why size matters

[Advocate]

It is better to have a broad understanding of philosophy than a deep one.

You can take wisdom from the tap as long as you have the skills and wisdom to recognise wisdom. That means you have to see how the pieces fit together.

By understanding a little bit about a lot of things you be better able to recognize bullshit and the first level of progress in philosophy is learning how to eliminate bullshit, aka critical thinking skills.

Meanwhile there are Academic <spit> philosophers who make 100s of k per year writing volumous tomes on shit that isn't even wrong.

("not even wrong" means it doesn't matter if it's right because it isn't relevant, or it's nonsense)

[Gary Childress]

It is better to have a broad understanding of philosophy than a deep one.

You can take wisdom from the tap as long as you have the skills and wisdom to recognise wisdom. That means you have to see how the pieces fit together.

By understanding a little bit about a lot of things you be better able to recognize bullshit and the first level of progress in philosophy is learning how to eliminate bullshit, aka critical thinking skills.

Meanwhile there are Academic <spit> philosophers who make 100s of k per year writing volumous tomes on shit that isn't even wrong.

("not even wrong" means it doesn't matter if it's right because it isn't relevant, or it's nonsense)

I think there is something to be said for specialization. If you know a lot about a particular topic, then you get more nuance and understanding of that topic. For example, a lot of people know nothing about philosophy at all. So when they come to philosophy they are probably easily swayed by things that maybe they shouldn't be. However, as ones who have studied philosophy, we probably know a bit more about it and that seems like a good thing to me. Specialists are also probably more qualified to teach topics than non-specialists. If I want to understand Hegel, I would probably choose to go to someone who has read just about everything produced by the man, in order to learn about his ideas.

Another example, I've read a number of Noam Chomsky's political writings, enough to know why he said certain things that he did. Some things he's said may seem contradictory or wrong to people, however, knowing more about Chomsky and why he said them, he stands out to me as a serious and a top-notch thinker, so I usually know his perspective on political matters is probably a valid one. I know that what he says is to be taken seriously.

The same can be said of various issues in applied ethics (again for example). If I don't know enough about the abortion debate, then I may settle for the first answer I get to the issue and not think of others that aren't as obvious. They could lead to foolish or erroneous thinking about an issue and I don't see how it is wise to not know all the nuances of specific issues.

But knowing a little about a lot of things can be just as fascinating and can equally inspire a lot of thought.