Hi, I’m new. I’m 17, and just begining to delve into philosophy. I’ve read some of the posts here, and they’re so sophisticated and well articulated. I’d love to be that mentally agile.
So far I’ve read short bios/explanations of Descarte, Kant and Wittgenstein. I also covered modern philosophy in my history class for about a month, and read about 1/2 of Roger Scruton’s book on modern philosophy for that class. I’ve also read countless articles from The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I’ve read these great works in the past 8 months (not in this order):
Critique of Pure Reason (Immanuel Kant) (and am reading it again as we speak).
Plato’s Repulic
Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle)
Discourse on Method (Rene Descartes)
Ethics (Baruch Spinoza)
Essay Concerning Human Understanding (John Locke)
Principals of Human Knowledge (George Berkeley)
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (David Hume)
Fear and Trembling (Soren Kierkegaard)
part of Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel)
The Prince (Machiavelli)
Candide (Voltaire)
Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters (CS Lewis)
Physics and Philosophy (Werner Heisenberg)
The thing I ask you all is, how does one become good at not only philosophy, but reasoned discourse in general? I’m in high school, and with my knowledge base I can out do pretty much any one I encounter who opposes me, but that’s because I’m in the intellectual wastebasket of an American high school. I have my worldview, supported by what I understand of these great thinkers, but not sure how well-constructed it really is. I want to know how to really understand philosophy and how to be a persuasive disputant. How do I become a philosopher?
You are likely to read alot of advice that conflicts if enough people notice this thread. Let me get in as early as possible (although, alas, not before Dan~!) and answer your question very simply:
You must learn ‘critical thinking’. By this I mean buy a book on logic, preferably Paul Tomassi’s “Logic”, and LEARN IT. Learn propositional logic and how to work truth tables for Philosophy (not for maths!). Learn how to write rapid logical bare-bones expositions of the long-winded arguments you find in magazines and on forums.
Once you can pick up a newspaper and quickly circle with a red pen all the arguments which jump out at you as immediately ‘bad’, you are then ready to begin going back through the list of major works you have already read.
Without doing this HARD GRAFT now you will never be able to become a philosopher and reading the texts without knowing logic is completely useless if your goal is to be a good philosopher. I am 100% right about this. If anyone after me tries to tell you any differently, just remember that I am far better looking and ten times as intelligent.
Best of luck with it. It’s actually delightfully easy to teach yourself how to think logically. It is not a natural talent - it has to be learned despite what your mother, the TV and films have told us.
What kind of logic am I to learn exactly? After I finish with Kant, I’ll pick up these logic books before anything else. But what types of logic are discussed there? Do they focus on Aristotlean logic or the kind of stuff that came up with Frege and analytic philosophy? I’m just wondering.
Actually, I kind of reached a similar conclusion about logic on my own. In the more intellectual discussions I’ve had, which tend to focus on matters like intelligent design and the immortality of the soul, I’ve been able to defend my positions and refute the other’s well. But I’ve often found myself confused and contradicting myself it seems, in my own thinking. It seems like my arguments worked very well for ages 15-18, but were somehow flawed and could be much better. I considered picking up a book on logic and teaching it to myself. But it seemed so hard.
Actually, I’ve read an abridged Critique of Pure Reason already. It’s sorta making sense as I read it now, but if I can get a handle on logic, I think it would make even more sense. I think I’m gonna push it aside until I actually learn logic.
I’m going to be hated for this, but the only Greek philosopher I’ve found interesting is Heraclitus - and we don’t even have anything by him first-hand.
I’ve read Plato and Socrates, and they’re simply not “my thing”.
Kant? Did you say Kant? Kant is difficult, and full of contradictions.
In the end, logic is logic. There are books that treat logic without delving too much into symbolic logic - algebraic logic. “Rational thinking” books. Start with those, if you find them easier. I cannot give a title, but I’ve no doubt that Obw’s choice is a good one.
Remember that guys like Pato, Descartes, ESPECIALLY Kant, have some problems with self-consistency and valid argument forms, and they’re Bigtime Famous Filosophy Guys. So don’t expect it to be easy, necessarily. You may find, however, that once you learn the rules, it comes easy - so don’t count yourself out until you have tried - really tried.
Self-consistency is tough, because we tend to start with premises that we have simply absorbed from our environment, and it takes a bit o’workin’ out to see that they conflict from the getgo, some of them. It’s a process.
Philosophy is the re-evaluation of all values.
Don’t expect, out-of-hand, that Kant will make more sense to you after you get a handle on logic - he will probably make less sense.
Just chiming in. Start with critical thinking. Learn it well. Obw has given the best advice on studying the correct forms of logic.
At that point, just pick up the end of the string and follow it wherever it goes. You’ll make many side trips, but that is part of the game. There is no arrival point where one decides they are now a “philosopher”. There are people here who have studied philosophy for years and the more they know, the less they know. Philosophy is a life long train ride and the tracks go on forever… Take your time and enjoy the ride.
There is a ‘become a philosopher in a day’ kit online you can buy for like, 35 bucks.
Seriously though, the first step is to not listen to what I’m saying, and like OBW said – to spot out logical inconsistencies.
But after it’s all said and done, most of what we write here isn’t going to help you too much. You just gotta get in there and start mixing it up. Don’t be afraid to have your own opinion, juxtapose it them with what you read. Appreciate the greats but don’t be afraid to call their a prior bluff.
(PS Check out Symposia and the Philosophical Texts Archive)
Just for the record, I found that book a deplorable waste of time. Stab your teacher to death after you tell him I said so.
First, given your articulation and grammatical clarity, I’d remark you’re well on your way, especially in the ‘reasoned discourse’ department. Clarity of thought is little more than patience and attention to detail.
Along the same lines of what Obw mentioned, learn and memorize the informal logical fallacies as a surefire way to not only spot weaknesses in arguments, but to understand why they are weaknesses.
Aside from that, keep reading the sorts of things you have been, allow your mind to wander at length upon any topic that interests you, no matter how small, and keep a journal to document your subsequent observations thereby.
My only advice really is to write. Even if you have read nothing of those who have gone before, your opinion on the matter is as essential as that of Plato. As it is, philosophy could use an infusion of fresh blood to liven things up. It’s not a sport, where one is ranked in terms of his ability - if that were so, Ayn Rand would have never made it to the Little League team.
If you write, and you can write well, you can be published. The content of your material is of no greater importance than how it is written.
I recommend just reading (both ‘proper’ philosophy and internet forums etc) and arguing with people. If you read a forum like here or ePhilosopher or whatever you can learn a lot.
That’s a great idea for the ILP online store! Let’s see. A philosopher’s stone. A toga (third-world slave labor - keep the cost down), a cup for hemlock (just in case), hemlock, an ILP bookmark, and a bong! Whaddya think?
Be yourself and learn, question, learn some more, don’t be afraid to voice your opinions. The brightest jewels come from the darkest corners as you will find out here.
This is genius. It not only will sell the kit, you may have struck upon the solution to our young friend’s problem with Kant! This kit might actually work!
Oh, theone - that’s another thing. Don’t take yourself too seriously.
Actually, for me, Nietzsche is easier to grasp than a Kant. If you want an example of an author who is almost incomprehensible, read Hiedegger. I cannot make heads or tails of anything in Being and Time.