quote:I'm disputing the idea that there is NO philosophy without the history of philosophy - the idea that without reading Locke or Hume or Descartes, you can't be doing philosophy at all.
But that isn't what I said, not at all. I said you will always have an incomplete understanding of current writings if you do not understand past writings. And if you don't have a proper knowledge of current writings, then your ability to engage with other philosophers is hopelessly crippled.
Starting from scratch is fine if you are a high level genius that can produce original ideas in isolation, but everyone else does philosophy in dialogue with other philosophers. And those other philosophers tend to be trained in both the canon and the contemporary writers.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A person could be dropped on a deserted island armed with only an understanding of how to reason, having never read any philosopher at all, and yet could still do philosophy.
At birth? And what do you mean by, "how to reason"?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starting from scratch is fine if you are a high level genius that can produce original ideas in isolation, but everyone else does philosophy in dialogue with other philosophers. And those other philosophers tend to be trained in both the canon and the contemporary writers.
I've done much philosophy in dialogue with other philosophers on this forum, and I'm guessing most of them are not well trained in the philosophical "canon". Heck, I've even spoken with philosophers who were in the 7th grade and wouldn't know Plato from play-dough. They were not high level geniuses, but could in fact produce philosophical ideas without having read any canon.
Philosophy is not just academic philosophy.
quote:At birth? And what do you mean by, "how to reason"?
No need to do it at birth. Just take someone from this forum who hasn't read any philosophy but knows how to reason, and drop them on an island.
As for "how to reason" I mean do what philosophers do - observe, analyze those observations, and use logic to refine them into conclusions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's an inherent limitation of language that many things cannot be fully articulated in it.
Without reading the entire thread, I have to agree with this statement, since it is similar one one I use: "Language is a lousy form of communication, but it's the best we have." (A platitude I know, but it expresses communication problems I often deal with)
Essentially, I think the reason that language works is that we have shared experiences that we can call upon with verbal "icons," or words. We learn words by sharing an experience. Mom points to the blue balloon and says "blue." The child shares the experience, and eventually isolates the concept of the color blue from the concept of balloon, and associates it with the word blue.
There are experiences that some people have had that others haven't. You can use all the words you want, and you will only approximate the experience of "war."
The reason communication fails so often is that we assume that words DO fully articulate the speaker's meaning. But ultimately all of the experiences we share as human beings are only approximate. Two people who have both experienced war can use the word with each other, but their perceptions of war are colored more by their experiences than by the words they are hearing.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think gut feelings are a sort of observation, where you see somethign to be true. It is a valid method of determining truth, but like sound argument, it has a flaw.
It's perfectly fine for subjective truth, but is worthless when trying to establish an objective truth, isn't it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No need to do it at birth. Just take someone from this forum who hasn't read any philosophy but knows how to reason, and drop them on an island.
Tropical island? I volunteer. I don't know squat about philosophy, but I'm an excellent reasoner. And I like the beach. Mai-thai's and what-not.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always assumed that philosophy was an attempt to understand subjective truths not objective truths?
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starting from scratch is fine if you are a high level genius that can produce original ideas in isolation, but everyone else does philosophy in dialogue with other philosophers. And those other philosophers tend to be trained in both the canon and the contemporary writers.
I've done much philosophy in dialogue with other philosophers on this forum, and I'm guessing most of them are not well trained in the philosophical "canon". Heck, I've even spoken with philosophers who were in the 7th grade and wouldn't know Plato from play-dough. They were not high level geniuses, but could in fact produce philosophical ideas without having read any canon.
Philosophy is not just academic philosophy.
Well then we're not actually in disagreement.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's perfectly fine for subjective truth, but is worthless when trying to establish an objective truth, isn't it?
No. As I tried to "explain" in my hot dog stand analogy, a gut feeling can ALSO get you -- sometimes -- to objective truth, and sometimes can even do it more quickly than conscious argument. But precisely because the "argument" that occurs when you process a gut feeling is not conscious, there's no check on it -- and consequently it can lead you astray far more easily. So in general, it's better to go with actual conscious thought except for when you're in a situation where you simply don't have time or aren't capable of processing all the necessary inputs at a conscious level.
---------
quote: I've always assumed that philosophy was an attempt to understand subjective truths not objective truths?
Nope. If anything, it's an attempt to make all truths objective.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No need to do it at birth. Just take someone from this forum who hasn't read any philosophy but knows how to reason, and drop them on an island.
Most everyone on this forum is already contaminated with a healthy dose of western metaphysics and the english language.
Look, a lot of the work of philosophy is clarifying and judging what is considered to be "common sense." I imagine that stand-up comedy is similarly disposed.
In order to figure out who we are today, one must read the greatest thinkers in our intellectual history because most of the great ones were articulating clearly the common wisdom of their age, and maybe improving upon it a little bit.
How much of what we take for granted was "common sense" been influenced by Locke, Mill, and Smith? When did freedom, as we understand it, arrive, and why? Before we start Fed-exing it all over the world by the barrel of a gun, I figure we should understand the origins and what sense it makes in these times.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
