Philosophy - the love of others' wisdom?

[Didymos Thomas]

If you learn what is, and what is the state of human knowledge, as most people have some grasp of anyway, then you can check what philosophers say against what you know.

I agree to an extent, in that if you do learn all of those things, if you learn your own nautre, then you will have learned what philosophers have been arguing over. My problem is that what you suggest is tantamount to suggesting one learn history, and then go read what historians have to say about history. Why not read as much as you can, and learn from the great thinkers of the past. If you read to learn what another thought, and not read to know how to believe, you will, after having read, know what to believe on your own terms. I would also like to think that anyone who takes the time to make a serious study (not intense necessarily, but serious - commit yourself to focused study and hour a day) of philosophy, if they have any degree of wit, will be impressed enough with the thoughts and ideas as to be willing to have their own thoughts and ideas.

I think people like Nietzsche were effective against youth because they talked in headlines, were glib, and spoke with the voice of authority. The young could deny none of it for knowing nothing.

Nietzsche was effective for two reasons: 1) He was extreme, a very appealing extreme. Youth is filled with troubled thoughts, uncertainty about one's own identity - Nietzsche presented a radical egoist ideaology, which embraces a certain intellectual elitism, all very appealing to the out of place young man. Nietzsche wasn't affraid to attack institutions like the church, and when he did, he had a great ferocity. Nietzsche, for all his pomp and pride, was a comfort. He was the lion guarding his cubs - the intelligent social outcasts. 2) He was a good writer, pure and simple.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I agree to an extent, in that if you do learn all of those things, if you learn your own nautre, then you will have learned what philosophers have been arguing over. My problem is that what you suggest is tantamount to suggesting one learn history, and then go read what historians have to say about history. Why not read as much as you can, and learn from the great thinkers of the past. If you read to learn what another thought, and not read to know how to believe, you will, after having read, know what to believe on your own terms. I would also like to think that anyone who takes the time to make a serious study (not intense necessarily, but serious - commit yourself to focused study and hour a day) of philosophy, if they have any degree of wit, will be impressed enough with the thoughts and ideas as to be willing to have their own thoughts and ideas.



Nietzsche was effective for two reasons: 1) He was extreme, a very appealing extreme. Youth is filled with troubled thoughts, uncertainty about one's own identity - Nietzsche presented a radical egoist ideaology, which embraces a certain intellectual elitism, all very appealing to the out of place young man. Nietzsche wasn't affraid to attack institutions like the church, and when he did, he had a great ferocity. Nietzsche, for all his pomp and pride, was a comfort. He was the lion guarding his cubs - the intelligent social outcasts. 2) He was a good writer, pure and simple.

This is a good reply and I disagree with very little of it. I think that Nietzsche was a very bad philosopher even if a good writer because he gave answers, and did not pose questions and attempt answers. I can see where he was wrong in some of his facts, but I bet many cannot. And that is the point. If I did not have information from other sources that contradict Nietzsche, I could hardly disagree no matter how distastful I find his message. I read Nietzsche when young. I read Plato when older. I trust my life would have been immeasurably better had I more questions than answers when young. Even more than in old age, as a youth, I wanted certainty. That is not the goal of philosophy in my opinion; but meaning. Nietzsche gave me something that inhibited my learning, and really could have killed me dead. I alone survived to tell you.

[Didymos Thomas]

I alone survived to tell you.

The kids who start with Rand are in far worse condition, I assure you.

I understand what you mean, though. When we are young, we are impressionable. If we take anything as the truth, we easily dogmaticize the issue; still too young to keep an open mind, regardless of circumstance. Personally, I think Nietzsche is fantastic; he is a good philosopher in that he is all his own. But really, this only demonstrates why we should read as much as we can.

[Harby]

I'm personally only starting to read other Philosopher's work and I thought I'd start chronologically. It'll take me time 'till I get to Nietzsche .

Anyhow, anything specific you'd like to suggest to a young mind that, atleast in its own opinion, isn't overly impressionable? I try to be quite the contrary really, and infact don't have established opinions on many subjects merely due to the lack of knowledge in it.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Harby

I'm personally only starting to read other Philosopher's work and I thought I'd start chronologically. It'll take me time 'till I get to Nietzsche .

Anyhow, anything specific you'd like to suggest to a young mind that, atleast in its own opinion, isn't overly impressionable? I try to be quite the contrary really, and infact don't have established opinions on many subjects merely due to the lack of knowledge in it.

If you asking me I would suggest some history such as A war like no other, about the pelopennesian i hate that word. or Rouseau and Revolution part of will durants master work of history.

[Didymos Thomas]

If you are stepping into philosophy, do not avoid the more powerful voices (Nietzsche), do not even avoid those who are loud and, almost entirely, foolish (like Rand). Just be mindful of what you read, and always remember that whatever you are reading is only one perspective of the issue; countless perspectives exist.

As far as recomending books, I always recomend the same things, really. Start with the classics. Read Plato and Aristotle. Try some Bertrand Russell, "The Problems of Philosophy" is great for new students and professionals. Read Hume and Locke. The names you see time and again in philosophy are so prominent for a reason. A quality history of philosophy set will also prove valuable. Go with a standard, tried and true set, the sort of volume the professor suggests and the average student avoids.

[Fido]

this message when deleted was too short. the space was too long.

[Doobah47]

You'll learn more from a psychosis than you ever will from some academic. There's endless theories, and no matter how technically proficient, they are all wrong. Here's some feminist philosophy by someone called shiva, I wonder how long it will take before you realize she's wrong:

" I characterize modern western patriarchy's special epistemological tradition of the 'scientific revolution' as 'reductionist' because it reduced the capacity of humans to know nature both by excluding other knowers and other ways of knowing, and it reduced the capacity of nature to creatively regenerate and renew itself by manipulating it as inert and fragmented matter..." [Shiva;1989]

She's got a point, but she's still not right.

And anyway, back to the psychosis, what would you learn from a psychosis? how about 3998 x 47536 = 190048928. Magic numbers.

Or how about this funny joke...

What do you get if you take English, remove the lie and turn it backwards like a Hebrew scholar?

Shogun.

Or how about 'was' in Egyptian means dominion, and 'waz' in America means urination... join the dots up and you realise that the suppression of the masses is achieved by making them piss, read and listen - all relaxed now? piss - it's evil.

[Didymos Thomas]

You'll learn more from a psychosis than you ever will from some academic. There's endless theories, and no matter how technically proficient, they are all wrong.

Just because some idea is wrong doesn't mean we do not learn from it.

If you want to learn something, read your eyes out and meet people, talk to them.

[Doobah47]

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.

It is my opinion that teaching facts is more worthwhile than teaching theories, excluding maths or science in which the theories are inextricable from the facts, though other subjects, such as languages, philosophy or social sciences require empiricism and facts.

Like I've been saying polemics are always false, and polemic is all any theory is at the end of the day.