Like this word!! What does it mean?You may think so, but I reckon that is just your phobosophy.
Goddàjen
Re: Goddàjen
Re: Goddàjen
Fear of wisdom?
Re: Goddàjen
Oh yes, if it had been 'sophophobia' I might have spotted it.
But yes, I am afraid of wisdom, or I love ignorance. Or is the lover of wisdom, afraid of ignorance?
All these questions...
But yes, I am afraid of wisdom, or I love ignorance. Or is the lover of wisdom, afraid of ignorance?
All these questions...
Re: Goddàjen
Goddajen, you brought up the issue of the academic tract of philosophy. The Ph.D. is a trapping that means something, but not that much. There are fools with doctorates, and sages without them.
Should Kierkegaard go unread because he is a mere Magister? Does anyone prefer his brother Peter over Søren because the fomer was called Doktor?
Should we turn a blind eye to Eric Hoffer's True Believer because its author was a migrant farm worker and stevedore who, as a pure autodidact, had no credentials at all, not even an elementary school diploma? Fifty years after it was written, in these days of Islamo-militancy, Hoffer's penetrating book has gained even more relevance.
As Schopenhauer was always keen to point out, there is a difference between a philosopher and a professor of philosophy, namely, the difference between someone who lives for philosophy and someone who lives from it. The professors, parading their titles and credentials, show thereby that they are more concerned with appearance than with reality, when the office of the philosopher is precisely to penetrate appearance and arrive at reality. (I am reporting Schopenhauer's view here, and would point out against him that of course a professor of philosophy can be a genuine philosopher!). Schopenhauer himself would be forced to admit this given his great admiration for Kant. What he could not abide was Hegel, whom he considered a charlatan, and Fichte whose Wissenschaftslehre he mocked as Wissenschaftsleere and as Onanie).
An important text relating to the question of academic credentials is William James, "The Ph.D. Octopus" in Essential Writings, ed. Wilshire (SUNY 1984), pp. 343-348) It first appeared in 1903 in the Harvard Monthly.
Should Kierkegaard go unread because he is a mere Magister? Does anyone prefer his brother Peter over Søren because the fomer was called Doktor?
Should we turn a blind eye to Eric Hoffer's True Believer because its author was a migrant farm worker and stevedore who, as a pure autodidact, had no credentials at all, not even an elementary school diploma? Fifty years after it was written, in these days of Islamo-militancy, Hoffer's penetrating book has gained even more relevance.
As Schopenhauer was always keen to point out, there is a difference between a philosopher and a professor of philosophy, namely, the difference between someone who lives for philosophy and someone who lives from it. The professors, parading their titles and credentials, show thereby that they are more concerned with appearance than with reality, when the office of the philosopher is precisely to penetrate appearance and arrive at reality. (I am reporting Schopenhauer's view here, and would point out against him that of course a professor of philosophy can be a genuine philosopher!). Schopenhauer himself would be forced to admit this given his great admiration for Kant. What he could not abide was Hegel, whom he considered a charlatan, and Fichte whose Wissenschaftslehre he mocked as Wissenschaftsleere and as Onanie).
An important text relating to the question of academic credentials is William James, "The Ph.D. Octopus" in Essential Writings, ed. Wilshire (SUNY 1984), pp. 343-348) It first appeared in 1903 in the Harvard Monthly.