I go through phases of intellectual curiosity, areas I explore and obsess over that shape my thinking for a while. They generally flow from one area to another, with each area seeming to answer an important or interesting question from the previous one. They arenāt always unique, but one is usually dominant. For example, at the moment I have several tabs open about network scaling, which is a rabbit hole within the broader area of complex adaptive systems that Iāve been interested in for a couple years now. Itās an outgrowth of my interest in law and economics, and a bit of a return to philosophy of neuroscience which I was into in undergrad.
Does anyone else do this? If so, what are you into, and how did you get there?
I also go through phases where I get really interested in just one or two subjects.
Iāll explore them in depth and detail for a few weeks, sometimes a few months if Iām really interested, and once Iāve learned everything there is to know, or at least the gist of it, Iāll move onto something else.
For example, one time I became obsessed with color theory, color blindness and tetrachromia, another time I became interested in typologies like MBTI and enneagram.
However, sooner or later I make my way back to philosophy, itās always been my main interest.
Iāve been meaning to delve deeper into ethics, morals and values, but lately itās philosophy of politics and law thatāve piqued my interest.
I do think of my pet interests as areas of philosophy. But I define philosophy very broadly, as more of a way of approaching a question or idea as opposed to a distinct set of topics. For any area of thought, thereās a āphilosophy ofā that area, and thatās usually what Iām doing. Iām not nearly well enough steeped in math to understand many of the intricacies of network theory, for example, but I try to get deep enough to grasp it in a hand-wavey way; enough so that I can see if thereās something there that will enlighten or refute my more general beliefs.
Law vs. philosophy of law is a good example, and somewhere Iāve spent some time. By the end of law school, I had a good grasp of a few areas of law, and I could cite case names for various positions. I knew the rules of evidence. But that kind of understanding is mostly useful for getting good grades in law school (and appellate practice or being a judge, and of course for legal academia), and Iāve forgotten almost all of it. But I kept a philosophy of law that influences my social and political philosophy more generally. Approaching law as an area of applied philosophy made me a better student, so long as I also took the time to learn the law as a body of facts. But I was in it for the philosophy (and the piece of paper that let me get a job negotiating contracts, even though I literally did not read a single contract in law school).
Yes, this is very similar to me as well. I am currently exploring more of a non combative, absurdist phase. The stranger got me there as well as losing my job. I picked up a book by Pinker today at the library, āThe Stuff of Thoughtā and is something I am looking forward to reading, I suspect that will be my next step.
Iām fairly neurotic now as well, currently hoping to land a job that I got an acceptance offer. I am freaking out over a background check even though I donāt have anything really to freak out over. I just need this job. Part of where I am is due to being in between jobs right now and am in a weird mood, that ultimately isnāt very good. What I need is to get through my first day of work, then my next 30 days, to make sure I have some stability right now. My mind is all over the place.
Iām interested in why people feel as though they must choose, and then mindlessly advocate for either a right or left extreme political position. Uccisore and Peter come to mind. Theyāre both worst case scenarios of guys who always reason from one extreme or the other. Thoughtless, mindless repeaters of propaganda who never considered a middle ground where truth might be found. You always know exactly what theyāll both say on any given issue. It is laziness? Is it ignorance? Is it blind adherence to flawed principle? Who knows? Whatās interesting to me is how they both toe the line no matter what. Uccisore is probably the worst. Not because of his position, but because of his unbending adherence to it without any consideration for the truth. Peter is leftist for sure, but at least bothers to confront the opposing side of the debate.
Why do people blindly adhere to an ideology without end and suspend critical thinking? The polarization of positions relating to policy. Thatās what interests me.
I do this myself, I think, though I am extremely conscious of when I do it because Iām interested in it too. I surround myself with opposing ideas in order to try my best to reason myself into not doing this, but also to familiarise myself with what kinds of things people will try to counter my bias with.
I can give you some reasons why I think I do it when I do, to the extent that I do it:
Firstly I have an aesthetic preference towards mathematical solutions with their definite answers.
Iām also very competitive and am particularly driven to reach a better and deeper understanding than others before they do.
Also I want change to actually happen, and it doesnāt feel like anything will if stalemates and repetition are all thatās ever achieved.
I think thereās a certain element of identity and familiarity with particular areas to which youāve taken a profound liking.
Likewise it can seem very alien and strange to try and embed yourself into a mindset that is contrary to this.
Obviously thereās cognitive dissonance in trying to adopt an opinion in seriousness that opposes your own. Maybe thereās some group loyalty at play for some, though Iāve never felt this. And also, obviously, if you have already been convinced by one side of an argument, then taking the other side seriously can seem irrational. The open and scientific mind will be much better trained at overcoming these things, and may even actively pursue alternative evidence and reasoning just to disprove any prevailing theory within themselves or amongst others. Some people prefer to take a side, some people prefer not to. Taking a side has a combative appeal, to those who are more out to be aggressive and get some immediate feeling of satisfaction rather than achieve any impartial enlightenment, which requires patience and rigor.
As a general phenomenon, I think the quick fix of polarisation has a lot to do with its current popularity. Itās very easy to come by simplified arguments one way or another these days, and people seem to absorb these and reel them off without it even occurring to them to think critically because any critical thinking has been sold as already done for them and distilled into a trustworthy product. Itās a kind of consumerism of ideas for the layman who ironically fancies his or herself as smarter than some group of people that is presented as far more black and white than they almost always are. Thereās a poster on this forum, UrGod, who embodies this to a tee.
I like to think Iāve got a pretty good understanding of the whole thing, and that Iām pretty well equipped to defend myself against it, but I am also aware that in thinking so, I may just be reinventing the same analysis such that I fall prey to it all over again but in a different wayā¦
For the past 30 years my interests in reading have centered on neuroscience and explanations of human consciousness. I love a good book on the mind from Humphrey to Pinker and so many other good writers on this difficult topic. I also have interest in evolutionary theory, especially topics about psychology as affected by genetic evolution and about AI. Although I tend to post mostly in the religious forum, my love is science, which I believe is not averse to religion.
I am a fan of Pinker, but havenāt read that one. I read the Language Instinct, and I would guess that The Stuff of Thought expands on those ideas.
Good luck with that, it sounds like youāre on track. I have a bad habit of getting into self-help style books when Iām between jobs. They donāt really do much for me, but they do help me feel in control.
Like what? I have a passing familiarity with the work of Jason Brennan, who wrote Against Democracy. That book caused a small stir not too long ago for rejecting democracy based on arguments from voter ignorance. I see his position as creating more problems than it solves, but I confess that that perspective is under-informed.
For obvious reasons, this is on my mind a lot these days too, though Iāve mostly resigned myself to the conclusion that itās a hard-wired aspect of the human mind. And I recognize it too readily in myself to have much hope that it can be overcome by any significant portion of the population.
I just finished Paul Bloomās Just Babies (I have an 18-month old, so parenting and child development are obligatory areas of inquiry), it has some interesting things to say on evolution and psychology, particularly on separating genetic influence from social influence.
Iāve also been reading a bit about consciousness, stemming from a debate about vegetarianism and the moral worth of animals. Iāve basically come to reject that the āhard problemā is actually all that hard.
Right, philosophy is very broad for me too, and while itās not necessary to be an expert in math and all the sciences, I think it does help your philosophy to be acquainted with math and many of the social and natural sciences, there can be a lot of overlap and transferrable insights.