Philosophy General: You Kant say that!

[Gondolaulus]

Seeing many threads discussing religions, political ideologies and recent events I decided to make a thread regarding one of history's most amazing products; philosophy! Well, why think about life? Because in that way you kill your time, albeit less efficient than playing computer games, but at least you can brag about it to your grandparents.

Personally, I am hugely influenced by Stoicism and their metaphysical idea of everything coming from (and to!) one foundation, aka God/Logos. Plato's forms, perfect ideas of what X should be in another realm, fit into my metaphysical worldview too.

The point of this thread is to learn about the joy of philosophy, whether theistic or atheistic, modern or ancient. As a starting discussion, I would like to come on the following topic:


Philosophy needs to be taught at high school, as a standard

I personally believe this will be a good thing, as philosophy encourages people to think ''outside their box'', encourages people to make their own worldview detached from previous orientations. Because it promotes self-reflection.

[Community Values]

Just the thread I was looking for. Recently, after being an edgy ubermensch, I've started looking into Kierkegaard, and so far I like him.

I'm a bit bad at understanding philosophical texts though.

[Gondolaulus]

Just the thread I was looking for. Recently, after being an edgy ubermensch, I've started looking into Kierkegaard, and so far I like him.

I'm a bit bad at understanding philosophical texts though.

What do you particullary like about Kierkegaard? He seems full of doubt to me. Also quite...subjective. Applying his own values as something objective.

[Pasong Tirad]

I remember a story from college about one of the best philosophy professors in the Philippines (yes, the whole Philippines) being invited to a kid's Christening. The baby was passed to him and he said to the baby in a soft, cooing manner: "Mamamatay ka rin. ("You're going to die [one day].") And when confronted by it, people were shocked but then again, because we were studying Heidegger when we were taught this, the idea was to acknowledge that, well, that was true. That kid is going to die one day and the idea was that there was no point in dilly-dallying around the subject.

Suffice it to say I am very influenced by Heidegger - though I don't think primary schools kids have the necessary abilities to understand him.

And yes, I do think philosophy should be taught in schools.

[Alvecia]

On your last point I'm not so sure that philosophy education encourages people to make their own worldview.
This is annecdotal, but I've found that those I know that actually have studied philosophy and philosophers tend to "identify" with certain philosophical icons or schools of thought. Taking on the ideals of others, and fitting into these handy little categories that they learn about.
Then there's people like myself who know next to nothing about the common, or uncommon, philosophical schools of thought and the ideals that those schools encompass. I personally have my ideals, my morals, and my ethics, and I don't ascribe them to any one person or school. I might align with certain ones if you were to compare me and them, but I've come to those ideals independent of past influences, which I think makes mine much more my own "worldview", than that of someone who identifies and empathises with certain schools, and attempts to emulate the ideals proscribed by said schools.

[United Marxist Nations]

On your last point I'm not so sure that philosophy education encourages people to make their own worldview.
This is annecdotal, but I've found that those I know that actually have studied philosophy and philosophers tend to "identify" with certain philosophical icons or schools of thought. Taking on the ideals of others, and fitting into these handy little categories that they learn about.
Then there's people like myself who know next to nothing about the common, or uncommon, philosophical schools of thought and the ideals that those schools encompass. I personally have my ideals, my morals, and my ethics, and I don't ascribe them to any one person or school. I might align with certain ones if you were to compare me and them, but I've come to those ideals independent of past influences, which I think makes mine much more my own "worldview", than that of someone who identifies and empathises with certain schools, and attempts to emulate the ideals proscribed by said schools.

The emphasized strikes me as very unlikely, we are all influenced by philosophical outlooks, even as little children. Ideology forms the core of our outlook, no matter what else we ascribe to it.

[Alvecia]

On your last point I'm not so sure that philosophy education encourages people to make their own worldview.
This is annecdotal, but I've found that those I know that actually have studied philosophy and philosophers tend to "identify" with certain philosophical icons or schools of thought. Taking on the ideals of others, and fitting into these handy little categories that they learn about.
Then there's people like myself who know next to nothing about the common, or uncommon, philosophical schools of thought and the ideals that those schools encompass. I personally have my ideals, my morals, and my ethics, and I don't ascribe them to any one person or school. I might align with certain ones if you were to compare me and them, but I've come to those ideals independent of past influences, which I think makes mine much more my own "worldview", than that of someone who identifies and empathises with certain schools, and attempts to emulate the ideals proscribed by said schools.

The emphasized strikes me as very unlikely, we are all influenced by philosophical outlooks, even as little children. Ideology forms the core of our outlook, no matter what else we ascribe to it.

My point was more I wasn't told "This is what X thinks" and "This is what Y believes". It was more "X is a thing" and "Y is a belief".
I wasn't introduced to the label, the category.

[Uinted Communist of Africa]

Well I just want to point out that shouldn't a religion be considered a type of philosophy?
I mean isn't it the same principle?

[The New Sea Territory]

NSG's friendly neighborhood dialectical egoist here.

My influences would be Nietzsche, Marx, Stirner, Hegel, Zizek, Heidegger, Camus, Mackie, Debord, Vaneigem and (in a very limited way) Jung and de Benoist.

[Gondolaulus]

Well I just want to point out that shouldn't a religion be considered a type of philosophy?
I mean isn't it the same principle?

Not really, philosophy doesn't necessarily have to be religious and vice versa.

[Community Values]

Just the thread I was looking for. Recently, after being an edgy ubermensch, I've started looking into Kierkegaard, and so far I like him.

I'm a bit bad at understanding philosophical texts though.

What do you particullary like about Kierkegaard? He seems full of doubt to me. Also quite...subjective. Applying his own values as something objective.

Again, I have not read too much of him, nor do I really know how to read philosophical texts, so I wouldn't know.

From the 10 pages of Fear and Trembling, he seems alright.

[Risottia]

Personally, I am hugely influenced by Stoicism and their metaphysical idea of everything coming from (and to!) one foundation, aka God/Logos. Plato's forms, perfect ideas of what X should be in another realm, fit into my metaphysical worldview too.

My major influences are Kant, Galilei, Russell and Marx; also Descartes, Nietzsche, Bohr, Demokritos, Sokrates, Aristoteles and Lobachevskij (yes, counts as a philosopher too).

[Farnhamia]

Personally, I am hugely influenced by Stoicism and their metaphysical idea of everything coming from (and to!) one foundation, aka God/Logos. Plato's forms, perfect ideas of what X should be in another realm, fit into my metaphysical worldview too.

My major influences are Kant, Galilei, Russell and Marx; also Descartes, Nietzsche, Bohr, Demokritos, Sokrates, Aristoteles and Lobachevskij (yes, counts as a philosopher too).

You still owe Aristotle three drachmas, you know. Luckily, he's dead.

Descartes was a beloved friend of mine, though I will admit that I quickly became confused when we talked philosophy (it might have been the wine, too). Socrates was an interesting fellow but ... let's say eccentric. I liked Plato better, such shoulders on that boy. Aristotle was a little too full of himself for my taste. Nietzsche's moustache gave me bad dreams for a year after I met him. Never met Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevski but I know a song about him.

[The Union of the West]

I'm not as interested in philosophy (beyond political philosophy, anyway) as I used to be, but I do think it should be taught in schools.

[Conscentia]

As my factbook says, these are my philosophical positions: Theological noncognitivism; Metaphysical naturalism; Physicalism; Eternalism; Perdurantism; Hard determinism; Existential nihilism; Moral nihilism; Philosophical pessimism; Philosophical anarchism; Other(s).

I would probably support the inclusion of Philosophy in the education system, depending on how it was taught. Taught appropriately, it could increase breadth of understanding on philosophical subjects, improve awareness of the relevance of philosophy, teach students how to formulate better arguments, and improve critical thinking.

On your last point I'm not so sure that philosophy education encourages people to make their own worldview.
This is annecdotal, but I've found that those I know that actually have studied philosophy and philosophers tend to "identify" with certain philosophical icons or schools of thought. Taking on the ideals of others, and fitting into these handy little categories that they learn about.
Then there's people like myself who know next to nothing about the common, or uncommon, philosophical schools of thought and the ideals that those schools encompass. I personally have my ideals, my morals, and my ethics, and I don't ascribe them to any one person or school. I might align with certain ones if you were to compare me and them, but I've come to those ideals independent of past influences, which I think makes mine much more my own "worldview", than that of someone who identifies and empathises with certain schools, and attempts to emulate the ideals proscribed by said schools.

Being able to name one's positions and influences does not necessarily mean that one is trying to conform to the views of others. People identify with particular philosophies and philosophers because their arguments are convincing and it allows those people to express their own views concisely by referring to a point of reference. Instead of having to explain my philosophy from scratch each time I want to talk about it, I can just tell my opponent 'I espouse Aism' and they can say 'Oh, yeah, I've looked into Aism but I think Bism is more convincing'.

[Feriq]

Absolutely. The three most basic subjects that should be focused on in school are Mathematics, Statistics, and Philosophy.

Philosophy being the most important for critical thinking and debate skills necessary to formulate a coherent worldview. The art of discussion has largely been lost in the digital age due to our dismissal of "impractical" subjects.

[Aelex]

Here in France it is mandatory for the three years of college for the section "L" (for Literature), the two last years of college for the section "E.S" (for Economic & Social) and for the last year of "S" (for Scientific).
I'm myself part of the last one and I have to say that I find said classes of Philosophy to be boring as shit as we're basically spending 4 hours a week listening to some guy blabbering about himself and are more or less ensured to have an overall average below 10 with a coefficient of 4 at the end of each trimester.

Now, I'm not really sure whether it's a good thing or not to have said mandatory classes but I would say that out of the little philosophy I read (Pascal and Descartes as well as some stoicians) none was because of or for (or even related to for a fair share) what we studied.

[Feriq]

Here in France it is mandatory for the three years of college for the section "L" (for Literature), the two last years of college for the section "E.S" (for Economic & Social) and for the last year of "S" (for Scientific).
I'm myself part of the last one and I have to say that I find said classes of Philosophy to be boring as shit as we're basically spending 4 hours a week listening to some guy blabbering about himself and are more or less ensured to have an overall average below 10 with a coefficient of 4 at the end of each trimester.

Now, I'm not really sure whether it's a good thing or not to have said mandatory classes but I would say that out of the little philosophy I read (Pascal and Descartes as well as some stoicians) none was because of or for (or even related to for a fair share) what we studied.

That's because lectures are worthless. The entire point of philosophy is discussion, it is not at all compatible with the traditional classroom.

[Trotskylvania]

Day's since the last Kant/can't pun

[The Liberated Territories]

I'm still always changing my philosophical opinions, so it is hard to attach a label to myself. I guess my current philosophy is "anti-labelism."

[MERIZoC]

Day's since the last Kant/can't pun

(Image)

Ahhh, that was the joke I came in to make. Oh well.

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

NSG's favorite irrationalist here.

Started reading Bergson and Nietzsche recently.

[Risottia]

You still owe Aristotle three drachmas, you know. Luckily, he's dead.

Luckily, back then we didn't know about compound interest rates and the exponential function.

Descartes was a beloved friend of mine, though I will admit that I quickly became confused when we talked philosophy (it might have been the wine, too). Socrates was an interesting fellow but ... let's say eccentric.

Well, his eccentricity paled when confronted with Diogenes'.

By the way, about some "minor" influences, I still remember Danton and Benji Franklin and the devastating hangovers at le Fossés Saint-Germain... that was some philosophy.

[Afalia]

I've been interested in reading some Kierkegaard. I have a passing understanding of his beliefs but I'd like to read something he actually wrote. Does anyone here have any suggestions for a good starting place?

As for teaching philosophy in school, I think it's a good idea in principle, though I can't imagine it would be super popular amongst some students.

[Afalia]

My advice with Kiekegaard is not to despair when you inevitably have no idea what he's talking about the first ten times you read it, because the eleventh time it's very interesting. The Sickness unto Death is a decent starting point because it's so short.

Thank you for the suggestion. I understand his use of pen names and general complexity of his arguments make him tough to tackle, but then I suppose a lot of philosophy is tough to tackle.