I read what you said to be that you made a half assed effort, gathered minimal gains, then quit fully trying, and then declared your approach as valid as any other. — Hanover

I think he's right that his method is the true path to excellence, — Hanover

I'm not trying for excellence. I'm not sure what it even means in this context. Does it mean being able to quote a lot of philosophers? That's a set up question. Of course it doesn't. No one here is suggesting that. For me it means having a clear and practical understanding of how the world works that I can use in my everyday life. For me, philosophy is a tool box. If the tools aren't a little beat up and oily, you aren't using them enough.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior. — Hanover

That's the point of this discussion. Am I missing something? Is my philosophy half-assed? Take a look at the things I've written here on the forum, not just this thread, and judge for yourself.

I had studied philosophy as an auxiliary subject in college and read quite a few philosophy books before I of thought of myself as someone who is "philosophizing". Until today I have read a couple of hundred philosophy books, I love philosophy (that's why I am here! :smile:) and all that, but I cannot call myself a "philosopher". I call myself a "philosophical thinker", as I think the majority of people in here are also. — Alkis Piskas

I have no argument with anything you've said. Whenever I call myself a philosopher, it is with a smirk at my presumption. I think the most accurate descriptor for me is "intellectual." That doesn't mean I'm smart, it means that my primary way of dealing the world is through my intellect, by thinking about it, talking about it. I am also a recreational thinker. It's fun. It's a game. It's what I'm best at.

I don't know if you have read about them and you don't need them anymore of if you have never read anything about them. — Alkis Piskas

I'm from science. I'm an engineer. That's where my interest in philosophy comes from. More importantly, that's where my measuring stick for judging philosophy comes from. My philosophy must be consistent with my understanding of science. Even more, the thing that draws me to a particular philosophy most is it's relevance to my understanding of science and the world. I value philosophy for very practical reasons. I have used it just about every day, less now that I am no longer working as an engineer. Philosophy is a tool.

I took a couple of philosophy courses in college. I've read a little bit of everything but not a lot. There are a few philosophers I like a lot - Emerson, pragmatists, Lao Tzu. With the rest, when I hold them up against the measuring stick of science, I don't see the value.

I believe that reading philosophy books and about a lot of philosophers is vital to be able to establish a strong reality and have an interesting if not powerful philosophical views in a lot of subjects. — Alkis Piskas

This is exactly the issue I have been trying to address for myself in this discussion.

What you describe is not what most define as philosophy. It's sort of this Zen state of understanding and harmony you're trying to achieve as far as I can see. For example, how do you meaningfully respond to metaphysical, epistemological, or moral questions by just sitting back and absorbing? Do we just wait together all in silence in this Kafkaesque ideal, or do you listen to others and form your own thoughts internally without contribution? — Hanover

As you can certainly see, I am very verbal - wrapped up in words. I don't have any consistent meditative or spiritual practice. Actually, I do. This forum is my meditative and spiritual practice. Practitioners of yoga, Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, tai chi use those practices to become more aware of the world and themselves. I use my intellect and my voice. But at bottom, that's it - awareness. Awareness is what's important. I don't even think that Plato, Kant, Kneechee, Rorty... would necessarily disagree with me. They're all dead, so I can say what I want about them. That's the essence of my metaphysics - awareness.

I also don't see these tacks as mutually exclusive. Why can't I spend time in silent contemplation, but also read philosophy? Is reading others' epiphanies corrupting of my own? Wouldn't learning from others advance my own progess?

To the extent you argue that some answers lie within and should be sought by contemplation, I do agree, but to the extent you argue that formal study is unnecessary or even inferior, I don't. — Hanover

I agree completely. I don't think I said anywhere that a more traditional western philosophical approach is not valid on it's own or in combination. That it doesn't work. I only said it hasn't worked for me.

I am absolutely close minded. — StreetlightX

Yes.

In any case it's telling that the defense of remaining stupid and ignorant is coupled with some woo woo religion and mysticism. Buddha included. All of this goes hand and hand. What better way to justify being dumb that indulging in some exoticizsed 'Eastern' Wisdom. — StreetlightX

@jamalrob accused me of not being open minded. I wonder what he thinks about you. I've read Kant and Wittgenstein. They're fine I guess. To me, they're caught in the trap of many philosophers. They've mistaken words for reality.

What better way to justify believing what you're told to believe and not making up your own mind.

Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere (Which I think is likely) and perhaps even won't be of use to me (unlike science that essentially seems to accept empirical framework of acquiring knowledge and even then there is a lot to learn about philosophy behind it) or essentially proceed to leave in ignorance and of that little I know and avoiding going too deep into things. Not sure what to chose. — DenverMan

I come to philosophy through science via epistemology. I'm an engineer. I want to know things. Questions about how I know what I know draw me in. I am drawn to philosophy by the things that are important to me.

Do you feel any draw from philosophy? If not, maybe you don't need to go any farther. One more thought, though. I've spent more than five years on philosophy forums. I think and write much more clearly than I did when I started. Maybe you can get that from science or some other intellectual discipline.

Also, I know lots of really smart, successful, satisfied, and articulate people who are not particularly intellectual. They are not recreational thinkers like I, and many people on the forum, are.

Oh, sorry, man, for putting words into your mouth that you never intended to say. I'm trying to give "Poetic" some constructive criticism, so that he can improve his output. — Michael Zwingli

No, don't apologize. I just wanted to be clear about what concerns me. When I have specific things I want to see in a thread I start, I try to be as explicit as possible about what should be and what should not be included. As I noted, I was not explicit enough in this case.

You don't have to read philosophy to be a philosopher, but you had damned well be deeply and thoroughly immersed in things which would otherwise require enourmous investments of time, problem solving, and engagement more generally...

The idea that one can sit in a room and have ideas sprout fourth like Athena from Zeus is naive at best, actively debilitating at worst. Genuine thought takes place under the pressure of constraints imposed by encounters that force problems upon us. Those encounters may not be philosophy, but they need to be encounters nontheless which are richly stifiling. — StreetlightX

Although I'm interested in lots of issues discussed here on the forum, epistemology is what matters to me most. What do I know? How do I know it? How certain am I about what I know? What are the consequences if I am wrong? As I noted in my OP, I've paid my epistemological dues during 30 years of professional work gathering, sorting, synthesizing, summarizing, trying to understand, and explaining data, facts, knowledge then using them to address real life problems in very practical terms.

In any case it strikes me as arrogant in the extreme to imagine that one can - or worse, should - disregard the accumulated knowledge and research that humanity has painstakingly cobbled together - again, not necessarily just in philosophy - in order to blank-slate oneself to ideas. If not philosophy then sociology, economics, anthropology, woodworking, social work, history, science, child-rearing, gardening, community-organizing, art making, or better yet, all of these together and more. Apes together strong. Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

I don't disagree with this, but to a certain extent it misses the point. The point, as I understand Kafka, is that what matters is awareness. Awareness of the world. Awareness of ourselves. All the rest of philosophy is just there to help us do that. If you don't understand that, the rest is just building stacks of words and saying "what a good boy am I."

The answer to that question is in your OP. :brow: — Wheatley

If the answer is "yes" does that make it one of those liar's paradox propositions? "This sentence is false."

The proposition that metaphysical statements are not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation, is not true or false, only more or less useful in a particular situation.

Any specifics concerning "But it is not good poetry?" to make your generalization helpful?

Here is the poem: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599584 — PoeticUniverse

This is a reasonable request. I'll look at what the others have written and see if I have anything to add.

I'll make this point again - it's not the poetry that bothers me. I never would have commented if it had been a couple, or even a few, poems. It was the fact that they had taken over the thread to the detriment of other poetry.

For the record - @Michael Zwingli said:

Your poetry displays/employs a definite "stream of consciousness" style, whether deliberate or accidental. The problem with that, as I have noted above, is that lyric poetry, which truth be told is the type of poetry that Mr. Clark seems to enjoy and so is the proper, tacitly implied focus of this thread, in order to be "good", is best written with great deliberation and attention to meter and, if applicable, to rhyme. — Michael Zwingli

I don't agree with this. There was no "tacit implication" of a particular kind of poetry, only that it be philosophical. The poetry you posted met the stated requirements for inclusion. It was the overwhelming volume that I object to.

I am being sympathetic to your views as you can see from my various posts. — Manuel

I don't see your responses as unsympathetic to my positions.

I've take the view that I take with so many other issues: I can't know it all, and while I will not surrender my right to critically and analytically consider something, I will often suspend it. As stated in another thread, doubt does not preclude action. I'll defer to those I deem experts, in my own arbitrary and subjective vetting process. I've no interest in knowing everything. — James Riley

I agree with this.

The main issue, to my mind, is whether your definition of metaphysics is actually correct or if your using the word in an idiosyncratic manner. — Manuel

I don't think my use is idiosyncratic, but it also is not universal. A lot of people disagree with how I think of it. If nothing else, I think that leads to most of the disagreements and misunderstandings found here on the forum and in philosophy in general. Free will vs. determinism will never be resolved as a philosophical issue. Unless you are telling me that half the people in that argument are wrong, you have to acknowledge that there is value, usefulness, on both sides of the argument.

All empirical philosophy in general and cognitive metaphysics in particular, is contained right there. If the world can do no other than present itself, the fundamental paid attention needs be only to oneself, by oneself, in the receipt of such presentation. The benighted psyches diminish, making intellectual sand kingdoms predicated on them less likely, by the quality of attention paid, and the world necessarily becomes unmasked in direct correspondence to it. — Mww

I don't think Kafka's thought is a testimonial to empirical philosophy, but I do think it has everything to do with the quality of attention paid.

At the very least, even if only in humans, the agency that pays attention to itself can be supposed to contain the capacity to investigate itself, — Mww

Yes. As I said, I think attention, awareness, is at the heart of philosophy.

I see two distinctions. The Scholar (those who study philosophers/philosophies with little to no bias in a dry and methodical manner) and the Thinker (those who just observe and play with their thoughts in regards to what is observed). — I like sushi

Maybe this is my inner pragmatist speaking, but I see philosophy from a practical perspective. It helps me think and express myself better in a way that has an impact on the way I live my intellectual and everyday life.

In regards to philosophy in general I genuinely think this is one area of human knowledge where we’d benefit if the field was more polarised between the two with fewer vying to claim hold of both ends. — I like sushi

I don't understand.

But who is saying that a person just need to be alone in a room with zero stimulus or just go to the mountain hiking with no thoughts in mind? — Manuel

Of course this is Kafka's original thought not T Clark's. I wonder why Kafka thought that. Was he recommending avoidance of literature? Seeing is one thing; if you want to be good at communicating what you see, then obviously some familiarity with the ways other's have expressed their seeing will no doubt be helpful — Janus

As I noted in my previous response to @Manuel, I take Kafka seriously and, mostly, literally. I'm sure Kafka was well-read in philosophy, but in the end, is our own experience we have to understand and be aware of.

This idea of cloistered genius demiurging their way to brilliance is just neoliberal entrepreneurial values transposed into philosophy like a virus. Self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue. — StreetlightX

That's within a context of a certain experience and understanding. Everybody has these, it's kind of impossible no to, as long as you are alive. — Manuel

For what it's worth, I take Kafka seriously and, to a certain extent, literally. I'm sure he was very well read in philosophy and many other things, but at the bottom, it is our own experience we have to understand. Awareness is the goal, not erudition.

And yes, SLX, my OP tends toward self-aggrandizing laziness arrogated to the status of virtue, although a lot of that, but not all, is intended as irony. As for "neoliberal entrepreneurial values,"... whatever my illusions or delusions, I don't think they have anything to do with neoliberalism.

Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches.
— T Clark

I mean, the irony in this statement is dazzling. — StreetlightX

Yes, well... the statement was intended to be ironic. I will add a quote here. I know it's right because it's from a philosopher:

To pursue learning one increases daily.
To pursue Tao one decreases daily.

That's from Verse 48 of the Tao Te Ching. Ellen Marie Chen's translation. There are lots of similar thoughts in Lao Tzu's work.

You're a pragmatist. We get that. Not everyone has to agree with your pragmatism. — Wheatley

Of course not, but that opens up an interesting question. Is my understanding that metaphysical questions are not matters of fact but of usefulness a metaphysical question? I guess it is....

The more interesting part is learning to think differently. Sometimes that's trying out different terms and categories, a specific change like that; sometimes it's seeing an entirely different sort of approach to an issue or a problem. — Srap Tasmaner

This is a really well thought through and helpful post. I agree that philosophy is a good way of tightening up my thinking and learning to express my ideas better. Not arguing to argue, but bouncing ideas off
other people's. Seeing how they see things. That's the thing I like best about the forum. And I have been lead by philosophers to see another way of seeing things - Lao Tzu in particular.

Again, thanks.

I suspect someone will come on here and blast away at the lack of discipline and seriousness this approach displays. And how important subjects require hard work to understand properly. But I sympathise and have not privileged academic philosophy in my life. Nevertheless, I have often been curious to get a better sense of what I may have missed. Why I'm here. — Tom Storm

Your thoughts are similar to mine, although I have been hoping someone will come and blast away. Those are the people I'm hoping to hear from. I guess I'd like to be challenged.

no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc. — Tom Storm

As I noted in my OP, my philosophy, if I may call it that, is intimately connected with decisions I have made in my daily life. It's true that, for me, practice comes first and philosophy later, but writing it down makes it clearer to me and helps me pay attention when I need to use these ideas again.

What do you think the philosophers that made contributions to science? Pierre-Simon Laplace, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Isaac Newton (just to name a few). Back then great thinkers that were empirical minded were called "natural philosophers". Currently (unfortunately?) "natural philosophy" has been largely replaced by "science". — Wheatley

I make a separation between the kind of philosophy I am talking about and science. I understand what you're saying, but the distinction makes sense to me. I do read quite a bit of science. I can see how it underpins, or at least should underpin, my ideas.

Tell us, though, when ignorance was ever an indication that a job would be well done. — tim wood

Well, I'm not proud of my ignorance in this regard.... Ok, well, maybe I am. But I guess I envy people who have the ideas of others at their finger tips. I love to quote people who's ideas I respect. It would be nice to be able to do that with more than just my usual suspects.

we are never absolved from doing our own thinking if we don't wish to remain igorant. Nobody loves a regurgitator or an insistent mediocrity. — Janus

I think my "body of work," if I may laughingly call it that, shows I am not afraid to do my own thinking, for better or worse.

So the great philosophers are like insistent poets, quite often fucking annoying; but if you are in the right mood to brook the insistence, and flow with them where they want you to flow; something may come of it. — Janus

Yes, and that's what I'm trying to get a handle on. Take Kant for instance. I think he is one of your insistent poets. I've tried reading him and haven't gotten very far. But people I respect keep saying his work is central to intellectual history and the scientific revolution. Again, I worry I am missing something.

I can only recommend someone depending on what topic you're interested in. If most figures aren't connecting with you, I don't see the problem. — Manuel

Yes, but listening to others discuss ideas, especially professional philosophers, I feel like I'm missing something. I'm trying to get a handle on that.

shut up, sit still, think. — Bitter Crank

This didn't work 65 years ago when my mother told me in church and it won't work now.

I find most philosophical writing to be pretty tedious, both in its content and its style. Most of it doesn't make any difference! — Bitter Crank

Sure, but there's more to it than that. I don't get much of the philosophy that's out there, but I know there is something to be gotten. I've been listening to interviews with philosophers. Many times the guys are really interesting. They have a good understanding of the history of philosophy and the contributions of different philosophers. They usually show respect for the contributions even of philosophers whose ideas they don't agree with. The way they can pull ideas from other philosophers into discussions would be a really neat thing to be able to do. That's what makes me think I may be missing something.

I imagine my ol’ buddy Father Guido Sarducci would say....that’s just farging beautiful, man. — Mww

Yes, the Father was one of my favorite religious philosophers.

I don't particularly like advertising this but, it's relevant to the OP. As someone who has a PhD in philosophy, I must say, I think you are 100% correct. "Philosophy" is much, much broader than the Western tradition, and insights come from all aspects of life.

I would only put in the caveat that I think topics like free will or materialism are interesting - to those that find them interesting, which includes me. However, if that's not something that floats your boat, then that's perfectly fine. — Manuel

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing.

It's a gnostic thing. You wouldn't understand. — James Riley

Yeah, but what about the turds?

I need a little emoji education.

:smirk: — 180 Proof

Smirk. Does that mean you think I'm clever or a boob?

:fire:

Does this mean burned or are you agreeing with me?

And what about those turd emojis? How come we don't have turd emojis?

Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? — Bret Bernhoft

Oh, good. A question I can answer just by providing one of my favorite quotes. One I use on the forum often. This from Franz Kafka:

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

The love that Herbert depicts is perfect. Is our human love capable of transforming ourselves or someone else? — Bitter Crank

I guess that's part of my point. What can God's love do that human love cannot?

Do people ever display exceptional love? Yes, sometimes. I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath waiting for an example of exceptional love, but it sometimes happens. When experienced, it is transformative — Bitter Crank

This makes me think of one of my favorite poems, "Aunt Celia, 1961," by Carl Dennis. I heard it first on "The Writer's Almanac" and I've quoted it here before, probably in this thread somewhere. Here's an excerpt:

People will tell you there are many good lives
Waiting for everyone, each fine in its own way.
And maybe they’re right, but in my opinion
One is miles above the others.
Otherwise it wouldn’t have been so clear to me
When I found it. Otherwise those who lack it
Wouldn’t be able to tell so clearly it’s missing
As they go on living as best they can
Without complaining. Noble lives, and beautiful,
And happy as much as doing well can make them.
But as for the happiness that can’t be earned,
The kind it makes no sense for you to look for,
That’s something different.

Nietzsche adored Emerson and called him his "twin soul". — Tom Storm

No, I didn't know that. Thanks.

That is my biggest caveat against evangelical Christianity: all you’ve got to do is “repent” of your sin, which means you can sin all you want to...as long as you repent soon afterwards!...

...and as long as you confess belief in Jesus, you are saved, however much you may sin. James knew much better: “faith without works is dead.” And Jesus preached much better too. You may cry “Lord, lord,..” I did this or that in Your name, to gain significance among the faithful, but He replies, “I never knew you.” — Leghorn

Say what you will, like it or not, sincere repentance and forgiveness are at the heart of Christianity. If there ain't forgiveness of sins, it ain't Christianity. That rubs some people the wrong way. Not me. Although I'm not Christian and original sin doesn't make sense to me, I still think it's a wonderful thing. And it's not evangelical Christians, it's all of them.

Love your neighbor as yourself. How many who confess their faith in Jesus turn their backs on their neighbors? fail to stop for the guy carrying a gas can down the road? — Leghorn

There are hypocrites of all religions, philosophies, and persuasions.

The care offered by a professional is like being friendly without being a friend. It's an important distinction that probably needs to go with a lengthy dissertation on professional boundaries and the like. A professional offers care in the sense of a duty to provide a quality service that meets the person's needs, just as a reputable mechanic provides a quality service to a car that ensures it is safe to driver regardless of who the drive is. All very general I know. — Tom Storm

I don't disagree with this, although my engineering work experience was a bit different. I worked for one company my whole career. It was fairly small when I started - 500 people in 8 offices. I used to eat lunch with the president. Over the years, the company grew, was sold, was resold, and eventually became part of a large engineering company with 100,000 employees. One of the first things I was taught, and what made our company so good when it was young, was loyalty and dedication to our clients. We fought for them. There was passion. It was important to me that they trusted me, that they could trust me.

This was tempered by my understanding of my professional responsibilities as a licensed engineer. An engineer has specific responsibilities to society, the public, and the law that override those to our clients. In 30 years I never did anything for a client that I thought was illegal, unethical, or dishonorable.

I've never met a competent person - mechanic, doctor, engineer, cook, cashier, dentist... - who didn't care about providing good service to their client, customer, patient. This is from an Emerson essay I love - "Compensation."

Labor is watched over by the same pitiless laws. Cheapest, say the prudent, is the dearest labor. What we buy in a broom, a mat, a wagon, a knife, is some application of good sense to a common want. It is best to pay in your land a skillful gardener, or to buy good sense applied to gardening; in your sailor, good sense applied to navigation; in the house, good sense applied to cooking, sewing, serving; in your agent, good sense applied to accounts and affairs. So do you multiply your presence, or spread yourself throughout your estate. But because of the dual constitution of things, in labor as in life there can be no cheating. The thief steals from himself. The swindler swindles himself.

For the real price of labor is knowledge and virtue, whereof wealth and credit are signs. These signs, like paper money, may be counterfeited or stolen, but that which they represent, namely, knowledge and virtue, cannot be counterfeited or stolen. These ends of labor cannot be answered but by real exertions of the mind, and in obedience to pure motives. The cheat, the defaulter, the gambler, cannot extort the knowledge of material and moral nature which his honest care and pains yield to the operative. The law of nature is, Do the thing, and you shall have the power: but they who do not the thing have not the power.

Why would it have been better had a pagan said it? — Bitter Crank

Love is the love of Jesus, God. Takes away blame, easy peasy. It would just be more interesting, psychologically, philosophically if the love of each other, the love of other people, the love of other people for you, could take away blame. That would take some thought.

‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat. — Bitter Crank

I assume this is an explicitly Christian sentiment, but it would be more interesting if it weren't.

Who can dislike an epic poem which is yet endearing? — Michael Zwingli

I'm glad you like it.

When I started this thread, I should have specified that posters should not include more than a limited number of personally written poems. Alas. Because I didn't, you have filled it with, by my count, 18 self-indulgent, poorly written poems.

I really like this thread. Lots of good interesting poetry and people with interesting ideas. What I've really liked is that it hangs around or a while, then goes away, then comes back again. Whenever it pops back up, it gives me pleasure. You have taken this nice, pleasing little thread and turned it into a dumping ground for your failed attempts at profundity to the extent that you've almost drowned out the good poetry out there. What I fear is that you have dozens more poems hidden away on your computer that you will continue to place here.

Please stop. There are plenty of poetry forums out there. Please stop damaging one of my favorite discussions.

I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:) — Lea

I'm an engineer. When we design a structure, we calculate all the loads on it - gravity, wind, seismic, snow. Then we estimate material properties - steel, soil, wood, bolts.... Then we increase the calculated and estimated values by what we call a factor of safety. Then we run calculations to see if the structure will stand up.

The factor of safety is the engineering way of dealing with doubt.