Want to become a better philosophical thinker? A more philosophical person?

If someone wants to be a skilled philosophical thinker, here are some skills and virtues that are needed for that. 

Restraint and self-control: we are familiar with behavioral impulse control, but we also need to control our reactions in speaking and even thinking and not react without adequate understanding. Not patiently seeking that understanding makes thinking about complex issues more difficult. Being able to consider an idea, and ensuring that you understand it accurately, before reacting, is important. 

Defining terms is essential: if someone uses a word that could be used in different ways, the conversation needs to stop and that term defined and then that meaning "stuck with" for that portion of the conversation. Not doing that leads to people talking past each other. Switching back and forth between meanings leads to people being confused and talking past each other, each using the same word(s) but thinking about different ideas.

Think slowly and patiently: attempting to think quickly and aggressively tends to lead to people not being careful in their use of terms and so winding up on different issues, again talking past each other.

Related to defining terms in defining issues, and the ability to distinguish potentially related, but distinct issues is essential. E.g., (a) being justified in holding a belief and (b) explaining to others why that belief is justified and (c) explaining to others why that belief is justified in a way that they will be convinced (in some context) are all different activities. Not understanding that these are distinct activities leads to confusion. Furthermore, each issue and argument is distinct: e.g., that one argument for a conclusion is a bad argument doesn't entail that all arguments for that conclusion are bad; that one definition of a term isn't ideal doesn't preclude there being a better definition. Keeping distinct issues distinct is important.

Not knowing important philosophical results impedes thinking about issues where those ideas are applied. E.g., not being familiar with arguments for global skepticism has consequences for understanding epistemic justification; not being familiar with theories of epistemic justification precludes understanding fallibilism; not being familiar with the potential sources of justification, and possible structure of justification will preclude thinking about how different types of particular beliefs (e.g., mathematical beliefs, religious beliefs, etc.) are or might be justified (or not!). Not understand more fundamental issues prevents applying those basics to more complex, higher-order issues.

All and all, a lot progress in philosophical skill-building is developed by calmly and coolly seeking to understand what's meant when people say things ("What do you mean?") and then trying to assess the reasons that are given, and might be given, for and against various views ("Why think that?"). 

In many important ways, becoming a better philosophical thinker is like learning a musical instrument or learning how to play a sport well: there are real things to be learned, and those things need to be learned and intentionally put into practice, and any bad habits and unproductive ways of engaging that seem "natural" need to be identified and work needs to be put in to overcome them. None of this is easy but the results are often worth it. 

Confused "Evangelical" Secular People: Many atheists, agnostics, etc. would benefit from learning about the issues they are passionate about!

Lately due to my short introductory article Atheism: Believing God Does Not Exist, I have had some interactions with some “evangelical”—enthusiastic—secular people concerning how to best state and describe their various views.

While people are free to use words however they want, they often use words in ways that outsiders—normal people—are apt to find confusing. If they want to avoid that confusion, and—to have a bigger and better impact—they should, I suggest they update their understanding and conceptual vocabulary.

Here’s a quick list of issues I have seen recently:

1. Evangelical secularists sometimes saying things that make it sound like there are people who (a) neither believe there’s a God nor disbelieve there’s a God AND (b) these people also believe there’s a God. This is a contradiction, given what most people understand an “agnostic” to be (someone who has considered whether there’s a God or not and suspends judgment on the issue); this is confusion. So the phrase an “agnostic theist” should be avoided.

2. Evangelical secularists sometimes saying things that make it sound like there are people who (a) neither believe there’s a God nor disbelieve there’s a God AND (b) these people also believe there’s not a God. This is a contradiction, given what most people understand an “agnostic” to be (someone who has considered whether there’s a God or not and suspends judgment on the issue); this is confusion. So the phrase an “agnostic atheist” should be avoided.

3. Evangelical secularists sometimes do not understanding the differences between believing not-p and not believing p. Believing vaccines are not effective is not the same as not believing that vaccines are effective: the latter can happen when people have no views about vaccines, perhaps because they have never heard of vaccines.

4. Evangelical secularists sometimes make idiosyncratic word choices: are you a “gnostic” about whether the physical world exists? Are you a “gnostic” about whether people exist? Are you a “gnostic” about whether some actions are wrong? Are you a “gnostic” about whether there’s a God, or not?

About the first three examples, nobody talks this way: they would say that they know or don’t know these things. It’s better to use vocabulary consistently, and since about no other topics do people describe their views on what they know as “gnostic,” there’s no value in using this idiosyncratic word to describe one’s views on whether they think they know or don’t know that there’s a God or not: just say it it directly and clearly.

5. Evangelical secularists sometimes say things that suggest that they think that if someone believes p, then you must think that you know p. No: believing p doesn’t entail knowing p, although knowing p does entail believing p.

6. Evangelical secularists sometimes seem to think that all theists or all atheists think they know their views are correct. No, this is incorrect. Some theists think they know God exists, and some do not; some atheists think they don’t know God exists, but some do.

These are some observations. Are there other common errors and confusions?

Again, while people are free to talk how they want, it’s important to ask what word choices and concepts are most useful for presenting one’s views and engaging with others: what will be easiest to understand? What’s least likely to be misunderstood? What vocabulary and concepts are used by experts on these matters?

Too many evangelical secularists seem to be hostile to these questions and finding good answers; that can’t help their cause. For too many issues, it seems like if a person builds their “identity” around their views on a “hot button” issue, they lose their ability to step back and productively engage these types of questions and give reasoned answers to them: they become part of “the tribe” and lose the ability for critical reflection. That’s not good. 

Bad writing

Someone asked me about bad philosophical writing. Here was my quick response, to add to my pile of observations about this topic. 

Oh, I was thinking about your question about bad philosophical writing---in the context of trying to write for ordinary people---and was thinking that some of the main problems I see are these:

1. People just don't explain things well: they use words that ordinary people won't understand, and they don't realize they need to explain those words, with examples. 
2. In general, they just don't, or can't, think about how ordinary people are apt to see issues and present content in a way that engages that perspective. 
3. They are disorganized: they don't think about an ideal organization.
4. They are long-winded: they don't cut what isn't needed, at all levels: section, paragraph, sentence, words. 
5. They take too long to get to the point: make that ASAP in case your reader dies or gets bored or distracted!

These are some initial ideas of how things go poorly!

Logic Saves Lives

A video about some of these topics, from 12 years ago:

A short presentation on plant-based eating: why and how

What seemed to be of greatest interest was the animals and ethics materials; see www.AnimalEthics101.com and these videos, among other sources: