|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by trablano on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at 08:51:46 :
In Reply to: social pyramid namedropping posted by shane on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at 07:26:08 :
I think when you're young or new to philosophy you're able to teach yourself while you're training to understand one of the so-called great thinkers. This mustn't mean that you always end up agreeing with them, they eventually could just open up doors to territorities you perhaps would have missed otherwise. Also, it's easier to explore a forest when you know about other travelers there. Or perhaps a path someone has tried to make for others, so that they at least can go sightseeing (lol).
Also, while a thought work is in progress you might very well give all credit to your own work alone, but, "at the end of the day", the educational systems we have to use train one by giving examples of other people's thought, and when the system was good, your own thought eventually developed from other peoples input. Anything needs to stand for itself, true, but in another perspective any thought is connected with other thoughts.
Personal experience ... I think there have been philosophers that had been trying to gather much experience along their path and philosophers who mainly stayed at their own place. I think those who tried to gather much experience (as for instance Sartre by traveling a lot and being socially involved with his time) can really give one a line of sight. It even helps getting yourself own experiences. At least you know that someone else got it done to be authentic with thought and with possible experiences of life.
Another thing is how one's own thinking has become recognizable as original. If it's just been sticking to other peoples books, always avoiding to get influenced in real life in any way then it's not likely to get the brand "it's been in action, it has become this persons identity".
: in these posts i notice alot of references to one great thinker or another... i understand the role these people have played in opening up possibilities...but at the end of the day ..do we not all have individual psychology and situation that leaves the answers in one place only..within ourselves. i often feel that it is a setback in self discovery to homogenize our ideas to great common denominators(insert name here) .after all is read, said and experienced..do we not still have to connect the dots within our own psyche? i sometimes wonder if it only procrastinates self discovery to study what the "jones' " have concluded. for example, the "observer dependent" perceptions of nuclear physics. i feel that jung only unraveled jung a bit. and that freud only discovered himself. to me, the "great thinkers" greatest service to humanity had more to do with the social acceptance of self-exploration than the essays / text they left behind.
: then again, i view our society as a pyramid scheme of convincibility ...the most convincing on top. what is the popular opinion?
Post a Followup