this is like arguing that the only way to get from your house to the Waffle House is by studying all the routes people have taken from their house when in search of a Waffle House. — Srap Tasmaner

The analogy doesn't hold. There's no debate over how to get to Waffle House and it's not a question that has stumped us for ages. If, however, the question of free will (for example) had an obvious and simple answer it would be unhelpful to spend 1,000s of hours reading about it and hearing other people's theories about it, as it might be to locate your nearest Waffle House.

That makes you an expert on what people have said about it, and that is not the same thing as rigor. — Srap Tasmaner

Assuming that other people offer no meaningful contribution, then sure, but I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming thoughtful responses from them. If other people can't offer thoughtful or helpful responses to your own thoughts, then why engage others or listen to others?

You'll get a response that is more comprehensive, more informed of the current state of the academic study of philosophy, certainly. Whether it will be more "meaningful", whether it will be "better", is unclear. This is just "looking where the light is best", isn't it? — Srap Tasmaner

You're losing me here. This argument of yours is against not just the enterprise of academic philosophy, but of philosophy generally for any purpose. My basic assumption is that philosophical thinking yields meaningful results. If it doesn't, then let's stop here as we're just wasting time.

If we accept that we can arrive at meaningful results, then sharing those with other will also be helpful and having a professional class of those working on those issues will be an even more helpful way of gaining insight into those issues. However, if you're saying that philosophical thinking offers nothing on the individual, group, amateur, or professional level, then I agree there'd be no reason to study anything on the topic at all. Is this what you're saying?

Cornel West does claim that there is benefit to studying the great minds of the past, and makes that claim exactly in the context of a critique of the current state of academia. — Srap Tasmaner

I've not read the West article, but if the gist of it is that the state of academia is in a state of disrepair for whatever reason and needs to be reconsidered, I'll leave that to those who are intimately familiar with it., but that seems like a political and ideological gripe, dealing with poor decision making by those in leadership positions. That is, that doesn't seem to address the OP, which alleges the insignificance of scholarship.

You're imbuing the word with a valuation it doesn't contain. Intellectualism doesn't entail anything about good or bad deeds.

In other words: no, dressing a wound does not make you an intellectual. And yes, maybe part of being an evil propagandist does entail being an intellectual.

I do have a philosophical source I've found helpful - "Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. — T Clark

You might have made the happiest man in the Bay State.

That's fine if you want to use that way, which is its normal use I think.

I think it could be used more fruitfully when applied to people who usually don't fit the common term. But that would be moving away from his thread.

But, you have a good case.

Precision in thought is only possible with precision in language.

That's generally true.

:lol: Alrighty then.

Disagree. I think the OP is essentially asking about what matters. Does "building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand" really matter, or really lead to happiness? It certainly has the potential to lead to wisdom, at least wisdom in the Western sense. — praxis

Right but nobody is disagreeing with that, not even OP, though he may believe so. See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! Yet by simply demanding more out of who and where we're expected to learn from he places himself on an amazing path of discovery he can't even see! Who knows what fertile lands, green pastures, and lush oases OP has the potential of reaching without the distractions of rigid instructions from times past. Sure, these were brilliant and great men who advanced not only themselves but entire societies writ large. We would be fools to ignore them, at least the "trendy" meme-ified versions of their wisdom whilst scrolling through social media and living our modern lives. He came, he saw, he questioned. And that opens one to a plethora of contentment that few who conquer nations and people will ever know. For if all we know is to take what we can, how will we ever know how to receive what we otherwise could not? This is the reality of a small child, one that philosophy helps us break free from. OP may be wrong, entirely and indisputably. Yet his desire to question the works of others and at least acknowledge the possibility he and he alone may educate himself to the highest degree of learning, is what I believe, is the goal of any real philosopher who ever lived, which is simply in a word, freedom.

I love reading your posts just for the syntax. :starstruck:

n Socratic fashion, I moved the discussion from stating to defending a particular opinion, to an inquiry into the unstated premises and assumptions that extended beyond the specifics of the topic to more general assumptions about opinions and truth.

Out of a class of thirty, twenty declared philosophy as their major. — Fooloso4

Prospective lawyers.

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. — 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. — StreetlightX

The Buddha never used the word for "bare attention" in his meditation instructions. That's because he realized that attention never occurs in a bare, pure, or unconditioned form. It's always colored by views and perceptions — the labels you tend to give to events — and by intentions: your choice of what to attend to and your purpose in being attentive.

/.../

So it's important to understand that there's no such thing as bare attention in the practice of the Buddha's teachings. Instead of trying to create an unconditioned form of attention, the practice tries to create a set of skillful conditions to shape and direct the act of attention to make it appropriate: truly healing, truly leading to the end of suffering and stress. Once these conditions are well developed, the Buddha promises that they will serve you well — even past the moment of Awakening, all the way to your very last death.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/foodforawakening.html

I think it is possible to philosophize alone with no texts. — Tom Storm

What do you mean? By having no texts immediately in front of you?

It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory.

I see how you use the term "physicalist". And indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position and also that it's opposite is idealism. I, on the other hand, I am based on official (standard) dictionaries, esp. when I am discussing about basic philosophical terms. (I prefer them to encyclopedias because they are too verbose and complicated. That is why it is difficult to refer to them in a discussion.)

So, from Oxford LEXICO:
1) Physicalism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.
2) Idealism (Philosophy): Any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind.
3) Materialism (Philosophy): The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
4) Dualism (Philosophy): A theory or system of thought that regards a domain of reality in terms of two independent principles, especially mind and matter (Cartesian dualism).
5) Spiritualism (Philosophy): The doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

From the above, I can see that
1) The meaning of (1) is almost the same as that of (2).
2) The contrast between (1) and (2) is not at all obvious. I can hardly see them as opposite positions. So I have to leave (2) "out of the equation", since it only complicates things.
3) The contrast between (1) and (2) is much more obvious, but of course. Yet, I can't tell that they are opposites.
4) The meaning of (4) is very close to that of (5).

Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict!

See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! — Outlander

I seem to recall Clark fully acknowledging that he's a product of his culture.

I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.

I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first. — T Clark

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. — T Clark

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". A very popular term in popular "Eastern" spirituality, but highly controversial within the actual Eastern traditions themselves. See the passage I quote above from Buddhism.

You might have made ↪tim wood the happiest man in the Bay State. — Mww

@tim wood is the one who steered me to Collingwood. I've given him credit many times. Thanks for doing it again.

Conclusion: One cannot be both physicalist and dualist or spiritualist at the same time. In other words, one cannot say that everything is physical (matter, body) and also that that there are things that are not physical (mind, soul, spirit) at the same time. It is like saying that sometimes I believe I am only a body and other times I believe that I am something more than a body (i.e. there's a non-physical part in me). Of course, one can believe both, but then he is in conflict! — Alkis Piskas

For me, and for Collingwood, a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. It has no truth value. It is a choice, one that depends on a particular situation. So, yes, I can be both a physicalist and idealist at the same time. I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism).

I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.

I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first.
— T Clark — praxis

Yes. Thanks.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". A very popular term in popular "Eastern" spirituality, but highly controversial within the actual Eastern traditions themselves. See the passage I quote above from Buddhism. — baker

Here is some of the text about Buddha you quoted:

So it's important to understand that there's no such thing as bare attention in the practice of the Buddha's teachings. Instead of trying to create an unconditioned form of attention, the practice tries to create a set of skillful conditions to shape and direct the act of attention to make it appropriate: truly healing, truly leading to the end of suffering and stress. Once these conditions are well developed, the Buddha promises that they will serve you well — even past the moment of Awakening, all the way to your very last death.

I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details.

What you seem to be talking about is "bare attention". — baker

As I wrote in my previous post, I don't remember hearing the term "bare attention" before. Thinking about it, I can see that it could be a useful way of thinking about these issues.

What do you mean? By having no texts immediately in front of you? — baker

This. And not reading from the cannon. Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.

My basic assumption is that philosophical thinking yields meaningful results. — Hanover

Is studying the history of philosophy the same thing as philosophical thinking?

If we start from the position, as I do, that there are two distinguishable disciplines here, then we can look at how they inform each other. For anything beyond textual work, I think being able to do philosophy, to think clearly about philosophical issues, is necessary for interpreting and explicating philosophical works. The dependency in that direction seems perfectly clear.

It's the other direction that is causing us trouble, and I think I can now gloss my use of "great" in previous posts: a work that is worth allowing yourself to be influenced by. That's still circular, but at least it's clearer that "greatness" is measured in how it informs your philosophical thinking, that it's about the chosen dependence of practice on history.

It's possible to reject the whole idea that there are two disciplines -- there are people who punt and just define philosophy as whatever philosophers do, whatever philosophers have done -- so there would not be two disciplines just one, and that would in effect make the history primary. It simplifies things, to treat philosophy as a kind of literature, but I don't think it's just that anymore than it's a science. We teach it nearly as if it's literature though, except for the logic courses which we treat as science.

I'll stop there -- but I do want to register my reservations about the word "results".

Is studying the history of philosophy the same thing as philosophical thinking? — Srap Tasmaner

You can organize the study of philosophy either by philosopher or by topic, which I assume you mean the former is a study in the history of philosophy and the latter as philosophical thinking.

A historical approach might be that you'll take a course in the pre-Socratics or in Aristotle or in Kant or in Hanover. You can then decipher all their nuances and maybe even learn about their odd quirks and where they lived and who they married. That historical approach would also require philosophical reasoning unless your professor was solely interested in your recitation of the works of those thinkers, but that's a fairly narrow approach to take. In a class on Kant, for example, you might be called upon to explain what some of the criticisms of Kant's ethical theory are, so you're not necessarily going to be protected from critical thinking in a historically based course. It just depends how it's done. Even if, though, you aren't being asked to exercise your own critical reasoning, you will require some philosophical intelligence to understand the arguments submitted by others.

On the other hand, you could do it by topic, and you could learn all about ethics, for example, but that wouldn't protect you from having to learn about Kant and knowing what the criticisms of his ethical theory are. That is, you are not going to be protected from the history of philosophy in a topic focused course either.

I suppose it would be possible to create a topic based course and to offer no attributions to any historical figure, but I'm not sure why you would do that because centering it around a person offers a reference point. It would be odd to teach Utilitarianism and never mention Bentham or Mill, for example, but it could be done if you had a need to rigidly keep history and topic seperated.

Logic is probably one topic that can be taught without reference to a historical figure, assuming the course is purely related to symbolic logic.

But anyway, I see the same sorts of skill sets being needed for either approach because at the end of the day you're being asked to understand and evaluate philosophical positions.

Is this what you mean by history versus doing philosophy?

pointing is overrated; it's the reading that matters.

a metaphysical position is not a belief. It is not true or false. — T Clark

Of course. Not only it isn't but also it can't. There's no such a thing as a universal, absolute or objective truth. As an opinion cannot be true or false, in general. It can only be true and only for its owner.

I can use mathematics (idealism) to address questions in physics (physicalism) — T Clark

You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always.

And this is what I forgot to notice in one of my previous replies: You are talking about using rather than on being. You said, e.g., "I use physicalism when I'm doing my engineering act - F = ma. Perhaps idealism when I do math....".
I don't have to be a materialist or physicalist to talk about, examine, treat, etc. my body. If I take medicine for some body condition, it doesn't mean I am a physicalist. As I don't have to be a dualist or spiritualist to handle my feelings (fear, anger, etc.) or be happy.

In short, what I use or do does not define what I am or believe in. (Although sometimes it does! :grin:)

You need not be an idealist to use Math or a physicalist to use Physics. "Using" and "being" are totally different kind of things. There may be a connection between them, but only sometimes, not always. — Alkis Piskas

I guess I'm confused. You agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value, but then it seems like you say that such a position, e.g. idealism, physicalism, realism..., reflects an actual state of being.

I think a pragmatist would say there is no difference between using and being. I sometimes call myself a pragmatist.

ou agree with me that metaphysical positions have no truth value — T Clark

Of course you are confused. Because I, personally, didn't agree with that. What I said exactly was, "Indeed, most references agree that that physicalism is a metaphysical position". But that was just in introductory remark! I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic.

So, instead of commenting on my position itself, you choose to comment on my introductory remark. OK, I said what I had to say. Now, I can ignore the issue ... :smile:

I presented then my position, very clearly and with a lot of details and references. Which, as it seems, you have obviously ignored, even if it shows a thorough work, which obviously takes some time to compile, as well as a considerable interest in your topic. — Alkis Piskas

Now, now. Don't be tetchy. Or condescending for that matter. If you're not willing to deal with me misunderstanding sometimes, you are not obligated to respond, although I'm interested in hearing your ideas.

Since I have already done it, I will "patronize" you a little more, by advising you to stick to the facts instead of using "adjectives" ... (I say this in good will! :smile:)