Pure Hypocrisy...
in Philosophy ·
I’ve been stuck on this one question lately—who actually qualifies as a "student"? My first instinct was just to say anyone who gets a shot at learning. But then I hit a wall with the idea of an "opportunity." A student really only gets that chance when they encounter someone—or something—that knows more than they do. And honestly, they probably won't even make use of that chance unless they're "ready." But how does a student actually become ready? It's likely some messy combination of internal and external factors. So, yeah, there's an external component to it. Basically, being "ready" isn't entirely up to the individual. For instance, a kid growing up in a household with an alcoholic father who's also abusive—well, that kid is going to have enough baggage and trauma to make it nearly impossible to be "ready" to deeply absorb whatever they're being taught at school. In that light, the whole concept feels a bit hypocritical to me, since it seems to imply that readiness is solely the student's responsibility.
Then I started wondering: shouldn't everyone be considered a student? Being human pretty much means being a student, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there's always someone or something around you that possesses more knowledge. But as I sat thinking about where people actually live, it became obvious that many people can't even function as students because their basic physiological needs aren't being met. If you're starving or dying of thirst, you aren't exactly preoccupied with seeking self-actualization or searching for some semblance of meaning—even if that meaning is just realizing that nothing matters. Again, we run into those external factors that make learning impossible, which makes the whole cliché feel even more hollow.
Does any of this actually count as "philosophy"—and I mean that in the serious sense, not the way people use it as an insult? At the beginning of my high school philosophy textbook, the author mentioned there's no magic recipe for philosophizing. So, what actually distinguishes deep thought from just... thinking? Is it just the subject matter, maybe? I suppose I should probably dive into the literature, find representative texts that tackle this specific idea, analyze them, and try to expand upon or reinterpret them. Is that the moment when mere thought actually transforms into true philosophy?
Then I started wondering: shouldn't everyone be considered a student? Being human pretty much means being a student, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there's always someone or something around you that possesses more knowledge. But as I sat thinking about where people actually live, it became obvious that many people can't even function as students because their basic physiological needs aren't being met. If you're starving or dying of thirst, you aren't exactly preoccupied with seeking self-actualization or searching for some semblance of meaning—even if that meaning is just realizing that nothing matters. Again, we run into those external factors that make learning impossible, which makes the whole cliché feel even more hollow.
Does any of this actually count as "philosophy"—and I mean that in the serious sense, not the way people use it as an insult? At the beginning of my high school philosophy textbook, the author mentioned there's no magic recipe for philosophizing. So, what actually distinguishes deep thought from just... thinking? Is it just the subject matter, maybe? I suppose I should probably dive into the literature, find representative texts that tackle this specific idea, analyze them, and try to expand upon or reinterpret them. Is that the moment when mere thought actually transforms into true philosophy?