I recall my form master at my English grammar school in the 1960s urging us pupils to 'know something about everything and everything about something'. Sage advice I thought then and still do (though harder to achieve than to advocate).
1. I say that the desire to know is not natural (it is not innate), but it is necessary (for self-preservation); over time, philosophers have discussed the types of human desires.
2. For Immanuel Kant, one function of reason is to make a whole out of all the knowledge that is held. This function of reason defines the polymath.
3. Just as, for Immanuel Kant, the philosopher must use his knowledge, for Alfonso X, the knight must use his knowledge. Otherwise, knowledge is just an ornament.
4. Modern paideia: being a philosopher doubled by a bodybuilder. (Immanuel Kant and Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
PS For J. Robert Oppenheimer, the growth of knowledge produces experts: they know a lot about a little and a little about a lot. If you want a reading recommendation, read Oppenheimer (his conferences).
In philosophy, a desire is natural if it is innate; otherwise, it is not natural. The desire to know is not innate, so it is not natural; but it is acquired. What philosophy says is not worth believing or disbelieving without examination.
One thing you should know about me is that the principle I follow is this, "Do not believe or disbelieve anything without prior examination." Which prevents me from being dogmatic, and helps me to be both empiricist and skeptical; I have many predecessors, both modern and ancient.
The purpose of our life is to use our freedom for the best, that is, integrity. (By examining universal culture, you will not find a better solution. And by examining the solution itself, you will find it is worth believing.) But when did you come to ask yourself, "What is the purpose of our life?"? Children do not cry because they want to know the solution to this question; they cry for other reasons.
Similarly, you are not born eager to know the solution to questions like "What is knowledge?" (It is finding out the truth in a certain way.) or "How do I preserve myself?" (Just as, indeed, you are happy by avoiding the possible causes of your suffering, you preserves yourself by avoiding the possible causes of your destruction.), but you become eager to know it much later.
Well, like all good philosophical conversations, you have left me with more questions than answers... 😀 I understand the immediacy and therefore innate property in desire. I see how the hedonists and epicureans have a point there.. however, I am not convinced that the desire to know is not innate.
Sure, a baby doesn't need to know what is knowledge... but a child does innately want to know the hows and whys of the world. Whether the sky is blue, or how we fish, or the million questions every parent and caretaker is asked (and can attest to!)
Children are told not to ask, to listen, to obey and so our innate desires to know are subdued and sadly often crushed in time. I think as adults to 'know' the more abstract things, like knowledge or virtue, is not necessarily universal either - but just wanting to know something...when young... I propose is.
When I was a master's student—and, by the way, in my master's thesis, I showed, among other things, that in order to subtract falsehood and add truth in its place, our frontal lobes must be intact; in my dissertation, what was in cognitive neuroscience did not contradict what was philosophy (I proceeded like a polymath)—, we discussed at some point a scientific paper that showed what psychopaths and children up to the age of 4 have in common: they do not internalize ethical rules—in the case of children, it was because they do not understand them. I believe that what the paper said is true, which—if we think about it—supports the idea that the need for knowledge is not innate.
Yes. I would suggest a book by name “The Difficulty of being Good” by an Indian author Gurucharan Das. I found it interesting, not afraid share opinions that are in contradiction with popular beliefs.
As an intellectual discipline, I can’t imagine a more “well rounded” focus than the classics. In terms of having a balanced life per se, that requires something other than a different kind of book. You travel, have a family and have meaningful work. That seems pretty balanced to me. Maybe you just need to throttle back the intellectual pursuits of any type for a bit? What haven’t you been doing? What interests you that you might avoid out of fear? Something action oriented and non reflective for a change? Time to try hang gliding?
Well, you are very kind! And I fear my hang gliding days are both behind me and never were... but you are right. Your comment prompted me to look at the overall balance of my life and we had cut out travel for work... perhaps a little journeying is necessary for the restless? Just booked tickets to somewhere warm and close... Thank you!
You mention seeing the film "The Odyssey," which I found very good but why was I not able to sleep after watching it in an IMax theater? That film encompassed so much technology, AI, not much time for reflection--though better than many. It went so fast that there was not much time for an epiphany of any sort. When watching the film you are watching the hands of many artists and technicians well beyond actors and directors; there are many artists. Your head is filled with a chaos of semiotics. Compare that with just sitting down and reading the text; there is a focus that rejuvenates the soul. Academia is good until it becomes a Faustian quest. From the conversations of which I heard, the chat was about the intensity of production, where it was filmed, who were the actors, etc. I still have not heard of themes that are reflective of our society and inner workings regarding psychology and philosophy,, and they were there between the distractions and loud sound. Basically, we are after so much that we do not know much of anything. Yes, the film was rewarding in so many ways, especially if one has studied the Odyssey, but do we even know how to study in this digital world where one cannot read a book without being close to the smart phone?
Excellent points! And I can easily see how the immensity of the sound and sites can be distracting… I know my mother said the sea crashing scenes were just a bit too much for her. It’s hard for me to know what the experience would be to come to the film without any prior knowledge of the epic… I wonder if for many it would increase interest or satiate it with something lighter?
The Renaissance Man didn't really disappear until the Industrial Revolution. The shift from polymath to narrow expertise is a direct effect of new knowledge/technologies coming too fast for any one person to keep up with. Personally, I admire the Renaissance Men of old more than the 'experts' of today.
It's possible, but rare. Being into space, Carl Sagan strikes me as a modern Renaissance Man-he was clearly an expert in many things outside his official capacity. I'm sure there are examples from other fields, too.
As an aside, today's world actually discourages this to a degree. Professional jealousy is real, with a common statement being 'this is not your field.' Sagan himself encountered this, especially in his younger days.
Personally, it's one of the things I love about being outside academia... completely freedom to explore whatever aspect of whichever discipline I like... and I feel that the intersectionality of the research has been hugely beneficial (except when I go into Odyssey shaped wormholes...)
Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Cicero... how about my guy, Epicurus? He had a more distinctive take on this subject: avoid paideia (Usener fragment 163). He thought rhetoric and mathematics were greatly overrated, and that studying the traditional subjects mostly tended to produce "men who boast, pontificate, and show off their education" (Vatican Saying 45). Instead, he argued that we should focus on subjects that directly enhance our well-being (philosophy and personally relevant science), while dabbling in the arts only insofar as they give us pleasure.
I agree! Sophistry is bad, the average person doesn’t need a STEM degree to be happy, and most work in the academic humanities seems sadly distant from the enjoyment of normal people.
For a non-classics book recommendation: I've been reading Jane Austen recently. They're all good. I think Epicurus would also largely approve of her heroines, who tend to place a high value on good prudential decision-making, don't seek fame or harness themselves to political causes, and are very loyal to their friends and families.
Ha ha! I am always happy to include your guy! I'm a fan as well... though I was not aware of his views on mathematics. That's very interesting considering his impact on the Enlightenment... Personally, I feel there can be great pleasure in dabbling in math, even for the non academic. The joys of reaching proposition 1.24 of Euclid's Elements!
As for the book recommendation - I do love a good Austen book and I can easily imagine the pastoral settings would also please Epicurus. I'm a bigger fan of Hardy to be honest, so perhaps that would be a good bucolic route to go...
"does anyone have any recommendations for a completely non-Classics book?" Dare I offer, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig, Though some might call it a "Modern Classic"
From what I know and see, and of course I am in San Francisco, people are now prompted to read Homer, and I do see this happening, but for how long? I just saw a documentary on reading and many young people do want to read, but because of bad education and digitality, they really cannot read well in that they have not done so for a long time and when they do read it is parallel to having the smart phone next to them; one can not just sit with the book. When I go to dinner with people, the smartphone is never taken out and I think it should be so with reading as well; it disrupts reflection. I do say young people but this is so with older people as well,, many who have not read a book or novel for twenty plus years--their minds are out of shape. I did enjoy the film but I know the Odyssey well,, so I really do not know how those without previous knowledge receive it,, but whether one knows anything at all, the special effects and rollercoaster ride of a film keeps you in your seat.
I recall my form master at my English grammar school in the 1960s urging us pupils to 'know something about everything and everything about something'. Sage advice I thought then and still do (though harder to achieve than to advocate).
Quoth Thomas Henry Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous. :)
Excellent advice... though it is very tricky to know what knowledge is worth knowing..
1. I say that the desire to know is not natural (it is not innate), but it is necessary (for self-preservation); over time, philosophers have discussed the types of human desires.
2. For Immanuel Kant, one function of reason is to make a whole out of all the knowledge that is held. This function of reason defines the polymath.
https://philosophr.substack.com/p/the-religious-polymath-essays
3. Just as, for Immanuel Kant, the philosopher must use his knowledge, for Alfonso X, the knight must use his knowledge. Otherwise, knowledge is just an ornament.
4. Modern paideia: being a philosopher doubled by a bodybuilder. (Immanuel Kant and Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
https://philosophr.substack.com/p/of-strength-and-knowledge
PS For J. Robert Oppenheimer, the growth of knowledge produces experts: they know a lot about a little and a little about a lot. If you want a reading recommendation, read Oppenheimer (his conferences).
I'm curious to your first statement that the desire to know is not natural. Why do you think that?
Thank you for reading my comment and liking it.
And thank you for your question.
Here is my answer.
In philosophy, a desire is natural if it is innate; otherwise, it is not natural. The desire to know is not innate, so it is not natural; but it is acquired. What philosophy says is not worth believing or disbelieving without examination.
One thing you should know about me is that the principle I follow is this, "Do not believe or disbelieve anything without prior examination." Which prevents me from being dogmatic, and helps me to be both empiricist and skeptical; I have many predecessors, both modern and ancient.
The purpose of our life is to use our freedom for the best, that is, integrity. (By examining universal culture, you will not find a better solution. And by examining the solution itself, you will find it is worth believing.) But when did you come to ask yourself, "What is the purpose of our life?"? Children do not cry because they want to know the solution to this question; they cry for other reasons.
Similarly, you are not born eager to know the solution to questions like "What is knowledge?" (It is finding out the truth in a certain way.) or "How do I preserve myself?" (Just as, indeed, you are happy by avoiding the possible causes of your suffering, you preserves yourself by avoiding the possible causes of your destruction.), but you become eager to know it much later.
I hope my solution made things clear.
Well, like all good philosophical conversations, you have left me with more questions than answers... 😀 I understand the immediacy and therefore innate property in desire. I see how the hedonists and epicureans have a point there.. however, I am not convinced that the desire to know is not innate.
Sure, a baby doesn't need to know what is knowledge... but a child does innately want to know the hows and whys of the world. Whether the sky is blue, or how we fish, or the million questions every parent and caretaker is asked (and can attest to!)
Children are told not to ask, to listen, to obey and so our innate desires to know are subdued and sadly often crushed in time. I think as adults to 'know' the more abstract things, like knowledge or virtue, is not necessarily universal either - but just wanting to know something...when young... I propose is.
When I was a master's student—and, by the way, in my master's thesis, I showed, among other things, that in order to subtract falsehood and add truth in its place, our frontal lobes must be intact; in my dissertation, what was in cognitive neuroscience did not contradict what was philosophy (I proceeded like a polymath)—, we discussed at some point a scientific paper that showed what psychopaths and children up to the age of 4 have in common: they do not internalize ethical rules—in the case of children, it was because they do not understand them. I believe that what the paper said is true, which—if we think about it—supports the idea that the need for knowledge is not innate.
Do you consider what constitutes our innate nature to be fully defined and confined to ourselves before 4 years old?
— The baby is crying. Is he thirsty or hungry?
— Neither one nor the other: the baby is seeking knowledge.
Yes. I would suggest a book by name “The Difficulty of being Good” by an Indian author Gurucharan Das. I found it interesting, not afraid share opinions that are in contradiction with popular beliefs.
Interesting! I'll check it out!
As an intellectual discipline, I can’t imagine a more “well rounded” focus than the classics. In terms of having a balanced life per se, that requires something other than a different kind of book. You travel, have a family and have meaningful work. That seems pretty balanced to me. Maybe you just need to throttle back the intellectual pursuits of any type for a bit? What haven’t you been doing? What interests you that you might avoid out of fear? Something action oriented and non reflective for a change? Time to try hang gliding?
Well, you are very kind! And I fear my hang gliding days are both behind me and never were... but you are right. Your comment prompted me to look at the overall balance of my life and we had cut out travel for work... perhaps a little journeying is necessary for the restless? Just booked tickets to somewhere warm and close... Thank you!
My pleasure. Warm and close is never a bad idea.
Especially when you feel far and cold! It's been a particularly gray winter...
Always a good debate
You mention seeing the film "The Odyssey," which I found very good but why was I not able to sleep after watching it in an IMax theater? That film encompassed so much technology, AI, not much time for reflection--though better than many. It went so fast that there was not much time for an epiphany of any sort. When watching the film you are watching the hands of many artists and technicians well beyond actors and directors; there are many artists. Your head is filled with a chaos of semiotics. Compare that with just sitting down and reading the text; there is a focus that rejuvenates the soul. Academia is good until it becomes a Faustian quest. From the conversations of which I heard, the chat was about the intensity of production, where it was filmed, who were the actors, etc. I still have not heard of themes that are reflective of our society and inner workings regarding psychology and philosophy,, and they were there between the distractions and loud sound. Basically, we are after so much that we do not know much of anything. Yes, the film was rewarding in so many ways, especially if one has studied the Odyssey, but do we even know how to study in this digital world where one cannot read a book without being close to the smart phone?
Excellent points! And I can easily see how the immensity of the sound and sites can be distracting… I know my mother said the sea crashing scenes were just a bit too much for her. It’s hard for me to know what the experience would be to come to the film without any prior knowledge of the epic… I wonder if for many it would increase interest or satiate it with something lighter?
The Renaissance Man didn't really disappear until the Industrial Revolution. The shift from polymath to narrow expertise is a direct effect of new knowledge/technologies coming too fast for any one person to keep up with. Personally, I admire the Renaissance Men of old more than the 'experts' of today.
I too have a soft spot for the Renaissance Man - do you think it's possible with the sheer depth and breadth of knowledge we have today?
It's possible, but rare. Being into space, Carl Sagan strikes me as a modern Renaissance Man-he was clearly an expert in many things outside his official capacity. I'm sure there are examples from other fields, too.
As an aside, today's world actually discourages this to a degree. Professional jealousy is real, with a common statement being 'this is not your field.' Sagan himself encountered this, especially in his younger days.
Personally, it's one of the things I love about being outside academia... completely freedom to explore whatever aspect of whichever discipline I like... and I feel that the intersectionality of the research has been hugely beneficial (except when I go into Odyssey shaped wormholes...)
Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics, Cicero... how about my guy, Epicurus? He had a more distinctive take on this subject: avoid paideia (Usener fragment 163). He thought rhetoric and mathematics were greatly overrated, and that studying the traditional subjects mostly tended to produce "men who boast, pontificate, and show off their education" (Vatican Saying 45). Instead, he argued that we should focus on subjects that directly enhance our well-being (philosophy and personally relevant science), while dabbling in the arts only insofar as they give us pleasure.
I agree! Sophistry is bad, the average person doesn’t need a STEM degree to be happy, and most work in the academic humanities seems sadly distant from the enjoyment of normal people.
For a non-classics book recommendation: I've been reading Jane Austen recently. They're all good. I think Epicurus would also largely approve of her heroines, who tend to place a high value on good prudential decision-making, don't seek fame or harness themselves to political causes, and are very loyal to their friends and families.
Ha ha! I am always happy to include your guy! I'm a fan as well... though I was not aware of his views on mathematics. That's very interesting considering his impact on the Enlightenment... Personally, I feel there can be great pleasure in dabbling in math, even for the non academic. The joys of reaching proposition 1.24 of Euclid's Elements!
As for the book recommendation - I do love a good Austen book and I can easily imagine the pastoral settings would also please Epicurus. I'm a bigger fan of Hardy to be honest, so perhaps that would be a good bucolic route to go...
I'm sorry, I've got to do this...Reference, Homer's Oddysey
https://img.patriotpost.us/01KYHSY7ESNCTGPBMT0KBTDZH9.jpeg?w=1024&dpr=2&q=50
D'oh!
Haaa haaa! I never mind a Homer reference...
"does anyone have any recommendations for a completely non-Classics book?" Dare I offer, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig, Though some might call it a "Modern Classic"
I think it would be a modern classic!
From what I know and see, and of course I am in San Francisco, people are now prompted to read Homer, and I do see this happening, but for how long? I just saw a documentary on reading and many young people do want to read, but because of bad education and digitality, they really cannot read well in that they have not done so for a long time and when they do read it is parallel to having the smart phone next to them; one can not just sit with the book. When I go to dinner with people, the smartphone is never taken out and I think it should be so with reading as well; it disrupts reflection. I do say young people but this is so with older people as well,, many who have not read a book or novel for twenty plus years--their minds are out of shape. I did enjoy the film but I know the Odyssey well,, so I really do not know how those without previous knowledge receive it,, but whether one knows anything at all, the special effects and rollercoaster ride of a film keeps you in your seat.