Talking Philosophy: What's your credentials?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hi all,

In a recent “hello” to ‘another new guy’, it came out that your resident Prolificisticationist has in fact never read a single dedicated (some may say “real”) book on philosophy. Outside of contemporary popular psychology, self-improvement or spiritual/metaphysical authors like Wayne Dyer, Alan Cohen, Gary Zukav, Marianne Williamson, and Deepak Chopra, I have seldom attempted to delve into anything more serious.

Part of it is fear; I am drawn to contemporary pop-psych because it is easy enough for me to understand. I am FASCINATED by metaphysics/quantum mechanics when these subjects are presented in the simplest layman’s terms. I had a rather terrifying experience a few years back. I read Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav and proceeded to “progress” on to his world-renowned Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. Even though touted as for the layman, the damned thing was shoom - straight over my head much of the time. I found much of it a chore to read and simply too hard for me to understand.

I don’t for a second deny the importance of a true educational background in philosophy, but hell I know I’m not the only poorly-read person on the forum, so I guess my question is what makes us qualified to come on here and talk our asses off on the subject?†Right now about the best I can digest is the kind of contemporary pop-psych literature whose authors I have referenced above. I got no shame in confessing that–it’s enough for me that I can read, period. (You’ll excuse me; I’m into the whole gratitude mentality - it’s a spiritual thing… lol)

Am I an impostor here? Do I only pretend? Polemarchus, veritable walking library of quotations that he is, makes me feel like a rank simpleton, LOL. (Seriously - the guy is incredible.)

Secondly, what qualifies as “true” philosophy worthy of “bearded” discussion? Do the authors cited above slip a bit too much into either a psychological or metaphysical category to meet …“the standard”? For example, I suspect the existence of a soul and a spiritual realm beyond the here and now to which we are presently attuned, but some people take an almost pedantic pleasure in saying, “No. This is philosophy. Talk of God and souls does not belong here. You’re looking for the Religion forum. Here, allow me to redirect you.” I heartily disagree that philosophy cannot or does not encompass these areas of contemplation: I allow for the possibility of us being spiritual creatures, yet do not think myself a religious person.

Curious for your comments! -and thanks for reading.

Sincerely,
John

†My personal answer: One needn’t be well-read in the arts to contemplate the meaning of life, nor possess a Ph.D. to contribute a poignant perspective or point of view to a philosophical discussion! wink

2

I’m new here, too. I definitely hear you and, like you, I came here for the very reason that I just got fed up with posters from another forum who keep quoting and name-dropping supposedly academically “in” philosophers every single time they talk about any topic in philosophy—to the point of not actually getting anything done about the topic in question. I felt at that time that I really couldn’t learn nor add anything interesting to my understanding if people keep haggling back and forth like this :

…Wittgenstein says this
…No, that’s not what he says
…Well, here’s a snippet from his book
…Yes, but you misunderstood
…How do I misunderstood?
…Because you need to read first his other book before you can understand this one
…and so on, and so forth.

Twenty posts later, they are still haggling over what a word means, whether it’s definitional, semantics, or contextual problem. God almighty!

I think it’s a misuse and abuse of philosophy as offered by the universities. Or maybe it’s the other way around—the universities are to blame for this horrendous infantile sojourn in philosophy—yes, I said sojourn because I believe that most of these tyros are not even sincere or loyal to the true use of philosophy and will drop it like any other entertainment medium, and move on to the next big thing once they got into the external world of money-earning.

So, without trying to flatter you, I think that you have a good grasp of reality and pretty much secure with your wisdom.

3

Hi there. A little about me.
I am a Philosophy and Political Science double major just starting my second year. I do not profess to know that much about philosophy per se, much of what I have read after Aristotle has come at my own behest, and has not been doled out to me in class, so some of it does seem pretty confusing. Personally, I find myself liking Kant, not that I enjoy his style of writing (at least as it is translated into english) but that his entire concept of a priori knowledge seems to save certainty in what is, an uncertain world.

I guess that this might have a little to do with Philosophy as a whole, I am certainly no authority on this, but I believe that Philosophy plays a part in every facet of human knowledge ( be it day to day or the scientific method and everything in between). Even in such things as religion, politics, art, and history, Philosophy (note the big P) can play a big role.

You mention Psychology specifically. I believe that Psychology (as a science) is a result of questions raised in Philosophy. And while some scientists may spit and sputter, the scientific method is a result of Philosophy. While artists and critics battle over what is “good” the question of aesthetics (what is good, what is beautiful, etc) is battled over in Philosophy.

While politicans and various religous leaders may preach what is morally right, what is morally wrong, etc. Philosophy is the only field with a longggg history of trying to develop a reasonable standard to answer ( or in some cases ignore) those questions.

I guess what I am saying that what Philosophy is, ultimately, the study of knowledge in all things pertaining to possible wisdom. I am guessing that the boards are divided into certain areas as to keep discussions centered on those particular areas. This isn’t to say that religion has no place in Philosophy, just that Philosophy, as a field, is so vast one could easily lose himself in one part or another. That is my take, anyway.

4

I hear that. Don’t get me wrong, quoting your sources is fine, but everyone should try to do some thinking for themselves rather than depending on the words and ideas of popular thinkers.

What are my credentials then?

I’ll be honest, when it comes to Philosophy, I have nothing but the few books I’ve read in my free time and my own thoughts. I’ve yet to take a strict philosophy course in college, although I’m sure I’ll have taken at least one before I graduate.

I’m a bit more knowledgable about Pyschology and the Social Sciences, since most of my college courses have been in those areas, but since I only just finished the second year of my undergraduate education, I’m far from an expert on these topics either.

5

Wow! Well looks as if I’m surrounded by friends. :slight_smile: Btw., just to clarify something: I stand in utmost admiration of our distinguished member, Polemarchus. Just in case I wasn’t clear.

GateControlTheory: Yo, there. waves I was so overwhelmed with trying to take in the entirety of your first post (“hi there, rip my argument apart!”) that I sent you a PM about it, so do check your messages.

6

yeah I just saw your PM, thank you for the kind words. I am just an undergrad btw, which is why I sound so sincere when I claim to not know anything :smiley:
Of course Socrates would often say the same, but he was being a sarcastic bastard. (no offense to any Socrates fans out there).

7

The qualifcation nessisary for talking philosophy is a capacity for reason. It certianly helps to know some of the arguments as to not be constantly repeteing, allthough I don’t come here for cutting edge philosophy.

In fact, what keeps me comeing back is the newbies. I like that felling when I chime in with: well Spinoza said this, and Libnitze said that, which is sorta similiar to what I think your position is. And then they come back telling me they got a book and it was facinateing and stuff.

Really, there are only a couple classical philosophical works that I have read cover to cover. A lot of my education has come from collentions of exerpts for the historical, and collections of articles for the contemporary. I think collections are the way to start, its more important to know what the arguments are in general, then to know one mans words so well. (After all the whole one book thing is how religion has survived so long :stuck_out_tongue: )

So yeah. Knowing philosophy good, but certianly not nessisary for talking here. And make sure someone can talk about at least three different philosophers before you give them props- the fanboys are no fun.

8

Although I’m not very intelligent and most certainly not knowledgeable I think that there are no excuses for not knowing. Sure, I’m slightly annoyed when a discussion goes above my head, but it motivates me to study harder so next time I’ll be able to understand every little bit of nitpicking.

I have no problems with newbies - like myself - that want to philosophize and they should be allowed to do so at their leisure. I do think, however, that newbies should abstain from belittling discussions they can’t grasp. cough marie cough

9

lol …:laughing:

10

lol… To be sure, the rules of etiquette apply (as in go both ways) - and there is a wrong way to splash into a forum that you’re new to. Funny about the timing when I posted this: I just got a bit crossways with o.i.c. in GateControlTheory’s topic and it all came down to the “belittling/ridiculing” thing you were talking about. He suggested I was ridiculing something I didn’t understand. I said, "no you don’t understand. I’m only injecting humour."

:unamused: Riiiight. Whatever John. The truth is I came into a full-on acamedic argument, and was so initially overwhelmed by it that I cracked wise. Call it “injecting humour” or call it ridicule - in hindsight, I can say I should have at least anticipated someone taking offense. [o.i.c. intimated that I should “learn logic.” The GALL! … I mean sure, it was the truth but THE GALL!!! :stuck_out_tongue::P]

Y’know… back in gradeschool and high school I was always in the top five percent of the general population. Easily. On here, those numbers are pretty much reversed. I can write up a mean streak, my grammar, spelling, and form are fairly immaculate - but when it comes to substance I’m outta my league. It’s humbling to walk into an intellectual shitstorm and be overwhelmed. But I think that if our 'Netiquette is strong enough, we can grow from these experiences.

-John

11

Hey, I think the books you have listed are great, and as far as I’m concerned, you seem to be on the right path most of the time. I must admit that I am not as well read in philosophy as I would like to be, but at the same time I don’t think that any philosopher is defined by what books he has read. I value my own thoughts much more then anything I get out of a book. It sort of works out for me though that I will come up with a lot of concepts on my own, and then later find a really good book that covers those concepts quite well, and confirms what I have postulated. I find philosophy, or conceptualization in general is much more exciting this way. I have always been very good at arguing my points (to the dismay of my parents, lol) which helps a lot in designing my own philosophies. I do read a lot of material just for the hell of it. Most of that I use as referance material, other material that I like I absorb and integrate into my own philosophy.

Another thing I integrate into my philosophy is experiences of altered conscious states. It’s really surprising what you can learn from being of altered consciousness. I think that psychadelic drugs, and mystic practices (i.e. meditation, etc.) are a way of detaching from your body so as to explore the universe without being encumbered by the restriction of your physical self which riddles the consciousness with illusions of polar reality. I’ve found there are two forms of psychadelic exploration; cellular, and spiritual. Both are quite fascinating!

I still think you should read “The Tao of Physics” By Fritjof Capra. He has a lot of the same ideas as Dyer does in “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” except he presents it in a different sort of way. After reading both of those books I have passed them on to friends, and some of them think that The Tao of Physics is easier, while others think that “The Dancing Wu Li Masters” is more comprehensible. I think if you had trouble with Wu Li, there is still a good chance that you might understand some of those concepts better through Capra’s presentation. He takes a more scientific yet conceptual look at things. The hardest part to understand would be the particle physics part (which is also slightly dated, but has been updated a few times in newer editions). That part won’t be easy, but if you take your time I am sure someone of your intelligence could grasp it. Your already most of the way up the hill from Wu Li anyway. The point in his descriptions of particle physics is to show how relations between sub-atomic particles as demonstrated through observations of high energy particle collisions explain the connected and unified nature of the universe, and how that correlates with eastern philosophies.

12

Academic Argument?

Heh
I think your high opinion of me is unwarranted. I am hardly an academic philosopher.
Concerning the thread with the various propositions, o.i.c. would have quite easily ripped apart what I was trying to assert in any kind of debate outside the competition itself. The competition allows for certain assumptions that, quite frankly, should be challenged. If any of my responses seemed academic… well that is a result of being more familiar with the competition specifically. I spent several weeks going over the original proposition, counter arguments etc. My proposition itself is a result of my ignorance, it is the simplest claim anyone can reasonably make. that we exist.
For all i know o.i.c. might not be done ripping my points apart, which is fine by me, afterall that is what I asked for. It would just be a bigger help if it was done in the context of the competition and not in the context of a general philosophical discussion where, trust me, I know very little.

That said, as far as I know, there is no Universal Truths when it comes to Philosophy. It would follow then that some arguments might be better informed or might be more grounded in accepted knowledge, but that should never preclude other points of view. You are entitled to your beliefs, and should be allowed to at least voice them. If someone disagrees, they are always free to PROVE how you are wrong. God himself could come down from heaven and tell me I am wrong, I will still ask him to prove it, as that is how I learn.

13

Gate Control Theory wrote:

That’s one excellent attitude you’ve got, GCT.

Niels Bohr once asked that we mentally affix a question-mark at the end of his every utterance. That’s exactly how I’d ask people to read my posts. And if I should ever shout or pound the desk…well, just make that question-mark a tiny bit bigger. :wink:

Michael

14

Well, I try to be positive… the chicks dig it :smiley:

15

“Never snub a gift, an invitation, a thank you, an apology – or a compliment.”

–John the Prolificistic Articulationist