The true adherents to a specific philosophical school or philosopher, are few and far between in reference to any single domain. Specialists always have a greater degree of competency and understanding in regards to their specific field, yet, they have a less ability to draw distinctions between and compare with other schools or distinct philosophers. If we are to endeavor in philosophic exploration, shouldn’t we be ever seeking after truth from all corners? It seems close minded and ignorant to select a few good authors and dedicate study to them alone, if those few philosophers happen to be among the first you encounter. Not to mention, in order to find authors whose work you would like to pursue, you must read and research a large variety in order to better inform a more specific study towards what you are interested in, or what resonates more with your individual value structure. In reconciling generality and specificity in regards to philosophical study and research, as well as into what tradition or domain an original thinker should contribute to producing individual content in, we ought to have a broad knowledge of the history of philosophy and its most influential individual schools.  What I recommend is a broad survey of the landscape, before deciding to pursue further investigation in a given direction, both with philosophy, and with life.

How can we find which topic it would be optimal to become an expert in without surveying the landscape? Same goes for different fields of study, whether it be biology, cosmology, philosophy, and their specific sub-fields, same goes for any pursuit in life, or any purpose or skill set, we can’t know what hierarchy to enter into until we have gained at least some knowledge of the available hierarchies. I don’t think we should just arbitrary pick something in life and pursue it, or pursue what has been presented to us parentally or societally, but rather, attempt to experience the biggest slice of life, within our means, and with the experience and wisdom gained, have a good idea of which road to then pursue.

As well as in the domain of practical pursuits, so too in the realm of ideas. Multiple points of view allows us to take something from each of them, or form our own opinion based upon what we value to be most truthful within all the point of views, of course you can’t contain contradictory perspectives upon a single subject in the form of belief, you can subsume multiple ones with an overarching idea, or correctly categorize them in order to order them for further reference to be used in identification. The more we explore and see the world from different perspectives the better informed we are to create a synthesis or a conceptualization that enables them all to exist, or to refute and approve different ones, or to altogether transcend all of them to a view that is closer to the truth, maybe in a Hegelian dialectical fashion.

Broad exploration is one route, specific intensive study “niche” work is also another route. Both are needed to perpetuate new ideas and new innovations. We need someone with a broad knowledge to be able to connect and articulate the different pieces into a coherent structure, and find similarities and ways of transcending individual ideas. But, also, we need someone with a pointed interest in a specific aspect of a field to be able to push that field to newer, deeper, more expansive heights. The tool to reconcile which road to cross, is to pursue both. We must continue to explore along the periphery of our knowledge into the unknown, but we must also be updating our value structure as to which aspects within our realm of experience we want to delve deeper into. In this way we can use our time, in proportion to our values, both to pursue the things which we have found to be important to us, as well as not stagnate within one area of expertise, and expand into other areas.

The investigation of unrelated knowledge in ulterior fields can provide useful knowledge towards unexpected discoveries in a different domain that often isn’t obvious in preconceived evaluation. Often times juxtaposed fields can provide insight into each other in novel ways that concentration down a singular domain would be blind to. For example, we think of evolutionary biology and philosophy to be two very different studies, but we can use the knowledge we gain from the scientific study of evolutionary biology to inform predictions about how our Being is related to other lifeforms, and to offer a parallel explanation to why we may choose to perform a certain action, which, we can include within a philosophical framework. Conversely, we can use a phenomenological method to makes conclusions on what it means to be conscious, and explore why and how these findings might have come to be through the study of prior species brain developments. We can use philosophy to find questions that can be answered in biology, as well as find biological answers to questions we didn’t know existed yet in philosophy. This is just an example of how different scientific and philosophical endeavors, into different school of thought, or areas of expertise, can be cross-used in the informing of others, in order to stumble across undiscovered territories, or ideas we wouldn’t have access to if we were narrowly focused on one area of expertise.