This thread is likely a crossroad of a few recent threads around here.
I am a bit of a musician - I play a few instruments, some of them better than others. I’ve never taken any formal lessons of any of these instruments, but nevertheless I enjoy playing them. I enjoy teaching myself new techniques, new songs, and improvising around songs I already know how to play. Making mistakes, and learning that is beauty in these mistakes, and learning how to both accept the mistakes, learn how not to make the mistakes, but also to intend the mistakes. I don’t play these instruments to entertain others, or to make money, but purely for selfish reasons - enjoyment.
Is it wrong to think of philosophy in this way? On a forum like this, every once in a while a suggestion will come across to “read all the classics” or “go read this philosopher”. I suppose this is an efficient way to learn philosophy - but to me it is a way of thinking of philosophy itself as a science. The proper way to learn it, the degree in philosophy, etc.
You know, I much rather enjoy art as an approach to learning rather than science. Learning as a science seems forced, I will often forget details - not only due to my lack of discipline, but because I don’t find them interesting.
Perhaps to learn philosophy as a science is to get a good stronghold on what everyone else knows. I’m not sure I need that.
Perhaps to learn philosophy as an art, to paint your own picture of the world, to learn the parts that I choose, to make mistakes, learn how not to make mistakes, but also intend to make mistakes - makes it interesting. I enjoy doing this
What are your thoughts on the matter?