Is it more important to spend one's time developing the skill of articulating one's positions precisely, or is it more important to spend one's time thinking about the content of important questions? Is it more important to spend time revising one's philosophy paper repeatedly so that one ensures that every choice of word is as perfect as possible so as to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, or is it more valuable to spend one's time thinking about questions? Obviously both are important, but which one is more so? And when the panelist responds, could s/he please indicate if this is a personal opinion of his/hers, or whether his/her response speaks for all philosophers (or most). Or, perhaps there is an agreed upon argument to establish which is more important? It seems to me that this latter possibility would be the most philosophically rigorous. Surely as philosophers and professors of philosophy many of the panelists have an opinion about this; I would greatly appreciate if the philosopher who...
My opinion is personal, but based on experience with trying to argue and publish arguments, with trying to teach students to argue and to write out arguments, and with conferring with other philosophers. Thinking and articulating go hand in hand. One must think very hard about philosophical questions. However, one does not understand what one cannot articulate. Initially, thinking will consist of wonder, inspiration, and brain-storming. But to arrive at a result of any value, the thinking must transition into attempts to articulate one's thinking to others. Then these attempts must be put to the test by trying to convince others, and then taking into account their incomprehensions and objections. That requires more thinking. This process of trying our thoughts out on others and learning from their responses is our only way to avoid philosophical insanity and illusion. Philosophical thinking is a corporate enterprise, not individual, and articulation is what binds it together.
- Log in to post comments
