Is there a tendency to quote Philosophers over original thoughts? Are not these published people there just to enhance our learning and knowledge rather then become the Authority. I see a huge amount of quotes from published philosophers over the amount of enhanced thought. To my way of belief these people are there to spark original thought not repetitive sameness.
Yes we must quote from time to time but, a debate that is dominated of quotes by published philosophers is a debate between those philosophers is it not? It seems not to be a debate between the people posting. Would it be possible to carry on debate topics using ones own thoughts and words with out relying on a published philosopher? There are many interesting topics here. I would be interested to see some of them debated with out the use of other peoples quotes or theory.
Are there any interested? It truly would be a challenge to debate with out the crutch of quotes. This thought came to me as I was reviewing debates ,I saw here, in my head while I worked outside this morning. I searched back topics and found nothing really relating to this So I am chancing that this is not a repeat. forgive me if it is. Any thoughts on this?
I don’t want to be mean, or anything, but look in to the “Pure Philosophy” thread on the third page of the Philosophy forum.
My opinion back then was that it is somehow customary to look into the history of a discussed subject. However, this does not account for much regarding the personal touch. If philosophy is to actually mean something, than it must be interiorized and retraced, so that it may yield the proper results.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I will search and I would not take it to be mean of you to have said that.
Yet here and now.
Interiorize yes, retrace yes, in your studies yes. but, to not debate with your own translation of thoughts learned or knowledge gained is merely redundent capsuleising is it not? If so what use debate, it has been done. Proper results on a debate of philosophy is the concurrance of the debaters. Using published philosophers in a debate from time to time is necessary. Their thoughts for the most part are original. or combined or enhanced by others. Yet it is their own words and thought turning it to originality. So what keeps folks from doing the same as the published, in a debate here?
There’s something to be said of the honesty involved with quote- and name-dropping: a person could easily refrain from doing this, yet if when confronted with a particular topic a certain passage or person comes to mind, mentioning this connection is hardly something to frown upon. It’s kind of like prefacing a comment with, ‘as I was telling my friend’: one could just as easily leave it out, but its mention, I think, lends to one’s attention to detail of the moment. If after reading a post or thread one is reminded, ‘Oh, Hume said something about this’, sharing the observation in light of this (i.e. without excluding it) is surely an example of honesty, opposed to making a post with Hume close in mind without mentioning it, pawing it off as an original idea.
That said, there are many posts I’ve read into as being purely useless other than an opportunity to showcase how well-read the poster is; and even more posts where the object of discussion seems less one’s philosophical activity and more the philosophical activity of another. To these the OP speaks, and I concur, it’s a problem.
plagarism of ideas is not good…
and when one argues it is my idea that “well the soul and the body are seperate”
and someone answers “except in the pineal gland eh?”
it becomes apparent that “well the soul and the body are seperate” is not strictly your idea afterall…
and as was previously mentioned on another thread, it makes for a nice shorthand when discussing the broader issues…
sure it is fine to bang your philosophical head against the proverbial wall until enlightenment is reached but a bit of reading and research into the topics beforehand usually saves a great deal of cranial brusing whilst coming quite often to the same conclusions…
-Imp
Very true, yet is not philosophy growth and change? Not sticking to the last idea standing. Reference is one thing, yet encompassing it as a way of debate is another. We refer to others as a basis yes, but, when that basis is not evolving is that not perpetuating stagnation of growth, that would be against any philosophers aspirations of society.
Sometimes one may just reply with a quote and a quote with his own commentary simply to bring a different perspective into the current debate. I think it would be much less acceptable to use quotes in a one on one debate, but on a forum when there are hundreds of people who can read and answer to your plea I don’t think there is anything wrong with bringing in someone else’s perspective to see how others may reply.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with it but, does it not seem at times that the published philosophers being quoted are doing the debate instead of enhancing the debate?
Kriswest,
It is extremely difficult to talk about philosophy without wanting to reference the thoughts of other or earlier people. Usually, it is because the person quoted said it better than anything we can come up with. 
The field of philosophy is large and complex because it mirrors life - since that is what philosophy is about, and there are many ways of seeing and structuring our questions , discourse, and debate.
Formal academic discussion is all about examining the work of individual philosophers or groups espousing a certain philosophical view point. A typical statement or post typically references a statement (quote), followed by the poster’s explanation of their understanding of that statement. Formal philosophy is full of references because that is its function.
As Imp suggested, references (and the study that makes references possible) are useful because no matter our brilliant insights, others have undoubtably been there before us. References may be one or two sentences that encompass and explain pages of back and forth posts. References can be shorthand.
I suspect that your question revolves around whether it is better to examine an old wheel or whether one should try to invent a new one - even if it looks exactly like the old one. You’ll see both approaches here in ILP, and everything between.
I agree that there are some members here that are extremely well read and their posts are mostly a collection of referencing other peoples work. One gets the impression that you could get as much from Google or Wikipedia as from their posts. On the other hand, we have members who just blather without a discernable thought behind anything they are saying. Over time, you’ll identify who is doing what, and gravitate to those threads where the posts are coming from members who are “doing” your style of philosophy.
The mix of all forms of inquiry is the ‘stuff’ of what makes ILP a community. Sometimes, it’s just amazing how other people see things. 
JT
And now for a simple answer to your simple yes or no question.
Yes, there is a tendency for people to quote philosophers too much.
However, I think the people that depend on these quotes are people who don’t think for themselves, and don’t understand what philosophy is. I’m talking about people who learn about and read the works of the great philosophers and memorize their arguments at face value. They don’t account for what else was going on in the world when these arguments about life were made. To quote philosophers from long ago in a debate is to say nothing more than how the debater has come to think along certain lines. To quote is to provide some sort of evidence as to why you might take a certain position based on your agreement with the thoughts of another philosopher who happened to write them down and publish them. But to quote a philosophers work in order to prove a claim to be true is a fallacy of its own, that is an illogical appeal to authority.
I think that it’s good to say that my own thought about X have been influenced by “whomever,” but that I think so and so, is a true way to approach a discussion. It’s you talking about what you think.
It’s my opinion that a discussion about the opinions of philosophers is a lot like many sports discussions that I hate. They are all about teams and coaches that one has nothing to do with.
I agree with The Adlerian.
I have no problem with referencing or quoting per se. I actually think it adds something to a discussion when some reference is made to an established position or a quote is used to support ones beleifs.
What I have a problem with is when the discussion becomes nothing more than commentary of commentary and where all that is discussed is how this author relates to this author or what this guy meant or how he disagreed or agreed with this other guy.
It would appear, at first, that thinking is occurring or that one is conducting philosophy, when all that is being done is repeating and exhibiting and comparing how one relates to what another saw or believed.
Philosophy, at its best, is when one mind shares its perspective with another. When it shares personal insights about its environment and perceptions, even if these might be influenced by another or unoriginal or incomplete or even erroneous.
Debate is about testing ones perception and opinions against another’s, so as to eliminate prejudice and error.
To incessantly take position on another’s position, might be interesting and helpful in many ways, but it is not constructive.
Furthermore I see this academic position taking, using vague terminology and ambiguous wordplay as an avoidance of taking a position, at all.
If I were to say that I am a libertarian with conservative leanings and a sprinkling of socialist sensibilities, it would seem like I’m making myself clear, when I am saying nothing but using general political terms to describe my imprecise position.
Now the reason this happens are many, some of which are psychological (an avoidance of the implications and motives behind our world-views) and driven to posture and/or avoid having to defend uncertain and imperfect positions.
Because lets face it, no position is perfect and all of them can be spun to say something negative or positive about the opinion holder.
Adlerian, with all respect, I must disagree.
Funny that you should shift the discussion towards sports and awkward that you should do it in a slightly reproachful approach. Your refutal of sports as base for a string of theoretical ideas shows that either you have not played sport anytime in your life, or if you did, it was not in earnestness. I must inform you, in consequence, that what you generically call chatter about teams and coaches that one has nothing to do with is a mislead opinion, based on lack of knowledge in this matter. The relation between a sports fan and his team is much stronger than you are willing to accept. Sport is a cultural phenomena like any other, and it can arouse as many passions as can, let’s say, philosophy or art. Generalizing your aversion towards the rationalization of sports is as decentred as saying, par example, that talking about the meaning of life is useless, because life is meant to be lived and not analyzed. Although, as a mention, not much benefit is drwan out of it, you can not stop anyone from talking about it.
I’m sorry, but I just can not accept your isolation of those who practice sport from those who are a fan of it. At a certain level, these conditions mold together, they interweave with each other, leading to a synthesis of attitudes. If we were to adapt Socrates’ words, they would be: “A sport which is not analyzed is not worth playing.”
Now, to go beyond this, I say that the same thing applies to philosophy, and in the exact manner. In order to fully understand a predecessor, you must not only “take him into consideration” or state your admiration for his conceptions, but it is compulsory that you should put yourself into his shoes and think with him, see the world in his eyes. Only then your critique will be genuine and you will be able to adopt a firm position in relation to him. This is the only way that philosophy can work, and this is the only way that it can progress.
I love sports and maintain a very athletic lifestyle. However, and this only matters for me, but I never watch sports and have no idea about teams and all that. I admire the Greek ideal and find it boring to watch other people run around when I could be doing it, or thinking when I could be doing it.
What I don’t admire is the mass of people that enjoy sports and live vicariously through them. I’ve even know people that engage in “fantasy football leagues†where they pretend to play the game like it’s Dungeons and Dragons only with real football teams.
Now, if these same guys were out throwing the football around in the park then I would have less to say, but the reality is that none that I know are very athletic at all. That’s the message that I’m sending. I believe that non-thinkers use the thoughts of others to appear to be thinker.
Adlerian, are you kidding me? You honestly have something against people who watch sports but don’t play them? What about people who used to play sports, fell in love with the game, enjoyed the competition and the excitement that sports presents? What if those people, due to age limits in sports, or because they just have other responsibilities, enjoy watching sports? Because of this, they are familiar with stats, names, history, etc. Who cares if they don’t have direct participation in the game, the fact is that they enjoy it. Whatever it’s form, let it be playing or watching games, passion is a good quality in people. Maybe you should ease up and get a hobby of your own that doesn’t consist of criticizing other peoples interests that you have nothing to do with.
No, I’m talking about people that over-identify with teams and sports figures.
That phenomenon always embarrassed me.
I remember watching a hockey game, once, with a bunch of friends.
Our home team, the Montreal Canadians, scored and they all started high-fiving each other.
I joined in and felt a little weird.
What the hell were we so happy about?
They scored, not us.
This tribal psychology is what is at fault. Men living vicariously through others and feeling that warrior camaraderie.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Satyr, should I send you a check or something for your help?
That says nothing to your advantage.
I can high-five anyone when my favourite hockey team scores a goal.
There we go, I should send a cheque to myself for my help.
Some people enjoy it, others don’t. but you are in no position to say that there is something wrong with them, or that something is at fault, just because sports do not appeal to your interests.
How about you let people be happy and just continue doing whatever it is that you enjoy.
WW,
Get off it.
It was a point about doing things for yourself.