Do you need to study Philosophy formally to be a philosopher

John Jones wrote:

chrdani wrote:
Quote:
It's as if ideas must be incorporated into a geneology of ideas, and these in turn integrated with a geneology of personality, and then the whole sodding structure called philosophy.

I agree. But to answer the initial question about studying philosophy:

If you want to become a scholar in either history, philosophy or even psychology, I feel it is necessary to read primary sources in their respective languages. At least when it comes to languages which are in the same category as those you are already familiar with. German and English are to me natural to master in such a connection. The Latin languages are a bit more complicated to me, such as French, Italian and Spanish.On this issue I can, as I have mentioned, speak of personal experience.

Fortunately, most European languages are relatively easy to master for us who live in the (so-called) "Western World". I know a guy who has studied Japanese for over 4 years at the university, and he can't even read a normal newspaper

I am going to attend a French-course this autumn, and hope I will be able to read the important French philosophers in a two-three-years time.

I am thick in this way: When it comes to languages I had 12% for German, 8% for French, and Latin I failed five times. That disqualifies me from studying philosophy with academic finesse. Yet I have a skill which can surpass the best. Here is an example of it:

You are advocating that philosophers adopt a private language when you suggest that individuals could personally gain from studying texts written in their original language. However, text must be placed at some point in the public domain, for language is a tool used in the public domain. Yet it is the presentation of foreign texts in the public domain which you are at issue with.

While it may be a practice for academic philosophy to merge geneologies of personality and ideas, a strict reading of texts to this end is of limited use to the alternative practice of philosophy that tackles ideas on their own terms.

Those are good and valid points, JJ. However, here's the problem: sometimes there are nuances to words in a language which are untranslateable into any other language. That's why, in philosophy classes, profs will sometimes refer to Kant's concept of the ding-an-sich, rather than saying flat out in English "the thing-in-itself." Literally translated, that's what ding-an-sich means in English. But the concept carries far more weight than a literal translation could possibly convey. Another reason for reading the original is that translations can be awfully sloppy sometimes. For year's Schopenhauer's major work was known in English as The World as Will and Idea. The German title is Das Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. To translate Vorstellung as idea is not exactly wrong but it is woefully misleading. Newer translations render it as "representation" rather than "idea", and that's certainly more accurate but still doesn't quite get the concept across, in my opinion.

OK, for a layman's general needs, even at the university level -- even at graduate level, come to that -- good translations will be fine and adequate. But anyone actually going into the field of studying, researching and 'philosophizing', a basic grasp of the language in which the works were written is mandatory.

0 Replies

Quote:

OK, for a layman's general needs, even at the university level -- even at graduate level, come to that -- good translations will be fine and adequate. But anyone actually going into the field of studying, researching and 'philosophizing', a basic grasp of the language in which the works were written is mandatory.

Seems to me that members often think of philosophy in strictly academic terms. What belongs to the curriculum, and what doesn't. To be frank I am sick and tired of what is "adequate" and "fine" for students. I agree that it might be useful to browse through a compilation of philosophers and main ideas of a certain age, and then decide what really discusses the issues you find relevant. However, I see no point in taking the time to read a translated version of a primary source, as you already want to go into details anyway. That's my personal opinion.

Moreover, I want to underline that this is not a discussion (at least not to me) about who is "avant-garde" or "laymen", or "better" than any other.
Understanding is what counts and not whether or not you can write kiss-up essays for you teacher.

Many allegories can be understood perfectly without reading the primary source, such as Socrates and the slave boy who figured out how to double the area of a rectangle. And I respect those who want to just enjoy philosophy in their translated versions. But then you have to give the translator half the credit for the ideas stated in that work. :wink:

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

John Jones wrote:
chrdani wrote:
Quote:
anyone actually going into the field of studying, researching and 'philosophizing', a basic grasp of the language in which the works were written is mandatory.

If it is mandatory to study texts in their original language to practice philosophy at the top level, an abominable idea, then the top level will not be found in this way by people who wish to pursue ideas on their own merit. If these ideas are incorrectly presented, it is not by a thorough examination of the source material that will put this right so much as an examination of the idea itself. The split between these two practices of philosophy becomes noticeably acute here, and the last thing I would want to see is philosophy practised by specialists in a specialist language. That is not, for example, the way Wittgenstein practised it.

0 Replies

Quote:

If these ideas are incorrectly presented, it is not by a thorough examination of the source material that will put this right so much as an examination of the idea itself.

Sorry, I don't seem to get your statement. To me there is no "idea itself". The ideas change according to which language you use to communicate. Again, no border-line between idea and language.

An example:

I have the notes for a symphony by Schubert, a song by Coldplay, or whatever. If I chose to play it on my guitar, instead of the piano, I would get a completely different result. The exactly same notes, played on two different instruments. Even though I might capture some of the emotional message with my guitar, it simply hasn't got the same properties as my piano. Some parts might sound better to me on the guitar, but if the composer has used the piano on that passage, I will get a totally different result that what he/she intended.

And then we could argue all day about how to interpret the piano (and we might never come to a conclusion), however we have at least heard the same sound.

I think there always will exist different interpretations of works, however I feel it is an advantage to at least hear the same instrument. Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It is not possible to study philosophy to become a philosopher. The only thing you'll acomplish by cramming centuries of confused ramblings into your head is to kill every shred of ability to "think outside the box".

A person who studies the works of philosophy is not a philosopher. He is a historian with focus on the ideas through time.

If you have the question and open books to find the answers, then I'd say you're a philosopher. But if you read books to find the questions, then you're just on a wrong track.

I found myself getting more and more angry realing this post - until the last sentence.

Then I agreed with the whole thing! Wink

With one caveat - if they are not looking to philosophers for answers they either 1) seem to like to reinvent the wheel 2) think thier ideas are thier alone and no one else has thought about it - let alone have done good work in that area.

Let also help this thought of Cyra's along by saying that the 'History of Philosophy' is NOT 'philosophy'. Julia Anna's (in my opinion one of the best philosophers around today) said that philosophy (Ethics - atleast) is only entered into when you are unhappy with your life.

Philosophy is also worthless without being applicable to a persons life. It is the reason I am an ethicist and love the ancients. One of the things that they ancients understood and many of the modern philosophers have not is that philosophy must be applicable to your life.

As Epicurus said it - Philosophy is vain unless it attempts to heal the mental pains of others.

TTF

0 Replies

Quote:

One of the things that they ancients understood and many of the modern philosophers have not is that philosophy must be applicable to your life.

Did they mean that? I do not thing you can assign such a notion to the Greek philosophers in general. Many of them were occupied with mere metaphysics, and that is what made them different from eg. the Babylonians or Egyptians, who contributed in eg. geometry, medicine and astronomy. But our friends near the Aegean were able to abstract generalise, present proof and falsify other statements. In my mind, the Greeks did almost the opposite of making things "practical"; they invented "philosophy" instead! Smile

What you are referring to sounds to me a bit more like positivism. Try reading Auguste Comte. Except for the ethics, he is concerned with making philosophy usable in a practical situation (often scientific).

0 Replies

chrdani wrote:

Quote:
If these ideas are incorrectly presented, it is not by a thorough examination of the source material that will put this right so much as an examination of the idea itself.

Sorry, I don't seem to get your statement. To me there is no "idea itself". The ideas change according to which language you use to communicate. Again, no border-line between idea and language.

An example:

I have the notes for a symphony by Schubert, a song by Coldplay, or whatever. If I chose to play it on my guitar, instead of the piano, I would get a completely different result. The exactly same notes, played on two different instruments. Even though I might capture some of the emotional message with my guitar, it simply hasn't got the same properties as my piano. Some parts might sound better to me on the guitar, but if the composer has used the piano on that passage, I will get a totally different result that what he/she intended.

And then we could argue all day about how to interpret the piano (and we might never come to a conclusion), however we have at least heard the same sound.

I think there always will exist different interpretations of works, however I feel it is an advantage to at least hear the same instrument.

I am quite entitled to say 'the idea itself'. This idea is the one that is presented publicly. No other idea is up for consideration. If an idea cannot be understood on its own merits, which entails a public presentation of it, then it makes little sense to study one in its original language. However an idea can be examined in its original language if the sense of it is not clear.
I would no more trust a philosopher to translate a work than I would a mechanic to give me a haircut. Let us leave the specialist tasks to the specialists.

I am not sure if the music example works. We would all recognise that it is the same work being played if it was performed on different instruments. We may get different feelings in each case, but that is a separate consideration and is not related to our knowledge that the work is the same.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am not sure if the music example works. We would all recognise that it is the same work being played if it was performed on different instruments. We may get different feelings in each case, but that is a separate consideration and is not related to our knowledge that the work is the same.

I guess you're a big fan of Socrates, as he held knowledge/virtue as the highest of all things, totally ignoring such notions as feelings, moods and emotional impact. Kinda getting down to "pure knowledge".

However, even such a statement does not really cover the problem, as some of the philosophical phrases have no direct translation into English at all. Wonder why historians always say "Third Reich" to what Hitler tried to build up during the 1930-ties? Because we have no English translation that give the same connotations (even though I think it is ridiculous to mix German and English in this way).

Reich seems to be a word which fits only the German version of "Empire". Oh...that's not right...well it is not an empire...it's a...forget it... Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

chrdani wrote:

Quote:

I am not sure if the music example works. We would all recognise that it is the same work being played if it was performed on different instruments. We may get different feelings in each case, but that is a separate consideration and is not related to our knowledge that the work is the same.

I guess you're a big fan of Socrates, as he held knowledge/virtue as the highest of all things, totally ignoring such notions as feelings, moods and emotional impact. Kinda getting down to "pure knowledge".

However, even such a statement does not really cover the problem, as some of the philosophical phrases have no direct translation into English at all. Wonder why historians always say "Third Reich" to what Hitler tried to build up during the 1930-ties? Because we have no English translation that give the same connotations (even though I think it is ridiculous to mix German and English in this way).

Reich seems to be a word which fits only the German version of "Empire". Oh...that's not right...well it is not an empire...it's a...forget it...

Yes, the problem is that at some point an individual must present his translation to the public. If a word can only be understood in its original language then it should not be beyond the translator to work around that and present a similar idea to the public. Are ideas tied to specific languages? If they are, then all works in English of any foreign philosopher are giving either the wrong ideas or distorted ideas. But I would suggest that a distorted idea in this case is only distorted relative to the idea presented in the original language, and not distorted on its own merit.

0 Replies

chrdani wrote:

Quote:
One of the things that they ancients understood and many of the modern philosophers have not is that philosophy must be applicable to your life.

In my mind, the Greeks did almost the opposite of making things "practical"; they invented "philosophy" instead!

Then you have misread the Ancient Greek philosophers. The common thread that links them all from Thales to Epictetus is that they only care about thier metaphysics so much as it informs thier ethics.

The greatests proponent of this concept is Epicurus, although the Stoics were not much better. Aristotle, however, was attempting to increase his wisdom within his metaphysical and epistemological theories because he thought the proper life was fully fullfilling his telos. His soul, a rational soul when best practiced, required the knowledge he was attempting to aquire, to be fulfilled.

Remember Socrates, and thus Plato's conception of true knowledge was knowledge of the self. Gnothi Seaton ruled thier lives and thus conception of the Forms are ONLY worthwhile because they allowed them to cheat death by learning about the truth before they actually died and were reimmersed with the truth.

All of the ancients, as far as I understand them, loathed the mental masturbation so prevelant in modern philosophy.

TTF

0 Replies

Okay, TheThinkFactory has probably answered this other question, but which one should I take, Ethics, Politics and Social Philosophy, or Metaphysics and Epistemology?

Quote:

Then you have misread the Ancient Greek philosophers. The common thread that links them all from Thales to Epictetus is that they only care about thier metaphysics so much as it informs thier ethics.

The greatests proponent of this concept is Epicurus, although the Stoics were not much better. Aristotle, however, was attempting to increase his wisdom within his metaphysical and epistemological theories because he thought the proper life was fully fullfilling his telos. His soul, a rational soul when best practiced, required the knowledge he was attempting to aquire, to be fulfilled.

Remember Socrates, and thus Plato's conception of true knowledge was knowledge of the self. Gnothi Seaton ruled thier lives and thus conception of the Forms are ONLY worthwhile because they allowed them to cheat death by learning about the truth before they actually died and were reimmersed with the truth.

All of the ancients, as far as I understand them, loathed the mental masturbation so prevelant in modern philosophy.

I knew it, you're pro-hellenistic! :wink:

Honestly though, I don't like some modern ethical philosophy (e.g. moral relativism, randian egoism, etc), but I'd like to learn about deontologism and utilitarianism because I think these two are far better than the former. The ancient ethics, are interesting, but I think they are still flawed. Although I'd still like to learn them because they are IMO around the same level as the one I've just mentioned.

Remember in Plato's Republic? When he was asked about the concept of justice. Plato implied that what is good is synonimous to happiness, and he tried to justify the concept of justice using this premise (plus the afterlife stuff). He never addressed happiness for whom? only the individual? And I'd say here lies the problem with virtue ethics.

Quote:

As Epicurus said it - Philosophy is vain unless it attempts to heal the mental pains of others.

I don't believe it. Socrates' method of interrogation, was to test people's beliefs of their knowledge. While ethics is the first and foremost importance in philosophy, and in Socrates' view (I think), the search for knowledge, is just that, to see the truth (reach for actuality, etc).

0 Replies

Remember the two Socratic Paradox's however:

1) True knowledge is knowing you know nothing. (In my opinion he was speaking here of the material world - I think he was greatly influenced by Parmenedian thought here).

2) Know thyself.

If you can't know anything how can you know yourself? True knowledge is knowing that true knowledge is merely self knowledge.

If we are to see Plato as an extrapolation of Socratic thought he thought the Forms (truth) was only knowable by the dialectic (Socratic method that was mostly interior).

So the Good Life (Ethics) is to know that you can only know truth by knowing yourself.

I may be wrong on this - but I think Socrates cared very little about Metaphysics and Epistemology and thus argued through his Ethics. That is why the early Socratic dialogues are all discussions of Love, Piety, Virtue and the like - all human ethical conceptions as an ingress into Metaphysics and Epistemology.

As far as being accused of being 'pro-hellenistic'... guilty as charged. Wink

TTF

0 Replies

Well, to answer your question in a simple manner:

If you pick up a typical book about philosophers, you will find that many of the persons mentioned never studied philosophy at all (Einstein, Freud etc).

I can't see why anybody can become a "philosopher" really...as long as your interest in fundamental issues is genuine.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you pick up a typical book about philosophers, you will find that many of the persons mentioned never studied philosophy at all (Einstein, Freud etc).

Wittgenstein never made formal studies of philosophers and never gave quotes or sources. Everything he wrote he claimed was original. Just like me. Well, me in fact.

0 Replies

Quote:

Wittgenstein never made formal studies of philosophers and never gave quotes or sources. Everything he wrote he claimed was original. Just like me. Well, me in fact.

I just read an interesting book written by Wittgenstein. In fact it was his diary. It might give useful insight into how a philosopher reflect and how he deals with his day-2-day life.

The original title in German is "Denkbewegungen, Tagebücher 1930-32, 1936-37"

This book was very touching, making me aware that his "wine was only made of grapes". It really opened my mind as to perceiving the philosopher as human being.

I don't know if Wittgenstein was more original than any other philosopher.

0 Replies

chrdani wrote:

Quote:
Wittgenstein never made formal studies of philosophers and never gave quotes or sources. Everything he wrote he claimed was original. Just like me. Well, me in fact.

I just read an interesting book written by Wittgenstein. In fact it was his diary. It might give useful insight into how a philosopher reflect and how he deals with his day-2-day life.

The original title in German is "Denkbewegungen, Tagebücher 1930-32, 1936-37"

This book was very touching, making me aware that his "wine was only made of grapes". It really opened my mind as to perceiving the philosopher as human being.

I don't know if Wittgenstein was more original than any other philosopher.

He was not well read, so he had to make do. I am Wittgenstein, and things are a little different now, but the abilities, temperament and interests are the same.

0 Replies

ttf seems to express my ideas about philosophy; knowledge of the self is the key.

0 Replies

Quote:

He was not well read, so he had to make do. I am Wittgenstein, and things are a little different now, but the abilities, temperament and interests are the same.

Can we really know if Socrates or any other philosopher (of whom we know almost nothing), read a lot or not?

I don't think the Greeks had anything against a debate, instead of reading a book(I've heard that the books back then were pretty heavy, literary speaking)? Razz

Oh well...words can be funneh...

If you really are Wittgenstein...then...things are starting to get interesting!

0 Replies

chrdani wrote:

Quote:
He was not well read, so he had to make do. I am Wittgenstein, and things are a little different now, but the abilities, temperament and interests are the same.

Can we really know if Socrates or any other philosopher (of whom we know almost nothing), read a lot or not?

I don't think the Greeks had anything against a debate, instead of reading a book(I've heard that the books back then were pretty heavy, literary speaking)?

Oh well...words can be funneh...

If you really are Wittgenstein...then...things are starting to get interesting!

Yes, I have some physical reminders too, including one I noticed that no-one else seems to have. You will get the same type of response from me now as people did then, and the abilities are there in full, as they were then.
It is not possible to tackle ideas in a framework of geneology of personality and ideas. That system is self-referencing and disallows new ideas. I say we should use the old philosophers as a source of ideas, or reflection upon them. But like asking the AA for help, similarly with asking old philsophers for help: if our car has not broken down, then don't ring them.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is not possible to tackle ideas in a framework of geneology of personality and ideas. That system is self-referencing and disallows new ideas. I say we should use the old philosophers as a source of ideas, or reflection upon them. But like asking the AA for help, similarly with asking old philsophers for help: if our car has not broken down, then don't ring them.

Can you please rephrase ...didn't get it. Whats "AA" btw, we don't have that in Norway. Razz

I am confident that you have a good point, just I'm bit slow tonight....it's soon mightnight over here...

0 Replies

Do you need to study Philosophy formally to be a philosopher

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know