How To Think Like a Philosopher
Summary
TLDRThis script delves into the art of philosophical thinking, emphasizing the importance of precision in definitions and thought to avoid logical fallacies. It explores the value of originality and creativity in philosophical writing, advocating for challenging accepted norms to foster innovation. The script also champions the courage to question deeply held beliefs and the doubt as a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry. It concludes with Aristotle's view on the necessity of practice and habituation in developing philosophical skills, suggesting that societies could benefit from more questioning, specificity, and doubt.
Takeaways
- 🧐 The importance of precision in philosophical thinking is emphasized, as vague definitions can lead to confusion and miscommunication.
- 🤔 The dialogues of Plato highlight the need for clear definitions to avoid logical errors and to ensure productive philosophical discussions.
- 📚 Historical philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and Epicurus faced misinterpretations due to imprecise language, showing the lasting impact of clarity.
- 💭 The early 20th-century philosophers advocated for strict precision in language to avoid meaningless statements, influencing later analytical philosophy.
- 🤓 The pursuit of specificity helps refine logical reasoning, making thinkers more aware of their own and others' thought processes.
- 📝 Arthur Schopenhauer criticized unoriginal thinkers and emphasized the need for originality and careful consideration in philosophical writing.
- 📈 Kierkegaard encouraged following ideas to their logical conclusions, valuing the process of philosophical inquiry over societal acceptance.
- 🧠 Nietzsche's philosophy underscores the value of fearless questioning, challenging established norms and values to foster innovation.
- 🤷♂️ Doubt is a central theme in philosophy, with figures like Descartes and Hume using it to refine knowledge and promote intellectual honesty.
- 🏋️♀️ Aristotle's concept of habituation suggests that philosophical thinking, like any skill, improves with practice and engagement over time.
Q & A
What is the significance of specificity in philosophical discussions according to the script?
-The script emphasizes that specificity is crucial in philosophical discussions to avoid confusion and logical errors. It illustrates how imprecise definitions can lead to misunderstandings, such as the different interpretations of 'evil' in theological debates, and suggests that clear definitions and structured thought are necessary for meaningful philosophical inquiry.
How does the script describe the role of doubt in philosophical thinking?
-The script portrays doubt as a fundamental aspect of philosophical inquiry. It discusses how historical figures like Descartes used doubt to question everything as a means to rebuild knowledge on solid foundations, and how doubt can lead to new insights and prevent dogmatism.
What does the script suggest about the relationship between originality and philosophical writing?
-The script suggests that originality is essential in philosophical writing. It criticizes writers who lack original thought and emphasizes the importance of adding something new to the body of human thought, rather than merely following popular or acclaimed views.
How does the script connect the concept of courage to philosophical inquiry?
-The script connects courage to philosophical inquiry by discussing the importance of asking questions without fear, even if those questions challenge established beliefs or authorities. It uses Nietzsche's criticism of system builders and Camus's philosophy of the absurd as examples of fearless questioning.
What advice does the script offer for those interested in improving their philosophical thinking?
-The script advises that to improve philosophical thinking, one should strive for precision in definitions and thought, embrace doubt, be original, and not be afraid to question established ideas. It also suggests that philosophical thinking is a skill that can be developed through practice and habituation.
Why does the script mention the importance of not assuming that everyone uses the same definitions?
-The script mentions the importance of not assuming shared definitions to highlight how misunderstandings can arise in discussions if participants are not aware of differing interpretations of terms. It encourages individuals to be explicit about their definitions to facilitate clear communication and avoid unproductive arguments.
How does the script use the example of Jeremy Bentham's concept of pleasure to illustrate the importance of precision?
-The script uses Jeremy Bentham's concept of pleasure to illustrate the importance of precision by pointing out how a lack of clarity in defining 'pleasure' led to misinterpretations of his philosophy as promoting a hedonistic lifestyle, which was not his intention.
What is the script's stance on the necessity of challenging accepted dogma in philosophy?
-The script advocates for the necessity of challenging accepted dogma in philosophy, suggesting that it is through questioning common approaches that new and original ideas can emerge, contributing to the advancement of philosophical thought.
How does the script discuss the role of doubt in society according to Bertrand Russell?
-The script discusses Bertrand Russell's view that doubt is essential not just for a good philosopher but for a functioning society. Russell believed that doubt can prevent the resort to violence in resolving disagreements, as it allows for the possibility of changing minds through reason rather than force.
What does the script suggest about the process of developing philosophical skills?
-The script suggests that developing philosophical skills is akin to learning a craft; it requires practice, experimentation, and habituation. It emphasizes that philosophical thinking is not something that can be mastered quickly but is developed over time through engagement with ideas and reflection.
Outlines
🔍 The Importance of Precision in Philosophy
This paragraph emphasizes the critical role of precision in philosophical discourse. It discusses how historical philosophers like Plato and Socrates have stressed the need for clear definitions and structured thought to avoid logical errors and confusion. The paragraph gives examples of how imprecise language can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings, such as the different interpretations of 'evil' and how it relates to the existence of God. It also touches on the problem of assuming shared definitions and the historical misinterpretation of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and Epicurus due to vague terminology. The early 20th-century philosophers are mentioned for their extreme focus on precision, advocating for mathematical or logical symbolism to express thoughts clearly. The summary concludes by encouraging individuals to be as specific as possible in their definitions to enhance clarity and avoid confusion in philosophical discussions.
🤔 The Role of Originality and Creativity in Thought
The second paragraph delves into the significance of originality and creativity in philosophical thinking. It critiques the unoriginal and careless approach of many writers and thinkers, as observed by Schopenhauer, who advocated for writing with genuine interest and original thought. Schopenhauer differentiates between writers who produce work for monetary gain and those who contribute meaningful, original ideas. He also warns against unstructured writing and the tendency to conform to popular views, instead promoting the questioning of accepted doctrines. The paragraph continues with Kierkegaard's perspective on the importance of taking philosophical inquiries seriously and the value of pursuing ideas to their logical conclusions. It suggests that originality in philosophy is not just about novelty but about contributing to the collective body of human thought, and it highlights the historical impact of creative and original thinkers like Plato and Stein.
🧐 Courage in Questioning and the Absurdity of Life
This paragraph explores the courage required to question established norms and the value of fearless inquiry in philosophy. It references Nietzsche's critique of 'system builders' who create complex philosophical systems, suggesting that such an approach can stifle the essential philosophical ability to question without fear. Nietzsche's own philosophy, which challenged long-held ethical and metaphysical beliefs, is highlighted as an example of bold, questioning thought. The paragraph also discusses Camus's philosophy of the absurd, which questions the need for a meaningful life and embraces the valuelessness of existence. It contrasts this with Kierkegaard's 'philosophical suicide,' where one abandons reason in the face of uncomfortable conclusions. The section concludes by suggesting that while questioning everything is important, there is also value in temporarily accepting certain assumptions to see where they lead, drawing a parallel to the scientific method and its phases of normal and revolutionary inquiry.
🤨 The Power of Doubt in Philosophy and Society
The fourth paragraph discusses the concept of doubt as a fundamental aspect of philosophical inquiry and a healthy society. It traces the origins of skepticism to ancient Greece, where doubt was used to attain a state of awareness about the limits of knowledge. The paragraph then moves to Descartes' methodical doubt as a means to rebuild knowledge on solid foundations, and Hume's view of doubt as essential for maintaining a flexible and evidence-based approach to beliefs. It also touches on the role of doubt in faith-based philosophy, exemplified by Aquinas's attempt to prove God's existence through reason. The paragraph concludes with Bertrand Russell's argument that doubt is crucial not just for philosophers but for society at large, as it prevents the resort to violence in resolving disagreements and promotes open-mindedness and the potential for peaceful discourse.
🏋️♂️ Philosophy as a Habit of Action and Practice
The final paragraph focuses on Aristotle's view of virtue and goodness as habits developed through practice, contrasting it with Plato's idea that knowledge of goodness leads to virtuous action. It suggests that philosophical thinking, like any skill, improves with practice and that engaging with philosophical problems repeatedly leads to the development of practical wisdom. The paragraph uses the analogy of an engineer who finds solutions through experience and practice, rather than direct instruction. It concludes by advocating for a society that values questioning, specificity, and doubt, and encourages individuals to practice philosophical thinking to improve their lives and contribute to a more understanding and less dogmatic world.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Philosophy
💡Specificity
💡Doubt
💡Originality
💡Questioning
💡Logical Errors
💡Creativity
💡Habituation
💡Dubitability
💡Precision
Highlights
The importance of precision in philosophical thinking to avoid logical errors and miscommunication.
Socrates' emphasis on definitions in Plato's dialogues to achieve clarity in philosophical discussions.
The distinction between the logical and evidential problems of evil as an example of the necessity for specificity.
The pitfalls of imprecise language leading to confusion, as seen in debates about euthanasia and the value of human life.
Jeremy Bentham's misinterpretation due to vague definitions of 'pleasure' and its impact on philosophy.
The early 20th-century philosophers' pursuit of strict constraints on talkable subjects for precision.
The argument for mathematical or logical precision as the gold standard in philosophical discourse.
The practical application of philosophical precision in everyday life to enhance logical reasoning.
The significance of doubt as a tool for philosophical inquiry and the tradition of skepticism in ancient Greece.
Descartes' methodical doubt as a means to rebuild knowledge on solid foundations, leading to his 'Cogito' argument.
David Hume's view on doubt as essential for a wise man to proportion belief to evidence.
The role of doubt in fostering intellectual honesty and preventing dogmatism in society.
Nietzsche's criticism of system builders for compromising the ability to question anything without fear.
Camus' philosophy of absurdism, which questions the need for a meaning of life and embraces existential doubt.
The importance of originality and creativity in philosophical thinking, as emphasized by Schopenhauer.
Kierkegaard's view on the dangers of uncommitted thinking and the need for philosophers to take their ideas seriously.
Aristotle's concept of virtue as a habit developed through practice and its relevance to philosophical training.
The call for more questioning, specificity, and doubt in modern society to improve understanding and reduce conflict.
Transcripts
many people would sooner die than think
in fact they do throughout history
philosophers have written on some of the
universe's biggest questions how to cope
with suffering what makes for a good
life how do we tell what is true from
what is false but alongside these they
have tackled another issue how can we
learn to be good philosophers because
whether you think philosophy itself is a
waste of time or one of life's greatest
Pleasures we could all stand to learn a
thing or two from some of the greatest
thinkers in history today we shall look
at what some phenomenal Minds had to say
about the subject of thinking and how
their insights are painfully applicable
to the modern day get ready to learn the
true meaning of precision why doubt is
your greatest friend and why
philosophers should ask questions
without fear as always bear in mind that
I'm only giving incomplete
representations of the views of the
thinkers I'm going to talk about and I
highly encourage you to look into the
details of their thoughts as well but
first let's tackle one of the oldest
themes in philosophy and perhaps one of
its most important one let's get
specific in Plato's dialogues Socrates
spends a lot of time talking about
definitions and this is for good reason
he is acutely aware at just how
confusing thinking and talking about
complex topics can get and he also knows
the antidote to all of this bafflement
the careful application of specificity a
whole suway of logical errors can take
place if we are not as precise as
possible with both our definitions and
the structure of our thought for
instance imagine that you and I are
having a conversation about the problem
of evil the idea that the existence of
evil in the world is evidence against an
omnipotent omniscient and all loving God
however unbeknownst to you I am merely
talking about The Logical problem of
evil the idea that evil is logically
incompatible with God whereas you are
talking about the evidential problem of
evil the idea that evil makes the
existence of God less credible this
might seem like a subtle distinction and
to a certain extent it is but it could
derail our entire discussion for example
I might say well maybe God has a higher
plan that involves our suffering this is
a perfectly adequate response if all we
are looking at is logical inconsistency
because this is a logical possibility
and so it is sufficient to prove bare
consistency however it's a pretty weak
response to the evidential problem of
evil you might quite rightly respond
with yeah but how Al is it that God's
plan involves the suffering and death of
so many creatures if I'm just talking
about logical consistency then this
objection is irrelevant since it's now
in the realm of probability or
plausibility but if we are talking about
evidence then it is a totally fair
response hence the important of
specifying the problem we are discussing
at the outset and this is just one
example of the kind of confusion that
can arise when we are not putting in the
effort to speak or think in precise
terms and this crops up all the time in
contemporary debates disagreements about
what constitutes valuable human life
drift into debates about euthanasia
often without anyone acknowledging that
the difference in definitions make
further dialogue here much more
difficult the lack of specificity leads
to profound confusion or to take an
example from the history of philosophy
Jeremy benam argued that what all humans
ultimately desire is pleasure but
because of a confusion over what exactly
he meant by the term pleasure many
people interpreted him as promoting a
hedonistic lifestyle one which involved
constant intoxication and sexual excess
almost exactly the same
misinterpretation is often applied to
epicurus and all because of a lack of
precision in definitions this emphasis
on specificity in philosophy would reach
a fever pitch in the early 20th century
when philosophers such as AJ a carap and
the young Vicken Stein would propose
strict constraints on what could be
talked about with an acceptable level of
precision and said that we must remain
silent on everything else many of these
thinkers argued that unless we break
down a statement into exactly what
observations or logical definitions it
corresponds to we cannot really talk
about it in specific enough terms to
Warrant true philosophical inquiry in
other words they strove for complete
specificity for various reasons most
people reject this early 20th century
style of thinking but that does not mean
that the spirit of their ideas had no
Insight in It ultimately the gold
standard for precision would be
something like mathematical or
philosophical logic this is where we use
specially designed symbols to Express
the specific meaning of our statements
elucidating The Logical relations and
consequences of our propositions but in
almost all cases we don't need to go
this far for me the most impactful
everyday usage for this sort of
philosophical Precision is to become as
specific as possible about the
definitions that we are using in our own
thoughts and discussions many of us are
busy or overworked people so it's very
easy for us to fall into using vague
Concepts that we've not fully
investigated we start describing things
as good or bad or idiotic without
knowing what we really mean by these
terms we can get into the habit of
generalizing claims automatically or
reasoning with heuristics without even
realizing that's what we're doing and
this means we can't even get a clear
picture of what we think about an issue
additionally we often assume that
everyone else is using the exact same
definitions we are but this is almost
certainly not the case and if we don't
recognize this we can waste hours having
unproductive arguments with people we
don't even necessarily disagree with for
such varied thinkers as Plato Spinosa
and liit this specificity of thought is
an essential element in our
philosophical training not only will it
help us avoid errors in our own ideas
but it will slowly hone our logical
reasoning ability we will habitually ask
not just what we believe but also the
reasons we believe it and over time we
will learn to spell out exactly what we
think to such an extreme degree of
precision that there will be very little
room for confusion or error on the part
of our listener not only will this help
with our understanding of other people
but it will also put us in touch with
the flaws in our own thinking and we
shall become intimately acquainted with
where our own reasoning has a tendency
to go off the rails a lack of precision
can hide a multitude of logical sins but
this is only the start next we shall
look at the advice of one Arthur
schopenhauer on what he thinks separates
a skilled thinker from the rest if you
want to help me make more videos like
this then please consider subscribing to
my Channel or my patreon the links are
in the description two originality and
creativity Arthur schopenhauer is famous
for his pical essays against anything in
everything that bothered him or struck
him as irksome this stretches from his
rage against rhetoric in his ironically
titled the art of being right to his
essay on being happy which argues that
the world fundamentally consists of
frustration and suffering but amongst
all of these complaints there was also
something that he found deeply upsetting
about the writers and thinkers of his
day they struck him as both careless and
unoriginal schopenhauer divides up the
world of literature and philosophy into
two kinds of writers the first is
someone who just writes for the sake of
money or a claim they are not
particularly interested in the content
of what they are writing but are instead
just cashing in a check much of the
writings around entertainment fall into
this category but it also includes a
huge number of news articles and opinion
pieces but for schopenhauer philosophers
are meant to write for the sake of their
subject in other words they write
because they have something to say and
hopefully that also contains some
original thought this might simply be a
spin on a previous Doctrine such as
schopenhauer's own interpretations of
Eastern philosophy but importantly they
are writing with thought care and
attention he also criticizes people who
set off writing without carefully
planning what they're going to say for
him such thinkers inevitably end up
confused and will produce nothing
particularly worth reading he also Wars
any young authors or philosophers
against falling fully in line with
whatever the most popular or acclaimed
view on a subject is and instead
challenge accepted Dogma at least
occasionally this is not just knee-jerk
contrarianism but reflects something
really quite helpful it is often by
questioning the most common approaches
to a subject that we stumble upon
something genuinely new and while
novelty itself might not be a virtue at
the very least we would be adding
something to the Corpus of human thought
this fear about slap Dash and
non-committal thinking and writing is
echoed by one of schopenhauer's
contemporaries sain kard kard was very
worried by philosophers and thinkers not
taking their questions truly seriously
and he saw this as an increasing Trend
in 19th century Denmark for him
philosophy was not just a matter of
toying with ideas but of committing to
them and developing them yourselves it
is often only in the process of deciding
to follow an idea through to its logical
conclusion that we can get at the
nuances of our individual thoughts or to
use shopen how's language to think for
the sake of the subject and adding
something original to it rather than
merely for our own Amusement kard also
shared schopenhauer's concerns about
becoming too uncreative in our own
philosophies he pointed out that the
most popular ideas of any given time
period are not necessarily the best and
that many people are drawn to their
views of the world not through careful
consideration or reason or even Faith
but instead from a desire to fit in with
the crowd for for him it is the work of
the philosopher to break free of this
understandable pull towards mere
societal acceptance and instead to
pursue their ideas wherever they might
lead he does accept that this is
sometimes a dangerous thing to do going
against the popular grain in any
situation is pretty difficult and can
come with a fair amount of social
rejection and condemnation nonetheless
for kard the philosopher must persevere
remembering that Socrates was killed for
doing exactly the same thing but this is
one of the very reasons we respect him
so much and it is worth noting that
throughout the history of philosophy the
thinkers that we venerate and admire
also tend to have been creative and
original in some cases almost to excess
to take just one example today almost no
one follows Plato's ideas to the letter
his metaphysics is pretty unpopular and
his political philosophy is often just
considered a fun historical artifact but
such was his creativity diligence and
originality that he is still one of the
most respected figures in the history of
philosophy today despite people
disagreeing with the particularities of
his views over 2,000 years later Alfred
North Whitehead still described the
whole of Western philosophy as a
footnote to Plato and it is these truly
original ideas that have had the most
impact on philosophy as a whole in his
postumus notebooks the philosopher
ludvig Vicken Stein propounded a whole
new theory of language and meaning that
we are still getting to grips with today
if its depths were explored and widely
understood it could teach us how to
understand one another better how to
have constructive conversations and
interpret discourse effectively
Aristotle's metaphysical system spawned
an immensely successful view of science
that was only surpassed during the
Enlightenment such original thinkers
would encourage us to occasionally go
out on a limb explore an idea that at
first seems unintuitive and crazy and
just see where it leads this is not an
invocation to abandon critical thinking
far from it but it is sometimes in the
gaps between already existing ideas
that's true Innovation can be found and
sometimes looking in the most unlikely
places can lead to the strangest of
philosophical breakthroughs it is said
that Vicken Stein's earlier theory of
language was inspired by his Reflections
on a court proceeding and his tractatus
logico philosophicus shaped philosophy
Linguistics and more for 30 years after
its publication and the great thing
about this blue sky philosophical
thinking is that you can start almost
anywhere if you look for it I've got a
sneaky feeling that you'll find
philosophy actually is all around but
next we shall look at some old favorites
of the channel and what they have to say
about questioning and fear three courage
and inquiry there is a passage in
friederick n's Twilight of the idols
where he launches a tiate of criticism
against what he called system Builders
amongst these people he included a great
many theologians but also
straightforward philosophers like K or
Hegel who would develop their ideas
through building elaborate and complex
systems to explain our world and how it
should be but what exactly was n's
problem here it certainly wasn't that he
shied away from complex or unintuitive
ideas he has a fair few of them himself
but he thought that in building these
systems these thinkers had compromised a
far more important principle of
philosophy the ability to question
anything without fear and this is
arguably ne's most distinctive trait as
a philosopher he truly did not care
about slaying sacred Dogma or making
half of AC IIA angry at him he just kept
questioning kept writing and ended up
producing some of the best known
philosophy in history he interrogated
the idea held up as a paragon of ethical
Philosophy for thousands of years that
reason will lead to Virtue which will
lead to happiness and he refused to
accept that what made us human was our
rationality he rejected the objective
value of compassion or pity and embraced
a radically new type of thinking that
proposed we humans could create our own
values all of this could only only be
accomplished because he refused to take
anything as unquestionable and would
interrogate the very fundaments of
metaphysics ethics and epistemology for
nature nothing was off limits for his
questioning and this is what allowed him
to write what he did and think in the
manner he did we may not agree with it
but there is no denying its influence it
arguably changed the face of philosophy
forever as another example take alar
kamu his philosophy of absurdism is
perhaps one of the most famous ideas in
the world today but it is also striking
because it fearlessly questioned the
fundamental assumptions of existential
philosophy before him people have been
so focused on creating meaning and
solving nihilism that they had lost
sight of another option to move past the
need for a meaning of life altogether
and to make peace with the valuelessness
of our world and this bold questioning
was not just incidental to his approach
he saw it as a supreme tenant of
philosophical thinking in the myth of
Copus kamu talks about philosophical
suicide this this is a very dramatic
name for something we have all probably
come across at some point it is when
someone who previously valued truth and
reasoned inquiry suddenly cannot bear
the results of their own logic and
instead of looking their conclusions in
the face runs away from them as fast as
humanly possible he viewed kard as just
such a thinker since in the face of
doubts about the existence of God he
found them so unbearable that he decided
to plunge wholeheartedly into his faith
and he rejected his reasons for doubting
not by arguing against them but by
providing a countervailing emotional
Force for kamu this was essentially
abandoning philosophy and tant amounts
to killing that aspect of us that is
interested in asking questions without
fear of what the answers may be however
I want to add a Counterpoint to kamu and
N here because as I said in the previous
section sometimes ideas can only develop
if we temporarily take some aspects of
them as accepted and then see what their
consequences are the philosopher of
science Thomas [ __ ] once spoke of two
phases of scientific inquiry the normal
stage and the Revolutionary stage the
normal stage is where we develop a
particular set of assumptions as far as
we possibly can to explain any new
phenomena that we encounter so over the
course of the 19th century we might
attempt to use Newtonian mechanics to
explain literally every physical
observation but then eventually we come
up against something we just cannot make
sense of and that is when we revisit our
starting assumptions and have a
scientific revolution hence the need for
Einstein science theories of both
special and general relativity but
something most people skim over is that
[ __ ] thought both of these phases were
incredibly important if we never spent
all that time working under the
assumption that Newtonian mechanics
could explain every observation then a
myriad of advances in the physics of
medium-sized objects as well as in
engineering would have been totally
missed paradoxically if we were to have
a scientific revolution every few years
then we would probably make far fewer
helpful scientific advances in order to
do almost anything we have to make
certain assumptions and we might apply a
similar train of thought to philosophy
it is true that revolutionary
philosophers are fun to look at and we
certainly have much to learn from them
but sometimes it is just as valuable to
assume a starting premise and work out
what the consequences of this would be
for example much of the development of
virtue ethics by medieval Christian
thinkers was working under the
assumption that we were made in the
image of God but their writings are
still immensely helpful for someone who
wants to make sense of the philosophical
notion of virtue today even if they
reject the theistic premise the idea of
a non-physical Soul has gone out of
fashion for many of us but the idea that
our mind is divided into an repetitive
part and a cognitive or rational part is
still an underlying assumption in some
Modern therapy techniques one example of
this would be cognitive behavioral
therapy which posits a connection
between patterns of thought and emotions
and if you crack open a CBT textbook you
will find that they are implicitly
working with this multi-part structure
of the Mind so I think we can take two
distinct lessons away here the first is
that sometimes it is genuinely worth
going back to the drawing board and
resetting our philosophical assumptions
occasionally there is very little baby
for a whole heap of bathat but secondly
we should not discount the value of
philosophy that is conducted on
uncertain first premises who knows we
might even discover that our findings
are helpful even if we later reject the
initial starting point but finally I
want to examine a theme that runs
through the entire hist history of
Western philosophy and it is something
we could use a whole lot more of today
four doubt and dubit ability the term
skeptic stretches right back to ancient
Greece and it's a little bit different
to how we consider Skeptics today people
like Richard Dawkins now mean we
associate skepticism with scientists and
critical thinking but in ancient Athens
the fundamental building block of the
skeptical worldview was doubt they would
doubt almost everything from their
perceptions to their deductions to their
judgments in the hope of attaining
ataraxia a blissful awareness of their
own profound ignorance of literally
everything and while as a way of life
this has understandably fallen out of
favor the Skeptics were on to one very
important thing the philosopher is
fundamentally a doubter this Rich
tradition is perhaps best exemplified in
decart's meditations where he sets out
to doubt everything he possibly can in
order to rebuild his knowledge on firmer
foundations this is where we get his
famous kogito argument or I think
therefore I am because that was the
first thing he thought he could be
absolutely certain of according to
dayart an essential part of a
philosophical life is to at least once
in our lives sit down and truly try to
doubt everything we think we know this
doubt should stretch to our views about
reality about inquiry about life about
ourselves about our relationships and so
much more for dayart it seems like the
mark of philosophy is never being
satisfied with resting on our epistemic
Laurels instead we must be constantly
doubting and revising our beliefs in
light of new evidence new arguments and
new ideas later the empiricist David
Hume would similarly paint doubt as a
Cornerstone of healthy philosophical
thinking perhaps his most famous
quotation is a wise man proportions his
belief to the evidence and contained
within this worldview is the idea that
we should be holding our judgments at a
distance both from ourselves and our
identities it is not that we shouldn't
be passionate about our opinions Hume
certainly was but we should never become
so attached to them that we would be
unwilling to let go of them if new
evidence came to light this idea is
littered throughout hume's philosophy as
he doubted so many of the so-called
received truths of his day from
disbelieving in God to holding that
reason was a slave of the passions Hume
threw doubt on the very foundations of
philosophy as it existed in the 18th
century despite popular belief this sort
of Doubt is also very much evidenced in
faith-based philosophy one of the
reasons I'm such a fan of Thomas aquinus
is because he was not satisfied with
taking the existence of God on faith or
even on Revelation he wanted to prove
his existence through the use of natural
reason that is careful and logical
philosophical argumentation sure I am an
atheist so I disagree with his
conclusions but this dissatisfaction
with unreasoned belief is part of what
makes aquinus such an influential and
exceptional thinker and he is firmly
rooted in this philosophical tradition
of doubt in more modern times bertran
Russell has argued that doubt is an
essential component not just of a good
philosopher but of a functioning Society
towards his later years Russell became
increasingly concerned with how Humanity
was to ever solve disagreements without
recourse to violence he was totally
shaken by the first and second world
wars as well as the ongoing Cold War and
wanted to know why people were so Keen
to turn to force to resolve disputes of
course there are many factors here
self-interest the efficiency of physical
might and much more but he also saw that
if people held their opinions without
any doubt then it becomes impossible to
change their minds through any other
means than sheer power for instance
imagine that I'm having a discussion
with someone who thinks that killing
puppies for fun is a good thing they
think it is moral and they plan to do
more of it if they have some doubt in
this belief then there is hope I can
give them reasons for changing their
mind I might appeal to a utilitarian
position or reach out to their inner C
doubt becomes the crack through which
reason can pour through but if they are
totally certain such that nothing even
in principle could change their mind
then I am all out of options now I
either have to let them go on killing
puppies or try to intervene through
Force thus for Russell with total
certainty the rule of violence and might
becomes pretty much inevitable and a
drop of Doubt might save us gallons of
blood in our modern world of Internet
Echo Chambers and excessive
self-confidence in our own views I think
Russell's message is well worth
listening to but in keeping with this
theme I want to throw some doubt on what
we have said so far and instead turn to
our old friend Aristotle for some
closing thoughts five Theory practice
and habituation one of Aristotle's main
contributions to our current
understanding of the world and of people
was that he viewed goodness as not just
a form of knowledge but a habit of
action whereas Plato had said that true
knowledge of goodness would imply that
we acted well and that people only ever
acted poorly out of of ignorance
Aristotle argued that knowledge by
itself did not entail any action he
thought that virtue was a habit we must
diligently practice and that this was
true for any virtue practical moral or
intellectual and he would be skeptical
of the efficacy of a YouTube video for
teaching someone how to be a philosopher
for him it is with practice that we
stumble across all of the little tricks
that no one could teach us but that
become integral to our chosen Pursuit
and it is what makes us come back to
that Pursuit over and over again slowly
developing a Mastery for it for instance
a very good friend of mine is an
engineer and whenever he has a problem
that is too tricky to solve in the
moment he will look through a math
reference book in search of nothing in
particular he rarely finds the solution
in the book but taking a broader view of
the problems sometimes makes the answer
just pop out to him without him
consciously working on it at all no one
told him this and it might not even work
for someone else but he found it out
through careful experimentation and
practice this is the type of thing
Aristo might call fris or practical
wisdom it is knowing what course of
action is appropriate in each situation
both morally and practically and we can
only gain this fris by engaging with a
whole lot of situations I think the same
applies to philosophy unless we are
vonstein our first foras into the
subject will be messy and clumsy and
that is sort of the point just as we
would not expect to be an expert swimmer
after a month of trying or to
revolutionize the art World 3 weeks
after picking up a paintbrush thinking
philosophically and critically is a
skill that can be trained I've been
practicing it basically full-time for
about 6 years now and I've still not
scratch the surface of philosophical
Insight I still make habitual mistakes
in my reasoning and I still struggle to
get my head around New Concepts but I
truly believe that if we keep at it we
can learn to become more precise
original fearless and questioning
thinkers and as we look around the world
and see people engaging in Endless
pointless arguments where there is not
even an attempt to understand one
another where Dogma is around every
corner and doubt is seen as a sign of
weakness rather than intellectual
honesty I cannot help but feel that we
can stand to learn something from these
old philosophers perhaps what our
societies need is a bit more questioning
a bit more specificity and a bit more
doubt and maybe we could be the people
to give it to them but that's just me
and you may have good reason to question
my conclusions in fact I encourage you
to do so and a great way to expand your
philosophical and critical thinking
skills is to learn how to ask good
questions and luckily I have a video on
the legendary questioning technique of
Socrates right here and stick around for
more on thinking to improve your life
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Doing Philosophy/The Need to Philosophize
functions and philosophical importance of art
Plato and Aristotle: Crash Course History of Science #3
Cartesian Skepticism - Neo, Meet Rene: Crash Course Philosophy #5
Kerangka Berpikir Ilmiah, Cara Berfikir ilmiah yang Benar
¿Qué es emancipación, libertad y autonomía, cómo influye en sí mismo?
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)