When is it that psuedophilosophy becomes philosophy?

[sidetrack]

Psuedophilosophy is supposedly philosophy that “does not meet academic standards”.That really bedazzles me considering the debate you can strike up by asking “what is philosophy?” and how you define.Is philosophy only considered that which is “the pursuit of truth?”.Here’s an example of where the distinction starts to blur.I’m pretty sure that their are people out there who have diares full of deep thoughts but have never studied philosophy.Would the thoughts that they have in their diaries be considered a “personal philosophy” or psuedophilosophy.Thank you for your time.

 

[Spirithound]

Psuedophilosophy is supposedly philosophy that “does not meet academic standards”.That really bedazzles me considering the debate you can strike up by asking “what is philosophy?” and how you define.Is philosophy only considered that which is “the pursuit of truth?”.Here’s an example of where the distinction starts to blur.I’m pretty sure that their are people out there who have diares full of deep thoughts but have never studied philosophy.Would the thoughts that they have in their diaries be considered a “personal philosophy” or psuedophilosophy.Thank you for your time.

One need not be an academic to “do philosophy”. I would say that a diary of musings to gain truth indeed contains philosophy.

Of course, defining philosophy as the pursuit of truth leads to the inexorable conclusion that relativism and nihilism are not philosophy.

 

[Rascalking]

You don’t need to be an academic, but alot of people who talk about “philosophy” on the internet know much less then they think they do. It was my minor in college-and I’m certainly no expert, so take what you read/converse on the internet with a huge grain of salt. I had to struggle, and my GOD was it such with book by or about Kant or Kierkegaard, and sometimes I hear people claim to have “understood” their works but can’t back it up at all. Again, I am NO expert. Just two names that come to mind.

If someone was really an “expert” in the field, they wouldn’t be talking about it online. They’d have other things to do with their time.

 

[NewsTheMan]

You don’t need to be an academic, but alot of people who talk about “philosophy” on the internet know much less then they think they do. It was my minor in college-and I’m certainly no expert, so take what you read/converse on the internet with a huge grain of salt. I had to struggle, and my GOD was it such with book by or about Kant or Kierkegaard, and sometimes I hear people claim to have “understood” their works but can’t back it up at all. Again, I am NO expert. Just two names that come to mind.

If someone was really an “expert” in the field, they wouldn’t be talking about it online. They’d have other things to do with their time.

Oh boy, is this true. This is why I stopped debating things online for the most part. I used to be a part of an Atheist forum. It just got to the point where I was overwhelmed with people who couldn’t understand simple philosophical points (and, mid-philosophical-debate, instead of conceeding, they would just say “oh well, philosophy is idiotic anyway, I am a man of science and truth” — sigh).

People nowdays have read a pop-Philosophy book or two, seen a few articles and suddenly feel empowered to discuss philosophy. Not necessarily a bad thing and in fact I encourage it, but it becomes frustrating when going a bit deeper. These people get out of their depth very quickly and for the most part don’t know it. So it becomes a philosophical discussion that is very poor, and usually childish. This is exemplified in Atheist debates. Often I see William Lane Craig having to deal with this kind of thing, where he can hardly even get to the nitty gritty because he is still dealing with childish pseudo-philosophy.

I have a degree in Philosophy and currently finishing my post-graduate studies. I am not an expert, and don’t claim to be very good at philosophy. However, there is a certain ‘mind’ or ‘training’ that one needs in order to do philosophy I believe. I tutor first years and that’s where I can really see my own education, and that’s where I really notice the difference in the process of thinking between an untrained philosopher and a trained one. Of course, many untrained people are probably better philosophers than I am. The majority aren’t, despite being otherwise very intelligent. It just gets frustrating when Internet warriors throw terms around - a popular thing to do is just to call everything some kind of fallacy and pretend that you’ve dealt with the argument. I’ve spent countless hours explaining to people why something is not the fallacy they think it is.

Point is that it depends really. Where does pseudo-Philosophy become Philosophy? I don’t know. Never? There’s a difference between pseudo-Philosophy and just plain bad philosophy. I imagine that in someones diary there will be a mixture of both.