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. — StreetlightX

Yes, well... the statement was intended to be ironic. I will add a quote here. I know it's right because it's from a philosopher:

To pursue learning one increases daily.
To pursue Tao one decreases daily.

That's from Verse 48 of the Tao Te Ching. Ellen Marie Chen's translation. There are lots of similar thoughts in Lao Tzu's work.

The main issue, to my mind, is whether your definition of metaphysics is actually correct or if your using the word in an idiosyncratic manner.

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. — StreetlightX

That's within a context of a certain experience and understanding. Everybody has these, it's kind of impossible no to, as long as you are alive. — Manuel

For what it's worth, I take Kafka seriously and, to a certain extent, literally. I'm sure he was very well read in philosophy and many other things, but at the bottom, it is our own experience we have to understand. Awareness is the goal, not erudition.

And yes, SLX, my OP tends toward self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue, although a lot of that, but not all, is intended as irony. As for "neoliberal entrepreneurial values,"... whatever my illusions or delusions, I don't think they have anything to do with neoliberalism.

But who is saying that a person just need to be alone in a room with zero stimulus or just go to the mountain hiking with no thoughts in mind? — Manuel

Of course this is Kafka's original thought not T Clark's. I wonder why Kafka thought that. Was he recommending avoidance of literature? Seeing is one thing; if you want to be good at communicating what you see, then obviously some familiarity with the ways other's have expressed their seeing will no doubt be helpful — Janus

As I noted in my previous response to @Manuel, I take Kafka seriously and, mostly, literally. I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of.

I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed). — I like sushi

Maybe this is my inner pragmatist speaking, but I see philosophy from a practical perspective. It helps me think and express myself better in a way that has an impact on the way I live my intellectual and everyday life.

In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends. — I like sushi

I don't understand.

Eh. I am being sympathetic to your views as you can see from my various posts.

As for "neoliberal entrepreneurial values,"... whatever my illusions or delusions, I don't think they have anything to do with neoliberalism. — T Clark

:lol:

All empirical philosophy in general and cognitive metaphysics in particular, is contained right there. If the world can do no other than present itself, the fundamental paid attention needs be only to oneself, by oneself, in the receipt of such presentation. The benighted psyches diminish, making intellectual sand kingdoms predicated on them less likely, by the quality of attention paid, and the world necessarily becomes unmasked in direct correspondence to it. — Mww

I don't think Kafka's thought is a testimonial to empirical philosophy, but I do think it has everything to do with the quality of attention paid.

At the very least, even if only in humans, the agency that pays attention to itself can be supposed to contain the capacity to investigate itself, — Mww

Yes. As I said, I think attention, awareness, is at the heart of philosophy.

The main issue, to my mind, is whether your definition of metaphysics is actually correct or if your using the word in an idiosyncratic manner. — Manuel

I don't think my use is idiosyncratic, but it also is not universal. A lot of people disagree with how I think of it. If nothing else, I think that leads to most of the disagreements and misunderstandings found here on the forum and in philosophy in general. Free will vs. determinism will never be resolved as a philosophical issue. Unless you are telling me that half the people in that argument are wrong, you have to acknowledge that there is value, usefulness, on both sides of the argument.

I've take the view that I take with so many other issues: I can't know it all, and while I will not surrender my right to critically and analytically consider something, I will often suspend it. As stated in another thread, doubt does not preclude action. I'll defer to those I deem experts, in my own arbitrary and subjective vetting process. I've no interest in knowing everything. — James Riley

I agree with this.

I am being sympathetic to your views as you can see from my various posts. — Manuel

I don't see your responses as unsympathetic to my 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. — T Clark

Of course not, but that opens up an interesting question. Is my understanding that metaphysical questions are not matters of fact but of usefulness a metaphysical question? — T Clark

The answer to that question is in your OP. :brow:

I don't understand. — T Clark

Be a Scholar or a Thinker. Trying to be both will usually end up in a mess. Good scholars are probably hard to come by nowadays because it is not exactly fancy work they do.

By Scholar I mean explaining the views and opinions of a text/philosopher rather than forcing one's own views onto it. By Thinker I mean not taking any oppositional stance against a philosophy but rather looking at problems and questions in order to address them or clarify their meaning in a more crystalline form.

A lot of what I see today is 'this person/philosophy is wrong because ...'. I don't care for it. I want either a full analysis of a philosopher/philosophy in a dispassionate manner OR to just see someone go at a problem rather than act in pure opposition to this or that perceived ideological stance.

With too many people dallying between the two we end up with poor scholarly works (opinions cast as reporting) or a lack of original investigation (reporting cast as insight).

You've probably heard of the old reference to science being 99% stamp collecting. How would you analogise philosophy in this manner?

Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

This sort of thing supposedly lead Siddhartha Gautama to some world-renown insights.

The OP didn't suggest to me at all that we should "blank-slate oneself to ideas."

The answer to that question is in your OP. :brow: — Wheatley

If the answer is "yes" does that make it one of those liar's paradox propositions? "This sentence is false."

The proposition that metaphysical statements are not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation, is not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation.

Not very interested in that. Sorry.

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...

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. — StreetlightX

Although I'm interested in lots of issues discussed here on the forum, epistemology is what matters to me most. What do I know? How do I know it? How certain am I about what I know? What are the consequences if I am wrong? As I noted in my OP, I've paid my epistemological dues during 30 years of professional work gathering, sorting, synthesizing, summarizing, trying to understand, and explaining data, facts, knowledge then using them to address real life problems in very practical terms.

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. — StreetlightX

I don't disagree with this, but to a certain extent it misses the point. The point, as I understand Kafka, is that what matters is awareness. Awareness of the world. Awareness of ourselves. All the rest of philosophy is just there to help us do that. If you don't understand that, the rest is just building stacks of words and saying "what a good boy am I."

They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something. — T Clark

Mature, well read, urbane, intelligent people are like that. Those features are more important than the particular field of study--just my opinion. These features are often gifted by one's parents (or not). Genetics, sure, but also by their own style. And luck. One has to have patience and curiosity to read widely and well, but one also has to be lucky enough to be able to do so. Luck has something to do with maturity and urbanity too. If life is too short or too rough, one might not get either one.

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. — StreetlightX

Like 'garbage in, garbage out', nothing in, nothing out.

epistemology is what matters — T Clark

What did he know, and when did he know it?

A critical piece of my wrestling match with faith, was whether or not we live in a 'knowable world'. I decided I wanted to live in a 'knowable world' without divine, esoteric mysteries. The turning point wasn't the usual youthful rejection of religion that many seem to experience. I was around 50 at the time. Not that I had been deeply immersed in faith up until then, but I had been struggling to get free of it altogether.

So yes, epistemology is what matters. There are a lot of practical applications in that sentence. It's also humbling to think about how long it can take "to know" something confidently. Curious people were noticing interesting things about rock types and layers well before geology became a science, 100 years on. It took 2 or 3 hundred years to get from an inkling that diseases might have specific causes (rather than 'vapors') to Koch's Postulates in 1875.

John Dvorak's How the Mountains Grew, a geologic history of North America from dust ball to the Anthropocene, is as good a read as a great novel. Putting together scattered bits and pieces of information to read uplift, or ancient erosion, is no small achievement in epistemology. Or, different field, that Sanskrit and ancient Greek were related languages.

I think my "body of work," if I may laughingly call it that, shows I am not afraid to do my own thinking, for better or worse. — T Clark

I would have said so. In general I think it's better to do your own thinking and worse to let others do it for you. Although just to be inconsistent, I'll let Blake do my thinking for me on this: "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." Sometimes I think our own resident fool @The Mad Fool is getting there.

Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get a handle on. Take Kant for instance. I think he is one of your insistent poets. I've tried reading him and haven't gotten very far. But people I respect keep saying his work is central to intellectual history and the scientific revolution. Again, I worry I am missing something. — T Clark

Kant is hard to read. I think it's true his work is central to intellectual history; not sure how much it has mattered to the scientific revolution. ( That said, I seem to recall reading that Kant was the first to arrive at the current theory of the formation of nebulae). According to my limited understanding most of modern philosophy consists in, one way or another, of rejecting Kant. But I also think that most of modern philosophy is, one way or another, of limited relevance to the examined life. It can even be a distraction form self-examination. I like the adage: "The unexamined life is not worth living" but I also like its reversal: "the unlived life is not worth examining". I only worry that I might be missing something if there is something I really want to explore, but there are other things I want to explore more, and I simply don't have enough time.

As I noted in my previous response to Manuel, I take Kafka seriously and, mostly, literally. I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of. — T Clark

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Since the age of about 16 I have, off and on, written poetry. The writing of it has always been an attempt to flush my experience out of hiding and understand it. Since I began writing I have always read, desultorily, the few poets that attracted me. Over the last few years I have begun writing more, and due to a small group of fellow poetry enthusiasts I meet with every week, have begun to read many other poets, which has led me to realize that all poets are dealing with basically the same perennial themes in their own different ways (and the same may be said of philosophers). Self-awareness, self-examination and understanding is far more important than erudition (erudition may or may not be an aid to this). Everyone is the same, and yet different.

:up: I can relate to that!

Sure.

We needn't even make that dichotomy though, someone may have a false belief and they may find it useful, even if they aren't aware it's false. An uncontroversial example should be something like Scientology or even Flat Earthers.

I think attention, awareness, is at the heart of philosophy. — T Clark

I don’t think these are the same, and although either of them is necessary for their respective doing of philosophy, neither is sufficient for standing at the heart of it. Both are empty, without something to which they relate, and that relation, is the heart of philosophy.

That's from Verse 48 of the Tao Te Ching. Ellen Marie Chen's translation. There are lots of similar thoughts in Lao Tzu's work — T Clark

Sure. Which is why Lao Tzu is far more popular with yoga teachers and wellness centers for than anything resembling philosophy (I've read the Dao. It's fine. One book among a million in which to find some occasionally interesting things).

In any case it's telling that the defense of remaining stupid and ignorant is coupled with some woo woo religion and mysticism. Buddha included. All of this goes hand and hand. What better way to justify being dumb that indulging in some exoticizsed 'Eastern' Wisdom.

As for my quip about neoliberalism: its simply the atmosphere you (and I) breathe. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a neoliberal shill, but this atomization of the 'thinker' goes hand in hand with that attitude. Or perhaps it's a male thing. Or an American thing. Some rugged individualist nonsense.

I think there is something to be said for addressing philosophical questions secluded from the ideas and thoughts of others so one simply isn't trapped in a certain mindset.

Meaning the opposite problem would be to have a world where every philosopher approaches the same issues in the same manner tat everyone before them has done with little to no new insight.

From a personal perspective I'm unsure if I'd be in a better position viewing the thoughts of others on this or that philosopher/philosophy earlier or later. This is something that falls into all pedagogical categories really.

My advice to anyone reading any philosophical work is not to use a guide if they want to the most out of it. People do generally ignore me because it probably takes longer and is often more frustrating to read something you struggle to grasp/understand yet keep on keeping on. Then there is basic life experience. Some philosophical works make more sense with age.

NOTE: None of this is meant to say NEVER look at other people's perspectives and work on this or that area, it is more or less a warning that if you don't struggle and persist you may miss out on the reward of finding something fresh yourself and reaching a point where you can teach yourself how to learn mor efficiently in the future.

We do stand on the shoulders of giants for sure. Worshipping such giants isn't wise though (think of how Aristotle was revered and what Copernicus did). This is why I'm saying most are better off as Scholars or Thinkers not both. Trying to straddle both seems to result in the kind of blind worshipping expressed by those who opposed (or rather dismissed) Copernicus.

In any case it's telling that the defense of remaining stupid and ignorant is coupled with some woo woo religion and mysticism. Buddha included. All of this goes hand and hand. What better way to justify being dumb that indulging in some exoticizsed 'Eastern' Wisdom. — StreetlightX

@jamalrob accused me of not being open minded. I wonder what he thinks about you. I've read Kant and Wittgenstein. They're fine I guess. To me, they're caught in the trap of many philosophers. They've mistaken words for reality.

What better way to justify believing what you're told to believe and not making up your own mind.

I am absolutely close minded. About any who would preach not knowing and learning things as a virtue.

I am absolutely close minded. — StreetlightX

Yes.

One thing I would also like to highlight is the kind of nonsense strewn around when people claim to be 'authors' when they've never actually written a book, or have only literally written one terrible book.

This seems to have bled into many areas as some kind of weird 'feel good' rubbish that does little more than belittle those who have spend years and years honing a craft.

You are NOT a philosopher if you've never bothered to read any philosophical work. That said I don't think you're much of a philosopher if you merely the brief accounts of others work rather than the actual work itself. I'm reminded of one guy (who I respect to this day) that went on about Kant a whole lot ... after years of exchanges I actually got around to reading Kant (without guided assistance) and then challenged some of his thoughts after telling him I'd spent a whole year reading and rereading one of Kant's works. He then told me he'd never actually read any of his works in completion to get his degree in philosophy as there wasn't time to do so and nor had he found the time to do so late into his life and retirement. I was baffled by this because he had repeatedly spoke with such authority on the matter and berated others for not 'putting the work in'.

At least I thank him to this day for giving me a good reason to pick up A Critique of Pure Reason and challenging myself.