Motives for philosophical study

[Norsemaiden]

If, as Speed claims in the thread "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". "Jean Paul Sartre has said that all of French Existentialism is to be found in Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted" and I conclude from this that French Existentialism is therefore based on a ridiculous concept, then I certainly see no point in studying French Existentialism other than to ensure that it really is so primitive, or to ponder the thought processes of the philosophers that wrote it.

Would you read through a lot of philosophy that you consider to be based on mistaken ideas and which has no practical value to you? Or when you read philosophy are you specifically looking for insights into ideas that can better help you to understand aspects of life?

 

[speed]

If, as Speed claims in the thread "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". "Jean Paul Sartre has said that all of French Existentialism is to be found in Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted" and I conclude from this that French Existentialism is therefore based on a ridiculous concept, then I certainly see no point in studying French Existentialism other than to ensure that it really is so primitive, or to ponder the thought processes of the philosophers that wrote it.

Would you read through a lot of philosophy that you consider to be based on mistaken ideas and which has no practical value to you? Or when you read philosophy are you specifically looking for insights into ideas that can better help you to understand aspects of life?

There are alot of bad and erroneous ideas in philosophy and on this board; my dabbling philosophy included.

 

[charles_dexter_ward]

Hmm... well unfortunately, a lot of the works of philosophy which appeal to me tend to espouse criticisms of earlier philosophers who don't especially interest me, and having background in those less appealing philosophers allows me to understand and appreciate the good stuff more.

Moreover, philosophers are so often misrepresented that I don't feel it's wise to ignore certain philosophers based on one or two potentially biased opinions or contextless quotes - it's a good idea to at least look into said philosophers to an extent. It should also be taken into account that a lot of generally useless philosophers can have the odd brainwave which by itself makes their work worth delving into.

Still, at the end of the day, of course I'm not going to read philosophy that I know for a fact isn't going to have a positive impact on my mind or my life - I can't imagine anyone who would, save maybe somebody approaching philosophy for non-philosophical reasons (a historian or translator maybe?).

 

[OldScratch]

In a word, no...I would not and do not. I am not formally schooled in philosophy and honestly have no pressing desire to be. Perhaps, because I have no acedemic training in the subject I am naturally more selective (some may say arbitrary) in my reading. I have read through several general introduction-type philosophy tomes, which to a fair degree aid me in pursuing what interests me and leaving that with which I am relatively certain I will glean nothing from alone. I have also used the recommended reading list here and various forum discussions as references as well.
I suppose I am not ultimately seeking hidden truths or deeper meanings, penumbras and the like. Which probably explains why much of the more abstract material discussed here either sails over my humble head or just doesn't interest me at all.
The value I find in philosophy is exploring thought from a scientific or structured, meaningful perspective. I find that philosophy goes a long way toward helping to explain what makes us "tick," what motivates us, what we fear, what we love and indeed what we despise. (far more so than a bunch of psychological gibberish ever appealed to me)
I enjoy political philosophy, the ethical discussions, the dissection and evaluation of morality and so forth.
I am not, at this point, nearly as concerned with why we think, so much as what we think. I am more inclined to accept existence as a given, a jumping- off point, and am much more interested in how philosophy can help us make what we have better, make what we feel deeper or simply to show us how to enjoy the aesthetic beauty of life, art, etc.
Perhaps, as I go and as I learn more this will change - but that is where I am now. Hope I haven't overexplained this...

 

[Narziss]

Would you read through a lot of philosophy that you consider to be based on mistaken ideas and which has no practical value to you? Or when you read philosophy are you specifically looking for insights into ideas that can better help you to understand aspects of life?

Dear Norsemaiden,

No serious thinker is ever fully wrong, even if she proposes a radical thesis. Even those who are badly mistaken remain human, and will often be found to be making strong errors that teach something in a way that mere gorgeously glib truth cannot. A nickel buried in the birthday cake teaches a child more than does another layer of frosting.

That which one despises, fears, ridicules, and is horrified by is exactly what one should pursue!

Narziss

 

[Έρεβος]

I think studying them is fine, but of course not following them. There are right and wrongs in philosophy, based on the rationality of the concept. Though, you can learn alot from an entirely irrational philosophy. Studying doesn't mean having a desire to follow, but rather to learn and understand the philosophy; hence understanding further why those philosophies you find to be of meaning, are of meaning, and why/how those that are not, are irrational.

Such as . . . I've studied the Judeo-christian philosophy extensively, a very flawed and irrational philosophy. By doing so, I've learned further how to counter it with real logic and reasoning, learned why people are so attracted to it--how they are so tricked into it, and learned a bit of what real logic and reasoning is. Something like teaching a lesson by teaching "what not to do."

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think studying them is fine, but of course not following them. There are right and wrongs in philosophy, based on the rationality of the concept. Though, you can learn alot from an entirely irrational philosophy. Studying doesn't mean having a desire to follow, but rather to learn and understand the philosophy; hence understanding further why those philosophies you find to be of meaning, are of meaning, and why/how those that are not, are irrational.

Such as . . . I've studied the Judeo-christian philosophy extensively, a very flawed and irrational philosophy. By doing so, I've learned further how to counter it with real logic and reasoning, learned why people are so attracted to it--how they are so tricked into it, and learned a bit of what real logic and reasoning is. Something like teaching a lesson by teaching "what not to do."

Agreed. Especially that last paragraph is very sensible. I too have studied the Bible, more to understand how to counter those who advocate it than for any other reason - although originally I was actively trying to see the merit in it.

Naziis is right that one shouldn't shun ideas one finds frightening. I wouldn't call French existentialism frightening though.

There is philosophy in more places than just in philosophy books of course, and it could be that there is more likely to be a gem of philosophical insight in any random fictitious novel than in French existentialism. One doesn't generally find French Existientialism challenging the notion of natural selection or disputing the age of fossils - so there is less reason to fear such a philosophy than there is to fear one that could seriously negatively impact on you. There is so much to read and absorb in life, one has to try and prioritise, which means dismissing some things that seem to be boring, annoying, inaccurate and irrelevant. The only danger with that is of missing something that would have been valuable by having a prejudiced disinterest in it. Probably a cursory glance at a book is enough to tell you if it is utter rubbish. Finding out that much philosophy is nonsense is interesting in itself. It puts the perception of "great minds" in some perspective.

 

[OldScratch]

I think studying them is fine, but of course not following them. There are right and wrongs in philosophy, based on the rationality of the concept. Though, you can learn alot from an entirely irrational philosophy. Studying doesn't mean having a desire to follow, but rather to learn and understand the philosophy; hence understanding further why those philosophies you find to be of meaning, are of meaning, and why/how those that are not, are irrational.

Such as . . . I've studied the Judeo-christian philosophy extensively, a very flawed and irrational philosophy. By doing so, I've learned further how to counter it with real logic and reasoning, learned why people are so attracted to it--how they are so tricked into it, and learned a bit of what real logic and reasoning is. Something like teaching a lesson by teaching "what not to do."

I should like to add this sentiment to my original above. One may indeed have to explore a lot that they will ultimately reject personally, or simply to take from it wisdom of the opposing, or conflicting position, etc. It took me many years and no small amount of flip-flopping and "soul-searching" to reach my ideological "comfort-zone" today. I should have explained that better myself.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Would you read through a lot of philosophy that you consider to be based on mistaken ideas and which has no practical value to you?

No, which is exactly the reason why I only skim through your comments instead of actually reading them. With comments like this:

A lot of skinheads really hate metal heads with long hair (men anyway). Shaving off ones hair like that disguises one's ethnicity, as one can tell so much about one's genes from one's natural hair type. Women don't fancy a skin head like they do if the man has long hair either. - Norsemaiden

Why would anyone bother taking you seriously or think you're correct? Maybe you just live in some backwoods dump where the average intelligence equals that of, say, donkeys.

 

[Horus]

There can be several motives for studying Philosophy, or any study for that matter. One could be compelled to look into philosophy to find answers for themselves that religion cannot provide for them. Another may have decided to study Philosophy, because it simply sparks their interest. There may also be the occasional person who engages in Philosophy to create for themselves an escape from the mass social mentality that most philosophers and followers of philosophers see as vain, cynical, or any of the other fun cliches that we like to use to describe people who prefer not to engage in this study.

Personally, I prefer to engage in Philosophy because it helps me construct for myself a logical explanation as to how the human mind works. I think that Philosophy, in combination with Psychology, Sociology and other studies of similar sorts are ways for us to unlock the hidden parts of our own minds which dictate our natural instincts.

In all honesty though, I prefer to think that whatever prevents a person to engage in Philosophy is not really what's important, so much as the fact that the person has actually decided to put enthusiasm into as intense of a subject as this. Unless of course, a person is saying that they're interested in Philosophy only for the purpose of sounding smarter than they actually are. Then that's just a bastardization of the study as a whole.

 

[Norsemaiden]

No, which is exactly the reason why I only skim through your comments instead of actually reading them. With comments like this:

Why would anyone bother taking you seriously or think you're correct? Maybe you just live in some backwoods dump where the average intelligence equals that of, say, donkeys.

That was posted on an entirely trivial thread that was all about hair length. I laugh at your irrational hatred
But more humerous still is how you remember one of my most trivial posts from a long time ago, so familiar are you with all I have ever said (ha!) and pull out this quote in a failed attempt to insult me. On the contrary, I am flattered.

 

[Nile577]

Interesting question.

If, as Speed claims in the thread "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". "Jean Paul Sartre has said that all of French Existentialism is to be found in Ivan Karamazov's contention that if there is no God, everything is permitted" and I conclude from this that French Existentialism is therefore based on a ridiculous concept, then I certainly see no point in studying French Existentialism other than to ensure that it really is so primitive, or to ponder the thought processes of the philosophers that wrote it.

To address this first: It irks me a bit to see French existentialism termed 'primitive.' Sartre's Being and Nothingness is filled with exquisitely subtle thought and offers an extremely complex and often profound analysis of Being-In-The-World.

No, you will not find him challenging the age of fossils. For him they very much exist. Sartre misreads Heidegger (Dreyfus calls it a 'brilliant misunderstanding', or something similar) by proposing that Dasein is a subject (for-itself). Sartre's subject exists in a world of in-itself things, which it can either reveal in accordance with its projects, or be determined by (causing nausea). For Sartre there is no God, so we exist in a world in which we must determine our own values. Heidegger thought values were determined publicly but Sartre thought they could be determined individually. He takes Heidegger's idea of thrownness to suggest that we are thrust into the world, awaking to existence without having asked for it.

Sartre also has a Hegelian influence in his conception of consciousness. Consciousness reflects upon itself. If consciousness thinks "I am happy", the part that reflects is not itself happy. In this way consciousness is free of its past facticity. It looks back upon its past but ISN'T its past: it can determine its past to mean whatever it wants. Therefore Sartre opposes the death penalty because consciousness is never its past.

Would you read through a lot of philosophy that you consider to be based on mistaken ideas and which has no practical value to you? Or when you read philosophy are you specifically looking for insights into ideas that can better help you to understand aspects of life?

While I think, as Schopenhauer recognized, reading should be quite a selective process and certainly should not replace individual thought, I think there is often as much value to be gained by reading something you disagree with as with something you passionately avow. Rather than being indiscriminately didactic, I believe that when you read the experience should be a dialogue between yourself and another person's mind. If the mind is great, within the scope of this dialogue your ideas may be affirmed, rejected or recast. How do we determine a great book? We must be cautious, but personally I find that, generally, what has been elected worthy by past thinkers and people of intelligence, independently of their beliefs, is worthwhile reading. More obscure things may also be of worth - I am reminded of Benjamin searching for the Goethean 'urphanomen' (that single thing from which all else can be understood) in forgotten fragments, understanding an epoch from a discarded children's book or an old, faded newspaper advertisement.

 

[Nile577]

Why would anyone bother taking you seriously or think you're correct? Maybe you just live in some backwoods dump where the average intelligence equals that of, say, donkeys.

Please do not indulge in ad hominem. I understand you may disagree violently and, for the purposes of this board, it is acceptable to hold another's view in scornful contempt. However, please try and limit the unnecessary personal insults.

 

[speed]

Thats a very nice post on Sartre, and yes, as I know Ive discussed before, his Marxism is deplorable. I enjoy Marx's evolutionary economics, but his sociological/class distinctions and his actual understanding of economic concepts like labor and money, which he based on Ricardo, were wrong in the 1840's, and laughable today. Not to mention Marx is such a thoroughly middle class thinker and in many ways, ardent admirer and lover of capitalism, and Sartre despised the bourgeois and capitalism so much--which mistakenly bought him to Marx.

 

[Øjeblikket]

nevermind.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Thank you Nile for your illuminating post. The point I particularly agree with is that it is worth reading something that many other people have found worthy. Maybe not if it is top of the list of current best-sellers, but if it is a classic work.

I have just read what someone else has written summarising Sartre, and it seems that there are some good nihilist points made in Sartre that are not purely negative nor really suggesting that God not existing is a licence for an abandonment of morality - or that everything is permitted.

Isn't Sartre's idea more that since there is no God, man's essence or nature comes not from a Creator but from his own free choice? And that there could be no human freedom or dignity were there a God?

It seems more like an argument that if God exists there can be no morality, because morality is only meaningful when there is freedom to choose how to behave. That is sensible. Except the snag is, that Christians believe God gave us freedom of choice, to decide whether to be good or not. So the whole argument falls through in that case.

 

[Blowtus]

I am interested in philosophy, because I like to understand. Reading that which I find makes little or no sense, is difficult and unrewarding. I can see the potential understanding to be gleaned from these works if they have had substatial influence on humanity - but in general I am finding my net 'understanding' at present to increase more rapidly with time spent on works that make sense to me. I would much rather read what I find to be a valid summary and critique of a work I think (or think likely to be) invalid, than I would the work itself...