Philosophy Now Forum

zexwiththeuniverse wrote:Specifically Philosophy of mind: To be most eligible to talk about philosophy one should have learned (studied) through an experience about a subject rather then being taught it. They have ideas and concepts that they came to conclusions about by going through the experience. The people that learn about that experience have difficulty feeling the raw emotion of why that experience exists or what causes it and especially how it feels.They can probably come to pretty good conclusions about certain things but not everything. An observer's perception can be off by a long shot. But why would the observed be off if they were well aware individuals. But who's mind knows more facts then the mind that experienced something.Theoretical question: Who can describe how cancer feels better, a cancer patient or a doctor that studied cancer but never had cancer? The cancer patient would be able to relay information in a much different way then the doctor. Which is more valuable? Is it more valuable to have a man who went to space to describe how a gravity free atmosphere feels or for a person to imagine how it feels and be philosophical about it? To teach philosophy I would hope that the person teaching the philosophy in question either went through certain experiences or situations for an extended period of time as to gain valuable personal knowledge on the experiences and/or studied the field rigorously.
So to talk about or teach philosophy about a certain subject, I would recommend that the subject has either been studied through years of experience or years of education.There are certain fields of philosophy that everyone has experiences with and some that are rare. I met a man that was diagnosed with every mental disorder out there. He also suffered from schizophrenia for as long as a doctor goes to school. He had great philosophical insight on the subject matter that I felt was invaluable making me believe that if a person has enough personal experience with something they can defiantly be philosophical about it.

Who is eligible to talk or teach philosophy?

Walgekaaren wrote:Please post here your thoughts about who has the right to philosophise and on what terms. On Sokrates days it was thought that only the wealthy landowners are eligible because they are free and dont have to work like slaves. Because they have so much ample free time, they see life and the nature better than the common people who have to worry about theyr bellies and there to find shelter for the night.

The question arises: "How to create an environment, what supports philosophy and thinking? What should we do in our schools to achieve it? Do we need a democratic class-system or an autocratic communist system to allow free thought? What is freedom of thought and philosophy in itself?"

Your call.

chaz wyman wrote: I think your caricature of ancient Athens is incorrect.
You seem to be asking your question at the structural level of society, a conception that did not exist in the same way then as it does now, and one, I might add, that does not necessarily bear fruit for a question like this.

Now as then, in ancient Athens, we all are able to do philosophy. Even people who place cherries on the tops of a thousand cakes an hour, as the ability to think about other things.

It is rubbish to suggest that only wealthy land owners were "eligible". The case was simply that those with leisure (skolia) had the time to seek formal instruction. But the greatest of these, Sokrates, was not especially wealthy, and led quite an acetic existence.

However, by the end of Sokrates' life we do see the state closing down on thinking, for sure.

Mark Question wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I think your caricature of ancient Athens is incorrect.
You seem to be asking your question at the structural level of society, a conception that did not exist in the same way then as it does now, and one, I might add, that does not necessarily bear fruit for a question like this.

Now as then, in ancient Athens, we all are able to do philosophy. Even people who place cherries on the tops of a thousand cakes an hour, as the ability to think about other things.

It is rubbish to suggest that only wealthy land owners were "eligible". The case was simply that those with leisure (skolia) had the time to seek formal instruction. But the greatest of these, Sokrates, was not especially wealthy, and led quite an acetic existence.

However, by the end of Sokrates' life we do see the state closing down on thinking, for sure.

so, nowadays poor people are "eligible" to have education and other intellectual activities, their rested healthy bodies full of energy to think hard? so, why there is a need for education in third world and in third class and illegal/non-citizen citizens in western world, or is there?

chaz wyman wrote:

Walgekaaren wrote:Please post here your thoughts about who has the right to philosophise and on what terms. On Sokrates days it was thought that only the wealthy landowners are eligible because they are free and dont have to work like slaves. Because they have so much ample free time, they see life and the nature better than the common people who have to worry about theyr bellies and there to find shelter for the night.

The question arises: "How to create an environment, what supports philosophy and thinking? What should we do in our schools to achieve it? Do we need a democratic class-system or an autocratic communist system to allow free thought? What is freedom of thought and philosophy in itself?"

Your call.

It is rubbish to suggest that only wealthy land owners were "eligible". The case was simply that those with leisure (skolia) had the time to seek formal instruction. But the greatest of these, Sokrates, was not especially wealthy, and led quite an ascetic existence.

However, by the end of Sokrates' life we do see the state closing down on thinking, for sure.

Walgekaaren wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Walgekaaren wrote:Please post here your thoughts about who has the right to philosophise and on what terms. On Sokrates days it was thought that only the wealthy landowners are eligible because they are free and dont have to work like slaves. Because they have so much ample free time, they see life and the nature better than the common people who have to worry about theyr bellies and there to find shelter for the night.

The question arises: "How to create an environment, what supports philosophy and thinking? What should we do in our schools to achieve it? Do we need a democratic class-system or an autocratic communist system to allow free thought? What is freedom of thought and philosophy in itself?"

Your call.

It is rubbish to suggest that only wealthy land owners were "eligible". The case was simply that those with leisure (skolia) had the time to seek formal instruction. But the greatest of these, Sokrates, was not especially wealthy, and led quite an ascetic existence.

However, by the end of Sokrates' life we do see the state closing down on thinking, for sure.

Why is it rubbish?

It's rubbish because "elligibiity" was not an issue; that's why I put it in quotes.
Because we now have freedom.

Eh? This does not follow. But we have much less freedom now. In ancient Athens there were far fewer laws.


We just changed wealthy land owners with leisure(skolia gr.) with wealthy bankers with half-worth (semis lat.) They have money allright but no values in how to use it for the benefit of all the people for as it is sayd: Money has no country or nativity
This is a rather confused response. On the one hand you argue that philosophy is only open to the rich and powerful , and then you tell us that the rich and powerful are the ones who do not follow philosophy.
In ancient athens wealthy landowners had to be good some days to some people to avoid massive riots on theyr farms and fields.
In Athens the rich had the responsibility to provide for the state. In modern times the ordinary people provide for the state whilst the rich get tax breaks. This was due to ordinary people taking an interest in the state and thinking about political philosophy.
In the future education will be as so much expensive people who dont have the strength to accomodate a loan, will not get any. And scolarships are by means limited, for the government cannot pay for everything (read= We the taxpayers dont want to see Jack from our neighborhood be smarter and with better chanses for a good Job)
I don't have a crystal ball. But today's 'education' is not comparable to that in ancient Athens.

And time is most certainly that luxury we dont have, because of panem and cistercem Because people are rotting theyr brains with TV and other mass-media products. In ancient Athens there was no such thing as junk-mails or junk-data. For the paper and inc there expensive accessible only to those with leisure, or those who had to work for them and write something down. This inpicted that every word was accounted and not wasted.

This does not advance your argument about who is 'ELIGIBLE TO TALK PHILOSOPHY". Just because people watch TV, does not make them INELIGIBLE to philosophy. Here I am on my computer 'circus', doing philosophy. I do it because I like it.

Today we have free internet - a wery good and glorious intent with lots of grandeur, but its side effect is that people start forgetting what the costs of maintaining such free things are. The best thing to prove how it works ineffectively is Wikipedia who has to beg for money from every viewer to remind, that its not entirely free - atleast somebody has to pay for this party

Where do you live? I pay for mine.

So my point was, that there should be a bunch of wealthy men/women who are tied to the land, by so interested in its wellbeing and not some capitalists, who can be americans one day and canadians the other if they dont like the tax-environment anymore... Especially educated and illuminated men/women who have telos and pistis (agenda) what is greater than earning profit.

I agree with this, but it's not directly related to the topic. It is a tragedy that the world is controlled by people who have no interest other than the profit they can squeeze from one country or another, having no regard for the health and wealth of nations. These men generate financial services that generate debt, for their own financial gain, laying waste the economies of each nation at their personal betterment.


Philosophy is to make life better not more vulgar as it is nowadays. You cannot destroy all rulers and classes, but you can divert they meaning and function like with a river.

It's rubbish because "eligibility" was not an issue; that's why I put it in quotes.

This does not advance your argument about who is 'ELIGIBLE TO TALK PHILOSOPHY". Just because people watch TV, does not make them INELIGIBLE to philosophy. Here I am on my computer 'circus', doing philosophy. I do it because I like it.

Where do you live? I pay for mine.

I agree with this, but it's not directly related to the topic. It is a tragedy that the world is controlled by people who have no interest other than the profit they can squeeze from one country or another, having no regard for the health and wealth of nations. These men generate financial services that generate debt, for their own financial gain, laying waste the economies of each nation at their personal betterment.

Walgekaaren wrote:

It's rubbish because "eligibility" was not an issue; that's why I put it in quotes.

The freedom part was ment with an ironic sarcasm

This does not advance your argument about who is 'ELIGIBLE TO TALK PHILOSOPHY". Just because people watch TV, does not make them INELIGIBLE to philosophy. Here I am on my computer 'circus', doing philosophy. I do it because I like it.

Yes indeed there are some good programs like Discovery Channel

That channel is an utter disgrace - sensationalist bullshit. If they want my respect then they will have to drop their idiotic programs about the para-normal and UFOs.
Even when they deal with scientific topics they treat their audience like morons.



and others that contribute to learning and are in somewhat philosophical, but they arent sexy enough if to use this popular term that the majority of people would watch them.

I might be out of date but I I have not seen any US TV worthy to watch on philosophical topics.

The majority watches Two and a half men and other stuff like that. Thus there will be more brain destroing material than brain advansing. If people can still think after such programs then be my guest, they really should talk about philosophy especially how they managed to keep theyr cool.

Where do you live? I pay for mine.

I have a combo package what includes TV; Cell; landline and internet. If I; my grandmother; mother and brother use it for more than 25 EUR a month, then the internet is for free

In other words your Internet is not 'free'.

I agree with this, but it's not directly related to the topic. It is a tragedy that the world is controlled by people who have no interest other than the profit they can squeeze from one country or another, having no regard for the health and wealth of nations. These men generate financial services that generate debt, for their own financial gain, laying waste the economies of each nation at their personal betterment.

QED We have an agreement.

Sorry that I took my quotes and stuff out, but the system doesnt let emb more than 3 quotes together.

Walgekaaren wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:28 am Please post here your thoughts about who has the right to philosophise and on what terms. On Sokrates days it was thought that only the wealthy landowners are eligible because they are free and dont have to work like slaves. Because they have so much ample free time, they see life and the nature better than the common people who have to worry about theyr bellies and there to find shelter for the night.

The question arises: "How to create an environment, what supports philosophy and thinking? What should we do in our schools to achieve it? Do we need a democratic class-system or an autocratic communist system to allow free thought? What is freedom of thought and philosophy in itself?"

Your call.

puto wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:58 pm Buddhism is not a religion.