Philosophy training.

Torakx

I have only really gotten started with philosophy.
But I was thinking, from what I have read so far (which admittedly is limited) is it not a bit strange that people would go to college to learn to think for themselves?
For example do they sit tests to gage their understanding? Don't tests require you to frame your thoughts somewhat similar to those who came before you?
For me philosophy has so far been about abstract thinking, not following the rules set down and being creative and introspective as well as outrospective.
Colleges appear to me to have a layed out course and protocols. I'm guessing rules and maxims on what is "correct" and what is not or acceptable etc etc.

It would be silly I suppose to not have a course on philosophy too though.
Just curious about what others think on the process of learning to be philosophical through a structured course.
I am sure you would learn quite a lot and the history and meanings of philosophers would most likely be taught to you.
But at the same time, I am quite independant with my thoughts and wonder does this run the risk of trapping people in a box or paradigm in their minds by setting a course for them?
Where is the freedom of thought in these courses?
If there is any type of framework involved, does that not run the risk of limiting the students scope outside of that framework and way of thinking?

I have no idea about what exactly they teach, so dont get upset at me if you spent 4 years on a course and you feel I am negating the value of that.
Mere speculation and curiosity on my part.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

If people are going to think together, to share thoughts and ideas, to challenge and provoke one another, to engage in discourse, etc, then they do need a shared frame of reference. And the point about a university is that you study with other people.

Secondly, in order to think you need to learn the disciplines and techniques of thinking, and one of the most effective ways to do this is to study other thinkers; read what they wrote; critique it; compare one thinker with another; etc.

Finally, the only way you can do original work (in philosophy or any other field of study) is by familiarising yourself with the work already done by others. Having done that, you may decide to focus on some question you think others have neglected, or to challenge conclusions that others have reached and suggest a different way of looking at things, etc. But if you don’t do that, the likelihood that your own work will be original, creative or novel is actually pretty small.

And one more thing; the fact that as a philosophy student you might take a course in, e.g., Wittgenstein and sit an exam doesn’t mean that, to perform well in the exam, you need to agree with your lecturers about Wittgenstein. What you need to do is to demonstrate that you have understood Wittgenstein and that you can engage with his ideas. You and your lecturers might reach quite different conclusions about Wittgenstein; that shouldn’t be a problem.

Torakx

Mostly I was hoping to discuss the possibilities I guess.
I know it would sound sily for me to say college would limit a person from learning.
However since posting this, I saw a documentary about Leonardo Da Vinci.
He wasn't allowed learn greek and Latin because he was a bastard.
So he taught himself and wrote backwards.
And while watchng that I got thinking again, maybe his lack of education prevented him from understanding the limits that others had grown up to learn.
We are all conditioned by our environment after all.
Is it possible our environment is also conditioning us to see limits that don't have to be there?
Which brings me back to this thread.
Its counter intuitive I know.
I presume Da Vinci was self taught for the most part.With a really curious nature mixed with a creative brain. Or maybe a brain that did not have its creativity limited?

I understand here have been many geniuses that went to school.
Einstein did for sure, although he failed maths I read somewhere.
Again not dissing national education. just questioning the merits of not being strongly associated with the same frame of references as everyone else.
I guess thats it ? The frame of reference.
A self taught person might find their own.Maybe the chances of them making more progress than educated ones is slim. But when they do they have the ability to surpasss all other forms of thought in that field due to lack of limitations and references to go by.
Free thinking versus structured thinking?

Edit:
Ok did a quick search on da vinci and education, found this page http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-sanity-check/if-you-want-to-innovate-like-da-vinci-education-is-overrated/8383/

On Sunday, one of the visitors to the Da Vinci exhibit asked me, "If Da Vinci had been tutored in Latin and Greek and gotten a classical education, would he have still come up with all of these inventions?" I threw the ball back into the court of this obviously very-well-educated lady and asked her what she thought. After debating the issue, we both decided, "No." It was not very likely that Da Vinci's imagination would have been as powerful or as prolific if he'd been indoctrinated with the standard ideas of the Greeks and Romans[QUOTE/]

It's a scary and interesting thought.

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

....Again not dissing national education. just questioning the merits of not being strongly associated with the same frame of references as everyone else.
I guess thats it ? The frame of reference......
...Free thinking versus structured thinking?

It is often remarked that Wittgenstein was possibly Autistic ( or had Aspergers) and perhaps this is what made him a remarkable philosopher. (He has a different way of thinking). Anyhow best of luck, keep an open mind and enjoy your study.

Torakx

I can well believe that.
One of my best friends I believe is no stranger to aspergers. Shared apartment with him and we spent many hours up late talking about life, the world, time and space
Wouldn't change him for the world and has some very remarkable insights into things.
We both took on parts of each others philosophies over the years and I for one have been able to view the world differently from understanding his perspective, I think it went equally both ways.

Everyone I meet now, I see them as an opportunity to learn a new perspective.
When someone describes themselves as normal it is nearly offputting for me.
I want to meet all the lunatics,crazy people, hell even serial killers. All will have insights and different views I want to experience and understand.