SpheresOfBalance wrote:To me parroting is reading someone elses ideas, then reciting them as though somehow, because you have, you are special. ...
Good job I don't do in general do this then and when I do I cite them, I also repeat views I think have validity, philosophically that is.
After all you've only read their work; that and nothing more. ...
At least thats something, are you saying someone who has not read the work has as much validity in their opinion of the work? Or the person who has only read commentaries?
It's as if one believes they're somehow responsible for it's creation, merely by the association of reading it. ...
Not in academic philosophy its not as you do have to make a meaning for what you read, of course you could do what you say and just parrot but you'll be getting at best a tutu and more likely a richard or whatever it is now.
And It's not necessarily true that, if by simply reading it you've understood it, if your understanding is complete, if its understanding is based in truth, or that there is not an opposing view, that has been acknowledged or will be acknowledged that is actually true. ...
Maybe, as language is a tricky thing but if you've done an academic study of philosophy you have a much improved understanding about the range and history of views and where ones own stands so far.
I would say most People assume that a book being published, lends credence to it's contents, without question. ...
Well, it lends credence to the idea that its different in some way from its competitor manuscripts.
I would also assert that testing it's truth, is only as through as the testers ability in seeing the need for question and their ability in formulating the proper questions, such that the most important question that has the ability to undermine the entire publication is left unasked. Parrots simply repeat what they've heard like a recording device, and to varying degrees, nothing more. Then seem to take credit for it as if simply reading it gives them license to do so as if it bears on their abilities.
You'll get a third or maybe a two-two. What do you mean by "testing its truth"? The point of much of academic philosophy is to identify the axioms and hence the grounds.
One doesn't simply read other philosophers content then say they are philosophers, they philosophize using/inventing their exclusive content then find out after the fact whether it's been said before or not. These are definitely not parrots, but rather true philosophers, regardless of the height of the pinnacle of their recognition, if any. ...
They're also called first-years.
In other words there is always some fractional portion of unwitting plagiarism involved if you're well read. I personally go so far as to say the the act of reading others works is just so much programming, (likened to computer programming). Garbage in, garbage out; The ultimate in, the ultimate out; All the gray in between in, all the gray in between out. Such that in the end, what are you actually left with. It's a coin toss as well, but it's with someone elses coin. ...
Do you? Then you'll like NLP. My take is that if you are philosophically well-read then you know that you're unlikely to have had two philosophical thoughts that you can call 'original' or one's own, despite you thinking of it.
I have a good example for you. Since I'm a male, like most I enjoy automobiles in the sports sense. Anyway I've heard guys say "my car is a 'certain model car' and is extremely fast. I bet my car can outrun your car. As if they actually have something to do with it. I remind them that it's not the fact that they own/bought it that makes it fast; that, it's not their car that is fast, but it's (car maker's) car that is fast. Their only claim to fame is that they bought it which means absolutely nothing with respect to how fast it is.
I think we live in different roads as over here you can have as fast a car as you like but its the nutter or mind behind the wheel that wins the race, that and some skill at handling cars around bends.
Such as automobiles; such as books.
Yup! You go as fast as what your mind brings.
What you meant to say is "What you're not free of is avoiding the discussion at hand, in this particular case, "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?" Because in fact we are discussing something. Can you see that I try and be extremely literal unless of course I'm using sarcasm, analogy or metaphor.
You think yourself the only one? So what truth is it that you see us being stopped from?
Missed this due to mixed quoting technique.
