What do you think of other members in this forum?

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;165488 wrote:

I am 20, I do not yet have a college degree, I do not go to a top university and I am largely self taught.

I would never have thought so! You have my respect, sir. I would have guessed you were 30 and degree-stained. This comes from another largely self-taught education-addict.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;165847 wrote:

I would never have thought so! You have my respect, sir. I would have guessed you were 30 and degree-stained. This comes from another largely self-taught education-addict.

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165851 wrote:

Not promising.

(But at least it is not a 'denial' of self or education.)
(what is the correct opposite of promising?)

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165851 wrote:

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

Well, it's more promising than not learning anything at all, wouldn't you say?

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;165856 wrote:

(But at least it is not a 'denial' of self or education.)
(what is the correct opposite of promising?)

I think you mean, "at most", not, "at least". "Not promising" is, I suppose, the opposite of promising.

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 05:29 PM ----------

Zetherin;165857 wrote:

Well, it's more promising than not learning anything at all, wouldn't you say?

No. There is such a thing as disinformation. With some teachers, you know less than you did before. Suppose that someone like Derrida or Heidegger, or Rorty, was your teacher. You would end up more ignorant than you began. And certainly stupider.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165858 wrote:

No. There is such a thing as disinformation. With some teachers, you know less than you did before. Suppose that someone like Derrida or Heidegger was your teacher. You would end up more ignorant than you began.

Yes, that is a good point. However, I still find that I am able to learn things of substance even when I read on my own. I of course learn more with the help of a good teacher, but when I don't have a good teacher, I don't see how that means I cannot learn at all.

@platorepublic,

I think a good teacher helps speed up the process of learning things of substance, but they cannot replace the frustration and enlightenment that is possible through self-discovery. It may not be efficient, but it can be very effective.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165858 wrote:

I think you mean, "at most", not, "at least". "Not promising" is, I suppose, the opposite of promising.

No I will stick with 'at least' because there is always more to come.
'At most' kills it.
But never mind this is coming form another self learner learning self.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;165862 wrote:

Yes, that is a good point. However, I still find that I am able to learn things of substance even when I read on my own. I of course learn more with the help of a good teacher, but when I don't have a good teacher, I don't see how that means I cannot learn at all.

It doesn't mean that at all. But if you are stupid, then what you are likely to teach yourself will be stupid. There are clear examples of that on this forum,

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165851 wrote:

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

Depends on what you mean. Autodidaction is also what I do when I read stuff you recommend that I read. It all depends on what help one uses. It doesn't have to involve other humans. For instance, there is a large difference between someone sitting down by a chess board and speculates about good moves based on his experience, and between something that reads chess theory.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;165865 wrote:

I think a good teacher helps speed up the process of learning things of substance, but they cannot replace the frustration and enlightenment that is possible through self-discovery. It may not be efficient, but it can be very effective.

Only, if you are self-taught, how do you check on whether what you taught yourself is correct? There is such a thing as a fool's paradise. Again, I point to certain posters who are always in error, but never in doubt.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165871 wrote:

Only, if you are self-taught, how do you check on whether what you taught yourself is correct? There is such a thing as a fool's paradise. Again, I point to certain posters who are always in error, but never in doubt.

the exact same sentiment can be said of some who were classically schooled in academic arenas. It really depends on the individual in question more than anything else and their respect and commitment to the pursuit.

Having a teacher can certainly help focus and gear your studies in a better direction because, at times, it can be difficult to sift through all the exists in the world in terms of information, and having the helping hand on someone who has 'been there' can be a big advantage but is in no way a necessary requirement.

@Amperage,

Amperage;165873 wrote:

the exact same sentiment can be said of some who were classically schooled in academic arenas. It really depends on the individual in question more than anything else and their respect and commitment to the pursuit.

I don't think the same can be said of those who went to good places, and were diligent. Why do you think it can? Of course it partly depends on the individual. That is why I added the term, "diligent". But, everything being equal, or ceterus paribus, it is not reasonable to deny that being well-educated, and going to good schools, is better than not doing so. After all, just because something is possible, it does not follow that it is probable.What people sometimes do not realize (maybe because they do not want to realize it) is that the ability to think well is largely the result of training as well as natural ability. Thinking is a skill, and natural ability can take you only just so far. It is an unpleasant truth, but nevertheless a truth. Again, read some posts on this board.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165878 wrote:

I don't think the same can be said of those who went good places, and were diligent. Why do you think it can? Of course it partly depends on the individual. That is why I added the term, "diligent". But, everything being equal, or ceterus paribus, it is not reasonable to deny that being well-educated, and going to good schools, is better than not doing so. After all, just because something is possible, it does not follow that it is probable.

I'm merely stating it goes both ways. There are those who have mastered the art of 'school'. They can cram information or even cheat to bypass actually learning anything only to dump all that information from their brains so that they can prepare for the next test.

As I said, it comes down more to the individual than the school they attended. A diligent, self-taught individual has the potential to do just as great of things as anyone in any other situation might have. Now obviously there are certain things that require accreditation but accreditation does not make the individual what he is; the individual in question did that.

@platorepublic,

Those individuals who want to think outside the box - for example, anyone who suspects that mainstream society is in many ways pursuing a path which leads to the eventual destruction of the environment, or which fosters corporate greed and exploitation - are often required to be self-taught, so as to avoid being propogandized by the establishment. And they discover things of real value, but the establishment thinkers will usually regard them, rightly, as mavericks or subversives.

@reasoning logic,

kennethamy;165784 wrote:

It looks as if drought is in the throat of the perceiver.

Zetetic11235;165488 wrote:

I often become disenchanted with the forum, I think that it goes through intellectual droughts from time to time. That is, there are times I feel that none of the topics pique my interest and the topics I bring up are not generating discussion (or I simply have nothing of my own to add, so I am having my own intellectual drought); but I think this is quite normal.

I understand you like to be quick to wit, but try making sure it's actually witty before you say it. Coincidentally, ad hominem is technically on topic for this thread.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165871 wrote:

Only, if you are self-taught, how do you check on whether what you taught yourself is correct? There is such a thing as a fool's paradise. Again, I point to certain posters who are always in error, but never in doubt.

I understand what you are saying, but I could also be in fool's paradise because I was taught by one of the supposedly excellent philosophy departments in the country for non-PhD granting institutions (thus, a better place for undergraduates to attend). Did I really learn anything correct when it can be questioned whether some of my professors were correct in matters of debate? They could have been indoctrinated into some sort of error. Being taught by professors can indoctrinate error quite easily that passes on through time.

Why is it so important to be correct anyway? In time of self-discovered error, much learning can happen that will correct former errors.

@Emil,

Reconstructo;165847 wrote:

I would never have thought so! You have my respect, sir. I would have guessed you were 30 and degree-stained. This comes from another largely self-taught education-addict.

I don't know if 'self' taught is totally apt; I engage in a good bit of interaction with friends (fellow students and some professors) outside of my courses. I use the framework of knowledge I built in my self study to apply to my traditional studies and vice versa. So when I read a text on theoretical computer science, I have basic traditional grounding it the subject, though I am teaching myself the details (which comprise the vast bulk of it).

kennethamy;165851 wrote:

Self-taught is being taught by a teacher who knows no more than the pupil. Not promising.

Every academic and scientific professional I've heard of or met has had to teach himself to keep up to date. I suppose it would be more reasonable to say that a total neophyte would struggle more with his misconceptions than a veteran.

@platorepublic,

Self-education means tackling difficult books with your own mind, on your own time. You don't do it for some scrap of paper, or Teacher's admiring looks. I can only despise the small souls who speak against this beautiful process. I like being friendly but an attack on reading and thinking deserves to be called out for the pretentious nastiness it obviously is. Get a life, a mind, a passion for ideas. Is it more pity or disgust I feel? Who with half a testicle wastes their free time on a philosophy forum condemning the pursuit of knowledge? "Look at me! Over here! I'm educated!" As if we are going to prove ourselves that way...repeating little mantras, still looking to other human beings as authorities. Get off your knees! And stop forcing your idolatrous grime on others.

Sure, I mention the philosophers who have inspired me because I love them, and I love their phrases. But it's not about the g.d. person. It's about the ideas. The person is the background of the ideas and part of the reality the ideas treat of/are. Life before text. Text before criticism. Truth before trinkets.

@platorepublic,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Every academic and scientific professional I've heard of or met has had to teach himself to keep up to date. I suppose it would be more reasonable to say that a total neophyte would struggle more with his misconceptions than a veteran.

Yes, that does sound more reasonable.

Philosophy Forum

What do you think of other members in this forum?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know