“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim — 3017amen

Well said. My apologies. A trap I often fall into indeed. Be well.

You're in a Metaphysic's thread, not a uninformed political one. — 3017amen

This response is as coherent as anything else you’ve said.

What does politics have to do with ANYTHING I said?

Also, “metaphysics” is not an excuse for rambling incoherently. Perhaps try a new age thread.

My only axe to grind is with your mantra about “self organization,” which is devoid of meaning.

Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel

It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just a word used to explain another word, and this is supposed to be interesting. It’s really the incoherent ramblings of someone on the Internet. Even if it were true— who cares? Maybe everything is organization. Yes. Maybe everything is God, nature, energy, will, reason, objectivity, etc etc. Just add it to the list and then we can feel like we’ve accomplished something.

You may want to take a refresher on the basics of logic. — 3017amen

:lol: This coming from a guy who says a symbolism isn’t abstract? Give me a break.

As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. — Pop

We have no idea what “self” is either. But even if we did, to say it needs to be “organized” is meaningless to me. Is the self a collection of puzzle pieces, or parts that need to be put together to create the “self”? Who knows... and who cares.

Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing. — Pop

This is simply rambling to me.

:yawn:

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. — Pop

No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just unknown. So the "its" in your sentence refers to essentially nothing.

If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is. But that doesn't mean we have any understanding in a philosophical or scientific sense. Just like using "energy" or "work" -- we can use those words in everyday life and most of us know exactly what it is. But that's not how the physicists use the terms.

That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. — Pop

In a way, yes. Because most incoherent sentences are difficult to dispute. You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand. So saying "x is y" doesn't tell us anything whatsoever.

That wouldn't meet the definition standards of incoherence. To ask why do things happen vis-a-vis consciousness one of many answers would be the Will. — 3017amen

So consciousness, which we don't understand, happens because of the "will," which we also don't understand.

Maybe ectoplasm happens because of a zflectov? Or whatever else you like. Regardless, it gets us exactly nowhere.

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.
— Xtrix

How do you reconcile the fact that a simple a priori syllogism is not abstract yet the nature of such is abstract (formal logic equals mathematics)? — 3017amen

They're both abstract. Whatever an "a prior syllogism" is, I don't know. But if it's a syllogism, it's abstract.

You're using terms like "abstract" and "logical" in a very strange way. Either define your terms or stop wasting everyone's time.

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.
— Xtrix

I'm not exactly following that can you provide an example? — 3017amen

This is meant as a joke, right? If not -- I'm done with this conversation.

In that same sense as we know metaphysics includes all that which is behind reality, does this mystery you & I refer to also relate to the Christian (Jesus who had a consciousness) or Cosmological God? — 3017amen

If by God we mean anything we don’t understand, sure.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal?
— 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.
— Xtrix

This seems to be a little confusing, are you saying the nature of conscious existence is abstract like mathematical structures? — 3017amen

No. You said logic isn’t abstract. Logic most certainly is abstract, as is mathematics.

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it.

However, for the sake of logical discussion, what makes that question incoherent? — 3017amen

Because it’s like asking about the molecular structure of ectoplasm. Or like asking “Why do things happen?”

You seem to be referring to self awareness or self-consciousness is that correct? — 3017amen

No. I’m referring to what you and I do every day, almost every second of every day in fact. We talk to ourselves all day long. Introspect for a while and you’ll see what I mean.

Yes. He said the same thing to me. Not with Nietzsche, didn't ask him about that, but about Heidegger. He did begin to read his "Introduction to Metaphysics", but that book expresses sympathies for Nazism. So he can't understand the vocabulary and he doesn't like his Nazism, I get it. Unfortunately Being and Time was translated later on. But after his initial experience with Heidegger, he probably saw no reason to return to him. Which is a bit sad, maybe he would've thought better of B&T, but I doubt it. He does mention other people who are interesting, and not known: Ralph Cudworth, Joseph Priestley and a few others. So there's a give and take there. — Manuel

In an interview recently, I heard him say that it was a personal choice not to go on reading Heidegger, and that the issue may ultimately lie with him (Chomsky). But he also says a lot of it appears to be "empty verbiage." Again, he's not wrong! It's not entirely fair, of course, given what Heidegger is discussing (and added to that the translations involved), but so be it.

Cudworth I've heard him mention, but I've never read. Never got around to it. I know that there's an interview with Bryan McGee on YouTube where McGee compares his ideas on UG to Immanuel Kant, which Chomsky doesn't deny. I think that's accurate.

I still read him and talk to him frequently — Manuel

No kidding? Did you study under him as well or is it exclusively e-mail (which of course he famously and amazingly responds to quickly, even at 92 years old)?

I'm moving away from calling myself a "Chomskyian", it's not a good idea generally to associate as belonging to the thought of one person, a bit like can happen with Marxism. But I see where you are coming from. — Manuel

I agree wholeheartedly. The Marx comparison is a good one. Interestingly enough, Chomsky would be the first to agree as well -- another clear trait of great teachers. They encourage you to think for yourself, not just blindly follow.

Though you have an advantage over me, I find it really hard to disagree with him. I can't speak about his technical linguistics, but overall, it's very hard to disagree with him. Maybe on like 2 small points, but I'm sure it would be semantic issues at bottom. — Manuel

My main disagreements really come from the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger, whom Chomsky hasn't really dealt with (unfortunately). When I asked him if he'd ever read Nietzsche, he said he hadn't read carefully enough to really have an opinion about him. As for Heidegger, he finds him incomprehensible from what he's read (which, given the association with Nazism, is very little). So there's little to discuss with him there.

As far as his linguistics -- yeah, it's hard to disagree because he points out things that should be obvious to everyone. It's always hard to disagree with great minds. I have a hard time "disagreeing" with the Buddha, too. Doesn't mean I'll become a Buddhist, but he's very rarely wrong about anything.

Are you basically saying consciousness is a mystery? — 3017amen

Yes, in a scientific sense. In a practical sense, it's the most obvious thing in the world.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd
— Xtrix

Really? What's abstract about all men are mortal? — 3017amen

This is baffling. What's abstract about syllogisms? It's like saying "What's abstract about 2+2=4?"

Logic is usually called a "formal science." It's very similar to mathematics. Both are grounded in abstractions. I don't see how this is difficult.

Ahhh, now I think you're getting it:

1. What are feelings?
2. What are my experiences made of?
3. Where do my needs reside? For example, is that some sort of metaphysical Will (Schopenauer)? Are the manifestations of the Will itself abstract?
4. Are junk thoughts a euphemism for Maslonian stream of consciousness, and if so, does the law of non-contradiction/excluded middle logically apply to the conscious and subconscious mind?

Maybe just pick one, if you care to... I'm trying to understand your assertion that consciousness is not abstract. — 3017amen

I'm saying the sentence "consciousness is abstract" is completely meaningless. Abstraction is a cognitive process -- conceptualizations, symbols, words, etc., are all involved in abstraction. Consciousness -- in the ordinary use of the word -- is simply human life, human experience. Abstraction -- like thought, like language, like vision, like hunger -- is one feature of human experience.

So to make a wild statement like that is equivalent, in my view, of saying "experience is hunger," or "consciousness is vision." It's just confusion through and through.

Question 2 is completely incoherent, as I've pointed out before. It assumes there's a materialist explanation for something we have no concrete understanding of, apart from our own subjectivity.

Can't say anything general about "feelings." Needs and feelings arise in my body -- again to talk in ordinary language. If we want to call craving/aversion or approach/avoidance "will" or "want", we can. What Schopenhauer says about it is interesting, but he's trying to distinguish will from representation (hence the title of his main work), claiming that will is (essentially) the thing-in-itself. Very different topic.

By junk thought I mean the same as phatic communication, so maybe "phatic thought" is better. It's what goes on all day long when you're talking to yourself.

Sounds very Chomskyian to me. — Manuel

No surprise. He was (and is) my teacher. Still very much in what most call the "analytic" tradition, and so I'm not in complete agreement with everything he says, but he's one of the few people really worth listening to.

Words are logical, not abstract. Consciousness is abstract, just like mathematics. Sure, mathematics is logical in the a priori sense, but it accurately explains how things work. — 3017amen

I think most of what you said is rife with confusion, to be honest.

The difference between what’s abstract and what’s logical isn’t that clear.

Russell, as you know, tried to show that mathematics could be reduced to logic, in fact.

To say formal logic isn’t abstract is absurd — anyone who’s taken even an introductory course in logic can see the similarities between it and mathematics. All use symbols, all abstract. The basis for them is in abstract/symbolic thought, which is one form of thinking (albeit the only kind philosophers have cared about for most of the modern period), which is itself one part of human being.

To say “consciousness is abstract” to me is utter nonsense. I think you’re just confusing yourself with semantics—a common occurrence.

We don’t know anything about consciousness. Let’s start there. We’re also not interested in just-so stories or armchair definitions. If we want to formulate a technical notion of consciousness, it should be done in the context of an explanatory theory—biological or otherwise. But none of this has been done so far.

If we want to talk in ordinary speech, then yes, I’m conscious. So are you. We’re alive, we see and hear things, we have experiences, feelings, emotions, needs, etc., and much of our lives consist of junk thought, phatic communication, and unconscious activity. What’s left to say about it?

And so we don't actually see the math that is unseen, behind the design of the structure. Yet its essence is abstract and can be replicated/built/created through math and material. — 3017amen

This is like saying we don't see the "words" behind things. Mathematics is something humans do. There's little reason to think the structure of everything is essentially mathematical. That's a projection.

There's all kinds of questions here -- what mathematics is, what numbers are, whether it's subjective or objective, etc. The experience of light is different than the equation for light. The experience of "tree" is different from vocalizing the English word. The world is interpreted by human beings, whose perspectives are varied.

There's also the point that most of our activities, as human beings, are completely unconscious -- automatic, habitual, instinctive. Something like the use of a broom is hardly explainable through mathematics or even scientific reasoning, for example. Thinking of the world theoretically, scientifically, mathematically, and even philosophically, is one kind of thinking. It's one mode of human being. To presume the world is reducible to whatever shows up within this mode is unfounded.

It's like the common idea that language is for communication. If you look at characteristic use to determine the function of something, whether language or human activity generally, you find something very different than what the prevailing dogma states.

If matter itself (consciousness) has an atomic structure such as neurons, protons, and electrons, etc. and at some point their description can only be accurately articulated through mathematical structures, that would suggest that consciousness is an abstract entity. — 3017amen

The very idea of “matter” is itself undefined, and itself comes out of the human being. So to say consciousness is matter is like saying x is y. We have no idea about either.

So as a starter can we safely say that consciousness much like matter, comes back to mathematical structures which in turn suggests some abstract platonic realm of existence? — 3017amen

Language and mathematics are aspects of the human being, of the human mind—related to thought. If we call all of this consciousness, that’s fine—at least it’s a tentative definition. In that case, you’re saying what Descartes said—conscious awareness as “thought” can’t be doubted.

I think there’s more to say about this, of course. Like why consciousness should be a priority, and not the “sum” in the Cartesian formulation, “being” itself. Etc.

All kind of fun.

Yet it has to be pointed out, again and again, that before any discussion gets off the ground it's helpful to know a few things -- like, "what is metaphysics"? and what is "consciousness"? This thread presumably takes these things for granted. If we don't give even a tentative definition, it's hard to know what we're really talking about.

So, for example, when the question is asked "What are experiences made of?" it's a difficult to even imagine a serious answer, since we have no technical notion of "experience" -- and, in fact, we lack even a tentative definition. Are we simply saying "what is being alive made of?" or "What is being made of?" Seems odd.

FYI I'm not claiming that I'm right; all I'm attempting to do is offer a different perspective, one in which what you assert is not wrong of course but is deficient in the sense that it ignores/overlooks an entire side of the story. — TheMadFool

Anything is arguable. There's “another side” to anything as well, sky’s the limit.

It’s not that it’s unphilosophical — it’s right in the middle of what’s usually interpreted as philosophy. But we have no clue what philosophy “really is,” and if this kind of thinking is what leaps to mind, we’re in sorry shape indeed.

My post was not geared toward extreme (and endless) hypotheticals. Take it as an appeal to common sense, if you must. For the purposes of a better life — for an individual and for humans writ large— I’m talking about real action in the real world.

Yes, certain tentative assumptions need to be made. But they’re so trivial that you questioning them is like questioning gravity. Maybe some people find that fun or profound— I don’t. So forgive ME if that’s unphilosophical — but I hope it is.

Recall from OP: “ Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.”

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions. — jgill

Everything's an existential interpretation.

Besides, what's the alternative? That we are what we think and believe? Yeah, maybe -- but maybe that's true for cats and frogs, too. Who cares.

This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn’t realize it when I posted, but you’re exactly right: it is very much Greek. All the better!

This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real. — BitconnectCarlos

Me too. I hadn’t posted much in weeks prior to this. So little is accomplished. Ditto with other social media. And reading in general, for that matter.

Taking more time to simply walk and think for oneself without the aid of any inputs is a blessing, if one is so inclined to make it a priority.

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah— and so what comes of all this philosophizing if one ends up stressed, bitter, egotistical, angry, and obsessive? We’re at a point in history where it just won’t do to put your head down and concentrate on minutia of one kind of another. We need all hands on deck— ESPECIALLY those more intellectually inclined.

doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life
— Xtrix

To each his own I suppose — TheMadFool

What a strange position. Again, if this is the kind of conclusion that “philosophy” results in, then it’s no wonder it’s become a joke.

I don’t see how that statement should be controversial. You’re stuck in some abstracted world of hypotheticals.

My point is that at least such people doesn't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all. — TheMadFool

Yes, theoretically. But that’s a truism. In the real world, anything we do can unwittingly become awful. If we fight against a repressive government, and overthrow it, who’s to say it wouldn’t provoke the next reign of terror?

Perhaps not killing Hitler is better than killing him. Perhaps doing nothing about climate change is better than doing something. Etc.

I don’t see the real world relevance here. I stand by my statement: doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life.

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone
— Blaise Pascal

Just thought you might want to know. — TheMadFool

Right. Notice he didn't say that's all he does.

I’ll leave you to ponder it for yourself. Your guess is probably as good as mine.

Ok, so intrinsic goods.. got it. What I'm trying to get at is that some of these things are ones that your OP seem to deem as useless.. Poetry, playing music to yourself, joy doing something non-social, etc. — schopenhauer1

I can see now how what I wrote could be seen in this way -- not unreasonably. So to be clear: no, that's not what I believe, of course. Then life would indeed not be worth saving. Now the argument that philosophy is an intrinsic good, quite apart from its effects or "usefulness," is one I sympathize with and recognize to have plenty of truth, but I feel it's incomplete and out of balance if its effects on one's life (and humanity's collective existence) isn't taken into account, because unlike music and dancing I argue it's not done only for its own sake. (It's arguable that music and dancing are done for their own sake either -- as Handle said: "“I am sorry... if I have only succeeded in entertaining them; I wished to make them better.”)

Again, my view of philosophy as an activity similar to that of spiritual or religious activity is idiosyncratic. But given that belief, I don't treat or judge philosophy as only a matter of enjoyment or as an activity to be done "in itself," although it in many ways often is that.

But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1

You're asking me my opinion about that? Obviously I have a thousand ideas of what I'd like to see survive -- but that's personal and irrelevant. Why? Because none of those things will matter if we're dead.

It's an odd question, really. But yes, in general I think beauty and love and music and discovery and spirituality and joy, etc., are all worth living for and worthy of survival. If that seems incredibly obvious and unoriginal, it's because it is: we all share these sentiments. Unless we're pathological.

I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. As any sane person does.

Having academic discussions about theory is fine, but I’m not interested in that in this case.

This is the same with the useful / useless division. — god must be atheist

Again hung up on definitions. That’s philosophy for you. I’m not interested in that in this case. To talk about things in pure abstraction gets us nowhere. To use the real world, with real examples, makes it clearer. I’d like to end child abuse. I’d like to help solve that problem. I’d like to help contribute to solving climate change. Etc.

We have to act in the real world largely on belief and tentative assumptions which may prove to be wrong in the future. We’re finite. But having said that, to let this fact prevent you from acting is a grave mistake.

So I’m going on trying to solve problems, cheap skepticism aside: “Well what if climate change leads to MORE happiness? What if the human species dying off is good? What if child abuse is really good? Can you prove it isn’t? What IS abuse, after all?” ... and so on...

In fact, cloistered monks did contribute something — Bitter Crank

Yes. What I said was in reference to a hypothetical cloistered man who "need not contribute anything" to the world. In the real world, monks have contributed a great deal indeed.

Yes, that's not at all what I'm saying.

If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.
— Xtrix

I guess you answered your own question, then, when you asked: "shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?" — James Riley

No, because that question relates to hobbyism. What it's saying is the following: if your life is out of order -- if you're miserable and immature, for example, and see no real changes in your life despite lots of philosophy reading -- then isn't it worth considering putting down the books for a while and straightening it out?

I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. — James Riley

No, I think you are, to be honest. And so far I'm not seeing any. All I see is misreadings. Many of my points are trivialities that you seem determined not to understand.

Your repeated claims of "going out into the field" are good examples. Try harder to understand what the writer is saying, and I'll try to be more clear.

I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. — Judaka

Again I agree to disagree. The entire branch of ethics deals with this very issue, as you know. If you relegate philosophy to the purely theoretical, apart from practice or application, fine. It certainly can be that, but that's a matter of definition and a choice. I look at it differently.

You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man. — James Riley

Yes, it is subjective. It's based on a belief that I want humanity to go on. I've been clear about that. Now let's move on to the real world.

I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world. All hypotheticals aside.

From my POV, the quality of a life is determined by what we do, with whom, to whom, by whom, for whom. Any individual on earth has opportunities to make positive contributions in their interactions with other people. Most people act in small positive ways most of the time. When large numbers of people act in negative ways, and larger negative ways at that, life for other people begins to deteriorate. Lots of examples of both the positive and the negative. — Bitter Crank

I share your point of view. Apart from all those other extremes you mentioned, however, I reserve a very special place for philosophy. I hold it to a higher standard, and so I'd like to at least believe that those who engage with it are above average in most of their decisions (and actions).

If it's not having much effect, I (like Jesus) worry about the state of what we're calling "philosophy." If there's no quantifiable change in one's life from one's confrontation with thinking and questioning, then there's a good chance it's become reduced to what's been called purely "reactions activity" -- a kind of hobbyism.

This doesn't necessarily mean philosophy needs to stop being enjoyable, or that we all have to be perfect beings, but if it's merely a hobby, I worry.

. . . and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.
— Xtrix

You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool: — jgill

Maybe you're right. I'll rephrase: it's not what *I* would aspire to be like.

In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.
— Xtrix

Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. — god must be atheist

I'm not sure what you mean by support agent. If it's just another enjoyable hobby, more on par with playing music, and nothing else whatsoever, fine. It appears that's the case for many on here. But see my remarks above -- if that's the case, in my view one isn't truly doing philosophy at all. One is treating philosophy as history or as literature or as poetry. But again, this is my own idiosyncracy.

As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. — Judaka

I don't necessarily agree with that, although I think I see where you're going. Look at Stoicism, or even Buddhism. If we forget for a second whether these are "philosophies" or "religions," we notice they're dealing with what philosophers have traditionally wrestled with; self-control, discipline, mastery of the mind, control of emotions, etc., play a very big role indeed.

Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control. — Judaka

True. Many deal with these things. I just tend to hold philosophy (or philosophers) to higher standard, as one would for, say, one who claims to be a "holy man," etc. What the "many" struggle with shouldn't really be a concern, if one is a philosopher. One overcomes what the "herd" (channeling my Nietzsche) struggles with, values, pays attention to, etc.

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well.
— Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? — Xtrix

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree. [...]

Easy. — Xtrix

I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack." — James Riley

I don't see how this quotation is relevant. What you quoted was in response to this:

He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either. — James Riley

I really don't see where this is going anymore, and I don't care too. Perhaps just a misunderstanding. But I'll reiterate: I start with a belief: I'd like to see humanity survive. Therefore, I'd like to contribute to solving the problems humanity faces (nuclear weapons, climate change, unregulated greed, political corruption, etc). If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.

Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.

Easy.

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):
— Xtrix

Out doing. — James Riley

When I say to look at what people do, I'm not saying that philosophy isn't doing anything. It is. Reading is doing something. I'm meaning it in the context of an entire life, however. So watching sports if fun, and not a problem in itself, for example, but if that's ALL you do, perhaps that's an issue. Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well.

As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do. — god must be atheist

Thinking is an activity, and so a kind of "doing." But reagrdless, I like to separate them too -- so in reference to your question: first we have to ask "What's worthwhile?" -- and that's a personal question, of course, and worth talking about with others. But if you're right about no one really "doing" much in this sense, then we're very impoverished indeed. In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.

I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. — James Riley

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. — Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself?

If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. — James Riley

Again, what field? It's the most basic belief there is, really, other than maybe "something exists." If debating that is what you consider philosophy, then yes I'm not that interested in philosophy I guess.

what good are you?
— Xtrix

I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us." — James Riley

True, it does depend on answers to that question. That's partly what I'm doing: applying that question to our actions, including the activity of "deep thinking" which we call philosophy.

We could argue anything we'd like -- perhaps other species would be better off if we're no longer around, etc. But I don't take those games too seriously. I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief.

That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. — James Riley

Yeah, but now you're off in outer space. Maybe it's the Moon People meditating on Eudoxus -- or anything else you can imagine. I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. Let's try to keep it to the real world.

I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us. — James Riley

Fine. But I'm talking about real people in the real world, which I presume you belong to. Yes, that's what I believe. I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid.

When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?
— Xtrix

He need not have a contribution. — James Riley

Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack.

If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you?

It's a terrible position, in my view.

Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making? — James Riley

There are plenty of these types who have existed -- mainly bums on the street. Some huddled away in a monastery, some who never interacted with other people at all, etc. Maybe some are/were great people, who knows? And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. If they are like Emily Dickinson, then fine -- but remember, had she not at least written anything down, no one would have any memory of her whatsoever, and she would have had almost no impact on the world at all.

Likewise, I can walk around all my life believing in my own specialness, and how great a philosopher I am, and it's one of those things that can't really be challenged in the way that other activities can -- like medicine or masonry. Anyone can make the claim that he or she is a philosopher, or a special person, etc., and there's often no real way to test it. But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't.

Charlatans and egomaniacs make grandiose claims all the time -- and there's really no way to disprove their claims, which is by design. I see this a lot with modern "artists," as well. So there's an aversion to any kind of empirical "proof" or quantitative measuring, because that may turn out to show how mediocre they really are.

I see a lot of this in philosophy too. A lot of it is just pure garbage. But it affords some people (in the past, even myself) with the comfort that they're somehow superior, yet without ever having to do any real, hard work -- without ever having to do anything at all, really.

That's an occupational hazard in what's labeled "philosophy," I think. One worth looking out for.

That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you. — NOS4A2

Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration.

Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions engaging with you -- which I try to avoid -- as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence. Which, given the stakes, I'd still argue are appropriate.

The way we live our lives--what we do, the actions we take--IS our lives. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. How philosophy fits in with that is relevant, I think.

I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ. — Judaka

I understand. To be even more clear, I'm asking how philosophy fits in when we look at what we are actually doing in life and ask ourselves "Am I living the life I want to live?" It always depends on the person.

What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality? — Judaka

I can't give any formula, of course. But if the tendency is simply to resign oneself in an ivory tower, spending endless hours (however enjoyable) reading texts and pondering realism, and generally not acting in a way that's admirable (to me), while I may agree with this person's writings (or art, or mathematics), I loathe what he is and would aspire to be the opposite.

Again, I'm putting philosophy in the same dimension as religion, really. That doesn't make them the same, but they're asking similar questions.

Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight. — Judaka

Yeah, I'm often not very nice. I can't help it sometimes. But I never really gain anything from acting in such a way. People, conversation, and collaboration should be priorities to me -- I know this. Yet how I act often works against these values, for reasons you mentioned: emotional reactions to others' being "wrong" or having drastically different taste. That's a common problem -- I see it all over. Shouldn't philosophers be somewhat "beyond" that? Would Aristotle take my attitude? I doubt it.

And so it goes for others, as well.

shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?
— Xtrix

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human. — James Riley

I'm not sure what you mean by "what you are". If we are what we do, and what we do is read and write and philosophize, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. My point is that philosophy is different from other endeavors, more on par with spiritual activities, and so if one is truly thinking philosophically and doing so often, and yet one is an impatient, cruel, impolite, miserly person -- these "fruits" signify something fairly off with the person as a whole. Why should I take anything seriously about life, being, causality, or ethics from such a person? Whether they're correct or not, they're basically hypocrites. "Love of wisdom" -- what is wisdom if not also phronēsis?

I think it's a pretty philosophical thing to feel like philosophy is insufficient. If it's, as Judaka says, recreational - it can be an art, like conceptual sculpture, art criticism, a combat sport... Religious figures, spiritualists aren't feeling like their studies and rituals are worthless. Us? We read, it can change how we see things. Where else are you going to learn what you learn by practicing philosophy? — fdrake

Where else? By thinking and questioning, and by dialogue with others. It's not only reading, after all.

Otherwise I don't think I fully understood your argument here.

I do agree it's philosophical to ask about philosophy. No doubt about it.

Now let's turn that around: only do those things that have an effect on your life, using whatever metric you think fulfills that goal. I assume this means, focus on family, work, exercise and the like, but put aside the world and "philosophy."

Would you be happier or more satisfied? — Manuel

I doubt it. That's the classic "unexamined life." I don't think shutting out the world and never questioning things often leads to a happier life, no.

But again, I'm not against philosophy. I'm actually obsessed with it, and have been for a long time. There does come a time, however, where one should ask about what one is doing in the world and whether it's useful in any real sense, practically or otherwise. If it becomes just another habit, or hobby, then it's another amusement, as sports or news-reading is.

Better examples are Christians who don't live by Christian principles and political hobbyists who don't get involved in the community. Very different, of course, but more in line with those examples.

This is all very personal to me, obviously. I'm not attempting any sweeping claim about what proper philosophy is or even what a proper life is, in detail. This is all evidence and citation-free stuff, so take it how you will.

We are here on some cosmic fluke. — Manuel

That's one story, yeah. Maybe it's true, maybe not. I reject supernatural explanations, but I also reject more and more this scientism that's fashionable these days. It's stated with utmost certainty that it's basically become dogma. Who's to say what's a "fluke"? But I digress....



I fail to see the relevance of your story, but thanks for posting nonetheless.

I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself. — James Riley

Interesting. This deserves another thread altogether, really. I will say: whether it's a waste of time or not is determined, in my view, by how you use the information you're spending so much time consuming. If it has some effect, even a small one -- in conversations, for example -- then I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. Better to be informed than not. But if you're truly engaged in your community or state, beyond merely voting, then it becomes very relevant indeed. If it's simply another hobby (read: addiction), then the use in that case is just satisfying some craving and little more. Then it becomes especially important to ask: "Does this fit into a life I want to be living?"

So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. — James Riley

True, but my argument is that the cloistered man doesn't have much "wisdom" either. The very fact that one is cloistered, removed from society, is in itself a form of foolishness at times. What's the sense of it all if the world is burning around you? When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?

Last elections I didn't vote. — TaySan

Here's a good example of how philosophy doesn't always translate to the real world very well. In my opinion.

If philosophers, who are supposed to be thinking, reflective, questioning people, don't have the judgment to make the right decision in this case (the action of voting), then I for one have very little interest in reading or listening to almost anything else this person says. Especially when there are others out there who *do* get it right and are also interested in philosophy.

No offense meant to you -- not voting has its justifications at times, and I think the view of "both parties" being bad has a plenty of truth in it. I used to feel the same way, in fact. I see now how wrong I was, though.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. An important difference between carpenters and self-anointed philosophers, though, is that this site can provide the illusion of doing the work (builds the house of being.) — j0e

:lol: Touche.

Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits. — Judaka

Sure -- again, as I said before, I'm not saying it's an either/or: either grim duty that's "good for you" or fun activity with no other value. I do think, however, that the emphasis being put on "enjoyment" turns philosophy into merely another hobby among many.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. Philosophy isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not simply for fun -- it's actually deadly serious, unlike any other human endeavor, in fact -- including its offspring, science. If it's truly happening, it's not really a "hobby" at all. At least that's what I'd argue.

For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might. — Judaka

Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to. Most people probably would answer in such ways, and that's fine.

I think the question "What do I want to do with my life" itself may not be considered very "philosophical," but it certainly shades over into philosophy. I see the question as resting on philosophical grounds, as most questions do (perhaps all questions, ultimately) -- namely the one you mentioned: "What is a good life" and then, further, "What is good?"

Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. — Judaka

Exactly. Put another way, it's thinking about thinking. Or questioning about questioning? Either way, I'm seeing that it's perhaps a bit Nietzschean, in the sense of asking about the VALUE of "truth." I suppose in a way I'm asking something similar.

But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? We who engage with thinkers of the past and ask perennial human questions about the world? I can speak for myself, as I have before -- and I have only indirect evidence from this forum. Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight.

That should be worrying to us, I think.

I'm a critic of his, if anything — Aryamoy Mitra

Good for you!