Is it any wonder that the OP can be read simply as a post-hoc justification of simply being lazy? I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'. — StreetlightX

I see why you would say that but I think this misses something. The OP is very clear about the need to pay attention. This is not easy to do. I would venture to say that there are those who have been immersed in Kant or whoever without ever having thought to pay attention (a kind of critical reflection of experience and upon what can be noticed, about others, things, self.) and thereby missing a level of critical engagement with lived experience. The OP may resent this but it seems to me closer to a mystical tradition of the contemplative.

I agree. But I also think philosophy is different. It has branches in all fields of knowledge, which branched out of it. So fundamental issues in all domains, are often philosophical.

What was Socrates doing? He was asking questions to ordinary citizens. He's called a philosopher. Why wasn't he called a lawyer? Or a historian?

The problem with the feel-good 'we're all philosophers in our own way happy happy joy joy' bullshit is that it is safe, sanitized. Is it any wonder that the OP can be read simply as a post-hoc justification of simply being lazy? I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'. — StreetlightX

I don't know where you're reading into my reply any "feel-goodness". I'm saying that if you look at many of the threads here, they are often made by people with little by way of knowledge of traditional figues, yet many times the question are perfectly legitimate and difficult.

I think T. Clark in general has interesting things to say. Perhaps he should've re-phrased his OP. That's fine, no additional argument from me on that end.

Things eventually sort out. "Woo"-people tend to leave or are ignored. So I don't see the problem. But feel-good is far from my intent in believing philosophy should include many traditions and perspectives not limited to the classical Western figures.

What was Socrates doing? He was asking questions to ordinary citizens. He's called a philosopher. Why wasn't he called a lawyer? Or a historian? — Manuel

Sure, but Socrates was Socrates by doing the exact oppose the OP suggests - he most decidedly did not stay in his room and have the world 'writhe at his feet'. He literally wondered the agora looking for trouble.

I'm saying that if you look at many of the threads here, they are often made by people with little by way of knowledge of traditional figues. yet many times the question are perfectly legitimate and difficult. ... But feel-good is far from my intent in believing philosophy should include many traditions and perspectives not limited to the classical Western figures. — Manuel

I agree. That's the cool thing about a forum like this, is that you can have philosophical discussions without being a philosopher. Most, if not everyone here, is not a philosopher. And that's OK (why is this not-OK for so many people? What fragility requires that they prostitute philosophy for themselves out of some feeling of inadequacy?). I also agree that philosophy should include lots of non Western-canon things - but I have never insisted that it should.

The OP is very clear about the need to pay attention.... The OP may resent this but it seems to me closer to a mystical tradition of the contemplative. — Tom Storm

And if people want to go off and be mystics, by all means, mysticize away. But don't say that you sat in a room writhing for an hour and now you're a philosopher. I also think this 'attention' business is a MacGuffin. I have no idea what it means. A plumber pays attention when he fixes pipes. A CEO pays attention when she cuts staff for the sake of efficiency.

Sure, but Socrates was Socrates by doing the exact oppose the OP suggests - he most decidedly did not stay in his room and have the world 'writhe at his feet'. He literally wondered the agora looking for trouble. — StreetlightX

Didn't the Buddha sit and meditate for a long time under a tree? Parts of that tradition can be called philosophical. I do agree that sitting in a room doing nothing forever won't get you anywhere. So there is room for nuance here.

I agree. That's the cool thing about a forum like this, is that you can have philosophical discussions without being a philosopher. Most, if not everyone here, is not a philosopher. And that's OK. I also agree that philosophy should include lots of non Western-canon things - but I have never insisted that it should. — StreetlightX

Then what we have here is a matter of difference of how we are interpreting the OP. I think Cornel West makes a good distinction between "philosophy as a profession" and "philosophy as a way of life". We can add to that philosophy as a hobby or amateur philosophy, which needn't mean bad.

By now, if you aren't teaching in academia, it's hard for people to call anyone a philosopher. There are very, very few exception. Raymond Tallis is the only one that comes to mind and perhaps Bernardo Kastrup too.

But Socrates would not be called a philosopher today if he was not already in the tradition and it's clear that he was one. So that's problematic for the term.

I guess I'll I can call someone as a philosopher honorifically, while still accepting most of your concerns.

Yep. One can do philosophy without having much of an acquaintance with the philosophical literature. The result, evident on these fora, is the repetition of errors already identified. — Banno

I guess I missed the "errors already identified." Can you tell me where they were identified.

There really is nothing like a standard of practice for philosophers. No licensing. If a philosopher makes a mistake... well, there's not really any way to tell. — T Clark

Except here you're wrong, which means you've engaged in bad philosophy and you've failed to pay attention. If we can't decipher our mistakes, we have no philosophy as a field and we have no basis for rational debate. If you're correct and I'm wrong here, of course, you can save yourself a reply, as you've explained we have no way to know if what you said made sense. Pay attention: you've just argued argument is a futile waste of time.

Philosophers not being licensed has nothing to do with our inability to distinguish good from bad philosophers. It has to do with politics and attempts to advance some interest, like all laws do. The way one determines the reason legislatures decide as they do is to research why they do as they do, as opposed to giving it a good think and declaring what sounds reasonable.

But don't say that you sat in a room writhing for an hour and now you're a philosopher. I also think this 'attention' business is a MacGuffin. I have no idea what it means. A plumber pays attention when he fixes pipes. A CEO pays attention when she cuts staff for the sake of efficiency. — StreetlightX

I think we disagree on this. I think it is possible to philosophize alone with no texts. But he didn't say he was Spinoza.

Except here you're wrong, which means you've engaged in bad philosophy and you've failed to pay attention. If we can't decipher our mistakes, we have no philosophy as a field and we have no basis for rational debate. If you're correct and I'm wrong here, of course, you can save yourself a reply, as you've explained we have no way to know if what you said made sense. Pay attention: you've just argued argument is a futile waste of time. — Hanover

I said that there is no standard of practice for philosophy. That would be a good subject for a discussion, not this one. Is there a standard of practice for philosophy? What is it? What makes good philosophy?

Then what we have here is a matter of difference of how we are interpreting the OP. I think Cornel West makes a good distinction between "philosophy as a profession" and "philosophy as a way of life". We can add to that philosophy as a hobby or amateur philosophy, which needn't mean bad.

By now, if you aren't teaching in academia, it's hard for people to call anyone a philosopher. There are very, very few exception. Raymond Tallis is the only one that comes to mind and perhaps Bernardo Kastrup too. — Manuel

There are interesting questions to be raised by autodidactism - questions which are at once social and ethical, and go way beyond the question of the individual. There's this inverview with Reza Negarestani, where he makes the point that the autodiadact needs to be understood in the relation to an entire social system:

"I would trace such ideas of auto-didacticism back to ancient philosophy, and also works of Islamic philosophers such as Ibn al-Nafis and Ibn Tufail. For them auto-didacticism did not solely mean being self-taught. It was something much more, almost a cosmological conviction about what thinking is and what it can do, and of course what the philosophical individual Will can achieve or contribute in this cosmological scenario of thinking without established arbitrary limitations. The central theme is, as you mentioned, education. Comprehensively understood, education is an extension of philosophy of mind and autonomy. This definition, however, requires a far more expansive formulation of the concept of mind than how it is addressed today.

...What is the solution to the current pathologies of mind as manifested in our systems of education? I think the first step to address the problem coherently, even before attempting to resolve it, should be that of a coordinated movement across the socio-political spectrum. The aim of this movement should be to update our existing educational system, both methodologically and theoretically in the sense of alterative theories of education which are as much informed by developmental psychology as they are refined by neuroscience and computation, while at the same time developing a much more expansive concept of education, where the latter would be construed as a goal rather than a premise for autonomy and collective self-determination. The task then would be to coordinate our existing systems with the all-encompassing radical concept of education, whose concrete realization is our long-term goal. But to take any of these steps we need to first concretely acknowledge that it is politics that should treat education as an unconditional factor, not the other way around."

https://www.neroeditions.com/docs/reza-negarestani-engineering-the-world-crafting-the-mind/

The OP of course simply doesn't even begin to raise the same issues, because it doesn't even rise to the level of advocating for autodiadictism. It literally says that ignorance is fostered by learning. It's insane and intensely stupid and frankly embarrassing. But it is also understandable - as a symptom of a society where the only choices are that of engaging in a rarefied system that is cold, alien and inaccessible, or else heroically 'going at it alone', traditions be damned. The OP is a reflection of social failure, and a sadly understandable response to it.

I guess I missed the "errors already identified." Can you tell me where they were identified. — T Clark

:wink:

In the literature.

That's my point.

You wanna find out, you godda do the readin'.

I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. — Outlander

I have expressed my regret for the tone of my OP in other posts. I tend toward the smartass and I didn't think what I wrote would be so controversial or offend people. I was naive.

without looking through the discussion — Outlander

Perhaps you should.

Sorry, but no, just because you're a lazy two-bit "thinker" doesn't mean a whole discipline has to be redefined to accomodate your fragile ego. You don't want to study philosophy, fine, no worries. But you're going to be trash at philosophy. Pretty simple. — StreetlightX

As I've noted in several other posts, I regret the flippant tone of my OP. I've offended people and made it harder to have a friendly discussion about this. Forgetting about this discussion for a moment, based on my history on the forum, am I a two-bit thinker? Am I trash at philosophy? I don't think I am, but if I am, that answers the question I asked at the beginning.

It may look like a lot, but I think this is sensible. — Manuel

Is this your persona list, or does it come from somewhere specific. Is it William James?

I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'.

I mean God, it is really so bruising to people's egos to have to sinply say: I have an interest in philosophy, just as people say "I have an interest in history" without calling oneself a philosopher or historian? Like, you're not a philosopher in the same way you're not a historian. Get over it. — StreetlightX

I am not a philosopher. I was being flippant when I referred to myself as one. I regret that now.

The OP may resent this but it seems to me closer to a mystical tradition of the contemplative. — Tom Storm

Sure, I guess. As I've said several times in this discussion, I think attention to the world has to come first, before the philosophy, i.e. the words, explanations, theories, reason. To me, that's the difference between western and eastern philosophies. Western philosophies are about reason. Eastern philosophies are about attention and awareness.

Perhaps he should've re-phrased his OP. — Manuel

Agreed.

I think Cornel West makes a good distinction between "philosophy as a profession" and "philosophy as a way of life". We can add to that philosophy as a hobby or amateur philosophy, which needn't mean bad. — Manuel

Talking of Cornel West, he wrote a piece in April that's even more pertinent, and an interesting angle on this topic:

Howard University’s removal of classics is a spiritual catastrophe

Upon learning to read while enslaved, Frederick Douglass began his great journey of emancipation, as such journeys always begin, in the mind. Defying unjust laws, he read in secret, empowered by the wisdom of contemporaries and classics alike to think as a free man. Douglass risked mockery, abuse, beating and even death to study the likes of Socrates, Cato and Cicero.

Long after Douglass’s encounters with these ancient thinkers, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would be similarly galvanized by his reading in the classics as a young seminarian — he mentions Socrates three times in his 1963 “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” — Cornel West

Of course I am influenced by the culture I live in. How much does that make my search for an unprejudiced vision of reality quixotic? I can't be sure, I can only do the best I can. Purity of vision is probably not necessary. If my current understanding is irreparably intermixed with western philosophy, it hardly seems likely that further study will make things better. — T Clark

The sentence that I've bolded here: maybe you can see that it's mistaken, if you think about the difference between, on one hand, being unknowingly influenced, and on the other hand, reading the influential thinkers to understand how you and others are being influenced (and what those thinkers were reacting against, and so on). I suggest you read the short opinion piece by West that I quoted above, to get an idea of the value of the philosophical canon.

Here are some more quotes from it:

Students must be challenged: Can they face texts from the greatest thinkers that force them to radically call into question their presuppositions? — Cornel West

As German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer emphasized in the past century, traditions are inescapable and unavoidable. It is a question not of whether you are going to work in a tradition, but which one. Even the choice of no tradition leaves people ignorantly beholden within a language they didn’t create and frameworks they don’t understand.

Engaging with the classics and with our civilizational heritage is the means to finding our true voice. It is how we become our full selves, spiritually free and morally great. — Cornel West

It's interesting how West's focus on the black experience brings these things into focus. He implies that what might appear as the "decolonizing" of education has more to do with a utilitarian anti-intellectualism in the wider society. I think it's fair to say that there is more than a hint of this in your OP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/19/cornel-west-howard-classics/

The OP of course simply doesn't even begin to raise the same issues, because it doesn't even rise to the level of advocating for autodiadictism. It literally says that ignorance is fostered by learning. — StreetlightX

In an Eastern ‘your cup is full’ sense that is how I interpreted it. Ignorance being ignorance of one’s true nature. Realizing one’s true nature is regarded as the highest wisdom.

Also kind of like missing the forest for the trees:

@T Clark

Here's another angle. I think you've said a couple of times that you're seeking the insights of people here who you respect. So why not seek the insights of the people who have dedicated their lives to thinking things through?

As I've noted in several other posts, I regret the flippant tone of my OP. I've offended people and made it harder to have a friendly discussion about this. Forgetting about this discussion for a moment, based on my history on the forum, am I a two-bit thinker? Am I trash at philosophy? I don't think I am, but if I am, that answers the question I asked at the beginning. — T Clark

No, because I don't think - thank God - you practice what you preach.

Kant — T Clark

Sapere aude!. Dare to be wise!

Intellectual autonomy: You're on your own! Reason and, for god's sake, reason well.

Some other people here on the forum are strongly influenced by science. Others don't appear to be — T Clark

Right, it depends with whom one has interacted and the topics that one choses to discuss ...

I am not a physicalist. At least not always. — T Clark

Not always? :chin:

It's an interesting proposition and sounds different from what is usually associated with the term today but looks quite sensible.

I think self-learning can be excellent for some people, given the state of Academia in neoliberal terms, what with extreme competition, aiming for test scores, wanting flashy essays in journals only 2 people read, etc.



Na, just came to mind as something roughly reasonable.



There's a lot to be said about that. I mean, everybody's different, but learning that comes naturally, that is, reading and engaging in stuff you find intrinsically attractive and challenging and thought provoking, much more often than not stays with you in a way learning in a classroom rarely does. And it's also a lifelong thing.

Within the context of those figures quoted, it indeed was an act of rebellion and must have been liberating too.

Cornel West is fantastic.

There's a lot to be said about that. I mean, everybody's different, but learning that comes naturally, that is, reading and engaging in stuff you find intrinsically attractive and challenging and thought provoking, much more often than not stays with you in a way learning in a classroom rarely does. And it's also a lifelong thing. — Manuel

In my experience, classroom learning works and sticks just fine. The students just need to be open to and ready for it. The current US-American educational system is shepherding through too many people who are uninterested and unready for philosophical (or otherwise academic) training. My best students always include (though are not exclusively) the older, non-trads who have lived a little and come back on their own dime.

Edit for clarity: I'm not suggesting classroom learning is right for everyone or that studying on your own is futile. I'm just saying that classroom learning works for those ready to do the work.
Kind like, people often suggest certain exercises or calorie-deficit diets don't work for weight loss because people don't stick to them. But really the diets and exercises actually work fine, IF you do them.

Sure. A good portion of it depends on the teacher being able to make this stuff stand out, which for philosophy can be especially difficult, given many topics can be quite abstract. Ethics, perhaps less so and is more pertinent for the everyday.

It makes sense that older students would be more interested in these things.

Each person is unique and I surely was not ready for philosophy in my first year in college. Had I the mentality that I have now, I would've taken a lot out of my classes which I missed out on. I ended up teaching myself, which worked for me, but could have perhaps been made easier with a different mindset.

Yeah, a bad teacher can tamper enthusiasm for sure. But spend an hour in the class of even the best teachers and you'll see an ever increasing number of students afflicted with "grumpy student syndrome." Pro-tip: You can usually spot them in the back, frowning intently at their laps (where they think we don't know they have their phones).

I said that there is no standard of practice for philosophy. That would be a good subject for a discussion, not this one. Is there a standard of practice for philosophy? What is it? What makes good philosophy? — T Clark

Whether I can itemize the criteria, I don't know, but clearly there are journalistic standards that one must adhere to in order to be published.

Your standard, and I don't say this to be snarky, is that you object to rigor. You'll read the posts here and respond to them, but you won't read Kant or Nietzsche. The only difference I can see between what those established philosophers have to say and what we have to say here is the level of complexity and the volume. I don't even see this as an East versus West distinction because I would expect there are countless volumes of rigorous analysis of Taoist thought that you would also decline reading.

Back to my tennis analogy, I see nothing wrong with being a weak tennis player who enjoys being on the court and working up a sweat if that's what you want to do. Where it becomes nonsense is if you'd start arguing that you're just as a good a tennis player as the professionals, but you just play by a different set of rules, and who's to say which rules are the ones we ought to follow.

I regret the flippant tone of my OP. I've offended people and made it harder to have a friendly discussion about this. — T Clark

For the record, I wasn’t offended, and I didn’t consider the tone flippant. It is my contention that the quote you used, “...be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking...” is precisely what happens when all one is doing, is engaging in pure thought. Which is itself, just daydreaming. Even if not often done, it is done nonetheless, and serves as a reference and fundamental ground for philosophy itself.

Regret if you wish, but I remind you......there’s no crying in metaphysics.

there are journalistic standards that one must adhere to in order to be published — Hanover

From the Cornel West piece that @jamalrob linked:

Howard University is not removing its classics department in isolation. This is the result of a massive failure across the nation in “schooling,” which is now nothing more than the acquisition of skills, the acquisition of labels and the acquisition of jargon. Schooling is not education. Education draws out the uniqueness of people to be all that they can be in the light of their irreducible singularity. It is the maturation and cultivation of spiritually intact and morally equipped human beings.

The removal of the classics is a sign that we, as a culture, have embraced from the youngest age utilitarian schooling at the expense of soul-forming education. To end this spiritual catastrophe, we must restore true education, mobilizing all of the intellectual and moral resources we can to create human beings of courage, vision and civic virtue. — Cornel West

You offered @T Clark one of the standards for being a professional academic philosopher, but there's clearly room for doubt that this is the sort of standard he was asking for, and what Cornel West suggests here might be closer to the mark, something that might be pursued by academic institutions but that, West says here categorically, is not.

This whole discussion might have benefited from distinguishing two issues: @T Clark's regularly avowed discomfort with the Western philosophical tradition, and the professionalization of philosophy in academic institutions. It is perfectly obvious how the professionalization of empirical disciplines advances them, as those require tremendous resources to make progress, halting and uncertain as that progress may be. It is not obvious, not to me anyway, that the same model has been well applied to the arts or to philosophy.

The interesting comparison is mathematics, always the odd duck. Mathematics may not require expensive research facilities (no large hadron colliders needed) or hordes of grad students to do the grunt work of research, but to do original work requires a tremendous amount of quite specialized education. Is the same true of philosophy?