Should philosophy be easy to understand?

[Deleted member 16771]

I'm not sure if perhaps you misinterpreted something I said or I didn't articulate well enough (probably) but in any case, this is correct as far as I'm concerned

No no I just went off on a tangent there on the general theme of humility... I suppose the relevance is, does it matter if Socrates felt humble or not?

 

[Wyote]

No no I just went off on a tangent there on the general theme of humility

Down that road lies madness

Actually, I was writing another response about how I figured out that I had misunderstood you, since this seems to be a sort of Ni future thing at work. I getcha!

I suppose the relevance is, does it matter if Socrates felt humble or not?

I think to me personally, forming a connection with him and being able to relate to him and his words deeply would on some level require that he at least understood the practicality of humility.
But that's just me

 

[robert]

Its not?

 

[Ren]

Its not?

Well, I guess it depends. Philosophers like Plato and Descartes are easy to understand, but would you say that Hegel is easy to understand?

From Phenomenology of Spirit:

"Thus there exist for consciousness three different ways in which individuality is linked with the Unchangeable. Firstly, it again appears to itself as opposed to unchangeable, and is thrown back to the beginning of the struggle which is throughout the element in which the whole relationship subsists. Secondly, consciousness learns that individuality belongs to the unchangeable itself, so that it assumes the form of individuality into which the entire mode of existence passes. Thirdly, it finds its own self as this particular individual in the unchangeable. The first unchangeable it knows only as the alien being who passes judgement on the particular individual; since, secondly the unchangeable is a form of individuality like itself, consciousness becomes, thirdly, spirit, and experiences the joy of finding itself therein and becomes aware of the reconciliation of its individuality with the universal.”

Not saying it's impossible to understand, but not exactly a walk in the park either.

 

[JennyDaniella]

I am quite late to ze party. However, now that I am almost finally finishing with classes, I have more time to fully read and respond properly.

Philosophy requires a depth of profound thinking and contemplation; one must be required to look intensively in all different angles and think outside the box. If there wasn’t a challenge, I believe it would lose that certain essence that makes philosophy exciting and alluring—even quite beautiful when you finally understand an idea when you delve in more deeply. It’s such an accomplishing yet profound feeling.

However as others have mentioned; philosophy shouldn’t be to the point where one reader is unable to comprehend the material presented as philosophy is already a complex field, nor should it fit in any type of standard—which make philosophy so incredibly rich and diverse with variations of terminology and ideas.

I suppose a good balance of a challenge and basis of understanding would be sufficient; especially if one wants to apply philosophical concepts to their life.

 

[Wyote]

Not saying it's impossible to understand, but not exactly a walk in the park either.

My spirit conscious floaty jangled meat sack walked all the way through the park and out to the ocean after reading that word salad

 

[Ren]

My spirit conscious floaty jangled meat sack walked all the way through the park and out to the ocean after reading that word salad

lmao, anything with "meat sack" in it gets my validation.

We could also cite Gayatri Spivak's Critique of Postcolonial Reason: "The in-choate in-fans ab-original para-subject cannot be theorised as functionally completely frozen in a world where teleology is schematised into geo-graphy."

Nice bit of Derridean influence there, of course. (I highly recommend Terry Eagleton's review of the book - it is hilarious).

 

[Wyote]

lmao, anything with "meat sack" in it gets my validation.

We could also cite Gayatri Spivak's Critique of Postcolonial Reason: "The in-choate in-fans ab-original para-subject cannot be theorised as functionally completely frozen in a world where teleology is schematised into geo-graphy."

Nice bit of Derridean influence there, of course. (I highly recommend Terry Eagleton's review of the book - it is hilarious).

Wow this article really is full of gems lmao

"A Passage to India is inherently more threatening to the transnational corporations than an inquiry into Thackeray’s use of the semi-colon."​

 

[Ren]

Wow this article really is full of gems lmao

"A Passage to India is inherently more threatening to the transnational corporations than an inquiry into Thackeray’s use of the semi-colon."​

Even the comments section is priceless. From a certain Stephen Howe:

"I'd been following the exchanges provoked by Terry Eagleton's assault on Gayatri Spivak with great interest when I encountered the letter from Mustapha Marrouchi (Letters, 1 July). A particularly devastating polemic, I thought: vigorous, well informed, and spiced with some rather good jokes. But then I would think that – for the letter is an almost verbatim, complete transcription of my review of Spivak's previous book, published in the New Statesman in February 1994."

 

[Wyote]

But then I would think that – for the letter is an almost verbatim, complete transcription of my review of Spivak's previous book, published in the New Statesman in February 1994.

Sick burn

 

[Ren]

On the topic of intelligibility — do you guys agree with Russell?

 

[Skarekrow]

On the topic of intelligibility — do you guys agree with Russell?

That’s only if a stupid man cannot memorize a few sentences.

 

[Pin]

On the topic of intelligibility — do you guys agree with Russell?

What he says always remains true presuming stagnant conditions, (i.e stupid people remain stupid and clever people remain clever).

 

[HDhotdog]

On the topic of intelligibility — do you guys agree with Russell?

I think it depends (as always). If the stupid man just repeats without thinking or, to make it more clear, writes it down and then reads it, the accuracy will stay the same.
But if he's trying to understand (assuming he cannot understand) I'd agree with Russell because you can't explain something you didn't / don't understand.

 

[Ren]

I think it depends (as always). If the stupid man just repeats without thinking or, to make it more clear, writes it down and then reads it, the accuracy will stay the same.
But if he's trying to understand (assuming he cannot understand) I'd agree with Russell because you can't explain something you didn't / don't understand.

I agree with you that, paradoxically perhaps, in such cases only mechanical repetition will guarantee a faithful report.

Replacing "stupid" with "less profound", I think this is something that happens all the time in philosophy, especially when somebody comes forward with a genuinely novel kind of thinking. That "new thinking" is bound to be misinterpreted by a host of critics who will deface the content of the thinking by translating it into old categories that they can refer to internally, and then point out the limitations of that content according to that old frame of reference. It really happens very often. Interestingly, Russell himself was guilty of it, I think, with regard to philosophers like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. Nevertheless, I think that quote of his is important.

 

[Dado]

Yes, philosophy should be easy to understand. Also, validity of philosophy should be measured in its practical implications(does it lead to better quality of life...?) and if it leads to resolvement of questions. If it leads to more and more confusion, endless questioning, than it is excessive.

 

[Ren]

Yes, philosophy should be easy to understand. Also, validity of philosophy should be measured in its practical implications(does it lead to better quality of life...?) and if it leads to resolvement of questions. If it leads to more and more confusion, endless questioning, than it is excessive.

Completely agree.

Do you have concrete ideas about how such a "measure of practical implication" could be carried out?

 

[Dado]

Completely agree.

Do you have concrete ideas about how such a "measure of practical implication" could be carried out?

Excellent question! Well, if it leads to proper development of character and way of lifestyle after which person starts to experience "cooling down" from negative emotions which means that persons views are coming in alignment with how reality works. Overall quality of everyday experience is best indicator if philosophy makes sense.

 

[Ifur]

By engaging with others in philosophical dialogue without being a literary prick about it.
You can get wisdom out of many people, and may seem to require a lowering of expectations of perception of those intellectually interested.

I asked a guy that became a friend for useful insight or wisdom.
So I'm not as laid back as you I said, and you make everyone around you more at ease.
This guy was a skateboard instructor that dabbled a bit with music.

After some contemplation on his part on what to say to be of help.
He says one should usually, but not always, compliment the person on the item he or her keeps touching.

Within this sentence and dialogue, there are mental states, unconscious behaviour and ethics.
Should he think more highly of this and his perception and be more equipped to discuss these things?

Yeah, philosophy should be more common.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

He says one should usually, but not always, compliment the person on the item he or her keeps touching.

I asked a guy that became a friend for useful insight or wisdom.
So I'm not as laid back as you I said, and you make everyone around you more at ease.
This guy was a skateboard instructor that dabbled a bit with music.

Wow, lol. Is your life directed by Wes Anderson or something?