Studying contemporary intellect
‘I am inclined to think that his(Russell’s) lack of systematic philosophical education was an advantage and that nothing can do more to stultify original thinking than a thorough knowledge of past philosophers acquired too early in life; because it brings with it the deadening discouragement of realizing that most of the ideas one thinks up have been thought of by someone else before.’
Alan Wood
I couldn’t agree more. On a similar streak, I’ve held the opinion for quite some time now that people tend to be all too embracing to the accepted contemporary intellect, considering it per se and very reluctant in questioning anything in it ’s content. In fact, the whole affair of studying the ‘great minds’ start with the basic principle: they can’t be wrong. And with that start, even when one may well be capable of questioning the intellect of one of those great mind, he totally drops the option. And that, I believe, renders the very purpose of such study useless.
I agree with what Alan Wood says. I have reservations about the other idea though. My own experience has been different. Studying the history of great minds of philosophy has imparted to me the very tentativeness of philosophy, because every great philosophy is in some way a refutation or modification of a previous great philosophy. The history of philosophy is a history of refutations.
I agree with you on that.
However, as I said, when done so with a pre-conceived notion of their correctness and greatness, this is often not as fruitful as it ought to be – and in some cases, even inhibiting. With such a mode of entertaining philosophical notions, when studying,say, a new philosophy rejecting an old one, one may simply not point out a possible flaw he’d have otherwise discerned in this rejection.
“Taffakkur”, i.e., reflection – can’t underestimate the value of it.
As for the ’shattering of frame of references’, which can often happen especially with a young thinker – here’s a beautiful reflection:
“Amazing how my frames of references have been shattered and rebuilt time and time again. It won’t be far-fetched for me to say that the very sad act of seeing what was a mere construct, destroyed – can be a manifestation of Truth itself” (http://hambra.blogspot.com)
However, i am not lured by idea of innovating or discovering original ideas, as Truth is never an innovated idea. God is not a “muffakir,” one who creates an idea. Truth has to be permanent. if it’s fleeting, as uncertain as our worldly life or like the industrial gadgets which keep improving, then it’s not Truth.
What I feel is that there is just too much underpinning of the ideas of evolution, progress and science (rather more scientism) in our new philosophies and social sciences, especially, which is unbearable for one who genuinely loves wisdom, who doesn’t take philosophy as an end in itself (for the later was never meant to be an end in itself – love for wisdom, a WAY of attaining wisdom). Just a thought…