What makes a good philosopher?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:44 pm
@Lily,
Lily;131158 wrote:
I don't know. I don't think I can answer that question. Maybe you have to know certain things to be able to make assumptions..


You certainly have to know things to doubt other things, otherwise, you have no basis for doubt. There certainly are fake philosophers, but I don't think that is because they know things.
 
Dosed
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 05:40 pm
@hue-man,
On a light note, I have a professor who says, "Ya wanna be a philosopher that people still talk about 500 years from now? Ask questions that a five year old would ask."
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 03:27 am
@Dosed,
Dosed.;131203 wrote:
On a light note, I have a professor who says, "Ya wanna be a philosopher that people still talk about 500 years from now? Ask questions that a five year old would ask."
More poetry than substance ^^

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:37 AM ----------

Lily;131034 wrote:
It's a funny thing, we are philosophers because we are humans, but maybe we can't be real philosophers because we are only humans
Imo there's no such thing as a "real philosopher" there's rangeing from really good or really bad. Imo it's heavily dependant on which principles you found your principles on.

Some philosophers may have a high endulgence value, but rarely produce anything contructive ..I'm sorta the opposit.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 06:32 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;138191 wrote:
More poetry than substance ^^

---------- Post added 03-10-2010 at 10:37 AM ----------

Imo there's no such thing as a "real philosopher" there's rangeing from really good or really bad. Imo it's heavily dependant on which principles you found your principles on.

Some philosophers may have a high endulgence value, but rarely produce anything contructive ..I'm sorta the opposit.


Founding principles upon principles? That's what real philosophers do? Can you say more?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 08:38 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138457 wrote:
Founding principles upon principles? That's what real philosophers do? Can you say more?
If a philosopher founds philosophy principles upon people being "good" or "bad" it clearly screams of stupidity, since that person wouldn't take account for even the most basic of psycology, and worse ..being utterly naive.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:08 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;138495 wrote:
If a philosopher founds philosophy principles upon people being "good" or "bad" it clearly screams of stupidity, since that person wouldn't take account for even the most basic of psycology, and worse ..being utterly naive.


Thanks for expanding on this. I think I understand what you mean.

Does basic psychology, in your sense, consist of certain principles, principles that are the necessary groundwork for anything else? If so, does that make the good philosopher the good (basic) psychologist?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 09:45 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138501 wrote:
Thanks for expanding on this. I think I understand what you mean.

Does basic psychology, in your sense, consist of certain principles, principles that are the necessary groundwork for anything else? If so, does that make the good philosopher the good (basic) psychologist?
Psycology can clarify many things, such as "group think" YouTube - Crowd Psychology & Manipulation 1 of 24

To be a good psycologist does not need the premesis of being a good philosopher.

There are many "good" philosophers around, they know like a million times more of philosophy than I (I honest never really read any philosophy ..I'm self taught) ..but these philosophers rarely produce anything than navel gazing wordplay.

Some of the premisis of being good at something, is the usual:

- dedication
- being able to take critique
- being able to give critieue
- hvae guts, take the beating of being wrong, never be afraid
- being able to think the full spectre of things (this requires very high IQ/RQ)
- selfanalyze, what you can do better/different
- never give in to group presser, but give in to reason
- NEVER be ruled by emotion
- all that glitter isn't always gold.
- don't be naive, just because some dude got a PHD, got 20 years in his field and are highly regarded by everyone ..he can still be utterly wrong.
The same goes for you!
- be qurious, when that vain you will not learn, and you must always learn and improve youself.

..etc..etc ..too much to write! :BRB:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:27 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138501 wrote:
Thanks for expanding on this. I think I understand what you mean.

Does basic psychology, in your sense, consist of certain principles, principles that are the necessary groundwork for anything else? If so, does that make the good philosopher the good (basic) psychologist?


I studied both as an undergrad, and the answer is, it depends very heavily on which school of psychology is asked the question.

Most of them would strongly differentiate psych and philosophy, and in fact I failed my first Psych essay by being 'too philosophical'. The schools that fancy themselves as being scientific, in particular, wouldn't touch philosophy with a barge pole.

All of that said, one wonderful author that I would strongly recommend is William James. He wrote the Principles of Psychology, which is not really very influential in modern psych, but also wrote a lot of philosophy and comparative religion. They were the good ol' days. They don't write 'em like that anymore.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2010 10:29 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;138519 wrote:
I studied both as an undergrad, and the answer is, it depends very heavily on which school of psychology is asked the question.

Most of them would strongly differentiate psych and philosophy, and in fact I failed my first Psych essay by being 'too philosophical'. The schools that fancy themselves as being scientific, in particular, wouldn't touch philosophy with a barge pole.

All of that said, one wonderful author that I would strongly recommend is William James. He wrote the Principles of Psychology, which is not really very influential in modern psych, but also wrote a lot of philosophy and comparative religion. They were the good ol' days. They don't write 'em like that anymore.
Uh yes, allow me to add, that Freud is considerd severly outdated, but still he got alot down right.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 10:25 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;138519 wrote:
I studied both as an undergrad, and the answer is, it depends very heavily on which school of psychology is asked the question.

Most of them would strongly differentiate psych and philosophy, and in fact I failed my first Psych essay by being 'too philosophical'. The schools that fancy themselves as being scientific, in particular, wouldn't touch philosophy with a barge pole.

All of that said, one wonderful author that I would strongly recommend is William James. He wrote the Principles of Psychology, which is not really very influential in modern psych, but also wrote a lot of philosophy and comparative religion. They were the good ol' days. They don't write 'em like that anymore.


I wonder how many people have failed essays for the reason you failed yours - being too philosophical. Most teachers would likely not know what to do with a real live philosopher. How did you adjust in order not to keep failing (if you did)?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 10:34 am
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138623 wrote:
I wonder how many people have failed essays for the reason you failed yours - being too philosophical. Most teachers would likely not know what to do with a real live philosopher. How did you adjust in order not to keep failing (if you did)?
Please allow me to ask what you value such about philosophers/philosophy?
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 01:24 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;138624 wrote:
Please allow me to ask what you value such about philosophers/philosophy?


Philosophy is, in part, the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge. I value that.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 02:13 pm
@hue-man,
I passed my degree studies, and psychology, in the end, in fact later I got a High Distinction for a psych essay on Altered States of Consciousness (comment: very brave!) My interests really lie elsewhere and I majored in Comparative Religion. I never fitted into any of the departments neatly, and still don't, but if I return to finish my postgrad degree it will be in Dept of Studies in Religion.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 02:39 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;138683 wrote:
I passed my degree studies, and psychology, in the end, in fact later I got a High Distinction for a psych essay on Altered States of Consciousness (comment: very brave!) My interests really lie elsewhere and I majored in Comparative Religion. I never fitted into any of the departments neatly, and still don't, but if I return to finish my postgrad degree it will be in Dept of Studies in Religion.


You've had an interesting path. What adjustment did you make to go from failing to high distinction?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 03:04 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138672 wrote:
Philosophy is, in part, the attempt to replace opinion with knowledge. I value that.
Thought that was sience.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:01 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;138699 wrote:
Thought that was sience.


I think that philosophy and science, in the older and broader understanding of them, are nearly identical.
 
pondfish
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 04:37 pm
@hue-man,
A good CONMAN make good philosopher.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:25 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138691 wrote:
You've had an interesting path. What adjustment did you make to go from failing to high distinction?


It's a looong story. I entered University as what was then called a Mature Age Student - I was in my late 20's. I had some, how shall we say, spiritual experiences in the 60's and was trying to create an intellectual framework for them. Strangely (or perhaps not!) the entrance exam for my year consisted of a long comprehension test, the subject of which was Bertrand Russell's brilliant Mysticism and Logic. This more or less set the course for me. I studied Philosophy, Psychology, Comparative Religion, Anthropology and History. But generally I was, and am, self-taught. Nobody at uni was really the least interested in, or knowledgeable about, what I wanted to understand, but I found pieces here and there and synthesized my own answer. It is actually very close to theosophy - not the society of that name, but in the sense of spiritual philosophy based on mystical insight.

So sometimes I got high marks, sometimes not, but I finished with a Honours Degree in Religious Studies for a thesis in American Transcendentalism. And I am still studying to this day, but my interests are tangential to philosophy as it is now understood.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:12 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;138753 wrote:
It's a looong story. I entered University as what was then called a Mature Age Student - I was in my late 20's. I had some, how shall we say, spiritual experiences in the 60's and was trying to create an intellectual framework for them. Strangely (or perhaps not!) the entrance exam for my year consisted of a long comprehension test, the subject of which was Bertrand Russell's brilliant Mysticism and Logic. This more or less set the course for me. I studied Philosophy, Psychology, Comparative Religion, Anthropology and History. But generally I was, and am, self-taught. Nobody at uni was really the least interested in, or knowledgeable about, what I wanted to understand, but I found pieces here and there and synthesized my own answer. It is actually very close to theosophy - not the society of that name, but in the sense of spiritual philosophy based on mystical insight.

So sometimes I got high marks, sometimes not, but I finished with a Honours Degree in Religious Studies for a thesis in American Transcendentalism. And I am still studying to this day, but my interests are tangential to philosophy as it is now understood.


Thanks for filling us in. It sounds like you made a good experience for yourself.

I'm still wondering how you made the change from being "too philosophical." I'm trying to imagine the scene in which your professor told you that. One might think he would encourage you instead of giving you a bad grade.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 07:13 PM ----------

pondfish;138731 wrote:
A good CONMAN make good philosopher.


Are you a good philosopher, Mr. Pondfish?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:51 pm
@PappasNick,
PappasNick;138767 wrote:
I'm still wondering how you made the change from being "too philosophical." I'm trying to imagine the scene in which your professor told you that. One might think he would encourage you instead of giving you a bad grade.


Actually it was pretty open-and-shut. The question was about IQ testing methodolgy. It was the first Uni essay I actually attempted. But instead of writing up the pros and cons of the various methods we had read about I wrote an essay on whether intelligence was something that could be tested. The comment simply was 'F - Wrong department'. So I went and asked the lecturer and she said that I simply didn't answer the question. And I hadn't - so really I had no leg to stand on, I realised. But I passed the rest of the year, so I put it down to a learning experience.

I remained very combative about behaviourism, positivism, or whatever I diagnosed as 'philosophical materialism', but I generally did OK after that. I don't think I failed anything else but I had a few heated debates.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 03:41:45