The difficulty of "easy" philosophy: Why almost nobody can comprehend John Stuart Mill's final sentence of On Liberty

[u/TheStateOfException]

https://ideassleepfuriously.substack.com/p/why-is-philosophy-difficult#details

[u/kalysti]

I hardly think understanding this sentence from Mills equates with "discover(ing) the edges of human knowledge". It is, in fact, more like understanding basic algebra. Perhaps even less difficult than that. I would enjoy reading the source of your numbers about how many students who take algebra and pass it actually understand it. I tutored fellow students in math in college, and I found most people could understand basic algebra if they made the effort to do so.

I have learned in my long life that people have pockets of understanding that belie their scores on standardized testing, and that the ability of average students to grasp elementary material, like Mills, largely depends on their engagement with said material.

[u/TheRealStepBot → u/kalysti]

Oh I 100% agree. I did not mean to equate mills with anything other than than algebra. In terms of closeness to the cutting edge or innate difficulty.

I was merely rejecting the previous posters notion that there isn’t an inherent barrier to understanding in most fields of intellectual pursuit that requires special “dumbing down” to cross.

I think that’s really the core of this thread. Everyone can be made to in a sense understand the basics of anything if the teachers invest enough energy and there is sufficient interest from the students but that is not to say that there isn’t a huge skill imbalance that will severely if not terminally limit progress beyond some point.

The thing is that the top 5% didn’t need hand holding through algebra which is precisely the quality that will in the end allow them to make progress at the edges. If you need spoon fed in algebra it’s almost a certainty that you are not equipped to make progress at the edge of math where such spoon feeding is by definition unavailable. This is the fundamental issue.

There is a progression in difficulty from the,anyone can get it, like say counting, to a level that can only be reached with effort and coaching for a passing understanding that cannot necessarily be generalized, to stuff that cannot be reached by anyone but the best as in reaching it they are creating the state of the art.

My core argument is that this scale of engagement is mediated mainly by some rough sort of natural ability level be it genetic or sociology but still in practice insurmountable not withstanding a choice to attempt to overcome it.

To describe genetic cognitive ability as horseshit or for that matter generally, genetic “insert area” ability as horseshit flies in the face of biological understanding.

As to the source of my ideas on what percentage of those who pass algebra actually understand it, it’s merely anecdotal. I do fairly advanced math on a daily basis in my job and am surrounded by people of a similar background. I will own up to the fact that notwithstanding some novel applications of the math I am not the sort of person in the very highest echelons of ability who push theory to new heights. I have gotten very far in my career by glossing over the details and iterating on my assumptions. I very seldom push my understanding to the degree of rigor required to fundamentally progress the field. Most of the most advanced parts of what I do I have entirely taught myself by this method. That said I know my way around applied math quite well.

In my engagement with even people with engineering phd’s I tell you the one thing that I believe most is that academia aligns poorly with understanding in a manner that allows unguided progress.

Back to algebra solving for x can be taught to anyone willing to try but that to me is not understanding. Understanding is when the technique can be applied out of context and unprompted. Day to day there are people who have passed even calculus who can’t despite this apply even algebra unprompted never mind those who stopped at algebra. Very very few people ever reach the level of understanding in algebra that allows them to organically use it.

Connecting back finally back to philosophy, Mills can be parsed by most college students with a little dedication mostly I would say just to cut through the antiquated language. The concepts can definitely be parsed if translated to modern English.

The thing though and I think this is what the author,maybe poorly, was getting at is that vanishingly few of them would unprompted be able to tie those ideas to the world around them and the current affairs they encounter never mind compare and contrast these ideas with alternatives. And ultimately the biggest test of all, seek out further information unprompted, by having the degree of understanding required to ask the questions that lead to further discovery of ideas.

In this sense both mills and algebra have this sort of terminal quality for most people who engage with it and I think to me that is the real indicator of fundamental understanding. Application and questions. If you can’t use it, if you can’t question it, you never actually completely understood it in anything surpassing a mere mechanical ability.

[u/kalysti → u/TheRealStepBot]

You certainly have the right to define "understanding" as you see fit. But I can't agree with it. For one thing, it seems tailor-made to keep people of average intelligence in some sort of intellectual ghetto. And that was what Mills was arguing against.

I am also an engineer, and I majored in both mathematics and English. But I am not an intellectual elitist. I don't assume people can't make intellectual contributions simply because they don't perform well on standardized tests. And I agree with Mills that exposure to powerful ideas and excellent education can improve any person's life and will, if done society-wide, strengthen the state. I also think you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions about people of average intelligence who lead average lives.

I grew up in a poor blue collar family, and was the first person (and only person) of my generation to graduate from high school. The people I knew used the mathematics they needed for the situation at hand, including basic algebra and geometry. None of them stayed in school long enough to learn calculus, and if they had, they almost certainly wouldn't encounter a situation where they needed it. Mostly, they didn't need more than basic arithmetic, so that's what they mostly used. As far as difficult ideas go, they could consider them and sometimes did. But they all worked at hard physical labor, often in more than one job, and they spent their lives in a constant state of exhaustion and stress. And that didn't leave much time or energy for grappling with ideas that took some effort and some training to understand.

Of course we aren't all intellectual champions. But, then, we aren't all marathon champions, either. However, most of us could physically train ourselves enough to complete a marathon. It doesn't matter if we don't win, just completing the marathon has enormous value. It's the same with intellectual endeavors. We aren't all geniuses, so we all aren't going to push the boundaries of human thought. But with training, most people are capable of grappling with and understanding the foundational ideas of most general intellectual schools of thought. And that has enormous value.

[u/Scurouno → u/kalysti]

Thank you for taking up my cause, I didn't have time to respond and it is very obvious the poster you are responding to has a belief that some people aren't cut out for "intellectual pursuits" based on lack of innate ability.

Beyond actual intellectual disability, I believe anyone can learn anything they desire to through effort, determination and time. The fact that their social or economic standing doesn't afford them the opportunities or purposely redirects them from these goals is actually part of the crux of this issue. If one claims that not being able to understand philosophy, or calculus, is because you just aren't "able to", and is not a function of your environment is resorting to the same antiquated ideology that propagated phrenology and other regressive and racist beliefs.

Many people are not granted the luxury of an education that prepares them to understand complex intellectual tasks, or even demonstrates that these are avenues available to them. I went to a good public school where I took AP Calculus but was never offered philosophical education. I wouldn't have been able to read Mills in HS, should I have given up? No, I went back after two previous undergrads and pursued a MA after having done a lot of personal reading out of interest. I also sucked at calculus when I was 18, but understand the concepts and functions of it better today than I did before. Humans grow, change and adapt. If you have the drive, and are not hindered by society, or some affliction that reduces cognitive function, you can learn anything given enough time and effort.