What is the most difficult part of philosophy (for you)?

[chewybrian]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

Is it understanding tough concepts?

Is it accepting unpleasant truths?

Is it putting your ideas to work in the 'real' world, living out your philosophy?

Is it trying to convince others or explain ideas to them?

Something else?

[thrasymachus]

chewybrian wrote
Is it trying to convince others or explain ideas to them?

Two kinds of philosophy. One is about being keen to argue. Analytic philosophy is more like this because it has all too much interest juggling meanings that are in play already, and arguing becomes reaching into the common stock of what is meaningful, and this produces simply new variations of what is familiar. Not so new, it turns out. Analytic philosophy is being given a proper burial as we speak.

Then there are those who are taken up by the indeterminacy of all knowledge claims. This puts discussion at the threshold where the familiar ends and something else begins. This something else is, for me, where genuine philosophy begins. Not a painful and pointless effort to find in the bin of available thinking something that can be wrung out of it that is new. There is nothing new in this.

Science's paradigms are not philosophy's. Try explaining that to people who are so obsessed with how well science can produce cell phones that they cannot think beyond this. Philosophy is by df. beyond this.

[Gertie]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

Is it understanding tough concepts?

Is it accepting unpleasant truths?

Is it putting your ideas to work in the 'real' world, living out your philosophy?

Is it trying to convince others or explain ideas to them?

Something else?

The trickiest part of 'doing' philosophy for me is understanding things which aren't a good fit with my normal way of thinking. Sometimes it's like talking a different language. And I'm prone to dismissing things I can't easily get a handle on.

[Leontiskos]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

I think the difficulty of philosophy is the difficulty of dialogue between different viewpoints. Since human beings are so different from one another even mundane dialogues or arguments can become difficult. Philosophy ups the ante by widening and deepening each individual viewpoint (or "school").

For example, suppose two kindergarteners have different temperaments. One is choleric and one is sanguine. This will create tensions in their interaction, but since they share a great deal in common and they are both underdeveloped human beings, the tensions will be mild. But now suppose that for the next 60 years each one commits to their temperament, devises a philosophy and worldview based on it, and develops it to the utmost. When the two meet again 60 years later, the tensions and incommensurabilities between them will be wide and vast. In the same way, philosophical development leads to more arduous and protracted dialogue due to the fact that the individual schools become more complex and unique over time.

The problem is exacerbated in amateur philosophy because the participants are especially ignorant of how vastly different the axiomatic differences can truly be. This form of ignorance plays a large role on this forum, yet at the same time it is much better than places where extended dialogue cannot take place (e.g. YouTube comments).

[Ecurb]

I once tried to read Goedel's two famous proofs. Mistake!

By the way, Goedel and Einstein were colleagues at Princeton. Einstein once said that most days the only reason he went into his office was in the hope that he would get to walk home with Kurt Goedel. Goedel became more and more eccentric as he aged, and in the end would converse only on the telephone. He sometimes conducted phone conversations with someone in the same room.

This superb New Yorker article was easier to understand than the original math (which I couldn't follow). Highly recommended:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005 ... -bandits-2

[stevie]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

I cannot claim to "do" philosophy. If I come across conceptual inspiration then fine, if not no problem. Thus no struggle.

Is it accepting unpleasant truths?

Since there is no generally accepted criterion of "truth", "truth" is no concern of mine. Applicability is relevant.

Is it putting your ideas to work in the 'real' world, living out your philosophy?

That refers to applicability. Concepts that are not applicable are irrelevant.

Is it trying to convince others or explain ideas to them?

Since I myself don't believe in ideas being "true" or "real" or representing "truth" or "reality" there is no motivation to convince others. It may however be inspiring or fun to try to express concepts that appear to support ideas which then may appear to result in a discussion about "right or wrong". I don't think that ideas that one harbors can be explained to others in a way that they are able to generate exactly the same ideas because the conceptual framing of individuals always is different due to different histories.

[chewybrian]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

I think the difficulty of philosophy is the difficulty of dialogue between different viewpoints. Since human beings are so different from one another even mundane dialogues or arguments can become difficult. Philosophy ups the ante by widening and deepening each individual viewpoint (or "school").

That is certainly among the most difficult aspects of the forum, but not necessarily of 'doing' philosophy. GE Morton is the perfect example to me. His logic is fine, but he can't see that he has accepted some unproveable assumptions as fact at the bottom of the pyramid. Accepting that capitalism is the one true system for distributing wealth and forgetting all the past abuses accumulated in today's wealth, it is easy to accept what follows. Everyone has equal opportunity in his mind, and unequal outcomes reflect unequal effort and nothing more. But, since I don't accept the inherent fairness of his system, and choose not to forget the past, I can't go along with him. Since he does accept the alleged fairness of his system and is willing to forget the past, he is not able to consider remedies I consider necessary to approach real fairness.

But, this is only a barrier to discussion or to convincing others of what I believe. It is no impediment to believing as I see fit and acting in accordance with my own beliefs. However, it is sad to see that folks that self-report as being devoted to philosophy are not willing to approach truth and justice, which seem to lie somewhere in the middle, rather than at the extremes, like libertarianism or pure communism.

[chewybrian]

I once tried to read Goedel's two famous proofs. Mistake!

By the way, Goedel and Einstein were colleagues at Princeton. Einstein once said that most days the only reason he went into his office was in the hope that he would get to walk home with Kurt Goedel. Goedel became more and more eccentric as he aged, and in the end would converse only on the telephone. He sometimes conducted phone conversations with someone in the same room.

This superb New Yorker article was easier to understand than the original math (which I couldn't follow). Highly recommended:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005 ... -bandits-2

I read "ABC of Relativity" by Russell, which did a good job of explaining Einstein's ideas in regular English for regular slobs like me. But, it doesn't distress me if I can't get my mind around such ideas. They may be difficult, but resolving these problems is not high on my list, since I can't see that the answers would make my life better.

I am concerned with practical philosophy that can be put to use immediately, that brings peace of mind and might even make me a better person. The philosophy that moves me is never difficult to grasp (Epictetus is my favorite). The difficult part is turning and living in accordance with the principles which are so obviously correct and sure to lead to a better quality of life. The ideas are as simple as telling an alcoholic that his life will be better without alcohol. Their implementation is as difficult as the alcoholic making the change to sobriety, and the payoff is just as good.

For an example, stoics tell us that we should work to form a grateful disposition. We should be thankful for what we get instead of lamenting what we are missing. But, I spent half a lifetime angry at the world, at God, at others for events and circumstances that did not match the perfect forms in my mind. Nothing was going as it 'should' have been going. The natural result of these core beliefs is anxiety, anger and depression.

Intellectually, it is easy to see that a grateful disposition leads to peace of mind and a happier life. Your kind opinion of yourself and the world can, in effect, build a kinder world for you within your mind, where your life really takes place. But, it is no simple thing to turn and live your life in accordance with these new beliefs. It took years for me to form a better default response to events in the world and the actions of others. It is no overstatement when Epictetus compares the effort to becoming an Olympic athlete. This does not mean that you need some gift of genetics that makes you especially suited to the task, but only that the commitment to the effort and the time required to learn the skill is similar.

[Pattern-chaser]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

I think it's the tedium. Let me explain.

Some philosophical questions require us to master a new aspect of philosophy, and this often involves getting right down to the details, and understanding them, so that you can apply it to your question. This delving down to the details - all of them - can be tedious. Tedious, but necessary, and thereby unavoidable. Tedium.

[Pattern-chaser]

Analytic philosophy is being given a proper burial as we speak.

You are quite right in all you say ... except this. There are cohorts of Objectivists and Sciencists who hold firm to their analytic doctrines. Lots of them. They are here, in this forum, and in other forums devoted to philosophy or science. I suspect they form the majority of contributors to forums like this.

[thrasymachus]

Gertie wrote
And I'm prone to dismissing things I can't easily get a handle on.

But how was it prior your being familiar with what you could get a handle on? It was unfamiliar and you couldn't get a handle on it. You grew, assimilated, processed and now you are a different thinking person. The trick in this, as I see it, is NOT to become dogmatic. This is the kiss of death for philosophy. When you find yourself philosophizing by citing, as if your analytic skills and you existential curiosity were reducible to mere recollection. Academics work like this much more than they should. Leo Strauss said most professional philosophers are, like himself, merely scholars, not thinkers (lecture at the Hillel Foundation in Chicago).

I m really just saying that what you can get a handle on is open, not closed. Our existence is open. The only way, in my opinion (though what are opinions if not the belief that your are right), to go is make more familiarity out of what is not familiar.

Would like to read this short lecture by Strauss? I have many, many philosophy texts on pdf, hundreds really, that can be delivered to anyone, if they have an interest. There are anonymous ways to deliver.

[thrasymachus]

Pattern-chaser wrote
You are quite right in all you say ... except this. There are cohorts of Objectivists and Sciencists who hold firm to their analytic doctrines. Lots of them. They are here, in this forum, and in other forums devoted to philosophy or science. I suspect they form the majority of contributors to forums like this.

Yeah, technology is, and has been for a long time, on the rise, and this encourages philosophical "scientism", the presumption that science yields insights at the most basic level of inquiry. But when I read what they are saying, it is vacuous. This kind of thing is only for people who like analytic puzzles, logical challenges. There is a reason why Quine, a truly great analytic philosopher, actually had a Erdos number, the distinction one gets when they do a math paper with Paul Erdos, the famous mathematical genius. To them, philosophy is quite literally an exercise in abstract reasoning.

You're right, of course, about this forum, and this will continue. But now analytic philosophy is just mostly BS. Continental philosophy is its polar opposite. If you have an interest, let me know. I have a vast library on pdf. It can be sent with all due anonymity (I have done it in the past. All is needed is an email, which can be created ad hoc).

Alas, continental philosophy is probably harder than the analytic stuff, not because of its logical rigor, but because it explores threshold issues. Heidegger, e.g., had to invent a whole new system of jargon just to escape the mundane historical metaphysics.

[stevie]

...

Is it accepting unpleasant truths?

Since there is no generally accepted criterion of "truth", "truth" is no concern of mine. Applicability is relevant.

I'd like to add here that this expression of mine refers to philosophical "truths" because it appears to me that in philosophy the use of "truth" is metaphysically exaggerated in contrast to the conventional everyday use of "true"/"truth".
Of course if I have perceptual evidence that p (any proposition p) if being asked I would express p (and I would not express not-p) because I am following "the handing down of customs and laws" of my culture. So for me there is a difference between everday use of "truth"/"true" and the metaphysical speculation "truth"/"true" in philosophy which seems to aim at ultimacy.

[Gertie]

Gertie wrote
And I'm prone to dismissing things I can't easily get a handle on.

But how was it prior your being familiar with what you could get a handle on? It was unfamiliar and you couldn't get a handle on it. You grew, assimilated, processed and now you are a different thinking person. The trick in this, as I see it, is NOT to become dogmatic. This is the kiss of death for philosophy. When you find yourself philosophizing by citing, as if your analytic skills and you existential curiosity were reducible to mere recollection. Academics work like this much more than they should. Leo Strauss said most professional philosophers are, like himself, merely scholars, not thinkers (lecture at the Hillel Foundation in Chicago).

I m really just saying that what you can get a handle on is open, not closed. Our existence is open. The only way, in my opinion (though what are opinions if not the belief that your are right), to go is make more familiarity out of what is not familiar.

I'd say that theoretically I'm philosophically open-minded, and interested in the edges of certainty. But I also need some way to get a handle on new ideas or ways of thinking about things which grounds them in reality. I like some clear solid grounding to reason/contextualise from. That's just how I naturally think things through, and find establishing foundations much more interesting than ensuing details and technicalities. And I'm suspicious that ambiguity and lack of clarity hides problems or fuzzy/wishful thinking.

When we've talked about phenomenology for example, it feels ungrounded, elusive, like struggling through quicksand to me, and I get frustrated. Obviously that's not how it feels to you, it resonates with you in a way it doesn't naturally with me. It interested me, but I struggled to find a satisfying handle which didn't involve something like a wholesale jump into acceptance.

Would like to read this short lecture by Strauss? I have many, many philosophy texts on pdf, hundreds really, that can be delivered to anyone, if they have an interest. There are anonymous ways to deliver.

If you can send it via the site's private message system I'll have a look, thanks.

[Leontiskos]

What causes you to struggle as you try to 'do' Philosophy?

I think the difficulty of philosophy is the difficulty of dialogue between different viewpoints. Since human beings are so different from one another even mundane dialogues or arguments can become difficult. Philosophy ups the ante by widening and deepening each individual viewpoint (or "school").

That is certainly among the most difficult aspects of the forum, but not necessarily of 'doing' philosophy. GE Morton is the perfect example to me.

Yes, I think it is one of the most difficult aspects of the forum. I agree with what you say about Morton, but Morton is also interesting in another way. He strikes me as someone who understands his own position very well and other positions very poorly, and so falls prey to the difficulty of dialogue that I am outlining. In my discussions with Morton he consistently applies his own axioms to the positions that I outline, and is unable to allow them to stand in their own proper autonomy as positions legitimately and axiomatically different from his own. This is commonplace in life. We assume others are just like ourselves and have a difficult time perceiving, understanding, and engaging their otherness.

But, this is only a barrier to discussion or to convincing others of what I believe. It is no impediment to believing as I see fit and acting in accordance with my own beliefs.

I think it is an interesting question: Can philosophers avoid the difficulty I mentioned? Can philosophy occur without dialogue?

First I would say that, "Believing as I see fit and acting in accordance with my own beliefs," is not philosophy. Everyone does that, whether they philosophize or not. I think philosophy involves understanding different ways of viewing the world and living life, making informed decisions about which one is correct, and then acting on those decisions.

Now, does that involve dialogue? I am of the mind that it does. Even if you are not dialoguing with living persons, an Aristotelian who tries to pick up Hume or Nietzsche is going to be stretched by that different viewpoint. The difficulty occurs most obviously in debates between living persons, but it is also present in reading and study. Dialoguing with foreign viewpoints seems to be inherent in philosophy, and also inherently difficult.

The extreme contradictory position would be the claim that someone could be a philosopher without ever encountering another person, reading a book, or knowing a natural language.