates, not a fan of reading other people's works. I've done it many times and often times its an exercise in frustration. Here are a few things to help.
1. Try to nail the definitions down as soon as possible. Things like 'intuition' in Hegel's time and language are not the way most people use intuition today. Articles can help with this, but be careful. Many philosophers may start with a clear definition but quickly muddy it as they continue in their works. So always be aware of the context of what they are saying.
2. Do not over analyze one paragraph or piece. Analyze the full scope of the work. Often times a philosopher's work is a journey in itself. They may start one place and the initial reading seems like its X, but by the time you get to the end you realize they were really trying to end at Y all along.
3. Do not ever elevate the work because of the author. It does not matter that other people think this person deserves a spot light in philosophy. There are countless reasons for other people praising a work, and because we are human, it sometimes has nothing to do with the actual argument of the work itself. The argument is all that matters. Pretend its some guy on the street telling you the idea. If the argument is actually good on its merits and not merely because it hit a cultural niche at the time, you'll see how good it is yourself.
4. Understand that some philosophy is historical, but has been completely invalidated by modern day understanding. I advice you approach these as a fan or someone with historical curiosity only. Spending time on an old and outdated work is only for the biggest of fans, but is an entertainment exercise only.
5. Do not waste time on philosophical reading that has poor language, definitions, or easily disproven premises. I am amazed at the amount of people who will spend hours analyzing a piece of work that is invalidated within the first opening chapter of the discussion.
Yes indeed. I would go further and say that the philosophy is in that journey, not in its conclusions or theses.
Otherwise your post is mostly bad advice.
Also OP avoid trolls that contribute nothing to the discussion but insults. A person who is open to discussion may disagree with your points, but they'll address them and provide counterpoints if they're being honest with you.
That's an excellent approach, and i commend your clear and sectioned response. Writing is not easy. I wrote a book of poetry years ago, but it took me regular discussions and test runs with a poetry group before I had enough material for a book.
I guess the hardest part with philosophy is that it's harder to be original and also communicable. We have inhereted a rationalist/secular mentality that allows us to come to easy conclusions quickly. For example, my response to the "all belief is irrational" thread was original in wording, but very similar to all the other critics who participated in terms of finding the error in the OP.
I'm currently more interested in the history of philosophy at the moment than I am in writing a book or internet essay for this reason...i recently wrote an alternative position to free will, determinism, and compatibilism, but i just don't know how to polish it so that others will get where I am coming from. The satisfaction of coining a new term for a position is not trivial, but that's not nearly enough for sharing it...sometimes i'm impressed with the knowledge people have on here about philosophy positions, but in the end we are all just coming from different vantage points.
I have been reading this particular Hegel for 6 weeks and it will be several more before I finish it. I reread those sections several times. There is a certain kind of familiarity with concepts and lingo that is required, but even then you can't beat re-reading and asking questions. It is good that it is provocative I think.
Ill talk about the quality of writing, not necessarily the quality of the ideas, although I guess its not easy to separate them. Theres a quote I read somewhere that I cant find again. Ill paraphrase itClarity is so important and so unusual, it is often mistaken for truth. Heres another Clarity means expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious youre wrong.
So clarity. Im pretty smart. I should be able to figure out what youre trying to say and whether I agree with it. Reality is not all that complicated. If you cant describe it so a reasonably intelligent adult can understand it, I question the value of what you have to say.
Ill think about it and see if I can come up with anything else.
Thank you for your kind words.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Well said. I've written many original philosophical works over the years, and coming up with the correct vocabulary to describe an idea is half the battle. Language needs iterations and steps. Too little and someone will tell you, "That's not what the word means." And they're right. Too much and they won't understand the concept. Its a difficult balance.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
True, you may see that, but do others? And that's the frustrating part. We see our own ideas clearly but they can get lost in translation. At the least it has made me more sympathetic to people who seem to miss the initial point. As long as the poster is acting in good faith, I try to assume its that I need to refine my point, not that they 'don't get it'.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I fully understand. Part of reading other philosophical history is to learn 'the lingo'. Sometimes arguments are historical, and without that historical context a lot of meaning is lost in the writing. If it helps, I really work to get the main idea out of what is being stated. A lot of philosophical argument start with strong premises that are built upon. It is the building where the scaffolding often starts to show its cracks. But beware! If you enter into the lingo and terminology of another philosopher, you are often stuck there. Being able to extract the ideas from the terminology and put them into approachable terms for a modern day and generic audience allows you to build in the direction you want to go without the restriction of their narrow vocabulary and concepts.
Finally, don't be too intimidated to share. You'll spend years refining it, posting it, and it likely being ignored or having a few people ignore what you're saying to tell you things they believe. Post your heart. Ignore the one's who don't give it the proper read that it deserves and forge onwards. Hopefully you'll find one or two people who really read it and can converse with you. Don't worry if its not perfect. Post it as a conversation topic and see what others think.
Quoting Philosophim
In my experience, failure to agree on definitions at the beginning is the primary reason for the failure of discussions here on the forum.
Quoting Philosophim
I dont actually disagree with this, but I sometimes find it useful to bring in the words of well-known philosophers as a way of showing that a particular idea is not that far out of the mainstream.
Quoting Philosophim
Im not sure exactly how to take this. Seems to me were still arguing about the same things Aristotle and Confucius did.
I'll second that
Yes, many are still relevant, but some are not. Leibniz' Monads for example. Older philosophy of mind theories that have been invalidated by neuroscience.
There are great works out there in which an academic interpreter was speaking for someone else, yet, for it to be memorable, it has to do more than that. For example, I think Walter Kaufman was the best Nietzsche translator. I've read plenty of the other english translations as well; part of what allowed me to read N's provocative works with confidence and pleasure is that Kaufman explains a lot of the errors that N oppponents make, and points genuine flaws in his reasoning. The hollingdale translations came later and "won" historically, but I think Kaufman's selections in translation style reflect more of a holistic attention to Nietzsche's works (rather than just picking and choosing the right words and leaving footnotes, which is the way hollingdale's translations looks to me at times...). Like philosophism pointed out, the language barrier is a whole other issue in itself, so in the end there can't be a superior Nietzsche translator...the hollingdale, kaufman, and stanford press editions are all sufficient at least for discussion.
there is a cyclical current to debate, even though there are indeed some things that science has clearly proven to be false or invalid.
Quoting Philosophim
Fair. I am a snotty troll occasionally.
I may try to respond to the OP directly later---I have things to say---but first I'll address the three most objectionable points of @Philosophim's post. I think my responses to them will go some way to answering your questions.
Quoting Philosophim
This is lacking in nuance. On the one hand, yes, it is supremely anti-philosophical to sanctify works of philosophy and expect their canonical status to confer persuasive power in argument; an argument from authority is indeed a fallacy. On the other hand, no, Kant, Plato, et al are not just "guys on the street". They are people who took part in a conversation spanning centuries and cannot be understood when removed from that context. And their work is not reducible to isolated arguments, because it relies on a conceptual framework made up of their own wider body of work and their engagement with the tradition and with their peers.
On first reading Plato we might think that Socrates is annoying and manipulative, and often just really bad at making arguments---and what's worse, his interlocutors hardly ever push back! It requires humility and patience for us to move past this, to realize that this initial reaction is due to ignorance, and to see that Plato and Socrates are not so obviously wrong as you think. When one makes the effort to study these works of philosophy, putting them in the right context so as to understand the arguments, then one is doing philosophy: opening oneself up to learning from others.
You have to understand an argument before passing judgment on it; its premises, terms, and motivations have a context that makes any simplified reconstruction of the argument controversial. There is no substitute for studying the text and, with the help of others, coming to your own view.
And we should avoid the contradiction of thinking simultaneously that (a) it's not worth studying Plato and Aristotle because we refuse the canonical authority of philosophical texts; and (b) relying on the authority of secondary literature to tell us what is in those texts!
But why read them at all? Why should we treat them with such respect just because people say they're "Great"? The reason is their fertility: for hundreds or thousands of years, ideas have grown from them. They have provoked reactions from the most philosphically minded people. They have been found to be endlessly interesting. This is not just because people say they're great, but also because of their own special qualities. On top of that, this all means that culture is built on them, so intervening intellectually in culture (having an intellectual debate) happens in terms of their ideas, whether you know it or not.
One thing that philosophers are remembered and continue to be studied for is the way they can redirect thought by transforming the terms of discussion. To reduce this series of dynamic interactive historical interventions to isolated arguments is to misunderstand what philosophy is.
Philosophy is an ongoing conversation and an experience. You do not understand what you are saying until you understand how the terms you are using have been used in the past, and you don't understand that until you read the philosophers and immerse yourself in the experience of others.
This suggests a picture of philosophy as a series of refutations leading to the culmination of the 21st century, in which we are closer to the truth than ever. Nobody who has studied the history of philosophy could seriously maintain this view. Philosophy does not proceed by refutation, since whether a single philosopher's refutation actually works is itself a philosophical problem with no possibility of external verification. Idealism, materialism, and scepticism live on even after they have been "refuted" a thousand times. What changes are frameworks, motivations, interpretations, and interests.
Or else there's the idea that philosophy is like natural science, progressing through empirical discovery. It's true that some philosophy relied on incorrect explanations of empirical phenomena, but it doesn't follow that studying it is just an "entertainment exercise". There are many reasons to study Aristotle's Physics even though there's a lot in it that's wrong. For example, we understand ourselves and the ideas that have power in our society by understanding the precise way in which the Scientific Revolution overturned Aristotle and shaped the Enlightenment.
And who says a particular philosophy is outdated? And are you sure it's outdated? Might you be persuaded to question that view---you know, philosophically? It was once thought that the ethics of ancient Greece was completely superseded by utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, but then virtue ethics made a comeback in the late 20th century. This kind of thing happens all the time.
Philosophers struggle to express, and they handle this in different ways. Wittgenstein is superficially plain, but his prose embodies painful mental struggle. Others, like Adorno (I may come to him in another post, because he has quite a lot to say about philosophical writing) believed that language had been corrupted by the modern age and that the only way to properly express philosophical experience in writing is creatively, with a density on the level of poetry.
The need for definitions is another problem. It's absurd to answer the question "What is justice?" with "Define justice." This is not only evasive but asks the first speaker to state what they think justice is, and that's supposed to be the very topic under discussion. The same goes for "Is time real?" Asking the questioner to define time first is to miss the point, since any relevant definition of time has its reality or unreality baked into it.
Definitions fix meaning, but philosophy is inquiry into meaning. Definitions are more akin to what philosophy aims towards. Clear and definite thoughts are not necessarily achieved through clear and definite writing, but towards the end of the struggle.
However, a definition certainly can be a useful starting point, precisely insofar as its inadequacy shows us something about the meaning of the concept. This is why Socrates begins in the Republic by extracting a definition of justice from Cephalus's casual chat.
As for errors, they can be reavealing. There are inconsistencies in the Critique of Pure Reason. But whether they really are inconsistencies and what they mean either way is up for debate. And this debate is not a waste of time as claimed by @Philosophim, but can reveal underlying insights struggling to break through.
Generally, @Philosophim's philosophical attitude is instrumental and biased in favour of the present. I don't think these are good attitudes for philosophy. Philosophy is interpretive, and consists of dialogue, whether this is direct or in the form of written works reacting to each other.
It is also meant to be reflective. The tempting attitude that you know better than the ancients is a distinctly unreflective one. To think of the philosophers of the past as merely less advanced stages on the road to the present unreflectively favours one's own contingent conceptual framework without trying to inhabit that of the past: what seems obvious to you now may only seem so because of transient ideologies and conceptual habits. For example, the idea that consciousness is located in the head may seem obvious, but it's built on a whole host of historically mediated metaphysical commitments which might be wrong. The presumption that present-day thinking supplies the standard of truth is a fallacy.
The result of all this is that the interpretation of significant thinkers becomes impoverished. You cannot expect to find much in philosophy if you feel yourself to be in a privileged position, surveying the intellectual landscape from the highest point yet achieved. This kind of interpretation is hardly interpretation at all; it is projection, not understanding.
As I said, another problem with this view is its instrumentalism, the idea that old philosophers are only good insofar as we can productively and efficiently and without much labour put them to good use. This is a philosophy of capitalism, plainly. Again, where is the reflection here?
I think I heard most say Hobbes laid down the foundations of Modern Science.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I agree. I like the way Kant put it in COPR (not that I memorised verbatim). He said in trying to say somethign precisely we can make it fairly obtuse. I also like Husserl's approach about diving into the 'obvious'.
If possible I think a multifacted approach is best. Be both concise and then back it up with greater detail where needed. I think of Heidegger here, as for me he wasted a lot of paper explaining concepts I already took to be obvious. I am certain there are texts out there I woudl read and need greater detail where others would not. This is just the nature of our own individual starting points.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
All I can say abotu this is that people come along and generally change the landscape of philosophy a little by reiterating those who came before them more concisely OR by applying old ideas for modern application, which can reveal something of quite unique interest.
I feel where we are the moment is in a state where too many people have too narrow a field of interest. I think we need more of Berlin's 'Foxes' who have a more comprehensive overview of various subjects, rather than being confined to their own little corners--often oblivious to how misguided some of their thoughts are.
To look deeper into this I think takigna page from writers of fiction could be of extreme use. Neitzsche was someone who broke the mould in some ways, but sadly I think too many recently have tried to mimic his approach instead of doing how he instructed--to rise above and discover yourself beyond yourself.
Ive tried to read philosophy many times over the years, but whether its Nietzsche or Plato, Ive never been able to make much sense of it or find it absorbing. Not everyone is suited to philosophy, and Id say Im one of those people. Im here mainly to get a sense of what Ive missed and to see what others think by putting forward questions that are sometimes naive and occasionally insolent. My framework is simple-minded curiosity, leaning toward modern secularism and perhaps a kind of unflinching instrumentalism. I have no problem being a creature of my times. :wink:
Exactly - to prevent the participants from talking past each other.
Quoting Philosophim
Right - don't cherry pick or else you're responding to a strawman.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Jamal
These philosophers didn't have any powers or skills that the rest of us don't have. They are products of their time and only useful to understand where we once were, but not where we are now. Engaging with peers is what we are doing here and on much greater scale than those guys could ever dream of. They did not have extra-sensory powers - or evidence to support any of their ideas. One idea without proof is just as valid as any other idea without proof. You would only choose one over the other because of personal preferences, or that it reinforces some idea you have already clamped onto. The only peers they could engage with are other people living in the same time. We also have the perspective of history - of understanding where we once were and where we are now - a view they had no hope of integrating into their own views.
Anyone can do philosophy. The difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy is the absence or presence of logical fallacies.
@ProtagoranSocratist I agree with most of what Jamal also posted here.
Quoting Jamal
I will add a little addition to this. In context, I agree with Jamal. But in isolation from this context, philosophy is often historical and built off of the philosopher's prior. For example, John Locke's ideas influence George Berkely, Gottfried Liebniz, and arguably David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Many times philosophers are responding to the vocabulary and ideas of previous philosophers. Understanding this can often be useful.
Quoting Jamal
This to me is completely reasonable for the philosophical historian. Just like a person who works out for a living is going to encourage you to exercise as much as possible, a philosophical historian is going to tell you to read as much as possible. If you have the time and passion for it, its a good reason to study them all.
Quoting Jamal
Jamal is completely correct in my viewpoint of philosophy. A philosophical historian is of course going to disagree with my viewpoint, and I respect that. We need philosophical historian attitudes to keep the availability of these works alive. They are the reason the field is still propped up, and why a forum like this exists.
Jamal may fail to realize my attitude is also needed for a healthy field of philosophy, as people like me are who push the field forward. Not that I'm claiming I have, but you need people focused on present day problems and issues to write the great works that will be examined years from now. I am more of a writer of philosophy, and I view reading philosophy as a means to further the ideas of today. I also understand many who come to this forum aren't interested in making philosophy their new hobby, but seeking out a few answers to some of the timeless questions that have bothered humanity over the years.
For example, I have written quite a few original works over the years, and you may find them interesting.
What are the things we can logically conclude about the universe's origins?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
An initial intro into what logically an objective morality must have at its core.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1
And probably my proudest achievement, a working theory of knowledge that solves the problem of induction:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1
Your OP was a good one, and as you can see there are a few ways to address and view philosophy. Regardless of which works for you, I hope you find some enjoyment and new outlooks by exploring the field.
. many a book would have been much clearer, if it had not been intended to be so very clear .
(Axix)
Hes talking about the overabundance of examples used to vastly belabor a point that should have been easily comprehended without them. Sometimes, though, given the complexity of the subject, even the examples need examples.
He devotes four pages to why his own philosophical writing is so dense for some, and open to positive or negative criticism by others, and for both, he makes no excuse.
With respect to the thread title, his basic standard for philosophical writing is, . two indispensable conditions, which any one who undertakes so difficult a task ( ) is bound to fulfil. These conditions are certitude and clearness .
That's a wonderful quote. And he's quite right.
Well - some philosophers of certain traditions seem to me to speak gobbledygook (the postmodernists: Derrida, Lacan, Deleuze, Kristeva, Guatarri, etc.) so no amount of more writing - or less, would help much.
Yeah, well, you know .in the interest of certitude and clearness, perhaps Kant might have been better off shying away from his notoriously difficult paragraph-sized sentences.
Thank you for the kind words, Philosophim.
Quoting Philosophim
This doesn't quite capture my view, and I think it belittles the study of the philosophical tradition. You are contrasting yourself, a pioneer at the cutting edge, with what you call the "philosophical historian". But I do not accept this division of labour, and I think it's self-serving, justifying your choice to leave the study of the philosophical tradition to specialist "historians".
My point is a bit deeper. It is that all philosophy is imbued with history, but some of it isn't conscious of it or, like you, would prefer not to think of it. The upshot of what I'm saying is that the most original, pioneering philosophy is supremely conscious of the tradition. You don't get to escape.
I gave you a great example in my big post: virtue ethics. It was one of the biggest revolutions in philosophy of the 20th century, an idea for the present day, and yet it was built on ancient philosophy. So maybe you can see that the interest in the tradition is not just dabbling in history but is part of a serious effort to take thought in new directions.
True - though he admitted he did not have the gift for writing that Hume or Mendelsohn had.
Some of his writing in his Prolegomena is much better than his Critique material, but only in instances.
yes i think that can be a big, which is ultimately why I reject reddit as a source of philosophy information. It seemed to me that a lot of folks on the Nietzsche sub did not understand Nietzsche, even the ones clearly have read his works.
However, like I was trying to explain with the Hegel example, there also can't be anything wrong with refusing to read unnecessarily impenetrable texts. Reading difficult texts can be challenging, as if you're uncovering something special and going on an adventure, yet I simply can't read everything. I like to buy paperback books if it's something I intend to spend a lot of time thinking about, but I will probably never buy anything that was written by Hegel. I'd prefer some reliable academic explanation of what he was getting at....i think Coplestone will probably cover it briefly when I get to that era...
For example, Plato is pretty crucial for understanding philosophy history, yet you can go even further back, even though the texts are naturally more sparse. For example, there is a poem that was written by Parmenides: it's a decent poem and it does help you to understand his monism better.
Fair enough. Totally understandable. I'm into Marx and Adorno, two significantly Hegelian philosophers, and I haven't even read Hegel either (not much of him anyway). I'm thinking of tackling the Phenomenology next year. Maybe with a reading group here on TPF.
I'm assuming you're probably not into Max Stirner if you prefer Marx? He was also a Hegelian philosopher, yet in the end he expressed more interest in using the Hegelian dialectic to reject it.
Max Stirner was one of the origins for my current fascination with philosophy, even though i'm not a big fan of individualism per say (Max Stirner didn't call himself an individualist, even though his later advocates promoted individualism over collectivist ethical frameworks)
I keep seeing his name but I don't think I know anything about him.
Ah, that's how I know the name!
Theres this aphorism given by Einstein which I think works wonders: Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
To put it in terms of a formula, first consider three variables: A) the quality of the content (its depth, breadth, etc.) which one seeks to express, B) the quality of its expression, and C) the ability of the intended audience to grasp A via B. Next assume that all three variables can hold values ranging between 0 and 10, and further assume their relation is multiplicative. Were either A, B, or C to be zilch, 0, there would be no quality whatsoever to speak of. Much less anything resounding. On the opposite extreme, 10x10x10 would be the absolute best. Maybe not ever obtainable, but reaching toward an optimal value of A and B given what one presumes about C would be bound to give improved results.
As to expression, Id myself much rather that a philosophy be successfully expressed within the span of a single page, preferably via comic-book format (one that's really nicely colored). But this is bound to always be far simpler than is possible and would thereby result in a flunk.
and now I think you can grasp my frustrations with the nature of internet knowledge...
I'm familiar with Max Stirner himself, and in a shallow sense, the Stirner fan rejections of "The German Ideology", but I have little to no understanding (so far) of the broader, massive content related to historical philosophy. I'd prefer to take the very long walk consisting of years, that I will never fully complete, through historical philosophy (starting with the greeks) than just become a specialist in a particular school of knowledge (like epistemology, Hegelian dialectics, Stirner reddit fandom, etc...).
Yes, Prolegomena is much friendlier.
Ironic, innit? Same guy ..700-odd page book on very complicated subject with a short simple title, mere 5-page essay on roughly that same subject, greatly simplified, but with a title damn near a foot long.
My apologies for not adequately capturing your view, I will leave that to you then. It was also not my intention to belittle your viewpoint. I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, and that is valuable and valid. Mine is a more liberal view. I do not believe my view invalidates your view, nor does your view invalidate mine. I think they are both viable approaches to the field of philosophy. Fair if you disagree, its an opinion of mine.
Well I've never been called that before!
Since, as I pointed out, the study of the tradition is not the worship of texts but is part of an effort to take thinking in new directions, I don't see how it can be described as conservative. On the contrary, the conservative way of doing philosophy is to follow what seems obvious to you, such that you think you don't need to refer to the work that's been done on the topic (whatever it might be). In my opinion this lacks the engagement with the philosophical conversation and the self-critical attitude necessary to think original thoughts.
But you do you, as they say :up:
I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. This is part of the reason why i tend to avoid the "liberal" and "conservative" dichotomies unless I'm referring to ideas in politics, otherwise i feel either one of the terms is confusing. There's also "liberal usage" and "conservative usage", but i rarely use those terms when talking to other people.
I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies.
I did say amusing
that's an interesting way to look at what he was calling for, because it usually gets simplified into "self-overcoming", which re-inforces the self-help mentality of changing yourself to fit the logic of success and productivity, but that's not really what Nietzsche was getting at...i think getting to know yourself better has more relevance to what Nietzsche was actually promoting. For me, he's probably the philosopher i've had the most fun exploring so far, I intend to eventually read english translations of everything [available] that he wrote...and even reading it all again...
Who is your intended audience?
A habilitation committee at a university?
The editor of Philosophy Now?
The editor of Reader's Digest?
People who post a lot on Twitter?
People at an online philosophy forum?
Your family at a dinner table?
Who?
For what reason are you trying to present your philosophical thoughts to some particular audience?
If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making.
not if i'm also just trying to learn about the subject matter myself; i never meant to imply that writing something for others is an emergency, even though i do have vague interest in it. Part of the issue is that the audience is much more vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. I don't like twitter/x and social media culture in general.
Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher.
But you're not really engaging with main thing i'm wondering. You're bringing up status and philosophy as a carreer as having influence over the writing and fame making: how do those effect the attention given to a text? Which philosophers gain recognition without university assistance? Sometimes I conclude "none", but this is just an assumption.
If you take the sides of the coin to their landed ends, yes. Jamal isn't fully stating that only academic structures should be considered, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be familiar with the subject material you're trying to write about. Depending on your personality you may wobble on one side of the coin over the other, but keep the coin spinning at all times.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Exactly. I hope Jamal and I have been able to show you different approaches that can be used depending on your needs and wants in exploring philosophy. Enjoy exploring regardless!
Im here assuming that by university assistance youre referring to holding a doctorate in philosophy, and the networking that then goes hand in hand with it.
While a higher education in philosophy certainty can help, there are examples of philosophers who shook the world, so to speak, that dont fit this model. From a quick online search:
In ancient times, there was Diogenes (ancient cynicism), Epictetus (ancient stoicism), and Socrates (on whom the Academy was founded). In more recent times, there was Hume (never graduated from a university), Nietzsche (did not obtain a doctorate), Whitehead (had no advanced training in philosophy), and Wittgenstein (his higher education was not in philosophy). And Easterners have their own, such as Confucius.
In many a sense, it can be likened to being a good and successful artist: education in the arts certainly benefits but education of itself does not determine who the talented artists are, and some have no degrees in this field. Like him or not, Salvador Dali comes to mind (he was expelled twice from the academy and never completed his degree). Likewise can also be said with the good, historically important novelists.
All this to illustrate that the philosophical knowledge which higher education has to offer in no way equates to the philosophical understanding required to become a significant philosopher. But, again, this is not to then deny the importance of knowledge in the field.
this is really the only thing that matters in all of this, making the connections needed so that other people "carry your torch" so to speak. In some ways fame is pretty insignificant and not worth it, but those who come up with ideas they want to share usually want a little bit of recognition for it, even if it's just in the form of having some conversations with people who read their book. The mechanics behind all this are what interested me in making this discussion.
Are you saying this is the only thing that matters to you or to the subject at hand as laid out in the OP?
Plenty of fluff out there that gets far more fame than the meaningful stuff via our modern-day meme-transferring online networking. Which, to me, is a pretty big shame. Lotuses that get drowned out in filth on account of the filth having far more connections.
------------
For other people to carry your torch
A proposal I dont yet think is possible to debunk: philosophy either aims at exhibiting deeper truths or else it is utter sophistic BS purporting to do the same but with ulterior egotistic motives.
While the expressions of these deeper truths might be yours, this due to you being the creator of these expressions, the deeper truths themselves are as much yours as is the solid earth beneath our feet, which is to say theyre no more yours than anyone elses. A philosopher might want for others to carry the torch of the deeper truths they desired exhibited to the world, but this wouldnt be their torch, for deeper truths (which thereby apply to many if not all) are not something people fabricate and can thereby claim ownership of. (The latter, fabricated truths, commonly go by the term lies.)
Im guesstimating, and maybe nitpicking, but maybe instead of carry your torch you intended that a philosopher would like for others to carry the torch? This just as the Olympic torch that gets carried from place to place doesnt belong to any one originating person.
For example, you mention this interesting issue:
Quoting javra
If I had to guess, philosophers who really took the content they were writing very seriously (like Plato) are the ones who have lasting fame. I'm thinking about how to tell the difference between the sophistic BS and the "deeper truth" philosophers, I'd appreciate if you elaborated because I don't know what you mean entirely. I think some deeper truths tend to get brushed aside either because people don't want to hear them or don't understand their importance. What makes a truth more important than another truth?
It is true that a lot of writers in general acquire fame through lying and sophistry, and while they're using guaranteed money-making formulas, much of the content those people write will be forgotten by people who take ideas seriously centuries (or even decades) later. The figurative torch, whether it's phrased as "the torch" or "your/my torch" is what's important to the writer. If only money is important to the writer, then the ideas themselves may not have the lasting interest, even if they can be identified as rhetorical tools.
I can easily think of political writers who were only trying to make money, but what are recent examples of pop philosophers who are merely using rhetorical tricks to gain attention and make a quick profit? IMO, the original greek sophists are a little more interesting (like Protagoras), because they were more explicit in talking about using speech or writing as a smoke-in-mirrors project, and going for effect instead of trying to question how we think of things or improve moral reasoning.
The amount of evidence that supports it.
Every philosophical idea without evidence is just as valid as every other idea without evidence.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Yeah, I think we should be taking what others say with a grain of salt when saying what they say it is how they make a living, instead of seeking truth.
well that can be arranged ;) Especially when everyone has billions of talking points and facts at their fingertips...
Well, to start off, what I was saying is that there is philosophical fluff that drowns out the good quality non-fluff philosophy in today's connected world. Fluff, then, is not sophistic BS but merely superficial and in due degree inconsequential. Examples of fluff can be readily found in the self-help department, such as in, for example, "How the Buddha would Date" (from best recollections): utterly superficial and forgettable philosophy that nevertheless sells. But not necessarily sophistic BS. The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do
As to what makes a truth more important than another: the more trivial the truth (e.g., the truth that up is not down), the less important its exhibiting to the public at large is. Conversely, the more exhibited truths light the way in places of darkness (i.e., bring understanding into places previously replete with unknowns and thus filled with displeasing uncertainties), the more important these truths become.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I now had to look up the darned book: If the Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path In truth, never read it. Got it as a present from someone who did. It looks, sounds, and feels like fluff to me, so ... I presume it is. But it does have a lot of good reviews and plenty of sales. Will it be forgotten in a hundred years? Most likely.
if i am ever to write philosophy, with my real name on the cover, that's exactly what i would like to do, even though it might never happen just because i have so many interests...
So I guess pop philosophy something that an academic would not call philosophy, like political rhetoric and self-help? I'm a little disappointed as I was hoping that you would maybe come up with something you regard as shallow and sophistic in formal, modern day philosophy...but this an issue inherent to wanting to separate true philosophy from false philosophy, more or less.
Ever heard of the book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe"? (Wikipedia reference). This I've read. It's got some interesting points, with empirical evidence and all, but, philosophically, it is very shallow and at least borders on utilizing sophistic rhetorical strategies. This is a prime example, to me at least, of modern day philosophy that ain't all that philosophically astute.
Another good example of the same is: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss
However, it's definitely not perfect: @Jamal already pointed out potential issues with totally separating arguments from the person speaking, but here's a couple of other things I think should be scrutinized as well:
Quoting Philosophim
This is actually poor form in a lot of contexts; all writers of books other than dictionaries and text books know that they rely on the readers to have a partially-shared understanding of the words used in the book already. The meanings/understandings that the readers already possess are just as valuable as your desire to create meaning or coin new terms.
One thing I realized in the process of writing my first book was that writing is about a lot more than the word choices: it's also about structure and psychology. You structure your ideas to get your ideas across effectively (at least this is how you look at it for a non-fiction genre like philosophy), without the confusion...and minimized misinterpretation (but you can't get rid of this entirely, as some of the best writers are misinterpreted), and the psychology is needed for trying to figure out how people will respond to your text before you hit the "send" button.
However, the psychology aspect is probably the least important part of my narrative, because part of the joy of writing is in testing how publishers and casual readers of your work will receive it.
Quoting Philosophim
Sure, there are some sources you should not trust for information based on snap judgements, but the way you phrase it doesn't work as a guideline...at least not for me. For example, who can really agree on examples of "poor language"? It seems rather loaded...sometimes people understand statements spoken with bad grammar better than they understand statements made with good grammar. In colloquial speech, people tend to use poor grammar and break the teacher's rules all the time. If you break the official rules of language in a clever way, sometimes people commend the creativity. Coining terms and violating grammar rules are both a process of creating new meanings. If you can't create your own meaning, then I feel sorry for you, because this is the best power that spoken words and writing can have.
Also, "proof" tends to be over-rated, and proving superiority to others doesn't have any value within itself besides the thrill of winning. Superiority doesn't hold any water in the long run, because if you do manage to impress someone so that they stick around, then in the future they'll figure out some way to best/humiliate you in front of others as well. The "easily disproven" premise is too subjective to really illuminate problems with a text. For example, me and @javra discussed books which are written for the sole intent of making money, and mostly do not have lasting philosophical teachings. One example they gave was a self-help book called "If the Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path".
When i finally found a free copy of the book to download, I read through the introductory material: it was regurgitated nonsense on "having compassion", and i thought it was boring and uninteresting. I asked myself why she would be writing buddhist romantic advice when "the Buddha" was an ascetic, and probably wouldn't have dated anyone anyways, and as I flipped through trying to find out what a "buddha date" look like, I got my previous suspicions thrown back at me from the writer herself:
But is this proof that "the Buddha" never went on a date? Is it even proof that people from that period thought about dating in a different way? Absolutely not. No, nothing has been proven here, but it doesn't even matter, as the purpose of self-help books seems to be similar to the purpose of scams. Self-help books are all about making vague promises to the reader and not making good on the promise, whereas scams tend to be about making specific promises to the mark, but still not making good on the promise.
Also, ask yourself this: so if "the Buddha" really lived in a time period where people couldn't chase after each other or find mates, then why did he comment so much on the passions, and proper/improper sexual conduct? Even modern buddhists tend to discuss sexuality in moral terms, so if people had absolutely no sexual agency in this time period, as the writer seems to imply, then how could her assertion about history have any truth to it? I don't need any proof to understand this as a statement not worth considering, just a little bit of logical deduction and firsthand experience with human sexual behavior and biases. It seems obvious that people speaking in sanskrit and pali did not use the word "date" as those languages are radically different from english, ill giver her that much...but it's still possible that ancient culture had some version of courtship described with different words.
Anyways, i digress: the truth is that proof in philosophy doesn't have much relevance, it has more relevance in science, mathematics, and the court system. It's even over-rated in the court system: sometimes the police make their own evidence by threatening suspects into making incriminating statements or confessing..."proof" is completely subject to fabrication and denial.
Thank you, that's kind. :)
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
In terms of casual and emotional philosophy, you're completely correct. What you're often times appealing to is the context of human emotion. Its not as important to describe the dimensions of an Oak chair, and often times the writing is an interplay between the reader's mind and the writer's provided work. Such writing is never a solo enterprise, and it will likely be a unique experience for different individuals.
While I agree that philosophy can be entertaining, emotional, and subjective, what I was referencing is objective philosophy. This philosophy is not intended to be entertaining or play on the reader's imagination. It is a logic puzzle. A carefully crafted set of definitions that build into what the author will claim is a certain conclusion.
Most of your famous philosophers follow this model more closely. Its the careful construction of definitions with a particular meaning in the context of the paper that builds to a certain conclusion. In this way, the writing is not about one's own subjective interpretation. It is a carefully crafted blueprint that if followed to a T, promises a solid house. In writing like this a reader has to be very careful not to put their own intent in words that the writer is not intending. It is essential that the terminology in such writing be understood for the reader to fully understand the philosopher's point. It is this type of philosophy that requires the vocabulary be solid and understood or else the whole enterprise may fall apart.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
A well stated point, and you are right that 'poor language' is well, 'poorly worded in its intent'. The example you give is what I would consider well worded in intent. Good objective philosophy will have clear and unambiguous intent with its phrasing and terminology. If someone is trying to build a house, unclear vocabulary and writing are often examples of a writer who's trying to fudge their logic to get to the conclusion they want because if they don't they'll arrive at a different destination.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I agree that using a discussion to assert superiority is an indicator of an inferior individual. :D The philosophy I'm referencing is someone who is trying to build an objective solution to problems like ethics, knowledge, or ontology. The goal is not to assert personal superiority. In fact, they don't matter to the argument at all. The argument is the point itself. An offered tool and solution for others to gain wisdom for the benefit of their own life.
Let me give you an example of my own writing. This is about what knowledge is, and which inductions are most reasonable to use in your life.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1
This one is a little less fun (I'm a terrible salesperson) but fits more of the objective model I was noting where definitions and arguments must be carefully made. This is about the logic of what the universe's start had to be (Not a God argument)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1
Read them if you want or not. But they are my approach as I've attempted to embody rather than describe.
ah: if that's what you're going for, you might want to read about this particular school of philosophy...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Megarian-school
...and take some time to explore the conundrums they present.
You keep bringing up being "objective", but that's more in line with the realm of research science and mathematics. I think this is an important distinction, because philosophers rarely cite statistics to back up their claims, or use objective evidence in this manner. They use citations, and this is good, but the purpose is usually not to prove anything, philosophy citations are normally used to reference other written works as a courtesy to the reader (or not use citations at all, as is the case with tons of writers).
Logic puzzles aren't objective, it's just you presenting a made up logic because you find it to be pleasurable or interesting. A good paradox is among my favorites...
For example, consider this statement: "I am a liar". Let's say, i'm telling the truth, that i make a habit of lying, but then this would automatically reveal the statement as a lie as well, canceling it out because for once i've told the truth. But then let's say this isn't true, and i actually am an honest person...so then the statement I made about me being a liar is a lie, which confirms that i'm not honest, and the logic circle repeats again.
That's a greek paradox, but i personally think the Zeno tortoise-and-stadium example is stupid and makes weird assumptions right from the start, but that is just my opinion, and Zeno himself clearly disagreed.
I see that you want to build figurative structures based on ideas, and this is the case for all writing. The difference for each type of writing is the intent. For example, a novelist doesn't care about presenting an argument or house of ideas, they just want to please the imagination of the reader, and keep them flipping pages till the end of the story. A poet's individual poems aren't necessarily connected in the structure of their book, but each poem is a miniature structure of their own, them wanting to say as much as possible with only a few words...
If arguments depend on the speakers social or historical position, then we lose the ability to evaluate them universally. Philosophy then risks collapsing into a collection of private worldviews rather than a shared inquiry into truth. An intellectually honest philosophical debate entails reasoning together. Objectivity isnt a view from nowhere, its what survives open criticism from many somewheres.
One's social and historical position only matters when that is the focus of the discussion, but in discussions that involve reality as a whole, or if you are making an argument about how things are for everyone in all cultures and all times (like science, but unlike religion and cultural norms) - regardless of their own beliefs - then you are no longer using your own social and historical position to make the argument.
It's hard to predict. Hume was basically ignored until after his death, he was known mostly as a historian. Not too disimilar from Leibniz who was marginalized and mocked - save a few exceptions like Kant or Schopenhauer- until Bertrand Russell brought him back from the trenches of history with his book on Leibniz.
We have Plato because we got lucky, somehow his body of work survived. I believe we lost 2/5's of Aristotle's writings, and we have almost nothing of the books he wanted to publish (in dialogue form), which were said to be "rivers of gold".
We have fragments of the pre-Socratics, again luck.
Herbert de Cherbury, one of the central antagonists of Locke, probably the one who caused him to write part I of his Essay, was because he was reacting to Cherbury. Ask if anyone knows about him today. Getting a copy of his book in English is difficult, to say the least.
Peirce we have because James and Dewey mentioned several times in writing and some people decided it was worth ordering his notes, otherwise we'd have mere articles.
C.I. Lewis, the person who brought in the term "qualia" into contemporary philosophy is barely known and he's quite interesting.
You get the idea. There are equal examples of people who were famous back in the day but are now relegated as historical curiosity. Just write what you find interesting, hope others like it. Not much more can be done. Much treasure has to be looked for, just as there is a lot of junk.
I personally don't want to be right, I want to be able to enjoy multiple perspectives, and come to my own conclusions, and sometimes not come to a conclusion at all. If I ever decide I have the right point of view, then this is my opinion, it's not objectively correct because such a way of describing an argument makes no sense to me.
Actually, those are references to standard Buddhist doctrine.
See the Index at Access To Insight, under "desire", for example.
Lotuses grow in the filth, and they kill everything else in the bodies of water where they grow. Ever seen how lotus leaves cover the whole surface, so that nothing else can grow? Ever seen the underside of a lotus leaf?
I said it depends on the audience with whom in mind you're writing.
If you're writing a children's book on some philosophical topic, the standards and expectations are going to be different than if you're writing a doctoral thesis, and so on.
Do you expect us to work out the details for each of those possible categories?
No, you're elaborating on what you said, but i didn't ask you or anyone to perform this task. I wasn't satisfied with your comment implying that i'm only a "would be" philosopher.
OK, why not, as well as references to common sense decency where some semblance of humility holds. (You wann'a go all Western religion/tradition about it, it's also what JC seems to have meant by "meekness" ... as in "the meek shall inherit the earth"... kind of like those small, warmblooded and furry rodent-like creatures did after the last great extinction of them oversized, pompous dinosaurs :grin: :wink: )
Quoting baker
Well, as far as poetic metaphors go, add some Hindu context to the expression and, yea, that's kind of part of the main point. Wouldn't it be swell if a nice lotus were to emerge from the swamps of filth so as to benefit all of humanity without exception, hence each human within their own perfectly individual contexts of existence (such that their own individual wants and needs get optimally satisfied), this rather than having humans suffer the swamps of filth (wherein nothing pleasing to anyone ever takes place) ad nauseam?
Put differently, is philosophy writ large about every ego perpetually being at odds with all other egos such that only filth results from the endeavor and interactions, as per in a mad house where everybody whats out? ... Or is it about best arriving at a communally-endorsed understanding of the world, of being itself even, which is accordant to all known facts while assisting all sapient beings in actualizing their individual purposes? This such that the filth no longer occurs due to this new understanding's growth. Yes, yes, the latter can all to easily be misinterpreted as endorsing and requiring authoritarianism; but, then, this would not only be contradictory to what was just explicitly stated in this paragraph but also to the aforementioned notion of common sense decency in the face of the first quote within this post. And yes, we all at times have our cockish authoritarian turns (some a hell of a lot more than others), but this too speaks to the same ideal of philosophy to me.
Of course, feel free to disagree. But, if so, I am curious to learn on what grounds.
I can get that, but, on the other hand, none of us here have yet passed the test of time in terms of being a substantial philosopher this generally happens well after ones passing away from this world. :grin: As for myself, I'm not holding my breath.
I don't know the Buddhist book about dating that you mentioned earlier, but from what you said, it seems to be a humorous approach to explaining Buddhist teachings.
You said earlier:
I'm not sure what you mean here.
What do good faith philosophers do in regard to the ego and its desires for fame, fortune, etc.?
In what way do you think that Buddhism is sophistic here?
Here is a scriptural reference to the eight worldy conditions: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.006.than.html
I really want to understand this; I want to know how an outsider sees this Buddhist teaching.
One of the Eastern ideas about lotuses is that they need filth, mud in order to grow; lotuses don't grow in the neat conditions that many other flowering plants do. What is more, the lotus plant has such a surface that the filth and mud it grows in doesn't stick to it.
On the grounds of the lotus analogy above, I'm inclined to disagree. Conflict is the way of the world, a given, the natural state (also see agonism). The solution isn't to overcome conflict, or to banish it; but rather, not to be affected by it. Like a lotus, which grows in the mud, but mud doesn't stick to it.
From where I stand, good faith philosophers pursue philosophy for its intrinsic worth and mostly if not wholly shun its potential instrumental values for the ego, such as those of becoming famous, becoming financially wealthy, or gaining greater powers over others within society. Socrates, the homeless bum wanderer, certainly fits this description. Although not as humbly, many others do as well. Nietzsche as just one example of the latter.
Quoting baker
I don't. As for the book on dating I've mentioned, you seemed to have overlooked the beginning part of the paragraph from which you pulled out your quote:
Quoting javra
Nor do I understand the entailment between the book "If the Buddha Dated" and Buddhism per se as philosophy. The first is relative fluff, the second ain't.
Quoting baker
In short, the eight worldly conditions are aspects of samsara and hence of inevitable dissatisfaction given time. And btw, as an outsider, I find great value in a great portion of Buddhist teaching.
Quoting baker
As is harmony and happiness. Or are these somehow unnatural? And who ever even once mentioned "overcoming", to not even mention "banishing", conflict per se in general??? This would be projecting things into what I've said that were never there. Here, to put it in Buddhist terms, not until Nirvana is actualized on a global scale for one and all--in other words, not till the literal end of cosmic time--will there ever be a time when we're not knee-deep in existential conflicts. And the end of time is nowhere on the horizon. One swims/navigates the waters of life; one doesn't overcome them.
But, that said, I would like to presume that, when it comes to "conflict", you too would rather that those conflicts which occur as aspects of rapes and murders don't proliferate but, instead, cease occurring sooner rather than later. Notice, this has nothing to do with a cessation of wars and such; it wouldn't be world peace. It would only entail a cessation of wars where rapes and murders occur, rampantly so, and are in no way punished. I mention this because I've talked to some who view rapes and murders, such as in times of war, as innately ordained into our human nature (either by genes, by God, or by both). And I'm now curious to know your own stance on the matter. (And, no, a solder killing an adversary solder in a time of war is not of itself murder, this since all stated parties acknowledge and partake in the conflict of war.)
Nope, that's because you didn't read the book or look up information about it...
The buddha dating book isn't even remotely about buddhism, how to go on dates, or how the buddha would have dated anyone. In other words, the book is a scam, it's not buddhist humor unless you're referring to how the author was probably laughing all the way to the bank.
There are tons of books like that out there: the title is misleading and has completely different content. Here are some negative reviews of that book if you don't believe me:
A nice read, thanks! :)
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I view good philosophy as being a foundation for math and science. When you establish what the definition of good is, then you can measure it. Now its science. When you can objectively define knowledge, you can study it and apply it. Good philosophy over the years evolved into the sciences we use today. The philosophy we study are its failures. Attempts at finding the answer to a problem that came close, but ultimately did not give the solution to the problem it covered.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Examining why its a paradox is philosophical. Just solving the paradox alone isn't. Good philosophy is about seeing a problem, setting up definitions that we can all understand and use, and demonstrating how those definitions lead to solving the problem at hand. This requires writing, imagination, and logic.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Agreed 100%.
i think this is mostly true: the logical truths uncovered by primitive philosophers were used by researchers today to improve lab testing and engineering...and the mathematics has relevance for philosophy. I'm pretty sure Pythagoras studied in a philosophy school in ancient greece and invented western geometry. In turn, philosophers update their knowledge with the scientific discoveries. However, it's also just a personal form of entertainment and a form of thought exercise which for me personally has practical purposes. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said that philosophy is like plumbing, i interpret that as him saying that philosophy is a way to analyze and put the dirty gunk in your brain into perspective...
I think this is a misleading and false dichotomy. What you call instrumental values aren't inherently bad. Why should wealth and power be bad?
Like I said, I didn't know the book (although I've looked it up in the meantime). What caught my attention was that your description of it was like a decent reference to Buddhist philosophy even when gathered from a fluffy book; which is why I thought the book was an ironic presentation of the Buddhist teachings, while you did away with the ironic part in the way you summarized it.
They are less salient.
I was working with the standard lotus imagery.
One crosses over the waters of life, on the raft that is the Dhamma. So, at least, goes the imagery.
Conflict is the way of the world. The difference between war time and peace time is only in that there are formal declarations of the government that one or the other is taking place. But beyond that, the same thing is going on, the same existential struggle, regardless whether the country is formally at war or not. Just the legally permitted means are somewhat different.
Actually, no, not anymore, not universally.
The killer of the soldier Jean-Michel Nicolier is actually being pursued as a murderer.