71–80 of 99 posts
One reason to read old philosophy is that it is way more approachable. Most of the time, the approachability is an inverse function of the date the philosophical material appeared (understandable given our knowledge and thoughts have grown to be more complex throughout history). If you want to get into philosophy, reading a platonic dialogue (except Timaios and those with the Eleian) or one of the simpler texts of Ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I procrastinated my core courses and took Philosophy my last semester of uni at 22. I'm so glad I took it that late. It was easily one of the best courses I ever took, of course with the professors to thank for that. What did I get out of it? It got me thinking about all sorts of concepts, especially concepts I never would've thought about on my own. How do you quantify that? Who knows? I still think about Callicles…
Congratulations, you're the 1% who got things out of it. As a former teacher, I can assure you that (optimistically) 90% of what happens in school does not teach any problem-solving skills (and that's backed up by the literature). The 10% that does is in literacy and mathematics up to Algebra (not including Geometry, which almost no one remembers, nearly zero people use, has been demonstrated to make little or no dif…
That didn’t help spark any particular interest in the field. It’s very difficult to learn something that doesn’t interest me.
I later ended up failing high school math, which made it difficult to get accepted for my college education. I was accepted on the condition that I’d take the math course again, and pass the exam within 6 months.
Incidentally (and fortunately) I studied philosophy and business administration. Philosophy (and particularly the ancient Greeks) got me much more excited about math, and I got an A in my exam shortly after.
Just a personal anecdote, but thought you might find it interesting.
Most of the comments here are completely missing the point of the article. The article is not about whether the ideas espoused by old philosophers are worth learning about, or about whether old philosophers are worth reading. The article asks the question of why philosophers prefer to read the original works of old philosophers, instead of reading descriptions of these ideas by authors who have demonstrated competenc…
Because too many people these days are the "school is overrated, vocational schools are all we need" types who don't understand the basic value of going through the old philosophers... the title is case in point. To me it seems so obvious that there are numerous reasons that it just seems click-baity. You know what they teach at the elite schools (like Eton for example) that most others don't? The trivium and quadriv…
For that matter, not all kids from great environment ends up in elite school or are even able to follow education with super higher speed and expectations.
Most of the comments here are completely missing the point of the article. The article is not about whether the ideas espoused by old philosophers are worth learning about, or about whether old philosophers are worth reading. The article asks the question of why philosophers prefer to read the original works of old philosophers, instead of reading descriptions of these ideas by authors who have demonstrated competenc…
If the book's ideas were of lasting consequence, it's a near certainty that more clear statements of them have been produced in the intervening years. You may lose some of the aesthetics of the original—but often times the true aesthetic value is debatable (or at least relative), and if it's truly there it still may not be worth losing the increased clarity and further refinement of ideas found in later works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations, you're the 1% who got things out of it. As a former teacher, I can assure you that (optimistically) 90% of what happens in school does not teach any problem-solving skills (and that's backed up by the literature). The 10% that does is in literacy and mathematics up to Algebra (not including Geometry, which almost no one remembers, nearly zero people use, has been demonstrated to make little or no dif…
This remind me a bit of my elementary school math teacher who’d usually answer any question or curiosity with a dismissive “you don’t have to understand it you just have to do it”. That didn’t help spark any particular interest in the field. It’s very difficult to learn something that doesn’t interest me. I later ended up failing high school math, which made it difficult to get accepted for my college education. I wa…
Because too many people these days are the "school is overrated, vocational schools are all we need" types who don't understand the basic value of going through the old philosophers... the title is case in point. To me it seems so obvious that there are numerous reasons that it just seems click-baity. You know what they teach at the elite schools (like Eton for example) that most others don't? The trivium and quadriv…
It's not a contradiction to love the old philosophers and also think that our society has a schooling problem that teaches too much, too badly, and often on the wrong topics. Of the many people who have studied those philosophers over the years in schools, how many got anything out of it? I'd wager that a 1% guess would be a bit high. The time spent on that for the other 99% is pure waste. But how will we know which…
Most of the comments here are completely missing the point of the article. The article is not about whether the ideas espoused by old philosophers are worth learning about, or about whether old philosophers are worth reading. The article asks the question of why philosophers prefer to read the original works of old philosophers, instead of reading descriptions of these ideas by authors who have demonstrated competenc…
Interesting. I was just writing about this yesterday: If the book's ideas were of lasting consequence, it's a near certainty that more clear statements of them have been produced in the intervening years. You may lose some of the aesthetics of the original—but often times the true aesthetic value is debatable (or at least relative), and if it's truly there it still may not be worth losing the increased clarity and fu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a contradiction to love the old philosophers and also think that our society has a schooling problem that teaches too much, too badly, and often on the wrong topics. Of the many people who have studied those philosophers over the years in schools, how many got anything out of it? I'd wager that a 1% guess would be a bit high. The time spent on that for the other 99% is pure waste. But how will we know which…
You know what would be great? A society where people can knowingly disagree on fundamental concepts with one another and remain mutually respectful and cooperative. And studying philosophy is a gateway to that. Students have very few things in common with most philosophers because most philosophers lived hundreds and thousands of years ago. But reading philosophers will show them their points in common, to various ex…
I agree.
> And studying philosophy is a gateway to that.
For a very, very small number of students. Forcing every student to go through philosophy education because we can't figure out a better way to select out the students that will care about it is at best waste, and at worst torture. The fact that you and I both actually enjoyed philosophy (and at least for me, school in general) doesn't change that; it means that we have a privilege that needs to be checked.