Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

I suppose I'm sure that Stefan knows more about the history of philosophy than I do because I don't know very much about the history of philosophy, and he claims to possess a masters level education in the area. That doesn't make him a philosopher, or even carry the implication that he understands the arguments made by the individuals whose histories he has learned. But it does suggest that he would be much better suited to, say, explain how certain ideas developed from other ideas, or how certain philosophers' work reflected their time periods. That's not worthless at all in discussing philosophy; it's actually quite important. But it's not at all the same as being a trained analytical philosopher.

Yes. I see your point, and I DO enjoy grasping the "why" of how we come to believe certain things and can see the value in that.

Thanks.

- NonE

Well I think that when we understand the historical context in which certain ideas arose, we are actually better able to understand the content of those ideas. For example, I don't think you can truly appreciate Marx without understanding Adam Smith and recognizing the state of economic theory at the time of Marx's writing. Just reading Marx, I wouldn't have even been able to understand what I was being told. It was only through studying the history of social scientific thought that I was able to truly appreciate what Marx was trying to say. So yea, I think it's important.

But at the same time, understanding and critiquing Marx requires more than simply understanding who Marx was, when he was writing, and what problems he was trying to address. That's where training in philosophy itself becomes critical. And as far as I can tell, I don't think that Stefan has that training. Of course, Marx has been discussed quite thoroughly, and it's fully possible to have a correct view of his work without ever being a trained philosopher. But the point is, those discussions were conducted by philosophers, and they will continue to be because we're the only ones who are really cut out to do it (though I suppose that might be by definition; anyone who could do it would seemingly be a philosopher, no?).

I dunno ... it sounds a bit (I won’t say it). Education comes in many forms and I don't believe a formal education is the only qualifier. I see very often well educated individuals making either poor or for lack of a better word taught responses. Many trailblazers often have little, varied or no education at least in their field of success. I don't think dismissing ones perceived lack education is an immediate qualifier in right or wrong or good or bad. I think formal training is being equated to intelligence (the ability to think and process) and experience (the result of a lot of thinking and processing). Where is the philosophy in that?

For the record, I would only allow an surgeon to open me up with the proper credentials....but that does not mean there are no bad surgeons out there.... or there isn't a guy on a mountain that does it a couple times a year that can accomplish the same result...

Well I suppose when I said "trained" I didn't mean to leave out the possibility that one could train oneself. But since philosophy is something that's best learned (at least in my experience) through conversation with people who understand it better than you, I think a formal education is particularly invaluable in the field -- perhaps more so than other disciplines. But you're perfectly right in noting that like in any academic area, some of the greatest thinkers were not trained in philosophy in a university setting. That's perfectly okay: developing one's philosophical skills on one's own is just fine, as long as one actually does develop those skills and doesn't simply end up indoctrinated under a particular philosophical paradigm which paralyzes one's ability to actually consider other ideas and to criticize one's own. I just think philosophy is particularly well suited to having others involved in your training, and the university setting seems like it's the best place for that involvement.

And no, we're not all philosophers. We all can be philosophers, if we work hard and keep an open mind. But there's a vast difference between deciding to think about philosophical issues, and developing and maintaining the strict mindset necessary for effective philosophical thought.

I can't agree more with Danny about this. Autodidacticism is wonderful, and often an integral part of good philosophy. But it's mostly worthless if one doesn't ever validate their own ideas against the larger community of philosophy. And the reason has nothing to do with authority or elitism, but simply that, in spite of what the people on certain message boards will tell you, good philosophy is really hard to do.

One can throw around words like "rational" and "logical", and can learn all the latin words that describe logical fallacies, but actually analyzing propositions and language for their logical content is not something which comes naturally to most people. It requires a lot of practice, and particularly a lot of feedback. That feedback has to come from, as Danny indicated, people who are, themselves, good philosophers. If a bunch of people on YouTube tell you that your ideas are great, but every trained logician you encounter tells you that your philosophy is riddled with holes, then you have a serious problem.

I will add to Stewart's agreement that I have found over the years that people can sometimes poke holes in beliefs of mine which, in my mind, were totally beyond reproach for logic and reasonableness. We build pictures in our minds, and sometimes (often? always?) mistake the pictures for the reality, and when someone else can come along and reveal a part of reality which our picture does not contain, then our whole world shifts a bit, and foundational "truthes" are revealed for being not-so-true afterall.

I do believe that honesty and humbleness are required for a successful trip on the philosophy express. A tall order.

- NonE

Well Danny, I understand what it is you are saying. I agree for the most part. Rightly or wrongly I took issue with the word "only". Only in that statement as an ultimate truth. It may be true for the most part but it isn't the "only" unquestionable way of looking at it.

Shit...you mean this is the end of NonE / Dyl banter...where is the entertainment value in that?....