Philosophers are the strongest thinkers I know.
They're trained to evaluate ideas from a kaleidoscope of perspectives. They think like intellectual boxers, who understand ideas by making them fight with each other.
Their thinking is bloody, but boy is it effective.
They're trained to evaluate ideas from a kaleidoscope of perspectives. They think like intellectual boxers, who understand ideas by making them fight with each other.
Their thinking is bloody, but boy is it effective.
In particular, I admire their patience with ideas.
Most people jump to moral conclusions when they find a new idea. A good philosopher has none of that hubris. Through critique and dialogue, they simply try to understand it instead, knowing that understanding is a slow process.
Most people jump to moral conclusions when they find a new idea. A good philosopher has none of that hubris. Through critique and dialogue, they simply try to understand it instead, knowing that understanding is a slow process.
While the rest of us judge ideas, philosophers critique them.
They think dispassionately because they welcome the idea of being corrected, and in turn, updating their worldview. Thus, they welcome self-criticism, so long as it's done with a posture of intellectual generosity.
They think dispassionately because they welcome the idea of being corrected, and in turn, updating their worldview. Thus, they welcome self-criticism, so long as it's done with a posture of intellectual generosity.
Where can philosophers improve?
"Philosophers are not interested enough in basic empirical facts, statistics, or in understanding expected value theory... Many of the best philosophers tend to be only interested in speaking with other philosophers."
— @TylerCowen
"Philosophers are not interested enough in basic empirical facts, statistics, or in understanding expected value theory... Many of the best philosophers tend to be only interested in speaking with other philosophers."
— @TylerCowen
@tylercowen When you come across an idea, you don't need to rush to judgment.
I call this "Sitting with the question."
Over time, your brain will play with ideas as you play with a Rubix Cube. As the colors change, you'll move towards truth by discovering their 2nd and 3rd order effects.
I call this "Sitting with the question."
Over time, your brain will play with ideas as you play with a Rubix Cube. As the colors change, you'll move towards truth by discovering their 2nd and 3rd order effects.
@tylercowen Sorry but history predicts that many of your core beliefs are actually wrong.
I know it's fun to mock the ideas of people who came before us, but there's no reason to think our grandchildren won't do the same thing to us. Choose intellectual humility over chronological snobbery.
I know it's fun to mock the ideas of people who came before us, but there's no reason to think our grandchildren won't do the same thing to us. Choose intellectual humility over chronological snobbery.
@tylercowen Play with ideas like you play with a Jenga tower.
You study the architecture of an idea by examining its design. Thinking, then, becomes the act of poking at the blocks until the entire structure collapses. Once it does, you find the critical assumption.
You study the architecture of an idea by examining its design. Thinking, then, becomes the act of poking at the blocks until the entire structure collapses. Once it does, you find the critical assumption.
https://twitter.com/david_perell/status/1392337072397094919?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
