The Vulgar & The Elite

[mendaciloquent]

A Treatife on the Cvrrent State of Philofophie, by the Honorable Lords apperception & mendaciloquent
Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands, nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common

Comments

[mucilofamucil]

I'm am interested to know when you think an appropriate time is to introduce which philosophical texts into formal education. Would you have students start learning philosophy with a textbook or with something like the Republic? At what age/grade do you think it is appropriate to hand these books over?

[mendaciloquent]

It all depends. There are many adults today who aren't equipped to read the Platonic dialogues, simply because dialectical learning doesn't really play a part in the way we educate people.

But if you raise children from a young age to learn how to evaluate, criticize, and defend arguments, then there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to read something like the Republic many years before students read it today. Given that it's easier to learn languages when one is younger, a child should probably read Plato as they are being taught Greek.

Personally, I think that instead of segregating different topics by discipline, students should learn everything as it was happening, along with the dominant languages in which it was happening, in order to appreciate the way the entire history of mankind is connected. So, you would be learning Greek, studying Plato, performing Sophocles, and learning basic arithmetic and geometry all at the same time. At another age, you would be studying calculus, learning French, studying the sculptures of

[mucilofamucil]

That is wonderful! I share your ideals in pedagogy. I tend to focus on raising children to evaluate, criticize, and defend arguments - especially by example. It seems that the most basic substrate to the education that you and I prefer people to have is logic.

I would very much like it if public schools added logic to the accredidation standards for the lower grades. I do not think this is likely, however, as the public institution would suffer from teaching children how to criticize the authority of public opinion.

[hhallahh]

The second excuse is none at all. That a philosopher is in error is not an injunction against reading his work, only in accepting his conclusions.

Should chemists be forced to study outdated theories of phlogiston and whatnot? I would certainly think not. I'm perfectly happy to get my knowledge of the ancients from secondhand commentators who spare me the trouble of sorting the cream from the crop. Sure, this might be less acceptable if I were actually a dedicated philosophy student (as the information gleaned from such sources may be insufficient), but for the most part not being familiar with ancient works is more than made up for by being more familiar with modern works. It strikes me as purely pretentious to argue otherwise. "You haven't read Aristotle off the original cyprus scrolls? What kind of philosopher are you?"I personally went through a rigorous Humanities course (as Reed requires of its freshman) that includes the works of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Homer, Herodotus, blah blah blah... and I don't feel very much

1

[apperception]

Should chemists be forced to study outdated theories of phlogiston and whatnot?

No one is claiming anyone should be "forced" to do anything. The claim is that philosophers do better philosophy when they understand the broad tradition of which it is a part.

I don't understand the remark about chemistry. There must be some unstated assumption here I'm not getting. Is philosophy the same thing as chemistry? Does one proceed in philosophy the same way he does in chemistry? Please elaborate.

Sure, this might be less acceptable if I were actually a dedicated philosophy student (as the information gleaned from such sources may be insufficient), but for the most part not being familiar with ancient works is more than made up for by being more familiar with modern works.

Sure. If you're content to simply take modern commentators at their word...

I personally went through a rigorous Humanities course (as Reed requires of its freshman) that includes the works of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Homer, Herodotus, blah blah blah...

Re: 2

[hhallahh]

I don't understand the remark about chemistry. There must be some unstated assumption here I'm not getting. Is philosophy the same thing as chemistry? Does one proceed in philosophy the same way he does in chemistry?

It's important to any theory-based discipline, empirical or otherwise, to have at least a vague familiarity of discarded theories and the reasons for their dismissal. You know what they say about those who don't learn from history. However, going into depth with regard to studying erroneous beliefs constitutes an unfortunate distraction with regard to building or critiquing contemporary ideas, which is what the philosopher or scientist should focus his energies towards.

Mmm hm. But you see, that's the problem we're pointing out. Such education prepares people in a superficial way. It gets them ready to come on to communities like this and chatter away in pointless back-and-forths that don't go anywhere. Doesn't it surprise you that, on a community called [info]philosophy, that there are so few people who know anything

Re: 2

[amplimax]

It's important to any theory-based discipline, empirical or otherwise, to have at least a vague familiarity of discarded theories and the reasons for their dismissal. You know what they say about those who don't learn from history. However, going into depth with regard to studying erroneous beliefs constitutes an unfortunate distraction with regard to building or critiquing contemporary ideas, which is what the philosopher or scientist should focus his energies towards.

How can you consistently hold this view? Doesn't believing that it's important to understand the history of discarded ideas contradict the idea that "going into depth" about it is a distraction? I guess I'd like you to clarify how you think it's "important", if it's also a distraction

[hermes_seal]

Except for the tone and the overall aesthetics of this entry, I do agree with a lot of it. Students of not only philosophy but all disciplines don't read as much as scholarings of the past did. I personally wish I had a more solid foundation when I started studying philosophy instead of hastily picking it up as I go along, and there are still volumes of literature that I haven't had the chance or the willpower to get through that I really believe would benifit me greatly

[apperception]

I'm not exactly worshipping students of generations past though, as they were mostly unpracticed elitests with disgusting amounts of white-male privilage trained to scoff at their lessers and rip apart their philosophical enemies like a pack of hungry wolves.Yes. It was spectacular

[apperception]

That should read, "It's a bunch of people with money but who have no class at all."

[apperception]

I still believe in the democratization of academic disciplines.

No, that's a category error of the first degree. That's a garbage idea. You don't democratize the pursuit of knowledge. If you democratize knowledge, then no democracy is possible at all. Locke, Kant, Jefferson, Hamilton -- they all make this clear. People who say that we should "democratize knowledge" don't know what either of the words mean.

[zentiger]

One thing which you seem to have failed to note is this: The greats of the past are not exhaustive of the tradition, nor have any of the greats really had a truly global education. How many people now remember Arnauld, or Gassendi, or Mersenne? Why is Hegel any more relevant to the contemporary student of, say, epistemology, than Erasmus or Lucretius or John Grisham? Must a physicist be familiar with Parmenides to do physics?

While you are absolutely correct when you say that some modern philosophers are lazy, that does not mean that philosophy itself has somehow decayed or worsened with time.

[mendaciloquent]

One thing which you seem to have failed to note is this: The greats of the past are not exhaustive of the tradition, nor have any of the greats really had a truly global education.But we never claimed that they were exhaustive of the tradition or that their education was global in scope. That being said, I'm all for uncovering and studying lesser-known works of the past that may shed new light on old controversies, or that might illuminate old philosophical problems in a new way. The same goes for incorporating and studying the ideas of other cultures. Many of the "greats" knew this and attempted it even in spite of the difficulties of doing so prior to the last century and a half -- Voltaire advocated the study of Zoroastrianism, Schopenhauer was one of the first to study Hinduism and Buddhism, and many Enlightenment thinkers were quite dedicated in their study of Eastern languages, religions, and philosophies -- indeed, one could argue that these learned preoccupations are what lead to many of the early breakthroughs in linguistics

[zentiger]

Are you seriously asking me why Hegel is more important to epistemology than John Grisham?

Well... no, but it's funny, right?

It's difficult for me to imagine how it could be possible for philosophy to continue as an vibrant enterprise when its own professionals can't seem to be bothered to read the stuff and don't seem to take much interest why and how it developed the way it did.

Do you really think that all professional philosophers are lazy in the way you describe? I assure you, they are not. Given that it has never been the case that no or even few professional philosophers were lazy in the way you describe, I'm not all that worried.

The masses have always had pretensions of intellectual ability. The only difference between now and thirty years ago is that the hoi polloi have access to much more effective methods of publishing their foolishness.

[mendaciloquent]

Do you really think that all professional philosophers are lazy in the way you describe? I assure you, they are not. Given that it has never been the case that no or even few professional philosophers were lazy in the way you describe, I'm not all that worried.

No. I mean, for God's sake, I didn't say they were all like this, but I certainly do think that they are representative of professional philosophers today, and that the exceptions would be... well, exceptional. Certainly this was the case in my department.

The masses have always had pretensions of intellectual ability. The only difference between now and thirty years ago is that the hoi polloi have access to much more effective methods of publishing their foolishness.

True. But there's a difference between aspiring to comprehensive knowledge, which is estimable even if it's only realistic for a few, and dismissing the value of that knowledge, or pretending it's not necessary in order for one to speak about the subject in question competently. My complaint is with the latter.

[amplimax]

What philosophers of years past understood, and what the typical student of philosophy today fails to grasp, is the complex entwinement at the deepest levels of our civilization between politics, philosophy, literature, and the arts. Civilizations, including ours, do not merely exist. They are constituted by an understanding of what it means to be a person, a citizen, a member of a social group, and a portion of the cosmos, and this understanding must be defended in the face of skepticism, either in the form of philosophical arguments or in the form of competing visions of life.If I were a better writer, this is the path I would've taken. I spent a good deal of my teenage years reading some of the works you mentioned, and still admire the effect it had on me. The sciences are too time-consuming to manage both, though. Unfortunately, I'm guilty of scurrying over to a field in which I have more skill. But I don't regret the decision: this exalted view of philosophy as a project for understanding ourselves closely resembles my view of