Do you believe there is such a thing as "philosophical maturity"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve never really thought of it in those terms, but I think I would say philosophical maturity is a proper balance between logic, reason and simplicity. Philosophical immaturity, I find, focuses solely on logic, makes unreasonable assumptions, and thus has to use unnecessarily complex theories to support its assertions. Just my thoughts, though.
 
Indeed. But it is hard to identify because if someone learns their philosophy from a teacher who is philosophically immature, then their growth is stunted, and while what they know has been so poorly framed, what they are capable of is not out of the question.

I have been talking with my friend recently about this. She is right where I was 10 years ago. But she had different instructors and taught a different kind of philosophy altogether. Hers were secular and completely rejected hermeneutics, rejected God as a source, and spent little time with the classics developing a proper framework. Mine instructed me in the opposite of all that. Even still, some of the students I attended class with, managed to escape with a philosophy more like unto hers. But then, they had a formation more similar to hers prior to entering the course of study we had begun.

But maybe there are some indicators:

Use of fallacy
Ability to detect fallacy
Hermeneutic development
Dialectic approach, as compared to, didactic.
Source material
Degree of original thought
Pompocity (when it obvious they are just trying to sound smart by using stupidly big words, hackneyed phrases, or when they just talk down)

What else could you add, or delete, from the list?
 
DasErlibnis said:
Indeed. But it is hard to identify because if someone learns their philosophy from a teacher who is philosophically immature, then their growth is stunted, and while what they know has been so poorly framed, what they are capable of is not out of the question.

I have been talking with my friend recently about this. She is right where I was 10 years ago. But she had different instructors and taught a different kind of philosophy altogether. Hers were secular and completely rejected hermeneutics, rejected God as a source, and spent little time with the classics developing a proper framework. Mine instructed me in the opposite of all that. Even still, some of the students I attended class with, managed to escape with a philosophy more like unto hers. But then, they had a formation more similar to hers prior to entering the course of study we had begun.

But maybe there are some indicators:

Use of fallacy
Ability to detect fallacy
Hermeneutic development
Dialectic approach, as compared to, didactic.
Source material
Degree of original thought
Pompocity (when it obvious they are just trying to sound smart by using stupidly big words, hackneyed phrases, or when they just talk down)

What else could you add, or delete, from the list?
Click to expand...
In regards to fallacy, I would stress particular attention to semantics, particularly in the sense of being careful not to draw inferences that are not readily apparent from the content of one’s premise (I guess in layman’s terms you would call it, “playing fast and loose with words.”)

I’m not sure I agree with emphasizing dialectics over didactics, though. Pure dialectics concedes too much to relativistic logic, though it is certainly useful and even necessary for the initial engagement of the opposition. This is just a first impression though. I would open to dialogue on this point (irony intended.)
 
Pag_Hingowa said:
If yes, what do you understand it to be?

Please discuss.
Click to expand...
In the context of truth, we would have to acknowledge or have knowledge of an objective standard of maturity in-order to truly measure whose reasoning is closer to the truth than not.

It depends on what you mean by maturity. But what I can say is that in the context of truth you would first have to believe in an absolute truth in-order for maturity to have objective meaning.

Take moral maturity for example. Such a concept is objectively meaningless unless you acknowledge the actual existence of an objective standard of moral maturity.

So in the context of truth, maturity has to have an objective reality in-order to have meaning.
 
Philosophical maturity is having read most of Plato without getting confused or angry. 😃
 
Philosophical maturity can also mean that you are competent (knowing all the rules and principles important to logical discourse) enough to engage in a philosophical debate.
 
Mathematical maturity is a well known concept (see here), and there is “thinking like a lawyer” (see here and here), but other subjects just seem to have more definite specifications of the knowledge in their area. For example, an advanced chemistry class might have a prerequisite on familiarity with the Brønsted–Lowry theory of acids and bases, but there is no generic “chemistry maturity”.

If you google “thinking like a philosopher”, things do come up, including some books.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
In regards to fallacy, I would stress particular attention to semantics, particularly in the sense of being careful not to draw inferences that are not readily apparent from the content of one’s premise (I guess in layman’s terms you would call it, “playing fast and loose with words.”)

I’m not sure I agree with emphasizing dialectics over didactics, though. Pure dialectics concedes too much to relativistic logic, though it is certainly useful and even necessary for the initial engagement of the opposition. This is just a first impression though. I would open to dialogue on this point (irony intended.)
Click to expand...
Yeah. I wholly agree with the part about playing fast and loose with words. I’m doing an argument with some folks on another thread who easily twist words around and try to make obvious things try to seem confusing and in need of interpretation.

For me, I prefer dialectical just because, and I think this goes along with the philosophical maturity, I can filter through the other people’s errors. I feel like with a long-winded narrative, well, for one we’re not getting feedback…and two once its put to print, its no there-for-us, to borrow from Heidegger. When it is there-for-us, we are able to engage it. I can’t engage a book and ask it to answer back. So my growth from it is limited, affecting maturity.
 
We could probably also add whether a philosopher is able to step outside their micro-narrative too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top