I have a couple of points to mention tonight. Some like to use the term “thought experiment” and I really have never had the opportunity to use it so I might as well give it a shot. Imagine if you will a competitive person B that would like to compete with competitive Person A. Person A is older and has shown the world an established set of skills. Person B is just starting out. Person A has an undergraduate degree, which implies a certain set of skills as well as athletic abilities and maybe a foreign language ability to a 3rd grade level of proficiency. Person B is just starting their undergraduate coursework, is quite athletic and has gotten down a musical instrument to the level where he could earn enough to eat if he were to busk on a busy street corner.
A variable is added to the mix, Person B has been tipped off that Person A is someone to “train oneself on” in order to achieve fame and fortune. Just hold on here and don’t jump to conclusions. The master apprentice relationship is very very old and even exists today. Why is it that the master always has to know the apprentice and why is it that the apprentice has to gain knowledge from the master through direct interaction? Both are unnecessary. True masters might even welcome multiple apprentices learning from them simultaneously with none of the apprentices required to be physically present.
So, in sum, we have Person B, the deadbeat, trying to steal seasoned skills from Person A. If there is one thing I have learned in philosophy, it is that no philosophers throughout history really hated anyone making attempts to learn from them. They, of course, did not approve of plagiarism of their work but a person intent on learning what they may have already learned is almost encouraged. Academia is wrought with many people all trying to say that what someone said before them is “great, but…”. It is hard to break free, to approach a subject or discipline from a new angle. That spot is usually reserved for a seasoned professional that sees the opportunity before the newbie can get a chance to get his act together.
Philosophy, if employed properly, can destroy this entire thought experiment. There can be no competitive endeavor. Philosophy can lay bare sentential structures that are indisputable so any act of competition in skill acquisition is ridiculous, as in worthy of ridicule. It is one reason why I like philosophy and almost the same reason why I dislike it. It feeds itself. It, by its very nature is as objective as you can ever get, beyond even science. One could say, “Well, if that is the case, why doesn’t everyone study philosophy?” And that, my friends, is the reason why I did.
