4 Answers

  1. This is not an exact science and it is quite difficult to understand it, there are so many philosophers and opinions, the line with schizophrenia is thinner than it seems. As Dali said, ” If there were no fools in the world, I would be poor.” For example, the CIA sponsored abstractionism.

  2. From myself, of course.

    When philosophy is understood as a search for the external, it degenerates only into the pursuit of knowledge. Of course, knowledge is necessary and useful, facts are the foundation of experience, but when we try to reconcile knowledge and our own experience, we discover the field of true philosophy.

    The problem with any knowledge is that it is by definition local, because it reflects a specific area of perception of reality. Philosophy manifests itself in the desire to realize the fundamental unity of all things. On the way to truly philosophical heights of perception, we gain something that is beyond the specific field of knowledge and is usually defined by us as wisdom. And wisdom is precisely the first result of matching the acquired knowledge with the lived experience. Therefore, philosophy is also the pursuit of wisdom.

    Well, if it is really quite deep, then philosophy tries to integrate the meanings of our perception and the values of our aspirations. Here it is possible to go beyond the usual material reality, touch the source phenomena, solve the problems of insight into the next levels of being, resolve the tensions between science and religion, and reveal what we still do not know how to ask questions about -).

  3. It depends on the purpose.

    If this is necessary for successful passing of the exam, then here it was thequestion.ru and even earlier here livejournal.com You can then show off your erudition if you remember something.

    If it is to UNDERSTAND, then it is better to start with this text by M. K. Mamardashvili litmir.co and you can also recommend M. Epstein ec-dejavu.ru -shows the work of the philosopher's thought from directly observing an ordinary fact to building a whole theory.

    Additionally, you can identify what interests you personally and find philosophical texts on this topic (s). Then your interest in philosophy will be based on your really personal interests, and your understanding will go better.

    And also optional – why is it impossible to distinguish philosophy from pseudo-philosophical texts before you begin to understand it syg.ma

  4. In general, I'm trying to guess what the question is about. What could be the problem? A priori, I believe that the question is real, i.e. the author is not fooling around, but really would like to get a clear answer.

    Then I assume (because of the clarification “from whom?”) that this is probably the case. A person reads some philosophical text and does not understand what it is about, and most importantly, why it is written at all. This is probably the main barrier – why is it written? A person may immediately think that he does not understand – because there is something difficult to understand written there, and maybe we should start with something simpler? Hence the question.

    But in fact, there is simply some kind of erroneous intention here: he does not expect from the text what he, the text, in principle can give. And then no one is to blame – salt is not to blame for the fact that it is not sweet, if someone mistakenly threw it in the tea, and then says: Ugh, what a disgusting thing! And the dude is not to blame-another time the salt will be quite delicious to him, when he expects from her what should be expected from her.

    In short, the problem is coordination, and someone has to “set up the intention” – why do you need it at all, this khvilosofiya?

    Here, Ortega y Gasset (that's the name) once did something heroic. He gave a series of public lectures at the Madrid theater under the general title ” What is Philosophy?”, the poster was hung up – and that's all. It lasted for several days, admission was free, who wants-comes, who does not like – leaves. And from lecture to lecture, the audience grew, by the end there was a full hall.

    Here… should I start with this? The lectures were later published, of course.

Leave a Reply