peter m asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 4 weeks ago

Can philosophy respect be earned by having a closed, anonymous history ?

Unlike for example the open-book (authoritative) history since the ancient Greeks,

Plato and all ?

Update:

"Proof of one's competence is not as important as what one does with it".

 I agree.

There still remains a need to learn things.. therefore unlike the one

authoritative example which I gave can we not obtain another example

from where it can be reaffirmed that it is possible to learn from one's

partially closed history..  (but where such closed type LEARNING TAKES

MUCH Longer than that of answers being ratified by many others with

the accompanying respect taking "taking a hit" so to speak.

 

Update 2:

..putting that into context, If the great Morpheus or Curtis Edward Clark or other

"leading philosophy answerers" had (had) such open histories could they not

have earned more respect than they did from their Points totals, so to speak?

Update 3:

(above doesn't apply to CDC because of his open history (my mistake).                    But to Morpheus and Deja Vu and other's who don't have..)

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago

    I don't play no "ego game" j153e ... at least I don't-try-to as evidenced by my open

    history here.

    Its the RELIGIOUS "ego gaming" which I have a problem with, as Evidenced

    before now.

    And the fault like I think with SUBJECTIVES who may-be-so-driven by religious

    faith as to be unable to TELL BAD PHILOSOPHY from something better.

    And to answer the other criticism where proof-of-one's so called "competence"

    is required.....

    Please look at my answer-and-question history here in the philosophy category.

    There you may find that competence, or not... (depending on whether any of

    my efforts there have reached your demanding "standard of proof").

    P.s.  I haven't as yet put all that dual info into the further order of "proved" or

            "not proved" order...

             Not yet got around to that....  

    Source(s): Philosophy in the History of Ideas (where the H.o.I. is a ratified course for that)
    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      4 weeks agoReport

      "Anything you say can and will be used against you if I so do fancy" Mircea The Young's background statement. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • j153e
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    With a proviso that the question as stated is paradoxical (anonymity ~ = unknown for all historical time, and not simply on Y!A forum...not even perhaps for those simplistically playing an ego game); thus, the few genuine philosophers noted below are imho both deserving of study ("respect") and imho are comparatively understudied.  The metric used here is "By their fruits you shall know them."

    Louis Claude de St Martin; found his way to Illuminism of the kind Suhrawardi found as rx for mere rationalism;

    Franklin Merrell-Wolff; highly educated and realized; lived apart on a mountain;

    Gunther Siegmund Stern ("Stern" being too Jewish for his editor, so Stern changed it to Anders ("other" or "different")); very insightful about what he called the "Promethean gap"--the academic gap between the Source (e.g., Husserl's or Descartes' God-awareness and likeness) and the academicism that cools the energy into a less-authentic handling of the original insight(s)) at the level of discovery/insight (similar to e.g. Moses and some later interpreters; Jesus and some later Church fathers; etc.);

    Franz Rosenzweig; brilliant ideas; "The Star of Redemption;"

    Nicholas of Autrecourt; developed Hume's perspective in medieval Europe;

    Francois d'Aguilon; his "The Six Books of Optics," illustrated by Peter Paul Rubens, influenced Christiaan Huygens and Girard Desargues (a founder of projective geometry).  Huygens' father Constantijn compared d'Aguilon to Plato and Archimedes;

    Saadia is not especially well-known today, but was the first Jew to "successfully" fuse (not confuse) Judaism and rational philosophy (Philo had attempted to do so).

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    Background is irrelevant if you make a stupid, uneducated statement. Proof of your competence is not as important as what you do with it.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.