Should Philosophy be Required?

[Pull The Plug]

You don't need to be taught how to think and question, it comes naturally to your mind.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I think philosophy should at least be taught in a basic understanding of how some of the social and political ideas are formed. I think it is important for everyone to understand that certain questions about life have been asked and studied by others, and it at least will get people thinking of things that are not so ingrained into them through entertainment.

I mean the empty stares you get from people who watch to much television are sad compared to the inquisitive minds of the people who ask questions about life, existance, concepts we all adhear to an the things in which we believe.

Everyone's life pertains to philosophy just as much as Physical Ed or science, because the questions asked can give insight into life more then any math class might.

 

[Cythraul]

Things like literature, math and so on are forced to be taken because you actually need them to function properly in daily society. You don't need philosophy to do that.

Most people don't know what many of the subjects are at their university, college etc... Should they be forced to take these too? If so how would an obscene amount of classes fit into their schedules?

You are far too biased as to how important and required philosophy actually is.

Wait, hold on. You think studying literature is needed for someone to function properly in daily society? I don't know what world you're living in. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken you said something to the effect that why should anyone take a class they're not interested in? A large part of my previous post was directed at that point. But what I'd really like to get across is that I would like to see education function as a way to produce well-rounded, educated people, not automata who merely have some skill to get them some job. There are things that are valuable which do not obviously give one skills to "function properly in society". That is the point. I think, and other people here probably agree, that a university education should be more than just a ridiculously expensive trade school.

You don't need to be taught how to think and question, it comes naturally to your mind.

You don't understand. Philosophy teaches you how to think well. It's not a matter of simply questioning and "thinking", we know that anybody can do that. What philosophy gives you are the tools for rigorous thinking, e.g. logic (formal and informal), and good reasoning in general. This is, to a great extent, learned.

 

[speed]

Wait, hold on. You think studying literature is needed for someone to function properly in daily society? I don't know what world you're living in. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken you said something to the effect that why should anyone take a class they're not interested in? A large part of my previous post was directed at that point. But what I'd really like to get across is that I would like to see education function as a way to produce well-rounded, educated people, not automata who merely have some skill to get them some job. There are things that are valuable which do not obviously give one skills to "function properly in society". That is the point. I think, and other people here probably agree, that a university education should be more than just a ridiculously expensive trade school.

I disagree. I think art, literature, music, are entirely necessary for daily functioning, and without them, I'd give serious thought to never waking up every day. Literature, art, music, philosophy, not only (not in philosophies case) illuminate upon the time they were created, but provide nourishmant for our otherwise cruel boring existence, that is approaching that of a automaton. Once upon a time, just fifty years ago, proper instruction in lit, music, and matters of culture, was a pre-requisite for most students--all in academies and prep schools.

Now I think this is also your point. Yet, I ask you to reconsider your point on Literature. You know, every Greek, Roman, German, English, French, Russian man of letters, science, governemnt, etc.--those great men that created many of the systems and ideas we utilize today, all had very serious training in literature; and all would quote lines from Shakespeare, or Aristotle, etc, as if it was second nature. in fact, Id go sar far to say it was the freedom and genius of being expsd to such things, that inspired them.

 

[derek]

I disagree, Curt.

I think folks on intelligence may enjoy literature, art and music but they are not necessary skills for life. Perhaps great men do need exposed to the great mean before them, but I don't think average Joe needs to quote shakespeare or Aristotle, he should not be equipped with the skills to think and question. THAT should be most basic.

 

[speed]

I disagree, Curt.

I think folks on intelligence may enjoy literature, art and music but they are not necessary skills for life. Perhaps great men do need exposed to the great mean before them, but I don't think average Joe needs to quote shakespeare or Aristotle, he should not be equipped with the skills to think and question. THAT should be most basic.

I agree the thinking is the big thing. But thats sort of my point, that I didnt describe well-enough. When reading Shakespeare or any great author, or listening to any great composer, one should be inspired, one should think. The same thing happens when one comes across a brilliant mind in philosophy.

And yes, I still think they should be a necessary skill for life--or for someones life--otherwise we will resemble ants and insects: learning technical skills, or sciences that we serve, work, eat, economics, work, eat, propagate. It doesnt matter that one can function well without them. Is this the society we wish to live in? Im telling you, in the states, were getting close.

 

[Pull The Plug]

Wait, hold on. You think studying literature is needed for someone to function properly in daily society? I don't know what world you're living in. Anyway, if I'm not mistaken you said something to the effect that why should anyone take a class they're not interested in? A large part of my previous post was directed at that point. But what I'd really like to get across is that I would like to see education function as a way to produce well-rounded, educated people, not automata who merely have some skill to get them some job. There are things that are valuable which do not obviously give one skills to "function properly in society". That is the point. I think, and other people here probably agree, that a university education should be more than just a ridiculously expensive trade school.

Whoops, yeah you caught my mistake. I meant to say english or study of ones own language rather than literature specifically.

The "not take a class they aren't interested in" point I was making was more or less referring to subjects which aren't essential to your daily life. I made this pretty clear already, no need to revert back to it.

Also a university can be "a ridiculously expensive trade school" if you choose it to be, but since philosophy among many other subjects are offered for people willing to take part in it; then it doesn't have to be.

You don't understand. Philosophy teaches you how to think well. It's not a matter of simply questioning and "thinking", we know that anybody can do that. What philosophy gives you are the tools for rigorous thinking, e.g. logic (formal and informal), and good reasoning in general. This is, to a great extent, learned.

I do understand, I was just using that to my advantage. Philosophy is just a large expansion of what everybody has base knowledge on (thinking amd questioning ). This means it is not essential.

 

[MURAI]

No, I do not feel philosophy to be required for everybody. It should be there only to those who are very serious and has a chance with the field. I said it a billion times before that the average man is apathetic. That's never going to change and teaching them basic philosophy in school would not really change much. I am not going to deny philosphy has a lot of power to shape humanity and offer different views. I do have at least an interest in philosophy and I read a lot on my own time. But, I know I dont have what it takes to go far in that field.

Like what Justin S, said earlier, in democratic society almost everybody can go to university and college and assume they are highly educated. Sure, I admit we are all quite free to do what we want but there's barely any sense of culture or a vision in democracies. Therefore, it can explain why Nietzsche feels that mediocrity is prevalant in democracies.

I paint myself, but I dont think fields like art, literature, music are absolutely necessary for life even though they do enrich people's lives. Again, those fields should only be open to those who have talent and it should not be opened to just everybody. Any kind of culture only becomes possible when basic securities in society is met. I feel culture is rather mass-produced, dumbed down and poor in North America.

 

[AutumnGust]

Philosophy and critical thinking should be the most important subject in schools.

 

[derek]

I think there is a real distinction between teaching people philosophy and teaching people the skills of philosophy. Just basic skills of critical thinking, argumentation and analysis could be taught from a young age, surely thats going to be a benefit?

Of course, philosophy should be embraced, enjoyed and absorbed, but nobody is claiming to force Nietzsche, Kant and Hume onto kids the world over, only to expose them to the skills philosophy can teach.

 

[Justin S.]

I think there is a real distinction between teaching people philosophy and teaching people the skills of philosophy. Just basic skills of critical thinking, argumentation and analysis could be taught from a young age, surely thats going to be a benefit?

Of course, philosophy should be embraced, enjoyed and absorbed, but nobody is claiming to force Nietzsche, Kant and Hume onto kids the world over, only to expose them to the skills philosophy can teach.

I take issue with the underlying assumption here- the idea that one can be taught the "tools" of thinking, without the work involved. Thinking is a rigorous process, not some magic bullet of correct propositions/cute sayings.

What occurs when you try and teach critical thinking, argumentation, and analysis is more abuse of said methods. People learn the forms and how to abuse concepts and language because they dont (or cannot) invest the total effort to penetrate to actual understanding. Isnt this the history and irony of philosophy (gross errors)? Im sure both the continental and analytic tradition would agree on this point.

The average person already throws around "reason", "logic", "truth" to defend any desire, without regard for the power of the language/concepts they evoke. Which really brings me to my biggest criticism of education- you can only communicate (logos) with those that meet it halfway, who are open, who already intuitively (however vaguely) grasp the matter at hand. The mind is not something you can "snap" comprehension into. Lower functioning individuals will only ape forms and language, no matter the instructor, material, or time investment. Its is foolish to belief that even the majority of humans can truly "think".

Also, it is dangerously naive to simply assume that such skills would be taught "uncorrupted" by the prevailing dogmas. Education systems have vested interests in cultural narratives (metaphysics). I laugh when "thinking" is taught by actors so firmly rooted in the mentality of global capitalism. Unbiased? Please pass the waste basket.

All you're going to get is reinforcement of dominant perspectives. Too often thinkers piddle away their energy on the hopeless rather than radically grasping their potential.

 

[derek]

Interesting, I must admit, I agree.

I suppose it is an ideal that the bacic skills of philosophy could be taught.

Thoroughly good post, Justin, thank you.

 

[Justin S.]

Interesting, I must admit, I agree.

I suppose it is an ideal that the bacic skills of philosophy could be taught.

Thoroughly good post, Justin, thank you.

I appreciate your kind words Derek, and enjoy when our discussions show promise of cutting through the ordinary.

I think its very predictable that we are debating ideals considering Bloom was a Platonist.

That Bloom is so critical of contemporary America is highly ironic to me. Platonic idealism is, if I may generalize, the origin of western metaphysics. When we approach the "modern" era in philosophy, we see great criticism over not just the content of metaphysics, but metaphysics as such- the very operating of "higher principles" (a priori) and conceptual systems.

Contemporary America is not ideal-less, but so hyper-metaphysical that all but a lucky few are utterly oblivious to it. What we suffer from is an inability to phenomenologically perceive reality- instead what we live is always a projection of our wishes and idea(l)s upon the world. Both Wittgenstein and Heidegger dealt extensively with this issue- possible the issue.

Bloom is largely irrelevant because we already are completely dominated by Platonic idealism- he merely dislikes our current aesthetic.

Also interesting (and ironic) is what we consider low functioning or "idiotic". A stupid person is not perceptive in the way that even animals are- instead they live in a fantasy world. Rather than a sign of intelligence, metaphysical thinking displays a lack of it, an inability to function as even other animals can. Take any issue you want and you will see a gulf between what we actually perceive, and the subjects warping under the influence of metaphysics.

 

[speed]

I appreciate your kind words Derek, and enjoy when our discussions show promise of cutting through the ordinary.

I think its very predictable that we are debating ideals considering Bloom was a Platonist.

That Bloom is so critical of contemporary America is highly ironic to me. Platonic idealism is, if I may generalize, the origin of western metaphysics. When we approach the "modern" era in philosophy, we see great criticism over not just the content of metaphysics, but metaphysics as such- the very operating of "higher principles" (a priori) and conceptual systems.

Contemporary America is not ideal-less, but so hyper-metaphysical that all but a lucky few are utterly oblivious to it. What we suffer from is an inability to phenomenologically perceive reality- instead what we live is always a projection of our wishes and idea(l)s upon the world. Both Wittgenstein and Heidegger dealt extensively with this issue- possible the issue.

Bloom is largely irrelevant because we already are completely dominated by Platonic idealism- he merely dislikes our current aesthetic.

Also interesting (and ironic) is what we consider low functioning or "idiotic". A stupid person is not perceptive in the way that even animals are- instead they live in a fantasy world. Rather than a sign of intelligence, metaphysical thinking displays a lack of it, an inability to function as even other animals can. Take any issue you want and you will see a gulf between what we actually perceive, and the subjects warping under the influence of metaphysics.

Hm...this one requires alot of thought to respond to. I dont know if I understand your platonic idealism reference towars todays world, and how the world is so metaphysical, most of us dont realize it. Please explain.

Just on Bloom: BLoom is relevant in a bizarre sort of way. For instance, I think Bellow in writing Ravelstein, had sort of a Conversations with Goethe idea going on. Goethe represented the last man of a certain age--when one man could solve problems (literary, scientific) just by thinking about it, and through their own intelligence and personality, instead of relying on scientific or technical systems. Ones personality and cultured taste was also important. I think the idea was Bloom represented one of the last cultured professors, who upheald this classical flame in American universities. Free thinking eccentric men like him, who are schooled in the classics, arts, humanities, are a dying, if not dead breed in America. And what they taught, is also dying.

But thank you anyway Justin S, for such insightful and intelligent conversation. We really need a hall of philosophical honor. Perhaps digitalized classical busts of prefferred posters? What does everyone think ?

 

[Justin S.]

Hm...this one requires alot of thought to respond to. I dont know if I understand your platonic idealism reference towars todays world, and how the world is so metaphysical, most of us dont realize it. Please explain.

You're right, I didnt communicate the connection very well.

Contemporary society is nowhere near grasping phenomena as they are- perception is immediately sent through a highly developed filter of acculturated metaphysics- one that can be linked to Plato.

Any appeal to valuing (the "good"), prestige, perfection (forms), etc is all evidence of this- if this isnt modernity in a nutshell, I dont know what is. A great example is the effectiveness of advertising. People will buy a product due to abstract ideals, rather than the thing present-at-hand (to borrow Heidegger's phrase). Food is often valued according to its market price, demand, or a label, not for the chemical properties of its taste, smell, or the sensation of its hue. Sound is bought because a media source proclaimed its "goodness"; not because of its effect on the spirit, intellect, or artistic method. Visual art is stored and guarded in multi-million dollar museums not because of its composition, brilliance of idea, color, or the touch of the brushstroke, but its appeal to world prestige (it is because it is a Monet, the Mona Lisa, the mystical aura that imparts value to metaphysically inclined peoples).

How do we not realize that we are so metaphysical? Precisely because most cannot see such ordinary, everyday thinking and acting as such- because it holds sway so completely that it is beyond our scope.

But thank you anyway Justin S, for such insightful and intelligent conversation. We really need a hall of philosophical honor. Perhaps digitalized classical busts of prefferred posters? What does everyone think ?

You have quite a sick sense of humor.

 

[derek]

That's damn interesting thinking. I'd never actually considered it before, but after your elucidation it does seem to ring true.

So, to take this back (somewhat) to the departure point, is there some way we can enlighten folks to our inherent metaphysical leanings and perhaps regain something more meaningful, tangible and honest?

 

[speed]

You're right, I didnt communicate the connection very well.

Contemporary society is nowhere near grasping phenomena as they are- perception is immediately sent through a highly developed filter of acculturated metaphysics- one that can be linked to Plato.

Any appeal to valuing (the "good"), prestige, perfection (forms), etc is all evidence of this- if this isnt modernity in a nutshell, I dont know what is. A great example is the effectiveness of advertising. People will buy a product due to abstract ideals, rather than the thing present-at-hand (to borrow Heidegger's phrase). Food is often valued according to its market price, demand, or a label, not for the chemical properties of its taste, smell, or the sensation of its hue. Sound is bought because a media source proclaimed its "goodness"; not because of its effect on the spirit, intellect, or artistic method. Visual art is stored and guarded in multi-million dollar museums not because of its composition, brilliance of idea, color, or the touch of the brushstroke, but its appeal to world prestige (it is because it is a Monet, the Mona Lisa, the mystical aura that imparts value to metaphysically inclined peoples).

How do we not realize that we are so metaphysical? Precisely because most cannot see such ordinary, everyday thinking and acting as such- because it holds sway so completely that it is beyond our scope.




You have quite a sick sense of humor.

So 99.9% of us are still stuck back in that proverbial cave...fascinating.

I really think this is one the best posts Ive ever seen on UM. now we just have the problem of figuring out what each thing really is, and who made it--if anyone or anything at all. I suppose Plato would say the One or the Good, Focault some Social historical power, and what would Heidegger say Justin? (I dont llike to read Heidegger due to his gobbleygook thingisithingbeingtime) style of writing)


I originally thought you meant the Republic, and the State's power of censorship, as prescribed by Plato.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Also interesting (and ironic) is what we consider low functioning or "idiotic". A stupid person is not perceptive in the way that even animals are- instead they live in a fantasy world. Rather than a sign of intelligence, metaphysical thinking displays a lack of it, an inability to function as even other animals can. Take any issue you want and you will see a gulf between what we actually perceive, and the subjects warping under the influence of metaphysics.

Justin S, this is such an original thought, you are a great philosopher, and should write a book. I'm really impressed by this observation. (Although I'm not sure I understand fully what you mean by "metaphysical" as I would prefer to call it "delusional" thinking). Also, "Lower functioning individuals will only ape forms and language", and "It's foolish to believe that even the majority of humans can truly 'think'". That is a well founded observation.

Quote from Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra": "You have served the people and the people's superstitions, all you famous philosophers! - you have not served the truth! And it is for precisely that reason that they paid you reverence."

Justin S, this is a criticism that would never apply to you, with such statements as those I quoted.

Do you think that it is too harsh of Nietzsche to say that even many famous philosophers fall into the trap of pandering to "the people's superstitions", and are not free from this barrier to finding "truth"?

 

[Cythraul]

You're right, I didnt communicate the connection very well.

Contemporary society is nowhere near grasping phenomena as they are- perception is immediately sent through a highly developed filter of acculturated metaphysics- one that can be linked to Plato.

Any appeal to valuing (the "good"), prestige, perfection (forms), etc is all evidence of this- if this isnt modernity in a nutshell, I dont know what is. A great example is the effectiveness of advertising. People will buy a product due to abstract ideals, rather than the thing present-at-hand (to borrow Heidegger's phrase). Food is often valued according to its market price, demand, or a label, not for the chemical properties of its taste, smell, or the sensation of its hue. Sound is bought because a media source proclaimed its "goodness"; not because of its effect on the spirit, intellect, or artistic method. Visual art is stored and guarded in multi-million dollar museums not because of its composition, brilliance of idea, color, or the touch of the brushstroke, but its appeal to world prestige (it is because it is a Monet, the Mona Lisa, the mystical aura that imparts value to metaphysically inclined peoples).

How do we not realize that we are so metaphysical? Precisely because most cannot see such ordinary, everyday thinking and acting as such- because it holds sway so completely that it is beyond our scope.

What? What do any of these examples have to do with metaphysics or any kind of predilection for metaphysical thinking? Perhaps I'm just taking issue with your use of the word "metaphysical". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about a particular set of metaphysical suppositions that society at large takes for granted, right? Most of these examples of yours can be analysed in terms of social phenomena, there is no need to attribute some kind of metaphysical thinking to individuals in these cases. So a media source proclaimed the "goodness" of some particular sounds and that is why people buy into it? Big deal, this is just a social phenomenon. Any valuing of said sounds on most other bases is just as theory-laden, for lack of a better term, or "metaphysical" I guess, as what you cite.

 

[Justin S.]

I should address Cythraul's post first.

What? What do any of these examples have to do with metaphysics or any kind of predilection for metaphysical thinking? Perhaps I'm just taking issue with your use of the word "metaphysical".

By "metaphysical" I mean the process of thought that works down from "higher principles". This origin can take many forms: God(s), the One, "truth", the "self-evident", "logic" (deduction), the "they" of acculturation, etc.

What Nietzsche implicitly addressed, Heidegger explicitly confronted- "philosophy" (the world historical phenomena) = metaphysics. Norsemaiden, this is essentially what your quote from Zarathustra means. All these elaborate systems and constructs, are just that, and have no more solid grounding that any other. For Nietzsche, this understanding leads into discussion of nihilism. For Heidegger (as well as the movements influenced by his thinking) the abyss of "nihilism" is actually the opportunity to perceive beings as they are- without subjecting the universe to subjectivising "values" and "categories" as if they require such things. As we discover, not the absence of metaphysics, but metaphysics itself is nihilism- the impulse to "value" implies that the object has no "value" outside of this process! The traditions we speak about (philosophy/religion/metaphysics) are simply a reaction to the abyss of nihilism, one they only confirm by their elaborate attempts to cover it over with grand systems.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about a particular set of metaphysical suppositions that society at large takes for granted, right? Most of these examples of yours can be analysed in terms of social phenomena, there is no need to attribute some kind of metaphysical thinking to individuals in these cases. So a media source proclaimed the "goodness" of some particular sounds and that is why people buy into it? Big deal, this is just a social phenomenon.

What is the "social phenomena" except the generalization of the thoughts and practices of many individuals? One cannot formulate a whole comprised of parts, and then speak of the whole removed from its component parts- this is metaphysical.

More than just thinking, the individual has a metaphysical relationship to its world. To return to my art example, the average person when viewing art accesses (from "higher principles") an acculturated experience of the artwork. Although their eyes see it, their mind passes over the lines, forms, shapes and color of the work. They may make passing comments on such things, but they do not evaluate it based on how it is perceived phenomenologically- no, it is not color on canvas, it is the "Mona Lisa"- what is this "Mona Lisa" to these individuals? Not its component parts forming a painting, but the stand alone metaphysical entity that is given meaning by shared cultural experience.

Any valuing of said sounds on most other bases is just as theory-laden, for lack of a better term, or "metaphysical" I guess, as what you cite.

I totally agree, although we can shorten it: Any valuing is metaphysical, for the reasons I addressed above.