The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. I do think that people can change, but this process may well be separate from whatever introspection they might imagine they are pursuing.

Happy to change my mind on this, if I hear a good argument.

You chose a great quote. Emerson is fantastic. At least to me, I think he signifies the importance of one's own authenticity in thinking and at least for me this is a huge part of why I enjoy philosophy and like learning about it. Because of this I really want to take responsibility for my own thinking and be more comfortable with sharing what I think. Thanks you!

What in particular do you find unassailable in introspection? In what ways do you think introspection fails when an individual attempts it?

My general advice would be to simply write what you read in the simplest form you understand it then go back and check what you just read and see how well your written words align with it. As well as this it is really important to jot down any tangential ideas or thoughts that spring to mind and look where you agree or disagree with what you have just read and try and understand why you feel this way.

As for forums, they are a test of patience, sometimes a nuisance, and sometimes engaging. Either way you get to practice refining your thoughts more concisely as it is decent writing practice.

If you know you are ignorant then you are ready to become more ignorant. That is what any real amount of studying into any topic necessarily does.

What in particular do you find unassailable in introspection? — Jafar

I didn't find anything unassailable.

I said this -

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

I wonder if we can get past these factors? I'm framing it as a question, not as a claim.

You’re doing great so far, by the way.

I wonder if we can get past these factors? I'm framing it as a question, not as a claim. — Tom Storm

I'm hesitant to reduce philosophy to psychology -- whether or not our psychology allows us to examine our own beliefs, it's still a part of philosophy to attempt to do so. The image of philosopher here is of Love as described in Symposium

...
The truth of the matter is this: No god is a philosopher or seeker after wisdom, for he is wise already; nor does any man who is wise seek after wisdom. Neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom. For herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with himself: he has no desire for that of which he feels no want.'

'But who then, Diotima,' I said, 'are the lovers of wisdom, if they are neither the wise nor the foolish?'

'A child may answer that question,' she replied; 'they are those who are in a mean between the two; Love is one of them. For wisdom is a most beautiful thing, and Love is of the beautiful; and therefore Love is also a philosopher or lover of wisdom, and being a lover of wisdom is in a mean between the wise and the ignorant.
... — Plato, Symposium

Where, as I read it at least, the philosopher is explicitly one who doesn't overcome their folly, but is somewhere between the state of the Gods who know wisdom and the self-satisfied fools.

I don't know how to tell exactly when that's the case, though. Symposium is a mythic dialogue, and the section I'm quoting is explicit myth-making where the philosopher is compared to Love, a god birthed.

On the whole, though, it seems that others' are more inclined to pick apart my beliefs than I am, so the idea of an individual overcoming their biases isn't even necessary because the individual doesn't do that alone.

On the whole, though, it seems that others' are more inclined to pick apart my beliefs than I am, so the idea of an individual overcoming their biases isn't even necessary because the individual doesn't do that alone. — Moliere

:up:

Which seems to bring us back to psychology. :wink:

I wonder if we can get past these factors? — Tom Storm

I think the best we can do is be aware of them. Even when we examine our beliefs we cannot do so by stepping outside of them. Philosophical dialogue can help, but we often tend to defend our beliefs because they are our own rather then test them to allow them to stand or fall based on the strength of the argument. Easier said than done.

I too am suspicious of the idea of the Transcendentalist's "genius". It easily becomes pernicious self-flattery.

Thanks, I'm enjoying it a lot.



What do you understand under the term Transcendentalist "genius?"

The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

Not to be flip, but that's what philosophy is for. For me, philosophy is about self-awareness - paying attention to how we think. If we are not capable of examining our beliefs, biases, and mental processes, then philosophy is useless, pointless.

I think he signifies the importance of one's own authenticity in thinking and at least for me this is a huge part of why I enjoy philosophy and like learning about it. — Jafar

I agree. For me, philosophy is there to help us listen to and recognize the voice inside.

I think the best we can do is be aware of them. Even when we examine our beliefs, we cannot do so by stepping outside of them. Philosophical dialogue can help, but we often tend to defend our beliefs because they are our own rather then test them to allow them to stand or fall based on the strength of the argument. Easier said than done. — Fooloso4

Thank you. Nice to read I'm not the only one with this view.

On the whole, though, it seems that others' are more inclined to pick apart my beliefs than I am, so the idea of an individual overcoming their biases isn't even necessary because the individual doesn't do that alone. — Moliere

Agree, but it only works if you have access to others with whom you are in dialogue. I suspect most people's beliefs go unchallenged, probably because we tend to stay in our tribes.

What do you understand under the term Transcendentalist "genius?" — Jafar

The term 'genius' as used by the Transcendentalist Emerson. As expressed in the passage from Emerson quoted by T Clark:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men-that is genius.

It seems to me to be an odd mix of individualism and universalism. An overestimation of the reliability of intuition.

It seems to me to be an odd mix of individualism and universalism. An overestimation of the reliability of intuition. — Fooloso4

:up:

How do you engage with philosophy, whether when you're reading or discussing/debating with others? — Jafar

The most important thing I realized is that when you are reading, pay attention to what jumps out for you and make notes about your thoughts to yourself, the questions you have, because, although you have to work to get past your first impressions (no real philosophy is immediately understood because the idea is to change you), what you are interested in is the starting point. That, and don’t dismiss anything because there is a part that you don’t agree with or that is wrong. And never read summaries. Good luck.

Thanks for your message. When you read a particular text, what is it that you want to get out of it? You say that a part of philosophy is to change oneself. Change oneself in the sense of changing our knowledge of certain topics or maybe giving us a new perspective? I'm interested in what your personal relationship is to the philosophy you read. Also, why do you advise against reading summaries?

You say that a part of philosophy is to change oneself. Change oneself in the sense of changing our knowledge of certain topics or maybe giving us a new perspective? — Jafar

I know this isn't meant for me, but is there is a kind of bourgeois conceit that education (literature, good music, philosophy) will improve you? It's this notion that lies at the heart of most 'change yourself' or 'understand yourself' rhetoric. If the change wasn't improvement, why would we bother? Certainly not to change ourselves for the worse. The problem is, it seems pretty hard to tell if we have indeed been improved by an idea. Can we trust our feelings on this? All those lost little boys that have found Jordan Peterson consider themselves improved, if not saved. So do most people who are radicalised by some fresh notion they've picked up, whether it is derived through philosophy, religion or politics. How do we tell if philosophy is any good or not?

How do you engage with philosophy — Jafar

Find a statement on a recent thread that happens to be of interest. For example:

My belief is in "Innatism", the view that the mind is born with already-formed ideas, knowledge, and beliefs (Wikipedia Innatism)

Find a philosopher who agrees and explain in a few or many words their reasons.

Find a philosopher who disagrees and explain in a few or many words their reasons.

Finish by giving your reasoned opinion as to which philosopher is correct and which is incorrect in a few or many words.

In what sense do you mean improve and to what ends? Does this bourgeois ideal mean improvement in a general sense? As in, if one reads philosophy or good literature one will become a better person or better regarded? Thanks for your message!

In what sense do you mean improve and to what ends? — Jafar

What improvement might look like wasn't in scope in my comment. I was simply making the point that improvement in some way seems to be what 'change yourself' amounts to. My question is the same as yours - what does such an improvement really amount to? How do we tell if 'improvement' is good?

Change is good if you are able to change your mind about something. Understanding that what you once thought was correct is actually not as solid as you first thought is a step towards independence and away from indoctrination.

Basically, any change that instills you to question your opinions, beliefs and perspective more is positive growth. It is certainly unpleasant though at some point during the process; in my experience.

You say that a part of philosophy is to change oneself. Change oneself in the sense of changing our knowledge of certain topics or maybe giving us a new perspective? — Jafar

A lot of people take philosophy as a set of problems to be answered. Originally, Socrates was asking questions to make us better people, and unfortunately he equated virtue only with a certain kind of knowledge, and ever since we have been thinking of philosophy as deciding what to think (theories and conclusions) rather than changing how we think (rigorous, empathetic, without presumption). As a bit of both, for example, in understanding Kant, you might see how the subjective-objective framework is still deeply ingrained in modern culture and how people consider judgment.

why do you advise against reading summaries? — Jafar

If the goal is to better ourselves, change how we think, then tackling the actual texts is the mechanism. A lot of the summaries are over-simplifications that will not only block you from having to work through your own thoughts first, but don’t draw out the implications, and many of them are just wrong.

Change is good if you are able to change your mind about something. Understanding that what you once thought was correct is actually not as solid as you first thought is a step towards independence and away from indoctrination. — I like sushi

Not necessarily. You can change your opinion for the worse. It happens a lot. The radicalized terrorist is an obvious example. But also the person who converts from a moderate position to a dogmatic or zealous one, be it religious or political. Or the person who suddenly questions everything they once thought and now follows a narrow doctrine.

If there is a choice between one or the other I choose change. My point being change weighs more in favour of exploration and development than standing still. Errors along the way serve to function as a guides not dead ends.

This is pretty obvious though ... or so I thought.

This is pretty obvious though ... or so I thought. — I like sushi

It seems obvious to me that change can mean going backwards.

Yes. Obvious. If neither of us have anything other than the obvious say maybe we should just shut :D

:up:

Don't be afraid of your own views. Far, far, far, farrrrrrrrrr too many modern philosophy departments, philosophers, publications and lets say 'popular discourse' which is philosophical rely heavily on the filter of social acceptance for their comportment.
Don't do this. Be honest, forthright and be ready to be wrong, or be shown to be irrational or unreasonable, These are pejoratives, despite how much vitriol some who use them would have you believe.