Philosophy - the love of others' wisdom?

@finlandssvensk,

Quote:

I agree that study will teach facts, but I believe study tends to achieve more of an understanding of theories. That is until you begin to conduct experiments and conduct research, until then - which generally post-grad - we tend to learn about prevalent theories.

Literature does not consist of facts, rather, it is generally founded on fiction. Homer's Odyssey never occurred, the book contains no facts, yet seems to be of value to study.

I agree that theories, most of them anyway, are bunk; they have significant flaws. "To organize is to destroy", but without teaching those theories, how will we learn that the theories are not accurate? Without learning the theories, and their flaws, we are more likely to create theories with the same flaws. Further, wouldn't it be a fact that X thinker held Y theory?

0 Replies

@finlandssvensk,

I agree that it is a fact that x theorized y, however surely civilization would function more more appropriately if theories and philosophies were dismissed in favour of empiricism and ineffable theory?

0 Replies

@finlandssvensk,

i like this thread perhaps the best way to be a great philosopher is not to read philosophy
but just rely upon your own thinking many who have changed this world were mavericks of there time total free thinkers who had the courage to follow there intuition, with all knowledge written or spoken
read some digest some spit the rest out .
in life i believe
tell the truth , tell the truth, tell the truth,
much peace

1 Reply

@raven phil,

I sit back and generally read an entire thread, if I enjoy the read I might add an observation, sometimes I simply add to raise a laugh or even stir the pot. I do feel compelled here to skim the impurities off the top of the broth. I am not pointing fingers and I do apologise, should you take offence.

I enjoyed in the past, contributing to another chat forum, Argue With Everyone, but I found and please don't take what I am saying to heart, that often the same arguement or as in the case here, topic, seemed to be a polarized debate. Philosophising, is accepting the contribution of others to improve ones own observations.

Science is still the art of turning a farmers stick into a plough but as I found with the AWE, forum being a Republican meant opposing the Democratic and so on through most of the threads and their topics. Of course none of us are Plato but he incorporated out thoughts to convince us all where we were correct, so we could convince ourselves at which point we were wrong.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

all cool with me not sure what your apologising for
as i dont do politics in any shape or form you have lost me on the last bit
what i know or indeed need to know about world politics you could write on the back of a stamp and still have room to sign your name .
on the latter i plead blissful ignorance
much peace

0 Replies

@finlandssvensk,

finlandssvensk wrote:

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. But evidently mostly others' wisdom? When you study philosophy the focus is on what others have said and thought, instead of encouraging people to think their own thoughts. Is this a good way, or how should it be changed? You could argue that you have less of your own thoughts but the ones you have are at a higher level... is it positive to "clean up" peoples' thoughts and ideas, when that might mean missing a new groundbreaking idea? Or maybe human thinking wouldn't get any further if we didn't have a strong platform to start from... Thoughts?

It's not wise to bend down and drink from the rocky river side from a slipery foundation allway's look for rock that will make a strong foundation to squealch your thirst from...

This way you wont fall into the river, as the unwise had...

Parable's, full usage of one's english to relation of the passage of life.

0 Replies

@finlandssvensk,

finlandssvensk wrote:

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. But evidently mostly others' wisdom? When you study philosophy the focus is on what others have said and thought, instead of encouraging people to think their own thoughts. Is this a good way, or how should it be changed? You could argue that you have less of your own thoughts but the ones you have are at a higher level... is it positive to "clean up" peoples' thoughts and ideas, when that might mean missing a new groundbreaking idea? Or maybe human thinking wouldn't get any further if we didn't have a strong platform to start from... Thoughts?

finlandssvensk,

I remember reading Schopenhauer a few eons ago, he warned of collecting information, ideas and concepts and never really thinking for yourself. If you have the basic concept, in other words you know it in its possiable functions and points of reference, then work it yourself to the fullest extent that you can. After you have fully worn out the concept, then, and only then, begin to read others on the topic. You can from the outset, reading the thoughts of others, forfit your own intellect as Nietzsche I imagine might express it. You then will NOT be the wheel which rolls from its centre, but in fact, you will have no centre, you always be the motion of the wheel, not the centre from which it rolls. One way you can detect this in an author is, the unlimited use of footnotes he feels necessary to justify his work.

2 Replies

@boagie,

to thy own self be true

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

finlandssvensk,

I remember reading Schopenhauer a few eons ago, he warned of collecting information, ideas and concepts and never really thinking for yourself. If you have the basic concept, in other words you know it in its possiable functions and points of reference, then work it yourself to the fullest extent that you can. After you have fully worn out the concept, then, and only then, begin to read others on the topic. You can from the outset, reading the thoughts of others, forfit your own intellect as Nietzsche I imagine might express it. You then will NOT be the wheel which rolls from its centre, but in fact, you will have no centre, you always be the motion of the wheel, not the centre from which it rolls.

Were it not for concepts thught would be impossible. It is hard to have an original thought when all the building blocks of thought are the work of others, and to use them we must learn them before having the capacity to think with them. Syllogism is every child's first logic, and all it helps to work out is a definition, and the definition is a concept. You can't wear them out, and I know that is metphorical, but you can lay them aside as useless, as I suspect many have in time.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Were it not for concepts thught would be impossible. It is hard to have an original thought when all the building blocks of thought are the work of others, and to use them we must learn them before having the capacity to think with them. Syllogism is every child's first logic, and all it helps to work out is a definition, and the definition is a concept. You can't wear them out, and I know that is metphorical, but you can lay them aside as useless, as I suspect many have in time.

Fido,

The question was not, do concepts exist, but, at what point do you begin thinking for yourself. I added a sentence to the end of my statement above stating that, one way to detect an author guilty of this, is by his use of unlimited footnotes to justify his work, chances are he will never fully graduate out of this process of authority referral.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Fido,

The question was not, do concepts exist, but, at what point do you begin thinking for yourself. I added a sentence to the end of my statement above stating that, one way to detect an author guilty of this, is by his use of unlimited footnotes to justify his work, chances are he will never fully graduate out of this process of authority referral.

We all think for ourselves, and begin to do so quite early. The question is, given the same facts and the same material conditions upon which to ponder; why should we not all reach the same conclusions, and if we do, how should we then prove original thought? A precondition to all reason is a certain maturity of understanding, and the other thing required is a wealth of knowledge. The understanding required is the principal of conservation, or identity. Children set about learning the identities of objects early on. The principal of conservation requires that the magical quality that imbues all reality for children should lose its power, so that the child may know that nothing out of sight can change its shape or being.

0 Replies

@finlandssvensk,

finlandssvensk wrote:

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. But evidently mostly others' wisdom? When you study philosophy the focus is on what others have said and thought, instead of encouraging people to think their own thoughts. Is this a good way, or how should it be changed? You could argue that you have less of your own thoughts but the ones you have are at a higher level... is it positive to "clean up" peoples' thoughts and ideas, when that might mean missing a new groundbreaking idea? Or maybe human thinking wouldn't get any further if we didn't have a strong platform to start from... Thoughts?

There could be only one person who had an absolute original thought.

0 Replies

Philosophy - the love of others' wisdom?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know