What do you think? — Purple Pond

Good point, and well said. You have to duke it out in the marketplace of ideas. There’s no court of appeal, no adjuticator - that’s part of the game. Sometimes its interesting, other times it’s frustrating. You never really know, and that is a big part of what makes it so interesting. Welcome to philosophy.

I would say that the most important thing is to learn how to read the material with the intent to understand. This is completely different from the intent to just get through the material, and somewhat different from attempting to memorize what you think might be important points. Understanding requires that you associate what is being said with your own experience, and with what you have read from other philosophies. You should be able to notice consistencies. Things consistent with your own experience you will accept on intuition. Things inconsistent with your own intuition should not be automatically rejected. You need to read multiple philosophers and find points of consistency between them. If these points of agreement between others are not consistent with your intuition, you may find reason to reject your own intuitions, filling the gap with a new understanding.

We are not, in general, given philosophy to study at an early age. We need to develop our capacity to understand before proceeding into this field, just like any of the other higher level fields of study. So we necessarily approach with preconceptions, biases, derived from a younger age. But as you indicate in your op, we need to learn how to question, understand, and judge these fundamental assumptions. In this way we learn how to get beyond our own intuitions, rejecting them where necessary, in order to create a real understanding.

I think that we ought to recognize that understanding is based in agreement. To understand a piece of writing you can look for simple points which agree with you, then you may work outward from these points, into the surrounding context to grasp the meaning of a whole passage. The meaning you derive from this passage must be related to surrounding passages, looking for the consistency intended by the author, to ensure that you have interpreted each passage correctly.

I think the question of truth-aptness in relation to philosophy dissolves once we understand statements of philosophy as not so much constituting propositions that are true or false in relation to some independent correlate of experience or in virtue of linguistic meaning , but as constituting speech acts of rhetoric, that attempt to persuade the listener to think differently for therapeutic or practical purposes, such as to increase aesthetic appreciation, and to protect a person's psychological life from succumbing to cultural or self-imposed dogma.

How do you know if a bit of philosophy is good? — Purple Pond

There is no such thing and it doesn't matter. If one is interested in understanding the nature of nature, everything becomes an integral observation. Nothing is discarded.

Do you pick and choose what philosophy you read? Surely you don't just jump into a random philosophy book without first making a judgment about it.

I would say that the most important thing is to learn how to read the material with the intent to understand. — Metaphysician Undercover

What about philosophy that you can't understand? Is that the basis of rejecting a philosophy? On whether you can understand it or not?

So you judge a philosophy based on how persuasive it is to you?

You have to duke it out in the marketplace of ideas — Wayfarer

Let the truth prevail!

Do you pick and choose what philosophy you read? Surely you don't just jump into a random philosophy book without first making a judgment about it. — Purple Pond

Most academic/written philosophy is repetitive and very limited. For the most part, geared for those who believe one can understand nature by reading about it. Once in a while there are some very creative ideas from those who have immersed themselves into exploring nature. In any case, one cannot make judgements about anything until one has explored it and I've learned to disregard crowd judgments which inevitably embrace average by its very nature.

One builds a philosophical perspective by exploration and observation of all, not some.

One builds a philosophical perspective by exploration and observation of all, not some. — Rich

The problem is that no one has time to explore and observe all. It would take more than a lifetime to explore all the philosophical writings.

The problem is that no one has time to explore and observe all. — Purple Pond

Patterns develop which provide insight, but the Universe is constantly evolving so there will always be something new. No need to feel bored. :-)

But philosophy has nothing to do with a changing universe. Philosopher's deal with ideas not the universe. Sounds like a job for science.

↪sime So you judge a philosophy based on how persuasive it is to you? — Purple Pond

yes, in the same sense that art and works of fiction are persuasive - or perhaps i should say, "inspiring" or "therapeutic", since the word "persuasion" might be misinterpreted to imply the presence of an underlying absolute 'truth' in mind or nature to be persuaded of, a notion which I no longer find intelligible having studied the pragmatism of Wittgenstein, Quine, Pierce and Dewey, who together pretty much demolish the idea of epistemology.

To some extent, it depends on the setting. If it's a class, you have to read what is assigned,. If it's this forum, you really should read the opening post, get a feel where the discussion is going, and then comment. On your own, read what you want. If you don't like it, read something else.

For personal reading, it is my belief that somewhere in between 15 years and 25 years of age, most people have established their personal point of view about the world--whether they have articulated it or not. That doesn't mean their POV will never change, but it will take real effort to change it.

So, most people are going to read philosophy (and other literature) to help them articulate their inchoate beliefs, and to compare their more formulated beliefs to someone else's. To the degree that a philosophy book helps you uncover your unspoken ideas, beliefs, POV, good. If it doesn't seem to speak to you at all, read something else.

But philosophy has nothing to do with a changing universe. Philosopher's deal with ideas not the universe. Sounds like a job for science. — Purple Pond

Suit yourself, but the greatest philosophies are all about nature and life.

What about philosophy that you can't understand? Is that the basis of rejecting a philosophy? On whether you can understand it or not? — Purple Pond

No, I don't think such rejection would be justified. That would be like if you meet someone speaking a different language, and you reject what they say because you don't understand it. To understand requires the will to understand.

What about philosophy that you can't understand? Is that the basis of rejecting a philosophy? On whether you can understand it or not? — Purple Pond

Yes, in part. As a recently converted pragmatist, I assess the "truth" of a philosophical statement, whether metaphysical, epistemological or ethical, firstly in terms of whether I can relate to it in some way that coheres with how its proponents apparently relate to it, and secondly whether upon relating to it I find it practically useful, ethically inspiring, or aesthetically appealing in some way.

But non-pragmatists don't see "philosophical truth" in that way, rather they see it as something akin to a feeling of psychological-compulsion. That they should feel forced by the throat to accept it, regardless of whether or not they like it, or even understand it - as if a philosophical statement was the same thing as an empirical proposition.

While I used to think like a non-pragmatist, the force of reason eventually compelled me (rather ironically) to ignore my psychological compulsions to think or behave dogmatically in a certain way, a general life-style I have found to be unhealthy, counter-productive and misguided.

Unfortunately, the notion of philosophical-veracity doesn't exist because we don't generally agree as to the meaning of philosophical statements, whose concepts are under-determined by our stated rules of language and which lack truth conditions in terms of public ostensive demonstration.

So I don't like to think of the "philosophical understanding" of a philosophical statement in the sense of knowing and adhering to a public fact. At most we can individually relate to a philosophical statement and decide for ourselves whether or not we like the statement and find it useful.

The problem is that no one has time to explore and observe all. It would take more than a lifetime to explore all the philosophical writings. — Purple Pond

There is a saying that we, the fortunate ones, have the luxury of time to ponder such philosophical questions.