It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And The True Way. The first half of #104 reads:

"No one can say we are wanting in faith. The mere fact of our living is itself inexhaustible in its proof of faith."
"You call that a proof of faith? But one simply cannot not live."
"In that very 'simply cannot' lies the insane power of faith; in that denial it embodies itself." — translated by Willa and Edna Muir

Each of the aphorisms (as noted by the translators) "were carefully written and numbered by Kafka himself on separate pieces of paper." In the context of what one needs to read or not regarding a subject of philosophy, Kafka, in this case, was intent upon tying the aphorisms together and read with the others kept in view.

So the confidence that the world will "give itself to us" in #104 has to be seen with the ease and depths of our capacity for illusion and harm. Consider, for example, aphorisms #25 and #26:

25: Once we have granted accommodation to the Evil One he no longer demands we should believe him.

26: The afterthoughts with which you justify your accommodation of the Evil One are not yours but those of the Evil One.
The animal snatches the whip from its master and whips itself so as to become master, and does not know all this is only a fantasy caused by a new knot in the master's whiplash.

Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that.

I’m interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this. — T Clark

I wonder why you think you are a philosopher. Your OP is very defensive and just screams 'please take me seriously' even though you have admittedly nothing to show for it. Better question is actually. why should we consider you a philospher?

PS. I found an essay on metaphysics by R.G. Collingwood very good too. That is sound philosophy. Why are you saying you read no philosophy then? Are you sure your OP is not just trolling?

Engineer, huh?

1. Every theory must have a good "foundation".

2. Brain "architecture" is what interests.

3. The "structure" of Plato's metaphysics.

4. We must "buttress" our claims with good reasons.

5. Philosophy served as a "bridge" between religion and science.

6. I'm trying to be abstract but sure, a "concrete" example will aid us well.

7. This claim, if true, opens a "window" to realism.

8. This particular approach can be used as a "blueprint".

9. Kant's "plan" was to show that morality is basically logic.

So and so forth!

Ironically, if you bothered to do the reading all of your questions should be answered.

This. And not reading from the cannon. — Tom Storm

Darling, there's isn't much to read from the cannon.

Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.

How do you function without texts? By ignoring the fact that you read them in the past?

It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory. — baker

I don't remember ever hearing the term "bare attention" before. Beyond that, I don't see how anything written here contradicts what I've written. All of the posts in this discussion have been painted with a pretty broad brush. There's plenty of room for dotting "t"s and crossing "i"s and working out the details. — T Clark

It is sometimes said that learning how to pay attention appropriately is central to the Buddhist practice. The key term is "appropriately". There is a lot written on how to do that; and it's certainly not the kind of minimalist approach as sketched out above by your Kafka quote.
You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about.

In my experience, classroom learning works and sticks just fine. The students just need to be open to and ready for it. — Artemis

It's the very structure of the learning process that bothers me. In general, an enclosed space is involved, in which children have to stay a large part of the day. Forced to do so, indirectly, by a government power institute, forced to learn abstract knowledge systems basically. Teaching nowadays is left to power-hungry teachers, who train the students in absorbing abstract ideas, in kinda nature-detached environments, to parrotishly repeat that knowledge without exactly knowing what is done. Schemes of knowledge are inserted in the poor child braines, by performing tasks and inventing solutions. Even language itself is thaught as an abstract entity, involving sentence analysis and categorization. Mathematical schemes of abstract entities are forced upon our young ones by law. Often the child's age and that what is thought are out of sync. Their knowledge gained is tested on the base of grades, that fearsome letters A-F. Their color- and playful reality is turned into a competitive reality of abstract knowledge. Nothing is left to the parents who usually are ignorant about the stuff their children learn, or .only is spent on extra teaching because of the fear they have that their children fail in school and won't have the possibility later to partake in the modern rat-race for material gain. I have witnessed this with my own eyes, trying to put some math and physics knowledge into high school children, the most of which had no intention to really understand, but were interested in the application of the abstract schemes only, to get that so beloved certificate of knowledge. The ones who wanna look outside of the window of the classroom and tend to drift away are considered as anomalies (ADD!) and questioning of the knowledge itself is carefully redirected as to conform to the right path. It's legally arranged to force the parents to send their children to the factories of scientific knowledge. In the name of the child and in the name of science. To be applied in the equally nature-detached reality of Western society, giving rise to strange human beings, spending their time with watching science-fiction movies, while the most beautiful reality of alien creatures can (could!) be found on Earth, on which nature is replaced in fenced territory and non-scientific cultures are redirected to lost-land territories, after most of them were already destroyed long time ago, and are offered pity excuses after having been damaged to the bone. Spending their time in long lines of cars, shopping in huge malls, staring at phones, unknowingly being watched in a huge modern paopticon, in service of the capital. A reality in which some make a 100 billion (!), earning 3 billion on a day, while others stroll around begging for food or looking for shelter. A society where there is a constant threat of total annihilation by the applied knowledge of physics. Be it by thermonuclear escalation or water and fire on the rise. A reality in which the world of advertisement is inescapable and the sky is filled with strange flying machines, containing seat-belled people with earplugs. A reality in which nature is reshape in a huge super LEGO-land. where the feeling of being powerless has taken hold. Where an abstract law tries to regulate our each and every action. Where inflation rules suppreme. Where children can play with a zillion different kinds of toys and stimulated to compete. A reality in which nature is tortured with mechanical devices, also used in maintaining the status quo. Where plans are made to leave this Earth after we have destroyed it (as in the scientifically inadequate Interstellar movie), calling this the inevitability to come: interstellar colonialisation. Like the whole globe was once colonialism with force, without spending a thought about the realities colonialized. A reality in which people sit a large part of the day behind computers, spending their time on philosophical forums and programmed entertainment. In which the training of pets bleaches in the light of the training of our children. But hey, as long as all these billions of people are happy... The world can provide for all. Nature is kind enough. But when we keep on whipping him, he will one day turn against us. The first signs are already there. The end is near...

It should be noted that the lines you quote from Kafka are half of aphorism #104, the last of the series titled Reflections On Sin, Pain, Hope, And True Way. — Paine

I had never heard of this book. I found this link to a pdf version on the web:

https://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/KafkaKierkegaardBible/AphorismsFranzKafkatransJoyceCrick.pdf

I'll spend some time with it. I appreciate the information.

Whatever "doing philosophy" may be, texts that strive to be more than a list of self-sufficient explanations need to live together in a certain way to become what they are talking about. I suppose one could look at that element in a purely instrumental fashion but there is more to it than that. — Paine

I am a fan of aphorisms. In presentation at least, the Tao Te Ching, a book that has had a strong influence on my understanding of the world, is very aphoristic. I'll read through Kafka's text and see if I have anything else to say.

Thanks.

Ironically, if you bothered to do the reading all of your questions should be answered. — praxis

You have a point. I read the OP and was curious. I will not read 10 pages of text though because I am busy reading pilosophy. :lol:

You have a point. I read the OP and was curious. I will not read 10 pages of text though because I am busy reading pilosophy. :lol: — Tobias

Maybe you could continue your reading in silence.

You don't need to read in general to be anyone, you need to spend time wisely on subjects you want to learn about.

Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool.

I have self-educated for many years.

Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art.

Darling, there's isn't much to read from the cannon.

Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.

How do you function without texts? By ignoring the fact that you read them in the past?

It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory.
— baker — baker

I have read a lot of books but I only remember some impressions and the odd idea. To be honest I've enjoyed English literature more than the few philosophical texts I have read. Not sure any of this counts.

The reason I ended up here was to see what I may have missed and also to participate in some discussions - I was going to give it 4 weeks.

Which books do you recommend?

Maybe you could continue your reading in silence. — frank

Or maybe you could appreciate the remark in the spirit it was made, with some irony. I conceded the point already. But anyway, the spirit of my remark was not really to investigate what makes a philosopher a philosopher, but why the OP shows disdain for reading philosophy. It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker".

You don't need to read in general to be anyone, you need to spend time wisely on subjects you want to learn about. — Varde

What would spending time 'wisely' be?

Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool. — Varde

Who or what in this scheme would be using the tool? In this scheme you are also reducing nature to a resource and raise consciousness to the level of a kind of formative cause. This scheme is in fact very old in the history of philosophy, but it is questionable whether it is a helpful representation. Especially recently a much more active role is ascribed to 'nature'.

I have self-educated for many years. — Varde

No jibe intended, but this as such says nothing. The question is, did it grant you the competence to reason philosophically? I have no opinion either way, or on you, but often I see self educated people loudly boasting about their abilities and I often wonder why.

Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art. — Varde

That is of course fine. We all have our preferences.

Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise).

In and as of that scheme only!

I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid.

I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods.

Thanks, bookie away!

It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker". — Tobias

My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach.

Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise). — Varde

Yes, but what is spending time wisely on the subject matter you want to learn about? Books are just a short cut. You read the thoughts of others, because the subject matter is too difficult to invent the wheel yourself time and again. Some people have more talent than others, but it is rare, if not impossible to find someone who is immeiately capable at grasping philosophical problems. Make an analogy with chess, which is a much more simpe human endeavour than philosophy. All the greats of chess have studied the games of others. They are themselves brilliant at chess, but they still find it necessary to study.

I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid. — Varde

You were giving an analogy, my question was not 'is consciousness always a tool', but if you say it is, then you imply there is a tool user no? My question was who is that then? Or is the above a concession that the analogy was just a bit flawed?

I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods. — Varde

Well, I doubt that, because within books you find all sorts of problems and solutions to them, which intellectuals tend to debate. Not knowing these shows you are not an intellectual. Just like someone who does not repair shoes is not a shoe maker. You might well be intelligent of course, or intellectually inclined, I am not saying you are not. I just find it interesting why people call themselves such and such while basically refusing to engage in the activity of such and such.

Of course, philosophical reasoning is by no means the only way to reason, not even a privileged way to reason as far as I am concerned. A carpenter has to use reason and all kinds of insight, especially spatial insight. I lack all the ability to reason in such a way. Perhaps that is it, people see 'philosophy' as a kind of badge of honor and feel they have to call themselves 'philosophers'.

My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach. — praxis

I agree with that. What I dislike is the disdain by which people who use the intuitive approach discredit the rational approach. Of course one does not need to read Hegel to do philosophy (though it helps :p ) However, what is it thst one must do? I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. Just like a shoe maker must, as a bare minimum, make shoes and one must be able to at least walk in them. They do not have to walk well, but they should not be doll sized, or fixed to the ground etc.

You'll need to read the whole essay I linked to to get a better sense of what I'm talking about. — baker

I didn't read all of it, but I read about four pages. As I noted in my response, the idea of bare attention is interesting. It's an issue that comes up in the Tao Te Ching. What does it mean to experience the Tao? Lao Tzu writes about the sage "embracing" the Tao. I've always said "experiencing the Tao directly," which isn't very satisfying for the reasons the author of your link notes. It seems obvious that it's not possible to experience it directly, so what does the sage do and what can I do?

I don't think that undermines the meaning or value of Kafka's quote. I think his take is more in line with Lao Tzu's. I see Taoism as much more down-to-earth than many forms of Buddhism. It is intended for practical purposes, e.g. ruling a county. It isn't aimed at enlightenment so much as getting down to work.

So, where does that leave me? I don't know. Your comment has allowed me to recognize a hole in my understanding. I always knew it was there, but I waved my arms instead of digging in. Thanks for your help.

I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. — Tobias

No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.

Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter.

As an engineer, my job was to know things, know how I knew them, understand the uncertainties in my knowledge, and the consequences of being wrong. — T Clark

Wittgenstein was an engineer. He had this analogy of philosophy as the engine of language idling. So engineers want to put their engines to work, but first there is the need to tune and adjust, which is done with the engine idling. A good engineer probably does not need the manual very often, does not need the advice of his fellows very often, but he does not despise or totally ignore these things either.

No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.

Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter. — praxis

Well, the question of value is also a perennial one. I can only say it provided value for me, because I feel I have a better grasp of the structure of the world than I had without studying philosophy. the ancient Greeks thought the goal of philosophy was ataraxia or 'peace of mind'. Whether this is attainable through philosophy is an open question, but I guess people are drawn to philosophy, because they are bothered by questions that keep nagging. I see philosophy more like a mental discipline, much like working out is, or sports is.

I also use this site to practice my writing, sometimes launch an idea and sometimes to joust a bit. I tend to joust when I see people making claims that pose some sort of challenge. When one challenges I feel that it is ok to meet it. In addition I also joust wit posters whom I know like it and from whom I can learn. aan argumentative joust may yield insights.

But the question you ask is a good one, the question of value. when one starts thinking about it, one starts doing philosophy and possibly gets sucked into the labyrinth. The questoon leads to further questions: what kind of value are we talking about, is there one kind, or many, is there a way to measure it, if we feel we can measure it, does that entail there is something of absolute value we measure it against, etc. Before you know it you are up to your neck in metaphysics :)

Before you know it you are up to your neck in metaphysics — Tobias

Get me out of here!

:joke:

Get me out of here! — Manuel

Philosophy is a bit like Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave... ;)

Oh, well. On to more wine.

Cheers.

Oh, well. On to more wine. — Manuel

Wine is always an option and a pleasuable one. Sex is too, and one so sorely underestimated on a philosophy forum. I myself am enjoying a water pipe right now, with apple tobacco, nothing illegal.

Cheers!

Nice post.

Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.

Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz:

Nice post.

Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.

Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz: — praxis

Yes, we can of course and we all come to grapple with philosophical questions through different directions. Maybe where things go wrong is in the definition of philosophy. Now, if the OP would hold that one can be wise without reading philosophy, I would wholeheartedly agree. Just like one can become able bodied and fit without doing sports, but for instance by doing heavy physical work.

However philosophy is different from wisdom. It is not wsdom per se, but a certain way of becoming 'wise'. The discipline entails concerning oneself with philosophical problems in a philosophical way, using the tools handed to you by philosophy. Philosophy in this sense is a certain tool, or maybe toolbox. To be able to use the tool box one learns how to use them, by reading how it is done. I think it is strange for someone to say: "I need no stinking toolbox, I still am a carpenter, I just hit the nails with my bare hands". I just do not find it believable. I would find it believable, if someone just makes the claim that he or she is a handy person, despite never having used the toolbox.

It is actually way past wine o clock for me, it is past midnight, past one AM, so I am afraid it is time for bed. 'night.

Clark was admittedly being provocative in the OP and has been duly chastised for his choice of words and loose terminology. I’d feel sorry for him if it wasn’t so fun to watch. :lol:

Sweet dreams.

Ahh well, anyone who has a soft spot for Collingwood gets the benefit of the doubt from me. And I admit not having read the previous discussion. That is a flaw, even though I really could not read as much as I would like to :). Happy travels all!