If you for some reason think academia as whole doesn't provide what you mean, can you please elaborate what elements of jiu jitsu (or other) training you mean? And why you think that's not contained in academia?

Yep. One can do philosophy without having much of an acquaintance with the philosophical literature. The result, evident on these fora, is the repetition of errors already identified.

One can do philosophy without acquaintance with the literature. But one will not do it well.

First, well secondly rather I heard this was a controversial thread due to certain remarks from positions of authority. I'm eager after posting my, as you said or seem to be advocating for, "uninfluenced" or "organic" reply to your OP, to delve through and see what deviltry lies within. It's like, why can't they just use sock accounts like every moderator on basically every other forum anywhere? I don't know. Nextly I suppose, anyone who incorporates my new favorite word "benighted" into their dialog is a good person in my book. It's so.. mentally captivating. Imagine, someone you disagree with who you believe ignorant is not just "stupid" or "dumb" or "a moron" they are, as the word suggests overtaken by, nay- shrouded in darkness. As if everywhere they go this darkness just follows them and negatively affects every person or thing around them, which is exactly what happens minus the cool visuals. But I digress.

I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. Generally speaking when I was in my late teens I ordered pretty much every philosophy book around. I ended up reading very few and remembering even less. Or did I? The one book I remember was Philosophy for Dummies, not only because it was so simple and easy to digest, well perhaps that was why. But it also highlighted or outlined certain "de facto" rules or common avenues of philosophical thought in a clear and easy to follow format that offered mainstream views on each "item" or idea as well as fun anecdotes and "what ifs" that really made me actualize the philosophical thought process .Without this turning into a product review, some books are a great starting point.

That said. I don't think anybody is arguing a mentally sufficient person devoid of any books or even modern education would be unable to be a brilliant philosopher or an otherwise incredibly educated and learned person with more wisdom to share than they have the time to.

Edit: After re-reading your OP (and still without looking through the discussion) I gather your prominent assertion is the value of non-Western (which one would assume would be Eastern) philosophy over Western philosophy, casting Western philosophy as "much ado about very little". Am I somewhat on the money here?

From what little disciplines and mainstream knowledge I have about both types (which you encourage and say is good, right?) it would seem, and correct me at any moment for the slightest reason, Buddhism/Eastern philosophy is about tackling the problems of life by humility and casting life as something designed to be difficult and by investing one's time and being into it only causes harm to one's happiness or life whereas Western philosophy states the opposite that it only happens to be difficult and by investing one's time and being we alleviate these difficulties if not for ourselves but for others who come after us. Something like that?

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. — Artemis

An engineer is someone who uses applied science to solve problems. Engineers in general do not design engines, although some do. There are mechanical, chemical, structural, biomedical, computer, electrical, aeronautical, civil, environmental, and many more types of engineers. I was a civil engineer who specialized in cleaning up soil and water contamination on industrial properties. I have a four-year bachelors of civil engineering degree. Many people I worked with had masters degrees, especially those younger than I am. Maybe the biggest difference between philosophy and engineering as professions is that each type of engineering has standards of practice and educational and experience requirements. Engineers can be held legally, financially, and ethically accountable for the work we do and for the consequences of any mistakes we make. There really is nothing like a standard of practice for philosophers. No licensing. If a philosopher makes a mistake... well, there's not really any way to tell.

And no, the world as addressed by philosophy is much simpler than a car engine.

You espouse a curious mixture of disdain for the discipline and the experts therein and yet eager desire to have your own (self-admittedly, uneducated) philosophical views seen as legitimate.

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. — Artemis

More I think about it the more silly the OP is. "You don't have to study architecture to be an architect"; "You don't have to study literature to be a literary critic"; "You don't have to study cooking to be a chef". You just need like, awareness maaan. Utter joke.

Sorry, but no, just because you're a lazy two-bit "thinker" doesn't mean a whole discipline has to be redefined to accomodate your fragile ego. You don't want to study philosophy, fine, no worries. But you're going to be trash at philosophy. Pretty simple.

Who are the gatekeepers? Should they license people, like the bar does, or the medical community, or architecture? If you practice "philosophy" without a license, should the legislature have passed laws to hold you liable? Curious minds want to know.

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. — Sam26

Professionally, I am an engineer. I'm not a professional philosopher. If an engineer makes a mistake, there are potentially very serious consequences for which they would be responsible. If a philosopher makes a mistake, there's not even a good way to know. There aren't any standards by which to judge. It's silly to try to compare the two disciplines. There's probably no one on the forum who is a professional philosopher.

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. — Sam26

I said I am not a philosopher, not that I have little or no understanding of philosophy. Perhaps that's your judgement, but I don't consider you a valid judge unless you've read what I've written and have comments. No, I don't expect you to do that, but to render judgement without doing it is presumptuous and arrogant. The only criteria by which you can judge my understanding of philosophy is the fact that I am not adequately well-read by your standards. Using that as your criteria is begging the question.

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. — Sam26

I have no ambition to be one of the best, by anyone's standards. I'll settle for pretty good. Good enough.

Why are you calling it philosophy? Can you explain? — baker

I don't really understand your question. I've acknowledged I am not a philosopher, but I never said I don't have a personal philosophy.

Professionally, I am an engineer. I'm not a professional philosopher. If an engineer makes a mistake, there are potentially very serious consequences for which they would be responsible. If a philosopher makes a mistake, there's not even a good way to know. There aren't any standards by which to judge. It's silly to try to compare the two disciplines. There's probably no one on the forum who is a professional philosopher. — T Clark

Nothing you've said actually discredits the parallel between the disciplines we're trying to draw.

You espouse a curious mixture of disdain for the discipline and the experts therein and yet eager desire to have your own (self-admittedly, uneducated) philosophical views seen as legitimate. — Artemis

The only way you can tell if my philosophical views are legitimate is by looking at them. As I just told @Sam26, just assuming my views are not legitimate because I am not well-read by your standards is begging the question I asked in the OP.

See, the thing is, I have repeatedly now pointed out that I'm not actually discrediting the substance of your worldviews at all, because I haven't looked at them. I am merely and solely talking about the difference of how attainable and feasible it is to try and reinvent the wheel/philosophy/engines as a solo person versus by taking advantage of access to the knowledge and practice of literally all of human history.

If you repeatedly take this personally and misconstrue it, that's on you, I'm afraid.

See, the thing is, I have repeatedly now pointed out that I'm not actually discrediting the substance of your worldviews at all, because I haven't looked at them. I am merely and solely talking about the difference of how attainable and feasible it is to try and reinvent the wheel/philosophy/engines as a solo person versus by taking advantage of access to the knowledge and practice of literally all of human history. — Artemis

I'm not objecting to you questioning my philosophy because it hurts my feelings. I object because I think it's a bad argument. Anyway, I think you and I are saying the same thing, just from different ends. I'm ok with that.

But I'm not even questioning your philosophy. :roll:

If you for some reason think academia as whole doesn't provide what you mean, can you please elaborate what elements of jiu jitsu (or other) training you mean? — Artemis

I'm asking about the specifics of what's provided.

Don't know anything about jiu jitsu but I've been practicing to develop skills in oil painting. That discipline and be broken down into various aspects of performance, such as shape, value, edge, color, and composition. Each of these elements can be focused on to improve overall performance. In order to improve edge quality, for instance, a practice method might be to study masterworks that excel in that quality and practice recreating them. Whatever method is used, specific goals for improvement and reliable feedback are essential, as well as lots of challenging practice.

Similarly, an aspect of philosophy that could be developed to improve philosophical performance is critical thinking. Of course, this skill is developed in academia, but how rigorously and what methods are used?

Don't know anything about jiu jitsu but I've been practicing to develop skills in oil painting. That discipline and be broken down into various aspects of performance, such as shape, value, edge, color, and composition. Each of these elements can be focused on to improve overall performance. In order to improve edge quality, for instance, a practice method might be to study masterworks that excel in that quality and practice recreating them. Whatever method is used, specific goals for improvement and reliable feedback are essential, as well as lots of challenging practice. — praxis

No, no, no. Why are you painting? You can become a good painter just by reflecting on the world around you. You just need to have some awareness. You don't need to paint or study other paintings to become a good painter.

I think the parallel would be that I don't need to study masterworks, or rather, asking what I’m missing by not studying them.

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc.

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc. — Artemis

Absolutely none. There is a whole community of artists who define art as the process and not result. Some of it appears to me to be absolute shit. But they have educated me on the fact that what I think doesn't mean shit. They didn't do it for me. They didn't do it for others. They did it for the process and burned the result. Some write words on the canvass which influence what is painted over it. Then it's sometimes shared with other like-minded artists, trashed, or hidden away. On to the next creative process.

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc. — Artemis

Is that what you think I was asking for? OH, you’re being sarcastic, silly me.

You did lose me when you started talking about going back to a time of innocence. My vision of the state of awareness I am talking about is right here, in front of us, right now. It's not mystical. It's just look at this. Listen to this. Pay attention. — T Clark

But the way we look at the world has been determined by modern philosophy. You can hear it’s echoes in the language.

For example, when we speak of our “values”, we are using a term that was given prominence in the modern German (Weber, I believe) philosophical conception of “the fact-value” distinction, which argues that there are no moral truths, just different and equal “values” to morality assigned to it by different ppl. So when someone says, “These are my values,” he means that these things are what he holds to be true, and that they cannot be denied validity, because he believes them, and no rational argument can be levied against them, for they are outside the purview of rational analysis.

Similarly, when we speak of our “rights”, we are echoing a term drawn from Locke’s conception of political philosophy, and which has suffused its spirit into all modern liberal democracies. It has become instinctive to say, “I have my rights!” and everyone knows in his gut what that means—but it is not an ancient sentiment. To a pre-modern man, the idea that everyone has inalienable rights would have been quite laughable. Ancient societies were hierarchical and heterogeneous, filled with slaves and serfs, commoners and noblemen. Before the rise of modern philosophy, her concern was how to survive; after Machiavelli, she became a political activist, ultimately changing the very political phenomena, the ancient variegation of society, that her adherents, the philosophers, had always studied...

...it’s similar to that famous paradox of modern physics, where the very light you use to illuminate your subject—the electron in this case—disturbs the object of your study. So, by meddling in politics for its own benefit, modern philosophy altered the face of society, suppressing some aspects of it (the ones that held traditional privilege) while raising others up to supreme ascendancy (the ones that had traditionally been oppressed)...

...and you have to ask whether the traditional heterogeneity in society—the kings and queens and noblemen—was really gotten rid of in favor of the man (“person”, now) who is equal to every other person. For we see still great inequality in society, based now on wealth rather than on family. Yet the many still revere a prince or queen, and follow Harry and Megan, or William and Kate, etc, as though they were epitomes of excellence...

...There are many multi-billionaires, however, that have hardly ever been heard of: they are not nearly sexy enough. They own tech companies and buy up conglomerates and ride high up the Fortune-500, but the ppl want (and have always wanted) a man who is socially prominent: who hits the most home runs, puts a rocket into space or gets elected President. The need for heterogeneity and hierarchy has not died...

...but all this is just prolegomena to what I ask you now: when you say...

I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself — T Clark

...are you sure that you are not looking through the lens of their eyes when you look upon the world?

I legitimately do not understand what you're asking for, hence my request for clarification.

Not sure if I have understood you properly. I think the issue of 'inheriting' a veritable worldview of philosophical gifts and ideas as a kind of incoherent mosaic, the way we all do is a different matter. Sure, we all use words and ideas that were conceived of by others, often in painstaking conditions. But this no more makes us philosophers than turning on a light switch makes you an electrician.

I think you apply James. It's hard to set forth strict criteria, but something like:

1) Willingness to be puzzled at "obvious things"
2) Often being unsatisfied with answers given
3) Being able to articulate what you're thinking in a relatively clear manner
4) Have some interest in "philosophical issues" which can be highlighted in the arts broadly conceived and in everyday living
5) Being able to consider perspectives which are at odds with each other and consider the merits and problems of both views
6) Admitting mistakes in your reasoning
7) Engage in dialogue with others who share similar concerns often coming from completely different backgrounds into the same problems.

It may look like a lot, but I think this is sensible. Perhaps points 1-4 suffice.

Not to be harsh, but what distingushes this list from, say, a list of good qualities of a government bureaucrat? Or a marketing manager? Or town planner in charge of sewerage system? With the exception of (4), which even then just kinda gestures toward the name of philosophy?

That's my problem with all this feel-good inclusivity of "staring at walls is philosophy". What, exactly is philosophical about it? Where's the specificity? What makes this anything more than an attempt to turn a personal failing into a dignified quote-unqoute principled "philosophical" stance?

These aren't questions for you, per se. Just using your words as a sounding board.

5, 6, and 7 are the tough ones for me. :grin: Work in progress.

No, it's fine. These are fair questions to ask. I should be able to reply or attempt to.

I don't think a bureaucrat or marketing manager would generally be puzzled enough about why there is something rather than anything at all or be bothered that things go down instead of going up. These things may, once in a blue moon, come to the fore, but these things aren't irritating to them a lot of the time.

That's my problem with all this feel-good inclusivity of "staring at walls is philosophy". What, exactly is philosophical about it? Where's the specificity? What makes this anything more than an attempt to turn a personal failing into a dignified quote-unqoute principled "philosophical" stance? — StreetlightX

Well, that's the thing: what is philosophy?

Can you specify what it is? Is philosophy what Descartes had in mind when he was writing? I'd say there's good historical evidence to suggest that his main concerns were what we now call "scientific". What we haven't surpassed or improved on his science is what we call "philosophy".

You can stare at walls for many different reasons. If you're staring at a wall because you don't like the colours, then you might either be an interior decorator or wanting to call one to change it.

If you look at wall and think, if this wall is a product of my mind why can't I step through it, then I think you are approximating philosophy.

I think the opposite "gate keeping" stance is more dangerous: it narrows the field to academia only, into debates about the ontological status of irrational numbers or what possible world isn't Nixon Nixon and so on.

Some of these are of some interest. But soon it loses the immediacy connected with the human condition and will keep people who might otherwise be interested very far away from topics most people should find interesting, because they are intrinsically interesting.

are you sure that you are not looking through the lens of their eyes when you look upon the world? — Leghorn

I'll start out expressing my regret for the tone of my OP. I think it offended a lot of people and made it harder for them to give my ideas a fair hearing.

On to your question. Of course I am influenced by the culture I live in. How much does that make my search for an unprejudiced vision of reality quixotic? I can't be sure, I can only do the best I can. Purity of vision is probably not necessary. If my current understanding is irreparably intermixed with western philosophy, it hardly seems likely that further study will make things better.

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. — Alkis Piskas

As I indicated in the post you are responding to, being an intellectual

...doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.

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! — Alkis Piskas

Some other people here on the forum are strongly influenced by science. Others don't appear to be. For what it's worth, I am not a physicalist. At least not always.

Some of these are of some interest. But soon it loses the immediacy connected with the human condition and will keep people who might otherwise be interested very far away from topics most people should find interesting, because they are intrinsically interesting. — Manuel

But this doesn't follow. History is wildly interesting and vital. Yet people don't run around calling themselves historians. Law, which affects our lives at every point in a manner far more intense than philosophy, is interesting and important. Yet no one starts threads on how they are, in fact, a lawyer, by virtue of the world writhing at their feet. And no one then goes on to claim 'if we keep law in the hands of lawyers law will become uninteresting and unimportant'. I don't like people treating philosophy as a whore. No suprise it's usually men who do so.

As for 'what is philosophy?'- well you know as well as I do how contentious that is. But I'll be brave enough to lay out at the least a minimal condition for it, which is continual encounters with things which provoke and problemetize. Thought is excrcized under conditions of compulsion, constraint, and even inability. Philosophy, whatever it is, begins with failure, the other side of wonder - the failure to make oneself equal to the richness of what one is confronted by, and the subsequent attempt to work through the concequences of that failure. And failure requires risk, chance, encounter. With the material of the world. The problem with the feel-good 'we're all philosophers in our own way happy happy joy joy' bullshit is that it is safe, sanitized. Is it any wonder that the OP can be read simply as a post-hoc justification of simply being lazy? I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'.

I mean God, it is really so bruising to people's egos to have to simply say: I have an interest in philosophy, just as people say "I have an interest in history" without calling oneself a philosopher or historian? Like, you're not a philosopher in the same way you're not a historian. Get over it.