Difficulty understanding philosophy

[kev67]

I used to think philosophy was quite an easy subject. I thought it was about ethics, a bit like religion but not spiritual. I thought it would be a bit fuzzy. Sophie's World was a bit like that, although I thought that was a bunch of garbage. However, when I tried reading some proper philosophy, I had a great deal of trouble understanding it. My father gave me a book called The Metaphysical Club as a Christmas present once (I don't know why he gave me it). It had won a Pulitzer Prize and had rave reviews. It was about four American philosophers from the 19th and early 20th century. I found I could understand all of the words, but not very many of the sentences. Another time I ordered a reader on political philosophy. I did not really know what type of book a reader was, and I was surprised when it arrived. It consisted of essays or extracts of essays from numerous philosophers from down the ages. I found I could not understand very much of that neither. I wondered what the reason was. Was it because the points they were making were very subtle ones. Was it because I did not have the background education to understand what they were writing about. Was it because the style of writing was archaic. Or was it because the writers just did not express themselves very well. I sometimes suspected the last option, because sometimes when I did get what they were driving it, the point did not seem particularly profound.

[MorpheusSandman]

Actually, I think it's a combination of all three of your possibilities. Philosophy is like any specialized field in that it has its own specialized language. If you don't learn that language before diving in it would be like reading an advanced paper on quantum physics without ever having learned the requisite math or terminology. As with most things, the best place to start is at a good beginning. Look on Amazon (or similar) for introductory textbooks on philosophy. Familiarize yourself with terms first, then try to get a good overview of the different fields, issues within those fields, major philosophers within those fields, and how those fields have evolved.

Philosophy is really about digging down as deep as possible into life, so of course very subtle points are often being made, and often philosophers struggle to find the best language to express it. Many philosophers are notorious for being bad writers or, to put it another way, never saying anything simply if they can say it in a much more convoluted manner. For this reason, it's often helpful to read introductions to philosophers before reading the philosophers themselves, to get a good overview before diving into the murkier details.

What you say about the points you get not being particularly profound could have several causes. First, consider that modern thought is a product of much historical philosophic thought, so many things that were once, at the time they were written, profound, have thoroughly been digested into our modern lives, so they can seem like little more than cliches. Second, consider Alexander Pope's maxim that "men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot." I think there's a lot of that in philosophy where you come across points that are so obvious, it seems more like you forgot them, rather than that you had never thought them to begin with.

BTW, though I'm not the most well-read person in philosophy, I got my start through Bertrand Russell's excellent, accessible, A History of Western Philosophy.

[russellb]

one author i would suggest is nigel warburton. I think i've got the name right i've read a couple of very readable introductions to philosophy by him. Also you might want to look at the illustrated 'introducing...' series which includes one on philosophy as well as various philosophers

[ladderandbucket]

I found I could understand all of the words, but not very many of the sentences.

I know that feeling well!

I once heard philosophy described as asking the questions of children in the language of lawyers. It can seem like a very difficult way of stating the obvious. The necessity for philosophy lies in the fact that we can't take the obvious for granted. Everything has to be questioned which often results in tedious and insoluble debates about language.
I do think a general knowledge of philosophy is important and fortunately some of the cornerstone works are relatively easy to read. I would recommend, in this order:

Russell - History of Western Philosophy

Russell - Problems of Philosophy

Plato - Republic

Descartes - Meditations

Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Some kind of summary of Kant. Kant is essential but his writings are not for the casual reader. My understanding of Kant, such as it is, came from reading Schopenhauer who is well worth reading but kind of a philosophical dead end.

Dennett - Consciousness Explained

A much lighter read is Julian Baginni's The Pig that Wants to be Eaten which collects and gives commentary on 100 thought experiments - really the most interesting part of philosophy for most people. You could spend your whole life reading philosophy and not be any less confused than you would be after reading this book (I think confusion is mandatory).

[kev67]

Thanks for your answers. That is quite a reading list that l&b proposed, but maybe I will give Russell's History of Western Philosophy a go one day. I am slightly put off by Russell because of his pacifism and aggressive atheism. However, I was impressed when I read about some of his set theory paradoxes. He managed to derive a mathematical statement that was mathematically correct, but self-contradictory.

I have started reading an Open University introduction to social science text book. Open University learning materials are usually very good IME. Social science contains quite a lot of philosophy. I have already read about Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and the Enlightenment. I am currently working through Positivism, and its successor Logical Positivism. This branch of philosophy is about how do you know what you think you know, and how to cut out bias. I am not sure social scientists have got there yet.

[TheFifthElement]

Thanks for your answers. That is quite a reading list that l&b proposed, but maybe I will give Russell's History of Western Philosophy a go one day. I am slightly put off by Russell because of his pacifism and aggressive atheism. However, I was impressed when I read about some of his set theory paradoxes. He managed to derive a mathematical statement that was mathematically correct, but self-contradictory.

I can recommend A History of Western Philosophy, it breaks down into philosophical eras and individual philosophers are covered in fairly light but manageable chunks. It's not an in-depth study, but a good starting point.
Btw - Russell was not an 'aggressive athiest' but an agnostic. He explains this quite neatly in his essay 'why I am not a Christian' which is worth a read.

[mal4mac]

BTW, though I'm not the most well-read person in philosophy, I got my start through Bertrand Russell's excellent, accessible, A History of Western Philosophy.

This was also one of the first "popular philosophy" books I read. It's not bad, but I think there are better, including some by Russell himself, for instance, "My Philosophical Development". But my top recommendation would be Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher". There are many others who I think do a better job than Russell: de Botton, Scruton, Kenny, Warburton,... I just completed "Plato's podcasts" by Mark Vernon, which is the brightest, breeziest introduction to Ancient Philosophy I've ever read, so if you want a nice intro. to Plato & gang, try that. Why not pop along to the local public library and try reading through their popular philosophy section?

I've read "the Metaphysical Club" and it's *not* a specialist work. It's a work of popular philosophy. But it's about a strange period of philosophy! Kev - can you give an example of a sentence that threw you? Why not start a thread on the book? I have it, and quite fancy re-reading it, so you'll get at least one responder.

[mal4mac]

... Kant is essential but his writings are not for the casual reader. My understanding of Kant, such as it is, came from reading Schopenhauer who is well worth reading but kind of a philosophical dead end.

That's mainly why I recommended Magee, he's very good on Kant and Schopenhauer (and explains why Russell isn't!)

I also like the Oxford "Very Short Introduction Series": Scruton on Kant, Singer on Hegel, Annas on Plato, ... these are very much worth reading if you are curious about a particular philosopher, or philosophy.

[mal4mac]

Btw - Russell was not an 'aggressive athiest' but an agnostic. He explains this quite neatly in his essay 'why I am not a Christian' which is worth a read.

That's a good essay to read, it confirmed me in my atheism Russell is wonderful on the subject of whether he should call himself an atheist or agnostic:


"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it." http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2007/...-agnostic.html. He continues:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless."

Also, he was not a total pacifist. He supported armed opposition to Hitler during WWII.

[mal4mac]

You could spend your whole life reading philosophy and not be any less confused than you would be after reading this book (I think confusion is mandatory).

I don't think that's true. When I was about 13 I wasn't sure whether to believe in atheism or theism, a quick scamper through Russell and I was no longer confused! The same has been true about several other fundamental problems that have bothered me.

[kev67]

I've read "the Metaphysical Club" and it's *not* a specialist work. It's a work of popular philosophy. But it's about a strange period of philosophy! Kev - can you give an example of a sentence that threw you? Why not start a thread on the book? I have it, and quite fancy re-reading it, so you'll get at least one responder.

Unfortunately I don't have it any more. I remember having a fair bit of trouble understanding Oliver Wendall Holmes (is it?). I noticed there's an author with that name with his own sub-forum here, but I think that's his father. The philosopher Wendall Holmes was a lawyer and a judge. His area seemed to be legal philosophy, if there is such a thing. I seem to remember he once made judgement about strikers that I thought was very unfair. I thought the book was better at portraying the four main philosophers' personalities than their views. I liked the guy who was described as a sort of modern day Socrates. He was a real deep thinker, but his social skills were so poor that hardly anyone at the time appreciated him. He certainly could not get any female interest. Then later there was a chap called Dewey. Everyone seemed to like him and rate him highly, but I cannot remember anything he said, probably because I could not understand it. IIRC Bertrand Russell made an appearance in the book. This surprised me, because he had only recently died. I think Russell lived to almost 100.

I have read Russell having talked about a space spaghetti monster, which made me think he was a Dawkins type aggressive atheist. I am agnostic too, but aggressive atheism annoys me.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have read Russell having talked about a space spaghetti monster, which made me think he was a Dawkins type aggressive atheist. I am agnostic too, but aggressive atheism annoys me.

Flying Spaghetti Monster came long after Russell; I think you're thinking of Russell's Teapot. Both are similar in that they're thought experiments used to illustrate the point that one can come up with outrageous theories that fit the given evidence, but they're completely pointless if we can't test them. I don't see Dawkins and the other New Atheists as "aggressive," certainly no more than the proselytizing that evangelicals have been doing for centuries. I just see them as anti-fundamentalist, which means they're against the types that attempt to get creationism taught in schools, or teaches kids that if they commit suicide for their religion they'll enter paradise. Someone NEEDS to be aggressive against such types.

[cacian]

I don't think that's true. When I was about 13 I wasn't sure whether to believe in atheism or theism, a quick scamper through Russell and I was no longer confused! The same has been true about several other fundamental problems that have bothered me.

why did you need to believe in either?

[Drkshadow03]

Kev67, this is why I wanted to start a philosophy book club!

[kev67]

Flying Spaghetti Monster came long after Russell; I think you're thinking of Russell's Teapot. Both are similar in that they're thought experiments used to illustrate the point that one can come up with outrageous theories that fit the given evidence, but they're completely pointless if we can't test them. I don't see Dawkins and the other New Atheists as "aggressive," certainly no more than the proselytizing that evangelicals have been doing for centuries. I just see them as anti-fundamentalist, which means they're against the types that attempt to get creationism taught in schools, or teaches kids that if they commit suicide for their religion they'll enter paradise. Someone NEEDS to be aggressive against such types.

Yes, I suppose I was thinking of Russell's Teapot

I did not really intend to discuss Bertrand Russell in this thread. However, even Russell's Teapot irritates me. As did that other article of his that someone linked to, in which, when asked his religion, he had to consider before stating himself to be an agnostic. He was only an agnostic in his professional capacity as a philosopher. In practical terms he was an atheist. Russell's Teapot is a belittling analogy. He seemed to be comparing the possibility of God as a creator of the university with the possibility of characters such as Zeus or Odin having existed with all their attributed legends.