Neither do I . I still wonder, though, is it more beneficial to society, the individual, or both, to have formal classroom teaching for philosophy?

Most anybody who would participate in those classes would do so in the same manner, or very similar, to all others. Lecture, notes, test, etc...with 25 or 55 or 105 other people with differing ideas you may or may not hear.

Science, math, history, anything else that can be quantified more easily is up for another debate, but I think I will withhold judgment about philosophy. It seems to me that philosophical learning, and definitely application, has to be driven from deep inside. Classroom settings, for me, have always been teacher driven, teacher controlled environments - that would seem to clash with the internal drive I mentioned, at least in some way.

But I could be full of it .

I know philosophy has become more exacting in the last century because of the efforts and example of philosophers like Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein, and those who followed them. What used to pass as philosophical thinking doesn't cut it any longer. And this has come as a shock to some. Whether this has happened all across the board is, I suppose controversial. It may not have because of the baleful and nefarious influence of postmodernists like Derrida, Lancan, and Rorty. They have weakened the social sciences and literature. So you may be right. But, in general, academic philosophy in the English-speaking countries have withstood the postmodernists. Thank goodness. I don't know, though, how postmodernism has affected basket-weaving.

I suppose that a lot of learning has to be driven from "deep inside". Medicine, music, law, physics. But there are important medical schools with large lecture halls. Perhaps some very intelligent person could pick up Kant's First Critique, and with not guidance or background (for instance in Hume) could understand what is going on. I know I tried when I was much younger, and could not make head or tale of it. I can now, though.

I guess we can all go home now, or some where else if you are home already; because institutional philosophy has all the answers...

Does anyone know better??? Because from my perspective, the smallest bit of truth changes the world, so if the big fish have found it all we must be saved and sailing deep water...We are not, which means the profesionals have not got the answers, or they are keeping it to themselves...

I do trust they have managed to transform the gold of common knowledge into the lead of esoterica...

Well, to begin with, you might start with reading the "professionals" , and see whether they have at least some of the answers. I gave some answers to questions Ding an Sich asked about knowledge and belief. Those were answers that I think that professionals in epistemology would give. I suppose that one thing you could do is to read them, and then comment of object to them. I don't mean by verbal hand-waving, but by argument. I suppose I mean, professionally.

...Those guys have been around long enough to have changed the world many times if they had anything meaningful to add...

I have sampled some of the authors you mentioned, but it has been a long time; and perhaps my brain has grown... The point is, which you missed, is that new ideas often have an immediate effect because people are looking so hard for something that works in a world of old ideas that do not work...Those guys have been around long enough to have changed the world many times if they had anything meaningful to add... They did add to the confusion...Hooray for that...

I have sampled some of the authors you mentioned,

Now, that's really weird, because I mentioned no authors. Anyway, I never said they changed the world. I said they changed philosophy.

It is not in ultimate matters where we fail, and where humanity fails, but in immediate matters... We cannot get a single day right...But what does formal teaching on the failures of philosophy add to our potential for dealing with the moment???

I have sampled some of the authors you mentioned,

Now, that's really weird, because I mentioned no authors. Anyway, I never said they changed the world. I said they changed philosophy.

. Some of these philosopher need a philosopher in tow to tell what they are saying...I wouldn't have understood Kant without Hiedegger, but understanding a little was enough to open a whole new world...Some people are obscurantist... They are not talking to the world...

For me, a person who sees the significance of the main idea is to be preferred over a parrot who doesn't see how it all fits together. I agree that Kant is potent, opens many doors. On obscurantism...I do hate it when it's intentional, but sometimes it's either just bad style (an accident, a lack of writerly self-consciousness) or a strange new perspective. I'm not saying that all strange new perspectives are worth seeking out. Many might be comparable to diseases. Surely you've met people for whom philosophy is just way too abstract, and they don't want to hear about it.

We all change the world... Some people only add to the number of people who can kma... And that is still a change... Ideas do not change any minds locked away in books no one reads because they are dense on dense... I have read a lot of physics, and there, for people like myself who are not up on all the symbols or good with math, there is an explanation in simple English to go along with the equasions... Some of these philosopher need a philosopher in tow to tell what they are saying...I wouldn't have understood Kant without Hiedegger, but understanding a little was enough to open a whole new world...Some people are obscurantist... They are not talking to the world...

Maybe they changed the world. I would not know. But they did change philosophy. I know that. And for the better.

How hard would it be to change philosophy for the better??? Sounds like a job for Granny...

Apparently, in the case of some people, it is impossible, since they continue to do philosophy terribly. For examples, look at this forum.

Will Sophia be our Messiah ?

Does she still have lovers, or does she only do it for money now?

To change the world through Philosophy... Will Sophia be our Messiah ? I do hope so, but have no Faith in it. I sometimes doubt I am getting any wiser, just getting older and collecting more questions than answers if I think about it.

Is a Forum not just a Market; here a market of ideas. Some sellers, some buyers but all we do is exchange our ideas. I think the Forum is nice & I learn a lot. Maybe my input comes from a different angle, but I do like to see what Moves people to spend time and effort on this Forum.

Surely you've met people for whom philosophy is just way too abstract, and they don't want to hear about it.

Apparently, in the case of some people, it is impossible, since they continue to do philosophy terribly. For examples, look at this forum.

I don't expect to change the world through philosophy. That was the bizarre suggestion of Fido and others. But, of course, some improvement can be made in people by increasing their skills in critical thinking. Philosophy is, after all, just critical thinking as applied to philosophical issue. And I have found the skill seeps over into dealing with issues other than philosophy. When you have leaned how to think critically and logically in philosophy, you also do that in other areas of life. That can be nothing but improvement. And, there seems to be a lot of room for improvement in this regard. Don't you think so?

---------- Post added 04-17-2010 at 11:30 AM ----------



Well, of course, some philosophy is way too abstract, and I don't blame people for not bothering with it. I myself do not bother with it. Philosophy should always be tied down to examples of whatever abstract principles the philosopher is attempting to advance. And, if the philosopher who is trying to advance these principle seriously attempted to give good examples of what he was saying, he, himself, might discover that those principles were not nearly as worth espousing as he first thought, and not miss a golden opportunity to be silent. A good example of this would certainly be Hegel and the German idealists who trod in his footsteps.

It was, after all, Kant, who wrote that example are the go-cart of the intellect.

It should be noted that analytic philosophy is regularly written in with many examples. And, of course, Socrates was famous for his examples when he did philosophy.