Philosophy Web Discussion: Philosophical Debate and Discussion: Debate And Discussion: We poor amateurs, what can we contribute?

By slocks on Wednesday, February 9, 2000 - 08:37 pm:

Although it is interesting to read and discuss philosophy for meagre amateurs like myself, is there any chance that we can contribute anything? Would we not always be doomed to at our very best merely repeat that which has been said before by a more learned and intelligent professional? Could every question be replied to with "read xxx by yyy who has written well on this before."

Maybe somebody can refer me to a good philosopher or three who have already discussed this question.....

By Andrew McCallum (Andrew) on Wednesday, February 9, 2000 - 10:56 pm:

Try Luciano De Crescenzo. I think you might find him encouraging

By Rupert McCallum (Rupert) on Thursday, February 10, 2000 - 04:44 am:

Even an argument that's been offered by a well-respected philosopher is often very much open to criticism. It's essential to the process of learning philosophy that you learn not to be afraid to subject an argument from a "higher authority" to critical inquiry.

By Brian Koontz (Briankoontz) on Thursday, February 10, 2000 - 09:22 am:

Slocks, you are not looking at this
in the right way. Its not a matter of
saying something *new*, ala "Would we
not always be doomed to at our very
best merely repeat that which has been
said before" its a matter of saying
*true* things. There is no assumption
that says that new things are more
true than old things. Maybe the BEST
things that we can say have been
repeated a million times by a million
philosophers. Or maybe the best things
that we can say have never yet been
spoken.

Every philosopher can be destroyed
(though great philosophers can only
be destroyed by other great philosophers).


***

----- Brian Koontz

By Jim Dix (Fellmonger) on Thursday, February 10, 2000 - 03:15 pm:

slocks...

I consider myself an amateur and find nothing
particularly wrong with this. However, I did find
it very helpful to return to school to discover
that many of my thoughts had been around for a
long time and been given the kind of scrutiny that
I hadn't been able to give them. Nevertheless,
whether you participate or not is up to you. I
participate because I'm obsessed with philosophy,
not because I'm particularly good at it.

I would say that some of the so-called
professional philosophers who drop in from time to
time think we are two "amateurish" and dismiss us
out of hand. However, I think that they may have
missed some opportunities to exchange their ideas
with some fairly top-notch minds that frequent our
pages. I would say their assessments are based on
too small a sample.

Fell

This sentence is needed to overcome a flaw in
Internet Explor

By slocks on Thursday, February 10, 2000 - 09:21 pm:

Thank you for some very good answers. I must say that I'm doomed to read and discuss philosophy, no matter how good or bad my comments and ideas, for the same reason as Fellmonger. I also think that unless we discuss what we think, rather than just what others think, then it seems much harder to learn and discover. Of course it is likely that much/most/all of what we think has been thought before, but as long as it's good stuff, that is still material well worth thinking.

However since so many issues have already been dealt with at high levels of sophistication, I go through phases of reading more and speaking less. Then the ideas begin to bubble and speaking can't be helped!

Also I would say that discussion at ones own level with peers is very stimulating. It can get the philosophical juices flowing where a book or lecture on the same subject may be less direct and one can feel more detached.

So I think I've just made some pragmatic arguments there for amateurs doing philosophy. Maybe my original question about "can we really contribute anything new" is like this:- is it worth doing art, as better art has probably been done before? Is it worth running the 100 metres, as somebody else will have already run it faster! Or maybe my question is not like that. There seems little point in terms of making scientific progress in endlessly repeating a scientific experiment that has been well tried and tested - e.g. timing a pendulum to investigate the relationship between the length of the string and the period, etc. unless we just want to understand pendulums better for ourselves. Could we be in a similar situation with philosophy? If philosophy is about not just understanding, but discovering things (some of which may be that past ideas are wrong) then can amateurs achieve anything very much? (By amateurs I mean those of us who are not great and learned minds, rather than just not paid for it!) Even if philosophy is only about understanding, then how can we hope to explain something better than greater minds than we? We might as well just sit at their feet and only talk in order to understand for ourselves.

Those in science jobs routinely do useful work, chipping away at research. A scientist doesn't need to be originating a theory like quantum mechanics or discovering the structure of DNA to be doing useful work. Smaller projects are still adding progress. But can we do this in philosophy? That is maybe a better statement of my question. I certainly think we should all do as much philosophical thinking, reading and discussion as we wish to, but should we admit we are very unlikely to say anything new? Again I accept that "newness" is not the be all and end all, but it is a part of progress, surely?

Maybe we have to philosophise though, because over most points there is no complete consensus amongst even the great philosophers. Maybe we are therefore stuck with having to make up our own minds and evolve our own thoughts and hence our own philosophical views.

I hope nobody takes this personally, as if I don't think your ideas are worthwhile because you're not professionals! If I thought that, I wouldn't be writing to you and reading your replies :-)

By tvaddict on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 - 04:59 pm:

Look at it this way, some "good" philosophers are christians.

'nuff said about "good" philosophers.

By sammy on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 - 08:10 pm:

Slocks et al,
If you see "doing philosophy" as justified or worthwhile only if you contribute something to 'philosophy' as a whole, then you (and your fellow amateurs, and even those of us who might be so vain as to call ourselves professionals) are bound to be frustrated. Why not philosophize for the following reasons, instead: because you love it, it is relaxing, it is challenging, it changes the way you see yourself and the world, it can lead you into some very interesting conversations with some very interesting people, it is a great education and a way of enriching all experience...not just patently philosophical experience, etc.? But, having offered that first thought, let me add this: I think you may overestimate the degree to which your thoughts have been hashed and rehashed by philsophers in the past. It is possible, even probable, that many of your inchoate ideas are brand new, and that, as an amateur, all you lack is the methodology for expressing these ideas in rigorous "philosophical" fashion. I am inclined to go even further in my encouragement, and to say that novice philosophers sometimes have the *best* new ideas. You've probably heard the adage that mathematicians do their best work at a very young age, and that this phenomenon is explained by the fact that young mathematicians haven't learned that some previously unsolved problem "can't" be solved in the way they are attempting to solve it. Thus, they proceed forward, "foolishly" and "amateurishly" avoiding the advice their more experienced elders might provide, and wind up solving the unsolved mystery. There's no reason to think that this is necessarily the case, but also no reason to think that this can't be said of philosophy as well. I'll give you a personal example: when I first read Kant's Critique, I read it in a certain way that was, you might say, "unconventional". I subsequently was provided with a "better" reading of the text by my professors, but have since come to realize that that initial reading is philosophically supportable, much more interesting than the conventional line, and allows Kant's work to mean more in a contemporary framework than it is normally given credit for. Anyway, to wrap up, keep performing and enjoying philosophy, and never be deterred by some foolish professional who calls you an amateur: many of the greatest discoveries of all time -scientific, philosophical, and otherwise- have been made by amateurs such as yourself.

By tvaddict on Tuesday, February 22, 2000 - 08:36 pm:

sammy,

Answer this question if you are a 'professional' philosopher:

Is there a difference between a person who has read XYZ books and debated on XYZ subjects and a person who has read same XYZ books and debated (as frequently) on XYZ subjects but has a Ph.D. for doing so? (Assuming no difference in base intelligence)

I think professional philosophers assume almost identically (to the same degree) certain occupational idiosyncrasies and pet peeves, which to some less confident thinkers seem cognitively colossal. Philosophy, literature, history, maybe even economics - all these fields have certain strong traditions in universities around the globe. These traditions are usually rehashed or revised every so often, but there is usually a way of doing things: ways of being seen as professional, and ways of being seen as a recluse. Thus, it seems to me, the professional philosopher doesn't *necessarily* exceed the amateur philosopher in any respect, but differs only by the destiny of following an academic career. I guess this could be said about any professional, and that's exactly the point.

By sammy on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 06:15 am:

Tvaddict,
Although I am well aware that a poster's "tone" or motivation is often hard to accurately apprehend when reading a quickly composed message on a site such as this, it does seem to me that your post is confrontational, and I am not sure why this is so. I very much agree with what you have said in your post, and as far as I can tell, the point you make is either very similar to the point I made or is, at least, not contradicting me. Perhaps my post was unclear, or perhaps you are agreeing with me after all? As for your seeming uncertainty regarding my status as a 'professional' philosopher: I am a graduate student in a doctoral program, I am paid to be such a thing, this payment provides for all of my needs and expenses, and I am "vain" enough to call myself professional as a result. You can make your own decision as to whether or not such a label is justified, now that you know what I mean in employing it. And as for your question: No, I don't think there are relevant differences between those two people. Granted, it is hard to imagine that a person who is not paid to do philosophy would have the kind of time needed to read and discuss "XYZ" to the same extent a professional philosopher would, but if such a person did exist, that person would be no different from any other philosopher in the senses you mention. She or he would still not be a professional, of course, because no money would be changing hands, and such a transaction seems necessarily tied to the title 'professional'. In any case, I think you are right to say what you say.

By tvaddict on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 03:35 pm:

Sammy,

My post may have been more confrontational than I consciously intended, so for that, I apologize. But, I guess what I'm trying to say is this - that professional philosophy to some people suggests a towering architecture of erudite and esoteric ideologies, championed by men with a dominating and other worldly understanding of commonly incomprehensible issues. I'm trying to fight against the idea that amateur philosophy and professional philosophy is separated by intelligence and/or potential. I very much wanted to do philosophy professionally, and after being very much discouraged by the climate and approach of professional philosophers at the university I attended, I stopped pursuing that career. I still have plenty of time to read, write, and think -- and it is somewhat disconcerting that there is a prerequisite of academic rank(intentional pun:) or award, which you must have in order to be respected for what you think.

By Jim Dix (Fellmonger) on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 07:08 pm:

tvaddict (from your last post to Sammy)...

The criticism you have of the establishment I
think is due to its nature and the nature of some
humans to want to make a name for themselves. If
you aren't concerned that your ideas are to have
some legacy, there is little need to be worry
about having to defend them against all criticism.
If you are to make a name for yourself in this
field you had better be prepared to defend (and
sometimes attack). Further, if you have a
tendency to waffle or to water down your views to
match anothers, you will be lost in the shuffle.
You've really got to have something to say that is
worth your saying it. This sort of resolution
tends to lead to pomposity and arrogance, but it
also, as you say, may lead to being rewarded.

Having a "normal" personality is undoubtedly a
rare thing in a philosopher. Presumably the rank
of PhD intends to factor in both insight and
resolve.

Fell

This sentence is needed to overcome a flaw in
Internet Expl

By tvaddict on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 07:27 pm:

Fell,

Quick response: it's not that I feel the need to be known in any way, it's just that the impossibility of being considered without academic accolades brings out dissatisfaction.

By Jim Dix (Fellmonger) on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 - 08:58 pm:

tvaddict...

Does this mean you want to be known but are
unwilling to "go through the hoops" that academia
presents or that you would rather be known in
other than academic circles since academia is
constituted by nothing but a bunch of "wind bags?"

Though it might not be considered a monolith, akin
to the monolith that might not be thought of in
the art world, the road to fame in philosophy does
seem to require some hurdles to be crossed. I'm
sure that you may be able to gain fame as an
intellectual or some other and not be recognized
by academia. But in this instance, will you ever
know that your voice could withstand their
scrutiny without entering into their arena?

There are lots of voices in the world.
Philosophers are not exactly among those that are
heard the loudest. However, if you have a sound
idea and with it you can make an important
contribution, I'd hate to see the idea never get
heard. I think it fair to say that the critics
are not always among those who have staying power,
despite that what they say may be sounder than
that from whom they are criticizing. The example
of Descartes is a good one. The objections of the
Meditations from the reviewers are, in my mind,
much clearer and more cogent than anything
Descartes said either originally or in reply.
Despite this, the names of Arnauld, Gassendi, even
Hobbes, have come down to us as less significant
than what Descartes has to say. But had Descartes
never engaged the best minds of the time, it is
unlikely that his would be counted even among
them. It seems there is a maxim or two at work
here. One that comes to mind is that we are who
we compare ourselves with and may wind up being
received by them as their betters, but then again,
maybe not.

On another tack, it doesn't really seem to matter
whether a philosopher is right or wrong. What
seems to be important is that she has something
interesting to say and that it is worth giving
consideration to.

Fell

This sentence is needed to overcome a f

By Francis Moorcroft on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 07:28 pm:

I am a professional philosopher in the sense that I earn my living by philosophy - that is I teach it.
Philosophy has, over the last two hundred years become an increasingly professional matter, with most philosophy being produced from within universities. But this hasn't always been the case: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and JS Mill didn't earn their living by philosophy. And both Russell and Wittgenstein spent large parts of their life spent large parts of their life earning their living by something other than philosophy.

By slocks on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 11:07 pm:

I would like to chip back in and say that I have had some damn good - and amusing - conversations with a few professional philosophers in a pub, that I would not have been able to have without an amateur interest and background reading in philosophy. So hooray for doing philosophy (without even being paid)! I also think that although some had interesting new material for me I was able to hold my own in our conversations (or at least I felt I did!) However, I know I would have been stumped in a technical conversation with a physicist of equivalent qualifications and experience to these philosophers, even though I have a physics - but not a philosophy - degree.

Richard Dawkins made a point about Aristotle being able to hold his own in a discussion at a modern theological seminary, whereas any one of us could enthral him with what we know of modern science. The point being that science is cumulative. (Please, no side-tracks into religion...) I don't know whether Dawkins would have made the same point about philosophy in general, but would Aristotle be making astute observations on the TPM online discussion board if he suddenly re-appeared? Or is he so old hat he would have nothing to jolt us with anymore?
If he would be a bit dumbstruck, then there must have been progress and he would need to do a lot of study before he could get paid again for doing philosophy.

If professional philosophers are not just teaching then why are they being paid? Surely for new material! Most academics have to publish regularly.

Yes, do philosophy by all means, as it makes life endlessly interesting. My original question is not meant to knock doing amateur philosophy in the slightest. A friend, who has written an interesting essay on morality, submitted it to some keen philosophical minds (Jeremy Stangroom amongst them!) These reviewers replied saying that although they thought his ideas were imaginative and largely agreed with them, there were nevertheless serious flaws in what he wrote and some major disagreements. So, I was in part thinking about him, but wanted to make the question wider. Without the formal education a professional receives, there are bound to be serious gaps in our knowledge - that, I think, is the most likely difference between a formal and informal education which makes the chance of reading the same (and most relevant) books "xyz" quite slim. I agree that this could lead to some novel thinking and occasionally new insights that could possibly be thwarted in an ivory tower (although there are some pretty wild ivory towers out there). But I think it is bound to be the case that, exceptions not withstanding, amateurs have a relatively small chance of saying new things. Not that this necessarily matters - I agree totally! But I am interested in whether our attempts at essays - now we can simply put them on the Internet for the interest of all rather spend a long time attempting to publish only to have them rejected by professional journals and publishing houses - is helping to progress philosophy. That's all I'm asking - are we helping progress? I'm not asking "is amateur philosophy worthwhile" because I always have thought it is.

Maybe I should also ask who is progress in philosophy for? Indeed, unless we discuss then who is going to understand any philosophy (new or old) anyway? So maybe, even if we are not saying new things ourselves, we could be helping progress by understanding things! Otherwise what use are the intriguing ideas that Robert Nozick, Thomas Nagel (or some other money earning philosophical boffin) regularly toss out of their studies if nobody understands them or uses their ideas because we are not interested or practised in philosophy! In lesser words, is mere understanding ideas helping progress?