3 ms·

I'm currently taking the History of Philosophy podcast [1] and my major takeaway is this: even a cursory understanding of the history of philosophy deepens your

I'm currently taking the History of Philosophy podcast [1] and my major takeaway is this: even a cursory understanding of the history of philosophy deepens your understanding of Western thought as everything from art and literature to religion and politics has its roots in philosophy. Not that I would have anything against people learning symbolic logic, of course. [1] www.historyofphilosophy.net/

keiferski 13y ago
Oh no, I agree, knowing the history of philosophy is critical. But general education classes tend to focus too much on it, probably because it's easier for a TA/teacher without philosophy background to recite Plato than to engage in philosophy.
- leephillips 13y ago
  Doesn't the teaching of just about any subject at the beginning and even intermediate level really resemble teaching the history of that subject? Physics and mathematics teaching could be described that way: only very advanced students tackle current problems (at which point they are hardly students any longer).
  - keiferski 13y ago
    In Physics, you typically do practice problems as you're learning (non-current) concepts. Philosophy usually isn't the same. You learn what Descartes thought about the mind, but you never really learn the logical methods he used to get there, nor do you learn what anyone else thinks about the topic (philosophy of mind and dualism, in Descartes' case)
    - leephillips 13y ago
      Oh, I think I see your point. It has to do, perhaps, with teaching the logic of discovery along with the particular ideas as they developed historically. And in physics, for example, it is really impossible to internalize the ideas without doing problems, which steeps you in the logic of discovery, or at least some of its methods (it doesn't really teach you how to discover new knowledge, but there may be no way to teach that).
    - meowface 13y ago
      The philosophy 101 course I took actually did go into great detail regarding arguments various philosophers have made (and counter-arguments that other philosophers have given), including Hume, Descartes, Socrates, and a few others. Only the very beginning was spent on the history of the topics, and of the people. I definitely came out of the class with a better grasp on philosophy and argument construction than I did before it. So, your experience may have just been limited to your university or area.
  - im3w1l 13y ago
    Sort of yes. But the dead ends are usually (almost) ignored. Also, what you study is the modern refinement of things people came up with long ago. People don't usually read what Gauss wrote; instead they read a modern text-book.
    - leephillips 13y ago
      Excellent points. In physics we don't trudge through the details of phlogiston theory or Aristotelian mechanics because those are really dead ends. Only specialists in the history of science bother with the real details of those things. But in philosophy it seems that students spend huge amounts of time on anything that ever gained traction. This leads some physicists (maybe Feynman) to conclude that philosophy has no criteria to separate valuable developments from useless stuff; since there are no real standards, they can't distinguish the essential content of their subject matter from its tortuous history.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    It's not about teaching the history of a subject; it's about teaching from the questions the subject attempts to answer. In physics, it might be as simple as, "What is the concept of reversibility?" Or in mathematics, "How can you compute the area of any triangle?" In philosophy, the questions being asked don't have an absolute answer. Something as vague as "Who am I?" is difficult, just as something as specific as, "What is property?" is quite challenging. This makes it all the more important to discuss the method of answering because it's really the most concrete thing you can take away from a class: exploring a particular thinker's ideas can result in your agreement or disagreement (or better yet, a tangential exploration of your own) and they're all valid consequences.

keiferski 13y ago

Oh no, I agree, knowing the history of philosophy is critical. But general education classes tend to focus too much on it, probably because it's easier for a TA/teacher without philosophy background to recite Plato than to engage in philosophy.

leephillips 13y ago
Doesn't the teaching of just about any subject at the beginning and even intermediate level really resemble teaching the history of that subject? Physics and mathematics teaching could be described that way: only very advanced students tackle current problems (at which point they are hardly students any longer).
- keiferski 13y ago
  In Physics, you typically do practice problems as you're learning (non-current) concepts. Philosophy usually isn't the same. You learn what Descartes thought about the mind, but you never really learn the logical methods he used to get there, nor do you learn what anyone else thinks about the topic (philosophy of mind and dualism, in Descartes' case)
  - leephillips 13y ago
    Oh, I think I see your point. It has to do, perhaps, with teaching the logic of discovery along with the particular ideas as they developed historically. And in physics, for example, it is really impossible to internalize the ideas without doing problems, which steeps you in the logic of discovery, or at least some of its methods (it doesn't really teach you how to discover new knowledge, but there may be no way to teach that).
  - meowface 13y ago
    The philosophy 101 course I took actually did go into great detail regarding arguments various philosophers have made (and counter-arguments that other philosophers have given), including Hume, Descartes, Socrates, and a few others. Only the very beginning was spent on the history of the topics, and of the people. I definitely came out of the class with a better grasp on philosophy and argument construction than I did before it. So, your experience may have just been limited to your university or area.
- im3w1l 13y ago
  Sort of yes. But the dead ends are usually (almost) ignored. Also, what you study is the modern refinement of things people came up with long ago. People don't usually read what Gauss wrote; instead they read a modern text-book.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    Excellent points. In physics we don't trudge through the details of phlogiston theory or Aristotelian mechanics because those are really dead ends. Only specialists in the history of science bother with the real details of those things. But in philosophy it seems that students spend huge amounts of time on anything that ever gained traction. This leads some physicists (maybe Feynman) to conclude that philosophy has no criteria to separate valuable developments from useless stuff; since there are no real standards, they can't distinguish the essential content of their subject matter from its tortuous history.
- saraid216 13y ago
  It's not about teaching the history of a subject; it's about teaching from the questions the subject attempts to answer. In physics, it might be as simple as, "What is the concept of reversibility?" Or in mathematics, "How can you compute the area of any triangle?" In philosophy, the questions being asked don't have an absolute answer. Something as vague as "Who am I?" is difficult, just as something as specific as, "What is property?" is quite challenging. This makes it all the more important to discuss the method of answering because it's really the most concrete thing you can take away from a class: exploring a particular thinker's ideas can result in your agreement or disagreement (or better yet, a tangential exploration of your own) and they're all valid consequences.