Philosophy
Afriend posted in his goals for 2011 to read some introductions to philsophy. Because I sent him a long reply on my opinions, I might as well share them here.
I just finished " A Begginers guide to philosophy". For the second time. At 200 pages each one is 3/4 cartoons and I learnt absolutely nothing.
To balance that, I recently read the chapter on philosophy from my 1932 copy of " An Outline of Modern Knowledge". Whilst this was only 70 pages, it was extremely small font.
My summary from both is that:
To study philosophy you have to either:
a) Pick a philosoper and read everything about them. You will then be an expert on the personal opinions of one (probably dead) human being.
b) Study the whole subject to degree or preferably PhD level. Without prior in-depth understanding of the subject there is no guarantee (a priori) that this undertaking will be worthwhile or (as is most likely the case, imho) a complete waste of your life.
c) Read some beginners guides or summary chapters so that if anyone mentions philosophy in your vicinity in future you can nod sagely, knowing you've heard of that philosophy or philosopher.
My personal breakdown of philosophy (without doing a PhD in it) is that it comes in four categories (I upgraded this from three this year - to show I'm not set in my ways)
a) Bloody obvious (Q.does a falling tree make a sound in the forest? A. Yes, if there's a squirrel, starling or even an ant nearby.)
b) Irrelevant (Q.why are we here? A.There is no why, we just are)
c) Wrong (eg "all human experience is subjective therefore all science is subjective therefore there is no such thing as ultimate truth". A. DNA is a double helix structure. Looking at an X-ray diffraction pattern might be a subjective experience, but it's still a double bloody helix and always will be. On every planet/universe where DNA exists).
d) (the new one) Superceded by Science. (Q. Is the universe made of standard 'atoms' like grains of sand. A. Yes, but much smaller.)
From what summaries/beginners guides I've read, I'd find myself agreeing with one chapter (eg atomists) thinking this makes some sense, then the next chapter would describe a group (eg materialists) who were allegedly diametrically opposed to the previous group, but I also agreed with them to some extent. To resolve this apparent paradox would require studying each belief in detail (probably to PhD or lifetime-dedication) level to decide which one I really agreed with.
It's a lot easier to just have your own ideas. That's all philosophy is. Ideas that can't be experimentally verified. Anyone can have those. Ideas that can be tested are called "Science", There's no reason to suppose a 'famous' philosopher's flights of fancy are better or worse than your own, so why waste your life caring what they thought?
I just finished " A Begginers guide to philosophy". For the second time. At 200 pages each one is 3/4 cartoons and I learnt absolutely nothing.
To balance that, I recently read the chapter on philosophy from my 1932 copy of " An Outline of Modern Knowledge". Whilst this was only 70 pages, it was extremely small font.
My summary from both is that:
To study philosophy you have to either:
a) Pick a philosoper and read everything about them. You will then be an expert on the personal opinions of one (probably dead) human being.
b) Study the whole subject to degree or preferably PhD level. Without prior in-depth understanding of the subject there is no guarantee (a priori) that this undertaking will be worthwhile or (as is most likely the case, imho) a complete waste of your life.
c) Read some beginners guides or summary chapters so that if anyone mentions philosophy in your vicinity in future you can nod sagely, knowing you've heard of that philosophy or philosopher.
My personal breakdown of philosophy (without doing a PhD in it) is that it comes in four categories (I upgraded this from three this year - to show I'm not set in my ways)
a) Bloody obvious (Q.does a falling tree make a sound in the forest? A. Yes, if there's a squirrel, starling or even an ant nearby.)
b) Irrelevant (Q.why are we here? A.There is no why, we just are)
c) Wrong (eg "all human experience is subjective therefore all science is subjective therefore there is no such thing as ultimate truth". A. DNA is a double helix structure. Looking at an X-ray diffraction pattern might be a subjective experience, but it's still a double bloody helix and always will be. On every planet/universe where DNA exists).
d) (the new one) Superceded by Science. (Q. Is the universe made of standard 'atoms' like grains of sand. A. Yes, but much smaller.)
From what summaries/beginners guides I've read, I'd find myself agreeing with one chapter (eg atomists) thinking this makes some sense, then the next chapter would describe a group (eg materialists) who were allegedly diametrically opposed to the previous group, but I also agreed with them to some extent. To resolve this apparent paradox would require studying each belief in detail (probably to PhD or lifetime-dedication) level to decide which one I really agreed with.
It's a lot easier to just have your own ideas. That's all philosophy is. Ideas that can't be experimentally verified. Anyone can have those. Ideas that can be tested are called "Science", There's no reason to suppose a 'famous' philosopher's flights of fancy are better or worse than your own, so why waste your life caring what they thought?