Yesterday I wrote some thoughts about taking care of the day, for the sake of the day. Later I was scrolling through my timeline and the memories thing on Facebook popped up. I enjoy looking at them and seeing what I was thinking about then. To my surprise four years go, on the same day I had posted a quote from Epicuris regarding the same thing. Now I'm wondering if I was just remembering what he had said, or was that my original thoughts? I can say for certain I didn't consciously plagiarize Epicuris. So the question is was it a subconscious response? If so, four years later! Well what's that say about about me? Thick headed or cautious? Hmm, I wonder. But then this question occurred to me. Are there modern day philosophers? If so, I haven't heard about them. I'll have to google that.
Just returned from googling that and yes, there are modern day philosophers. I read briefly about the top ten. I confess I've never heard of any of them. I searched for an explanation and found several. One I found particularly interesting. Keeping in mind this explanation was written by a PhD I considered the following. He says we don't know any philosophers because we don't teach philosophy in elementary or high school. In fact, he contends few even take a course in philosophy at college for the simple reason they are unlikely to take a course in a subject they have no knowledge of. Yes, that seems reasonable enough. I admit I know nothing about the structure of philosophy or the methods you should employ in forming your philosophical thoughts. I've always figured philosophy was just thinking about stuff, and drawing a conclusion from that thought. I've never considered that you could be taught philosophy! To me that would be like being taught, faith. You can teach me what the Bible says, or other religious text say, but you can't teach me to believe. At least that is my thought on that. I think philosophy would have to be the same way. You can teach me what others had to say, you can teach me how they arrived at their conclusions, but you can't teach me to philosophize! The later is something I must do on my own.
Having read a little bit about all of that I think I gained a bit of understanding. Philosophers are easily confused with ideologists. Philosophers are generally regarded as harboring their opinions and presenting them as axioms. Philosophers don't require anyone in believe what they are saying. The important thing to them is that they believe it. At least that seems the case to me. Some of the old Greek philosophers that we still quote to this day died, or killed themselves, for their philosophical beliefs. The thing is they were mistaken for pushing an ideology! There is a very fine line there. An ideologist insists their theories are correct, the philosopher just present the theory. as I said a fine line.
All philosophers tend to concentrate more in one area than another, same as any artist. A philosopher is sort of an artist of thought. It's also true that philosophers explore many fields in their wandering thoughts. There's religion, politics, science, government and all manner of things to think about. The philosopher explores the fundamental nature of knowledge itself. What is mankind capable of understanding? Or more importantly, what can man explain to the satisfaction of everyone.The answers for me, in my philosophy are little and very little.
But what of an ideologist? What is the difference there? An ideology forms the basis for economic or political policies. Yes, they are opinions. The difference being the ideologist insists others follow his theories. Ideologists are often activists! And they come in many flavors, socialists, fascists, communists, and variations thereof. All governments are based on an ideology of some type. The ideology being an outcropping of the philosophy! For that reason it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other. Our own republic has its' roots in philosophical thought. All men are created equal is a philosophical concept. In ideology however, classes of men may be established, an order established. It can be argued that all men are created equal, but not all men are equal! We need leaders. That forms an ideal, an ideology. And that is what ideology concerns itself with, the ideal. Philosophy is just the idea.
It's a difficult thing to understand. I'm doing my best to sort it all out. If successful, I'm thinking I will be the first to do so. Is that because I haven't taken formal instruction in philosophy? Do you require advanced degrees to able to philosophize? Personally I don't think you do. I do believe in a lot of instances you will only be recognized, listened too, or otherwise taken seriously, if you possess such. That has to be. If it weren't those holding those degrees would have to question why they got them in the first place, know what I mean? First you must be able to provide the answers to the questions already answered. Those answers must match what others previously thought. That is the proof! But what does it prove? That is a philosophical question. Ideologically speaking the requirement for the degree exists as an ideal. You have been trained in the discipline. And that implies you are a disciple, or what we call a follower in modern terms.Disciples are reserved for the religious or cults! To the philosopher however that means little as no such requirement exists. I can philosophize sans degrees of any type.
I do find it interesting that philosophers, psychologists, and psychiatrists are often identified by whom they follow in thought. That is done by the other academics in their field. Really it signifies what they believe based on what they studied and subsequently adopted as their own. It's like learning any trade, the methods may differ and the results vary. But, here is my philosophical thought, shouldn't I be striving for my own thoughts? If so, am I learning what all the others had to say, just so I won't say that? Or am I searching for a like mind? Now if it is a philosophy I seek that is easily found by those markers , those credentials. Shall I consult with Freudian or Heinz Kohut? Do I want a Picasso or a Rembrandt? It depends. Am I picking for myself, or picking what I have been taught to pick? Then, after having made my choice, I present that as an ideology.
All of this is very confusing. My thought is a simple one however, a distillation you might say. There is little you can say that hasn't been said before. Finding others that said the same thing as you is nothing more than a confirmation that someone already said that. It does not validate the thought. In other words, just because everyone agrees doesn't make it right. That is my philosophy. My ideological stance is, you have to make a choice. Philosophy is the thought, ideology is the action. Well whatever the case may be I am reminded of something I once saw printed on a tee shirt. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bull*hit. I'm thinking a great number of these academics adopt that policy, that ideology.
Just returned from googling that and yes, there are modern day philosophers. I read briefly about the top ten. I confess I've never heard of any of them. I searched for an explanation and found several. One I found particularly interesting. Keeping in mind this explanation was written by a PhD I considered the following. He says we don't know any philosophers because we don't teach philosophy in elementary or high school. In fact, he contends few even take a course in philosophy at college for the simple reason they are unlikely to take a course in a subject they have no knowledge of. Yes, that seems reasonable enough. I admit I know nothing about the structure of philosophy or the methods you should employ in forming your philosophical thoughts. I've always figured philosophy was just thinking about stuff, and drawing a conclusion from that thought. I've never considered that you could be taught philosophy! To me that would be like being taught, faith. You can teach me what the Bible says, or other religious text say, but you can't teach me to believe. At least that is my thought on that. I think philosophy would have to be the same way. You can teach me what others had to say, you can teach me how they arrived at their conclusions, but you can't teach me to philosophize! The later is something I must do on my own.
Having read a little bit about all of that I think I gained a bit of understanding. Philosophers are easily confused with ideologists. Philosophers are generally regarded as harboring their opinions and presenting them as axioms. Philosophers don't require anyone in believe what they are saying. The important thing to them is that they believe it. At least that seems the case to me. Some of the old Greek philosophers that we still quote to this day died, or killed themselves, for their philosophical beliefs. The thing is they were mistaken for pushing an ideology! There is a very fine line there. An ideologist insists their theories are correct, the philosopher just present the theory. as I said a fine line.
All philosophers tend to concentrate more in one area than another, same as any artist. A philosopher is sort of an artist of thought. It's also true that philosophers explore many fields in their wandering thoughts. There's religion, politics, science, government and all manner of things to think about. The philosopher explores the fundamental nature of knowledge itself. What is mankind capable of understanding? Or more importantly, what can man explain to the satisfaction of everyone.The answers for me, in my philosophy are little and very little.
But what of an ideologist? What is the difference there? An ideology forms the basis for economic or political policies. Yes, they are opinions. The difference being the ideologist insists others follow his theories. Ideologists are often activists! And they come in many flavors, socialists, fascists, communists, and variations thereof. All governments are based on an ideology of some type. The ideology being an outcropping of the philosophy! For that reason it is often difficult to distinguish one from the other. Our own republic has its' roots in philosophical thought. All men are created equal is a philosophical concept. In ideology however, classes of men may be established, an order established. It can be argued that all men are created equal, but not all men are equal! We need leaders. That forms an ideal, an ideology. And that is what ideology concerns itself with, the ideal. Philosophy is just the idea.
It's a difficult thing to understand. I'm doing my best to sort it all out. If successful, I'm thinking I will be the first to do so. Is that because I haven't taken formal instruction in philosophy? Do you require advanced degrees to able to philosophize? Personally I don't think you do. I do believe in a lot of instances you will only be recognized, listened too, or otherwise taken seriously, if you possess such. That has to be. If it weren't those holding those degrees would have to question why they got them in the first place, know what I mean? First you must be able to provide the answers to the questions already answered. Those answers must match what others previously thought. That is the proof! But what does it prove? That is a philosophical question. Ideologically speaking the requirement for the degree exists as an ideal. You have been trained in the discipline. And that implies you are a disciple, or what we call a follower in modern terms.Disciples are reserved for the religious or cults! To the philosopher however that means little as no such requirement exists. I can philosophize sans degrees of any type.
I do find it interesting that philosophers, psychologists, and psychiatrists are often identified by whom they follow in thought. That is done by the other academics in their field. Really it signifies what they believe based on what they studied and subsequently adopted as their own. It's like learning any trade, the methods may differ and the results vary. But, here is my philosophical thought, shouldn't I be striving for my own thoughts? If so, am I learning what all the others had to say, just so I won't say that? Or am I searching for a like mind? Now if it is a philosophy I seek that is easily found by those markers , those credentials. Shall I consult with Freudian or Heinz Kohut? Do I want a Picasso or a Rembrandt? It depends. Am I picking for myself, or picking what I have been taught to pick? Then, after having made my choice, I present that as an ideology.
All of this is very confusing. My thought is a simple one however, a distillation you might say. There is little you can say that hasn't been said before. Finding others that said the same thing as you is nothing more than a confirmation that someone already said that. It does not validate the thought. In other words, just because everyone agrees doesn't make it right. That is my philosophy. My ideological stance is, you have to make a choice. Philosophy is the thought, ideology is the action. Well whatever the case may be I am reminded of something I once saw printed on a tee shirt. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bull*hit. I'm thinking a great number of these academics adopt that policy, that ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment