Stuart asked:

I have a question directed at some of the more "certified" (i.e. with diplomas, professional certificates,
et al.) philosophers out there.

I am currently wading through Philosophy 1and Philosophy 2compiled by A.C. Grayling. These are
the base reading texts for the University of London External Programme in Philosophy. I find that 40
per cent of the text consists of historical reports of the writings of long dead philosophers. I have also
been perusing the long list of philosophical questions that this Pathways site offers for the curious. I
find that a good proportion could also be classed as about the history of the writings of long dead
philosophers.

My question is — why is the formal study of philosophy so tied to the understanding of the muddled
thinking and flawed arguments of such long dead thinkers? Why in the world should it matter to
anyone but an historian how Kant's ideas relate to the modern world? Or how Aquinas compares to
St. Augustine on some subject?

I can see how it might be productive to contrast the viewpoints of several different thinkers on some
particular subject — say the reality of universals. But surely the notions of Plato and Aristotle,
Descartes and Kant, etc., on this matter are out-dated? There has been an awful lot of argument and
criticism on this (or any such) subject over the ages. Has no one compiled a more carefully reasoned
analysis? Why is reading Plato's argument supposed to enlighten one?

Why isn't the study of philosophy focussed on the examination of particular issues or questions,
rather than on the history? Has no one since Descartes formulated the Idealist argument in a clearer
and more easily readable form than managed by him? Is Aristotle really the best formulation of the
Realist argument?

============

1. The writings of some philosophers are enjoyable to read. Descartes' Meditationscomes into this
category, as do some sections of Hume's Enquiries(but not Kant's Critique of Pure Reason). It can
be much more boring to read second-hand accounts of what they wrote than it is to read their own
words.

2. On the other hand, philosophy is cumulative. It proceeds by making finer distinctions and by
exposing contradictions in previous writers' ideas. The earliest form of the argument in question is
often the best place to start because it is the most straightforward, and the easiest to do your own
problem spotting on.

3. And yet, we have to treat the earlier texts with respect and try to determine what the philosopher
really meant — try to put his arguments in the best light. We might need to take into account some
aspect of his intellectual context: what was not a problem for him could be for us, as concepts adapt
to historical changes (such as scientific discoveries and moral or religious changes) and two concepts
which were once compatible may cease to be. Also, we may also need to reject one part of a
philosopher's position but attempt to salvage another part. For example, we might reject Descartes'
substance dualism but retain his internalism (the view that mental states are located in us and we
have a special first-person access to them).

4. To a surprising extent, philosophy is not like other subjects. Amazingly contemporary-seeming
ideas can be discovered, or rediscovered in older texts — for example, Spinoza on the mind. On the
other hand, philosophy papers written just a few years ago can quickly seem very dated. It is not a
subject where we can easily separate the old from the new. If we went for the very new, we'd be
looking at highly technical academic papers on very detailed aspects of very difficult topics. It can be
a relief to go back to the guys who posed the problems in the first place and to reconnect with the big
questions that make philosophy important.

Graham Nutbrown

Well in a sense it doesn't. But actually it does, haha. Here's one take on it: as I keep emphasizing on
this site, Western philosophy is 2-3000 years old. You simply cannotfully understand modern
philosophers without some background. Where are they coming from, what they are reacting against,
what tradition they like, don't like, etc., etc., etc.

Here's another take on it: suppose you were studying physics. Would you ask the same question,
learning electromagnetic theory, if what you wanted to learn was quantum electrodynamics? Well,
you might. And then a teacher would explain that you simply could not fully understand the concepts
in the latter without some grasp of the concepts, mathematics, etc., in the former.

Reading Plato is not supposed to enlighten one, in any profound sense. But it doesgive you
background to understand better what Heidegger, for example, is talking about (since he was a big
Aristotle fan, and Aristotle to a great extent reacted against Plato), or where mathematically-inclined
philosophers are coming from when they speak of the "reality" of numbers. And so forth... I could go
on and on with examples.

In addition, you get a sense of philosophy's origins: for example, we have a tradition, in the West, of
questioning everything.Where did that come from? In my opinion, it comes rather directly from
Socrates' life and death, which latter resulted, among other things, from his questioning the state
religion of his day. Is this important? Well... it is if you want to investigate why we're questioning
everything, certainly a valid topic, wouldn't you agree?

So... try to realize that what you're getting is essential backgroundthat you will need to understand
the complexity of modern philosophy, just as you'd need comparable background to understand
mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, and so forth.

Steven Ravett Brown

I probably should not answer your question at all, because I'm only very `lightly` qualified. Therefore
in accordance with your criterion, I'll just give the question back to you and challenge you to re-submit
your question after you've done this:

1. Produce sufficient reason for your claim that certain dead philosophers are `muddled` thinkers and
guilty of flawed arguments. Who are they? Which arguments? And on whose authority to you judge
them so? Your own?

2. Produce a watertight argument why Kant's ideas should not relate to our concerns.

3. Produce an unimpeachable argument for/against universals so as to show that your claim in
relation to Aristotle, Descartes, Kant etc. is true.

4. Refute the Idealist argument.

The problem with a view like your's is that it assumes, without giving any good reason, that
philosophy must `progress` like science, craft, technology etc. You might therefore also stop still for a
moment and produce a really good argument for the validity of that assumption. Look around you. Are
the poor and the deprived in this fantastic world of our's any better off than they were 2000 years
ago? Or are you just taking a stand on affluence and comfort? On lazy thinking, which holds that
philosophical problems are solvable once and for all?

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney

Just a quick response to this. Personally, I am amazed when I read long dead philosophers, not at
their "muddled thinking and flawed arguments", but at the fact that people writing long ago, in
societies far different from ours, in the absence of all the knowledge that we have accumulated since,
actually have such amazingly insightful things to say to us today. My favorite example is Aristotle's
Nicomachean Ethics.

If all we are doing is history of ideas, then there is merit to your question. But I see philosophy as
engaging with the important questions, and this can be done by intellectually engaging with what the
great thinkers of the past have written — not just absorbing it, but entering into a dialogue with them.

Finally, notice that when a great deal of progress has been made, those parts of that philosopher's
arguments do get dropped off philosophy courses. Aristotle's writings on the physics of motion, for
example, are no longer studied as philosophy — rather, as part of a history of discredited ideas. This
doesn't discredit his ideas that still have bite, though.

Tim Sprod