All in all, to some this discussion of yours up, I'd say that it is a veiled attack and a double standard. — S

Let's not get paranoid or needlessly hostile here. This thread wasn't all about you.

That is not dogmatism at all! How absurd. Aiming for the truth is not dogmatism. You should look up what dogmatism is. — S

Maybe not; but, you've supplanted your psychologizing efforts and deemed them worthy of "the truth". Isn't that some derivative of dogmatic thinking or at least extremely biased thinking?

So I can wallow about like you? No thanks. — S

See, just another attempt at psychologizing me, now.

That's fine, and I agree. We probably just have a different sense of where exactly to draw the line. I am much more of freedom of expression type than you, but not as extreme as Terrapin. For example, you've complained before about expressions of humour not to your taste. — S

Now, I might be psychologizing too; but, you seem to derive some satisfaction from pushing people's buttons and seeing what happens. That's immature and childish. Can we act like adults now?

Monitored? You mean that we should rely on our judgement and exercise restraint when deemed appropriate? I already do that, and we have the moderators for anything that slips through the net and goes too far. — S

Well, clearly, with the latest thread that popped up, you were not displaying restraint.

They have the same aim: the truth. That's something I think everyone here should care about. — S

Yeah, well now that's dogmatism and quite dangerous if you don't mind me adding.

Ah sweet, you created another discussion about me. Or so says my ego. — S

Yeah, that needs deflating.

Yes, it can be a type of ad hominem or some other fallacy of irrelevance. But, nevertheless, I have said that it can be important to express these assessments, because if you don't express them, then you aren't making anyone aware of what you have identified as a problem, an if you don't make anyone aware of a problem, then you aren't even taking the first step towards a possible resolution. — S

@unenlightened would jump out of his socks over this "assessment". I mean if you're going to take a conflict resolution approach contrary to assuming a position of authority over the mental state of another interlocutor, then at least make it so that some Rogerian agreement can be had in the end. I've seen (not only yours but, others to be fair) such assessments as promoting flame wars and some such matters like, "I didn't say anything like that", "Oh; but, that you did too!".

And also, as people with a keen interest in philosophy, we should care about pointing out the truth as we see it, and expect like-minded people to likewise care. — S

Yes, there's a huge overlap between psychology and philosophy. All I'm saying is that some line should be drawn before we start conducting "assessments" of people on online forums.

My psychological assessments seem come to me intuitively. It's probably that I'm picking up on something, reading between the lines. Or, of course, I could be reading things into something that isn't actually there, and I could be off the mark. I'm aware of my own fallibility. But, basically, if the shoe fits... — S

Confirmation bias. Can't get around it once an "assessment" has been made.

I don't agree that comments of this sort should be silenced or shut down. I'm in favour of freedom of expression here. And I don't approve of any disapproval on the grounds of etiquette or political correctness. — S

Not, but they should be monitored. Keep in mind that philosophers throughout the past have conducted their own form of assessments of human nature, and what good has that produced?

People are puzzles, and I like puzzles. I like putting together the pieces, and sometimes they just seem to connect in all the right ways. — S

Yeah, that may be true; but, psychologizing and assessment making are one thing, rational discourse another.

If that was the theme of his philosophy then why did he continue? — Fooloso4

[Psychologizing ensues] And here I have to say that Wittgenstein was motivated by personal issues or perhaps even perceived shortcomings. I haven't read his biography; but, it is common knowledge that he struggled with suicidal thoughts and most probably some form of PTSD after the World Wars.

Basically, I find his philosophy motivated by an existential impetus. Even though it is debatable whether he classifies as a continental philosopher or analytic one, I still find comfort in the mixture of the two that can be found in his philosophy.

Did he fail to resolve the problems for himself? — Fooloso4

Yes, perhaps.

If this were the case then why his extensive private notebooks? Some of these notes were work on books he never published, but others were his way of thinking with his pen. — Fooloso4

Again, maybe they were not meant for publication, much like Marcus Aurelius Meditations were a private diary.

I take the cognitive dissonance to be fundamental to the pursuit of philosophy. Philosophy can be truly dangerous if one is unable to be comfortable with that dissonance. — Fooloso4

Yes, please expand on this.

There are locked doors, rooms we are prevented from entering in Wittgenstein's writings. The first step is not to find the key but to find the lock. — Fooloso4

Enigmatic as always with Wittgenstein.

Why we wouldn't want to talk about this I can't understand. — Anthony

Well, as you have said yourself, these are psychological problems that philosophy is ill-equipped with in dealing with. I used to be very concerned about people posting about mystical experiences or deep depression (I'm one to speak, aye) and then rationalizing it with some Nietzsche or Schopenhauer rationale of how things out to be or are. It reeks of confirmation bias and is an issue that only trained professionals (ought to) examine.

Sorry for being facetious. :sad: — Wayfarer

All good. I'm slow with jokes anyway.

Wallow wallow.

Yeah, I'm just digging away. Why do you need a remote?

But I prefer to go through the mountain rather than over it contrary to what K says about climbing it. It's the shortest pathway to overcome.

Do you know the way?

So, Wittgenstein was in contradiction. To borrow a term from Harry Frankfurt, was there a higher order volition (non egotistical) to dissuade others from doing philosophy and instead appreciate the esoteric and mystical that is religion, ethics in practice and charitable deeds?

I feel as though despite the overtones of Schopenhauer in Wittgenstein's early philosophy that he realized that it was his, so to speak, "duty" to dissolve the problems of philosophy, even though he rather failed at this task in my humble opinion.

This doesn't really help. I mean, as a juxtaposition think about the fine line between the Stoic school of thought and Cynicism.

Is the confusion clear now?

Why should you stop wallowing in shit? Oh, no reason.Whatever you're happy with. — unenlightened

As they say, whatever floats yer boat. I yam what I yam and that's all there is to me.

No, the rights of the fly have been infringed by an overzealous individual.

These are grounds for the fly to sue Wittgenstein.

Yes, he came and the poor fly was evicted from its familiar abode.

Poor fly.

The fly is content. It doesn't need any shooing or showing or shewing.

Yet, here we are metalogically talking about the merits or detriments of philosophy.

Quite a conundrum.

Ok, but it would be wrong to think that philosophy is unimportant. — Banno

No, it is not unimportant. Maybe impotent?

Oh, I wouldn't say that. — Banno

Well, I phrased it deceptively. Life is one thing, the other part is living it.

Or when the student abandons his doctoral thesis in philosophy and leaves college. — Banno

Certainly a confusing experience. I feel sorry for the bloke. But, then again philosophy is no authority on living life.

Ah. Now, what do we mean by "good at their job"? — Banno

When the patient has achieved remission?

Philosophers generally think of themselves as teachers; they set out to explain where others have gone wrong, and to show folk what they ought do. — Banno

Are they any good at their job?

One teacher I had while reading Wittgenstein pointed out that shooing the fly out of the bottle is not an event if you don't own the both the bottle and the fly. — Valentinus

Hmm, what do you mean by that? It's not quite clear to me. I miss being in the bottle. There is certainty in the struggle of the fly trying to get out. Once it is out, then the struggle disappears. Everything else becomes non-relevant.

I believe it on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. — Banno

But, today is Sunday.

Teaching is an odd profession in that if one does it well, the student will no longer need the teacher; teachers seek to do themselves out of a job. If people did not insist on having more kids, we would not need teachers. — Banno

I feel sorry for teachers. I still consider it a noble profession.

We would not need philosophers if folk stoped getting tangled up in their worlds and words. — Banno

Ahh, they'd go on well without anyone teaching them also.

You don't know? — Janus

Not really. It seems like anything can be called sophistry nowadays.

Philosophy is useless. If you have a choice, don't do it. — Banno

Do you really believe that or is this bullshitting in practice?

Sophistry. Hmm. What is it?

When were you knighted? I must have missed that. I was probably off my tits on drugs or engaging in mental masturbation. — S

It was spontaneous. Like enlightenment, ya 'know?

I'm the doctor. — S

And, I'm Sir Wallows.

Because the framing of the questions where done by philosophers and the solutions led to the philosopher. — Fooloso4

But, philosophers are motivated by claiming to know the 'truth' where there might not be anything worth going over. Basically, if a philosopher has not persuaded some average Joe of the merit of his or her philosophy to society or the welfare of an individual, then hasn't he or she failed at being a philosopher?

I think it is a catch-22: philosophers define the pursuit of happiness as something connected to reflection. Since most people dislike reflecting, they do not qualify as being "pursuers of happiness". — Louco

Ahh yes, once again these saying of the unexamined life is not worth living pop into my mind. How pointless and futile to try and engage some bystander in a philosophical discussion.

That is unfortunate. I did not get the impression while wrestling with him that he was solving all the problems in so far as they could be solved. He is more Zhuangzi than Kant regarding the limits of explanation. — Valentinus

There is a tale, I can't find the source and my memory is finicky, that a student of Wittgenstein abandoned his doctoral thesis in philosophy and left college. Upon hearing this Wittgenstein proclaimed that he ought to be granted tenure or some such matter for this act.

I am not a square. — S

I am Sir Wallows.

Haha. Right. Their lives are going so great and well that they have no "need" (it's about desire, not necessity!) for skiing or bowling or going to the movies or to a dance club or to experience a hallucinogenic drug or the euphoria of ecstasy and so on and so forth. That sure sounds real fun.

The unfun life is not worth living. — S

Whoa, I never said anything like that. Do as you wish. Or better move to Holland where you can find pushers on every corner of a red light district. Ok, now I'm exaggerating. I hear Holland is one of the happiest countries on Earth.

I've read both positive and negative sentiments by Nietzsche concerning Jews, as well as women, musicians, philosophers, Germans, Europeans in general, etc. The worst sentiments he expressed were about other philosophers. He would certainly be considered a racist by today's standards for merely mentioning Jews, or any other category of human beings, in any stereotypical context. As far as I know, Hitler was neither a well-educated nor an accomplished human being before he engaged in political action just prior to his first attempted overthrow of Germany, but I could be mistaken. — whollyrolling

I'm no expert on Nietzsche, just read his Thus Spake Zarathustra. But, one thing I do know is that he is a terribly misunderstood philosopher.

Anyway, I hope I built no straw men hereabouts.

Just don't wallow too much or too deeply. Don't wallow excessively. Or, fuck it, do whatever, because fuck it.

The philosophy of fuck it. :grin: — S

Yes, yes. I think the medicine is working now.

I don't see any supposed circularity. — S

What I'm trying to imply is why would people need to have recreational experiences if their lives are going great and well. We talked about this in that other thread on illegal drugs.

And the potential utility is blindingly obvious, and we've been over this before. They are called recreational drugs for a reason. Their use is recreational. — S

So, the value is in their recreational import to people. Okay, somewhat circular; but, have it your way.

So then you except that you not getting any good out of it, and drugs being a dead end for you, is not necessarily true of others, in line with their own sentiments, experience, etc., which is not going to be identical to your sentiments, experience, etc.? — S

To each his or her own, I suppose. If drugs really give you a kick, then so be it. Just don't become addicted or develop some dependency on them.

And I do not abhor what you say I do. — S

Then you don't.

Ehh, this is getting tiring. Must be my own hangover from yesterday. Heh.

What was "perverted" about Nietzsche — whollyrolling

Supposedly his sister put words into his mouth that were not his. Regarding the lower status of Slavs or Jews.

specifically, and why would you place him in a category with Nazis, who were not philosophers. — whollyrolling

Well, they claimed to practice his (perverted) philosophy, did they not?