Academic philosophy and its pitfalls...

[pennywise]

why is it that all of the people who say that there isn't any discourse in the field of philosophy today have absolutely no understanding of what's actually going on contemporary philosophy, and have never actually participated in academic studies on philosophy themselves?

how do you know that all of the people in academia today regarding philosophy are just rehashing old ideas and not coming up with any new ones?

how do you know what is going on in the contemporary studies of philosophy if you've never engaged in these studies yourself?

you haven't given any examples of what you are criticizing a very large academic community of doing, all you've done is make generalizations about a wide-ranging school of thought, demonstrating how little effort you've actually given to actually learning what's going on in contemporary philosophy.

sure, an ungrad student is going to learn about a lot of the fundamentals of philosophies--the classics, the essential philosophies, the pivotal philosophical movements, the basic ideas and foundational texts on which much of the language of contemporary philosophy is built upon--but that's true of all fields of knowledge.

in order to get into the discovery-oriented fields of any school of thought, you have to have a grasp the foundations first.

philosophy isn't just about spitting out new ideas and then just tossing them out after some time has passed. it's about building on knowledge, same with all studies. continual discourse means reviewing the ideas that people have come up with, scrutinizing them, testing them, refining them, revising them, improving upon them some more, etc. this is an on going process. there are things to be said of classical philosophies hundreds of years old still. there are still problematic elements in even the most highly acclaimed philosophies. much of contemporary philosophy has to do with dealing with the fallacies of existing philosophies, either by refuting them with new arguments, or by resolving them with new interpretations.

have you read any philosophical journals lately? have you read any academic papers on philosophy ever? if you have then you'd know that philosophers are constantly expanding on the ideas of their precessors as well as their contemporaries. they use established ideas as reference points. philosophy isn't a collection of disconnected islands of thought. it's a web of interconnected discourse. it's almost impossible to have discourse without referencing other ideas. is this rehashing or is this progress?

it's easy to criticize something you know nothing about if all you're going to do is make broad generalizations without any factual basis. but try and support your claims, and you'll see how off base you are.

personally, if i were a mod i'd just close this thread as it really has no purpose as PhenethylTrypta has stated. the original poster is just trolling.

if you feel threatened by people discussing philosophical topics you don't understand, then rather than criticizing them for applying what they've learned in their academic studies in their daily life, maybe you ought to just pick up a book once in a while and enlighten yourself on these topics. it's not as if what you learn in school should just be kept within the classroom. being angry at people for pursuing an education and actually being enthusiastic about it? that's just pathetic.

OMG READ THE POSTS! im assaulting generally the quality of much of the discussion on this board in particular. THATS IT! If its so meaningless dont get your panties in a bunch and just ignore it.

 

[PhenethylTrypta]

from a pragmatic and economic point of view, your academic philisophical pursuit lends itself only to the world of academics. i dont see anyone hiring "philosophers" anywhere except universities, and in that case its not the easiest position to get anyway. Not only do you have to have a very high level degree, like a phd, from a respected if not prestigious university, you also have to have strong social connections as well as respect in the academic world. Having a bachelors degree in philosophy gets you none of this. If anyone is going to end up flipping burgers its you, although i suppose you will be able to comprehend the "questions of the universe" while you are doing it (although i would imagine theoretical physics would be a better approach to get any kind of "questions of the universe" answered to any degree of certainty. philosophy tends to produce more questions than tangible results). As to the original question (ie, why i have problems with people regurgitating philosphy classes) i would imagine the best way to actually learn philosophy would be reading the original texts than what some guy posts on the internet. Unless someone has an original view or interpretation, i dont see the point.

1) Did I ever say anything about ONLY majoring in philosophy?
2) Did I ever make any mention about getting only a bachelors degree?
3) Did I ever makey any mention to what I'm minoring in?

I do have other interests in life besides philosophy. I didn't start this thread. I simply replied to it in an effort to participate. Let me stress the point of participation since this board exists purely for that reason. Without the participation and input of other people this would not be a message board, it would be a series of forums I would never waste my time reading.

Also, what makes you think that my pursuit in philosophy is purely "acedemic" in nature? Yes, I do take acedemic classes in the field of philosophy, but how do you define "acedemic philosophy"? Maybe I should have mentioned I'm an aspiring writer, musician and have many interests in pharmacology which is another field I am pursuing currently. I almost feel ashamed defending my motives in my curiosity about the origins of the universe as well as the meaning to my life and the purpose of humanity as a whole.

I will agree with you on the point that a bachelor's degree in philosophy lends little support in attaining an economically suitable position in the particular society we live in, which revolves around the need for businesses to provide a supply for a demand. This does not mean that I need to give up on my pursuit towards a, what I would consider, more noble stature in reference to my field of occupation. I'm not looking to invent the next concoction of bread, meat and various condiments assorted in such a way that it would make the big mac a forgotten human fattening mechanism.

My first response to you, pennywise, was that your reply was meaningless in a thread that was designed to seek out meaningful responses to a legitimit inquiry. Personally, I don't know you. I don't know what your career goals are or your personal interests are. I just know that a thread was started and you responded in a manner that only flooded it with a post that polluted it's possibility of becoming a lenthly discussion worth having. I now also admit that by responding multiple times back and forth with you, I am guilty of this same indecency and lack of progression.

 

[PhenethylTrypta]

>>

Erm...I wasn't making any sort of statement about your character...or even arguing that academic philosophy succumbs to a certain set of pitfalls. It's just a topic up for debate.

ebola

What topic is there to debate by posting a ridiculous, petty arguement by two disagreable people who have never met?

Erm...I wasn't making any sort of statement about your character...or even arguing that academic philosophy succumbs to a certain set of pitfalls.

Erm...you named the thread "Academic philosophy and it's pitfalls" and posted an childish debate between two people on another thread. It'd have to say that's EXACTLY what you were doing. You should have named the thread "The pitfalls of discussing [academic] philosophy on a message board consisting of a range of different personalites: Gasoline huffers, Matrix fanatics, lonely library dwellers, candyravers, eraserheads all the way to philosophy professors, your average day thinker interested in delving further into the world of philosophy, etc"

I'd expect more tact and less childplay from a moderater of a forum dedicated to "Though and Awareness". High class.

 

[PhenethylTrypta]

not to mention that no one ever cites the source for these ideas

This is a forum designed simply to casually, or if preferred, intensely about thoughts and human awareness. I wasn't aware that you needed to site sources, thinkers, page numbers, editions, etc when discussing thoughts. Shall I make a title page and a bibliography aswell when posting here? I credit myself for my own thoughts. The foundations of my ideas are composed of the ideas I've learned in reading books, listening to lectures, investigating and testing these ideas on my own accord and using myself as the subject tested and most definately from expanding upon the ideas that other ancient and contemporary thinkers either missed, didn't agree with or died before they had the chance to grasp it.

Your reply to my post was rooted somewhere in a system of beliefs impended in your mind/brain that has evolved over time from a vast assortment of incoming data and your interpretation of prossessing of that data. Would you please cite the sources for which everything you post on here is acredited to?

And also, Thursday, I could not have said it better myself. I'm glad someone is capable of taking seriously the schools of thought that have survived for thousands of years thanks to people taking interest, and pursuing their curiosities and asking questions no matter how ridiculed one might get from asking those questions. I'd say your post was the most intelligable one in this entire thread that has no purpose whatsoever in existing.

 

[protovack]

You should have named the thread "The pitfalls of discussing [academic] philosophy on a message board consisting of a range of different personalites: Gasoline huffers, Matrix fanatics, lonely library dwellers, candyravers, eraserheads all the way to philosophy professors, your average day thinker interested in delving further into the world of philosophy, etc"

LOL. I'm in the library right now. I find it hilarious that you use the term "lonely library dweller" to refer to someone that is incapable of having an academic debate about philosophy (I'm in a friggin LIBRARY). Or maybe you aren't saying that. I can't really figure out what argument you are making from your posts, other than defending the sanctity of "official" philosophy (for whatever reason, you feel it is under attack).

I'd expect more tact and less childplay from a moderater of a forum dedicated to "Though and Awareness". High class.

I see you are on a roll now, though I have no idea what you are talking about still. More tact? What the hell are you talking about? The only thing ebola said was "it's just a topic up for debate."

 

[PhenethylTrypta]

LOL. I'm in the library right now. I find it hilarious that you use the term "lonely library dweller" to refer to someone that is incapable of having an academic debate about philosophy (I'm in a friggin LIBRARY). Or maybe you aren't saying that. I can't really figure out what argument you are making from your posts, other than defending the sanctity of "official" philosophy (for whatever reason, you feel it is under attack).


I see you are on a roll now, though I have no idea what you are talking about still. More tact? What the hell are you talking about? The only thing ebola said was "it's just a topic up for debate."

I said something like a "vast array of people". I was in the library too. You misunderstood me. Why take such an aggressive attitude when you didn't even know what I was saying. I'm at my college library right now as well. I happen to enjoy the matrix aswell. I was simply describing all the different sorts of people who come onto this board and how confused and misunderstood people's beliefs can be.

You can't see what I'm defending? Then don't reply. Simple.

 

[ebola?]

>>What topic is there to debate by posting a ridiculous, petty arguement by two disagreable people who have never met? >>

I'm not quite sure, yet you two continue to converse.
I just wanted to purge the free-will thread of this stuff without deleting your conversation entirely.

>> You should have named the thread "The pitfalls of discussing [academic] philosophy on a message board consisting of a range of different personalites: Gasoline huffers, Matrix fanatics, lonely library dwellers, candyravers, eraserheads all the way to philosophy professors, your average day thinker interested in delving further into the world of philosophy, etc"
>>

Hah...that's true.

>>I'd expect more tact and less childplay from a moderater of a forum dedicated to "Though and Awareness". High class.>>

Er...what? I'm not sure what you're reading into what I've said or how you're doing so...

ebola

 

[sexyanon2]

I think we should rename this thread to a Civilized Free For All Brawl.

The majority of these posts are useless. thursday tried to contribute, on the other hand.

Oh well. Not one of the more entertaining threads but I guess we can dump all the garbage here.

TM READ ZORN'S POST ABOUT MUTATION IN THE EVOLUTION THREAD.

 

[pennywise]

its certainly better than another "is god REAL?!?!?!" thread.

oh and it does discuss the question of the usefullness of a philosophy degree.

 

[sexyanon2]

to a degree it does.

and those "is god REAL" threads are more personal and direct attacks. this is more civilized. like a gentleman's fight.

 

[pennywise]

This is a forum designed simply to casually, or if preferred, intensely about thoughts and human awareness. I wasn't aware that you needed to site sources, thinkers, page numbers, editions, etc when discussing thoughts. Shall I make a title page and a bibliography aswell when posting here? I credit myself for my own thoughts. The foundations of my ideas are composed of the ideas I've learned in reading books, listening to lectures, investigating and testing these ideas on my own accord and using myself as the subject tested and most definately from expanding upon the ideas that other ancient and contemporary thinkers either missed, didn't agree with or died before they had the chance to grasp it.

Your reply to my post was rooted somewhere in a system of beliefs impended in your mind/brain that has evolved over time from a vast assortment of incoming data and your interpretation of prossessing of that data. Would you please cite the sources for which everything you post on here is acredited to?

And also, Thursday, I could not have said it better myself. I'm glad someone is capable of taking seriously the schools of thought that have survived for thousands of years thanks to people taking interest, and pursuing their curiosities and asking questions no matter how ridiculed one might get from asking those questions. I'd say your post was the most intelligable one in this entire thread that has no purpose whatsoever in existing.

part one: yes i do think people should at least give credit for ideas or theories to the people who created them if what you are writing is just a summary of someone elses work.

part two: please quote me if i marginilized the impact of philosophy in any way, because i didnt. I attacked the usefullness of philosophy in supporting onesself financially, but then again, i didnt even bring that up. you did, with your burger flipping comment.

is there any philosophical subject that has been beaten to death more than, say, the "existance of god" or "free will"? And then to hear the same standard ideas and logic repeated ad nauseum, without even the slightest derivation whatsoever, gets a bit tiresome.

You can't see what I'm defending? Then don't reply. Simple.

i cant believe you are saying this. you, who chose specifically to respond to my offhand "meaningless" comment. follow your own advice.

 

[protovack]

And then to hear the same standard ideas and logic repeated ad nauseum, without even the slightest derivation whatsoever, gets a bit tiresome.

So let's see. You joined two weeks ago (max) and you are already trolling in the T&A forum, picking on people for not being philosophically "rigorous" enough? And calling people burger flippers?

Lighten up

 

[qwe]

lol@thread

 

[protovack]

It hurts.....

Posted by pennywise in College & University....

i am taking a "philosophy of islam" class and a western political philosophy class. I have never had any formal exposure to philosophy but i fucking love it. Im a freshman and these are both junior/senior level courses, but im doing really well

 

[pennywise]

^^^^^i hate having to qualify myself, but you are missing the word formal. i meant as far as college level courses. Its a personal interest of mine. I have read political philosophy extensively. Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Hume, Rousseau, Hamilton, as well as some non-political writings of theirs, also plato, aristotle, kant, descartes........recently for islamic philosophy avicenna and mulla sadra. Some christian philosophy like aquinas, calvin, luther......formal doesnt mean shit. And even with my limited classroom exposure i am already hearing lectures recycled in this forum.

btw, i joined with this name recently.......that doesnt mean i havent been around with a different name for a long, long time......dont assume shit. Especially about my exposure to philosophy, or as i will assume is about to be brought up, my age (as you dont know that for sure either). I dont really equate college courses with a firm grasp of philosophy either.......most of them one could pass simply by attending the lectures and taking notes, without even reading the primary text. Im not impressed whatsoever with "well in class, professor aging-hippy said blah blah blah". But you know what? no one even says THAT!!!! No one qualifies their statements with any kind of reference. Its all just spoken out of pocket like gems pour out of their keyboards. If im trolling, then how come many people admitted that my statement was true? It must have struck a nerve if everyone felt so inclined to defend themselves. If it didnt apply im sure people would have just ignored it. btw, i didnt start the whole burger flipping fiasco.

 

[ebola?]

>>No one qualifies their statements with any kind of reference. Its all just spoken out of pocket like gems pour out of their keyboards.>>

My posting history (well, some of it at least) refutes this.

ebola

 

[pennywise]

ok maybe a hasty generalization. rarely is anything "always" or "never". but for a majority of posters i stand by my statements.

 

[protovack]

No one qualifies their statements with any kind of reference. Its all just spoken out of pocket like gems pour out of their keyboards.

Maybe you should contact Bluelight management about adding a section to the forum rules regarding proper citation (and maybe mixed metaphors).

Say I pull a "gem" out of my pocket like, "you gotta believe in yourself!"


....Do I need to quote Kant ("Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law") to justify it?

NO! Because If I'm gonna say something, I'll just say it. I don't keep a stack of philosophy texts on me at all times. If I want to say something regarding a topic mentioned in class, i'll just try to remember generally what was said.

Philosophy is not owned by philosophers....

 

[aunty establishment]

This thread could be described to a blind philosopher as "the sound of two dicks slapping together".

 

[pennywise]

Maybe you should contact Bluelight management about adding a section to the forum rules regarding proper citation (and maybe mixed metaphors).

Say I pull a "gem" out of my pocket like, "you gotta believe in yourself!"


....Do I need to quote Kant ("Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law") to justify it?

NO! Because If I'm gonna say something, I'll just say it. I don't keep a stack of philosophy texts on me at all times. If I want to say something regarding a topic mentioned in class, i'll just try to remember generally what was said.

Philosophy is not owned by philosophers....

well im much more likely to care about what kant says than whatever you say