[feralimal]

"You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think."

Thank you. But are these comparable? Is thinking competitive and there's a winner? What is it to be trained to think? If that training hadn't happened, would the un-trained person not be thinking? Or, would you be thinking along a more natural way? Is it more akin to building one or other type of sandcastle, rather than to be a better fighter?

The way I view it, the only thing an individual can do is try to be the winner for themselves - they need to progress their understanding of themselves as much as possible. In nature there's no competition - there are needs that might or might not be met.

But, if you want to harness or direct individuals into a collectivised state, yes, you need to train them, and they will produce what you call 'original works of philosophy' on the basis of all the thought that has preceded them. As if 'a body of original works' is important to an individual. They may be renumerated for their trained thinking. As if renumeration is something the individual would ever want.

[a_crc]

Let me ask you some questions to zero in on your issue here.

Is coding competitive? Is cooking? Is reading? Do you think that training does not help you become a better cook or coder or reader? Were you able to read without training? Do you think the fact that you had to be taught to read poisoned the well and you cannot trust anything you have read since?

[feralimal]

The questions about fundamentals - cooking, reading. I would of course agree that these are useful to the individual. Now coding - again the skill is neutral. But what you code might not be. Why do you code what you code? Should you code in a bank, a facebook algorithm, etc? Are you actually undertaking your life in a positive way, or are you making gains at another's expense?

Do you think training is a neutral act? Is it possible that training can be subversive to the trainee?

Perhaps you will see my position as a political, anti-statist one. I see it as an individualistic perspective. If an individual is trained in academic philosophy, in order to provide 'production of well argued original works of academic philosophy' why is that valuable? To me, there is no value there at all. As an individual, I want to uncover the innate understanding we all already have.

Have you ever heard about people who go through half their life, having trained to be doctors, or solicitors, only to then realise that they didn't want to do that? I would say that these are the lucky ones - they have wasted only half their lives, and though they have much to undo, they at least they are honest enough to change their position and try to find something authentic and innate to them. Most people do not do that. That is the power of training and education, IMO. In it for the money, sell your granny.

In my view, this is what training at a higher level is to train people NOT to look inside themselves for answers, but to refer to an external authority. This applies to academic philosophy as much as any other area. Love of wisdom, becoming oneself, makes way for the production of 'original works of academic philosophy'. Beyond the basics, education seems to me about disempowering the individual, for the benefit of some imagined 'collective'. In fact, that collective is so individual who has their hands on the levers of governance, but let's not think too closely about that.

[a_crc]

Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?

How can you be certain that individuals have the tools to "look inside themselves" without any training?

Also I would appreciate a deeper response to the question of reading and language. The very language(s) that you use to "try to find something authentic and innate" were not the result of an individual choice, but of training to an agreed societal standard during your youth.

Do you think that you would be better able to understand your true individual self if you had been raised without any training in a language or the other aspects of your culture?

Evidence says you would not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Documented_cases_o...

[feralimal]

Once again I am getting the message that I am posting too fast. I think its when I am flagged for my 'contentious viewpoints'. Last time it was 3 hours before I could post, but I will submit this when I can. HN can be very frustrating.

Whether we agree or not, if you appreciate my taking the time to reply and provide you my thoughts, feel free to upvote me - I think a higher score may help in allowing me to respond in a more timely manner!

Back to your post.

Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely given my 'feralimal' handle) I was thinking about feral children and their inability to speak.

I think you would say they live a worse life than you. But why? How do you know? You do not.

You and I live in our classification systems - we probably share a very similar type. We were taught our classification systems at school and they are self-evident, right? Eg: "A whale is not a fish, its a mammal.", "this is a tree, not a bush", "tomatoes are a fruit", "peanuts are a legume", etc. This is an example of how we live in the ideas that we were given.

Think now about the feral child. This child will also have some sort of system to interpret the world. But its system would be very different to ours. It would have developed it on its own. The feral child wouldn't necessarily see a distinction between itself and the nature it lives in.

Now step back and apply some value to that. Which is the better way of living?

Is it better to live in your head, with layers and layers of classification systems filtering your engagement with the world? Going to work, coding, making some money to be able to pay your mortgage, and afford some takeaway?

Or is it better to feel a connection with the external reality, even if you can't talk about it?

I honestly don't know.

I can say that trying to engage more deeply with 'reality'. I suspect I am forever separate. Maybe feral children are too. But, I think innately, connecting to whatever is the source is what I yearn for. And I suspect it is the same for everyone else.

And then, my assessment is that the education we receive is about making that possibility almost impossible to even conceive of.

I just realised I didn't answer your question: "Who decides what is neutral? What if you are trained by masters or schools with conflicting thoughts? What if you read all sides of an argument? Is this information not valuable to the informed choices of an individual?"

You decide. You are free to view all information, and consider it. You can judge for yourself whether the argument you are presented with is sound or not. Whether all the assumptions are stated and whether the conclusion that follows is rational. If you don't have all the information, that is fine - you can work with your best hypothesis. I think the key thing is whether you are acting in good faith. If someone presents some information that you can't reconcile easily, that is likely an indication that you need to investigate further. You may get some data that will better inform your understanding.