Introduction to Philosophy

(i am a young guy without much philosophy knowledge.) i suppose the core of philosophy is contemplation, but contemplate on what? i think it's not on the nomenclature or profound concepts or complex definitions or those obscure theories, but on what you are curious about, on the underlying principle of your speciality and anything could lead to universal understanding of some aspect of your life or of the world.

0 Replies

I just fear the laziness that can arise from this. It seems like only a surface level can be obtained by the contemplation of a topic without accessing others that have contemplated the same concepts.

Do you need to be an encyclopedia - no, no one likes a person with a Nietzsche style memory and depth - but can you contemplate in a vacuum - I don;t think so - and unless you have a shed load of really philosophical buddies or you enjoy reinventing the wheel - you should read a little by some really smart people.

I know for me, after really delving into Epicurus I never understood myself or the hedonist argument in all its validity.

TF

0 Replies

the base of contemplatation is not vacum but your knowledge about hte universe.

0 Replies

balance

thethinkfactory wrote:

I just fear the laziness that can arise from this. It seems like only a surface level can be obtained by the contemplation of a topic without accessing others that have contemplated the same concepts.

Do you need to be an encyclopedia - no, no one likes a person with a Nietzsche style memory and depth - but can you contemplate in a vacuum - I don;t think so - and unless you have a shed load of really philosophical buddies or you enjoy reinventing the wheel - you should read a little by some really smart people.

I know for me, after really delving into Epicurus I never understood myself or the hedonist argument in all its validity.

TF

TF, good point about the laziness. The thing I fear is: if an impressionable beginner reads a few really good convincing philosophers, will s/he then forever be slanted toward those sages?

That is, does one's philosophy tend to become a carbon-copy of the philosopher?

The laziness of simply reading a few excellent philosophers and simply adopting their philosophy.

0 Replies

tcis: Fortunately I haven't fallen into that trap, in fact I'm avoiding schools.

0 Replies

I think that is where you should interview your teachers before you become a student.

If they are all about pushing thier philosophy or a certain slant on you then don't be thier student.

I hope to teach my students to interogate all of the philosophers and ideas I present - to mine them for the truth as they see it - and give reasons why they think it is so.

Do you need to go to school or read to be a philosopher - no. BUt the vast majority of the greats knew what thier predesessors had to say.

That is why Nietzsche taught philology and why Aristotle gave in his books what EVERYONE said before him. It allowed him to better understand his position. Don't adopt - interrogate.

TF

0 Replies

Woopsie, I meant to say schools of thought.

0 Replies

You perchance read any Locke, as your name would imply?

Can't go wrong with the old guys.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

..........Can't go wrong with the old guys.

you most definitely 'can'!

they didn't know squat, compared to what we have discovered, and figured out today; they were working in a mist of ignorance, rather impressive considering, but 'historic' now! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

As long as you don't accept everything that you read as true, which you still have to do today, you can still get something out of reading them. I've learned a lot by reading books that I completely disagreed with. It forces you to think about something, you must always doubt anything that you read. Sometimes it's better to reach your own conclusion by disagreeing with something then to have the logic fed to you. I'm not saying that modern texts that are more accurate aren't worth while.

0 Replies

I think the trick is with the ancients is that with many things - we are no closer today to figuring them out than we were 2000 years ago.

Take Virtue Ethics for instance - so passe until about 2 years ago - now they seem to be making a come back.

I agree with BoGo to a degree - I think what we are saying today is just as ignorant the ancients. Meaning in 2000 years people will say "you mean they actually believed 'x'".

I think what has become science needs to be simply ignored. No on takes Thales comment on water very seriously anymore - but what about Platonic realism - still as 'valid' to the theist today as it was to Plato back then - or Aristotles Final cause - can it really be ignored by science - what does that do for us?

I think many of the questions are still valid - I think BoGo is talking about the scientific discoveries here.

TF

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Thalion wrote:
..........Can't go wrong with the old guys.

you most definitely 'can'!

they didn't know squat, compared to what we have discovered, and figured out today; they were working in a mist of ignorance, rather impressive considering, but 'historic' now!

That, I most humbly submit, is a great load of codswollop. If one is to learn philosophy, one must start with the "classic" philosophers. If you don't understand them, you'll probably never fully understand the modern philosophers.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:
Thalion wrote:
..........Can't go wrong with the old guys.

you most definitely 'can'!

they didn't know squat, compared to what we have discovered, and figured out today; they were working in a mist of ignorance, rather impressive considering, but 'historic' now!

That, I most humbly submit, is a great load of codswollop. If one is to learn philosophy, one must start with the "classic" philosophers. If you don't understand them, you'll probably never fully understand the modern philosophers.

But we must be careful who we listen to, even if they are supposedly a genius.
The thing I always wondered about is: Why are people so fond of quoting and following dudes like Nietzsche? He had nervous breakdowns, fell down and couldn't get up in his 40s, never fully recovered. I always wondered if his philosophy actually had something to with his breakdowns?

0 Replies

Introduction to Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know