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.

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.

Re- my jerkiness. I wasn't told specifically what I did to attract their ire - but I suspect it was probably because I can be overbearing and overly critical. If I could do it over, I would be more cautious in my responses. They do all have more experience than I do - and I was there to learn. It's kind of a shame, because they did appear to get along and wanted to help each other in their endeavors - unlike the other group I was also involved in.

[anonymous66]

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'm glad you had a good experience. He does sound like a good guy.