That's fair. Can't say you're wrong either. We yearn for meaning, whether its under the guise of rational discourse or the comfort of faith

Welcome to phil! I agree with all the advice about reading histories of philosophy, but here's a personal recommendation: Most phil is written in a more or less didactic style. You'll find premises, arguments, refutations . . . and all that is absolutely necessary for critical thinking. But also make time for three philosophers, great ones, who didn't write that way at all: Plato, Kierkegaard, and late Wittgenstein. If you read around in these three, you'll have your eyes opened to an entirely different sense of what "writing philosophy" can be.

Start by finding some question you really want answered. Then start reading around that. Make notes every time some fact or thought strikes you as somehow feeling key to the question you have in mind, you are just not quite sure how. Then as you start to accumulate a decent collection of these snippets – stumbled across all most randomly as you sample widely – begin to sort the collection into its emerging patterns. — apokrisis

I think this is excellent advice. I would add: When you encounter a point of view that seems, on first reading, just nonsense, immediately stop and try to enter that "nonsensical" point of view. Why would this (presumably respected and published) philosopher write such a thing? What could they be thinking, meaning? Don't move on until you feel you've made progress in understanding this alien way of thinking. I believe the single biggest error that newbie/amateur philosophers make is to fail to read generously and curiously. This leads to the kind of autodidacticism you've been warned about, and reinforces our natural unfortunate tendency to be dismissive of people we disagree with, without actually understanding how or why the disagreement comes about.

Not always offended, but puzzled that you would be resistant to learning of the philosophers and scientists already saying much the same thing in a more nailed down fashion. . . . . But having the discipline of a research mentality is the only way to reach the inner circles of current thought. And that is just the way it is. — apokrisis

I'm a retired professional architect, and an part-time amateur philosopher, working a retirement gig to make ends meet. So I have very limited time or inclination for academic discipline. And no ambition to "reach the inner circles of thought". That's why my "resistance to learning" may be more charitably termed "time management".

My current "research" is mostly Googling names and terms I'm not familiar with. I Googled "John Collier" and got nothing relevant. But I would invest some time to see what he has to say about Enformation. Back when I started writing-up my Enformationism thesis, the term Informationism was already being used in a different context. So, I added the initial "E" to emphasize the Energy & Entropy aspects.

If you have the time to scan the website*1 & blog*2, you may see that I have already done considerable "research". Most of my references are scientists, so the philosophical inferences are my own amateur musings, not the "nailed down" conclusions of professional metaphysicians. But if you know of something I've missed, please let me know. :smile:


*1. Enformationism :
This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2. Introduction to Enformationism :
Yet, it’s based on the emerging evidence that invisible Information, instead of tangible Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe, including Energy, Matter, and Mind.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

Some TPF posters are offended by my unorthodox views, but most accept a bit of oddity as typical of independent thinkers.
— Gnomon

Not always offended, but puzzled that you would be resistant to learning of the philosophers and scientists already saying much the same thing in a more nailed down fashion. — apokrisis

:up: :up:

... Or one can go the "independent" route which at best can only end up with you repeating the semi-obvious in a suitably obscure way.

In @Gnomon's case: ... too often in a confused and un/mis-informed way (i.e. full of woo-woo).

My current "research" is mostly Googling names and terms I'm not familiar with .... so the philosophical inferences are my own amateur musings — Gnomon

:sweat: Yeah, it shows ...

I Googled "John Collier" and got nothing relevant. — Gnomon

Just click the link I provided,

I Googled "John Collier" and got nothing relevant. — Gnomon
Just click the link I provided, — apokrisis

Thanks for the link. I scanned the long, technical document, and found it was mostly over my amateur head. But the AI summary revealed that some of the concepts covered are compatible with my non-professional thesis. For example "Causation as Information Transfer" is equivalent to the Information = Energy sources in the thesis. Collier's "The Role of Form" is essentially the same as my usage of Platonic Form. Also "Quantification of Form and Complexity" is basically what the Santa Fe institute is doing. And "The Negentropy Principle of Information" is what I call EnFormAction or Enformy*1. So, it seems that we are thinking along the same lines. :smile:



*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis (physicists call it Negentropy), which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

:up:

I’m happy with essentially starting from scratch and re-building my foundations up properly — KantRemember

Hack yourself to pieces, and then put yourself back together.

Hack yourself to pieces, and then put yourself back together. — punos

I would say this approach is completely impossible.

It is not possible to view oneself from the "View from Nowhere", completely devoid of everything except one's rational faculties.

We are placed in systems of hierarchies and traditions into which we are "thrown", which are "givens", to us, and with which we have to deal.

They must be reviewed, repaired, sometimes challenged, but they cannot be escaped, as if we can place ourselves in sterile laboratories of reason.

I think this is good advice:

I'll tell you my secret. Start by finding some question you really want answered. Then start reading around that. Make notes every time some fact or thought strikes you as somehow feeling key to the question you have in mind, you are just not quite sure how. Then as you start to accumulate a decent collection of these snippets – stumbled across all most randomly as you sample widely – begin to sort the collection into its emerging patterns. — apokrisis

The mind engages most deeply what it is interested in, so it is best to begin with what you are already interested in. It is there where you will be able to be attentive to your own thinking and to the different views on offer, and to effortlessly exert the energy required to grow philosophically.

Similarly, when you encounter a point of view that strikes you as nonsensical, just move on. Be honest with yourself, and don't contort yourself to try to make yourself see something that you do not see. Move on to contrasting views that have intelligibility, and can be assessed with earnestness and genuine curiosity. Only later on should you move to try to examine nonsense.