I think your ideal of independent thinker doesn’t work because this effort of independence is exactly the effort already practiced by all philosophers. The independence imagined by you is already a contradiction itself, because it has already a lot of dependency from your culture, your mentality, your psichology, everything of you. Independence just doesn’t exist. Since we are all in this situtation, obviously including me writing these things, the best thing is not to try to be independent, but rather try to gain, as much as possible, awareness of our dependencies, awareness of the cages we are into. This is the real wisdom. That’s the reason why your professors seem not based to science: because they know, I assume, that science isn’t independent at all: it depends as well on our structures, culture, mentality, everything of us.

Three maxims:

1. For followers: Tim Toady!

2. For trailblazers: Bicarbonate!

3. For both: Tim Toady Bicarbonate!

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science — Skalidris

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular.

I used the word "independent" because it's the best adjective I could find to describe the profile I wanted to talk about, but of course it's impossible to be completely independent of social norms etc, we're humans... If that makes it easier to understand my point, imagine a person who has access to everything but philosophy, and doesn't have a clue about their method, etc. Imagine they're trying to paint a picture of reality, they're going to have to use other resources, which could be by other disciplines (science, psychology,...) or their personal experience by exploring nature, cultures, talking to a lot of people,... Do you think their theories would be wiser than those from philosophy ?

And what you're trying to say is that science is more dependent of social norms etc than philosophy ? Because in that case I totally disagree, the fact that scientific theories keeps being test by experiments is, in my opinion, a more objective window to the world then the endless debates of philosophers which are based on other debates, which are based on other debates and on and on where no one really knows where a theory comes from except from pieces of logic and imagination.



Well philosophy of science mostly studies science itself, the aim isn't to come up with theories that have scientific grounds. And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. At least not that I know of, if you know a branch of those which focuses on what I just explained, please tell me.

And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. — Skalidris

It does.

Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ?

Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ? — Skalidris

I lost the point you were making.

I wasn't trying to make a point yet, you reacted to a part of my post which said philosophical theories don't try to have scientific grounds but mostly have philosophical grounds, then you said it does, then I asked for an example, as simple as that. Do you have one or not ?

I wasn't trying to make a point yet, — Skalidris

This is a good time to do so.

I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic.

In short: Yes, I'm wiser! :starstruck:

I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic. — Skalidris

Quite the reverse. Someone who is arguing with no point is.

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

No, I don't think it is by itself, but it's a contributor. I think you are fundamentally correct in your OP.
In my teaching career, I found that the teachers who took the time and made the effort to understand the character and personality of the pupils they taught, had the best chance to progress them both academically and socially (perhaps a more important responsibility as it can be abused).

I met some teachers who were highly qualified in their subject but could not teach for toffee, almost useless. Wisdom needs breadth, depth, experience, emotional balance, etc, etc.
I don't think anyone who is truly wise knows that they are truly wise.
If you are labeled such by the vast majority of people you encounter in your life then I think you are quite rare.

So, the wisest person would have the most knowledge with the least contradiction. — Skalidris

Yes, I agree that being consistent is very important and demonstrating acceptance that you can be wrong and that you have the ability to consider new valid information and be willing to challenge your own deepest held viewpoints, are also attributes I would consider wise.

to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... — Skalidris

Wise words!

I'm not sure what the word "Would" in the question of your topic actually means; it's somehow dubious. It indicates a condition or imagined situation. It would be more clear to me if the question asked "Can ...?" That is, is it possible that an “independent” thinker is wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?
To which I would answer: "Certainly yes!" :smile: (The reasons are quite obvious ...)

I used would instead of can to picture a "perfect" version of both, but maybe it wasn't obvious. Because you could have an academic philosopher who isn't wise simply because he isn't good at what he is doing, then a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work — Skalidris

To produce original ideas there has to be a starting point i. the form of a contrast with and critique of an existing philosophical stance. So typically an original thinking has read a great deal concerning the leading edge of thought in philosophy as well as many other domains, including the sciences.

In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… — Skalidris

A credential implies the achievement of skills associated with a discipline. This requires engaging with the ideas of others, but can also include original work. A number of top philosophers introduced their original ideas through their doctoral thesis.

But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom? — Skalidris

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds?

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds? — Joshs

I don't think so.

To produce original ideas there has to be a starting point i. the form of a contrast with and critique of an existing philosophical stance — Joshs

But what if the starting point isn't philosophy? It could still be original and wise, couldn't it?

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds? — Joshs

Do you mean : is science closer to wisdom than philosophy? Because that can't really be compared, it's not the same field of study. But if you mean : are theories with scientific grounds closer to wisdom than theories with philosophic grounds, for the same subject? To me, yes, because to be honest, can anyone really tell what the philosophical grounds are? It's never (rarely?) explicit. So how can we build a good logic if we don't even know where the theory came from? At least in science, we know we build it from experiments.

the fact that scientific theories keeps being test by experiments is, in my opinion, a more objective window to the world then the endless debates of philosophers which are based on other debates, which are based on other debates and on and on — Skalidris

Science is more objective from the point of view of science, which means, from its own point of view, which means self-referential. Even a drunken man is objective from his own point of view.
Some philosophers try to make a difference by admitting their dependence on their own point view; as a consequence, they are aware that everybody and everything is conditioned by their point of view. In this context, the fact that science is based on experiments doesn’t make it more objective at all, because, at this fundamental level of criticism, we don’t even know if reality exists, we don’t even know what the meaning of “reality” and “exist” is; so, how can any experiment make science more objective, since it is based on something we don’t even know if it exists?

and on and on where no one really knows where a theory comes from except from pieces of logic and imagination. — Skalidris

This is true for science as well: if we go backwards on and on, asking for the base of every answer we receive, we end up in infinite and totally ungrounded theories and postulates; one of the most basic of them is the assumption that reality exists and that we know the meaning of “reality” and “exist”.

Even a drunken man is objective from his own point of view. — Angelo Cannata

Funny. I like that.

I would like not to be misinterpreted as somebody who has not respect for science: I appreciate it infinitely, I think I have a real scientific mentality and I am proud of it, against pseudosciences and against confusion between science and philosophy. What I said is limited to the level of philosophical radical criticism.

Would an “independent” thinker be wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?

In theory anyone can be wiser than someone else, right? In other words, why couldn't a janitor be wiser than Slavoj Žižek?

But perhaps the key matter is what does 'wiser' actually look like and in what context? I tend to think that academics write for each other and their work is often separate to their life and the choices they make. The philosopher Richard Rorty has said that even philosophers often ignore philosophy outside of academe. Wisdom, and how this might apply to living in the world, making choices, is easily imaginable as an entirely separate affair.

Even a drunken man is objective from his own point of view. — Angelo Cannata

Especially a drunken man. Nothing like substance use to embolden certainty.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic). — Skalidris

How does one do the exploration without relying on stories or explanations from those who came before? Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former.

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... — Skalidris

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it.

Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom? — Skalidris

Why does 'having scientific grounds', whatever the convoluted phrase may mean, have to do with wisdom? It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you. What you are doing at best is criticizing philosophy professors for not being scientists... but they aren't they are philosophy profs. They keep to their discipline and do not try to piecemeal together what little knowledge they have of science. they are indeed wise, they know their limitations.

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

I do not know what reaching wisdom means. You seem to have some hermetic knowledge of that. I believe you say "having the most knowledge with the least contradiction", but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise.

Well from my sarcasm you can already deduce my answer to the question that is the title of the OP. No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. Unless he happens to be one of those exceedingly rare wandering geniuses, my hunch is the independent thinker just needs an excuse to feel good about himself because he senses the inferiority of his philosophical skills and resents the prof.

He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life.

It all depends on which "independent thinker" and which "academic philosopher" wouldn't you say? How can you generalize about such a comparison?

Perhaps it could be said that academic philosophers generally know more about philosophy (at least their own specialist niche but probably also some, if not considerable, general background) than "independent thinkers", if by "independent" you mean to indicate someone who is not interested in familiarizing themselves with the history of ideas, and thinks they can start themselves from scratch.

If you try to start from scratch you will probably repeat mistakes which have already been corrected within the tradition, or come up with ideas which are well-worn and could have been acquired with far less effort by being familiar with the tradition. Would it be wise not to avail oneself of the fruits of sustained philosophical efforts others have made?

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

:ok:

One important aspect of academia is that it is a social environment in which researchers converse with one another, sharpening arguments and discarding mistakes. Usually.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy — Tobias

Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that.

Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former. — Tobias

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages?

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it. — Tobias

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing...

It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you — Tobias

Yes, that was arbitrarily but don't worry, I don't plan to take over the dictionary and change the definition, I'm just trying to communicate on a forum over the internet ;)

but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise — Tobias

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy?

It all depends on which "independent thinker" and which "academic philosopher" wouldn't you say? How can you generalize about such a comparison? — Janus

Yes, I meant a "perfect" version of both.

If you try to start from scratch you will probably repeat mistakes which have already been corrected within the tradition, or come up with ideas which are well-worn and could have been acquired with far less effort by being familiar with the tradition. Would it be wise not to avail oneself of the fruits of sustained philosophical efforts others have made? — Janus

Okay, imagine you live during the Middle Age and try to understand the world around you. Would you study the thoughts of the many ecclesiastics around you? Would you criticize bits of their theories or would you start from scratch? This example is a bit extreme but do you get my point? If you've found a method that is totally different from what already exists, it doesn't make sense to try and criticize a theory that uses another method. That's exactly why creation-evolution debates are pointless to me.

:up: