In doing philosophy one has to begin with a thought that is philosophy orientated because seemingly we can only think one thought at a time and because philosophy is the topic. One thought, such as the previous one, can go in different directions. It is important to establish one complete thought because it is the foundation for all the thoughts that follow. In argument one premise follows another and the conclusion follows the premises, so there is a definite order to thought.
The first sentence in what was said above led my thinking in one direction, but I could have talked about something else. I could have questioned the assumption that we can only think one thought at a time. I could have asked, “What is thought?” One established thought can lead to more material than is needed for a shorter topic.
The dialogue of philosophy is at least potentially infinite. What can impede people from writing philosophy is that they can be inhibited from establishing that beginning thought. They are inhibited because that initial thought has to be their own. It therefore has to be original, at least in a sense. A thought can belong to someone else, but when you use it as a starting point, something very original can follow.
Paul J Moloney
It’s always best to read the original sources in philosophy. I mean that it is better to read Plato than to read interpreters of Plato. Sometimes it is good to read both. A case in point is Russell’s interpretation of Bergson. I had read Bergson’s major works, or most of them, before recently reading Russell’s criticism of Bergson. In general, I must concur with Russell in his criticism of Bergson. I usually do not read philosophy with a critical eye. Russell himself said that reading with a view to criticizing is not the best way to understand an author. Stopping to criticize a thinker on a few points can be a waste of valuable time because there is so much philosophy literature to be read. Criticism is best reserved for mature reflection and mature reflection comes with time. There are, of course, exceptions. Russell was arguing against the foundation of Bergson’s philosophy, which is no small matter. Still, Bergson is essential reading for anyone interested in philosophy. He is a very original thinker. Reading Bergson will help one to balance their philosophical viewpoint.
As it is now, I’m intending this blog to be a forum for casual and informal speculations regarding philosophy.
I recently finished reading Bertrand Russell’s criticism of Bergson’s philosophy. Bertrand’s criticism seemed more valid than not valid. I will have to take another reading of Bergson. Personally, Russell strikes me as the most thought-provoking thinker since Kant.
When I read Bergson’s work again, I will specifically have to pay attention to his account of time and space. Russell introduced some mathematical concepts of the infinite that philosopher’s should consider when philosophizing about time and space.
This is indeed a short post being impromptu on establishing this blog. From now on, I should be able to think ahead before I post.