Depends how you enumerate them, but that's not the point is it?

Well, this just gives philosophers a bad rap if you will. — Posty McPostface

'Raps' are for idiots.

I am taken aback by how many more problems appear if there are no real solutions. — Posty McPostface

Then forget the very idea of a 'real solution' - a chimaera that leads one to think 'quietism' has any content other than its own guilty conscience. The only question is what the real problems are.

Consider it a twist on quietism.

Then forget the very idea of a 'real solution' - a chimaera that leads one to think 'quietism' has any content other than it's own guilty conscience. The only question is what the real problems are. — StreetlightX

Quietism is simply a veil that one ought to 'profess' to be able to unbiasedly address different contexts (and their content too) in philosophy. That's how I reason through the issue at least.

Do you recognise a difference between intellectual bravery and arrogance?

To be able to address different contexts in philosophy. — Posty McPostface

Read: to be able to have a minimal grasp of philosophy. If this is quietism - and its very questionable that it is - then philosophy has never had any need for it.

Yes, but without bias and other luggage, please.

You're the one asking questions of me.

No, but it looks super interesting. I'll take a gander and see if I can muster up anything.

You did not, but the link suggests that. As it is about remembering particular details necessary for passing a test in school. Memorization, repetition, mnemonic devices and such. — All sight

No, I don't think that it suggests that at all. Memorisation techniques are an important part of studying. Just because it's about that doesn't mean that it's suggesting that understanding the material doesn't matter. That's a non sequitur.

Well ok, a few suggestions.

1) Forget about all dead philosophers.

2) As to living philosophers, check to see how much they've written about nuclear weapons. If not much or none, discard them too, as they're not capable of basic reasoning.

Pay no attention to whether a writer is famous or not. Think of fame like you do popularity contests in high school.

This procedure will clear the investigation of a lot of dead wood wasted space. You may be left with nobody to study except yourself, which would be great.

There is a difference between learning to philosophize, which is much broader in scope, and learning philosophy. The former can be done anywhere and in most any context and just involves critical reflection and opinion taking/opinion defending. It's learning how to be cogently disagreeable. Learning philosophy is learning how to be disagreeable along with methods of argumentation, argument analysis, and historical or contemporary philosophical positions on philosophical topics. The classes involve reviewing, critically and in-depth, the position of early or contemporary notable thinkers on some topic or topics. You learn to philosophize through the discussions and take-home writing assignments, which involve articulating an author's argument and then forming your own on a topic or a thinker's position. You learn how to represent and dissect arguments, and how to critically reflect. If you get a really good professor, most of the lecture turns into open discussion.

Didn't realize writing about nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for good philosophers to abide by. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent against war, so no harm done if the deterrent is strong enough to prevent warfare. Furthermore, given that it's pretty hard to convince the general public about anything beneficial about war, then we're living in one of the most peaceful periods of human history, in large part due to nuclear weapons.

Hope I clarified that issue somewhat.

Yeah, most of the classes I'm taking involve a lot of discussions in an open format. That's pretty cool to me. Although, I don't like talking that much, I sometimes add in one or two things I have to say.

Didn't realize writing about nuclear weapons is a prerequisite for good philosophers to abide by. — Posty McPostface

Well, now you know, so that's good. If a philosophical "expert" can not focus on the issue which can quickly end all other issues, they aren't a logic expert after all, and thus do not merit any particular attention.

Hope I clarified that issue somewhat. — Posty McPostface

You clarified that you are a member of the philosophy culture group consensus in good standing. You also have an excellent screen name! :smile:

3) Discard what Jake just said. Jake is a single minded fanatic with scant appreciation for philosophy outside of his blinkered view of it.

It helps to write out a summary of what you read. I've found it very helpful to just sit down and write down what I have read in my own words. You'd already have to do something like this in a formal setting, and forcing myself to articulate what I think in a structured form helps me, at least, to identify what I really feel I have a good understanding of and what I am uncertain about and needs further reading.

Personally, I refuse to learn from anybody who has not written about nuclear weapons. It did make K-12 a bit tough but I got through it all right.

Personally, I refuse to learn from anybody who has not written about nuclear weapons. — John Doe

It may help to make the distinction between philosophy and reason. As example, writing an article about Plato as your kitchen catches on fire could be labeled philosophy given that Plato is generally seen as an important philosopher. But surely such an activity could not be labeled an act of reason.

If a philosopher can spout facts and analysis about Plato all day long in great detail, but they aren't capable of simple obvious common sense reason involving issues of the greatest importance to the largest number of people, are they really experts in the art of reason?

If members wish to define philosophy as an activity with no necessary relationship to reason, then in such a case my points on this subject can be discarded. If members wish to read philosophers who would keep on writing a Plato article while their house burns down around them, surely that is their right. Personally, I choose not to give much attention to thinkers who can't reason their way to grasping that the kitchen fire is a more pressing matter than their Plato article.

What nuclear weapons can teach us is that as human beings we have a very tenuous relationship with reason. We think we are reasoning, but usually what we are doing is referencing authority, typically in the form of the group consensus. As we look through that group consensus lens we see that the culture at large including almost all intellectual elites are not focused on nuclear weapons, and so we assume we shouldn't have such a focus either.

If we were to instead look at nuclear weapons through the lens of reason, an entirely different picture emerges. There's really little logical basis for largely ignoring one issue that could almost immediately bring an end to all other issues.

What can obstruct such an observation is that it can quickly reveal than we, including almost all the so called "experts", are not the intelligent rational people we like to assume ourselves to be. When we observe ourselves and the "experts" what we're really seeing is not the processes of reason, but a carefully constructed pose of pseudo intellectual sophistication. Academics have mastered this pose to such a degree that they can charge for it.

If members wish to study thinkers who have mastered the projection of authority but aren't capable of simple common sense reason, it would be wise to at least know that's what you're doing.

What can obstruct such an observation is that it can quickly reveal than we, including almost all the so called "experts", are not the intelligent rational people we like to assume ourselves to be. — Jake

As example, writing an article about Plato as your kitchen catches on fire could be labeled philosophy given that Plato is generally seen as an important philosopher. But surely such an activity could not be labeled an act of reason. — Jake

Personally, I choose not to give much attention to thinkers who can't reason their way to grasping that the kitchen fire is a more pressing matter than their Plato article. — Jake

What nuclear weapons can teach us is that as human beings we have a very tenuous relationship with reason. We think we are reasoning, but usually what we are doing is referencing authority, typically in the form of the group consensus. — Jake

I agree, these are all very pressing issues. I just wish society could figure it out where we have some group of people dedicated to questions like "What is reason?" so that we can enable more practically minded people to learn from and use that accrued wisdom in dealing with the very serious moral, economic and political issues facing the world.

I like W.T. Jones, a five-volume set. He's more modern and readable. Also, he understands his task is not to make a philosopher of you, but to introduce you to philosophers and their thought from the pre-Socratics through the 20th century. In my opinion you can leave modern philosophy strictly alone. In any case to make any headway there you will have to have some grounding in what came before them.

This set, maybe with a good dictionary of philosophical terms, isn't so much to be studied like a bible, but rather read as quickly as possible, with return as necessary. Unfortunately, there is no good history that is free enough of error in itself to be reliable. — tim wood

It seems difficult to get hold of the WT Jones 5 volume set. It is also very expensive.
How about Anthony Kenny's 4 volume History of Western Philosophy?

It seems difficult to get hold of the WT Jones 5 volume set. It is also very expensive.
How about Anthony Kenny's 4 volume History of Western Philosophy? — Corvus

I don't know it. But if it's respectable, why not? There are also so-called 60 minute introductions to this or that philosopher. And "Idiot's Guides" to. All this is introductory and pretty much whatever you take on is subject to refinement if not correction. At the outset, you're just jumping into the pool, or running into the waves, whichever you prefer - getting wet - a first set of steps before swimming.

If you're young, or even not so young, some time spent with Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book, maybe from the library, is time well-spent.

I don't quite get yet how philosophy should be studied?

Being a newbie to the discipline myself, neither do I :grin: . Hope someone else out there could put everything into perspective for us - assuming there's an answer to that question.

Nevertheless, for the sake of entertainment, may you permit me two minutes of your precious time to share my point of view on the matter based upon my limited understanding? And in doing that there I think lies the foundation of all philosophies - point of view.

Bare with me; I'll eventually get to the point. It's my point of view that the capacity of freedom to express one's point of view in the realm of their private cognitive domain and in extension to others in order to determine the answers to what appears elusive and contradictory demonstrates a natural ability and rewarding exercise for most of us. Hence though we tend to gravitate frequently to experts' cognitive bibliographical expressions, which I regard as invaluable insights not to be rejected, we naturally possess these skills as well.

Follow me so far? I surrender to guidance in saying that science emerged from philosophy, if not philosophy is a science. Again - point of view. They both bare elements of hypothesis and prove.
But prove is acceptance and not the answer to our question. For instance in science so many ideas were developed and actually put into practice, but despite the progress mystery still lingers. And even when all mysteries are solved, it is possible that, as oppose to a single point of view, a variety of point of views, all providing apparent solutions/answers to the same problems/questions, may still exist - questioning the validity of the acceptable solutions/answers themselves.

With that said, what I'm really trying to say is in philosophy it seems there is no distinguishable method of study in the context of a specify sequence of topics to follow other than to gain familiarity with the chronology of development and the derivation of some concepts. Like science there is no need to know how a system works by referring to its development, but rather the desired knowledge may be gained by understanding the concepts alone. And like science because contradictory point of views may offer alternative solutions to the same problem, setting to prioritize their sequence of study is unnecessary.

In other words let's postulate that the history of development could've been reshuffled yet the solutions
may still have arisen. In a manner of speaking, this emphasizes the pointlessness of prioritizing.
Nevertheless establishing a strong vocabulary in philosophical lexicon is good.

That's my philosophy. What about yours? Hope I took your question from the right point of view.:lol: