• Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    This thread is a continuation of the multi-thread project begun here.

    In this thread we discuss the essay On Academics, Education, and the Institutes of Knowledge, probably the most original essay in the whole Codex, so much so that I'm not sure what category to put it into here on the forum. To just quote the first paragraph, this "is not, so far as I am aware, a field that has heretofore been studied as a subject unto itself, but rather only piecemeal in other fields including epistemology, the philosophy of education, and the philosophy of religion. But I intend to address it here as a subject unto itself, as an analogue to political philosophy (or the philosophy of politics): where that field is concerned with governance and the social institutions of justice, especially as they relate to the prescriptive authorities called states, this field as I characterize it is concerned with education and the social institutions of knowledge, especially as they relate to the descriptive authorities that I would broadly characterize as religions."

    I'm looking for feedback both from people who are complete novices to philosophy, and from people very well-versed in philosophy. I'm not so much looking to debate the ideas themselves right now, especially the ones that have already been long-debated (though I'd be up for debating the truly new ones, if any, at a later time). But I am looking for constructive criticism in a number of ways:

    - Is it clear what my views are, and my reasons for holding them? (Even if you don't agree with those views or my reasons for holding them.) Especially if you're a complete novice to philosophy.

    - Are any of these views new to you? Even if I attribute them to someone else, I'd like to know if you'd never heard of them before.

    - Are any of the views that I did not attribute to someone else actually views someone else has held before? Maybe I know of them and just forgot to mention them, or maybe I genuinely thought it was a new idea of my own, either way I'd like to know.

    - If I did attribute a view to someone, or gave it a name, or otherwise made some factual claim about the history of philosophical thought, did I get any of that wrong?

    - If a view I espouse has been held by someone previously, can you think of any great quotes by them that really encapsulate the idea? I'd love to include such quotes, but I'm terrible at remembering verbatim text, so I don't have many quotes that come straight to my own mind.

    - Are there any subtopics I have neglected to cover?

    And of course, if you find simple spelling or grammar errors, or just think that something could be changed to read better (split a paragraph here, break this run-on sentence there, make this inline list of things bulleted instead, etc) please let me know about that too!
  • h060tu
    120
    The way you write confuses me, so I don't know what you mean. Not very clear in your writing. I think the Critique of Pure Reason is easier than your website.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.6k
    I’m sorry. I’d like to try to improve, if you have any more specific directions on what is unclear, or questions that could help me clarify.
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.