6 ms·

Everyone thinks they can talk about and do philosophy, but if they haven't had any actual training, they're probably doing it wrong and rather tend to make anec

by platz 6y ago

Everyone thinks they can talk about and do philosophy, but if they haven't had any actual training, they're probably doing it wrong and rather tend to make anecdotal and arguments from personal preferences rather than by rigorous analysis.

strofcon 6y ago
Terribly true,and a great argument as to our need for philosophers in all eras. :-)
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Someone well-versed in philosophy might well point out that the post you are replying to does not actually present an argument for that proposition - for example, it makes no attempt to show that this alleged widespread misunderstanding of philosophy has had measurable adverse consequences.
feralimal 6y ago
Can one make anything other than anecdotal arguments? If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Also, I don't agree that you need to be trained philosopher to think for yourself. But why do you say so? What is it that the training provides?
- a_crc 6y ago
  Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms. In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y". The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share. Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy. You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
  - feralimal 6y ago
    "You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think." Thank you. But are these comparable? Is thinking competitive and there's a winner? What is it to be trained to think? If that training hadn't happened, would the un-trained person not be thinking? Or, would you be thinking along a more natural way? Is it more akin to building one or other type of sandcastle, rather than to be a better fighter? The way I view it, the only thing an individual can do is try to be the winner for themselves - they need to progress their understanding of themselves as much as possible. In nature there's no competition - there are needs that might or might not be met. But, if you want to harness or direct individuals into a collectivised state, yes, you need to train them, and they will produce what you call 'original works of philosophy' on the basis of all the thought that has preceded them. As if 'a body of original works' is important to an individual. They may be renumerated for their trained thinking. As if renumeration is something the individual would ever want.
    - a_crc 6y ago
      Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here. Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?
      - feralimal 6y ago
        The questions about fundamentals - cooking, reading. I would of course agree that these are useful to the individual. Now coding - again the skill is neutral. But what you code might not be. Why do you code what you code? Should you code in a bank, a facebook algorithm, etc? Are you actually undertaking your life in a positive way, or are you making gains at another's expense? Do you think training is a neutral act? Is it possible that training can be subversive to the trainee? Perhaps you will see my position as a political, anti-statist one. I see it as an individualistic perspective. If an individual is trained in academic philosophy, in order to provide 'production of well argued original works of academic philosophy' why is that valuable? To me, there is no value there at all. As an individual, I want to uncover the innate understanding we all already have. Have you ever heard about people who go through half their life, having trained to be doctors, or solicitors, only to then realise that they didn't want to do that? I would say that these are the lucky ones - they have wasted only half their lives, and though they have much to undo, they at least they are honest enough to change their position and try to find something authentic and innate to them. Most people do not do that. That is the power of training and education, IMO. In it for the money, sell your granny. In my view, this is what training at a higher level is to train people NOT to look inside themselves for answers, but to refer to an external authority. This applies to academic philosophy as much as any other area. Love of wisdom, becoming oneself, makes way for the production of 'original works of academic philosophy'. Beyond the basics, education seems to me about disempowering the individual, for the benefit of some imagined 'collective'. In fact, that collective is so individual who has their hands on the levers of governance, but let's not think too closely about that.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Absent a consensus on how to reason, one could only argue with oneself. If disputes over matters of fact could never be resolved empirically and impersonally, there would be no science.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    What is a matter of fact? I'll save you some time, it is that we can verify personally. If I can verify it, I can say 'its true' and that 'I know it'. But the problem is that most individuals verify very little - its beyond ridiculous how little we verify. If we see something on TV, we think we have verified it! Did we verify the film Independence Day?! All day long, individuals will say 'I know' or 'its true'. Even though they haven't verified their assumptions, if they even know what their assumptions are. Most people's lives are based on massive, unverified assumptions. They are so big, that they cannot consider questioning them - they have to be true or they may have a mental breakdown! Say most people 'know' that we are on a globe. How? Have they experienced the globe? How was it proven to them that this wasn't a flat plane? Do they really 'know' it, like they know the chair they are sitting on? They do not. So, when they say 'they know' what do they mean? Its a hypothesis, or a belief, or faith. They believe they know. So, if we were honest to ourselves, and accounting for our assumptions, we should say, 'I believe' such-and-such. But we say 'I know'. What is it to do that? If you ask me, this is a lie. We lie to ourselves and to those around us. We live in a world of lies, of false, unverified information - and yet we call it knowledge. Its actually quite amazing.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      Dick got a good deal closer to the answer than you have, IMHO: “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” The thing about a position of extreme skepticism, such as you are expounding here, is that if you acted consistently with holding it, you would not have anything to say.
      - feralimal 6y ago

by platz 6y ago

strofcon 6y ago

Terribly true,and a great argument as to our need for philosophers in all eras. :-)

mannykannot 6y ago
Someone well-versed in philosophy might well point out that the post you are replying to does not actually present an argument for that proposition - for example, it makes no attempt to show that this alleged widespread misunderstanding of philosophy has had measurable adverse consequences.

feralimal 6y ago

Can one make anything other than anecdotal arguments? If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Also, I don't agree that you need to be trained philosopher to think for yourself. But why do you say so? What is it that the training provides?

a_crc 6y ago
Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms. In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y". The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share. Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy. You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
- feralimal 6y ago
  "You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think." Thank you. But are these comparable? Is thinking competitive and there's a winner? What is it to be trained to think? If that training hadn't happened, would the un-trained person not be thinking? Or, would you be thinking along a more natural way? Is it more akin to building one or other type of sandcastle, rather than to be a better fighter? The way I view it, the only thing an individual can do is try to be the winner for themselves - they need to progress their understanding of themselves as much as possible. In nature there's no competition - there are needs that might or might not be met. But, if you want to harness or direct individuals into a collectivised state, yes, you need to train them, and they will produce what you call 'original works of philosophy' on the basis of all the thought that has preceded them. As if 'a body of original works' is important to an individual. They may be renumerated for their trained thinking. As if renumeration is something the individual would ever want.
  - a_crc 6y ago
    Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here. Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?
    - feralimal 6y ago
      The questions about fundamentals - cooking, reading. I would of course agree that these are useful to the individual. Now coding - again the skill is neutral. But what you code might not be. Why do you code what you code? Should you code in a bank, a facebook algorithm, etc? Are you actually undertaking your life in a positive way, or are you making gains at another's expense? Do you think training is a neutral act? Is it possible that training can be subversive to the trainee? Perhaps you will see my position as a political, anti-statist one. I see it as an individualistic perspective. If an individual is trained in academic philosophy, in order to provide 'production of well argued original works of academic philosophy' why is that valuable? To me, there is no value there at all. As an individual, I want to uncover the innate understanding we all already have. Have you ever heard about people who go through half their life, having trained to be doctors, or solicitors, only to then realise that they didn't want to do that? I would say that these are the lucky ones - they have wasted only half their lives, and though they have much to undo, they at least they are honest enough to change their position and try to find something authentic and innate to them. Most people do not do that. That is the power of training and education, IMO. In it for the money, sell your granny. In my view, this is what training at a higher level is to train people NOT to look inside themselves for answers, but to refer to an external authority. This applies to academic philosophy as much as any other area. Love of wisdom, becoming oneself, makes way for the production of 'original works of academic philosophy'. Beyond the basics, education seems to me about disempowering the individual, for the benefit of some imagined 'collective'. In fact, that collective is so individual who has their hands on the levers of governance, but let's not think too closely about that.
mannykannot 6y ago
> If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Absent a consensus on how to reason, one could only argue with oneself. If disputes over matters of fact could never be resolved empirically and impersonally, there would be no science.
- feralimal 6y ago
  What is a matter of fact? I'll save you some time, it is that we can verify personally. If I can verify it, I can say 'its true' and that 'I know it'. But the problem is that most individuals verify very little - its beyond ridiculous how little we verify. If we see something on TV, we think we have verified it! Did we verify the film Independence Day?! All day long, individuals will say 'I know' or 'its true'. Even though they haven't verified their assumptions, if they even know what their assumptions are. Most people's lives are based on massive, unverified assumptions. They are so big, that they cannot consider questioning them - they have to be true or they may have a mental breakdown! Say most people 'know' that we are on a globe. How? Have they experienced the globe? How was it proven to them that this wasn't a flat plane? Do they really 'know' it, like they know the chair they are sitting on? They do not. So, when they say 'they know' what do they mean? Its a hypothesis, or a belief, or faith. They believe they know. So, if we were honest to ourselves, and accounting for our assumptions, we should say, 'I believe' such-and-such. But we say 'I know'. What is it to do that? If you ask me, this is a lie. We lie to ourselves and to those around us. We live in a world of lies, of false, unverified information - and yet we call it knowledge. Its actually quite amazing.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Dick got a good deal closer to the answer than you have, IMHO: “reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” The thing about a position of extreme skepticism, such as you are expounding here, is that if you acted consistently with holding it, you would not have anything to say.
    - feralimal 6y ago