6 ms·

In my philosophy 101 class, we were taught about Kant, Hume, Descartes, Hegel, and Nietzsche. Then after we had pored over all of those works, the professor bro

In my philosophy 101 class, we were taught about Kant, Hume, Descartes, Hegel, and Nietzsche. Then after we had pored over all of those works, the professor brought out Socrates and Plato. I have discussed this with other friends and this seems to be a common pattern for philosophy courses at University. I wonder if because it is taught last, even though it is an older philosophical method, it is looked at as "best" purely due to an order of teaching? There surely appears to be a "stoicism is best" and "stoicism is ancient and wise" popularity spreading across YouTube right now.

beebmam 3y ago
At my university, formal logic was taught first, then Greek/Roman philosophy, then enlightenment, then modern. And then all the rest.
- softfalcon 3y ago
  Interesting! Formal logic is a completely separate series of courses at my University. Now that you mention it, that is a very odd choice by my University. Formal logic seems very relevant to analysing the rest of the philosophical works.
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    You might mean different things by "formal logic". It makes a lot of sense to teach Aristotelian logic either before or with Aristotle. But modern mathematical logic really is a different field.
sixo 3y ago
If you read the story of the Scientific Revolution, the major difficulty seemed to be overthrowing the deep-seated influence of ancient thinkers, and learning to think for themselves rather than comment endless on Aristotle, Archimedes, Cicero, etc. It's not clear academic philosophy ever really moved past this inclination—a kind of perpetual scholasticism hangs over it, at least as commonly taught. The philosophical curriculum is what it is because—well, tradition; because that's what the teachers learned. You can stretch it to have something to do with the present, or to incorporate everything humanity has come to know to be true since then, but it seems to default to something closer to historiography than anything like what these writers were doing when they wrote in the first place. (Just venting my grievance.)
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  The first book on Stoicism I ever read started from the observation by the author, a tenured philosophy professor, that most of his field was unable to provide any insight at all into one of the most common (and profound) philosophical questions that people seek answers to: how to live a good life.
  - sixo 3y ago
    Which was that?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      Wish I could tell you. I no longer have the book.
billfruit 3y ago
Did they ever get to Montaigne? Montaigne has a realisation of the messiness of human life, and how unbridled pursuit of virtue can cause more harm than good.
- softfalcon 3y ago
  Unfortunately, this never came up at all in our studies. I had to cover the bases myself many years later with my own research and reading.
RationalDino 3y ago
The way that I look at it is this. Much of philosophy is about logic and analysis. Stoicism is about lived experience. When you're engaged in complex intellectual debate, there seems to me more to areas with logic and analysis. And that is what academic philosophy focuses on. But if you're trying to cope with life, Stoicism has a lot to say. So Stoicism captures something important that a lot of people want out of philosophy. But it doesn't capture what's interesting to have complex discussions about. Let's take just one idea, https://mountainstoic.com/2015/06/03/on-the-stoic-acceptance-of-fate/ https://mountainstoic.com/2015/06/03/on-the-stoic-acceptance.... How many conversations can you have about how it is better for you to go willingly along with fate than to be dragged kicking and screaming? OK, we can have another conversation about how the word "cynic" meant "dog" and so the Stoics were making fun of the Cynics in their dog and cart analogy. But really, there isn't that much to discuss. But there is certainly something to experience! For a more extreme example, I believe that the most influential and widely read Greek moral philosopher was Aesop. But you'll almost never see his name in a book about philosophy. Why not? I think that it is because his fables, designed to speak directly to experience, offer nothing that looks like complex intellectual discussion!

beebmam 3y ago

At my university, formal logic was taught first, then Greek/Roman philosophy, then enlightenment, then modern. And then all the rest.

softfalcon 3y ago
Interesting! Formal logic is a completely separate series of courses at my University. Now that you mention it, that is a very odd choice by my University. Formal logic seems very relevant to analysing the rest of the philosophical works.
- RationalDino 3y ago
  You might mean different things by "formal logic". It makes a lot of sense to teach Aristotelian logic either before or with Aristotle. But modern mathematical logic really is a different field.

sixo 3y ago

If you read the story of the Scientific Revolution, the major difficulty seemed to be overthrowing the deep-seated influence of ancient thinkers, and learning to think for themselves rather than comment endless on Aristotle, Archimedes, Cicero, etc. It's not clear academic philosophy ever really moved past this inclination—a kind of perpetual scholasticism hangs over it, at least as commonly taught. The philosophical curriculum is what it is because—well, tradition; because that's what the teachers learned. You can stretch it to have something to do with the present, or to incorporate everything humanity has come to know to be true since then, but it seems to default to something closer to historiography than anything like what these writers were doing when they wrote in the first place. (Just venting my grievance.)

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The first book on Stoicism I ever read started from the observation by the author, a tenured philosophy professor, that most of his field was unable to provide any insight at all into one of the most common (and profound) philosophical questions that people seek answers to: how to live a good life.
- sixo 3y ago
  Which was that?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Wish I could tell you. I no longer have the book.

billfruit 3y ago

Did they ever get to Montaigne? Montaigne has a realisation of the messiness of human life, and how unbridled pursuit of virtue can cause more harm than good.

softfalcon 3y ago
Unfortunately, this never came up at all in our studies. I had to cover the bases myself many years later with my own research and reading.

RationalDino 3y ago

The way that I look at it is this. Much of philosophy is about logic and analysis. Stoicism is about lived experience. When you're engaged in complex intellectual debate, there seems to me more to areas with logic and analysis. And that is what academic philosophy focuses on. But if you're trying to cope with life, Stoicism has a lot to say. So Stoicism captures something important that a lot of people want out of philosophy. But it doesn't capture what's interesting to have complex discussions about. Let's take just one idea, https://mountainstoic.com/2015/06/03/on-the-stoic-acceptance-of-fate/ https://mountainstoic.com/2015/06/03/on-the-stoic-acceptance.... How many conversations can you have about how it is better for you to go willingly along with fate than to be dragged kicking and screaming? OK, we can have another conversation about how the word "cynic" meant "dog" and so the Stoics were making fun of the Cynics in their dog and cart analogy. But really, there isn't that much to discuss. But there is certainly something to experience! For a more extreme example, I believe that the most influential and widely read Greek moral philosopher was Aesop. But you'll almost never see his name in a book about philosophy. Why not? I think that it is because his fables, designed to speak directly to experience, offer nothing that looks like complex intellectual discussion!