Philosophy generally makes for awful reading. Even good writers struggle to make philosophy readable let alone enjoyable. I wouldn’t have been able to read three sentences of philosophy at the age of 13. I don’t see any problem at all with writing and developing your own views. One way to do this is perhaps to get together a list of philosophical questions, like:
What is the difference between knowledge and opinion?
When did feelings arise in the universe?
What does it mean to say one thing causes another?
What is the relationship between the word ‘chair’ and a chair?
I completely understand where you are coming from. Living that way has its own perks, but it also has a major downside. It means you will observe a lot more than you react, and you are able to write down exactly what you feel. While that lifestyle is good, if you don’t read or broaden the things you observe, it is going to take you a very long time to truly understand what you are experiencing.
I know exactly how it feels to read a book that states a strong point as an absolute fact, and if you can’t comprehend or wrap your head around it, it just makes you want to leave it and walk away. But instead of looking at it that way, try using books to observe how that specific author thinks and how their brain works. It’s just another form of observation.
Also, since you are young, keep in mind that life today requires money to move forward. Try to find a way to use your writing and thinking skills to make a living in the future, but just make sure you don’t corrupt your passion by making it only about the money.
P.s. don’t become judgmental because being capable of observing means deciphering the why and the what, not the absolute truth and reality.
It’s totally natural to find philosophical books boring at age 13, regardless of YouTube or whatever. Developing more challenging reading habits is like ascending a ladder and you don’t jump from the bottom rung to the top. You walk up it one step at a time. My advice would be to take where you are with your reading right now and figure out what a reasonable incremental development would be. I doubt it’s Plato.
My first properly philosophical book was “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”, which I read when I was maybe 16 or so and which has a great story in amongst the philosophy. Before that I think I was up to the level of “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. So, a bit of a jump, but doable. Anyhow, take your time; nobody’s judging you and you’ll learn much better and much more quickly if you enjoy the material.
I love writing but I think to me it’s a passion and can’t be a career. Thanks for the advice, I know we can decipher why and what but not the absolute truth because some things are indeterminate.
Maybe instead of starting with the primary sources - the things actually written by the philosophers - begin with books that present the ideas of the philosophers in a paraphrased - and more accessible - way.
Philosophy is like a long conversation that takes place over hundreds and even thousands of years. Any book of philosophy you pick up is part of that discussion, so you need to know who the author is responding to, what question he or she addressing. That’s why secondary sources are helpful. In other words, if you’re interested in Kierkegaard (which I was at around 17), you need to read a biography to get the context. Even with that, I’ve read some things by Kierkegaard over and over. And what started it all was one title to one book that I happened to see in the library.
So part of philosophy is all the thinking and exploring you do on your own. The books are like touchstones to let you know you aren’t alone, and they’ll also inspire new ideas. For instance, when I was a child I had the notion that there was something behind everything. As if what I saw was a veil and something more real was behind it. Then I discovered that this is an abiding thought in philosophy. Philosophy has been a gift in my life.
Yes I feel that way too. It has been so nice to write about my own views on philosophy. Philosophical questions are very interesting to me because at times there is no way of what or who is wrong or right because everyone has their own logic and views on things ,that have no certain answer. My favorite topics are about the purpose and meaning of life and so on topics related to that sort of stuff. It started for me because I was writing about how fate and destiny aren’t the same thing, just because I noticed people using the wrong terms. I realized I loved it, so I searched more and found philosophical topics I now write about.
It depends on what you mean by engaging in philosophical thought. If you want to be a creative conversationalist, then you need to develop a strong analytical mind, and for that you need ages of practice that can be obtained by solving problems and finding the problems. For that, you need basic knowledge to start from. We are in the age of information, so trying to read books and articles on even a specific topic is not completely useful, since you cannot exhaust the knowledge created by knowledgeable individuals, and you will never have time to be creative. You are very young, which means that you have plenty of time, but you need to be selective. You need to pick up a field of study which you enjoy the most. Enjoyment is the key, since your learning is a matter of focusing on a topic, and it is hard to focus on a topic you cannot enjoy. I would suggest starting from this forum, picking a main topic for example, philosophy of mind, and then reading the titles of all threads, finding the thread you are interested in, reading the OP, and asking questions. You might need to read books or articles to understand a topic thoroughly later if you want to, but that informs you about the knowledge that exists and does not help you to develop an analytical mind.
Yes thanks a lot for this advice I do try to find threads on this forum that catch my interest,but I mostly read other peoples thoughts and so on in this forum. Because I find reading things that sound more like conversation easier than reading a book. I am trying to stick to a few main topics too.
But do folks engage with the argument when watching a video in the way one does with a text? One can flick one’s eyes up and down a page, looking back to check the form of an argument, seeing what was actually claimed, and flicking forward again to see if the conclusion actually follows - but a video puts one in the place of passively absorbing a sequence. And it takes a lot longer to get to the point - with a text, one can easily find the penultimate paragraph and see where things are headed; not so with a video.
The critical eye is dulled by the passivity of YouTube.
I agree with that completely. My point was there was no golden age pre-youtube where 13 year olds naturally found reading philosophy pleasurable. It takes time for that to happen and is best done incrementally.
So, yes, YouTube offers a largely passive experience with the constant stimulative payoff of video that doesn’t lend itself to material requiring close attention and concentration. The only caveat I’d add re pedagogy is that learning styles differ and may be conditioned too. There are possibilities for learning that visual representation opens up and that could be applied even to philosophical content.
This potential goes largely unrealized though, seeing as YouTube videos generally aim at catching and maintaining attention (which is what the algorithm rewards) rather than edifying. Worse, the algorithm tends to push us towards dumber content because the more we watch the more dopamine exhausted we get and the more likely we are to settle for an easier hit.
The written word can be as stupid as the spoken word. I take great pride in having proved that.
Ideally, you’d read a book and then have someone spend a few hours a week explaining it to you. That model is called “school.” Discussion and independent reading are complementary, and if you can only choose one, the reading probably gives the better payoff.
The other problem is that if you skip the book and just watch the movie, the teacher will ask questions on the parts they changed. That happened to me, and now I’m just some old guy relegated to philosophy forums.
No and yes, depending on your definitions of what philosophy is and your intended outcomes.
As for print vs audio or video I think for me it has to do more with the source. There are natural teachers, teachers who have been taught to teach and then there are the master teachers who’s thoughts flow easily to you.
I use the Topic Summary at the bottom of the thread page here before reading it. It’s not perfect but it is a guide post to the different views points. Like a map.
My preference is a summary first then the original source and if I am having a problem understanding I find another summary source.
For design and comprehension I use a (struggle, release and return) mode of operation sometimes. The Struggle is the study part, release is to go do something enjoyable and return is review of the materials . This can sometimes gives me a three dimensional view of the material, design or problems. I also will sometimes write the attributes as spokes in a design spiral. Then starting at the center working my way around and backing to the beginning. Then starting again adding knowledge to the individual problems with each loop of the spiral. I also like review the material in a reverse order but I don’t know why I do that but it feels good.
I also have used most of these methods in a custom design and build furniture studio with multiple employees and apprentices for 3 decades.
I am mostly self taught. So your question “Does philosophy need to be studied to truly engage in philosophical thought?” hit home for me in a ways that are hard to put down on paper but I think you could start off unfettered it’s just human nature to gather information from outside sources.
Meta_U,
One of the many pieces that I designed and built. But it’s the apprentices that I remember the most and I am not sure who learned the most, them or I.
The Solid Walnut Armoire I design and built is in Victorian Gothic Revival style and is a story in wood of the Arthurian myth as told by Geoffrey of Monmouth’s.
The lower section is about Merlin’s encounter with Uther Pendragon and the building of a castle. Arthur father Askanar, had hidden two dragon eggs under mountain were it was to be built and the beginning of Merlin’s prophecy.
Excalibur is the sword that divides the doors and extends from the upper section through the lower sections connecting the two story of Arthur and Merlin..
The upper section is about Arthur Camelot, as you look at each carving you can attribute them to Arthur story. The handle are dogwood flowers for the christ, shields are for the Knights of the Round Table, columns are fore the Camelot, Excalibur connect the two stories together with the story of sword and the stone, on the hilt of Excalibur is a lions head is for Arthur, a top of that is a clock for the round table its self. The gothic capitals reflecting a blend of empirical nature study and theological, intellectual, or spiritual devotion. The finials are for the grail symbolizes redemption.
I designed and build furniture like this for over 20 years. I stopped because I just couldn’t afford it anymore. I took this peace home and put it in my studio. Here is another design and build of our home. One of the perks of being a woodworker I guess.
