Yes, Prolegomena is much friendlier.

Ironic, innit? Same guy…..700-odd page book on very complicated subject with a short simple title, mere 5-page essay on roughly that same subject, greatly simplified, but with a title damn near a foot long.

This doesn't quite capture my view, and I think it belittles the study of the philosophical tradition. — Jamal

My apologies for not adequately capturing your view, I will leave that to you then. It was also not my intention to belittle your viewpoint. I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, and that is valuable and valid. Mine is a more liberal view. I do not believe my view invalidates your view, nor does your view invalidate mine. I think they are both viable approaches to the field of philosophy. Fair if you disagree, its an opinion of mine.

I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, — Philosophim

Well I've never been called that before!

Since, as I pointed out, the study of the tradition is not the worship of texts but is part of an effort to take thinking in new directions, I don't see how it can be described as conservative. On the contrary, the conservative way of doing philosophy is to follow what seems obvious to you, such that you think you don't need to refer to the work that's been done on the topic (whatever it might be). In my opinion this lacks the engagement with the philosophical conversation and the self-critical attitude necessary to think original thoughts.

But you do you, as they say :up:

On the contrary, the conservative way of doing philosophy is to follow what seems obvious to you, such that you think you don't need to refer to the work that's been done on the topic (whatever it might be). — Jamal

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. This is part of the reason why i tend to avoid the "liberal" and "conservative" dichotomies unless I'm referring to ideas in politics, otherwise i feel either one of the terms is confusing. There's also "liberal usage" and "conservative usage", but i rarely use those terms when talking to other people.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies.

I am a snotty troll occasionally. — Jamal

I did say “amusing”

Neitzsche was someone who broke the mould in some ways, but sadly I think too many recently have tried to mimic his approach instead of doing how he instructed--to rise above and discover yourself beyond yourself. — I like sushi

that's an interesting way to look at what he was calling for, because it usually gets simplified into "self-overcoming", which re-inforces the self-help mentality of changing yourself to fit the logic of success and productivity, but that's not really what Nietzsche was getting at...i think getting to know yourself better has more relevance to what Nietzsche was actually promoting. For me, he's probably the philosopher i've had the most fun exploring so far, I intend to eventually read english translations of everything [available] that he wrote...and even reading it all again...

Writing about philosophy: what are the basic standards and expectations?[/quote]
Who is your intended audience?

A habilitation committee at a university?
The editor of Philosophy Now?
The editor of Reader's Digest?
People who post a lot on Twitter?
People at an online philosophy forum?
Your family at a dinner table?
Who?

For what reason are you trying to present your philosophical thoughts to some particular audience?


If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making.

If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making. — baker

not if i'm also just trying to learn about the subject matter myself; i never meant to imply that writing something for others is an emergency, even though i do have vague interest in it. Part of the issue is that the audience is much more vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. I don't like twitter/x and social media culture in general.

Part of the issue is that the audience is much vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. — ProtagoranSocratist

Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher.

Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher. — baker

But you're not really engaging with main thing i'm wondering. You're bringing up status and philosophy as a carreer as having influence over the writing and fame making: how do those effect the attention given to a text? Which philosophers gain recognition without university assistance? Sometimes I conclude "none", but this is just an assumption.

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. — ProtagoranSocratist

If you take the sides of the coin to their landed ends, yes. Jamal isn't fully stating that only academic structures should be considered, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be familiar with the subject material you're trying to write about. Depending on your personality you may wobble on one side of the coin over the other, but keep the coin spinning at all times.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies. — ProtagoranSocratist

Exactly. I hope Jamal and I have been able to show you different approaches that can be used depending on your needs and wants in exploring philosophy. Enjoy exploring regardless!

Which philosophers gain recognition without university assistance? Sometimes I conclude "none", but this is just an assumption. — ProtagoranSocratist

I’m here assuming that by “university assistance” you’re referring to holding a doctorate in philosophy, and the networking that then goes hand in hand with it.

While a higher education in philosophy certainty can help, there are examples of philosophers who “shook the world”, so to speak, that don’t fit this model. From a quick online search:

In ancient times, there was Diogenes (ancient cynicism), Epictetus (ancient stoicism), and Socrates (on whom the Academy was founded). In more recent times, there was Hume (never graduated from a university), Nietzsche (did not obtain a doctorate), Whitehead (had no advanced training in philosophy), and Wittgenstein (his higher education was not in philosophy). And Easterners have their own, such as Confucius.

In many a sense, it can be likened to being a good and successful artist: education in the arts certainly benefits but education of itself does not determine who the talented artists are, and some have no degrees in this field. Like him or not, Salvador Dali comes to mind (he was expelled twice from the academy and never completed his degree). Likewise can also be said with the good, historically important novelists.

All this to illustrate that the philosophical knowledge which higher education has to offer in no way equates to the philosophical understanding required to become a significant philosopher. But, again, this is not to then deny the importance of knowledge in the field.

the networking that then goes hand in hand with it. — javra

this is really the only thing that matters in all of this, making the connections needed so that other people "carry your torch" so to speak. In some ways fame is pretty insignificant and not worth it, but those who come up with ideas they want to share usually want a little bit of recognition for it, even if it's just in the form of having some conversations with people who read their book. The mechanics behind all this are what interested me in making this discussion.

this is really the only thing that matters in all of this, making the connections needed so that other people "carry your torch" so to speak. In some ways fame is pretty insignificant and not worth it, but those who come up with ideas they want to share usually want a little bit of recognition for it, even if it's just in the form of having some conversations with people who read their book. — ProtagoranSocratist

Are you saying this is the only thing that matters to you or to the subject at hand as laid out in the OP?

Plenty of fluff out there that gets far more fame than the meaningful stuff via our modern-day meme-transferring online networking. Which, to me, is a pretty big shame. Lotuses that get drowned out in filth on account of the filth having far more connections.

------------

For other people to “carry your torch”…

A proposal I don’t yet think is possible to debunk: philosophy either aims at exhibiting deeper truths or else it is utter sophistic BS purporting to do the same but with ulterior egotistic motives.

While the expressions of these deeper truths might be “yours”, this due to you being the creator of these expressions, the deeper truths themselves are as much yours as is the solid earth beneath our feet, which is to say they’re no more yours than anyone else’s. A philosopher might want for others to carry “the” torch of the deeper truths they desired exhibited to the world, but this wouldn’t be “their” torch, for deeper truths (which thereby apply to many if not all) are not something people fabricate and can thereby claim ownership of. (The latter, fabricated truths, commonly go by the term “lies”.)

I’m guesstimating, and maybe nitpicking, but maybe instead of “carry your torch” you intended that a philosopher would like for others to “carry the torch”? This just as the Olympic torch that gets carried from place to place doesn’t belong to any one originating person.

In the context of fame of either the individual or the ideas they were promoting, the thing I'm analyzing is what unites the timeless philosophers, for lack of a better term.

For example, you mention this interesting issue:

A proposal I don’t yet think is possible to debunk: philosophy either aims at exhibiting deeper truths or else it is utter sophistic BS purporting to do the same but with ulterior egotistic motives. — javra

If I had to guess, philosophers who really took the content they were writing very seriously (like Plato) are the ones who have lasting fame. I'm thinking about how to tell the difference between the sophistic BS and the "deeper truth" philosophers, I'd appreciate if you elaborated because I don't know what you mean entirely. I think some deeper truths tend to get brushed aside either because people don't want to hear them or don't understand their importance. What makes a truth more important than another truth?

It is true that a lot of writers in general acquire fame through lying and sophistry, and while they're using guaranteed money-making formulas, much of the content those people write will be forgotten by people who take ideas seriously centuries (or even decades) later. The figurative torch, whether it's phrased as "the torch" or "your/my torch" is what's important to the writer. If only money is important to the writer, then the ideas themselves may not have the lasting interest, even if they can be identified as rhetorical tools.

I can easily think of political writers who were only trying to make money, but what are recent examples of pop philosophers who are merely using rhetorical tricks to gain attention and make a quick profit? IMO, the original greek sophists are a little more interesting (like Protagoras), because they were more explicit in talking about using speech or writing as a smoke-in-mirrors project, and going for effect instead of trying to question how we think of things or improve moral reasoning.

What makes a truth more important than another truth? — ProtagoranSocratist

The amount of evidence that supports it.

Every philosophical idea without evidence is just as valid as every other idea without evidence.

It is true that a lot of writers in general acquire fame through lying and sophistry, and while they're using guaranteed money-making formulas, much of the content those people write will be forgotten by people who take ideas seriously centuries (or even decades) later. — ProtagoranSocratist

Yeah, I think we should be taking what others say with a grain of salt when saying what they say it is how they make a living, instead of seeking truth.

The amount of evidence that supports it. — Harry Hindu

well that can be arranged ;) Especially when everyone has billions of talking points and facts at their fingertips...

I'm thinking about how to tell the difference between the sophistic BS and the "deeper truth" philosophers, I'd appreciate if you elaborated because I don't know what you mean entirely. I think some deeper truths tend to get brushed aside either because people don't want to hear them or don't understand their importance. What makes a truth more important than another truth? — ProtagoranSocratist

Well, to start off, what I was saying is that there is philosophical fluff that drowns out the good quality non-fluff philosophy in today's connected world. Fluff, then, is not sophistic BS but merely superficial and in due degree inconsequential. Examples of fluff can be readily found in the self-help department, such as in, for example, "How the Buddha would Date" (from best recollections): utterly superficial and forgettable philosophy that nevertheless sells. But not necessarily sophistic BS. The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do

As to what makes a truth more important than another: the more trivial the truth (e.g., the truth that up is not down), the less important its exhibiting to the public at large is. Conversely, the more exhibited truths light the way in places of darkness (i.e., bring understanding into places previously replete with unknowns and thus filled with displeasing uncertainties), the more important these truths become.

I can easily think of political writers who were only trying to make money, but what are recent examples of pop philosophers who are merely using rhetorical tricks to gain attention and make a quick profit? — ProtagoranSocratist

I now had to look up the darned book: If the Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path In truth, never read it. Got it as a present from someone who did. It looks, sounds, and feels like fluff to me, so ... I presume it is. But it does have a lot of good reviews and plenty of sales. Will it be forgotten in a hundred years? Most likely.

Conversely, the more exhibited truths light the way in places of darkness (i.e., bring understanding into places previously replete with unknowns and thus filled with displeasing uncertainties), the more important these truths become. — javra

if i am ever to write philosophy, with my real name on the cover, that's exactly what i would like to do, even though it might never happen just because i have so many interests...

So I guess pop philosophy something that an academic would not call philosophy, like political rhetoric and self-help? I'm a little disappointed as I was hoping that you would maybe come up with something you regard as shallow and sophistic in formal, modern day philosophy...but this an issue inherent to wanting to separate true philosophy from false philosophy, more or less.

I'm a little disappointed as I was hoping that you would maybe come up with something you regard as shallow and sophistic in formal, modern day philosophy. — ProtagoranSocratist

Ever heard of the book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe"? (Wikipedia reference). This I've read. It's got some interesting points, with empirical evidence and all, but, philosophically, it is very shallow and at least borders on utilizing sophistic rhetorical strategies. This is a prime example, to me at least, of modern day philosophy that ain't all that philosophically astute.

Another good example of the same is: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss