Of course you’re right, but that does not mean it isn’t happening right now. Refer back to my quote about the Australian elections. — Brett

I have a hard time understanding that quote. I am not sure what he is saying. I don't think postmodernism is touchy feely, quite the opposite. More detached. Ironic or distanced or perhaps just throwing stuff into their shopping cart with glee. I don't like the way the Left is dealing with recent losses. I don't think they have the foggiest about what is going on. I think unfortunately, given the lack of real options, the comman man, as you put it, has not had much to chose from. But I don't know Australian politics at all. I don't see leftist politics as postmodern. They have values, they think those are the right values. Period. Everyone is digging in with little nuance. I do think the Left cherry picks ideas from postmodernism and I do understand why the Right - and even sometimes the Left themselves - thinks they are cultural relativists, though they are not. Otherwise there would not be so much much mutual hatred. You can't virtue signal, for example, if you don't have an idea of what a virtue is.

The next quote about thinking I probed in that thread. I think it is a fairly ludicrous thing to say. Humans who are not thinking are in comas, and people in comas probably think now and then. How we think and what we think certainly differs.

I have sympathy with the OP here. I just think everything is so binary these days. So I hopped in regarding postmodernism which I think has some positive aspect, some negative ones and a lot that are really hard to track.

There’s a feeling around that the common man is no longer needed, that he’s a impediment to what we should be. Yet every group with pretensions to power use him as a tool for success and then turn away when they achieve their objective. — Brett

I thnk this is true. The contradictory use of the common person and seeing the common person as merely a mob.

I don’t think that’s enough of a description of post modernism as it relates to ‘the common man’ or anyone for that matter. — Brett

I started what you quoted with 'one aspect' I later gave a couple of examples of how postmodernism, in more charged areas does not necessarily go against 'the common man'..

“ ... postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of

modernism

... common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress. Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.” Wikipedia — Brett

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism....
from Wikipedia

My emphasis added to the quote above on Modernism. Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organization, activities of daily life, and sciences, were becoming ill-fitted to their tasks and outdated in the new economic, social, and political environment of an emerging fully industrialized world.

Many common men and women did not like modernism and dislike the moves away from traditional art forms - and realism - and traditional ideas about religious faith. They did not do this from a postmodernist viewpoint, but from their own. Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes.

Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains. — Brett

It is pretty much inherent in postmodernism, though some adherent may not be consistent about it, that people cannot possibly tell other what is better for them.

‘Hardened poor people’: there’s something very interesting to me in this post of Christian2017. ‘Post modernism’ seems to have been an idea that rode right over the lives of what was once called ‘the common man’, and which the common man saw as another shibboleth they would have to endure. — Brett

ONe aspect of postmodernism was the idea that there isn't high and low art, just art, which opened the door to all sorts of things not really considered art: anything from comics to soap operas to advertising to pop music. In this the common man was respected, at least un-disrespected, because his or her tastes were no longer low, they were just tastes. And this opening was also parallel but a challenge to expert tastes and values in a wide variety of fields. Sometimes, when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may be insulting to them. In other cases this opens the door for the common man not to listen to elite positions, for good or for ill. I don't really see postmodernism being specifically problematic for the common man. I am not particularly postmodernist, but I am not sure this is the best line of attack.

Can the person who thinks compare with the one who doesn't? — jorgealarcon

Certain types of thinking may lead to improvement, that improvement evauluate in different ways by people of different values. But everybody thinks. People's minds are abuzz with thinking all the time. Now, of course, you outlines certain kinds of thinking, which you are referring to as thinking so I presume what goes on in most minds you would not call thinking. Fine. It might be useful to explain what those thought processes would be. The list is more like the results. I can guess from the list what some of those thought processes might be like, but it would be guesses.

Just because some Americans out on the far right used it is no reason to be embarrassed about it. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps so, but it still doesn't make it analogous to the situation with the coin. Further shouldn't we patriots dislike someone putting the flag on a sneaker. It's not illegal, but it is parasitic.

Using Kaepernick's reasoning, we should conclude that the Romans and Americans are both fascist since we were all using a symbol attached to 20th century fascism. Round up those old dimes and destroy them. Smash Racism! — Bitter Crank

I think using his reasonsing we should conclude that it's not a great idea to use fascist symbols on our coins, that's the parallel conclusion. I would guess they won't use fasces again and without having to be reminded privately.

That's basically a strawman argument. What you describe above is not what happened with the flag. He privately told them, they decided it might be insensitive given the way the flag had been used. He did not say they were a racist company, in fact he seems to have assumed they would be concerned about how the symbol might be taken and they were. End of story.

Meaning essentially that we can value both our intuition and our reasoning and may have a choice in how we respond to circumstances, given the luxury of time anyway. We may be forced to rely on intuition when time is in short supply. — praxis

I don't think we can ever use reasoning without also using intuition. In those cases where we have we can certainly use inducution and deduction and check and recheck our assumptions and so on. However in the microsteps of reasoning there is always intuition. About semantics: the scope of our words in the reasoning, in variaous qualia ('there, I have checked enough' 'I would have noticed if there was a flawed step' 'my memories of earlier steps in the reasoning is correct' 'this is not an assumption built into grammar, but the way things are' and so on), given paradigmantic biases, our assessment that we are being 'open minded' and not biased in other ways, that our premises make sense, that our logical steps are logical and so on. IOW what on paper might look like some purely logical provess, purely reasoned process, when lived in the creation of it and in the rechecking of it thare are tiny, not so tiny and background assessments and conclusions that are based on intuition.

Surely, on the basis that 'language' is a necessary aspect of 'consciousness', — fresco

what do you mean by consciousness here? I don't think being aware, having subjective experiences, is dependent on language. I think even not particularly smart animals are conscious. But perhaps we are using terms with different meanings.

What we go by is whether behavior, including other linguistic utterances, makes sense to us. (And part of that is that we develop our meanings to make sense of the behavior we observe.) As long as that's going okay--although often enough it does not--we figure that things are kosher, and it doesn't really matter what differences may be taking place internally, in other persons' minds--such as them experiencing red as we experience green. — Terrapin Station

I agree.

I once did an independent study in the phenomology of metaphors. A fancy ass way of saying that I read lines of poetry with metaphors and try to notice what I saw and felt (mainly) or otherwise imagined when I read new for me metaphors. So there were these quick flashes of images somehow mixing the two realms. Bit of both the tenor and vehicle of the metphor were blended in my mind and there would be bits of feelings I assume I associated with each part and then also with them being mixed. What happened was something I was usually vaguely aware of. What happened would really have to be really quite unique to me. Once we get into everyday language and communication with more dead metaphors and objects and categories we are more used to, sure, there is a better chance the 'stuff that actually happens' when I hear or read something could be much more similar to what the language elicits in the other person. But still, it is going to be idiosyncratic. (no cd copying here either) This is why I think most communication will involve triangulation, even sometimes over simple subjects. The cat is on grandfather's chair....probably will work very well if those nouns are clear to both parties, but what is actually happening in the mind of each person could be quite different.

If good people don't fight off evil, then they're just as guilty for its outcome including those who can resist its influence. Imagine if, in WW2, most of the allied powers decided not to get involved since Hitler wasn't going after them? Then, eventually, they would be just as responsible for whichever outcome would have ensued both short and long term — BrianW

This doesn't contradict what I am saying. It is exactly what I am saying. I am not saying Krishna is wrong about this. I agree with this part. My point is if I can participate in a war, then I can also express anger, for example, at someone who pushes my child. Or a woman who sexually assaulted. Pushed up against a wall, can feel anger and push the man away and call for help.

If it is ok, even a duty to go to war agains Hilter - something that will lead to the death of innocent people even, for example German children, then I can certainly express some anger and feel some anger in the everyday situations that come up.

Even if I am on the receiving end of anger from family members and friends, I have on many occasions appreciated it. In two ways: 1) I want the people I love to express what they feel, even if it turns out they were confused, misheard, were being unfair...so that we know what is happening and can work it through. 2) Sometimes I have been insensitive, missed signs or even verbal requests to do something or not do something, for example. The anger gets my attention. I drop my everyday distraction or insensitive. My goodness, what is happening. I really listen. It is possible I get it.

Anger is one of the ways we feel. It can be pathological, just as thoughts or any emotion can get into pathological patterns. But it is natural part of life.

I find it bizzare that war can be justified but not anger. My argument is not that the allies should just have let Hitler take over Europe and the Pacific.

All Krishna is saying is that anger is a destructive energy, and it harms oneself as much as others. — BrianW

'And I disagree.

First, I don't think it is necessarily desctructive. It is often expressive. It is a great way, in many situaiton, to let the other person know that they have repeatedly crossed a boundary. It is certainly best if one can signal this, in lesser 'infractions' calmly, but when this is ignore or if the 'infraction' is severe, anger is perfectly appropriate and not at all destructive. Don't touch me like that expressed with anger destroys no one. And it is even good in many situation for the person who is on the receiving end. It can give them a wake up call that their is another person in there.

Second, destroying things is not always wrong. As in the very example you raise above. Here vast swathes of nature and civilization and people were destroyed and yet you argue above that it was the right decision to participate. There can be by comparison infinitesmally small destructions of unhealthy patterns or misunderstandings or abusive patterns between people, where an expression of anger can be helpful in changing it.

In nature funguses, vultures, bacteria are decomposers and necessary for ecosystems.

Some patterns, such as the rise of Naziism, need to be destroyed. Some smaller patterns need to be destroyed.

But destruction is a melodramatic term in most of these smaller situations everyday situations, Anger can dissolve. Anger can draw attention to. Anger can be part of achieving intimacy.

Not expressing anger can be destrucitive in relationships. Not being aggressive against evil - as in the Bhagavad Gita or as in the Allies in Europe can be destructive.

Allowing a boss to treat workers poorly can be destructive. Expressing anger might even save that boss more, from his perspective, destructive consequences, when the effects on moral or union activity or upper management firing him comes down the pike.

Of course one can have bad or even terrible anger with habits. Hitler certainly did.

But anger is not per se pathological.

This is the place where I discuss philosophy, so any examples I describe will involve members of this forum. So, I'd rather not be more specific. — T Clark

I didn't mean that you had to reveal their name or even details so it is clear who it is, but something about what facet of philosophy it was and how it changed them. Perhaps that's too much and if it is fine. But like 'one person read Being and Time' and what they realized was X and this led them to....' Or a work of existentialism and this affected....

Not "necessary". War is portrayed as inevitable because the course had already been set in motion. — BrianW

By choices even including those of both sides. IOW you have to go to war with people in certain situations, even if and in fact because of the fact that you are good.

If going to war and killing people is OK, and Krishna encouraged Arjuna to go to war and not be cowardly, why all the fuss about anger. All the destructive aspects of anger are accepted, but not the emotion.

Accept anything outside yourself and you yourself can even be violence, but do not accept everything inside yourself.

Again, it is a dualism.

No, he said anger has a function. This was the context of what I replied to. Anger is natural for toddlers, only. Maybe up through adolescence. . — Anthony

Anger does have a function. It is present in most adults in every culture ever encountered. There is no evidence it is a juvenile phase only. This applies to humans and many social mammals.

For you. This is one of the criteria for unintelligent people for me, whatever they may present otherwise. Consistent self-control is a requisite for intelligence. — Anthony

Well, going by scientific measurements of intelligence or by accomplishments and success, intelligent people get angry. So, it's not for me as an individual. It is a widely held belief by experts in many fields and also by good old regular people. I understand that for you other measures of intelligence don't matter, someone is stupid if they get angry sometimes. This is an extremely rare position to take. But I understand now how you evaluate people.

Having anger issues isn't associated with adulthood just as many other adolescent complexes aren't if they've continued into "adulthood" (society promotes adolescent behaviors, to be sure; anger, sexual deviance and narcissism are sanctioned). Usually, childish people are angry at life and haven't come to terms with it. Sure we all experience the perversion of violence rousing in us from time to time, it shouldn't be acted on or allowed to proliferate in us. — Anthony

Again you conflate anger with certain behaviors, as if the emotion must lead to specific actions. One can get angry without violence. I certainly can. It would take a physical immediate attack on myself or someone I loved or potentially people I don't know but who are being victimized to lead me to act in anger violently.

When you experience anger rearing up...hold as still as ever...because you're about to do something really stupid. — Anthony

Perhaps in you every time you feeling anger you are about to do something stupid and that sounds pathological. I do not experience alwayss coupled with stupid action. In fact this was rare even when I was a child. It happens but it is hardly a rule. I notice people getting angry in all sorts of contexts and stupid actions are also the exception.

It sounds to me like you are conflating anger with violence and destructive acts. Certainly anger is present in those things, but anger does not have to be pathological like that and those are exceptions. People get angry in their everday lives without being violent almost as a rule.

I don't think your take on psychoanalytic theory is correct, but since it is based on this conflation of anger with violent forms of anger, it is a tangent. Further that you incorrectly believe that anger is only a phase in the early life of humans, you are confused about humans at a fundamental level.

You conflate anger with the perversion of violence, and honestly, that sounds quite disturbing. The only person I have ever met who viewed anger that way was horrifically sexully abused. And even she was working towards where she could express anger in healthy ways and part of natural adulthood.

I don't think further discussion between us would be useful for either one of us.

What you describe is being stuck in an emotional state of development — Anthony

People who on certain occasions get angry are stuck in an emotional state of development? How do you know this?

Anyway, anger is synonymous with stupidity and hysteria. — Anthony

No, it's not. The definitions are quite different. Intelligent people can get angry, even be angry people. Hysterical people can be afraid.

It has a function? Really? Maybe on a battle field where the enemy has been demonized. — Anthony

Or even if they haven't been demonized. I would likely get angry during a long artillary bombardment, though fear would come up more. I would get angry if sent on stupid dangerous missions. As just a couple of perfectly natural not problematic humans reactions in war. People often get angry when their boundaries are crossed without permission. Parents get angry when someone hurts their kids. We can even get angry at ourselves if we notice we are not utilizing opportunities we should. In many situations anger can be a good motivation, which the emotions function as in general: whole system motivators, moving the body towards actions that are of importance to the individual. There is nothing wrong with the emotions per se.

I can't think of a single time I've acted out and not done something I regret. — Anthony

Maybe you have an anger problem. But notice you are using the pejorative phrase 'acting out' which means bad behavior. Well, of course, bad behavior, which you yourself judge as bad, you are going to regret. Anger is not necessarily acting out. Anger can be expressed without any action beyond the expression.

Nor can I think of a time where someone I know hasn't behaved irrationally when they've acted hysterically out of ire. — Anthony

Well, OF COURSE

talk about stacking the deck.

Someone acting hysterically out or ire (or love or fear or passion for fruit or whatever) must behave irrationally. I mean, it pretty much goes with acting hysterically.

Nor can I think of a time when someone I know hasn't felt unpleasant physical sensations when hysterically bending their joints in ways they were not meant to.

This doesn't mean Yoga must be a bad activity.

It's never about other people, it's always about our misguided expectations. There are always limitations (weaknesses) and failed expectations in anger. — BrianW

An early memory: another kid jumped on my back and pushed me down in mud. I got angry and rolled him off me, then I yelled at him for a moment, then walked away.

I just can't find anything wrong with that. I had well founded expectations that I not be treated like he treated me, rather than misguided expectations. He got some good real world feedback about boundaries.

There are so many instances and ways of expressing anger that one can find examples, of course, that are negative. But anger is one of our natural reactions and often just peachy.

Some of the Eastern religions and or interpretations of these have judgments of emotions. On the one hand they tend to teach us to accept things. On the other hand they often teach us not to accept emotions. This dualism is something I find problematic.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn't even condemn war, in fact it bases itself on a war backdrop and implies heavily that war is necessary in some circumstances. Wars are the behavior of anger acted out in the most violent ways possible. Sure, someone might go into the war, without anger, and this might all be a step on his road to enlightenment, but I see no reason to judge the kernal as bad when the most possible damaging husk can be ok.

"…if you are killed (in the battle) you will ascend to heaven. On the contrary if you win the war you will enjoy the comforts of earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up and fight with determination… With equanimity towards happiness and sorrow, gain and loss, victory and defeat, fight. This way you will not incur any sin." (The Bhagavad Gita)

What do you mean by 'category error'? — Wallows

I guess the idea that a portion of our natural responses could be unhealthy, hence the analogy with noses and skin. A particular pattern of anger could be unhealthy. Expressions of anger could be unhealthy. But since getting angry is what most healthy social mammals do as part of their repetoire it almost by definition can't be unhealthy.

Maybe more 'redundant' or 'irrelevant'? — Wallows

Do you mean anger or are you suggesting replacements for my use of 'category error'?

Therefore, what are your thoughts about anger? Isn't it a healthy response towards another person, when they wrong you? — Wallows

I think so. One can be confused and think one has been wronged when this is not the case. One can focus on anger because one thinks that gives one power, and through this avoid feeling other emotions, and this can be problematic. One's anger can be based on all sorts of erroneous beliefs (just like love and fear can be). But then the problem is more with the beliefs and thoughts. Anger is a part of the range of our responses, as social mammals, to things that happen. It's a bit like asking about noses or skin. Are these healthy organs? It's almost a category error.

I can only speak for myself. It is not as if philosophy has done this for me while I passively enjoy the benefits. None of us can say how we would be different if some part of our life had been different.

I think that for some people philosophy can be harmful. It can be destabilizing, calling into question what one believes to be true and known. — Fooloso4

Thanks for the honest answer. I enjoy philosophical discussions and I am pretty damn sure philosophy has helped me questions some assumptions that were getting in my way. I think the discussions have taught me a lot about how people think and think sloppily, and this includes thoughts and positions that have, I think great detrimental effects. It has also taught me that it is very rare that someone changes their mind via discussion. I do think philosophy can improve people and I would guess it has, very modestly, improved me. Probably more from readings of classic texts than discussions. But I am a bit skeptical it changes most people for the better, though I suppose they may use it to feel better. I also wonder if perhaps other methods are not more effective.

Do you think it's better to be abnormal given that you describe ''normal'' to be fear based? — TheMadFool

I don't think are fear based. There are other emotions and there are also desires. I do think emotions underly the bulk of our choices. And no, I think emotions are part of us and evolved for good reasons. Of course we can be afraid of the wrong things. But I am not sure I am concerned about people being afraid of war and violence or that politicians might be afraid of the wrath of the public over an unnecessary or immoral war. That is the context of the discussion. I think that's a healthy fear.

I don't if this makes sense. It was once ''normal'' to think the Earth was flat. It was also ''normal'' to believe in witches. These are, as everyone knows, false.

Do you think it's better to be abnormal given that you describe ''normal'' to be fear based? — TheMadFool

Those are beliefs and i was talking about emotions and emotional reactions. So these are completely different categories. If I tell you am afraid of nuclear war or violence, you can't say: your belief is incorrect. I am certainly not arguing that everything normal is good, but given the OP and the topic, I am trying to say that this is not some anomoly or culturally diseased symptom that emotions affect what we move toward and avoid. That's pretty much being a mammal.

Yes, you're right. Fear in itself isn't bad BUT what if you knew that a person was being good only because s/he didn't want to go to hell or prison? — TheMadFool

I think that is true in a lot of cases, maybe most. Politeness, wanting to seem nice, guilt stopping the expression of certain emotions, not wanting to be seen as strange, and yes, fears of hell, prison, social judgment, revenge.

I think this is pretty normal. I think it would be better if we allowed more honest emotional expression, but still encouraged people not to be violent.

I think then we would have a better chance of knowing our motives.

So peace as we know it is empty of any moral content. It's all got to do with fear. Perhaps true and so much sadder. Humans are animals after all. This probably has relevance to the nuclear weapons debate. Russia and America are at peace. — TheMadFool

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that it's fear. Having a morality is a set of rules. It is not clear to me that that means people become good, but they many engage in good behavior. IOW even if we had a universal ethics, it doesn't mean we are doing things for 'the right reasons'. I mean, people are afraid of being bad. A society's rules are also habits.

This is the flaw in our moral theories. Yet there's no global What keeps people from getting at each other's throats? — TheMadFool

There's a lot of warfare, but the major powers are not directly warring. I think the consquences are so devastating that even fairly loony people are afraid of them.

Is it akin to nuclear deterrents which means the peace is empty, devoid of moral value or is it that people genuinely are of good moral character? — TheMadFool

I think is mostly fear. One, fear of large scale war. Two, fear that the people will not be for these things. Even with smaller very one sided conflicts - like the war in Afghanistan - once those body bags start coming home and once the public see that this is not really helping anyone, they don't like it. And they are paying for it.

I was trying to explain WHY there's peace, an indication of good moral principles, rather than chaos, an obvious consequence of a lack of morals. Isn't this odd given that we actually don't have a sound moral theory - something necessary to keep us on the right track so to speak? — TheMadFool

People don't like violence, at least, in general. And I think there are common morals around that. Violence only if.... Of course that varies, but there is a signifcant block to war in most moralities. But note we generally use morality to work the public up for the war.

Yet we all know, using philosophy as a benchmark for any sound moral theory, there is no universally applicable ethical theory. Yes, there's consequentialism, deontology, etc but these have been demonstrated to have serious flaws in them — TheMadFool

they are also types of ethical theory, they don't get into specifics. Deontologists have a long history of going to war with each other and alt.right and the radical left in the US will often both use consquentialist arguments to show the other side is evil/wrong/bad/stupid.

Statistically speaking any individual seems satisfied with the moral principles of his fellow human. — TheMadFool

I don't understand this sentence.

I may be wrong about this but from what I can infer from my ovservations there is, generally speaking, peace in the world and even where there is violence there are some basic rules of conduct. As an example the biggest threat to peace in modern times is ''religious'' extremism and religion at its core is ethics. — TheMadFool

I think the biggest threat is still between neo-cons and regions that are not under that roof. There are certainly a lot more incidents and wars created by religious people - often with encouragement, by proxy type manipulation, and arms given by the major powers - but as far as threat I am vastly more concerned by the actions of the large nuclear capable nations.

Sorry, I now see this was a tangent. You can ignore it.

...because they are conscious experiencers,.../quote] Which is the point I’m making! You only know what experience is, because you’re a subject of experience yourself. — Coben

I only know anything at all because I'm an experiencer.

If you tried to explain the concept to a non English speaker, what would you point at? — Wayfarer

I don't disagree with 'experience' being different, however, I am not sure that the argument implicit in this question works. What would you point at to explain matter or atoms or space - since they are everywhere as experience is, the latter at least, in a sense, everywhere? I think perhaps with an incredible amount of miming, perhaps involving comatose patients, sleeping people who you whisper to and then wake and whisper to, bricks and gerbles, having two people one who sees you do something the other facing the wrong way, you might be able to 'point' at experience. IOW I think you could convey to experience' to someone non-verbally, and precisely because they are conscious experiencers, they would have an aha experience...finally getting that it is the experiencing you are
on about and not just 'responding' or 'reaction' (that is active functions) in all your tomfoolery.

i think, actually, it would be very interesting to try. I was great at Charades. And it could be tested.

Yes, I think this is a consequence of the materialist mindset that permeates the scientific community. — leo

And materialism no longer means anything. Waht is considered material is a set of 'things' that now includes fields, massless particles, particles in superposition, dark matter, dark energy. That which is considered physical is that which is considered real. It is no longer a stand on what kind of substance. Anything scientists decide is real, regardless of what it is like, will be subsumed under materialism or physicalism. So it is treated as a metaphysical stance, agains dualisms or other monisms, when in fact the term has lost its onological meaning and now just means real. And this add to their and the sense that certain phenomena must contradict science were these phenomena real. But that is jsut silly.

Rather than what we might find in the self-help section of a bookstore it is what Socrates called the examined life. This has a double sense - an examination of life and a life of examination - how one lives and how one ought to live and how to bring the two into alliance. — Fooloso4

As I said in my previous post, I was mainly trying to tease out what was really going on in the OP and suggesting that answering that quesiton was a better way to show how philosophy is useful than saying that really smart people have done philosophy.

Is philosophy more effective than the self-help section?

How, specifically, have you seen philosophy improv people's lives`?

I had always been skeptical of philosophy as a pathway to becoming a better, happier person, but I have met people here on the forum who have convinced me otherwise. There are people here who use philosophy as a tool to help them work out issues they are dealing with in very concrete, practical ways. I've been really impressed and sometimes moved. Inspired. — T Clark

My question was more rhetorical. IOW I found the OP strange and was trying to both tease out what was really going on, what was behind it, and also suggesting that if you want to say something is useful, it is best to show how, it seems to me, instead of saying that really smart people do it.

That said: could you give an example, a specific example.

I think, self-improvement is one aspect of philosophy that doesn't get mentioned enough. People are often drawn towards philosophy to improve their lives. — Wallows

So, what are examples of this? How does it happen? Is there a concrete change that you attribute to philosophy? Could a similar change have happen with literature or some kind of spirituality?

Well, philosophy is such an abstract endeavor that I feel as though people do it to become better people. Part of this feel good post of mine, which is trying to highlight that people should feel good about doing philosophy because it tends to enhance one's quality of life. It seems to me that people who are drawn to philosophy have a more sensitive mind than others along with a higher intelligence. That's just my take on it. — Wallows

It tends to be men drawn to philosophy is the first thought that came to mind.

But I am still trying to get at this....

So, wrapping this post up, I resent the attitude here and elsewhere professed by some or others that philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent. — Wallows

Where have you encountered this here?

The important thing to always keep in mind about my truth theory is that it's in the context of the traditional analytic philosophy tenets that truth and facts are importantly different things, that facts are largely mind-independent states of affairs, that truth is a property of propositions and that propositions are the meanings of statements. — Terrapin Station

I think I understand the distinction and think it is a useful one, however I don't really like the word 'fact' for that one. I would prefer even an everday speech category like: the way things are. I associate facts way to much with things we know, or current knowledge, which may well be revised.

Consciousness is definitely helpful for survival purposes, though, especially when you get to organisms like us, who are relatively complex and who aren't adapted to easily survive to reproduction age without a lot of assistance and without the benefits of being able to learn things (such as things in our environment that are dangerous). — Terrapin Station

Organisms need to respond to the environment and have ways to learn, and we are used to being conscious while doing this. But is it necessary, or could a zombie do the same things. Or are plants conscious? We know now that plants communicate, share water with trees in trouble even across species, make choices based on information from the environment, though much slower than we do, react proactively to threats...iow they do a lot of things for survival purposes. Are they conscious? (there is a growing group of botanists who think it makes sense to speak of plant intelligence, but I guess I am not going there quite yet, but seeing if those who perhaps think plants are doing all this merely mechanically might then consider that life forms can do things that mirror intelligence without being conscious)

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful?
— Coben

Can you flesh this out a bit more? — Wallows

If you want to say philosophy is useful, it might be implied by the fact that smart people do it, but it is more clearer shown, it seems to me, by showing its use. It did seem like a response to somethign, even posters here. Maybe if Understood what you are respnding do it would be clearer why you took the tack you took.

I meant to imply that most great philosophers that are known to us have had the quality of being exceedingly intelligent. Now, I wanted to highlight the fact that this doesn't necessarily mean that only high IQ people should only engage in philosophy; but, that they will likely attain a level of satisfaction, perhaps greater, than the laymen or people with average IQ's. — Wallows

I can see that. It came off as a response to something. Either people are putting forward the opposite or a different opinion or something is making you thnk we need to know this. Could you tell me why you are saying this.

It seems like there are two main ideas above: 1) Philosophy is primarily for really smart people (there's even what I think is a Freudian slip in the double negative sentence regarding 'average IQ people being barred. Or it is it meant as a double negative, then my summation is even more correct.) 2) It's wrong of people to think philosophy is useless, for the mad, or impotent.

I think number two would be better supported by going into how it is useful and effective and for people who are not mad. Specific examples. Number one...I am not quite sure the point. Is the idea that since really smart people, some of them, have engaged in the activity, then philosophy must be useful?

double

It's doing things with words. — Banno

So far this is sounding deeply related to Reddy's Conduit Metaphor essay and its criticism of folk theories of language use.

So the answer is that our universe can have a location if it's in some sort of spatial relation to other universes. — Marchesk

Though it would be fair to say, in those scenarios, that what you are calling 'our univerise' is a portion of The Universe, the whole shebang, rerasing the issues and answers related to where everything is.

To my understanding, human beings have been proven to be somewhat naturally alturistic. Humans, at the very least, have the capacity for alturism. To me, there seems to be no reason to neglect a basic facet of the human condition whilst deciding upon how to act. — thewonder

Right. I agree with that. But the point I am also making is that an ethical egoism who is not altruistic is also not egotistical. He or she is not taking care of him/herself in the full social mammalian way. So, actually there is nothing wrong with ethical egoism as long as the ethical egoism is aware of their full nature and needs. Ethical egoism then becomes a different heuristic, rather than a different set of social behaviors.

How do I figure out how to behave with other and what attitudes to have? Via what satifies my needs and desires. This might be an easier heuristic for some. Now that they are viewing it that way, they need to look at the full range of their needs nad wants which will include intimacy, being respected and liked and loved, being able to be welcomed in group activities, not experiencing hurting others unless it is absolutely necessary and so on.

It is how they come to their conclusions, not the conclusions.

Now I assume that ethical egoists probably don't reallize their full humanity, as I would view it. But in actual fact, I think, their isn't a problem as long as they check their full selves out.

An advantage is it minimizes guilt this way.

If you have a set of rules about being good to people, for itself, perhaps, say, the way Christianity has done this - the Good will seem like a not win win thing. It will seem like you should do these things because they are good, even if you would enjoy life more if you were not a good neighbor, friend, husband whatever. And guilt is a major part of most deontological and even consequentialist systems.

The ethical egoism, should they look at the full range of their needs will more fully understand that this being good to others is not (just) for others, but is good for them. They make the choice selffishly and need not feel like they are giving something up.