Not if your are trying to convince me. You aren’t making an argument, you are asserting something about philosophy: that its defined by dialogue. So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they aren’t doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense. — DingoJones

No convincing you is not the main point. We are writing on a forum, we write for a whole group of people. What I am trying to do is teach a bit, because convincing someone is very difficult. People tend to stick to their own positions even if the cause is hopelessly lost. I am arguing, you on the other hand are not. You are speaking from opinion: "I do not buy it". Well that indeed is irrelevant. It is about the arguments you provide. Arguments have a certain structure. My argument can be written down in the basest form as follows.

"Philosophy needs dialogue, because philosophy is a discipline that requires making arguments for your claim. Arguments are made in response to someone else or at least are provided to other people orally or in writing. That is my argument. An objection you could then make is: "But what if someone plays out all the arguments in their head?". I would then say "That is nigh impossible to do, because it requires a brain that would outmatch all these brains that one could bring into play when one would conduct philosophy in a social group". That is why also philosophy was developed in conversation with others.

Secondly I would say that philosophy is a certain discipline with certain marks of the trade, just like law is or medicine. One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher is that you have displayed a certain level of rigor in your analysis of philosophical questions. Now if you never offer these arguments for scrutiny there is no way the community of philosophers can assess them and you cannot be considered a philosopher.

That rigor is important can be shown by pointing to your own post: "So that would mean that no matter the philosophical brilliance a solitary person has they aren’t doing philosophy if no ones there to dialogue with. That doesnt make sense." Here you confuse having a certain property, philosophical brilliance, with performing a certain act, doing philosophy. Indeed the philosophical brilliance a person has does not matter one iota if they are not doing philosophy.

Acquiring a certain rigor in analysis requires training and that training is I think impossible to obtain on one's own. Even empirically it is shown that for thinking to develop one needs to be in a social environment that stimulates it. Feral children who live with animals in the formative years of their life almost without exception do not learn language, let alone the alone the ability to pick apart a philosophical text.

Comtemplating God the universe and everything is a practice too. It is called mysticism. There are of course mystics who were also brilliant philosophers. Thomas Acquinas for instance of Ibn Ghazali, Lao Ze maybe also but I do not know enough about him. What sets them apart from other mystics is precisely that they adhered to the philosophical requirements of sound argumentation offered to others, as against mere assertion.

Logically unsound in what way. Not wrong, you arent saying Im wrong you are saying what I said is not logically sound. Point out to me where ive been logically unsound.
Also, get your head out of your ass, youre not a mind reader. Me saying “sorry” was a sincere way of trying to tell you I was not convinced. And what do you think “conceited” means? Please explain this bizarre relation between conceit and insincerity. — DingoJones

Spoon feeding is such boring work...
Well my assertion was that philosophy required dialogue. In your rather short not very thoughtful, but still condescending reply you stated this:

Ya and if someone else comes in and starts dialogue it becomes philosophy instead? Sorry, that just makes no sense to me. Not buying it. — DingoJones

You infer from my assertion that philosophy needs dialogue that I apparently also hold that if someone starts a dialogue then it becomes philosophy. That is unsound reasoning. That I think that for philosophy dialogue is required does not mean I hold that dialogue is the only condition that must be met. That I consider that all X must have property Y, does not imply that everything that has property Y is necessarily an X.

the distinction between spirituality and philosophy — Moliere

I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality." Is Taoism spiritualism? I'm willing to say it includes mysticism -The belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as self-awareness, intuition, or insight). It's fine if you decide that kind of philosophy is not your cup of tea, but it's unreasonable for you to claim it is not tea at all.

I know that thinking in solitude about life the universe and everything does not make you a philosopher yet. — Tobias

Are we talking about whether I am a philosopher - I've never claimed to be. I was talking about whether Taoism is philosophy.

There needs to be rigor in that thinking and that is hard to acquire on your own. — Tobias

Philosophy is not the only method for learning how to think rigorously.

To start at philosophy one should.... — Moliere

Philosophy is a social activity, but who do you keep company with? Even keeping company with books can be a social activity. More often than not, an author writes in order to be read, even if they are selective with regard to who the intended audience is. The dialogic nature of philosophical writing is not always apparent. Even if the author is not able to respond, a text can be interrogated, and the best philosophers often anticipate our questions and objections. The circle extends to other readers as well, and takes different forms including teacher/student relations, secondary literature, and more recently online forums.

As to the question of whether books are necessary, I know of no prominent philosopher at any time who did not read or hear the work of other philosophers. They do not simply read in order to know what others think but in order to think along with and against what they read.

I am arguing, you on the other hand are not. — Tobias

This is clearly not true. You say "My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue..." @DingoJones gives counter-examples, which is a valid method of argumentation. You may be unconvinced, but I've heard that isn't the standard by which we should judge philosophy.

One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher — Tobias

I don't think we are talking about whether or not we are philosophers. We are talking about what philosophy is.

One of the criteria for being considered a philosopher is that you have displayed a certain level of rigor in your analysis of philosophical questions. Now if you never offer these arguments for scrutiny there is no way the community of philosophers can assess them and you cannot be considered a philosopher. — Tobias

Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin.

In your rather short not very thoughtful, but still condescending reply — Tobias

A good case of the philosophical pot calling the philosophical kettle black.

I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin. — T Clark

Perhaps, but I think brings up an important point with the following quote, in that developing skills at communicating about philosophical topics requires relevant skill developing social experiences including exposure to unfamiliar ways of looking at things.

An objection you could then make is: "But what if someone plays out all the arguments in their head?". I would then say "That is nigh impossible to do, because it requires a brain that would outmatch all these brains that one could bring into play when one would conduct philosophy in a social group". That is why also philosophy was developed in conversation with others. — Tobias

I.e. two heads are better than one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality." Is Taoism spiritualism? I'm willing to say it includes mysticism -The belief that direct knowledge of ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as self-awareness, intuition, or insight). It's fine if you decide that kind of philosophy is not your cup of tea, but it's unreasonable for you to claim it is not tea at all. — T Clark

In its religious form, yes. Though you seemed to indicate that there's a philosophic form to Taoism which wouldn't. I'm not putting out necessary/sufficient conditions here because both categories are vague categories which require some amount of judgment to the particulars, and noticing that there are times when there's some amount of overlap between both. I stuck to Augustine and Martin Luther because I'm more familiar with them, and I'm more comfortable with dissecting my own religious tradition than others'. Taoism is something I really only know in passing, so it's easy to make mistakes with respect to how to categorize.

But surely you can see that just because the categories are vague that doesn't mean they are the same, yes?


I'm guessing that we could probably, just to make things even more confusing, even take what's considered a philosophical text and treat it in a spiritual manner. We could hold to the text as a truth because we find something deeply fulfilling about the text's relationship to our own life. That is we would no longer be doing philosophy then, either, though pinning down when is what will be a matter of judgment and some amount of drawing lines in the sand.

Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? — T Clark

Now you're getting it! :D

Philosophy is a social activity, but who do you keep company with? Even keeping company with books can be a social activity. More often than not, an author writes in order to be read, even if they are selective with regard to who the intended audience is. The dialogic nature of philosophical writing is not always apparent. Even if the author is not able to respond, a text can be interrogated, and the best philosophers often anticipate our questions and objections. The circle extends to other readers as well, and takes different forms including teacher/student relations, secondary literature, and more recently online forums. — Fooloso4

True. I mean I consider what we do here to be a kind of relaxed philosophy, so even sharing here makes it "count" as philosophy in my way of thinking. It's not the venue as much as that it's shared at all.

As to the question of whether books are necessary, I know of no prominent philosopher at any time who did not read or hear the work of other philosophers. They do not simply read in order to know what others think but in order to think along with and against what they read.

That's a good point -- so there's at least two ways we might read a text: one in which we're reading it as a historical document, and the other in which we are reading it as a philosophy text to be thought through.

developing skills at communicating about philosophical topics requires relevant skill developing social experiences including exposure to unfamiliar ways of looking at things. — wonderer1

Did anyone in this discussion indicate or imply that this isn't true? I don't think so.

…..so there's at least two ways we might read a text…. — Moliere

….and both are no more than mere experience. Philosophy is a system, and a system is not an experience, even if all experience is by means of it.

IknowIknowIknow….I’m in the minority set, which I make up for by being boisterous about it. (Grin)

Did anyone in this discussion indicate or imply that this isn't true? I don't think so. — T Clark

Not that I know of, but I saw Tobias' point as worth emphasizing.

Are we talking about whether I am a philosopher - I've never claimed to be. I was talking about whether Taoism is philosophy. — T Clark

No, I was not referring to you specifically. Taoism may be philosophy. I do not know enough about it to say so.

Philosophy is not the only method for learning how to think rigorously. — T Clark

That is the same fallacy as Dingo committed. I am not saying that philosophy is the only discipline that requires rigorous analysis. Law, mathematics, actually every scientific endeavour does. I am saying rigorous analysis is a part of philosophy. It is actually what sets it apart from mysticism or faith. Mysticism does not require argumentation, but revelation.

This is clearly not true. You say "My claim is that philosophy needs dialogue..." DingoJones gives counter-examples, which is a valid method of argumentation. You may be unconvinced, but I've heard that isn't the standard by which we should judge philosophy. — T Clark

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. People who contemplate life universe and everything on their own without engaging in argument do not do that. Sure Yogis, monks, bishops can and often were philosophers, but they were when they engaged in philosophy. Not when they contemplated on their own. It may be a definition question. You might say "everyone who thinks about philosophical questions is a philosopher". Fine, but completely unhelpful because everyone at one time or other thinks about philosophical questions.

Gregor Mendel's studies on genetics were never published until after he died. Would you say he was not a scientist? Emily Dickenson's poems were never published while she was alive. Would you say she was not a poet? I think your opinion of what it takes to be a philosopher is a bit high-falutin. — T Clark

He wrote them down didn't he? If he never wrote his ideas down then no, he was not a scientist. He did and preserved them for others to read, presented arguments, proofs and what not and sure, because it made sense what he wrote, he was a scientist. Same with Dickenson, mutatis mutandis.

That is the same fallacy as Dingo committed. I am not saying that philosophy is the only discipline that requires rigorous analysis. Law, mathematics, actually every scientific endeavour does. I am saying rigorous analysis is a part of philosophy. — Tobias

You've missed my point. I spent my career as an engineer formally and rigorously making and defending arguments very similar to the ones I do here on the forum. I didn't have to do professional level philosophy in order to gain that experience and skill.

It is actually what sets it apart from mysticism or faith. Mysticism does not require argumentation, but revelation. — Tobias

I make rigorous arguments about mysticism here on the forum all the time. It is one of the main subjects I'm interested in. Equating mysticism with faith is either a cheap rhetorical trick or a display of lack of understanding.

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. — Tobias

As the comment you quoted from my post notes, @DingoJones did present a thesis and argue for it.

What standard can we agree on to judge what is philosophy and what is not? At the very least a a kind of thesis has to be presented and argued for. — Tobias

I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom.

You've missed my point. I spent my career as an engineer formally and rigorously making and defending arguments very similar to the ones I do here on the forum. I didn't have to do professional level philosophy in order to gain that experience and skill. — T Clark

Sure, but I never challenged you on that... There must be some kind of misunderstanding. I never addressed you in my posts as either a philosopher or not.

I make rigorous arguments about mysticism here on the forum all the time. It is one of the main subjects I'm interested in. Equating mysticism with faith is either a cheap rhetorical trick or a display of lack of understanding. — T Clark

Yes exactly... you make rigorous arguments about mysticism. At such moments one practices philosophy, not mysticism. I am a lawyer and I also write about law sometimes from a philosophical perspective. When I am practicing law I am not doin philosophy but law. When I write about a certain presupposition in the law I a doing philosophy of law. Philosophy of religion is a very worthy philosophical subject.

As the comment you quoted from my post notes, DingoJones did present a thesis and argue for it. — T Clark

The only posts of his I saw in this thread contained only a couple of lines and came down to the idea that whenever you wonder about a philosophical question you are doing philosophy. You can take that position, but I think it is inadequate. It makes everyone that wonders about some phil question from time to time a philosopher which makes the term as a term with which we differentiate among people and practices rather meaningless. It is like calling everyone who sometimes wonders about law a lawyer. Since we all wonder about law from time to time we are all lawyers.

I think the best way forward is to consider what philosophy consists of as opposed to other branches of thought and other disciplines, such as mysticism, art, religion, science, law etc. Then the question became whether philosophy is by necessity social. Well, philosophy had its origins in social praxis and dialogue. Early philosophical texts were set up as dialogues. A reason I guess why Banno referred to the symposium as its natural home. Of course we have drifted from it now and it is possible of course to have a truely natural talent who manages to think up everything from scratch. It is highly unlikely but of course possible. Normal human beings though need introduction to the practice just like they need introduction to the practice of law and of scientific enquiry. That was what the OP asked for, a method to do philosophy. Is sitting in your cave all by yourself adequate? No, unless you are the philosopher Hercules.

What is necessary is to engage with philosphers or at least an audience and explain your ideas in argumentative form. An oracle or a prophet is not a philosopher. A mystic gaining access to the truth by meditation is not a philosopher. Of course all these people can be philosophers as well as mystics. That happens when they translate their mystical experience in argumentative clear language and offers them to the community of philosophers for scrutiny and analysis. Again, it may be that someone produces PhD level work alone in a cave, but how likely is it? My thesis is that just pondering philosophical questions is not enough to qualify as a philosopher. You need to conform to some extent to the standards laid down in the philosophical community. Just like a child who draws is not yet an artist just by engaging in the artistic practice of drawing.

I've been wondering about this for some time. I've decided that many people have a philosophical imagination and are fond of asking philosophical questions and this may of itself be doing philosophy. But I suspect in most cases, this will also be 'entry level' philosophy - having fun in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing wrong with it, but I suspect unless one is a Wittgensteinian level genius, one is going to continually reinvent the wheel, become lost in one's independent investigations and generally fail to benefit from significant extant philosophical wisdom. — Tom Storm

:up: :100: exactly!

Yup. Though I'll re-iterate that being a master of philosophy isn't the point so much -- learning how to paint is a good thing even if you don't become a Picasso.

Normal human beings though need introduction to the practice just like they need introduction to the practice of law and of scientific enquiry. That was what the OP asked for, a method to do philosophy. Is sitting in your cave all by yourself adequate? No, unless you are the philosopher Hercules. — Tobias

Exactly!

I hadn't expected the "What is philosophy?" question in setting out my method. I was hoping to avoid categorical questions in favor of something which is a little more helpful for people who are interested, but might benefit from some program or something like that. Not algorithmically, but just some guidance that sets someone on the right path to actually doing philosophy rather than things that look like philosophy but are not.

In my opinion the attempt to start with a method is antithetical to philosophy. It raises a whole host of questions, including - Why a method? Why this method and not some other? If a method guides and shapes the inquiry then how confident should we be that this method does not occlude free and open inquiry?

If a method guides and shapes the inquiry then how confident should we be that this method does not occlude free and open inquiry? — Fooloso4

What is 'free and open enquiry'? We are always shaped, whatever method we choose even if we do not choose one. Seems to me to be part of the human condition. I do not know anything that is 'free and open'.

In my opinion the attempt to start with a method is antithetical to philosophy. It raises a whole host of questions, including - Why a method? Why this method and not some other? — Fooloso4

That seems sound. But sans method can we articulate any kind of approach without being at least partially subject to this concern?

In my opinion the attempt to start with a method is antithetical to philosophy. It raises a whole host of questions, including - Why a method? Why this method and not some other? If a method guides and shapes the inquiry then how confident should we be that this method does not occlude free and open inquiry? — Fooloso4

There we go! That's the stuff. I had Against Method in the back of my mind in writing this, and began to wonder about the place of method in science (as pedagogical tool, as research program), and especially as pedagogy I think method has a place. Not The Method, but A Method among methods among non-methods. And in that looser sense I began to wonder about a method in philosophy, more along the lines of Stanislavski's method than an algorithmic or programmatic method.

Your final question is why I appended "Add a rule" -- because eventually one can add the rule that methods aren't everything, and let go of method entirely -- thereby building into the method an ability to let go of it when the training wheels are no longer needed.

What is 'free and open enquiry'? — Tobias

It is a kind of play that is not determined in advance by how one should play. Some might object that wandering about is not productive, but where one might go and where it might lead and what one might find along the way has its own beauty.

My thinking reflects my character or temperament and includes the idea that rather than attempting to exclude such idiosyncrasies they should be recognized and admitted as being at the heart of what philosophy is for me. This is not to say that they should be accepted as whatever they are, but rather as material to work with, to alter and develop. The goal is not some abstract ideal of universal objectivity but self-knowledge.

Here I would emphasize the productive aspect of knowledge - to make or produce. We must work with what we have. The question arises as to how best to work with and cultivate my rebellious and anarchic, anti-methodical temperament.

In the long run I tend to believe that methods are for training, and not for production. There's no method for making methods, right? So someone has to be the method-maker, if methods are applicable at all, and that person will simply be doing creative exploration as to what's best rather than following a method to generate methods. (or, if we're incredibly method-phillic, the buck will stop somewhere with the original method writer who wrote the method on writing methods on method writing :D)

And you're right to point out that we must begin somewhere, and sometimes that somewhere is rebellious, anarchic, or anti-methodical. In which case offering methods would preclude a kind of philosophy from the outset, and that kind of philosophy would be perfect for those of a rebellious, anarchic, or anti-methodical spirit given that philosophy deals with knowledge of the self. (more or less you'd be turning away the openly inquisitive from the outset by insisting upon methods as discipline)

How would you answer your own question? How best to work with and cultivate a rebellious, anarchic, and anti-methodical temperament?

How best to work with and cultivate a rebellious, anarchic, and anti-methodical temperament? — Moliere

I have developed a method for that ...

Seriously, I'l start with a point of clarification: by cultivate I mean manage, that is, not allow it to grow or increase uncontrolled.

Touching on the question raised by @Tobias, the dialogic nature of philosophy means that one should not simply accept or reject the work of the philosophers, but rather to remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions.

Touching on the question raised by Tobias, the dialogic nature of philosophy means that one should not simply accept or reject the work of the philosophers, but rather to remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions. — Fooloso4

Well put! :100:

Seriously, I'l start with a point of clarification: by cultivate I mean manage, that is, not allow it to grow or increase uncontrolled. — Fooloso4

Ah OK. I thought, because you had said your nature that you were affirming it as a positive thing, which would certainly not get along with any sort of methodical approach (at least, a method which sets out step-wise, even loose steps, what to do). Whereas you're saying that it can be worked with, though the goal to ensure that it grows in a managed manner, is cultivated towards what is good. (Also, I want to note that I read "anarchy" in a positive light at first, furthing the confusion)

Which brings my mind around to the other way to counter method -- mentorship. Which @Tobias mentioned as well, and would get along with your closing. At least this is where my mind goes, but now I want to ask, since my first guess was wrong and so this one could be as well: Can one learn philosophy at all? And if so do you care to say more about that?

My thinking reflects my character or temperament and includes the idea that rather than attempting to exclude such idiosyncrasies they should be recognized and admitted as being at the heart of what philosophy is for me. This is not to say that they should be accepted as whatever they are, but rather as material to work with, to alter and develop. The goal is not some abstract ideal of universal objectivity but self-knowledge.

Here I would emphasize the productive aspect of knowledge - to make or produce. We must work with what we have. The question arises as to how best to work with and cultivate my rebellious and anarchic, anti-methodical temperament. — Fooloso4

I'm quite impressed with this and have not heard many people with a philosophical education make these points so clearly.

...remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions. — Fooloso4

Yes. And I've sometimes wondered if there are answers without problems...

Can you say a little more about your idea of a method - what might this look like on the ground (in dot points, perhaps)?

One of the advantages of method is that it's something written down which allows others to test it. And then the method can be refined by others. In a sense what a method does is de-personalize the philosophy so that anyone can run with it -- it's a work on the self, but the self is not isolated.

If philosophy is a knowledge of the self, and a work on the self, and further the self is not an isolated, simple subject but is instead found in others', and further that this self cannot be elucidated by the modern methods of psychology (the self doesn't exist there), then acting theory is the most worked out theory of self-generation that I know of. Which is why I keep going back to Stanislavski as a kind of guide. Further he's even more appropriate for philosophy because Stanislavski wrote dialogues with the express intent that he didn't want to become the law giver of acting, but wanted to write some things that would help actors learn, reflect, and grow -- and in turn to add to what was written. That is he was a kind of philosopher of the theatre, and a natural teacher.

Though mentorship is naturally built into the theatre. It's impossible to do theatre without others, though you certainly practice your lines at home.

One of the downsides of mentorship, though it may just be a necessary downside, is that it makes the art more exclusive. Much of the time the arts of various kinds have been reserved for the children of the well-to-do, just like philosophy. Mentorship is possible within an institution supported, but many of the masses don't have that opportunity. I myself really just lucked out in meeting up with a mentor who was kind enough to help me in spite of not being a part of his institutional program (and, for all that, it's still coming under attack by the powers that be...). But I wonder to what extent is it possible to spread out the wisdom of philosophy to people who aren't so lucky?

So I land back on method in spite of myself.