How To Think Like a Philosopher

Summary

This 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:01

🤔 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.

10:03

🧐 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.

15:05

🤨 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.

20:06

🏋️‍♂️ 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.

Keywords

💡Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. In the video, philosophy is presented as a discipline that helps individuals think critically and deeply about life's biggest questions, such as how to cope with suffering or what constitutes a good life. The video emphasizes the importance of philosophical thinking in improving one's life and society as a whole.

💡Specificity

Specificity refers to the quality of being precise and explicit in terms of detail. The video underscores the importance of specificity in philosophical discourse, using the example of Plato's Socratic dialogues to illustrate how careful application of definitions can clarify complex topics and prevent logical errors. It is suggested that being specific helps in avoiding confusion and enhancing the clarity of thought and communication.

💡Doubt

Doubt, in the context of the video, is the act of questioning one's beliefs and assumptions. It is portrayed as a fundamental aspect of philosophical inquiry, allowing for the refinement of knowledge and the avoidance of dogmatism. The video references historical figures like Descartes and Hume, who used doubt as a tool to challenge established beliefs and to build a more robust understanding of the world.

💡Originality

Originality is the quality of being innovative or creative. The video encourages thinkers to be original in their philosophical pursuits, suggesting that it is through original thought that new ideas and perspectives are born. It contrasts original thinkers like Schopenhauer, who challenged the status quo, with those who merely follow popular opinions without contributing new insights.

💡Questioning

Questioning is the act of posing inquiries or seeking answers. The video highlights the importance of fearless questioning as a core philosophical practice, which allows for the exploration of ideas without being constrained by preconceived notions or societal norms. It is presented as a means to challenge established dogmas and to foster intellectual honesty and growth.

💡Logical Errors

Logical errors are mistakes in reasoning that can lead to fallacious arguments. The video discusses how a lack of specificity can result in logical errors, such as when two parties are discussing different aspects of a problem (e.g., logical vs. evidential problem of evil) without realizing it, leading to confusion and unproductive dialogue.

💡Creativity

Creativity is the use of imagination or original ideas to create something. The video connects creativity with the ability to think philosophically, suggesting that creative thinkers are more likely to come up with novel solutions and perspectives. It is presented as a desirable trait for philosophers to cultivate in order to contribute meaningfully to the field.

💡Habituation

Habituation refers to the process of acquiring a habit through repeated practice. In the video, Aristotle's view on virtue as a habituated action is discussed, suggesting that philosophical thinking and virtue are not just about knowledge but also about practicing certain behaviors until they become second nature. This concept is used to argue for the importance of practice in developing philosophical skills.

💡Dubitability

Dubitability is the quality of being open to doubt or questioning. The video presents skepticism and doubt as essential to the philosophical endeavor, allowing for the continuous reevaluation of beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. It is suggested that a healthy level of doubt can lead to a more nuanced and adaptive understanding of the world.

💡Precision

Precision in this context refers to the clarity and exactness in thought and expression. The video emphasizes precision as a key to effective philosophical dialogue and reasoning. It is argued that being precise in definitions and arguments helps to avoid miscommunication and to construct more compelling and logically sound philosophical positions.

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