4 ms·

I don't think it is completely useless, but I hate to build any argument in classical philosophy. No, I do not want to start my argument with Aristoteles and fo

I don't think it is completely useless, but I hate to build any argument in classical philosophy. No, I do not want to start my argument with Aristoteles and follow the whole chain until I can make a case at some point. Aristoteles is a giant that certainly founded a lot of scientific fields, but the basis of an argument is not improved with a whole theoretical foundation that is artificially attached to the point. I believe the affliction is that because your philosophical case needs to be argued, it is expected to have a foundation in some philosophical root. With allegedly gives it more weight than just another thought. It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own.

School-Cotton 4y ago
FYI it is spelled "Aristotle" in English
SamBam 4y ago
I agree. My father was a historian and philosopher, and I used to love arguing philosophy as a teen at the dinner table. This was because I hadn't read anything yet, and so was approaching with an entirely naive and empty mind. I then studied a fair bit of philosophy at university, and while I could certainly appreciate the value of actually reading many great thinkers, the idea of spending my life studying them was absurd to me. I could think of nothing more horrifying than being proud to say that someone was one of the world's "top Heidegger scholars." (I recall the movie Little Miss Sunshine where a character was obsessed about his rival being only the "second" highest regarded Proust scholar.) Writing book after book about someone else's philosophy seemed utterly pointless. To (ironically) quote Seneca: "'Hoc Zenon dixit': tu quid?" What do you have to say?
- greenhearth 4y ago
  Hey, that's quite an impressive piece of autobiography, but some people actually like interpreting great writers and make a life out of it.
WHA8m 4y ago
> It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own. With your first part of the sentence you already put your second statement in a nuanced context. But I'd argue that "it is sensible" puts too little weight on this side of the argument. We've all been there: You're new to a field and climb the Dunning Kruger Graph. At some point you're standing on the first hill and start "argue on [your] own". Most things have already been said and argued. And most probably so by people more knowledgable and intelligent that me and you. And exactly those arguments are the 'history of philosophy'. We're probably all better off if we learn to move within this tightly knit web of knowledge and be very cautious and conscious every time we leave those trails and 'go on our own'. That being said, it is mandatory to view the history of philosophy not as the whole ball park but jump over the fence occasionally. Whether we hurt ourself by doing so is almost certainly dependent on how comfortable we are with what has been said and argued before, eg. history of philosophy.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  Okay, let's consider the things that have been said and argued. I'd say that in this case for most people it is not valuable to read the history of the argument but rather an up to date summary of it - the originally made argument is worth reading if and only if it's the best way to make it, no parts of it have been refuted and no one has found a way to state the same thing better. Instead of listening to what, for example, Kant had to say originally, the proper resource should be a "steelman Kantian" position which omits anything that has valid refutations, which changes anything which has been disputed because of some nuance by integrating whatever fixes and corrections can be made as a result of the counter-counter-arguments, and prepare a coherent position which is solid even in the face of all the counterarguments which have been said in the centuries afterwards, a "what would Kant say after reading every Kant-influenced philosopher" statement. If some argument made by Aristotle still stands, then readers of philosophy should not be offered the counterarguments without an immediate reference to the counter-counter-arguments that dismiss them. And if some argument made by Aristotle is not perfect, then readers of philosophy should not be presented with that argument without the counterarguments; or (as I said above) in a corrected and augmented form, dismissing and ignoring the flawed original - the original is relevant only as a historical footnote of how the truth was found, but is not really relevant to the truth itself. A product of philosophy should be actual conclusions - okay, out of all the Aristotle's works, which parts are considered settled truth, and which parts are part of an ongoing debate? And if so, what is the current, state of art position in that debate, what are the best irreconcilable arguments on both sides?
yamtaddle 4y ago
> It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own. You should be "arguing your own" much of the time you're reading philosophy, no matter how old it is. It's one of the Three Readings (which can be done all at once, not necessarily in three literal separate passes through the book, if you're a good reader and well-matched to the material you're reading) of Adler's How to Read a Book. You haven't fully engaged with a book—especially a book of philosophy—until you've done it.

School-Cotton 4y ago

FYI it is spelled "Aristotle" in English

SamBam 4y ago

I agree. My father was a historian and philosopher, and I used to love arguing philosophy as a teen at the dinner table. This was because I hadn't read anything yet, and so was approaching with an entirely naive and empty mind. I then studied a fair bit of philosophy at university, and while I could certainly appreciate the value of actually reading many great thinkers, the idea of spending my life studying them was absurd to me. I could think of nothing more horrifying than being proud to say that someone was one of the world's "top Heidegger scholars." (I recall the movie Little Miss Sunshine where a character was obsessed about his rival being only the "second" highest regarded Proust scholar.) Writing book after book about someone else's philosophy seemed utterly pointless. To (ironically) quote Seneca: "'Hoc Zenon dixit': tu quid?" What do you have to say?

greenhearth 4y ago
Hey, that's quite an impressive piece of autobiography, but some people actually like interpreting great writers and make a life out of it.

WHA8m 4y ago

> It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own. With your first part of the sentence you already put your second statement in a nuanced context. But I'd argue that "it is sensible" puts too little weight on this side of the argument. We've all been there: You're new to a field and climb the Dunning Kruger Graph. At some point you're standing on the first hill and start "argue on [your] own". Most things have already been said and argued. And most probably so by people more knowledgable and intelligent that me and you. And exactly those arguments are the 'history of philosophy'. We're probably all better off if we learn to move within this tightly knit web of knowledge and be very cautious and conscious every time we leave those trails and 'go on our own'. That being said, it is mandatory to view the history of philosophy not as the whole ball park but jump over the fence occasionally. Whether we hurt ourself by doing so is almost certainly dependent on how comfortable we are with what has been said and argued before, eg. history of philosophy.

PeterisP 4y ago
Okay, let's consider the things that have been said and argued. I'd say that in this case for most people it is not valuable to read the history of the argument but rather an up to date summary of it - the originally made argument is worth reading if and only if it's the best way to make it, no parts of it have been refuted and no one has found a way to state the same thing better. Instead of listening to what, for example, Kant had to say originally, the proper resource should be a "steelman Kantian" position which omits anything that has valid refutations, which changes anything which has been disputed because of some nuance by integrating whatever fixes and corrections can be made as a result of the counter-counter-arguments, and prepare a coherent position which is solid even in the face of all the counterarguments which have been said in the centuries afterwards, a "what would Kant say after reading every Kant-influenced philosopher" statement. If some argument made by Aristotle still stands, then readers of philosophy should not be offered the counterarguments without an immediate reference to the counter-counter-arguments that dismiss them. And if some argument made by Aristotle is not perfect, then readers of philosophy should not be presented with that argument without the counterarguments; or (as I said above) in a corrected and augmented form, dismissing and ignoring the flawed original - the original is relevant only as a historical footnote of how the truth was found, but is not really relevant to the truth itself. A product of philosophy should be actual conclusions - okay, out of all the Aristotle's works, which parts are considered settled truth, and which parts are part of an ongoing debate? And if so, what is the current, state of art position in that debate, what are the best irreconcilable arguments on both sides?

yamtaddle 4y ago

> It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own. You should be "arguing your own" much of the time you're reading philosophy, no matter how old it is. It's one of the Three Readings (which can be done all at once, not necessarily in three literal separate passes through the book, if you're a good reader and well-matched to the material you're reading) of Adler's How to Read a Book. You haven't fully engaged with a book—especially a book of philosophy—until you've done it.