Philosophy

What do you mean by philosophy is not being clever?

Comments

One can distinguish between cleverness and depth. A 'clever' philosophical argument may be facile and initially impressive, but upon its examination, its flash may pass and the initially attractive argument may turn out not to be so attractive after all; by contrast, a 'deep' philosophical argument or position may not initially impress, but will reward repeated and sustained reflection. (I believe that some ancient philosopher or another--I'm no specialist in ancient philosophy--somewhere draws something like this distinction, and opts for depth over cleverness: rightly, to my mind.)

Hmmmm. Not sure which "you" you have in mind, perhaps a particular panelist who made this claim? However, I shall venture a reply as to why someone might think philosophy is not merely a matter of cleverness.

Beginning in Ancient Greece the practice of philosophy was distinguished from the practice of the sophists. "Philosophy" comes from the Greek the love of wisdom, whereas the Greek word for sophists (sophistes) refers to those who profess to make people wise. The sophists were judged to be clever insofar as they were well trained in argument (they were especially interested in persuasive speech, rhetoric, language), but not principally motivated by the love of the good, the true and the beautiful. Studying with a sophist might equip you to argue for or against any point, much as a lawyer or somoene in a debating society may be trained to argue or defend any point, depending upon who hires the person or what thesis the debaters have been assigned. This may, I suggest, be a matter of being clever or being a master at the art of argument, but it is not the same thing as being wise. Unfortunately, I do not have a quick and easy definition of "wisdom" to offer you in this brief reply, but an example of wisdom might be this: there may be disputes (should Sparta go to war with Athens?) when someone who is clever (because he was trained by sophists) might argue for whatever position gave him the greatest personal advantage. This is what Thrasymachus would do --a figure who is sometimes classified as a sophist and who believed that (basically) might makes right. But a wise person may be more cautious, arguing that unless there are powerful reasons to go to war, Sparta should not do so. In a general sense, a philosopher in the ancient world was someone who LOVED wisdom, but not necessarily one who claimed to possess wisdom and be ready to sell it.

Read another response by Sean Greenberg, Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Philosophy