Na, just came to mind as something roughly reasonable. — Manuel

Well, I like the list. It represents my attitude towards knowledge in general.

Not always? — Alkis Piskas

Ok. Here's my spiel, which I have explicated many times here on the forum. Physicalism (or materialism, pragmatism, relativism, realism, idealism, and on and on...) is a metaphysical position. As such, it is neither true nor false, only more or less useful in different situations, or as Janus put it, a matter of taste. I use physicalism when I'm doing my engineering act - F = ma. Perhaps idealism when I do math....

Contrary to the thrust of this thread, I do have a philosophical source I've found helpful - "Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood.

I love the rhyming too. I also love the dark Gothic atmosphere and the mythology surrounding it. I don't know how to explain it, but kind of sad in a beautiful way. — Wheatley

I don't know if you've seen it, but the Simpsons did an excerpt during one of their Halloween shows read by James Earl Jones, who has the perfect voice for it. It should be on the web somewhere.

Yes. I like "The Raven" too. I find the internal rhymes very affecting, satisfying. I like poems that run away from you if you're not careful.

Perhaps he should've re-phrased his OP. — Manuel

Agreed.

The OP may resent this but it seems to me closer to a mystical tradition of the contemplative. — Tom Storm

Sure, I guess. As I've said several times in this discussion, I think attention to the world has to come first, before the philosophy, i.e. the words, explanations, theories, reason. To me, that's the difference between western and eastern philosophies. Western philosophies are about reason. Eastern philosophies are about attention and awareness.

I don't think so. I think the OP is after validation, the coziness of doing nothing under the disguise of 'discussion'.

I mean God, it is really so bruising to people's egos to have to sinply say: I have an interest in philosophy, just as people say "I have an interest in history" without calling oneself a philosopher or historian? Like, you're not a philosopher in the same way you're not a historian. Get over it. — StreetlightX

I am not a philosopher. I was being flippant when I referred to myself as one. I regret that now.

It may look like a lot, but I think this is sensible. — Manuel

Is this your persona list, or does it come from somewhere specific. Is it William James?

Sorry, but no, just because you're a lazy two-bit "thinker" doesn't mean a whole discipline has to be redefined to accomodate your fragile ego. You don't want to study philosophy, fine, no worries. But you're going to be trash at philosophy. Pretty simple. — StreetlightX

As I've noted in several other posts, I regret the flippant tone of my OP. I've offended people and made it harder to have a friendly discussion about this. Forgetting about this discussion for a moment, based on my history on the forum, am I a two-bit thinker? Am I trash at philosophy? I don't think I am, but if I am, that answers the question I asked at the beginning.

I think the first sentence in your OP pretty much sums up any larger point expressed and frankly simultaneously answers any potential controversial replies or criticisms (which I can't wait to see) of said OP. — Outlander

I have expressed my regret for the tone of my OP in other posts. I tend toward the smartass and I didn't think what I wrote would be so controversial or offend people. I was naive.

without looking through the discussion — Outlander

Perhaps you should.

Except here you're wrong, which means you've engaged in bad philosophy and you've failed to pay attention. If we can't decipher our mistakes, we have no philosophy as a field and we have no basis for rational debate. If you're correct and I'm wrong here, of course, you can save yourself a reply, as you've explained we have no way to know if what you said made sense. Pay attention: you've just argued argument is a futile waste of time. — Hanover

I said that there is no standard of practice for philosophy. That would be a good subject for a discussion, not this one. Is there a standard of practice for philosophy? What is it? What makes good philosophy?

Yep. One can do philosophy without having much of an acquaintance with the philosophical literature. The result, evident on these fora, is the repetition of errors already identified. — Banno

I guess I missed the "errors already identified." Can you tell me where they were identified.

I don't know if you use the word "intelectual" in general or from a philosophical view. Because it is too general and it includes writers, artists, etc., as well as just people with a highly developed intellect. — Alkis Piskas

As I indicated in the post you are responding to, being an intellectual

...doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.

Interesting! Is this why most of the people in here --from what I have undestood in discussing with them-- are scientifically oriented? No wonder that all of them are physicalists! — Alkis Piskas

Some other people here on the forum are strongly influenced by science. Others don't appear to be. For what it's worth, I am not a physicalist. At least not always.

are you sure that you are not looking through the lens of their eyes when you look upon the world? — Leghorn

I'll start out expressing my regret for the tone of my OP. I think it offended a lot of people and made it harder for them to give my ideas a fair hearing.

On to your question. Of course I am influenced by the culture I live in. How much does that make my search for an unprejudiced vision of reality quixotic? I can't be sure, I can only do the best I can. Purity of vision is probably not necessary. If my current understanding is irreparably intermixed with western philosophy, it hardly seems likely that further study will make things better.

See, the thing is, I have repeatedly now pointed out that I'm not actually discrediting the substance of your worldviews at all, because I haven't looked at them. I am merely and solely talking about the difference of how attainable and feasible it is to try and reinvent the wheel/philosophy/engines as a solo person versus by taking advantage of access to the knowledge and practice of literally all of human history. — Artemis

I'm not objecting to you questioning my philosophy because it hurts my feelings. I object because I think it's a bad argument. Anyway, I think you and I are saying the same thing, just from different ends. I'm ok with that.

You espouse a curious mixture of disdain for the discipline and the experts therein and yet eager desire to have your own (self-admittedly, uneducated) philosophical views seen as legitimate. — Artemis

The only way you can tell if my philosophical views are legitimate is by looking at them. As I just told @Sam26, just assuming my views are not legitimate because I am not well-read by your standards is begging the question I asked in the OP.

Why are you calling it philosophy? Can you explain? — baker

I don't really understand your question. I've acknowledged I am not a philosopher, but I never said I don't have a personal philosophy.

Suppose someone told you this about engineering. I'm a lazy person and a lazy engineer. If you're a lazy engineer, then you're probably not a good engineer. The same is true of philosophy. Philosophy, good philosophy, takes a tremendous amount of effort and time. — Sam26

Professionally, I am an engineer. I'm not a professional philosopher. If an engineer makes a mistake, there are potentially very serious consequences for which they would be responsible. If a philosopher makes a mistake, there's not even a good way to know. There aren't any standards by which to judge. It's silly to try to compare the two disciplines. There's probably no one on the forum who is a professional philosopher.

Imagine if someone came off the street, with little to no understanding of engineering, and started telling you how to build a bridge. The arrogance is unbelievable. Of course no one has all the answers, but studying a subject with effort certainly gives you a lead, generally, over those who haven't. — Sam26

I said I am not a philosopher, not that I have little or no understanding of philosophy. Perhaps that's your judgement, but I don't consider you a valid judge unless you've read what I've written and have comments. No, I don't expect you to do that, but to render judgement without doing it is presumptuous and arrogant. The only criteria by which you can judge my understanding of philosophy is the fact that I am not adequately well-read by your standards. Using that as your criteria is begging the question.

Think of the amount of effort it takes to be at the top of any field, it takes a tremendous amount of effort. Most people have no idea how much effort it takes, and how much skill it takes to be one of the best. — Sam26

I have no ambition to be one of the best, by anyone's standards. I'll settle for pretty good. Good enough.

Philosophy is a study of the world in the way that I guess engineering is the study of engines. I never said you CAN'T have an understanding of the world/engines without books and training. I'm trying to point out that a) it's more unnecessarily arduous and b) you in all likelihood won't wind up with the best theories/engines you're potentially capable of.

Keep in mind too: The world is much more complicated than a car engine. — Artemis

An engineer is someone who uses applied science to solve problems. Engineers in general do not design engines, although some do. There are mechanical, chemical, structural, biomedical, computer, electrical, aeronautical, civil, environmental, and many more types of engineers. I was a civil engineer who specialized in cleaning up soil and water contamination on industrial properties. I have a four-year bachelors of civil engineering degree. Many people I worked with had masters degrees, especially those younger than I am. Maybe the biggest difference between philosophy and engineering as professions is that each type of engineering has standards of practice and educational and experience requirements. Engineers can be held legally, financially, and ethically accountable for the work we do and for the consequences of any mistakes we make. There really is nothing like a standard of practice for philosophers. No licensing. If a philosopher makes a mistake... well, there's not really any way to tell.

And no, the world as addressed by philosophy is much simpler than a car engine.

I'm confused: are we talking about whether one in general can/should do philosophy without training and/or reading the "canon," or are we assessing you and your views for their merit in particular?

If the latter is the case, I honestly don't have time to go through all of your posts and try to make sense of your worldview as a coherent whole. — Artemis

First of all, I don't really claim to be a philosopher. That was meant tongue in cheek. I'm not a philosopher, but you can only really judge whether my education is adequate by evaluating the quality of my thought on philosophical issues. And no, I don't expect you to go and read my previous posts.

I'm afraid you're also arguing from a precarious epistemological position: without having read the works of the canon, without having gone through the training, you lack the knowledge and insight to compare your current positions against what they could be after such work. — Artemis

So, I should spend years studying writing I don't find satisfying or useful just to see if I can find value in it? So I can judge whether my understanding is adequate? Actually, there is some truth in that, which is what I'm trying to get at in this thread. A lot of really smart people, people I respect, have found value in the philosophical canon. What am I missing?

At bottom, philosophy is just the study of the world. The world is the yardstick by which ideas are measured. Boiling down what you have written I come up with "You can't possibly have a good understanding of the world without having read all these guys." And I say, "Show me where I'm wrong. Show me what is missing." No, I don't expect you to do that, but to judge me by the appropriate yardstick without doing it is presumptuous. Makes me think of a verse from one of my favorite poems. "Two Tramps at Mud Time" by Robert Frost.

Men of the woods and lumberjacks
They judged each man by their appropriate tool
Except as a fellow handled an axe
They had no way of knowing a fool.

A Supermarket in California

BY ALLEN GINSBERG - 1955 — Bitter Crank

As Charles Montgomery Burns says, "I don't know art, but I know what I hate, and I don't hate that." It's well written and clear. The language is visually evocative and also "poetic." I get lost in poems where there isn't a strong rhythm guiding the way. When there isn't one, I find myself saying "Is this really poetry?" I often find it unsatisfying.

Rereading my post it seems to me I must like the poem after all. I really do feel myself in the supermarket. I can smell the produce and feel the cold when I walk through the freezer section.

Most likely scenario: you'll say the things that have said 100000times before, come to the same dead ends of everyone before you, make the same mistakes, and the end result will be this rickety thing held together with elastic bands and chewing gum that just maybe can putter down the driveway before collapsing in a smoke-billowing sigh of defeat. You'll add some more elastic bands and chewing gum and keep slowly inching your way down the road in exhausting, and nerve-wracking slowness. — Artemis

If you've looked at them, is that how you would characterize my posts on the forum? I think they present a consistent and justifiable understanding of reality and, especially, epistemology.

As I said I think it's telling that there is no Nobel Prize awarded for philosophy. — Janus

Be that as it may, it seems clear to me that if there were, @Hanover doesn't think I would win it.

you're not erudite in terms of knowledge of academic philosophy. — Hanover

My point is that erudition is a positive thing and I do consider my lack thereof in whatever area a negative. Your position here I take to be the sanctification of ignorance (not in its pejorative sense), suggesting that philosophical discussion between the well learned and the unlearned will be on equal footing. — Hanover

I appreciate you comments. They are fair and balanced. Small joke, but I'm serious. My lack of experience with academic philosophy is the primary point of this discussion from my point of view, so it would be perverse for me to argue.

It's not ignorance I sanctify, it's attentive awareness. There's language in The Tao Te Ching about the danger of learning which I think I understand and agree with. To me, Lao Tzu criticizes erudition because it blocks the direct experience of the Tao, the unfiltered, unspoken, unspeakable essence of nature. Some western philosophers, Kant in particular, acknowledge that quality, although I think their way of handling it is ambiguous.

you can’t just go off into a solitary place alone and recover the true essence of things. You have to feel the need to go back to the time when and before philosophy was born, to recover a lost innocence, when men wondered...when they first became perplexed, or were amazed by the movement of the heavenly bodies, or recoiled against the rule of noblemen, etc. — Leghorn

I appreciate the different perspective on the discussion in this thread. From the sound of it, you and the philosophers you discuss are talking about something similar to what I am. You did lose me when you started talking about going back to a time of innocence. My vision of the state of awareness I am talking about is right here, in front of us, right now. It's not mystical. It's just look at this. Listen to this. Pay attention.

I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking. — praxis

It's not just that there are established training methods, there are no established methods for measuring performance.

In life I have rarely lost by using the principle, 'first do nothing'. Sit. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think you, Kafka, and Pascal are on the same page.

Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

Yes. I like this way of putting it.

IOW, rely in whatever infromation has collected in your mind up until this point (much of it is probably trash) and whatever is currently available to you (also probably trash), and hold this to be the highest, the most relevant there is. — baker

That's not what Kafka said. Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy.

Yes, you're missing the "big picture" of philosophy. — baker

The "big picture" comes first. Then comes philosophy. You have to be aware of the world and yourself first. Then philosophy can help you fill in the blanks.

The pragmatic thing to do, as far as the study of philosophy is concerned, is to take up a course of study in philosophy at a university, or something as similar to that as possible. With proper guidance and testing of the student's knowledge of the subject matter. — baker

That's not pragmatic at all. I want a philosophy I can use in my life to help answer the only true question - What do I do now. That's pragmatic.

The bolded parts are two mistaken ideas about philosophy that are common for people who have not had a formal education in philosophy. They are based on the assumption that philosophy is solely a matter of ideology. — baker

I disagree, at least for the first bolded statement. Mistaking words for reality is a tendency I see every day here on the forum. I also see it in most of the philosophy I've read. It is the original sin of philosophy.

But the way you talk about your understanding of the world has things missing, — baker

For example.

I read what you said to be that you made a half assed effort, gathered minimal gains, then quit fully trying, and then declared your approach as valid as any other. — Hanover

I think he's right that his method is the true path to excellence, — Hanover

I'm not trying for excellence. I'm not sure what it even means in this context. Does it mean being able to quote a lot of philosophers? That's a set up question. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting that. For me it means having a clear and practical understanding of how the world works that I can use in my everyday life. For me, philosophy is a tool box. If the tools aren't a little beat up and oily, you aren't using them enough.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior. — Hanover

That's the point of this discussion. Am I missing something? Is my philosophy half-assed? Take a look at the things I've written here on the forum, not just this thread, and judge for yourself.

I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also. — Alkis Piskas

I have no argument with anything you've said. Whenever I call myself a philosopher, it is with a smirk at my presumption. I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." That doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.

I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore of if you have never read anything about them. — Alkis Piskas

I'm from science. I'm an engineer. That's where my interest in philosophy comes from. More importantly, that's where my measuring stick for judging philosophy comes from. My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science. Even more, the thing that draws me to a particular philosophy most is it's relevance to my understanding of science and the world. I value philosophy for very practical reasons. I have used it just about every day, less now that I am no longer working as an engineer. Philosophy is a tool.

I took a couple of philosophy courses in college. I've read a little bit of everything but not a lot. There are a few philosophers I like a lot - Emerson, pragmatists, Lao Tzu. With the rest, when I hold them up against the measuring stick of science, I don't see the value.

I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have an interesting if not powerful philosophical views in a lot of subjects. — Alkis Piskas

This is exactly the issue I have been trying to address for myself in this discussion.

What you describe is not what most define as philosophy. It's sort of this Zen state of understanding and harmony you're trying to achieve as far as I can see. For example, how do you meaningfully respond to metaphysical, epistemological, or moral questions by just sitting back and absorbing? Do we just wait together all in silence in this Kafkaesque ideal, or do you listen to others and form your own thoughts internally without contribution? — Hanover

As you can certainly see, I am very verbal - wrapped up in words. I don't have any consistent meditative or spiritual practice. Actually, I do. This forum is my meditative and spiritual practice. Practitioners of yoga, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, tai chi use those practices to become more aware of the world and themselves. I use my intellect and my voice. But at bottom, that's it - awareness. Awareness is what's important. I don't even think that Plato, Kant, Kneechee, Rorty... would necessarily disagree with me. They're all dead, so I can say what I want about them. That's the essence of my metaphysics - awareness.

I also don't see these tacks as mutually exclusive. Why can't I spend time in silent contemplation, but also read philosophy? Is reading others' epiphanies corrupting of my own? Wouldn't learning from others advance my own progess?

To the extent you argue that some answers lie within and should be sought by contemplation, I do agree, but to the extent you argue that formal study is unnecessary or even inferior, I don't. — Hanover

I agree completely. I don't think I said anywhere that a more traditional western philosophical approach is not valid on it's own or in combination. That it doesn't work. I only said it hasn't worked for me.

I am absolutely close minded. — StreetlightX

Yes.

In any case it's telling that the defense of remaining stupid and ignorant is coupled with some woo woo religion and mysticism. Buddha included. All of this goes hand and hand. What better way to justify being dumb that indulging in some exoticizsed 'Eastern' Wisdom. — StreetlightX

@jamalrob accused me of not being open minded. I wonder what he thinks about you. I've read Kant and Wittgenstein. They're fine I guess. To me, they're caught in the trap of many philosophers. They've mistaken words for reality.

What better way to justify believing what you're told to believe and not making up your own mind.

Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere (Which I think is likely) and perhaps even won't be of use to me (unlike science that essentially seems to accept empirical framework of acquiring knowledge and even then there is a lot to learn about philosophy behind it) or essentially proceed to leave in ignorance and of that little I know and avoiding going too deep into things. Not sure what to chose. — DenverMan

I come to philosophy through science via epistemology. I'm an engineer. I want to know things. Questions about how I know what I know draw me in. I am drawn to philosophy by the things that are important to me.

Do you feel any draw from philosophy? If not, maybe you don't need to go any farther. One more thought, though. I've spent more than five years on philosophy forums. I think and write much more clearly than I did when I started. Maybe you can get that from science or some other intellectual discipline.

Also, I know lots of really smart, successful, satisfied, and articulate people who are not particularly intellectual. They are not recreational thinkers like I, and many people on the forum, are.

Oh, sorry, man, for putting words into your mouth that you never intended to say. I'm trying to give "Poetic" some constructive criticism, so that he can improve his output. — Michael Zwingli

No, don't apologize. I just wanted to be clear about what concerns me. When I have specific things I want to see in a thread I start, I try to be as explicit as possible about what should be and what should not be included. As I noted, I was not explicit enough in this case.

You don't have to read philosophy to be a philosopher, but you had damned well be deeply and thoroughly immersed in things which would otherwise require enourmous investments of time, problem solving, and engagement more generally...

The idea that one can sit in a room and have ideas sprout fourth like Athena from Zeus is naive at best, actively debilitating at worst. Genuine thought takes place under the pressure of constraints imposed by encounters that force problems upon us. Those encounters may not be philosophy, but they need to be encounters nontheless which are richly stifiling. — StreetlightX

Although I'm interested in lots of issues discussed here on the forum, epistemology is what matters to me most. What do I know? How do I know it? How certain am I about what I know? What are the consequences if I am wrong? As I noted in my OP, I've paid my epistemological dues during 30 years of professional work gathering, sorting, synthesizing, summarizing, trying to understand, and explaining data, facts, knowledge then using them to address real life problems in very practical terms.

In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. If not philosophy then sociology, economics, anthropology, woodworking, social work, history, science, child-rearing, gardening, community-organizing, art making, or better yet, all of these together and more. Apes together strong. Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

I don't disagree with this, but to a certain extent it misses the point. The point, as I understand Kafka, is that what matters is awareness. Awareness of the world. Awareness of ourselves. All the rest of philosophy is just there to help us do that. If you don't understand that, the rest is just building stacks of words and saying "what a good boy am I."

The answer to that question is in your OP. :brow: — Wheatley

If the answer is "yes" does that make it one of those liar's paradox propositions? "This sentence is false."

The proposition that metaphysical statements are not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation, is not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation.

Any specifics concerning "But it is not good poetry?" to make your generalization helpful?

Here is the poem: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599584 — PoeticUniverse

This is a reasonable request. I'll look at what the others have written and see if I have anything to add.

I'll make this point again - it's not the poetry that bothers me. I never would have commented if it had been a couple, or even a few, poems. It was the fact that they had taken over the thread to the detriment of other poetry.

For the record - @Michael Zwingli said:

Your poetry displays/employs a definite "stream of consciousness" style, whether deliberate or accidental. The problem with that, as I have noted above, is that lyric poetry, which truth be told is the type of poetry that Mr. Clark seems to enjoy and so is the proper, tacitly implied focus of this thread, in order to be "good", is best written with great deliberation and attention to meter and, if applicable, to rhyme. — Michael Zwingli

I don't agree with this. There was no "tacit implication" of a particular kind of poetry, only that it be philosophical. The poetry you posted met the stated requirements for inclusion. It was the overwhelming volume that I object to.