Is my philosophy half-assed? Take a look at the things I've written here on the forum, not just this thread, and judge for yourself. — T Clark

I've got no shade to throw your way, but I can say that your admission in this thread to your limited exposure to academic philosophy didn't come as a revelation to me. Do you come across as irrational or unreasonable, no, I wouldn't say that, but you're not erudite in terms of knowledge of academic philosophy. Where you do seem to show some interest in text is in Taoism, and you have an affinity toward poetry and inspiring visual art and photography, so as to that, I find your comments more substantive.

My point is that erudition is a positive thing and I do consider my lack thereof in whatever area a negative. Your position here I take to be the sanctification of ignorance (not in its pejorative sense), suggesting that philosophical discussion between the well learned and the unlearned will be on equal footing. Except in the unusual moments when the fraudulent professor encounters the unschooled prodigy, I disagree.

Sure, I agree, and I'm familiar with that having studied philosophy as an undergraduate. From what I could tell, though, the marks were awarded not for excellence in philosophy (whatever that might consist in) but excellence in writing essays; that is ticking all the boxes as to how an essay ought to be structured, the correct way to cite sources and set out the bibliography, as well as attention to clarity of expression, grammar, spelling, sentence and paragraph length and so on.

So. I wasn't talking about scholarly excellence in studying and writing about philosophy (or any other field) but about what might be thought to constitute excellence in philosophy itself; about the content more than the form or presentation. As I said I think it's telling that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for philosophy.

you're not erudite in terms of knowledge of academic philosophy. — Hanover

My point is that erudition is a positive thing and I do consider my lack thereof in whatever area a negative. Your position here I take to be the sanctification of ignorance (not in its pejorative sense), suggesting that philosophical discussion between the well learned and the unlearned will be on equal footing. — Hanover

I appreciate you comments. They are fair and balanced. Small joke, but I'm serious. My lack of experience with academic philosophy is the primary point of this discussion from my point of view, so it would be perverse for me to argue.

It's not ignorance I sanctify, it's attentive awareness. There's language in The Tao Te Ching about the danger of learning which I think I understand and agree with. To me, Lao Tzu criticizes erudition because it blocks the direct experience of the Tao, the unfiltered, unspoken, unspeakable essence of nature. Some western philosophers, Kant in particular, acknowledge that quality, although I think their way of handling it is ambiguous.

As I said I think it's telling that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for philosophy. — Janus

Be that as it may, it seems clear to me that if there were, @Hanover doesn't think I would win it.

. . . . go back to the beginning . . . — Leghorn

:100: :fire: :death:

Be that as it may, it seems clear to me that if there were, Hanover doesn't think I would win it. — T Clark

:grin: I don't think any of us on this little forum would win it.

What I was thinking when I read Hanover’s post. Deliberate practice requires a high degree of structure and well defined goals. There are definitely well established methods for training in things like music and sports, but philosophy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking. — praxis

Yes, I like how you expanded from criteria of excellence to methods of practice. :up:

"You don't need to read philosophy to challenge philosophy." Fixed your title. :smile:

:up:

I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." — T Clark

I don't know if you use the word "intelectual" in general or from a philosophical view. Because it is too general and it includes writers, artists, etc., as well as just people with a highly developed intellect.

My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science — T Clark

Interesting! Is this why most of the people in here --from what I have undestood in discussing with them-- are scientifically oriented? No wonder that all of them are physicalists!

I value philosophy for very practical reasons — T Clark

Right. Myself too.

Trying to do philosophy while rejecting the basic readings and any formal tutelage sounds like trying to build a car without training or looking up an instructions or even looking at the building plans for other cars.

Is it possible? Sure. Will you perhaps be freer from preconceived beliefs and therefore create a better or at least interesting and different car? Possibly, but rather unlikely.

Most likely scenario: you'll say the things that have said 100000times before, come to the same dead ends of everyone before you, make the same mistakes, and the end result will be this rickety thing held together with elastic bands and chewing gum that just maybe can putter down the driveway before collapsing in a smoke-billowing sigh of defeat. You'll add some more elastic bands and chewing gum and keep slowly inching your way down the road in exhausting, and nerve-wracking slowness.

But, if that's what you prefer to do, then have at it. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do philosophy. The books and the education just make everything a helluva lot easier.

Most likely scenario: you'll say the things that have said 100000times before, come to the same dead ends of everyone before you, make the same mistakes, and the end result will be this rickety thing held together with elastic bands and chewing gum that just maybe can putter down the driveway before collapsing in a smoke-billowing sigh of defeat. You'll add some more elastic bands and chewing gum and keep slowly inching your way down the road in exhausting, and nerve-wracking slowness. — Artemis

If you've looked at them, is that how you would characterize my posts on the forum? I think they present a consistent and justifiable understanding of reality and, especially, epistemology.

I guess if you use the term philosophy in its most generic sense, as in "He has a certain philosophy of life", then anyone who self-consciously constructs and maintains a set of beliefs about the world and his place in it is a philosopher.

However philosophy also has the equally common meaning of designating a vast collection of historical texts about beliefs and the world. So I think people who consciously construct and maintain systems of beliefs about life and the world are philosophers (while not necessarily claiming to be) in the former sense. And people who embrace written tradition can legitimately claim to be philosophers in the latter sense.

I'm confused: are we talking about whether one in general can/should do philosophy without training and/or reading the "canon," or are we assessing you and your views for their merit in particular?

If the latter is the case, I honestly don't have time to go through all of your posts and try to make sense of your worldview as a coherent whole.

I'm afraid you're also arguing from a precarious epistemological position: without having read the works of the canon, without having gone through the training, you lack the knowledge and insight to compare your current positions against what they could be after such work. Back to the car example, you may be very satisfied with your engine as it is, but without ever having explored some of the traditional engine models and having gone through training to learn the literal and figurative nuts and bolts of engine design, you simply have no clue if your own engine makes much sense.

Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself. — T Clark

I think it's fair to accuse some academic philosophy of concentrating on texts at the expense of paying attention to yourself and what's around you.

But, and this is a big but, I think the best philosophers do both. More than that, you can learn how to better pay attention by studying great philosophers. My own experience is that I learned how to pay attention more deeply and more productively from reading Wittgenstein, Merleau-Ponty, Plato, and others. And Proust, very philosophical as novelists go, though maybe he's more in the realm of psychology.

This is just a quick response. I'm not sure I'm up for describing exactly how those writers worked their magic on my perceptual skills, even though that might be interesting.

I'm confused: are we talking about whether one in general can/should do philosophy without training and/or reading the "canon," or are we assessing you and your views for their merit in particular?

If the latter is the case, I honestly don't have time to go through all of your posts and try to make sense of your worldview as a coherent whole. — Artemis

First of all, I don't really claim to be a philosopher. That was meant tongue in cheek. I'm not a philosopher, but you can only really judge whether my education is adequate by evaluating the quality of my thought on philosophical issues. And no, I don't expect you to go and read my previous posts.

I'm afraid you're also arguing from a precarious epistemological position: without having read the works of the canon, without having gone through the training, you lack the knowledge and insight to compare your current positions against what they could be after such work. — Artemis

So, I should spend years studying writing I don't find satisfying or useful just to see if I can find value in it? So I can judge whether my understanding is adequate? Actually, there is some truth in that, which is what I'm trying to get at in this thread. A lot of really smart people, people I respect, have found value in the philosophical canon. What am I missing?

At bottom, philosophy is just the study of the world. The world is the yardstick by which ideas are measured. Boiling down what you have written I come up with "You can't possibly have a good understanding of the world without having read all these guys." And I say, "Show me where I'm wrong. Show me what is missing." No, I don't expect you to do that, but to judge me by the appropriate yardstick without doing it is presumptuous. Makes me think of a verse from one of my favorite poems. "Two Tramps at Mud Time" by Robert Frost.

Men of the woods and lumberjacks
They judged each man by their appropriate tool
Except as a fellow handled an axe
They had no way of knowing a fool.

I'm not a philosopher, but you can only really judge whether my education is adequate by evaluating the quality of my thought on philosophical issues. — T Clark

Well, no. I can only judge the quality of your thoughts expressed in your posts by going through your posts. Your lack of education is something I'm basing off of your own apparent admission in that regard.

What am I missing? — T Clark

That's the epistemological conundrum: you can't know until you do the work. Sorry, there's no real shortcut to that.

At bottom, philosophy is just the study of the world. The world is the yardstick by which ideas are measured. Boiling down what you have written I come up with "You can't possibly have a good understanding of the world without having read all these guys." And I say, "Show me where I'm wrong. Show me what is missing." No, I don't expect you to do that, but to judge me by the appropriate yardstick without doing it is presumptuous. — T Clark

Philosophy is a study of the world in the way that I guess engineering is the study of engines. I never said you CAN'T have an understanding of the world/engines without books and training. I'm trying to point out that a) it's more unnecessarily arduous and b) you in all likelihood won't wind up with the best theories/engines you're potentially capable of.

Keep in mind too: The world is much more complicated than a car engine.

I am a lazy person and a lazy philosopher. Yes, and I am, if not proud of it, at least resigned to it. This is reflected in one of my favorite quotes, from Franz Kafka, which I use often. I’ve even used it earlier today in Bret Bernhoft's Gnosis thread.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet. — T Clark

Suppose someone told you this about engineering. I'm a lazy person and a lazy engineer. If you're a lazy engineer, then you're probably not a good engineer. The same is true of philosophy. Philosophy, good philosophy, takes a tremendous amount of effort and time. It amazes me how many people jump into philosophical arguments without understanding the basics of the subject. Imagine if someone came off the street, with little to no understanding of engineering, and started telling you how to build a bridge. The arrogance is unbelievable. Of course no one has all the answers, but studying a subject with effort certainly gives you a lead, generally, over those who haven't.

There aren't many people who can do philosophy well, and most certainly you're not going to do it well without spending the time needed to study the subject, just like any subject. And, it certainly won't just come to you while you're alone, unless you're a genius. However, even geniuses have to engage with their ideas. Think of the amount of effort it takes to be at the top of any field, it takes a tremendous amount of effort. Most people have no idea how much effort it takes, and how much skill it takes to be one of the best. Wittgenstein agonized over his thoughts. It reminds me of people who come off the street thinking they can challenge experts in jiu jitsu, it's just laughable.

Now you may have said all this tongue and cheek, but there are many who think this way. You see it all the time.

I think one problem here has to do with how a philosopher "speaks to you". You may read Descartes, Hume and Peirce and not really connect much with what they're saying. Yet there are people who build entire careers on the work of a single philosopher. But if you don't connect, despite giving it a go, I can't fault you.

It would be unlikely however, that you would not find a single Western philosopher whom you don't think is insightful. Again, I believe all you need is one to attach yourself to a tradition. And I think that's OK. We have to choose what makes most sense to us.

But I can't fault someone for not connecting with X historical figure. It happens.

Most people have no idea how much effort it takes, and how much skill it takes to be one of the best. Wittgenstein agonized over his thoughts. It reminds me of people who come off the street thinking they can challenge experts in jiu jitsu, it's just laughable. — Sam26

Several people have mentioned this ‘expert training’ and I still left wondering about it.

A philosophy major is a humanities degree path that will challenge students to examine questions with no right answers. As they become familiar with notable thinkers and diverse worldviews, majors will learn to think critically, identify and evaluate arguments and engage in moral and ethical reasoning. Students can learn both contemporary and historical philosophy, and they will develop the reading and analysis tools necessary to understand philosophical writings from across periods.

Does a degree in philosophy make one an expert? If not, what might an expert training regimen look like?

A philosophy major is a humanities degree path that will challenge students to examine questions with no right answers. — praxis

I definitely don't agree with this, but I'm not going to get into this right now. However, I will respond to the following:

Does a degree in philosophy make one an expert? If not, what might an expert training regimen look like? — praxis

I've been studying two subjects for years, viz., NDEs and Wittgenstein, and I definitely don't consider myself an expert in either field. Although, I'm closer to being an expert in the field of NDEs than I am on the subject of Wittgenstein.

A degree doesn't mean you're an expert. It certainly puts you on the path, in terms of knowledge, but it takes years of study in a particular field to become an expert, which is why so many people don't consider themselves experts. I would say that if you've been teaching philosophy for over ten years, that certainly gets you close to being an expert, but not necessarily. The most important criteria is probably what your peers think, i.e., those who have also been studying the same subject for many years. And, in philosophy, as opposed to surgery, you can be wrong about a theory, and yet be considered an expert on that theory. You sure wouldn't be considered an expert in surgery if your procedures were done incorrectly. Even in physics, you can be considered an expert in a particular field, and yet, it could turn out that a particular theory you developed was completely wrong.

I think most can agree that it takes a lot of study and/or writing to become an expert in any field. There isn't a clear answer to this question, just some general things we can say. Others may be able to give a better answer, I'm no expert. :smile:

I don't think any of us on this little forum would win it. — Janus

How dare you! :death:

Is my philosophy half-assed? — T Clark

Why are you calling it philosophy? Can you explain?

I think most can agree that it takes a lot of study and/or writing to become an expert in any field. There isn't a clear answer to this question, just some general things we can say. — Sam26

It’s that lack of clarity that makes me, and initially Janus, question the comparison to disciplines like tennis and jiu jitsu which have highly developed training methods for improving performance. Not a big issue because I think that advanced training methods could be developed for philosophy, and that it would included studying master works and mentoring, it’s just a little annoying.

I think that advanced training methods could be developed for philosophy, and that it would included studying master works and mentoring — praxis

You mean like.... getting a PhD?

(I'm trying hard to tell if you're just being sarcastic by suggesting we don't have advanced training methods for philosophy.)

Does a degree in philosophy make one an expert? If not, what might an expert training regimen look like? — praxis

A degree in philosophy is not really a degree in how to be a philosopher is it? It usually has a much narrower focus and perhaps allows you to have some deeper knowledge about a specific text or a few of them. Depends on the degree.

I don't think reading philosophy makes you a philosopher any more than reading Saul Bellow makes you a 20th century author. But reading is likely to be helpful - if you can fully apprehend what you are reading.

Probably depends on the quality of the program you enroll in... but generally speaking, Phil programs cover the how-to's extensively.

You mean like.... getting a PhD? — Artemis

A PhD is advanced education, needless to say. What I mean is specific training methods to improve performance, similar to the methods used in the sports that have been mentioned. Critical thinking, for example, is an important skill for any aspiring philosopher to develop, I'm sure. What methods are used to develop it? and remember the 10k hour rule to mastery.

A degree in philosophy is not really a degree in how to be a philosopher is it? It usually has a much narrower focus and perhaps allows you to have some deeper knowledge about a specific text or a few of them. Depends on the degree. — Tom Storm

So wait . . . I got my degree in Political Science. Doesn't that mean I get to be a politician? You mean I have to get votes? WTF is that all about? I thought I was on the fast track to POTUS! Will the hazing never end?

Again, any quality undergraduate Phil program would provide this kind of training.