No one imagines that they don't have to care about the past if they want to learn how to build an engine or an airplane, cure a case of tuberculosis or create a fine whiskey. In areas where the results are clear and unambiguous, everyone understands the value of learning from people who have already been through all of this. But somehow they think it is different in philosophy. In philosophy they think that no one else has anything of value to tell them, but oddly enough, that they have something of value to tell others.
RE: Black.White.Thinking?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Black.White.Thinking?
So far, rather than add anything of value to this conversation (of which is apparently below your skill level) or leave it, you have added your definition of philosophy and how this low-level false philosophy is an affront to the 'real' philosophy students.
There has been no argument put forward as to why the position presented is false. Just an ambiguous statement.
What I have often found is those that argue the points learned from others rarely have independent thoughts themselves. In the case of any 'Great conversation', they can merely spectate. Personally, I prefer to play in the lower leagues rather than sit in the stands. Perhaps I'll work my way up the ranks, perhaps not. But having skin in the game makes life more interesting.
I am not well read though. Just a dude that thinks a lot. Maybe all of my thoughts have been thought before and there is not a unique perspective among them. But at least for me, most of them are mine. I am always happy for input from others including criticism but very little time for the dogma of academics or fulfilling the expectations of others.
...And there is no such thing as a 'fine whiskey' to gin drinker. ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit