I hate to bump my own things, but I also hate to see this disappear with no comment before I move on to the next. @ZhouBoTong? @bert1? @god must be atheist? @fdrake? @jamalrob? @Mww? @180 Proof?

Sorry, PFHorrest, I'm a bit tired these days. I don't have much energy to read. I'm sort of hybernating my brain. My gf says it's the mid-winter blues. It's cold here, 28 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus three degrees Celsius, with a high wind. And that is normal for this time of the year.

I’m sorry to hear you’re not feeling well, and I totally understand that you need to give your mind a rest. I’ve been feeling down a lot of the past few days myself because of unusually late wintry weather, though since I live in a normally sunny place I’m expecting it to pass soon, and it’s nowhere near as bad as it sounds to be there. Hope you feel better soon!

@Pfhorrest
I am reading it now, but I know I am not going to have time tonight to actually give a decent response. I will get to it in the next couple of days though....so you will have an opinion from the novice perspective :smile:

Sounds great, thanks!

I'll read it. Prompt me if I forget. You won't know if I've forgotten or not but that's epistemology for you.

Ehhhh....I read them all up through knowledge. Interesting, but not particularly enlightening, my personal philosophy etched in the stone of continental Enlightenment.

Carry on.

@Pfhorrest

Ok. So first off, it was understandable :smile:, and that is the most important thing as far as I am concerned. From the novice perspective, there were words (not many) I had to look up (like fideism), but that seemed fair. Otherwise you would be defining terms the whole time, so it seemed ok to expect a little effort from the reader.

I thought the first section was kind of a fun way to define philosophy. I am not sure I ever felt the need to know what philosophy is in relation to other fields, but it does give a more complete definition to a term that is often quite nebulous. It was also just interesting to view philosophy relative to those different perspectives.

The second section on progress in philosophy made sense, and I have to say that, for the novice, examples are wonderful...when you say, "Rather, philosophical progress is made by devising useful methods of answering questions about those things, and consequently the related issues of the meaning of such questions, and the importance of those questions", I am fairly confident I understand but after the scientific method example...totally clear and even confirmed that my thoughts were right, so the more specific examples like that, the better (for me, I am not sure if things like that would just bore more knowledgeable philosophers).

In the third section, your martial arts metaphor made it easy to understand the big idea.

Since you are trying to improve your writing, feel free to ask me any questions where you are looking for thoughts on portions that I did not address.

I am not sure if this is the place, but I did have a couple questions after reading that essay (just let me know if I should save them for another thread...probably not too difficult of questions though).

First, I like the way that hexagonal chart comes together, but is that supposed to represent all philosophy? Or just showing the correlation between a few of the major philosophies? Most "philosophies" I can think would fit into one of the categories, but say, 'philosophy of education' doesn't seem to fit anywhere...and I would assume we could think of a few more?

Now this portion may seem a bit harsh, but I think you will have an answer that shuts me up...

You say that all that is needed to 'do' philosophy is personhood, and the potential topics are vast...does this mean that ANY serious thinking counts as philosophy? I guess that is reasonable, but seems a bit weak? (not sure if weak is the right word, vague? incomplete?...??)

On a related note, you mention an important aspect of philosophical thought, "This reflexivity allows you to look upon your thoughts in the third person as though they were someone else's thoughts that you were judging, allowing you to assess the validity of the inferences you make, and so to do logic, to tease apart the relations between your various ideas." I have social problems that I think very much stem from me doing WAY too much of what you describe here. That being said, I have also found this reflexive analysis of our own thoughts to be so repulsive to many people that you can actually see pain on their faces when they are challenged to explain their thinking. Does this suggest a decent chunk of the population just has no interest in philosophy because they have very little interest in the "why's" of life?

Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad it was mostly understandable. :)

From the novice perspective, there were words (not many) I had to look up (like fideism), but that seemed fair. Otherwise you would be defining terms the whole time, so it seemed ok to expect a little effort from the reader. — ZhouBoTong

I did define fideism when I first used it in the book, back in the chapter Against Fideism. I do try to avoid making people look up unusual words, but I also assume that people are reading the whole thing from beginning to end.

First, I like the way that hexagonal chart comes together, but is that supposed to represent all philosophy? Or just showing the correlation between a few of the major philosophies? Most "philosophies" I can think would fit into one of the categories, but say, 'philosophy of education' doesn't seem to fit anywhere...and I would assume we could think of a few more? — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, that is intended to be representative of all of philosophy, though of course many of those sections could be further subdivided, especially the "Knowledge & Reality" and "Justice & Morality" ones. I would put philosophy of education in the "Knowledge & Reality" section, as education is about the institutes of knowledge (and a later essay in the book is even titled On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge).

You say that all that is needed to 'do' philosophy is personhood, and the potential topics are vast...does this mean that ANY serious thinking counts as philosophy? I guess that is reasonable, but seems a bit weak? (not sure if weak is the right word, vague? incomplete?...??) — ZhouBoTong

Nah, I don't mean that any serious thinking counts as philosophy, just that the faculties needed to do philosophy are the same faculties that constitute personhood. Those same faculties can be applied to things other than philosophy, though all at least tangentially related to it in the ways elaborated on in this essay.

On a related note, you mention an important aspect of philosophical thought, "This reflexivity allows you to look upon your thoughts in the third person as though they were someone else's thoughts that you were judging, allowing you to assess the validity of the inferences you make, and so to do logic, to tease apart the relations between your various ideas." I have social problems that I think very much stem from me doing WAY too much of what you describe here. That being said, I have also found this reflexive analysis of our own thoughts to be so repulsive to many people that you can actually see pain on their faces when they are challenged to explain their thinking. Does this suggest a decent chunk of the population just has no interest in philosophy because they have very little interest in the "why's" of life? — ZhouBoTong

I think that's probably right that a decent chunk of the population has little interest in philosophy, but I don't think it's out of any kind of inherent disinterest, but more out of a feeling of overwhelm and helplessness. Like how when you get really behind on something, even a little something like keeping up with your email inbox, it seems so daunting to even approach what has become an enormous task that people get driven away and therefore the task gets even bigger in a vicious cycle.

I suspect that for a whole lot of people, the task of examining their own thoughts and feelings is like that. They take a peek in their own mind, see a huge mess that they can barely begin to even comprehend never mind to improve upon, get stressed and overwhelmed at the very prospect of beginning such an enormous project, and "NOPE!" out before even beginning it, because they have more important things to do like relaxing enough tonight to get to sleep early enough to be awake enough in the morning to do their job well enough to keep getting paid enough to keep paying their landlord to let them stay inside their home instead of getting kicked out onto the street.

For most of them, I imagine, even that chain of implications is too daunting to think about, and just "relax enough to get to sleep" is about all they've got the mental strength left to handle. This isn't their fault, but the fault of the harsh world we live in, and I believe that if people were less traumatized by life, far more of them would be inclined, and able, to do things like philosophy.

I did define fideism when I first used it in the book, back in the chapter Against Fideism. I do try to avoid making people look up unusual words, but I also assume that people are reading the whole thing from beginning to end. — Pfhorrest

ah, I thought of that after I wrote that, and meant to add that I had not read everything :up:

Yeah, that is intended to be representative of all of philosophy, though of course many of those sections could be further subdivided, especially the "Knowledge & Reality" and "Justice & Morality" ones. I would put philosophy of education in the "Knowledge & Reality" section, as education is about the institutes of knowledge (and a later essay in the book is even titled On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge). — Pfhorrest

Hmm, I am unconvinced by that placement of philosophy of education. Why does education belong with physical science more than ethical sciences? Why does it belong with knowledge of reality more than acquisition of language? All six domains seem to include specific subjects that are taught and learned, I don't see what makes one section different in respect to education?

If this is not something you want to get into, I can accept that I may be a few classes behind, don't feel as though you must explain. And as I think about it, I am not coming up with any more philosophies that I can't find a place for. So I am just stuck with this education one.

Nah, I don't mean that any serious thinking counts as philosophy, just that the faculties needed to do philosophy are the same faculties that constitute personhood. Those same faculties can be applied to things other than philosophy, though all at least tangentially related to it in the ways elaborated on in this essay. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I think I get this. We all have the ability to do philosophy, but that is not to say everyone uses this ability? There needs to be intention? Sorry if I take everything you say and try to put into dumber words...that is just how my brain confirms it is understanding...but I would guess it often leaves something out from the original message.

a decent chunk of the population has little interest in philosophy, but I don't think it's out of any kind of inherent disinterest, but more out of a feeling of overwhelm and helplessness. — Pfhorrest

That would fit my experiences, so it seems reasonable. I think helplessness explains the frustration I am seeing more than boredom would.

I suspect that for a whole lot of people, the task of examining their own thoughts and feelings is like that. They take a peek in their own mind, see a huge mess that they can barely begin to even comprehend never mind to improve upon, get stressed and overwhelmed at the very prospect of beginning such an enormous project, and "NOPE!" out before even beginning it, because they have more important things to do like relaxing enough tonight to get to sleep early enough to be awake enough in the morning to do their job well enough to keep getting paid enough to keep paying their landlord to let them stay inside their home instead of getting kicked out onto the street.

For most of them, I imagine, even that chain of implications is too daunting to think about, and just "relax enough to get to sleep" is about all they've got the mental strength left to handle. This isn't their fault, but the fault of the harsh world we live in, and I believe that if people were less traumatized by life, far more of them would be inclined, and able, to do things like philosophy. — Pfhorrest

Seems good analysis. And you even said "far more of them would be inclined" as opposed to "everyone" or "the majority" so I can't even argue that I think it would not be that many.

Thanks for the answers. I think I just about agree with everything except the placement of the philosophy of education. Feel free to straighten me out if you want, but I will not be freaking out if you just want to move on.

Hmm, I am unconvinced by that placement of philosophy of education. Why does education belong with physical science more than ethical sciences? Why does it belong with knowledge of reality more than acquisition of language? All six domains seem to include specific subjects that are taught and learned, I don't see what makes one section different in respect to education? — ZhouBoTong

Those are good points. I guess I was thinking of it as belonging there because that's the facet of education that I've focused on in my own essays, but yeah, there is learning to be done in every field. My first thought is that perhaps philosophy of education spans and intersects all of the fields, in the same way that history (which you'll note is not depicted on that chart) spans and intersects all fields. And really, much of education in any subject just is learning the history of that subject, getting caught up on what has already been studied so far, so those seem to fit together well.

Ok, I think I get this. We all have the ability to do philosophy, but that is not to say everyone uses this ability? There needs to be intention? Sorry if I take everything you say and try to put into dumber words...that is just how my brain confirms it is understanding...but I would guess it often leaves something out from the original message. — ZhouBoTong

No problem, paraphrasing like that is an important part of learning, or communication in general. And yeah, I think you understood me correctly.

Those are good points. I guess I was thinking of it as belonging there because that's the facet of education that I've focused on in my own essays, but yeah, there is learning to be done in every field. My first thought is that perhaps philosophy of education spans and intersects all of the fields, in the same way that history (which you'll note is not depicted on that chart) spans and intersects all fields. And really, much of education in any subject just is learning the history of that subject, getting caught up on what has already been studied so far, so those seem to fit together well. — Pfhorrest

I was thinking about this after I said I thought education fit into every area. My objection may be accurate but insignificant at the same time.

Toward the end of section one you say, "To that end, philosophy must investigate questions about what our questions even mean, investigating questions about language;what criteria we use to judge the merits of a proposed answer, investigating questions about being and purpose, the objects of reality and morality respectively; what methods we use to apply those criteria, investigating questions about knowledge and justice; what faculties we need to enact those methods, investigating questions about the mind and the will; who is to exercise those faculties, investigating questions about academics and politics; and why any of it matters at all."

If I am understanding this correctly, it sounds like philosophy is about analyzing the best way to analyze a particular field...well if education is about analyzing the best ways to teach and learn a particular field, there is at the very least a massive overlap. So while I am not suggesting that, education=philosophy, "philosophy of education" may be redundant when compared to "philosophy" - even the meaning "love of wisdom" sounds related to education.

If I am understanding this correctly, it sounds like philosophy is about analyzing the best way to analyze a particular field...well if education is about analyzing the best ways to teach and learn a particular field, there is at the very least a massive overlap. So while I am not suggesting that, education=philosophy, "philosophy of education" may be redundant when compared to "philosophy" - even the meaning "love of wisdom" sounds related to education. — ZhouBoTong

I think I agree.