Beginning carte blanche from the other thread..."not associating oneself with philosophy" seems very wise. It's the stance of prizing ideas over persons, or, more realistically, ideas over stances themselves. People in academia take stances, and their stances become their identity; they become statues with stances. They don't move. They're dead.

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life?

It's the stance of prizing ideas over persons, or, more realistically, ideas over stances themselves. People in academia take stances, and their stances become their identity; they become statues with stances. They don't move. They're dead. — Noble Dust

Excellent!

*sifts through all the brilliant new emoji's and can't find an "embarrassed" emoji*

Wine and philosophy work well together!

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life? — Noble Dust

Essentially, it means the process of internalization of philosophy into your being or self. I can't think of any other way to put it. Or the formation or molding of the super-ego through philosophy.

That sounds religious, metaphorically, and also fundamentally: A set of values that are internalized and are set against a narrative which describes the world. I mean "religious" in a neutral sense; the word for me has no positive or negative meaning, but I use it knowing that it ignites negativity. This is an idea I've tried to argue here ever since I joined.

This is an idea I've tried to argue here ever since I joined. — Noble Dust

Yes, please formalize it so I can better address this pertinent point.

If I formalize it, I'll express it less well than I've expressed it above.

But that being said, I can work on expressing it better, which I'm happy to do. But a fully formalized concept would work against the concept itself.

So, then how does one differentiate between what is true (supposedly, the process of academic philosophy), and believing in what is true (associating what is true with one's self)?

I don't get the grammar. If what is true is supposedly the process of academic philosophy, yet believing in what is true is associating "what is true" with one's self, then...what?

Think of it as playing devils advocate throughout the whole process of academic philosophy, and then comes the crisis of formulating your own philosophy or interpretation of what philosophy is. Then what?

That's a little hard for me to imagine as I never formally studied philosophy in College; the crisis of formulating my own philosophy came after I left Christianity, which I suppose could be an analogy to graduating with a degree in philosophy, in it's own metaphorical way.

So, then what? What's next is clearing away the bullshit.

That's a little hard for me to imagine as I never formally studied philosophy in College; the crisis of formulating my own philosophy came after I left Christianity, which I suppose could be an analogy to graduating with a degree in philosophy, in it's own metaphorical way. — Noble Dust

I guess it can be the inverse, as your saying. Namely, some set of entrenched beliefs get challenged or questioned which I associate with myself, and then get challenged in the appropriate settings of sorts.

So, then what? What's next is clearing away the bullshit. — Noble Dust

Yeah, I do like Harry Frankfurt. Have you read his, 'On Bullshit'?

I guess it can be the inverse, as your saying. Namely, some set of entrenched beliefs get challenged or questioned which I associate with myself, and then get challenged in the appropriate settings of sorts. — Posty McPostface

Entrenched beliefs being challenged are always good things to have happen to oneself (weird grammar). This happens every day on the forum for anyone who argues honesty.

Yeah, I do like Harry Frankfurt. Have you read his, 'On Bullshitting'? — Posty McPostface

No, but it sounds great.

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life? — Noble Dust

I think it means adopting philosophy as one's belief system, and choosing to live by it. Just like some people might adopt a religion, or a political view. But everyone does this. The only difference between us is the actual belief system(s) we choose. This is normal human life.

I offer the suggestion that academic philosophy is not so normal. :wink:

But to treat philosophy as a way of life...is a much larger concern. What does that mean, treat it as a way of life? — Noble Dust

I think it means adopting philosophy as one's belief system, and choosing to live by it. Just like some people might adopt a religion, or a political view. But everyone does this. — Pattern-chaser

So, then how does one differentiate between what is true (supposedly, the process of academic philosophy), and believing in what is true (associating what is true with one's self)? — Posty McPostface

I don't think that philosophy as a way of life is about discovering truth and internalizing that truth through synthesizing and systematizing these beliefs into larger truths. I would call it something more like learning to engage in a practice, seeking the goods internal to that practice (as MacIntyre puts it), and therefore setting one's commitments and modes of coping to work from within the practice.