4 ms·

Dime store philosophy. Some just want to be seen as philosophers and regurgitate what others told them about anothers work. I always had a passion for philosop

Dime store philosophy. Some just want to be seen as philosophers and regurgitate what others told them about anothers work. I always had a passion for philosophy, I read massive amounts before even going to college. I would read the ancient greek books that had english on one page greek on the other then use a concordance to basically teach myself ancient greek while making sure I had the context correct and not miss anything in translation. Just for fun, All of Plato, Platonist, Gracian, the Gita, Miyamoto, Zen koans, I Ching, Aurelius and many more before even stepping foot in college. I find there is a huge difference between a philospher and someone who studied philosphy. You can always tell by their copy and pasted thoughts and the disconnect between their mostly modern definitions and what was actually the definition when the terms "started". Those who regurgitate others words in the wish to appear worldly and wise are such a bore compared to those who are actual philosophers. Dime store philosophers give the real ones a bad name.

meric 10y ago
I suppose that is a good reason to wear a rough cloak and hide the jade in your heart.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  :) Till it is time to take the cloak off.
usgroup 10y ago
I'd say philosophers study philosophers... Not sure when that wasn't true? Aristotle being the most famous academic philosopher ... The thing that annoyed me was the number of philosophers that don't study anything else but proceed to talk about it. Stuff that hinges on politics or psychology for example where philosophers just assume that something is human or social nature . Or when we assume that justice is somehow primary in ethics . Etc
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  I would disagree and say philosophers study philosophy and I use study in a loose sense meaning "look into". I dont think you can read your way or study your way into philosophy. To me that is studying someone elses work not philosophy. Oddly enough I find aristotle a bore, he was too myopic and clinical when philosophy is no such thing. He was firmly rooted in the shadow cast on the wall and not what was casting the shadow for my taste. I would fall in the same camp as you and be annoyed by the "philosophers" that dont study anything else and proceed talk about it. I find most "philosophers" to not even be philosophers, they just like to be considered so.
  - usgroup 10y ago
    It'd seem that you have an implicit criteria for what constitutes doing philosophy. What do you mean exactly? In school you read the philosophy of others and write papers to try and add something to the arguments. Are you thinking more the old school systems guys like Liebniz, Spinoza, Descartes, etc who did other jobs and werent academically affiliated?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "I find aristotle a bore, he was too myopic and clinical when philosophy is no such thing. He was firmly rooted in the shadow cast on the wall and not what was casting the shadow for my taste." So which philosopher, in your view, got at what was casting the shadow?
alimw 10y ago
Many of those secondary sources contain valuable information. That you read some stuff in the original doesn't make you more of a philosopher! Probably that appellation should be reserved for those who have made an original contribution.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Agreed that many of those secondary sources can cointain valuable information. Heck dumpsters can contain valuable information. I also agree that reading some stuff in the original doesnt make me more of a philosopher. I dont think reading anything makes one a philosopher actually. As for the appellation, thats something the bores worry about. There are people dead and gone who never wrote a word or were studied and they were more of a philosopher than many. I define a philosopher as someone who is correct, the ones who arent are just fools.
Noseshine 10y ago
> and regurgitate what others told them about anothers work. > ... > You can always tell by their copy and pasted thoughts Reminds me of this cartoon: http://i.imgur.com/aI80YDO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aI80YDO.jpg Source: WuMo (http://wumo.com/wumo http://wumo.com/wumo)

meric 10y ago

I suppose that is a good reason to wear a rough cloak and hide the jade in your heart.

Mendenhall 10y ago
:) Till it is time to take the cloak off.

usgroup 10y ago

I'd say philosophers study philosophers... Not sure when that wasn't true? Aristotle being the most famous academic philosopher ... The thing that annoyed me was the number of philosophers that don't study anything else but proceed to talk about it. Stuff that hinges on politics or psychology for example where philosophers just assume that something is human or social nature . Or when we assume that justice is somehow primary in ethics . Etc

Mendenhall 10y ago
I would disagree and say philosophers study philosophy and I use study in a loose sense meaning "look into". I dont think you can read your way or study your way into philosophy. To me that is studying someone elses work not philosophy. Oddly enough I find aristotle a bore, he was too myopic and clinical when philosophy is no such thing. He was firmly rooted in the shadow cast on the wall and not what was casting the shadow for my taste. I would fall in the same camp as you and be annoyed by the "philosophers" that dont study anything else and proceed talk about it. I find most "philosophers" to not even be philosophers, they just like to be considered so.
- usgroup 10y ago
  It'd seem that you have an implicit criteria for what constitutes doing philosophy. What do you mean exactly? In school you read the philosophy of others and write papers to try and add something to the arguments. Are you thinking more the old school systems guys like Liebniz, Spinoza, Descartes, etc who did other jobs and werent academically affiliated?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "I find aristotle a bore, he was too myopic and clinical when philosophy is no such thing. He was firmly rooted in the shadow cast on the wall and not what was casting the shadow for my taste." So which philosopher, in your view, got at what was casting the shadow?

alimw 10y ago

Many of those secondary sources contain valuable information. That you read some stuff in the original doesn't make you more of a philosopher! Probably that appellation should be reserved for those who have made an original contribution.

Mendenhall 10y ago
Agreed that many of those secondary sources can cointain valuable information. Heck dumpsters can contain valuable information. I also agree that reading some stuff in the original doesnt make me more of a philosopher. I dont think reading anything makes one a philosopher actually. As for the appellation, thats something the bores worry about. There are people dead and gone who never wrote a word or were studied and they were more of a philosopher than many. I define a philosopher as someone who is correct, the ones who arent are just fools.

Noseshine 10y ago

> and regurgitate what others told them about anothers work. > ... > You can always tell by their copy and pasted thoughts Reminds me of this cartoon: http://i.imgur.com/aI80YDO.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aI80YDO.jpg Source: WuMo (http://wumo.com/wumo http://wumo.com/wumo)