Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The author is a philosophy professor. He's found that when he gives students a text to read, they'll immediately find a flaw in it and point it out. Having determined they're smarter than the author, they'll essentially dismiss the rest of the work because they know it's not perfect.
It's an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed before. A couple of the best sentences: "The inquirer has taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements." "Yes, hard-nosed critical thinking is a useful tool, but it also may become a defense against the risky insight that absorption can offer."
I think I'm guilty of this myself. I blame Christianity, or more fairly, I blame my own experience debunking Christianity, which was a major event in my life starting a decade ago.
Let's say I got interested in Buddhism now. I have no doubt that Buddhism is just as flawed, and just as much a human invention as Christianity is, and were I to study it, I'd immediately be looking out for those flaws. On the other hand, many great authors and thinkers have been influenced by Buddhism and other Eastern religions, and I find it a little sad that I'll never have that same inspiration, being a skeptic.
As for philosophy, I've read almost none in my life, and that's even easier to dismiss. None of the "constructs" that any philosophers define can be proven scientifically, and I think it would be very hard for me to give them much credence. Again, I think I'd just be skeptical, and in a sense I'd be right, but I feel like I'd miss new ways of thinking by doing so.
I didn't read the article but it sounds a little bit odd a philosophy professor would be critical of students who read critically. I was a Math-Econ-Stats major in college but I would take philosophy classes for fun--I enjoy philosophy. I went to an Ivy and it was always encouraged by the professors to question the thinkers you are reading.
I can understand if the philosophy professor has an issue with how the refutation or skepticism is approached i.e. you can't just say I disagree with something because I said so. That's what makes it philosophy the manner in which you go about refuting. It seems a little bit odd for a philosophy professor to want students to passively accept ideas presented to them. That's not the study of philosophy.
As for should you read philosophy? Well, it depends. The way I always read philosophy is that if I could argue with the best and brightest minds of history then everyday argumentation is simple. Also, as someone who has read philosophy extensively it's always funny to me how modern society is inadvertently influenced by it still to this very day. Honestly, if you want to understand the modern plight read Freud and Nietzsche. I can refute all of their work, so don't read it religiously or passively. Be skeptical about it and know that to a certain extent we now live in a world in which they would have envisioned--for better or worse. If you are really a thinker read Dostoyevsky because he refuted their thoughts during their age.
The author is a philosophy professor. He's found that when he gives students a text to read, they'll immediately find a flaw in it and point it out. Having determined they're smarter than the author, they'll essentially dismiss the rest of the work because they know it's not perfect.
It's an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed before. A couple of the best sentences: "The inquirer has taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements." "Yes, hard-nosed critical thinking is a useful tool, but it also may become a defense against the risky insight that absorption can offer."
I think I'm guilty of this myself. I blame Christianity, or more fairly, I blame my own experience debunking Christianity, which was a major event in my life starting a decade ago.
Let's say I got interested in Buddhism now. I have no doubt that Buddhism is just as flawed, and just as much a human invention as Christianity is, and were I to study it, I'd immediately be looking out for those flaws. On the other hand, many great authors and thinkers have been influenced by Buddhism and other Eastern religions, and I find it a little sad that I'll never have that same inspiration, being a skeptic.
As for philosophy, I've read almost none in my life, and that's even easier to dismiss. None of the "constructs" that any philosophers define can be proven scientifically, and I think it would be very hard for me to give them much credence. Again, I think I'd just be skeptical, and in a sense I'd be right, but I feel like I'd miss new ways of thinking by doing so.
Thoughts?
Terrible article. He contradicts his thesis in the sixth paragraph when he...
Joking; very good, thought-provoking article. Big fan of the second-last paragraph (part of which you quoted above). Like you I've been trying to battle this same impulse myself a bit lately, perhaps with not much success. I certainly would identify with the class of "self-satisfied debunkers"...sometimes self-satisfied, anyway. The other day I was watching a Bill Maher standup performance entitled "Be More Cynical". I guess, like you, I'm trying to move a bit in the opposite direction.
321 and counting comments to read through and mentally spar against, nice. I'd say that Internet forum/commenting culture has certainly worked in my own case to make me more prone to critical thought, for better or worse. So should I resist the urge to read so many short comments, with which "absorption" is impossible, due to brevity? Maybe I should
I didn't read the article but it sounds a little bit odd a philosophy professor would be critical of students who read critically. I was a Math-Econ-Stats major in college but I would take philosophy classes for fun--I enjoy philosophy. I went to an Ivy and it was always encouraged by the professors to question the thinkers you are reading.
I can understand if the philosophy professor has an issue with how the refutation or skepticism is approached i.e. you can't just say I disagree with something because I said so. That's what makes it philosophy the manner in which you go about refuting. It seems a little bit odd for a philosophy professor to want students to passively accept ideas presented to them. That's not the study of philosophy.
As for should you read philosophy? Well, it depends. The way I always read philosophy is that if I could argue with the best and brightest minds of history then everyday argumentation is simple. Also, as someone who has read philosophy extensively it's always funny to me how modern society is inadvertently influenced by it still to this very day. Honestly, if you want to understand the modern plight read Freud and Nietzsche. I can refute all of their work, so don't read it religiously or passively. Be skeptical about it and know that to a certain extent we now live in a world in which they would have envisioned--for better or worse. If you are really a thinker read Dostoyevsky because he refuted their thoughts during their age.
According to what you've reported, I'm not sure that the author would take exception with your...mindset. You seem to balance criticism with appreciation...his lament seems to be more regarding people who disengage as soon as they successfully refute one point made by a given philosopher. Back when I was taking the few university philosophy classes that I took, I was more of this ilk myself (the kind the author is lamenting). I remember writing a paper devoted exclusively to the dissection of a single sentence Nietzsche wrote...I had to write the paper on that, because I didn't read beyond that sentence. However, I also obsessed over the "subject matter" at large (as in, all of life), so that was a bit of a counterbalance. I think the willingness to persist in reading an author "post-error" has to do with one's prior convictions about said author. Emerson is mentioned in this article, and he's an example of someone I'd never want to read, and therefore if I found something to criticize, well, that's a good excuse to declare the entire project not worth undertaking. Different story if it was someone I was inclined to like.
The author is a philosophy professor. He's found that when he gives students a text to read, they'll immediately find a flaw in it and point it out. Having determined they're smarter than the author, they'll essentially dismiss the rest of the work because they know it's not perfect.
It's an interesting topic that I haven't seen discussed before. A couple of the best sentences: "The inquirer has taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements." "Yes, hard-nosed critical thinking is a useful tool, but it also may become a defense against the risky insight that absorption can offer."
I think I'm guilty of this myself. I blame Christianity, or more fairly, I blame my own experience debunking Christianity, which was a major event in my life starting a decade ago.
Let's say I got interested in Buddhism now. I have no doubt that Buddhism is just as flawed, and just as much a human invention as Christianity is, and were I to study it, I'd immediately be looking out for those flaws. On the other hand, many great authors and thinkers have been influenced by Buddhism and other Eastern religions, and I find it a little sad that I'll never have that same inspiration, being a skeptic.
As for philosophy, I've read almost none in my life, and that's even easier to dismiss. None of the "constructs" that any philosophers define can be proven scientifically, and I think it would be very hard for me to give them much credence. Again, I think I'd just be skeptical, and in a sense I'd be right, but I feel like I'd miss new ways of thinking by doing so.
Thoughts?
I would concur with the main point being made, which is, there seems to be less desire to digest and absorb something before responding at the first thing(s) one finds disagreement with or dispute. I think it is amplified by the conditioning of the past 30 years of a combination of technology (instant stimulation) and a overarching desire to condense and deconstruct things (jingoistic flash points, sound bites et al).
I see much of it as being conditioning in that many mass media shows of all kinds seem to accentuate the premise of often quickly judging people and that somehow it's 'entertaining' to do so in a flippant way. This same type of attitude pervades the youthful culture more so (speculation IMO) than ever before. Couple this with the desire to be pithy by communicating in the social mediums of 140 words or less and it in turn breeds what I'd call an inherent contentiousness to be 'witty' or 'intellectually stylish' before absorbing and digesting enough contextual information on whatever the topic of discussion may be.
Anecdotally from my brief philosophy coursework in undergrad (as an elective) over 25 years ago. I took an upper level course as part of meeting 400 level class requirements and found it very enjoyable. What was interesting to me was that in the small class of about 12-14 students my classmates enjoyed my presentation because I equated the topic to something they could relate too and it seemed the three or philosophy majors and grad student would go out of their way to expound endlessly on minutia that made everyone else groan with disdain.
I mention this to bring the thought back to the most basic element of philosophy - that the ideas, thoughts, variant perspectives - are most often holistic and conceptual in nature and most anyone can consistently take small portions and find something to be contentious or nitpick. The students the author refers to reminds me of the blind men and the elephant joke. If you recall, each feels a separate portion and comes to a different conclusion as to what 'it' is.
The subjective perceptual nature of many (students) seems to be more intent on: being funny, being first, being noticed, etc... rather than gaining understanding and then discussing the concept. So the philosophical viewpoint is most often the proverbial elephant, but anyone (students, reader etc...) can keep trying to draw conclusions on the 'one part' they tenaciously decide to 'latch onto'.
I see this in another realm - simply participating in athletics with youth occasionally. There seems much more concern amongst the youth to determine who 'made a mistake / error' etc... rather than focusing on how they can continue to improve as a group. Again, this is anecdotal in nature (and may be more a function of maturation rate, FWIW), what I find is this same nature to nit pick and place blame / assign error takes priority in mindset - rather than to continue playing and improving the overall play / performance.
To the OP, the whole religious debunking can be overly consuming to many with an axe to grind (for whatever reason). I found much relief in realizing they all have certain underlying social behavioral constructs as their driving force in providing guidelines to people on how to live, behave and interact with others. The dogmatic stuff I simply put aside as it is much like the philosophical types - arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin type discussions. They often don't serve any affirming purpose other than to those espousing some self centric, self interested reason.
My random thoughts. And I would echo the comment in blog article by "Unenclosed" re: types of criticism.
Last edited by ciceropolo; 05-13-2014 at 10:00 PM..
That doesn't apply only to philosophy. If a legislative body enacts a law, that has a flaw in it, is the Supreme Court being overly touchy to throw it out, when it is brought their attention by a housewife who is wronged by the law? If a medication has a flaw in it, is the Food and Drug Administration being excessive in testing the drug?
In the OP's example, the author of the philosophical treatise is presenting it as A Truth, and therefore without flaw. Should he be given a pass, merely because he has credentials?
There was a recent study that showed that more than half of all peer-reviewed publications in various sciences had errors in them, which were not detected by the peers that reviewed them, mainly because the peers weren't committ5ed to giving the publications their full analytical attention. Colloge students are often the only people who are prepared to read something critically. Partly because those still in college are the only ones who haven't gotten tired of carrying the lamp and set it down.
You know, most degreed professional astronomers have ever looked through a telescope in their lives. Events like comets and asteroids are nearly all discovered by amateurs. You could probably say the same thing about errors in published papers -- if amateurs didn't find them, who would?.
In this imperfect world, there is always something for someone to find fault with. Needs must it be so, for the world is not ordered to everyone’s liking. Still, it is petty, even mean-spirited, to be always criticizing everything. We, all of us, make mistakes; and some more than others. To be overly critical is to be an insufferable bore. It would be wise to be mindful of our own errors; then we might be more forgiving of those of others.
In this imperfect world, there is always something for someone to find fault with. Needs must it be so, for the world is not ordered to everyone’s liking. Still, it is petty, even mean-spirited, to be always criticizing everything. We, all of us, make mistakes; and some more than others. To be overly critical is to be an insufferable bore. It would be wise to be mindful of our own errors; then we might be more forgiving of those of others.
There is a huge gulf of difference between forgiving others their mistakes, and enabling their mistakes to multiply through unchallenged repetition.
Few persons know how to take criticism, fewer still how to give it to good effect. Criticism, to be effective, should be constructive; and, to be well received, should be fair and honest. The best form of criticism is disguised as a hint or suggestion; the worst is in the form of a false compliment. Would you keep your friends - and avoid making enemies - keep your criticisms to yourself.
There was a recent study that showed that more than half of all peer-reviewed publications in various sciences had errors in them, which were not detected by the peers that reviewed them, mainly because the peers weren't committ5ed to giving the publications their full analytical attention.
You know, most degreed professional astronomers have ever looked through a telescope in their lives.
Both of these claims are interesting, provided they're true (and assuming you meant "never" rather than "ever" in the second case). On first glance, I am much more inclined to believe the first claim rather than the second. But that might just be my bias; I've long snickered at the way the phrase "peer-reviewed" gets trumpeted by some members of the scientific community, as if that in and of itself must necessarily lend credibility to...anything. Who will guard the guardsmen and who will review the reviewers. Obviously the review process is hugely beneficial overall, but the mere act of invoking those two words (or that single hyphenated word) doesn't really convey anything meaningful.
(And then, another consideration is the context in which "peer reviewing" is cited and implicitly overrated, which is most often (from my experience) in the course of a debate with some unreasonable denier of climate change or evolution or inconvenient truth X Y or Z. Given that, I can't typically be too harsh on the pro-science debater)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
