4 ms·

At the same time these primary works are the main examples of philosophy actually being done. Any summary material can only speak to the results of philosophy,

At the same time these primary works are the main examples of philosophy actually being done. Any summary material can only speak to the results of philosophy, while the primary sources when closely analyzed (like source code!) yield the process. Which will be more helpful if one wants to develop a "personal philosophy"? Working out the chains of reasoning or picking-and-choosing from a menu?

crazygringo 6y ago
I honestly can't agree at all. The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. Then it's up to generates of scholars afterwards to argue about what the actual process of logical argument was. Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. Very often, it's precisely the summary works that situate the thinkers in a context that illuminates the process that led to their conclusions. Also I don't know what you mean about "developing a personal philosophy"... I'm talking about academic philosophy here.
- bordercases 6y ago
  The goal of the OP was stated at the bottom of the post as developing a personal philosophy. You can take it up with them, but I interpreted it as coming up with a reasoned worldview for oneself through contemplating existing philosophies. I actually agree that philosophical works are not mathematical proofs. But thought processes do not close over logic, they close over natural language. The point of reading primary texts is to interpret the text, to reverse out the thought process of what is being said through close reading and exposing hidden assumptions (i.e. hermeneutics). This isn't a strictly logical process, but it's common to all natural-language argumentation, including philosophy and law. With that in mind, if Kant, Aristotle, Seneca and Rawls count as primary works – then what you're saying is false. They didn't state things in a vacuum; they all developed their views in a context, some of it from some base observations, much of it responding to interpretations of other points of view. You have a point in that primary sources are not sufficient on their own, and scholars use their experience and erudition to understand these observations and fill in the context, particularly when the writing is otherwise more sparse. But neither would introductory texts be sufficient since they hide a lot of the tacit knowledge that could allow one to reason the way the author of a text reasoned when they produced their philosophical viewpoint.
- Terrario 6y ago
  > The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. > Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. This is such a strange take. I have always found the absolute opposite to be true. Recently, I’ve read Spinoza Ethics (literal attempts at geometric proofs), Kant’s Critique (arguments meticulously crafted line by line, from the regressive methodology to the transcendental proofs it reads like program in degree of detail) and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (basically a modern day academic thesis in style and substance). Im not denying that some philosophers simply state things without arguments, but then that’s something a critic would point out with textual references and attack. Bad business to do if philosophy’s your trade...

crazygringo 6y ago

I honestly can't agree at all. The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. Then it's up to generates of scholars afterwards to argue about what the actual process of logical argument was. Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. Very often, it's precisely the summary works that situate the thinkers in a context that illuminates the process that led to their conclusions. Also I don't know what you mean about "developing a personal philosophy"... I'm talking about academic philosophy here.

bordercases 6y ago
The goal of the OP was stated at the bottom of the post as developing a personal philosophy. You can take it up with them, but I interpreted it as coming up with a reasoned worldview for oneself through contemplating existing philosophies. I actually agree that philosophical works are not mathematical proofs. But thought processes do not close over logic, they close over natural language. The point of reading primary texts is to interpret the text, to reverse out the thought process of what is being said through close reading and exposing hidden assumptions (i.e. hermeneutics). This isn't a strictly logical process, but it's common to all natural-language argumentation, including philosophy and law. With that in mind, if Kant, Aristotle, Seneca and Rawls count as primary works – then what you're saying is false. They didn't state things in a vacuum; they all developed their views in a context, some of it from some base observations, much of it responding to interpretations of other points of view. You have a point in that primary sources are not sufficient on their own, and scholars use their experience and erudition to understand these observations and fill in the context, particularly when the writing is otherwise more sparse. But neither would introductory texts be sufficient since they hide a lot of the tacit knowledge that could allow one to reason the way the author of a text reasoned when they produced their philosophical viewpoint.
Terrario 6y ago
> The primary works often just blatantly "state" things as if they were opinions. > Historical philosophy books aren't mathematical proofs. They don't necessary demonstrate process at all, it's not philosophy being "done" but just stated. This is such a strange take. I have always found the absolute opposite to be true. Recently, I’ve read Spinoza Ethics (literal attempts at geometric proofs), Kant’s Critique (arguments meticulously crafted line by line, from the regressive methodology to the transcendental proofs it reads like program in degree of detail) and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (basically a modern day academic thesis in style and substance). Im not denying that some philosophers simply state things without arguments, but then that’s something a critic would point out with textual references and attack. Bad business to do if philosophy’s your trade...