Replies

Philosophy is simply an extended conversation. It revolves around the asking of difficult questions, and reasoning towards a conclusion (or a refined set of questions). The personal identity of a particular philosopher is massively irrelevant; the question is the thing. We read the classics because it is generally useful to understand how an argument evolved. We also read them as an act of intellectual humility and proper attribution; if we are deriving an argument from some towering figure of the past, we should acknowledge our debt. It is fraud to do otherwise.

Yes, that conversation sometimes detours into questions in which I have no interest, and sometimes in which I see no point (often due to my own blind spots). Back in the day, however, my own introduction started with Plato's Republic. "What is justice" is kinda, sorta, an eternally relevant question. The mainstream of western political philosophy flows from there.

I can only presume that these students think Plato is irrelevant because they have an a priori answer and aren't interested in probing questions. My guess is that they have no philosophy higher than a will to power and a gimmedat "commitment" to praxis. Real philosophy has traditionally included reflection on what it means to live a good life, and how to do it. These students would probably never dream of asking themselves that question; they simply resent people who are happier or more successful than they are.

The great achievement of classical philosophy was to establish the principle (not always honored) that truth has an independent claim on our actions. "Truth" is clearly not something in which these kids place any value.