![20170412_012628.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmZ9wpg4vwjX8GguWzBxwWN9gccE4dRuvDpr7ecUNbML9h/20170412_012628.jpg)

Why write? To clarify my thoughts. Why post publicly? To increase the possibililty to get useful feedback on my thoughts. Not to have my position swayed, although that may happen, but to dive deeper into the abyss of myself.

One of my brothers who likes to argue but is quite poor at it in general, (and disinterested in improving) once told me that I am a two cent philosopher. I took it as a compliment of course. How could I not?

I don't put a lot of energy into discussions with him as his track record is shady at best but I do get some food for thought. He is much older than myself and when I was 16 I bought my first PC. I asked my mum for an internet connection as they were relatively expensive and since she had no idea what that meant, she turned to my brother for advice. His words? "It is a waste of money, the internet is a fad that won't last." So, no internet for me. That was in 1995. 

In 2000, I was working at an office supply company selling business machines. We also sold digital cameras. I was telling him about the new version of one which was around 4 megapixels or so and the print capabilities associated. His comment? "Digital will never be better than film and can't stand up to professional needs." Over the years I have become increasingly interested in electric cars and AI. My brother? "I will never drive an electric car." and "Self-driving cars will not be commonplace within our lifetime." This was a couple of weeks ago and I am not THAT old.

If I was an investor in emerging technologies, I would first ask my brother what the latest trends mean. And bet against him. Oh by the way, cryptocurrency is a "scam that will never lead anywhere useful." 

Those last paragraphs have little to do with this post but came to mind and I thought some readers will find them amusing. Back to the task at hand. Philosophy. 

I am often criticised for my simplistic and less than scientific approach to philosophy but I think that is the point of philosophy in many respects. To explore the undefined through observation and experience to open a gateway for the scientists to build paths. Many doors lead nowhere except to another door, some may be the first uncertain steps towards a new field of scientific study. 

In a post a few weeks ago, someone commented that I should not class my random thinking as philosophy as it attracts people that are actually interested in philosophy and they will be disappointed. He talked about philosophy being the 'Great Conversation'. One that is added to over the millenia by exceptional minds and must be learned in the hallowed halls of academia. I have no problem with that and I am quite sure he himself is an intelligent person but it seems that he is a consumer of philosophy, never to be a creator. Happy to sound intelligent through the parrotted words of others. There are many of these types across many fields. I liken them to sports statisticians. They know a lot, but are unwilling to play the game. Personally, I'd rather play in the bush leagues than sit in the bleachers. But to each their own.  

I am not even saying that I disagree with him. My thoughts are not in the league of Plato, Seneca or Aristotle nor will I ever make that claim. My ideas are unlikely to take me onto the stage of any modern day philosophical debate. But, excluding someone from being a part of the conversation due to their low-level stance would be a grave error for the field of philosophy in my opinion.

Every mathematician that has lived thus far (as well as I know) learned low-level maths before solving complex equations. I don't think the understanding for calculus and quantum mechanics comes without understanding how to count to 10 at least. Where did they learn it? Did Einstein and Newton teach them on their fingers? Unlikely. They probably learned about maths from people with minds and mathematical skills much lower than their own potential. They were introduced. 

I see all skillsets this way. To reach the heights requires a foundation. No artist paints a masterpiece at first attempt, no professional athlete breaks a world record in their first practice session. Foundation is required. The introduction to the work site to be built upon doesn't start in the penthouse and the source need not come from the leading edge.

Philosophy is no different. An understanding is required and skills need to be developed in order to play. But the source of the entry level skillset need not be the world's leading professional. Requiring it to be so would limit the potential playing field so heavily that it could not exist or limit the results and reach of the players so heavily that it becomes irrelevant. There would just not be enough new perspectives and as the 'great' thinkers passed, there would be no replacements. So before getting a child to imagine her mother getting hit by a bus, perhaps a softer introduction to Stoicism or negative path thinking might be worthwhile. On top of this, there is value in being able to think. Taking the position that unless you are already a great thinker, you aren't allowed to think will exclude all people to come. 

I don't spend much time in the words of the great thinkers. It is too dangerous. Their words are eloquent and well-formed. Their ideas are deep, developed and easy to accept. Easy to regurgitate. Easy to get brainwashed by. If I fall into the clutches of their intelligent and charismatic words, will I be able to draw away far enough to build my own? If I live by their rules, who do I become?

I may have thoughts that repeat what was said 2000 years ago or address problems for which a solution already exists. I am okay with this as by enlarge, my words are my own and they are based upon thoughts formed through my observation of the world in which I live. If I observe actions of people and discover that Socrates saw the same, I am in fair company. 

However, it would then raise the questions: If Socrates saw it over 2 millenia ago and the actions have not changed, what does that say about us? What does it say about all of the statistician academics following and teaching the 'Great Conversation'? What does it say about our education systems? Does it mean that all of his thinking, all of those eloquent words amounted to nothing? Is he just another page in a history book we pay reverence to who had no practical impact on the world?'

Anyway, to bring this to a close I will return to my brother. He has given talks on CRM systems and has invested heavily in digital Canon cameras and many top-end lenses. He will not admit to his past predictions. It seems that he is inconsistent like the many of us. I wonder if he has a Tesla 3 on order?

He was right about one thing though. With the invention of Steemit I have literally become a two cent philosopher.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]