Thank you, Daniel Riggins, for a significant question, one that concerns all teachers and students of philosophy.
Let me begin with a word of caution: I shall be discussing only Western philosophy, since that is my area of expertise. I cannot comment on philosophical traditions from different parts of the world, simply because I lack the necessary knowledge.
There are many possible approaches to teaching philosophy. Some prefer a problem-based approach, such as: “How is knowledge possible? What is substance? What is the good?” Others opt for an historical method, starting with the Pre-Socratic philosophers, and moving on to classical Greek, Roman, Medieval, Modern, all the way up to post-modern philosophy. Both approaches certainly provide immense advantages and vast areas of research.
Keeping these points in mind, I believe Kant said it best in his Critique of Pure Reason: “One does not learn philosophy, but one can only learn to philosophize.” What he means is that there isn’t a 10-step program to learning philosophy, because philosophy is more about learning a way of thinking, a “discipline” of thought, or acquiring the ability to judge or analyze arguments, reasons, explanations and justifications for a given proposition.
Of course, it is important to be informed of the history of philosophy, since many philosophical problems have their root in past philosophers. Nowadays (and for many centuries) it is incredibly difficult to imagine a university philosophy curriculum which does not include at least some Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel – without that philosophical acumen, learning the history of philosophy or how a given philosopher responds to a question would amount to very little.
Philosophy means “love of wisdom”, and wisdom in this respect is not about gathering as much information as possible or memorizing the names and arguments of philosophers. It is about having a critical, broad-minded attitude – a maturation of the mind, if you will. And what better way to develop oneself in philosophy than by learning from the masters of thought. One must study Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, not just to agree or disagree with them, since there will be passages which inspire us, but also passages which with we cannot easily sympathize; no, what they provide and what I think is way more valuable is the way they develop their thoughts in an orderly, systematic, holistic fashion.
You should also be aware that philosophical systems have fallen out of fashion during the 20th century; many philosophers working today prefer solving a problem in a narrow field of philosophy or trying to make sense of philosophical texts of the past. I believe this has not been to the advantage of our discipline. While we certainly need detailed accounts of concentrated issues, we also need the broader view and interconnectedness that can be given only via a systematic approach.
What do you think? How should philosophy be introduced? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: The Thinker, by Auguste Rodin (1904); here, in The Gates of Hell at Musée Rodin.
I completed my MA and PhD at the Philosophy Department of Boğaziçi University. My main areas of research are history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, and moral philosophy. My dissertation was on Kant's account of conscience, so I had to work through most of Kant's texts. He is my favorite philosopher because he revolutionized the philosophical scene in Europe and still continues to be influential to this day. He was one of the first philosophers to work out a comprehensive system which integrates several areas of philosophy, and he has given me a remarkable sense of what philosophy can be.