The philisophical journey

[aigiqinf]

(Oh my gosh! I misspelled philosophy!)

I'd like some guidance on learning philosophy. I have two intro textbooks (The Philosopher's Way and Reason and Responsibility) and two other books (Of Empire, Think. I've been told that next I should read The Republic and The Apology, but are there any other books I should read for an introduction? I'm taking Introduction to Ethics, the only philosophy course my community college offers, next fall.

I've found a competition for those under 18 in philosophy, which requires one to write 3-5 original works of philosophy under 3,000 words each. That's up to 30 pages (The writings are due in March, 2010). I'm planning to participate to give me some structure in improving (or developing in the first place) my ability to write philosophically; it doesn't really matter whether I win or not.

Thank you

 

[The Nihilist]

(Oh my gosh! I misspelled philosophy!)

I'd like some guidance on learning philosophy. I have two intro textbooks (The Philosopher's Way and Reason and Responsibility) and two other books (Of Empire, Think. I've been told that next I should read The Republic and The Apology, but are there any other books I should read for an introduction? I'm taking Introduction to Ethics, the only philosophy course my community college offers, next fall.

I've found a competition for those under 18 in philosophy, which requires one to write 3-5 original works of philosophy under 3,000 words each. That's up to 30 pages (The writings are due in March, 2010). I'm planning to participate to give me some structure in improving (or developing in the first place) my ability to write philosophically; it doesn't really matter whether I win or not.

Thank you

Look, here's the best advice anyone will ever give you regarding the study of philosophy: throw your books away, and go tap those underage girls while it's still legal.

 

[aigiqinf]

Any helpful posts? lol

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd like some guidance on learning philosophy. I have two intro textbooks (The Philosopher's Way and Reason and Responsibility) and two other books (Of Empire, Think. I've been told that next I should read The Republic and The Apology, but are there any other books I should read for an introduction?

You could try Philosophy: Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand.

But really what you need to know is simply this:

Academic philosophy isn't just about taking positions on philosophical issues, but also justifying those positions with logical arguments, and addressing possible objections by other philosophers.

Often times, it involves taking someone else's argument, presenting it in your own words, and then critiquing it.

Any helpful posts? lol

Then I refer you to The Nihilist's post.

Somewhere along the way after the Socratic philosophers had their day in the sun, philosophy stopped being about a way of life, and became a dry subject taught by nerdy professors who rarely do anything with their lives other than to read books, write papers, and teach classes.

It was once the case that philosophy was a way to achieve peace of mind about life and death, and to make the most of your life. Philosophy may be the love of wisdom, but wisdom is about the love of life. So, the best advice anyone can give you right now is to live your life, and you'll gain wisdom as you go along. Some of that wisdom might even be worth writing down.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jeffersoni]

You could try Philosophy: Who Needs It? by Ayn Rand.

But really what you need to know is simply this:

Academic philosophy isn't just about taking positions on philosophical issues, but also justifying those positions with logical arguments, and addressing possible objections by other philosophers.

Often times, it involves taking someone else's argument, presenting it in your own words, and then critiquing it.



Then I refer you to The Nihilist's post.

Somewhere along the way after the Socratic philosophers had their day in the sun, philosophy stopped being about a way of life, and became a dry subject taught by nerdy professors who rarely do anything with their lives other than to read books, write papers, and teach classes.

It was once the case that philosophy was a way to achieve peace of mind about life and death, and to make the most of your life. Philosophy may be the love of wisdom, but wisdom is about the love of life. So, the best advice anyone can give you right now is to live your life, and you'll gain wisdom as you go along. Some of that wisdom might even be worth writing down.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Very helpful post, you are right. Anyway, it is helpful to study some philosophers. I recommend you to read about a particular philosopher and then write about it. I think that after reading an introductory book, you know the basics of the major philosophers. SO, choose one, and study his philosophy deeper. I personally may suggest Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant.

 

[Jedah]

Well...before you even get started, the best thing to do before getting into philosophy would be to ask yourself the following question:

"If everything I believe and hold dear turned out to be a lie, would I want to know ? If reality was cruel and unjust, would ignorance be bliss ?"

The point being, that the most important thing about philosophy is honesty...which is much easier said then done. One of the unfortunate qualities of those who are intellectually dishonest and use philosophy to solidify what they already believe is that they refuse to accept that they are being intellectually dishonest in doing so. True philosophers seek to understand, not to make themselves feel good. If you don't like that, then philosophy is not for you.

 

[Suggestion Box]

yeah be careful- if you read too far into the wrong point of view and take it too seriously you could end up preferring ignorance, insanity, or even death over the limits of human reason.

if you have faith, base your philosophy on God and go from there.

 

[The Nihilist]

yeah be careful- if you read too far into the wrong point of view and take it too seriously you could end up preferring ignorance, insanity, or even death over the limits of human reason.

if you have faith, base your philosophy on God and go from there.

You know nothing about philosophy.

 

[Suggestion Box]

sigh... i won't get into it. and i don't know where you're coming from, nihilist... neither do you me. perhaps i will have to return to the nihilism for dummies thread.

 

[The Nihilist]

sigh... i won't get into it. and i don't know where you're coming from, nihilist... neither do you me. perhaps i will have to return to the nihilism for dummies thread.

1. It is reason that leads one to favor ignorance, violence, or death. This has to do with why Socrates was executed.
2. Philosophy that begins with faith is dishonest. To carry out philosophy, one must be prepared to accept that her most cherished beliefs are false. Otherwise, she is a hack.

 

[Dark_Lite]

1. It is reason that leads one to favor ignorance, violence, or death. This has to do with why Socrates was executed.
2. Philosophy that begins with faith is dishonest. To carry out philosophy, one must be prepared to accept that her most cherished beliefs are false. Otherwise, she is a hack.

I will have to disagree with #2. Philosophy that begins from any point is not dishonest so long as it grows into what philosophy truly is. Faith (or lack thereof) forms the philosophical foundation from which the person draws their original beliefs. Those beliefs establish a standard of comparison and gives the person something to think about.

 

[The Nihilist]

I will have to disagree with #2. Philosophy that begins from any point is not dishonest so long as it grows into what philosophy truly is. Faith (or lack thereof) forms the philosophical foundation from which the person draws their original beliefs. Those beliefs establish a standard of comparison and gives the person something to think about.

If philosophy were about pleasant, idle navel gazing, that'd be fantastic. If it were about establishing a standard of comparison and having something to think about, that'd just be super. But philosophy is about the pursuit of truth. Ultimately, however, all that 2500 years of philosophy has taught us is what we knew in the beginning: that we know nothing, and that it is better to know nothing than to believe something that is false.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If philosophy were about pleasant, idle navel gazing, that'd be fantastic. If it were about establishing a standard of comparison and having something to think about, that'd just be super. But philosophy is about the pursuit of truth. Ultimately, however, all that 2500 years of philosophy has taught us is what we knew in the beginning: that we know nothing, and that it is better to know nothing than to believe something that is false.

Can't pursue truth without having a basis to build that pursuit upon.

 

[Jedah]

Can't pursue truth without having a basis to build that pursuit upon.

Explain why.

Because last time I checked, its completely the other way around. Philosophy is meant to help construct an ever changing basis ( very key ) by looking at everything you possibly can with an honest eye. If you start out with some assumed truth and simply look for evidence to support what you already believe, then what you are doing is not called philosophy... what you are doing is called "kidding yourself".

If there is one basis you must start from, assuming it can be even called a "basis" then that would be "I think, therefore I am". This is simply due to the logical impossibility of disproving your own consciousness to yourself, as you would have to be conscious in order to comprehend that you are not.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Explain why.

Because last time I checked, its completely the other way around. Philosophy is meant to help construct an ever changing basis ( very key ) by looking at everything you possibly can with an honest eye. If you start out with some assumed truth and simply look for evidence to support what you already believe, then what you are doing is not called philosophy... what you are doing is called "kidding yourself".

I'm not talking about using philosophy to only justify that which you already believe in. I'm saying that in order to start down the philosophical path you have to have some sort of established belief. The journey either begins from questioning that belief or looking for some way to support that belief.

Philosophy by its nature leads to questioning of beliefs already held if it is done properly. The result of that questioning may be holding the same belief (but with stronger knowledge of why you hold it) or result in a completely different belief.

Also, since when does your philosophical basis have to be ever-changing? It shouldn't be continually changing just because that is supposedly key. You should be cementing yourself in the truth, and the philosophical journey to that truth would be marked by change as you get closer to it. That is, philosophy shouldn't be constructing an ever-changing basis, but it should be continually evaluating the basis you currently have and constructing new bases if necessary. I think that the need for the basis to be ever-changing would be an illusion if anything because in reality philosophy does not know much yet, despite having been around for 2,500+ years.

 

[KingCrimson250]

A philosophical debate over what philosophy is. Great.

I think the Nihilist is correct though. If you start your philosophical journey by saying "Hey, I think there is a God, and I intend to prove it!" then you aren't really going all the way. It's still philosophy, but you've limited yourself, which in the long run is only going to deprive you. The better way of looking at it is to take your presuppositions, because obviously we've all got them, and pull them apart. See how rational they are. If you're religious, try to argue that God doesn't exist. If you're not, try to argue that God does exist. See if you can counter your own arguments. Submit your beliefs to rigorous testing. Because if you don't, he's right, you aren't being honest. You're not seeking the truth, you're trying to prove what you've already made up in your mind to be the truth. If you want to go all the way, reduce your presuppositions as much as you can and build them back up from the ground level. The most basic one might be: Do you exist? It may seem stupid but some Eastern philosophers might argue that you don't actually exist, you're actually just an extension of God (or equivalent) that isn't fully aware of that fact. Can you counter that? All sorts of questions to ask, if you want to be honest.

But on the other hand, it's the 21st century. Who cares about being honest?

 

[Jedah]

It should be ever changing because YOU are ever changing. Your understanding of reality will always be subjective to your human senses regardless of whether or not you believe in a God or Gods, and thus truly honest philosophy will grow as your comprehension of existence grows since your ever-improving ( ideally anyways....try not to backtrack ) understanding of the world will inevitably lead you to draw new conclusions...hence "ever changing".

"Truth" to a subjective mind that can only be ultimately 100% of its own existence...is not something to be accomplished or gained. Truth in such a context is merely conviction. The honest philosopher knows that as far as a subjective being is concerned, there is no absolute truth.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm not talking about using philosophy to only justify that which you already believe in. I'm saying that in order to start down the philosophical path you have to have some sort of established belief. The journey either begins from questioning that belief or looking for some way to support that belief.

Philosophy by its nature leads to questioning of beliefs already held if it is done properly. The result of that questioning may be holding the same belief (but with stronger knowledge of why you hold it) or result in a completely different belief.

If you would be willing to substitute the word "premise" for "belief," then we may be in agreement.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It should be ever changing because YOU are ever changing. Your understanding of reality will always be subjective to your human senses regardless of whether or not you believe in a God or Gods, and thus truly honest philosophy will grow as your comprehension of existence grows since your ever-improving ( ideally anyways....try not to backtrack ) understanding of the world will inevitably lead you to draw new conclusions...hence "ever changing".

Well the basis is ever changing because a person grows and changes. This I agree with. I think this issue is mostly something of semantics.

"Truth" to a subjective mind that can only be ultimately 100% of its own existence...is not something to be accomplished or gained. Truth in such a context is merely conviction. The honest philosopher knows that as far as a subjective being is concerned, there is no absolute truth.

Being only 100% sure of one's own existence and nothing else gets into the ever so fun rationalism vs empiricism debate, how much we can trust the senses and physical world, etc. It has the same or similar implications for truth(s) as well.

The mind is only subjective insofar as to how it perceives the world. The world itself can be modeled in a number of different ways that allow for everyone to have their "own" reality, or to just have different perceptions of the same, single reality. I am of the second opinion. The best way to describe my position is probably Kant's noumenal and phenomenal worlds (although I disagree that there are two separate parts of the world but that's another issue entirely. Go go philosophical realism!). If I remember/interpreted Kant correctly (and it's entirely possible that I didn't--I kind of stopped paying attention in all of my classes this last semester of university...), while we cannot know anything about the noumenal world, it is the world "as it really is."

We all exist in this world, and we perceive the phenomenal world by bringing our perceptions of space and time to the table. Never really got too much into Kant, but I'd say that subjectivity arises when we bring perceptions into the mix. Now as far as I can see, this system would say that we will always be tainted by subjectivity since we can't know anything about the noumenal world.

That is one of the reasons why I part with transcendental idealism. In a realist system, the world is the world. It's what in front of us. We can describe this world in absolute terms via mathematical laws and so forth. This is where absolute truth is.

By this point you're probably thinking "lol Chrisitian realist." I loled at the idea when I first adopted it too. This might be getting too far out of the scope of the topic, but I basically apply those ideas to other areas of philosophy and theology.

Claiming that there is no absolute truth can be dangerous. There are absolute truths in math and logic. The point where it seems to get the most sticky is in morality and such. I'd have to say there are some pretty universal things in there--like murder being wrong. Even if you don't explain these universal morals with a divine figure, murder can still be explained by saying that rampant, uncontrolled killing would not have allowed humans to form together into cohesive social units big enough for civilization.

Edit: I still think I lol at that position of mine sometime. I should probably go sort out my mishmash of metaphysical ideas at some point. But first I need to find an apartment in Viriginia.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If you would be willing to substitute the word "premise" for "belief," then we may be in agreement.

Yes, I think that works.