Philosophers diagnose and treat confusion in order to reduce their own.

There's lucidity in confusion.

I think that confusion can be a starting point. We would not need to find the way if we hadn't got lost in the first place. I have got lost literally many times, including ending up taking a wrong bus and finding myself in the country wastelands in the night. The wilderness and wastelands are the precipice of discovery.

I think that confusion can be a starting point. — Jack Cummins

Too often it is the end point as well.

There's lucidity in confusion. — 180 Proof

Any lucidity shines in the removal of the confusion.

Getting out of confusion is important, but the whole process of being in it and finding the way are central to understanding too. I am not talking purely in an abstract way, but do believe that I have learned so much from the chaos of taking ideas apart. In this sense, I embrace the postmodernist idea of deconstruction. However, I don't see the broken state as the end, but I am still putting the ideas together.

. In this sense, I embrace the postmodernist idea of deconstruction. — Jack Cummins

I prefer to call taking ideas apart Analysis.

Hence, analytic philosophy is the unknotting of confusion.

I expect that deconstruct and analysis are similar but deconstruction implies more of a situation of being thrown into an absence or suspension of meaning in the process, rather than just the detailed examination.

I think that confusion can be a starting point. We would not need to find the way if we hadn't got lost in the first place. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, and we wouldn't need to walk upright and have greater use of our opposable thumbs if we hadn't fallen out of the trees in the first place ...

Cover me,
when I run
Cover me,
through the fire
Something knocked me out the trees
Now I'm on my knees ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1ZoCJSo

... "thaumazein (traumatize) the monkey!" :monkey:

Right. Got to be confused first in order to lucidly remove it (momentarily). Confusion is our existential birthright, or congenital species defect.

I like the Peter Gabriel song about monkeys. Actually, my first philosophical shock was the theory of evolution because it was not what I had been brought up to believe. I was in a comprehensive school at the time and asked my parents to get me moved to the Catholic school. However, a few years later I discovered that some of my teachers believed in evolution. I think that my mother still believes the Book of Genesis account. I was also surprised to find out that one of the friends I went to school with does too, including the actual existence of Adam and Eve.

I like the Peter Gabriel song about monkeys. — Jack Cummins

Um, it ain't about "monkeys", mate. :sweat:

You throw your pearls before the swine
Make the monkey blind
Cover me,
darling please ...

I listened to it on my phone with a CD playing in the background, so I didn't give it full attention. I only know his album, 'So'. I easily twisted it in the direction of talking about evolution, so I am probably inclined to bounce from one idea to another. It may be a bit of a skewed philosophical method really. It is probably association of ideas.

For me, the song evokes speculative questions (oppositions) e.g. mind/matter, spirit/flesh, thinking/instinct, etc. Thus, inspired somewhat by the muse Philosophia. Peter Gabriel is definitely one of the more thoughtfully literate and globally conscientious musicians of my "lost" (wanton) youth. :smirk:

Perhaps, it is worth me paying more attention to him. Which albums do you recommend?

↪Nikolas The problem is that we have no way of judging who on the ship is an able helmsman independent of the opinions of those on the ship, who all think themselves able helmsman. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as able helmsmanship or that it is not better that the ship be helmed by someone who is able rather than someone who merely thinks he is but isn’t. It’s just to say that everyone on the ship reckons that they are the most able helmsman and so on account of that the one who most deserves the helm.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion. — Pfhorrest

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates

Can you imagine saying this on the ship of fools? All these educated individuals expressing and arguing over their opinions would be so insulted and enraged they would throw you overboard.

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. A very true proverb.

You already have So (1986) so pick up Shaking The Tree (1990) which is a compilation of hits from the mid 1970s through the late 1980s. Also, given your religious background (similar to my own) I recommend PG's soundtrack Passion: Music of The Last Temptation of Christ (1989). There's much more of his work I'm not overly fond of but everything he's done (up until 1990, I don't know his work since) is worth listening to. NB: Yeah, I'm not (usually) a completist – life is too damn short.

update:

Peter Gabriel (#4, "Security"), 1982

:point: esp. the track "Lay Your Hands On Me" (which, like "Biko", was phenomenally shamanistic :fire: in concert each time I'd seen him in the late 80s)

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates — Nikolas

What's the reference for this? I keep hearing this 'quote' from Socrates - where is it? (Don't say 'The Apology' - I want to know exactly where)

So we can tell who is best to helm the ship by looking for someone who professes to have no idea how to helm the ship?

What if they were telling the truth, and honestly, truthfully know even less about helmsmanship than the people who say they do but probably don't?

Or, maybe, the conclusion is that nobody can accurately be assessed as the most apt helmsman? Do we then go unhelmed(?), or do we have to somehow figure out between all of us how to navigate the ship, knowing that none of us can be fully trusted as the certainly best helmsman on board?

↪Nikolas So we can tell who is best to helm the ship by looking for someone who professes to have no idea how to helm the ship?

What if they were telling the truth, and honestly, truthfully know even less about helmsmanship than the people who say they do but probably don't?

Or, maybe, the conclusion is that nobody can accurately be assessed as the most apt helmsman? Do we then go unhelmed(?), or do we have to somehow figure out between all of us how to navigate the ship, knowing that none of us can be fully trusted as the certainly best helmsman on board? — Pfhorrest

One thing is clear by observing society. None of the leaders, none of the leaders in politics, the arts, and education know the way out. They are content to argue and express opinions on a sinking ship.

Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.”~ Plato.

I agree with you. It is our individual responsibility to make efforts to remember the way out and to practice it with the help of others who have previously made these efforts.

Does knowledge exist that we are ignorant of or is Man doomed to argue over opinions or the medium between knowledge and ignorance on a sinking ship?

↪Athena
I agree with all that. What I meant was that it would be great to actually have a leader who is wise, to be able to rely on a truly wise person for direction and guidance. The rest of what I wrote that you didn’t quote was about the difficulties of being sure that that’s what we’re really going to get from someone. — Pfhorrest

I was hoping you would say that. I am a little nervous about some people's apparent preference for a strong authoritarian leader.

I am watching the report of the people's struggle with the regime in Myanmar and the Rohingya refugees. In so many places the government and the people are not at peace. Leaders are trying to stay in power with violence. Where there are not good leaders, people are starving their economy is too poor to meet their needs. How can people live like this? Are the fine, educated people who are arguing philosophy here, thinking about the things that really matter? Is arguing against using the word "God" the best we can do? Do we really need to find fault with what someone for not knowing enough about the philosophy taught in college classes when millions of people have serious life-threatening problems? Should we be doing anything about "those people" or is it okay to ignore them their sufferening?

"What is a 'real' philosopher and what is the true essence of philosophy ?"

Let me be very clear, I could not pass a philosophy exam and most people here would argue I am not a philosopher, but philosophy means a love of knowledge and perhaps the best thing we can do with our ability to learn and think is to find ways to stop suffering and empower people to stop the suffering. Is what Nietzsche thinks about that important?

Those were some very interesting questions! I think if we don't take radical measures to reverse global warming, we are all on a sinking ship.

I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking. — Jack Cummins

My father who was an engineer on the Apollo that went to the moon said we avoid thinking as much as we can. I think I would love knowing nothing and worshipping a pharaoh as a god, with full faith he would take good care of us. My thoughts torment me and yet, I do not want to sink into senility and be a body without a functioning brain.

Philosophers are just confused.

There's no glory in confusion. — Banno

Now that is perfect! I will 100% agree with Banno.

But if you study the "Ship of Fools" with a little humility it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole does not know how to escape Plato's cave or the eventual catastrophe of arguing over which way the ship should go. Opinions lead to conflicting opinions until society falls apart. Then the cycle begins again. Is that our only alternative? must humanity remain not human and trapped in animalistic binary thought? Can philosophy of a certain quality reveal the way out? — Nikolas

I believe we made life much better than it once was. Most civilizations have advanced so much they name their children at birth and the people expect to live to old age and die before their children do. But we have too much inequality and too much avoidable human suffering, so we still have a lot to do and I am glad we still have big challenges! Those challenges can give our lives purpose and give us a reason to get up in the morning. I would rather have this than a heaven where I am not needed.

Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions?

If one can answer the question “what is a real philosopher” then they already are a real philosopher!
Since our “own” reality is the only reality may know for sure, everything else is just philosophy anyway.

↪Nikolas
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates
— Nikolas — Bartricks

Have you found a reference for that quote yet?

If one can answer the question “what is a real philosopher” then they already are a real philosopher! — Present awareness

Online one's mostly a dialectical rodeo clown; otherwise, just another wayward fool who happens to be studying-recovering from folly.

The relationship between man and his or her environment is of course a philosophical question as it is a peculiar manifestation (ethics) of our relationship (ontology) to the world. Just like our relationship with science is a philosophical question (epistemology). Philosophy is the practice of interrogating (deducting in its peculiar Kantian sense) our presuppositions about these relationships — Tobias

And what about the lived (existential) implications for e.g. 'well being' or 'agency' of those philosophical relationships? (Asking for a friend. :smirk:)

We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? — Athena

There are fields of philosophy that do already address political and economic questions, like political philosophy. Many of the questions of political philosophy depend on more foundational ethical questions, so ethics more broadly is instrumentally relevant to that. And a lot of questions in ethics depend on epistemological, ontological, and even linguistic questions, so all of that stuff is also instrumentally relevant to the really important stuff.

My big project, in my book you've surely heard me talk about already, is basically to go over all of the ontological, epistemological, etc, topics in a way that ends up pretty much just building up to the conclusion that, as regards academic institutions and their investigation of questions about what is, the physical sciences that have largely displaced traditional religion in that domain are the right way to do things; and then, starting from the same principles as that process, go through all of the ethical, etc, topics in an analogous way, to come up with the groundwork for "ethical sciences" that should likewise displace traditional states in the domain of political institutions and their investigation of questions about what ought to be, hopefully answering those questions about morality much more effectively, just as the physical sciences have been much more effective in answering questions about reality.

To what end? Internal to the project, and assuming you achieve an "ethical science", with what does your then project to provide (us)? Another rung up the ladder, so to speak, or a new(er) ladder? or a vista from which to discard all ladders (i.e. so we can stop philosophizing altogether)? In Tillich's terms, but not limited to his meta-theological (neoplatonic?) meaning: what is your (project's) ultimate concern?

Not a facetious question, but one I've only barely answered in recent years (though I've circled it like hawk / buzzard for decades); my ultimate concern is the impossible (or modal-ontological 'impossibility') which is categorically indicative of nonbeing (and, from this speculative focus, how reason is constituted, or driven, by evading the/se abyss/es via (e.g.) superstitions, myths, fantasies, magic, X-of-the-gaps, etc) – embodied meontology. 'My project' concerns exploring and proposing ways of reasoning, which do not rely on (evading, denying) the impossible, in order to reduce – unlearn – misery (i.e. frustration of agency via harm, indifference, error ...) that more often than not is caused by expectations misaligned with actuality.

(Didn't mean to 'threadcrap' ... If that's what I've done, Pfhorrest, we can continue via PMs.)

Doesn't seem like threadcrap to me, seems like a perfectly natural segue from the OP through @Athena's question to our discussion: what's the point of doing philosophy? (And back to the OP: is the pursuit of that point the essence of philosophy, and is someone who works toward that point a 'real philosopher'?)

Anyway, the ultimate concern for me is to lay out a better way of figuring out what to do, especially in matters that affect all of us, than what we currently have; in precisely the same way that modern physical sciences are evidently better ways to tell what the world is actually like than religion was.

To put it in the terms of @Nikolas's (reference of Socrates') helm of a ship: we've already gone over why a wide variety of methods of settling on who to helm a ship all fail spectacularly, and now we're at the point of either settling on the first and worst option (go with whoever the half-blind strongman captain picks), or else standing around doing nothing as the ship runs aground. Since obviously neither of those are acceptable options, we're left asking "well what do we do then?" Answering that is the ultimate concern.

I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.

I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine.

↪Nikolas
↪Nikolas
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates
— Nikolas
— Bartricks

Have you found a reference for that quote yet? — Bartricks

The quote is attributed to Socrates but probably came from Plato's writings since Socrates never wrote anything down.. But since it is a translation known as the Socratic paradox and refers to the essence of Plato's apology, I see no reason to doubt it.

For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.⁣

When Socrates was told the Oracle claimed Socrates to be the wisest man in Athens, he wondered how it can be true since he knows nothing.