Well, whatever one thinks of Kant specifically is one thing, but to say he was concerned with words as opposed to the world is a mistake.

Yes he is very hard to read and it is a shame he couldn't be clearer in his Critique as it set forth a precedence of deep thought being connected to bad writing. This was then taken and abused by Hegel and company and is still an issue today. But Hegel pales to Kant.

Nevertheless, even if not Kant, the tradition he is involved (the Neoplatonist tradition which preceded him which said much of the same stuff) in and the problems he raised are substantial and of extreme philosophical depth, particularly the idea of "things in themselves" - to me anyway.

I think it would be unfair to say that he is stuck with confusing words with reality.

We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love. I am a specialist, God help me, in events in inner space and time, in experiences called thoughts, images, reveries, dreams, visions, hallucinations, dreams of memories, memories of dreams, memories of visions, dreams of hallucinations, refractions of refractions of refractions of that original Alpha and Omega of experience and reality, that Reality on whose repression, denial, splitting, projection, falsification, and general desecration and profanation our civilisation as much as anything is based. — R. D. Laing

If I were you, I wouldn't start from here.

The oldest known written philosophy is the episode in the epic of Gilgamesh where, on the way to find eternal life, he stops at a bar and the bar maid gives him pretty much the same message that's in Ecclesiastes.

But maybe philosophy doesn't have one beginning, but a multitude, one for each of us.

to say he was concerned with words as opposed to the world is a mistake. — Manuel

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Kant’s pre-critical period had much to do with the world, whereas his critical period had only to do with our human relation to the world, which pretty much left the world out of the picture. In that respect, one could say he was more concerned with words, insofar as no one before him had put so much focus on the cognitive system as a systemic whole.

It was said, or at least hinted, by his immediate peers that he was more concerned with words than the world, from the fact he was notorious for changing the meaning of established conceptions on the one hand, re: noumena, freedom, consciousness, etc., and severely restricting the domain of others, re: forms, ideals/ideal, the a priori, on the other.

Also, the times. Science was relatively new, just coming into that which is now taken for granted, which made empiricism the rule of the day. Kant comes along, invents a new philosophy which, while not rejecting empiricism, removes it from primary importance. So everybody, newly amazed at, e.g., the profound immenseness of the Universe, was then being told.....ehhhhh, it’s only immense because that’s how it appears to us. It wasn’t so much that he was more concerned with words, but rather, that he wasn’t concerned with the world. The world is. So what. What are we doing with it, is a much bigger deal.

Fun fact: it took more than two years for a peer review of the first edition of the first critique. Even his BFF Mendelssohn declined to comment, admitting that initially he didn’t understand a word of it, and subsequently, after becoming familiar, was reluctant to endorse so sketchy.....so blatantly radical....a metaphysical overhaul. The philosophical community in general, thought themselves not so much dazzled by brilliance as baffled by bullshit. Towards the end of his life, when asked who he would list as his “best defenders”, he picked not a single, well-published, known-name, chaired, philosopher, but instead, a credentialed mathematician.

So, putting it all together, it’s not all that hard to see how the folks from that era at least, claimed he was more concerned with words than with the world. These days, though, after all the study and microscopic dissection, it is quite unfair that Kant was, as you say, stuck with confusing words with reality.

I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this. — T Clark

IWhat you describe is not what most define as philosophy. It's sort of this Zen state of understanding and harmony you're trying to achieve as far as I can see. For example, how do you meaningfully respond to metaphysical, epistemological, or moral questions by just sitting back and absorbing? Do we just wait together all in silence in this Kafkaesque ideal, or do you listen to others and form your own thoughts internally without contribution?

I also don't see these tacks as mutually exclusive. Why can't I spend time in silent contemplation, but also read philosophy? Is reading others' epiphanies corrupting of my own? Wouldn't learning from others advance my own progess?

To the extent you argue that some answers lie within and should be sought by contemplation, I do agree, but to the extent you argue that formal study is unnecessary or even inferior, I don't.

Well no you don't, but surely helps.

human relation to the world, which pretty much left the world out of the picture — Mww

I'd say that it forces us to think of what we call the "world" very differently.



As for the rest, excellent stuff. :up:

Re: "You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher"
Everyone has a philosophy of life and about various subjects in life. In the same way that everyone knows and is more or less good in math, in some sport, etc. But these don't make someone an actual philosopher, a mathematician or an athlete. (Oxford LEXICO defines "philosopher" as "A person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.")

I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also.

I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys — T Clark

I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore or if you have never read anything about them. Whatever is the case, I agree that one does not need to stick to some philosopher and esp. quoting him every now and then in these pages and elsewhere. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is so widespread that it annoys me! I use to say to people "Think for yourself and let X [philosopher] think for himself!"

I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have interesting and strong philosophical views in a lot of subjects. It's exactly what philosophy reading can and must do for everyone, even if he is not involved in philosophizing, i.e. call himself a "philosophical thinker", participating in philosophical discussions, etc.

***

Now, about professional philosophers ... We all know about a lot of persons who are writing philosophy books and giving lectures on philosopical subjects but who never mention any known (or not) philosopher in their work or speeches. I don't know what's their background regarding philosophy. Neither do I care. The important thing is that they have something valuable to say to each of us individually (it's a personal think).

On the other hand, I believe that it is totally impossible for someone to have an academic career as a philosopher, not only if he has not read a lot of philosophy books or he does not know well the work (and even the life) of dozens of philosophers.

Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that. — T Clark

Yes, you're missing the "big picture" of philosophy.

Pragmatism — T Clark

The pragmatic thing to do, as far as the study of philosophy is concerned, is to take up a course of study in philosophy at a university, or something as similar to that as possible. With proper guidance and testing of the student's knowledge of the subject matter.

A formal education in philosophy will provide one with that all-important big picture understanding of what philosophy is about, and this will properly contextualize all of one's further endeavors in philosophy.

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. — T Clark

The bolded parts are two mistaken ideas about philosophy that are common for people who have not had a formal education in philosophy. They are based on the assumption that philosophy is solely a matter of ideology.

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

For the purpose of what?

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. — T Clark

That's not necessarily philosophy already, it's just thinking.

I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

Sure. But the way you talk about your understanding of the world has things missing, depending on whom you want to talk about it with.

There's also something to be said for the process of arriving at such realizations yourself; regardless of whether others already have. It's not a matter of competition, but of grappling with the human condition. No hard and fast rules. — Janus

Reinventing the wheel is overrated.

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. — T Clark

IOW, rely in whatever infromation has collected in your mind up until this point (much of it is probably trash) and whatever is currently available to you (also probably trash), and hold this to be the highest, the most relevant there is.

Certainly, in the quest for authenticity (their own, that of others), many people think that the best way to achieve that is not to expose themselves to any new ideas -- as if this would somehow guarantee authenticity. What they're forgetting is that this way, they're just leaving themselves with the ideas they have collected so far (which might not be very good ones; in fact, which probabbly aren't very good ones, given the dissatisfaction these people now feel) and are cutting themselves off to anything new. The ship of blank slate authenticity has sailed long ago, latest when one was born.

Well, whatever one thinks of Kant specifically is one thing, but to say he was concerned with words as opposed to the world is a mistake. — Manuel

To read the works of a particular philosopher as an autodidact is overwhelming, to say the least.

Of course, some seem more readable than others (which is probably why Nietzsche is so popular among autodidacts and why Kant isn't), and based on this first impression, one might conclude that one should be able to master the whole of philosophy as an autodidact. But this way, the autodidact just sets the bar very low, and cuts himself off of everything that supersedes his current abilities and current knowledge base.

In order to improve, to grow, one needs to interact with people who know more than oneself.

In order to improve, to grow, one needs to interact with people who know more than oneself. — baker

Yes, that usually helps. And even people who "know less" in one particular area can also have much to say one wasn't aware of. You can learn from all places, but certain figures tend to more reliable.

the autodidact just sets the bar very low, and cuts himself off of everything that supersedes his current abilities and current knowledge — baker

There isn't one formula for everyone, just tendencies for better results.

What you describe is not what most define as philosophy. It's sort of this Zen state of understanding and harmony you're trying to achieve as far as I can see. For example, how do you meaningfully respond to metaphysical, epistemological, or moral questions by just sitting back and absorbing? Do we just wait together all in silence in this Kafkaesque ideal, or do you listen to others and form your own thoughts internally without contribution? — Hanover

As you can certainly see, I am very verbal - wrapped up in words. I don't have any consistent meditative or spiritual practice. Actually, I do. This forum is my meditative and spiritual practice. Practitioners of yoga, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, tai chi use those practices to become more aware of the world and themselves. I use my intellect and my voice. But at bottom, that's it - awareness. Awareness is what's important. I don't even think that Plato, Kant, Kneechee, Rorty... would necessarily disagree with me. They're all dead, so I can say what I want about them. That's the essence of my metaphysics - awareness.

I also don't see these tacks as mutually exclusive. Why can't I spend time in silent contemplation, but also read philosophy? Is reading others' epiphanies corrupting of my own? Wouldn't learning from others advance my own progess?

To the extent you argue that some answers lie within and should be sought by contemplation, I do agree, but to the extent you argue that formal study is unnecessary or even inferior, I don't. — Hanover

I agree completely. I don't think I said anywhere that a more traditional western philosophical approach is not valid on it's own or in combination. That it doesn't work. I only said it hasn't worked for me.

That it doesn't work. I only said it hasn't worked for me. — T Clark

I read what you said to be that you made a half assed effort, gathered minimal gains, then quit fully trying, and then declared your approach as valid as any other.

I have a friend who played professional tennis. He refuses to give lessons, claiming no one is really willing to learn. Real lessons, according to him, require grueling hours of practicing a particular stroke before moving to the next.

I think he's right that his method is the true path to excellence, but the truth is I'd quit within minutes of that painful regimen and therefore never improve at all. I'd stay a hack, never even getting mediocre, much less the professional he expects. My method requires that I chip back shots for about an hour while goofing off. Anything else would bore me. I'd improve a little probably.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior.

I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also. — Alkis Piskas

I have no argument with anything you've said. Whenever I call myself a philosopher, it is with a smirk at my presumption. I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." That 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.

I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore of if you have never read anything about them. — Alkis Piskas

I'm from science. I'm an engineer. That's where my interest in philosophy comes from. More importantly, that's where my measuring stick for judging philosophy comes from. My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science. Even more, the thing that draws me to a particular philosophy most is it's relevance to my understanding of science and the world. I value philosophy for very practical reasons. I have used it just about every day, less now that I am no longer working as an engineer. Philosophy is a tool.

I took a couple of philosophy courses in college. I've read a little bit of everything but not a lot. There are a few philosophers I like a lot - Emerson, pragmatists, Lao Tzu. With the rest, when I hold them up against the measuring stick of science, I don't see the value.

I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have an interesting if not powerful philosophical views in a lot of subjects. — Alkis Piskas

This is exactly the issue I have been trying to address for myself in this discussion.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior. — Hanover

The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste.

I read what you said to be that you made a half assed effort, gathered minimal gains, then quit fully trying, and then declared your approach as valid as any other. — Hanover

I think he's right that his method is the true path to excellence, — Hanover

I'm not trying for excellence. I'm not sure what it even means in this context. Does it mean being able to quote a lot of philosophers? That's a set up question. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting that. For me it means having a clear and practical understanding of how the world works that I can use in my everyday life. For me, philosophy is a tool box. If the tools aren't a little beat up and oily, you aren't using them enough.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior. — Hanover

That's the point of this discussion. Am I missing something? Is my philosophy half-assed? Take a look at the things I've written here on the forum, not just this thread, and judge for yourself.

Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

That cart is in front of the horse. My intuition tells me that the philosophy you mention is culturally relevant.

Yes, you're missing the "big picture" of philosophy. — baker

The "big picture" comes first. Then comes philosophy. You have to be aware of the world and yourself first. Then philosophy can help you fill in the blanks.

The pragmatic thing to do, as far as the study of philosophy is concerned, is to take up a course of study in philosophy at a university, or something as similar to that as possible. With proper guidance and testing of the student's knowledge of the subject matter. — baker

That's not pragmatic at all. I want a philosophy I can use in my life to help answer the only true question - What do I do now. That's pragmatic.

The bolded parts are two mistaken ideas about philosophy that are common for people who have not had a formal education in philosophy. They are based on the assumption that philosophy is solely a matter of ideology. — baker

I disagree, at least for the first bolded statement. Mistaking words for reality is a tendency I see every day here on the forum. I also see it in most of the philosophy I've read. It is the original sin of philosophy.

But the way you talk about your understanding of the world has things missing, — baker

For example.

IOW, rely in whatever infromation has collected in your mind up until this point (much of it is probably trash) and whatever is currently available to you (also probably trash), and hold this to be the highest, the most relevant there is. — baker

That's not what Kafka said. Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior.
— Hanover

The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

What I was thinking when I read Hanover’s post. Deliberate practice requires a high degree of structure and well defined goals. There are definitely well established methods for training in things like music and sports, but philosophy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking.

Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

Yes. I like this way of putting it.

That's not what Kafka said. Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy. — T Clark

Bit of a tantalizing statement, TC. I can almost hear the terse response - 'But how do you know the world without philosophy!?' Your Kafka quote reminds me of a similar quote that always resonated with me and in fact often provide me with direction (or, should I say, provides me with calm).

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone," Blaise Pascal

In life I have rarely lost by using the principle, 'first do nothing'. Sit.

In life I have rarely lost by using the principle, 'first do nothing'. Sit. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think you, Kafka, and Pascal are on the same page.

I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking. — praxis

It's not just that there are established training methods, there are no established methods for measuring performance.

I don’t think it can be said that philosophy is a one-to-one ratio to writing philosophy, so it need not be read in order to practice it. But the fundamentals of logos still apply whether reified in written form or not.

If you want to engage with someone philosophically, though, it is a net benefit to anyone’s education to do it with the best philosophers the world has remembered, at least insofar as their works have been passed down to us.

So one needn’t read philosophy to be a philosopher, but that isn’t to say one shouldn’t.

Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy. — T Clark

This is the same teaching Allan Bloom made so many times, guided by Leo Strauss: a common-sense awareness of the phenomena is necessary before you can go beyond the common-sense world and begin to philosophize.

But the common-sense phenomena have been obscured by philosophy herself, for she transformed that world for her own benefit. Who understands what it means to be a gentleman anymore? or who can understand the impulse of an Alcibiades who, when his stingy manager objected to the amount of goods his master was offering a visiting dignitary, ordered that twice that amount be brought out? (cf Plutarch)

It is refreshing to hear someone like you bemoan the “grey network” of modern philosophy and its terminology that I and you and some others are put off by, but you can’t just go off into a solitary place alone and recover the true essence of things. You have to feel the need to go back to the time when and before philosophy was born, to recover a lost innocence, when men wondered...when they first became perplexed, or were amazed by the movement of the heavenly bodies, or recoiled against the rule of noblemen, etc.

As a modern engineer, you have had to deal with a lot of modern science, and a lot of modern politics. How are you to make your way through such a maze? The two are connected, intertwined in a way that is unsolvable...unless you go back to the beginning, and try to retrace the path, and understand how we got to the impasse that we’re at.

The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

You overstate the subjectivity of academia (which could be alleged in any field except perhaps the hard sciences). I'd suspect that by and large (admitting for some occasional exceptions), there would be fairly consistent grading of examinations from professor to professor. "A" students typically get As across the board, as do C students typically get Cs

you can’t just go off into a solitary place alone and recover the true essence of things. You have to feel the need to go back to the time when and before philosophy was born, to recover a lost innocence, when men wondered...when they first became perplexed, or were amazed by the movement of the heavenly bodies, or recoiled against the rule of noblemen, etc. — Leghorn

I appreciate the different perspective on the discussion in this thread. From the sound of it, you and the philosophers you discuss are talking about something similar to what I am. 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.