Active Powers

"... philosophy is not a theory, or a doctrine, but rather an activity. It is an activity of clarification (of thoughts), and more so, of critique (of language). Described by Wittgenstein, it should be the philosopher’s routine activity: to react or respond to the traditional philosophers’ musings by showing them where they go wrong, using the tools provided by logical analysis. In other words, by showing them that (some of) their propositions are nonsense." (Wittgenstein, SEP, 2.3)

Forget what you've learned about learning. Forget what you think you know. Much of my (so far) overall theory is about knowledge and how one gets it. But what is that process?

Spoiler: I think this idea has already been brought up, perhaps poorly, by Aristotle and Wittgenstein.

To learn something is not to think something. It is not to read or listen, even to ruminate, and then think something - even if that something is new for you. Thinking in that sense is purely mental and is merely a stage; a stage waiting for an "active power."

The truth is that learning as we need to understand it occurs only in the action after thinking about something. This is of course why so many people talk about understanding a concept that they clearly do not get. The point at which a person acquires knowledge - enters the "process" - begins when they exercise their active power - a free action motivated entirely by will. It challenges an uncritical notion that talking about a thing can show understanding.

It is true that much stunted behavior occurs when a lack of action is justifed by a false celebration of thought and speech. An individual can admire his own thoughts about a thing so comfortably that it replaces and hinders the action. This is of course when they admit a flaw correctly and then do nothing to change it.

To be clear, learning occurs not in the mind and not with words but in the course of a real activity. I know ... as this becomes obvious it becomes too plain, too easy. But think about it, how much do we understand about this 'process" by which we truly learn something to the extent that we can act and change by it? At what point in what we have previously called "the learning process" does our mental state actually change in a way we might call "having learned?" It is to my understanding that we assume so much about this and actually know very little. "I'll believe you when you act!" seems to be a popular and easily understood command. But the essence of this idea exists in the negative - it truly stands out when we consider that a person can clearly articulate everything about a problem or a flaw and yet in action know nothing about it. How can that be? To be able to say the words ("drinking is bad for me") and understand on one level the meaning and, yet, have no active awareness of the truth. This is the problem.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Wittgenstein

Update: It is clear that Wittgenstein had set out this Reidian notion of active power, but like Reid, he considered the language of thought active. What I have suggested is that thoughts alone (qua mental, purely logic, purely pictorial) are not an activity that constitutes learning and that something must be added. Wittgenstein probably realized this when he revamped his project in the 1930s and wanted to add or substract by converting to an unsystemmatic approach to to "doing" philosophy.