Hmm... good question. You may have used some words that they don't understand. One thing that is important is to start where they are, not where you expect them to be. Most of us were raised to believe in what our parents believe and that's just the way it is. So using examples that they can relate to, to make your point would be much better than complicated semantics can describe. Start where they are. Keep it simple and don't over complicate it with terminology that loses people.

Very few people I hang out with are interested in Philosophy. It's a shame.

Hi Holiday20310401, I would like to say that such discussins are not tolerated in schools 99% of the time. Not even when studying philosophy. Even at times the intent of the teachers may be to stimulate discussion, a lack of time due to very few college hours forbids it. At tests one cannot answer truthfully because tests require the repetition of the teachers words so all that is left is you and a textbook. I have often witnessed classmates of mine with a very good understanding of the subjects flunking while others, witless of the deeper meenings, passed with flying colors because they merely repeated words. In that sense thinking is not promoted in schools, indoctrination is.

I have personally come to be very skeptic of schools because of such workings. It appears as if one is rewarded for saying the wrong things; just as in life corruption is rewarded with high offices. School does prove to be a good training for that though.

... it's almost as if it takes a certain personality type/mentality to "get into" the mindset that philosophy is. I had a friend who referred to philosophy as (if you'll excuse the term) 'mental masturbation'. It's almost as if either you're interested, or you're not; like something that can't be learned, a taste that isn't acquired.

I wish more did... what I wouldn't give to have folks in my area who wouldn't mind getting together every once in a while to bat around such topics (beer involved, of course) *sigh*

I would like to add that in the end the only one you are fooling is yourself. When people do not want to analyse their own intents and actions, they never will. No matter what package you put it in. There are very good reasons for that, all have to do with utilisation of things; a.k.a. "goals". People who do not want to analyse themselves (and because of that do not want to accurately analyse the world) are always involved in hypothetical reasonngs to better themselves.

Well, I am now crossing over to ethics I think...

Suffice to say there is a hypothetical way of doing things and a categorical way of doing things. Inmy opinion philosophers are more inclined to the categorical and the rest are more inclined to the hypothetical.. or at least that is the difference you are referring to. Unfortunately there are many people "labelled" philosopher who are really not because they are doing things in a hypothetical way. Those people are really sofists I think.

With something like three thousand years of philosopy in print of which all cannot be considered great, how has life survived. I did like the term "mental masturbation", because that is what it is but comedy is the same, in its own profane way. Television and reading fiction are no different.

Maybe I view Plato, not in the terms of a great mind whose wisdom and tale, changed the way we think but as the man who convinced us we could think for ourselves once we knew how. Plato is not the man who orated, "The Republic". Plato is the person who in your life convinces you to challenge yourself. A good friend can convince you to face the fear of heights by BASE jumping. Just like a rafter, kyacker who shoots the rapids. He does not necessarily pick the easiest path, rather that which will challenge the most. The rocks, the rips and maelstroms are the dangers they face and also the challenge.
I often struggled in class, not because I couldn't understand the topic but that I simply reduce themes into a layman's rhetoric. It is a funny look on the face of a learned reader, when I could reduce Plato to a doped up petrol head in an analogy.

Well said. Aristotle has a good spiel on knowledge and wisdom in Metaphysics alpha where he praises others that came before him like Homer and Hesiod because even though they were wrong in their theory, they thought in an abstract way that Aristotle cherished and utilized. But thats to say that Aristotle was right about his theories as well.

I also appreciate your emphasis on simplicity and abstract reduction. I said it in my very first post on philosophy forum, which is that stupid people use big words to make themselves sound smart. It is truly cogent to reduce suppositions posited within your particular normative framework. LOL!

I to have tried this at my school. I discussed stuff like "what are we really?" and "I think everything is connected" nobody can follow. I wonder how many people can philosophically think like this. I think they should make it a subject in school.:rolleyes:

Well, most those things you mention are personal hypotheticals. Though they make sense to you, they would not make much sense to anybody else if they were not inclined to think the way you do and have the knowledge that you have.

I think in those instances, you have to "bring yourself down" to their level and work your way back up to the abstract level. I have found a few people on this very forum who, though they post on a philosophical forum, resist abstract thinking.

But I think everybody thinks abstractly in their own different ways. The tough part is trying to make everyone's relative abstract processes sync together.

As to philosophy in school, they really should. To tell the truth, an education a hundred years ago was not complete unless you were adequately versed in philosophy.

Very True. I have all of these theories but i just need to find that ability to sync it with people. The only responses i get on sites are scientific, but that is itself man made. I want to think beyond that but i guess not alot of people can :brickwall:. Sometimes it makes me feel like the stupid one.

Whatiseverything,Gulliver's Travels

Thank you. See our thought path aren't completely similar but you understand my way of thinking. You see that you don't need to understand everything I'm saying you just understand what I'm getting at. Some people think philosophy is the study of ancient idealists but it is actually being an idealist yourself. Thinking of life, the world, the universe and everything else in a whole new perspective. It seems you understand that. It annoys me when people can only think and talk about what they've learned from books.:shifty: Yet you have to admit. Thinking like this is... i guess the word would be mind blowing.

Formal and informal logic should be taught at as early a stage as is practical, as it sharpens one's ability to think correctly and critically.
Perhaps at a later stage, one should be allowed to read literature that has a philosophical ground or presents what one would call philosophical questions. Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies comes to mind.
Since much of the modern world has been influenced, particularly in ethics and politics, by the great philosophers, it seems that some acquaintance with their writings is a part of a sound education. For those with an interest or an aptitude for the discipline of philosophy, one can investigate the many courses most universities provide where it can be studied more intensely.

Unfortunately Lord of the Flies is in the curriculum I have, for grade ten. It does have some philosophical implications but really, it was such a boring and complete waste of my time.

There are way better books, and maybe students would actually read more if they were introduced to modern books in the curriculum instead of the 75 year old book that since they have no philosophical grounds, can find no relation or interest to.

I regret reading all the books throughout school as a waste of time except for the shakespeare, and 1984. Why not have us read asimov or something. Or maybe a recent book, like a just published this year kinda book.