• Jack Cummins
    5.1k
    The reason why I am thinking about this question is that discussion of philosophy is taking part on a forum, which is about sharing ideas. Others may read and think about it alone. As a lone pursuit it may be about a quest for meaning as well as an exploration of the history of ideas.

    I am not saying that this is not part of shared group philosophy as well, but within shared discourse the matters take on a different role, in how ideas are ranked socially. This is partly about shared perspectives and partly about popularity of ideas. If a person is thinking about philosophical questions alone it is different to if they are measured against the ideas of others. To some extent, shared philosophy enables dialogue rather than mere searching alone, and even if one asks philosophy questions privately, it is likely that the issues have been discussed with others, or that others' ideas have been read for consideration. However, within philosophy dialogue and debate, there are issues of consensus, and social aspects in which ideas and opinions may be seen as credible, and a person may viewed as successful or a failure for the ideas and arguments which they propose because it is a social pursuit.

    The tension which I am pointing to is philosophy as a means of making sense of the world and philosophy as a credible form of knowledge or art. I am not saying that they are completely opposed, but two different aspects and I am asking how the two may be distinguished and juggled? I am asking this partly with the question does it matter what others think of our ideas because, at the end of the day, philosophy may be a way of making sense of life. Does it matter if one is viewed as a successful or not within philosophy?
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    The tension which I am pointing to is philosophy as a means of making sense of the world and philosophy as a credible form of knowledge or art.Jack Cummins
    This is a distinction of aporetics (i.e. thinking unanswerable questions) and dogmatics (i.e. believing unquestionable answers), respectively, where the latter is the object – target – of the former and which the former strives to overcome. "Making sense of the world" subsumes "knowledge" and "art" and, IME, therefore is not merely an alternative to them as you suggest, Jack; the latter alone are merely parochial and may comprise 'folk philosophy' (a worldview) that is mostly heuristic and shallow.

    I am not saying that they are completely different, but two different ones and I am asking how the two may be distinguished and juggled?
    Reading philosophy in a scholarly fashion – whether formally or on one's own – precludes any "juggling" with ad hoc readings of this or that speculation which at any given moment strikes one's fancy. To study (digesting aporias) or to browse (tasting dogmas) – that's how I distinguish the approaches; unlike the student, to the degree the browser is undisciplined s/he must also "juggle" a miscellany of diversions.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k


    I am in favour of reading philosophy in a scholarly or academic way too. I just sometimes wonder if I am being pretentious in doing so, but I definitely believe that it is important to be familiar with the thinkers who have devoted time and energy to it. If one comes up with ideas which are just personal it is extremely unlikely that they would have the depth of analysis equal to someone who has pursued it in a disciplined way.

    My question was also about the nature of what is popular or fashionable in philosophy, and this probably changes or fluctuates within certain groups. An aspect of this may be about access and familiarity with certain ideas, but it may be that there are trends, or even cliques. For example, on this forum Wittgenstein seems to be so popular whereas Hegel is not. I am not saying that Wittgenstein is overrated but I do wonder if in general it is possible to be influenced by mainstream trends, to the point where it is can be difficult to take risks in exploring the less popular or obscure writers. It may be worth knowing the esteemed writers and ideas, but also worth being aware of those at the periphery too, to see what new angles these can offer.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    My question was also about the nature of what is popular or fashionable in philosophy, and this probably changes or fluctuates within certain groups.Jack Cummins
    I don't think "what is popular or fashionable in philosophy" matters at all (e.g. appeal to popularity is a fallacy, y'know) if one is studying-following a line of inquiry as far as it goes and wherever it leads and which is guided by a genealogy of philosophers who have, each in his or her own way, exhaustively explored that aporetic path. "Popularity or fashion" matters only to those in need of ready-made answers and not to those seeking better, more probative, questions and inquiries. I fail to see, Jack, how the question of whether a philosopher (or school of philosophy) is either "popular and fashionable" or obscure and marginalized is not wholly irrelevant to, as you've aptly pointed out, "making sense of the world".
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I think that I look at this site too much and see what's popular here. I do find that I learn a lot from reading lots of thread discussions though. I like to be reading a mixture of ideas. I do find book reading particular useful as a personal way of exploring ideas. I was feeling in a rather miserable mood when I wrote the thread discussion, but I am not imagining that it is one which will continue for very long, especially as I have noticed since that there is one on personal gnosis and one on not needing to read philosophy to be a philosopher, so there may be some others almost having slightly similar thoughts at the moment.

    That has some bearing on the issue of popularity, as to whether it is about people specifically following trends or coming to similar points of view. One thing which is recognised in art therapy is how when people are in a group, but working in separate spaces and not observing one another, there is often some shared imagery in the art work. But, I won't go any further, or I will be back to the topic of synchronicities...
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Yeah, I've noticed that there are quite a few more discussions about philosophy lately than philosophical discussions. The latter is what I frequent this site for though I don't mind the former on occasion. I find your threads tend to combine both which is more of a feature than a bug.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.