You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher

T Clark

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.

I am very very good at not listening, not waiting, and not doing all sorts of other stuff. Maybe not so good at being wholly still...

So, 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.

I add to this another of my favored positions - Most of the controversy in philosophy is related to differences in metaphysics and the fact that most philosophers don’t recognize that ways of seeing reality are not right or wrong, they are just more or less useful ways of seeing things in a particular situation. Free will vs. determinism. Pthhh. Realism vs. idealism vs. pragmatism vs. physicalism vs. materialism vs. phenomenology...Who cares? I haven’t read much philosophy and when I have read it, I haven’t gotten much out of it. I have been small “e” enlightened by Lao Tzu. “Pragmatism” by Willilam James has helped me put my thoughts into words. I love Emerson, although he is not much of a metaphysician.

In my defense, although I have not studied philosophy formally, I have been a practicing field epistemologist for 30 years. As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. Then I had to write summaries of all of those factors for other, sometimes non-professional, decision makers. I think this experience has given me insights that reading and studying would never have given me.

I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this.

Manuel

↪T Clark

I don't particularly like advertising this but, it's relevant to the OP. As someone who has a PhD in philosophy, I must say, I think you are 100% correct. "Philosophy" is much, much broader than the Western tradition, and insights come from all aspects of life.

I would only put in the caveat that I think topics like free will or materialism are interesting - to those that find them interesting, which includes me. However, if that's not something that floats your boat, then that's perfectly fine.

People are different in this regard, some learn a lot from experience as is your case. We surely know of others who have plenty of experience, but apparently "know" very little of anything. Others learn from reading or talking to others or being alone, etc.

I don't think it is any pre-requisite to read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant and so on, to engage in and participate in discussion. It can help, but it can also hurt, in so far as you rely on philosopher X for your views, instead of thinking these things out.

You come from an Eastern perspective, which is enrichening. The one tricky aspect of this to me, are those people who post completely incoherent questions. Sure, we all begin somewhere, but I think articulation of what one's thinking about is important, otherwise quality takes a nose-dive.

James Riley

↪T Clark

:up:

Before I knew that philosophy was a thing, I read people that made me think. Turns out, some folks smarter than me called them "philosophers." Edward Abby comes to mind. Then I went to school and took an intro to logic class, and an intro to philosophy class. "The Last Days of Socrates" piqued my curiosity, but mainly because I could not fathom how smart people were 2.5k years ago, especially when 'Murica, and western history had lead me to believe we were the apex, relative to all those Neandertals that came before us. Turns out, not so much. But all this was around 40 years ago. Since then, like you, I've been lazy.

I don't wear lazy like a badge, but I also think that if you can't write something out long-hand, where a mutt like me can understand it, then I'll either have to put in the time like you did, or leave you to what I perceive as your gnostic ramblings. (cross-thread points)

Mww

Stop building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. — T Clark

I imagine my ol’ buddy Father Guido Sarducci would say....that’s just farging beautiful, man.

Shawn

Your version of pragmatism is lacking in strength or verging on the utilitarian aspect of function and utility.

My take on your OP was that this would be quite close to quietism once all these issues become trite or redundant for you.

Monitor

The OP supports the idea that we are all philosophers (Gramsci). We all make philosophical decisions everyday that shape our world whether we realize it or not. I have tried to make this point on PF before
and it doesn't get very far. Most see philosophers as a select group of the non lazy.

The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other — T Clark

I don't think it is any pre-requisite to read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant and so on, to engage in and participate in discussion. — Manuel

Indeed, what power would decide otherwise?

Manuel

↪Monitor

We all have conceptions of what it is. And honestly, I don't think there's been a real clarity as to what philosophy is supposed to cover. We all recite the philosophy means "love of wisdom", yeah, that's fine as far as it goes.

But if you gain insight into the world reading novels, or listening to music or talking with strangers who have interesting things to say, then, I think you are a philosopher. Socrates wrote nothing.

The only requirement I'd ask for is to try an articulate what you're thinking. That's important. I mean, sure, you're allowed to ask nebulous or unclear questions, we all have them. It just shouldn't be the norm in one's thinking.

But that's just me.

T Clark

I don't particularly like advertising this but, it's relevant to the OP. As someone who has a PhD in philosophy, I must say, I think you are 100% correct. "Philosophy" is much, much broader than the Western tradition, and insights come from all aspects of life.

I would only put in the caveat that I think topics like free will or materialism are interesting - to those that find them interesting, which includes me. However, if that's not something that floats your boat, then that's perfectly fine. — Manuel

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing.

T Clark

I imagine my ol’ buddy Father Guido Sarducci would say....that’s just farging beautiful, man. — Mww

Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers.

Saphsin

Ramanujan was a mathematical pioneer despite little formal education in mathematics. That was awe-inspiring back then, but a modern-day Ramanujan would be an impossible miracle at this point, it takes great lengths to come up with something new, you have to build upon the work of others.

I think that's probably also true for other fields including philosophy, if to a lesser extent. You need to read philosophy to do proper philosophy, in the sense that your ideas and arguments are not being bested by someone out there with the training. Or you can prove us wrong and be a paradigm shifter.

By the way, I don’t mean academic training, or that you have to master schools of thought. But you still have to read a lot and engage with what’s out there.

James Riley

Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers. — T Clark

"Ofillimebonibodi . . .etc."

BC

↪T Clark

shut up, sit still, think. Repeat.

I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! After reading philosophy for years, the learnéd fellow will still put his pants on one leg at a time; he will still need to eat and drink about the same as ever; he'd best get up and move around periodically; he will still sleep around 8 hours a night; the cat box will still need to be tended, as will his own fecal habits.

Actually, a lot of the writings in any field are pretty tedious, whether it's a publication of the Internal Revenue Service explaining Form E-10923-B3, a post-modern journal article on the gender of protons, or the ten-millionth rehash of Hegel (or Hegel himself).

I am 100% in favor of learning -- from cradle to grave. And the world is a fascinating place, full of interesting things to think about. The important thing is that one investigate this world, and think about it.

If all the writings about Yoga, and all the people who know anything at all about Yoga were to disappear, it wouldn't be the end of Yoga. It would be rediscovered and redeveloped. The same thing goes for philosophy: If the whole field disappeared, it would be constructed again. Maybe better. Why? Because the the world abides, and humans will continue to have difficulty coming to terms with it and themselves.

Manuel

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. — T Clark

I thought that was what you meant in the first place. I am saying that I agree with you 100% in that there is no single "correct" way into these topics.

Plato and Descartes are great and have lots to say. But if anyone specifically doesn't find anything (or much) of value, then there's no problem with that.

Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

You mentioned William James. He's fantastic. So you already have a figure in the tradition which you find useful. I can't say you have to read Plato or Descartes , because you don't.

I can only recommend someone depending on what topic you're interested in. If most figures aren't connecting with you, I don't see the problem. I think you have lots to say as it is.

Janus

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

I've read a few of the "greats"; it's sometimes like peering into an over-stimulated, obscenely fertile, profligate mind teeming with insights and associations. Likewise with poetry; at least as to the insights and allusions; but poetry is all the greater because it does not insist.

So the great philosophers are like insistent poets, quite often fucking annoying; but if you are in the right mood to brook the insistence, and flow with them where they want you to flow; something may come of it.

Whatever, we are never absolved from doing our own thinking if we don't wish to remain igorant. Nobody loves a regurgitator or an insistent mediocrity.

tim wood

I don’t need no stinking.., or any of those guys. — T Clark

Nope, you don't. I well remember, though, what was said to us on earning our undergraduate degrees, "Welcome to the community of educated persons!" But it's true that education takes many forms. Tell us, though, when ignorance was ever an indication that a job would be well done.

James Riley

Tell us, though, when ignorance was ever an indication that a job would be well done. — tim wood

Sending in a proxy to do some work that you did not want done. CIA.

Wheatley

In my defense, although I have not studied philosophy formally, I have been a practicing field epistemologist for 30 years. As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. Then I had to write summaries of all of those factors for other, sometimes non-professional, decision makers. I think this experience has given me insights that reading and studying would never have given me. — T Clark

What do you think the philosophers that made contributions to science? Pierre-Simon Laplace, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Isaac Newton (just to name a few). Back then great thinkers that were empirical minded were called "natural philosophers". Currently (unfortunately?) "natural philosophy" has been largely replaced by "science".

There's also scientifically informed philosophy.

Streetlight

You don't have to read philosophy to be a philosopher, but you had damned well be deeply and thoroughly immersed in things which would otherwise require enourmous investments of time, problem solving, and engagement more generally.

Most people are fantastically stupid about things they have not involved themselves with, and their intuitions about things they have not engaged with are almost certainly wrong and misleading. Unless engaged, most thinking, as per the fact that we're barely evolved animals, is a resort to cliche and heuristics that is adapted for middle-scale social engagement and is otherwise awful at most anything else.

The idea that one can sit in a room and have ideas sprout fourth like Athena from Zeus is naive at best, actively debilitating at worst. Genuine thought takes place under the pressure of constraints imposed by encounters that force problems upon us. Those encounters may not be philosophy, but they need to be encounters nontheless which are richly stifiling.

In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. If not philosophy then sociology, economics, anthropology, woodworking, social work, history, science, child-rearing, gardening, community-organizing, art making, or better yet, all of these together and more. Apes together strong. Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic.

Tom Storm

So, 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

Nice work.

A lot of folk read the 'big' philosophers for name dropping rights and I think there is an assumption made that in reading them you've read them correctly and understand them. How likely would this be?. Most serious philosophical works (Heidie's Being and Time, Spinoza's Ethics) require years of careful study.

I suspect someone will come on here and blast away at the lack of discipline and seriousness this approach displays. And how important subjects require hard work to understand properly. But I sympathise and have not privileged academic philosophy in my life. Nevertheless, I have often been curious to get a better sense of what I may have missed. Why I'm here.

Stanley Fish (a critic I am no real fan of) has a routine he calls 'philosophy doesn't matter'. His argument is while it is true that people hold views about things (derived from philosophical positions in a haphazard way), essentially no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc.

hanaH

Apes together strong. Ape sitting a room ruminating on air, almost certianly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

:up:

hanaH

Stanley Fish (a critic I am no real fan of) has a routine he calls 'philosophy doesn't matter'. His argument is while it is true that people hold views about things (derived from philosophical positions in a haphazard way), essentially no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc. — Tom Storm

Fish picked examples of impractical philosophy. If that's all philosophy is, then it's like chess problems. But consider Hobbes. Agree with him or not, he doesn't waste much time on the petty stuff. His theory of knowledge is short and sweet, and then he applies it to fixing the world. Or consider the philosophes who freed us from the dominance of superstition. It may be that philosophy has won its major battles and has become something like (not-so--common) common sense --- and melted in science.

Tom Storm

Fish picked examples of impractical philosophy. — hanaH

Actually I picked these at random. I forget what Fish said - I should have paid closer attention.

Or consider the philosophes who freed us from the dominance of superstition. — hanaH

Agree. Or consider the scientists who freed us from disease and gave us cell phones. I don't read any science if I can help it.

Srap Tasmaner

Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. — T Clark

I can do that, a bit.

There is at least this: you can read philosophy, even systematic philosophy, not with the intention of "getting the answers", but only with the intention of watching another mind at work, an interesting mind, one hopes. I could say you can learn to think "better" by doing this, but it's not a matter of picking up re-usable techniques. It's certainly not a matter of adopting or rejecting whatever specific doctrine the writer is putting forth, if any.

That might seem strange because, going by this forum, people seem to think philosophy is almost entirely a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone else, or with some statement, or with some argument. That's the least interesting part of philosophy for me, and I try not to spend much time doing that. The more interesting part is learning to think differently. Sometimes that's trying out different terms and categories, a specific change like that; sometimes it's seeing an entirely different sort of approach to an issue or a problem.

You can get, from a book of philosophy, some specific alternatives to try out, but more valuable to me, I think, is just the example of working out such an alternative, to show that it's possible and how it can be done.

hanaH

Agree. Or consider the scientists who freed us from disease and gave us cell phones. I don't read any science if I can help it. — Tom Storm

That reminds me of Pinker again. In that spirit,

Until the middle of the 20th century, infant mortality was approximately 40–60% of the total mortality of the population. If we do not take into account child mortality in total mortality, then the average life expectancy in the 12–19 centuries was approximately 55 years. If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years. That is, in reality, people did not die when they lived to be 25–40 years old, but continued to live about twice as long.[5]

As a species, drenched in superstition and scientifically infantile, we could barely keep half of our infants alive through most of our history.

Philosophers obsess over physics but simple medical science is hugely important. Consider the discovery and understanding of germs...or the invention of vaccines.

Wheatley

Most of the controversy in philosophy is related to differences in metaphysics and the fact that most philosophers don’t recognize that ways of seeing reality are not right or wrong, they are just more or less useful ways of seeing things — T Clark

“Pragmatism” by Willilam James has helped me put my thoughts into words. — T Clark

You're a pragmatist. We get that. Not everyone has to agree with your pragmatism.

Janus

Apes together strong. Ape sitting a room ruminating on air, utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

Much more pertinent to the empirical fields of inquiry than it is to philosophy (unless you mean academic philosophy, of course). I do agree that it always helps to familiarize ourselves with interesting minds (although which minds are interesting remains matter of taste).

Streetlight

↪Janus

Sure, if you just make things up.

Streetlight

Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. — T Clark

I mean, the irony in this statement is dazzling.

"Stop learning about anything and engaging with people or material ... you benighted knave!".

benighted
/bɪˈnʌɪtɪd/

adjective
adjective: benighted
1. in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance.

Janus

Sure, if you just make things up. — StreetlightX

Not everyone can; it takes imagination, which the regurgitators commonly lack.

Manuel

↪Janus

Yep.

Streetlight

↪Janus

Imagination is spurred and provoked.

This idea of cloistered genius demiurging their way to brilliance is just neoliberal entrepreneurial values transposed into philosophy like a virus. Self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue.

Again, no one has to read philosophy. But one had better be reading and/or engaging vigorously with a range of things besides.

You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions