Disappointment

[anonymous66]

When I first started getting into philosophy, I had the idea that philosophers, because they focused on rational arguments, were somehow more than human - I thought they would be kind, thoughtful, not swayed by strong emotion.

But, having gotten to know a few philosophy professors, and meeting with professional philosophers (college professors in 2 well known colleges) in small groups (they allow non-professionals to sit in as well) - I saw that they were just as prone to nastiness and pettiness as the rest of us. And it was disappointing to see.

One group was a lot more friendly than the other- so maybe I will keep trying. Unfortunately, in that group, I was the jerk - and they let me know they didn't appreciate my antics.

I'm making a list of living philosophers who seem to be decent people - who would make good role models. Peter Van Inwagen is one such person. Perhaps Stephen West of Philosophize This! Anyone else want to add to the list?

[Impenitent]

people are people

-Imp

p.s. what do many people do with a philosophy degree? use it as pre-law

good lawyers...

[Jack Daydream]

When I first started getting into philosophy, I had the idea that philosophers, because they focused on rational arguments, were somehow more than human - I thought they would be kind, thoughtful, not swayed by strong emotion.

But, having gotten to know a few philosophy professors, and meeting with professional philosophers (college professors in 2 well known colleges) in small groups (they allow non-professionals to sit in as well) - I saw that they were just as prone to nastiness and pettiness as the rest of us. And it was disappointing to see.

One group was a lot more friendly than the other- so maybe I will keep trying. Unfortunately, in that group, I was the jerk - and they let me know they didn't appreciate my antics.

I'm making a list of living philosophers who seem to be decent people - who would make good role models. Peter Van Inwagen is one such person. Perhaps Stephen West of Philosophize This! Anyone else want to add to the list?

My list would include Noam Chomsky, Fritjof Capra and Rupert Sheldrake for their depth of understanding from my perspective. I do think that this is what should be focused on most, although the idea of a philosopher as a role model is probably important as well. I am sure that there are many people who play a role in philosophy who are very decent people but they may not be famous. To achieve success in the competitive battles of philosophy may mean that the ruthless ones rise more than the humble.

[LuckyR]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

[anonymous66]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

[Impenitent]

clergy in the house?

-Imp

[LuckyR]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

Sure it's possible. But when someone's livelihood is tied to the success of their point of view, they'll commonly be more chauvinistic about it, which comes across to others as in the OP's example.

[Age]

When I first started getting into philosophy, I had the idea that philosophers, because they focused on rational arguments, were somehow more than human - I thought they would be kind, thoughtful, not swayed by strong emotion.

But, having gotten to know a few philosophy professors, and meeting with professional philosophers (college professors in 2 well known colleges) in small groups (they allow non-professionals to sit in as well) - I saw that they were just as prone to nastiness and pettiness as the rest of us. And it was disappointing to see.

I also find it very disappointing that the self-claimed "philosophers" cannot 'just argue', and 'logical reason' without debating 'fighting' over and/or for 'a position'.

But, considering what they will, literally, lose if and when 'their position/belief' is 'not won' or cannot be 'won', then it is understandable that they resort to nastiness, pettiness, and the attacking of 'the person'. It is NEVER acceptable nor warranted, but it is totally understandable when their position/belief cannot be backed up, supported, verified, nor justified.

One group was a lot more friendly than the other- so maybe I will keep trying. Unfortunately, in that group, I was the jerk - and they let me know they didn't appreciate my antics.

Why were you a, supposed, "jerk"?

Because you were actually acting like a so-called "jerk", or, just because you had different views than they did? Or, was it for some other reason?

I'm making a list of living philosophers who seem to be decent people - who would make good role models. Peter Van Inwagen is one such person. Perhaps Stephen West of Philosophize This! Anyone else want to add to the list?

There a plenty, and who are genuine "philosophers" as well.

[Age]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

Very True.

[Age]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

Are you talking about 'monetary wealth, here?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

The BEST are the ones that none of you here have even imagined before.

[Gary Childress]

Part of the OP's problem is using professional philosophers as his benchmark. Doing something for money or prestige or both as incentives will lead to a different mindset than those who are drawn to a mindset because it suits them because of it's internal logic.

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

Are you talking about 'monetary wealth, here?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

The BEST are the ones that none of you here have even imagined before.

I had an excellent philosophy professor, Emmit Holman. He used to teach at George Mason University. He really was an amazing professor. Last I heard from him he still does a little teaching at retirement homes from time to time. He's a good man. I always admired his straightforward honesty and commitment. I'm not sure but I think he may have been an agnostic. He never presumed he knew more than he could. Never made assumptions. When you said something he could always bring up contrasting positions and treat them fairly also. He would say something like, "that could be correct, but then there's the other side..." And then he would lay out the countering argument (if it was a good one). I mean, he wouldn't defend a position if it were obviously flawed (at least not that I witnessed). But He was a great teacher when I was taking classes there.

[Age]

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

Are you talking about 'monetary wealth, here?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

The BEST are the ones that none of you here have even imagined before.

I had an excellent philosophy professor, Emmit Holman. He used to teach at George Mason University. He really was an amazing professor. Last I heard from him he still does a little teaching at retirement homes from time to time. He's a good man. I always admired his straightforward honesty and commitment. I'm not sure but I think he may have been an agnostic. He never presumed he knew more than he could. Never made assumptions. When you said something he could always bring up contrasting positions and treat them fairly also. He would say something like, "that could be correct, but then there's the other side..." And then he would lay out the countering argument (if it was a good one). I mean, he wouldn't defend a position if it were obviously flawed (at least not that I witnessed). But He was a great teacher when I was taking classes there.

But, there is no, actual, "other side".

There is only One "side", Reality, or Truth. Which, by the way, is backed up, supported, verified, justified, or proved True, and,/or Right, with and though logical reasoning, and sound and valid arguments. So-called 'good arguments' do not suffice, as only sound and valid arguments are worth repeating, (unless of course one is presenting examples of what arguments do not suffice).

Also, there are no sound and valid 'counter argument' to a sound and valid argument. Therefore, there are also no actual 'counter positions', other than, of course, the ones that you human beings make up, and hold. But, obviously, they would have no actual bearing on what is actually irrefutably True. Which is, really, the only position worthy of being 'looked at', and 'discussed'.

[Gary Childress]

Are you talking about 'monetary wealth, here?


The BEST are the ones that none of you here have even imagined before.

I had an excellent philosophy professor, Emmit Holman. He used to teach at George Mason University. He really was an amazing professor. Last I heard from him he still does a little teaching at retirement homes from time to time. He's a good man. I always admired his straightforward honesty and commitment. I'm not sure but I think he may have been an agnostic. He never presumed he knew more than he could. Never made assumptions. When you said something he could always bring up contrasting positions and treat them fairly also. He would say something like, "that could be correct, but then there's the other side..." And then he would lay out the countering argument (if it was a good one). I mean, he wouldn't defend a position if it were obviously flawed (at least not that I witnessed). But He was a great teacher when I was taking classes there.

But, there is no, actual, "other side".

Age. Please stop replying to my posts. I do not wish to converse with you anymore.

Thank you.

[LuckyR]

Isn't it possible that some professional philosophers are drawn to philosophy "because of its internal logic" and because of this mindset, or perhaps even incidentally, they become prestigious and wealthy?

Are you talking about 'monetary wealth, here?

On the other hand, I don't care how prestigious or wealthy someone is... I'm just looking for good philosophers who are also good role models.

The BEST are the ones that none of you here have even imagined before.

I had an excellent philosophy professor, Emmit Holman. He used to teach at George Mason University. He really was an amazing professor. Last I heard from him he still does a little teaching at retirement homes from time to time. He's a good man. I always admired his straightforward honesty and commitment. I'm not sure but I think he may have been an agnostic. He never presumed he knew more than he could. Never made assumptions. When you said something he could always bring up contrasting positions and treat them fairly also. He would say something like, "that could be correct, but then there's the other side..." And then he would lay out the countering argument (if it was a good one). I mean, he wouldn't defend a position if it were obviously flawed (at least not that I witnessed). But He was a great teacher when I was taking classes there.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your observation. I was addressing the observations in the OP, which although I am in no position to verify specifically, are corroborated generally by the psychological forces I described.

[Age]

I had an excellent philosophy professor, Emmit Holman. He used to teach at George Mason University. He really was an amazing professor. Last I heard from him he still does a little teaching at retirement homes from time to time. He's a good man. I always admired his straightforward honesty and commitment. I'm not sure but I think he may have been an agnostic. He never presumed he knew more than he could. Never made assumptions. When you said something he could always bring up contrasting positions and treat them fairly also. He would say something like, "that could be correct, but then there's the other side..." And then he would lay out the countering argument (if it was a good one). I mean, he wouldn't defend a position if it were obviously flawed (at least not that I witnessed). But He was a great teacher when I was taking classes there.

But, there is no, actual, "other side".

Age. Please stop replying to my posts. I do not wish to converse with you anymore.

Thank you.

Okay, but if you reply to my posts, like you did above here, then why do you want me to stop replying to your posts?

Seems rather selfish that you can reply to what I say and write here, but you do not want me to do the exact same thing.