1
   

Do you need to study Philosophy formally to be a philosopher

 
 
chrdani
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 03:38 pm
Quote:
....it's soon mightnight over here...


Midnight that is...
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 03:59 pm
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)? Razz

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

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


The Wittgenstein's are FEW and far between in my opinion. The great ones are encyclopedias of philosophy - in my experience.

We can take from Plato's depiction of Socrates that he was familiar with all of the popular philosophic arguments of the day - he might not of read them but he knew them. We know that Epicurus for instance had a great workign knowledge of all of the philosophies of the day as well.

I would say you need some philosophy to be a philosopher or else you will (with very little exception) reinvent the wheel.

I am waiting for John Jones to start typing his posts in Wittgenstiens traditional style - with lettered bullet point style paragraphs. It will be as horrible to read as Wittgenstein. Wink

I think it is time to go back on your medication JJ.

TTF
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Aug, 2005 06:17 pm
Quote:
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.


Know thyself? Isn't that the writing on the Oracle of Delphi...

Superb paradox, one showing the doubt he has as a philosopher. Nevertheless, by my constant rambling about who am I, I think you know what I think about the so-called self-searching.

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


I agree with the first statement/question. Second statement not so much.

It depends on what you mean by self knowledge. Is the universe a part of this self or is it merely looking at an individual.

Quote:
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.


I think you're right.

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


Surprised Laughing


Who's Wittgenstein? Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 01:16 am
chrdani wrote:
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...


[The AA - the automobile association. You ring them up when your car breaks down, like ringing up Socrates. But if the car or idea is fine, then we do not need to ring anyone]

The practices of the study of the geneology of ideas and personality, erronously called philosophy, are marked out by continual referencing to a single self-referencing structure. I was saying that we can use this structure to establish ownership of ideas, or as source material for works on the modern evolution of ideas, neither activity being philosophy proper. The discipline of the geneology of ideas and personalities is supported by the practice of referencing, or quoting source material.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 01:37 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
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)? Razz

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

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


The Wittgenstein's are FEW and far between in my opinion. The great ones are encyclopedias of philosophy - in my experience.

We can take from Plato's depiction of Socrates that he was familiar with all of the popular philosophic arguments of the day - he might not of read them but he knew them. We know that Epicurus for instance had a great workign knowledge of all of the philosophies of the day as well.

I would say you need some philosophy to be a philosopher or else you will (with very little exception) reinvent the wheel.

I am waiting for John Jones to start typing his posts in Wittgenstiens traditional style - with lettered bullet point style paragraphs. It will be as horrible to read as Wittgenstein. Wink

I think it is time to go back on your medication JJ.

TTF


On difficult topics I nearly always bullet my points. I am him, that's it. And I can re-invent the wheel. Russel was an encyclopedia, whereas Wittegenstein was not. Russel was good at many things, whereas Wittgenstein was not. But there was certainly a difference between them in one respect, a difference that Russel saw. Wittgenstein was often horrible to read, and obscure, although the points he made then I can make now in an accessible way. Russels style of writing was a good influence on W.
I can resolve the problems associated with the nature of knowledge and belief. I can burrow beneath the foundations of mathematics and logic. I can break the guitar called time, and the line of mathematics. I can lay to rest the turmoils around truth, falsehood and reality. I have torn to shreds modern philosophies that daily blight our lives and yet go unseen.

I still have some throat chakra problems. And the weakness in the lower back is still there. The hair still sticks up on one side. I like swearing and joking in my writings. My abilities are present in full. Music is my life and my greatest disappointment.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 06:35 am
Lithium. I hear it is good.

TF
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Aug, 2005 06:47 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
Lithium. I hear it is good.

TF


It's true. And it is odd to think, but I am sure that it is the case, that people can only recognise a personality in the cultural milieu specific to that personality. In other words, 'Wittgenstein returned' would only be recognised as Wittgenstein returned if he repeated the events of his life. I can tell you that major events are the same but not always in their particulars; while some particulars are the same. You will just have to assess 'my claim', if you are bored enough to want to do that, by assessing my skills.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 02:19:47