The Philosophical Luddite.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Books…

  • Inhibitory…?
  • Catalytic…?
0 voters

Thinkers on this forum fall roughly into two groups, those that have read, and those that have not.

As far as I have heard, the argument for reading as an approach to furthering your own thought goes something like this:

Books to the philosopher, are like equipment to the scientist.

A scientist, wishing to analyze something new in the lab has a choice. He can either weigh the object in his hand, sniff it, lick it, tap it with a finger, and stare, perhaps jerry-rig something from scratch. Or he can stick it in the gas-chromatograph, pop it in the mass-spectrometer, and scrutinize it under the electron microscope.

Obviously, the scientist who utilizes machines will get better results, faster. And perhaps justifiably sneer at the clot who’s got his tongue stuck to the canister of liquid-nitrogen. #-o

However. The scientist is using machines that are not of his making. And each machine has its own inbuilt imperfections, limitations and biases. The scientist, in using them, does not get wholly his own results, but only those of the format suppliable by the machine.

Perhaps the scientist is aware of this compromizing effect upon his data. So he strives to understand the machines workings, its idiosyncracies and eccentricites, the better to figure in these limiting factors into his results. But then of course, should he do it to the required degree, he may find has become simply an engineer, and scientist no longer.

To utilize the methods of thought of another person adequately, requires an adequate understanding of those thoughts. To adequately understand the thought of another one must also have an initmate knowledge of the personal and historical context in which they had their revelations. To fully understand the thoughts of another, you must become that other. At which point you no longer are using, but being used. No longer advancing your own thought, but that of one who’s time is past.

The reading philosopher becomes possessed by the ghost in the machine.

Smash the machines. Smash them all.

Ned.

2

those who forget history - while they may believe they are discovering some new and wonderous thing - are condemned to repeat it…

““Maturing” don’t mean rehashing
Mistakes of the past” - Biafra

-Imp

3

Another analogy. We are sailing on a boat in the middle of the ocean. We are out beyond the land, have never seen the land in our lifetimes. Some people want to abandon ship and try to build a new ship out of what they hope to find. Other people want to rebuild the ship using the the materials of the ship. It isn’t easy, but it is a plausible solution. It may hurt, we might have to give up parts of the ship that we like in order to get something better.

Which do you think might be more useful to abandon the ship and try to start over, or do we try to rebuild the ship that we have now?

Once you become another, in this example, then you can expand beyond that other. You can add something new to the process. If you don’t become and simply add something that duplicates what was already there, then have you added anything?

4

I agree with the Bruce Lee suggestion regarding his book on fighting technique and that is to read the book and then throw it away.

That is typical of eastern thought, especially of Buddhism, in that one should avoid getting tied to any one thing. So, to be bound to the books or any one philosopher is not good, as he, or the books themselves, can become your world, thus you loose your objectivity. However, as Imp mentioned there is nothing to be gained from ignorance, so it is good to read. So, you need a little of both.

On another note, I can’t imagine that famous well thought out philosophers spent a lot of time going over and over what other people said, as they were working to develop their own ideas. They were creating their own philosophy and that goes back to what Bruce Lee was suggesting.

5

Imp - unabashed quoter. [-X

Xander -

:smiley: Hmm… One might question the wisdom of trying to rebuild the boat that got you lost in the first place…

This is my point however, you never can adequately become that other. Just as a photocopy is never the original. And so you face the dilemna of either building on unfinished foundations, or futilely chasing a ghost that will always escape you. What is mine cannot ever be fully yours, my calloused hand has worn too many grooves upon the hilt of my sword.

Adler -

The trouble with memes, they stick.

Smash the printing presses !!!

6

edited

7

“Regards” Smacks of James.

Anyway, you are most probably right M. Wilczek.

8

the most convincing evidence, to me, that philosophy books are useless is the fact that they are extremely rarely cited to prove my ideas wrong, and when they are, i am totally not impressed nor can i even remember such a citation being relevant at all.

granted, i dont discuss such silly ideas as the mind body problem and what form the ideas take inside your head (image or full reproduction? aristotle is a dumbass?), but i talk about a ton of stuff. i mean, i cant think of anybody who has written a wider variety of stuff here than me. if anybody is going to be proven wrong by a book, its either me or its in a thread dedicated to that zany stuff that i try to stay away from due to their focus on the definiton of newly invented words that only appear in those books and their detachment from the real world.

ive literally never heard anything useful come from a book that somebody here read. and the crap ive read for an epistemology class, some logic i stole from my mom, and nietzche that i forced myself to read shortly after coming here and hearing his devout worshippers, my god it was all so stupid and obvious. then again i guess i am smarter than average. i should write these things.

the thing that keeps repeating in my head whenever i hear any kind of philosophical knowledge: what is the question that you are trying to answer, and do you really think you never would have thought of what this guy thought of? if you sat down and tried hard to answer the specific question that he answered, i think anyone, especially me, could answer anything that they answered. and im not just being a shit. dead serious.

cool, my next mundane babble thread.

oh and i think the scientist analogy would be more appropriate if you were about to try writing a paper and you tried to get information by simply reading other peoples papers. that would be ok until you are familiar with the basics, but youre damn sure not going to figure out anything extremely interesting if thats the only step you ever take. do it yourself.

9

Hi Future, just to play devil’s advocate for a mo’ - “The philosopher hits targets no-one else sees…”

10

Well stated! Books are indeed our tools. The more I read, the more I usually have to talk about.

Books are a wonderfull thing in the sense that they demand that we engage our brain. Reading books (by the way, I reffering primarily to philosophical books) causes me to think of new questions to ask, new mysteries to solve, and new adventures to partake of.

Books are what keep ideas alive long after the philosopher has died. They are preservers of knowledge.

We would be less likely to know of the famous historical thinkers if they had not written their ideas down onto paper.

Right now, I’m in the process of reading Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams. After I’m finished with this, I intend to read a few books on pyschology that TheAlderian recommended to me a few weeks ago. :wink:

11

Engage or co-opt…?

12

good point, but if nobody even noticed the target, how important is it?

what would be an example of a philosopher discovering something that nobody ever thought of?

(by the way i read nothing but non-fiction, various sciences or history. knowledge is very important and makes life a ton more interesting, but ive been extremely turned off by every experience ive had with philosophy books)

13

I am your clone but with capitals. :laughing:

14

brrr.

He is right, probably.

…

If I were a bit more patient, I would bother to articulate my position on this a little more clearly. Perhaps instead of the heavy theoretical approach, I could simply say this; philosophy does not really have a fixed subject matter. Logic and rhetoric and argument etc apply all over the place, and those who make the aesthetic choice of ‘thinking for themselves’ as opposed to reading books (which is a false dichotomy if ever I saw one), are only fooling themselves when they then go on to set up idealistic metaphysical distinctions between ‘engaging’ one’s brain, and ‘co-opting’ it. Richard Dawkins be damned.

One can be a philosopher, or read books, without having to hold any opinion or disposition whatsoever regarding the institutionalized beast that is academic philosophy. So come on guys; come out of your huts, and stop pretending you are the last bastions of originality and ‘free thinking’ in the world. It’s fun to play together.

Regards,

James

15

“Smash the printing presses !!!”

Opps, I forgot the Luddite theme!

16

:sunglasses: Dangling a book on the hook Tab pulls out a pike.

…Gotta love Dawkins, er, well I would if er… I’d read him [size=75][Casually slides Blind-Watchmaker under the matress][/size]

Will post a little more lengthily, when I can summon the energy, mind you being on paid holiday for 7 weeks, that shouldn’t be long… :evilfun:

Still, I must now retire to my hard wooden pallet, in my hermit’s shack.

Regards,

Tab.

17

:laughing:

18

Tab, you may have it half right. (Oh hell, I’ll give you five/eigths). You should read anything and everything you can get your hands on. Take away as much understanding as you are capable. Let the ‘knowing’ go. The greater your understanding, the deeper your awareness of your experiencing, and the more intelligence you bring to the party.

What you argue is the futility of collecting intellect (the “I know something”) and substituting it for understanding and intelligent awareness. OK. I’ll buy that. Yes. Uh huh. But the books are not the problem, it is how they are used. I’d ten times more want to be called intelligent than intellectual, and it has nothing to do with what I may or may not have read in books.

JT

19

It’s worse when the accusation falls the other way around, as if academic philosophers somehow ‘guard the gates’ and prevent access. You don’t try to work out how to be a doctor on your own and you definitely don’t try to work out how to be a philosopher on your own either. Why so many people think they not only can, but should, is just amazing.

20

Ding! - falacy of false association… Stick a scalpel in an idea and it does not bleed… [-X

Zzzz.