Philosophy discussion

Almost nobody who isn't studying math or physics at uni would think of going to the book store and getting a book on theoretical physics or higher mathemathics, because clearly those books would be way too complicated and we wouldn't get anything out of them, most likely we wouldn't even understand how that one specific theory described in the book even fits in the world, what it actually means and how it is relevant.

Why do people think that it's different with philosophy? Hardly anyone thinks along these lines when picking up Aristotle or Hegel or Heidegger etc., I also hear very often that ''everyone is a philosopher'' whereas I have never in my life heard (and am ready to bet a large sum of money that I never will) that everyone is a scientist of some sort.

So why is philosophy seen as something that everyone can do? As if anyone who is sane can pick up any philosopher and read and understand him or her? Should people read philosophy at all? We're doing fine with masses having no clue about what the books written by biologists for biologists say, why would we be worse off if people stopped reading books written by philosophers for philosophers?

I think the blunt answer is that philosophy and science simply aren't the same sort of discipline. Science has a range of methods which have proved their worth: they can be used to predict things, build things, cure diseases and so on.

Philosophy has nothing remotely comparable. Instead, it has a series of problems around which arguments revolve, positions are developed, and so on. To be sure, some of those arguments are extremely complex and not suited to beginners but nonetheless if you read (eg) Descartes' Meditations and form a reasoned argument about what he says then you simply are doing philosophy. You might not be doing it well, and you might simply be repeating an argument thousands of years old but this is not comparable to claiming that (eg) there must be some kind of ether to allow light waves to travel through space. That issue has been settled pretty conclusively by science, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a rational-sounding philosophical position that isn't still live in one form or another - even dualism has made a comeback in the last 30 years!

Yes, they have different methods. I don't really understand how you see this difference as an answer to the questions in OP? Do you mean the question about why everyone is a philosopher? Majority of us exercise, occasionally sing, cook and draw, but we don't just because of that call ourselves athletes, musicians, chefs and artists. Why is the mere ability to come up with a rational argument seen as a proof that one is a philosopher, and not just a sane human with an ability to think rationally? Even if we look at first definitions that pop up in google: a philosopher is a person with an extensive knowledge of philosophy who uses this knowledge in their work, typically to solve philosophical problems.

Austra wrote: "Majority of us exercise, occasionally sing, cook and draw, but we don't just because of that call ourselves athletes, musicians, chefs and artists."

But what people call themselves is just a question of what people get paid to do or, sometimes, it relates to the fact that they don't have to do something else for a living. After all, the history of science is littered with amateurs who nevertheless worked diligently on scientific issues and sometimes produced work of lasting importance. Were they scientists or not?

The more important issue, however, is that science is cumulative in a way that philosophy is not. Science today is hugely specialised because of the issues it solved yesterday. It builds on its achievements. That's why a novice can't pick up an advanced scientific textbook and understand it.

The same isn't true of quite true of philosophy. Of course, you'll have a hard time understanding Being and Nothingness if you don't know anything about Hegel and his successors, but it's not as if Satre was building on sure foundations; he was working in a tradition and the whole tradition was, and remains, controversial.

Philosophy has no issues that it "solved yesterday". They're all still current. As a result, everyone starts from scratch.

Philip wrote: "Philosophy has no issues that it "solved yesterday". They're all still current. As a result, everyone starts from scratch"

Beautiful.

My daughter is experiencing what you say firsthand as she learns the Nicomachean Ethics as way to cope with her 18-year-old existence, and all the problems and questions that come with it.

Athens wrote: "Philip wrote: "Philosophy has no issues that it "solved yesterday". They're all still current. As a result, everyone starts from scratch"

Beautiful.

My daughter is experiencing what you say fir..."

I'd say the Nicomachean Ethics is a very good place for your daughter to look - an excellent book.

Frank wrote: "However, there are several philosophers and topics which cannot be understood very well without context"
Yes, context is important. But by bringing it up you overlook an even more important aspect - understanding the book itself. Descarte's arguments in his Meditations can be understood without context. Have you ever met people who claim that Descartes proved that nothing material exists and we're all souls? There are too many out there. No doubt this work is very simple, easy to read etc. yet people misunderstand it all the time. Or the claim that soul sits in the pineal gland - even science has disproved it, yet people read Descartes and then adapt this 17th century idea as the ultimate truth. It's not different with other philosophers and books, I've met people with all kinds of bizzare ideas about what philosophers mean to say. So context is really a secondary issue, even though a very important one. I'm mostly opposed to the false assumption that understanding a philosophy book itself is not that difficult at all, one just has to know the context.


Philip wrote: "After all, the history of science is littered with amateurs who nevertheless worked diligently on scientific issues and sometimes produced work of lasting importance. Were they scientists or not?"
I think you answered your own question. Those who worked diligently (and used scientific methods, whatever they were at each individuals lifetime) can easily be considered scientists. It's the same with philosophy - it requires systematic work, knowing tradition and coming up with something new. Redigesting existing arguments doesn't make anyone a philosopher - exactly the reason why for example Lenin is not considered one, even though he extensively wrote what in their form appear to be philosophical works.

Philip wrote: "Philosophy has no issues that it "solved yesterday". They're all still current. As a result, everyone starts from scratch."
That is certainly not true. Why would people go on with something if it was incapable of answering a single question with certainty, not even in a period of thousands of years? Such a useless and time wasting discipline should be dismissed, just as alchemy has been dismissed. Philosophy has answered many questions (that don't get disputed anymore) in politics, science, epistemology, logic, liguistics and so on, in any field that it has researched. Why would you even claim otherwise? And why would you be fond of philosophy at all if you considered it incapable of actually answering questions? Do you enjoy empty talk? That goes on for millenia?

Austra wrote: "Why would people go on with something if it was incapable of answering a single question with certainty, not even in a period of thousands of years? Such a useless and time wasting discipline should be dismissed, just as alchemy has been dismissed. Philosophy has answered many questions (that don't get disputed anymore) in politics, science, epistemology, logic, liguistics and so on, in any field that it has researched."

There are certainly philosophical questions that don't get disputed at the minute, but that's not because the issues have been settled. It because they've fallen out of fashion or become irrelevant for various reasons. But they can always make a comeback. As I mentioned earlier, dualism is back on the philosophical agenda.

Philosophy has suggested answers on all sorts of issues, and some of these suggested answers are currently popular and some aren't. But the body of undisputed, established knowledge that philosophy has produced is pretty much zero. Compare that to science, where you could fill whole libraries not with popular theories or trendy ideas but with established knowledge.

You ask why anyone would continue with the subject if what I say is true. That, I think, is due to the nature of philosophical problems themselves.

Austra wrote: Philosophy has answered many questions (that don't get disputed anymore) in politics, science, epistemology, logic, liguistics and so on, in any field that it has researched. Why would you even claim otherwise? And why would you be fond of philosophy at all if you considered it incapable of actually answering questions? Do you enjoy empty talk? That goes on for millenia?

I'd be surprised if you can give me any examples of questions that philosophy has indisputably solved, besides a few esoteric questions in logic.
The great works of philosphy are like works of art, and we keep coming back to them for inspiration. They do not represent collections of answers, rather they are an aid to exploring the conditions on which our existence based.
The reason why philosophy does not evolve like science is that it is 'prior' to science. It concerns itself with the conditions for truth itself, such as how we come to rely on mathematical reasoning or what is the consequence of adopting a certain moral stance.
That is not to say that there is not good and bad philosophy. The whole point is clarity of thought, and philosophy that obfuscates is of questionable merit.

I don't think the idea that 'everyone is a philosopher' was ever meant to be anything more than a mere statement of fact that it is impossible not to be one. It is not meant to mean that everyone can read them or that everyone in some way studies it or even does it in any sort of active way at all. It is a statement that stands for itself without any of these additions.

To respond to the original post, I'd say that the level of technicality is the reason behind the prevalence of philosophy books (assuming it's true) among readers of non-fiction more than science books although pop-sci titles are popular.

I myself love reading in natural sciences (I study biology in college) and philosophy (self-taught). Now philosophical concepts aren't necessarily easy to grasp, but I'd say they're less complicated than scientific concepts.

It boils down to technicality, I think. That's why the people you're referring to might read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc, but are less interested in getting informed about the LOGIC of Aristotle, Hume, Stuart Mill, Russell, Popper, and so forth.

Should we encourage reading in philosophy? Absolutely! It's mind-liberating! However, a little bit of logic associated with it (and, in fact, with everything else in life) is necessary. Otherwise, it would just be "babbling" AKA "everyone is a philosopher".

So how should I be reading philosophy? I am new to this genre and want to expand my mind before law school. Should I be imagining a scene unfolding while reading philosophy( like I would in fiction)?

I plan on starting somewhat chronological and working my way up to recent times. Should I keep a journal while reading? Argue with the author as I read? Or just go along and say ok ok ok to his/her viewpoints?

Thanks

I agree with the original post. Nobody can just jump into Kant or Hegel and expect to get much out of it other than frustration.

Sometimes people study philosophy chronologically, but it can also be studied biographically, one philosopher at a time.

However, for beginning readers it is more important to start with general and introductory books about philosophy, then take on increasingly complex reading. There is no cut and dried path to this, so it's best to pick out whatever introductory book seems to suit your curiosity.

Hi Tyler --

Where'd you get a name like that from?

Because you're going into law, I can recommend one book that's sure to capture your attention:

A Theory of Justice

Try to get the revised (1975) version. If you can handle law, you can handle the philosophical concepts in this book.

Tyler wrote: "I agree with the original post. Nobody can just jump into Kant or Hegel and expect to get much out of it other than frustration.

True, but then it's notoriously hard to understand Kant and Hegel even if you're studying philosophy. Clearly they're not great places for someone to start, but I think the analogy with science is a red herring.

Let me put it this way: I hacked through "Being and Nothingness" when I was 19 and the only other philosophy I'd read was Descartes' Meditations. It was certainly tough going but all the same I got a lot from it. That wouldn't have been true if I'd picked up an advanced physics text book.

Regarding your earlier message, I'd definitely say it was a good idea to have a notepad handy when you read philosophy. It's very much a participant sport.

It's a fake name. My real name is unique and I can be easily tracked down so I prefer to remain anonymous. I will read the article suggested. Is it okay to start with Aristotle and Plato?

Hi Philip --

Nothing could have totally prepared me for Being and Nothingness. I read the book three times over the years and got a little more each time. The book is now filled with highlighting and margin notes.

Fortunately, not all philosophy books are as hard as Kant, Hegel and Sartre.

Hi Tyler --

Well, I like the fake name, anyway.

Frank's article looks like an excellent way to show how philosophy relates to legal questions.

Because you're about to start law school, I recommend that you skip Plato and Aristotle and go straight to A Theory of Justice (1975). The book will be understandable and the political philosophy directly relevant to what you're getting into. You can pick up Plato and Aristotle along the way later.

Plato's dialogues are always a good place to start. They show humor and irony and light in many of their topics unlike most modern academic philosophy, which often wants to be a mechanical science. I would recommend starting right off with the Republic, but if you want to start with something very short, try the Meno. After you've got the handle of those then Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle is the first philosopher to write densely argued exhaustive treatises like the moderns. But the Nicomachean Ethics is the most accessible to beginners because it is really more a kind of existential analysis of the human condition as always pragmatically, concretely situated, subject to circumstances. Aristotle's attention here to contingency and materiality is uncommon to much other Western philosophy, including his own treatises on logic and the categories of theory.

Tyler wrote: "Nothing could have totally prepared me for Being and Nothingness. I read the book three times over the years and got a little more each time."

Yes, there are some very interesting ideas and psychological insights in there - though (for me) the metaphysical system in which they're embedded is a load of tosh.

Do I need to research anything before reading A Theory of Justice? I saw it mentioned that it talks about Utilitarianism in the 19th century. It says the author advances the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Emerson, and Lincoln. Should I read their work before or do you think wikipedia research is sufficient?

I want to get the maximum value out of this piece of literature before I undergo my studies.

@ Tyler: I think A Theory of Justice is written in a manner that shouldn't require much prior familiarity with philosophy. However, I would highly recommend reading Plato's theory of justice in the Republic (the whole topic is the nature of justice) in proximity to A Theory of Justice by Rawls, which is in the modern liberal tradition of Rousseau, Kant, etc. Doing this will give you an excellent way to compare and contrast ancient versus modern approaches to philosophy. It will give you a very important critical perspective, sorely lacking in academia today, on the strengths and weaknesses of our modern ideas about what constitutes the good for the community of man.

I agree with Tom. Even though Rawls draws on many sources, I think this is one book whose discussions don't depend upon an in-depth knowledge of the previous philosophers. In fact, this book might be a good way to become more familiar with those earlier thinkers in the first place.

Have read a few philosophy books since we have last talked.

So far have read The Prince, The Social Contract, and On Liberty.

First one wasn't too bad. The other two are quite difficult. I have to reread/underline a lot in these books. The stories/anecdotes are difficult to comprehend since I do not know anything about them. They are usually about Rome, another philosophers works, or Greece.

I usually have to check sparknotes while I am reading these books to ensure I am understanding all the content.

U guys have to do this? Do you guys reread these books a lot to understand it?

I think everyone should read philosophy and I think it should be a compulsory subject in high schools alongside Maths and English. It's one thing starting on the journey to acquire knowledge, but quite another to question the nature of knowledge and the nature of our being.

Yes, cause I am awesome, but focus on an eclectic selection.