What happened to philosophy as therapy? Anyway, if you think it'll do you some good, escape for a while. You're holding the reins, aren't you?

Speaking of which, this one's a good one to escape for a while:

What happened to philosophy as therapy? — S

Yeah, that's perhaps the issue here. Nobody asked to be cured. Nobody wants to be cured. So, why bother? The people who demand that others be cured are no different than evangelicals. Don't you think so too?

Yeah, that's perhaps the issue here. Nobody asked to be cured. Nobody wants to be cured. So, why bother? The people who demand that others be cured are no different than evangelicals. Don't you think so too? — Wallows

I think there's a difference between demanding something of someone, and showing them a pathway, or inviting someone to sit under a tree for a while. If they decline or walk a different path, then so be it. If someone doesn't need to be cured, then good for them. But perhaps they're under an illusion. Personally, I strive to treat myself where necessary. But it's important to treat yourself with medicine, and not poison.

I think there's a difference between demanding something of someone, and showing them a pathway, or inviting someone to sit under a tree for a while? If they decline or walk a different path, then so be it. If someone doesn't need to be cured, then good for them. But perhaps they're under an illusion. Personally, I strive to treat myself where necessary. But it's important to treat yourself with medicine, and not poison. — S

But, is the unexamined life really not worth living? I could just as well live "an unexamined life" and be happy too. Keep in mind that all what our conversations amount to are elaborate and abstract sayings like "philosophy as therapy", "the unexamined life..." and so on.

Is this plain and simple mental masturbation?

But, is the unexamined life really not worth living? — Wallows

That's for you decide, is it not?

I could just as well live "an unexamined life" and be happy too. — Wallows

Okay. And you judge that to be of equal value?

Keep in mind that all what our conversations amount to are elaborate and abstract sayings like "philosophy as therapy", "the unexamined life..." and so on.

Is this plain and simple mental masturbation? — Wallows

Noun. mental masturbation (uncountable) (slang) Engaging in intellectually stimulating conversation with little or no practical purpose.

I can get practical purpose out of philosophy. I thought you could, too.

Philosophers are said to be mad people. — Wallows

Anyway, sometimes the "mad" ones are the best ones. Who wants to be normal?

as you said if you have something better to do with your time like make the world a better place then i suggest you do something other than philosophize. I used to be a part of an organization that said all alcohol consumption was wrong and as a result i've tried to drastically reduce how much alcohol i drink. People who use less drugs are more likely to spend more time with things that deal with the mind. Right wrong or indifferent.

People who use less drugs are more likely to spend more time with things that deal with the mind. — christian2017

If so, then I must be an exception. I do both more than the average person.

If so, then I must be an exception. I do both more than the average person. — S

You're a smart guy, do away with the drugs. They're a dead end.

Some rather smart people, such as Aldous Huxley for one, Timothy Leary for another, would disagree with your separation of substance use from matters of the mind.

i guess i didn't phrase that quite right but the way i intended to phrase it is that people who use drugs are more likely to end their boredom with something other than things like philosophy forums. I actually use various legal drugs on occasion and depending on my circumstances during that period of my life i do drink some alcohol.

I don't think philosophy has "no" value contrary to what a nihilist might say. If that were true then Nietzsche would have been the last philosopher, philosophy would have to offer.

Ludwig Wittgenstein has been a philosopher who has taught me that philosophy can be a detriment to the welfare of an individual, when that time spent dealing with mental abstractions and ethics, ought to be applied and put in practice. Hence, I find anyone who advocates philosophy as therapy, where nobody is asking for it in some sort of contradiction.

How does one progress from this dilemma?

I would argue content people have a tendency of not "stirring the pot" in their own mind but that is not a hard and fast rule that i consider to be true.

i would agree with that.

As to how someone progresses from that dilemna i would say we can only control ourselves and i would say out in public or outside in the "real world" its best to say less rather than more when it comes to deep subjects. When i'm out in public i just try to appear to be a functioning adult. I do however believe some people are called to speak their mind on the philosophical premises that they believe.

As to how someone progresses from that dilemna i would say we can only control ourselves and i would say out in public or outside in the "real world" its best to say less rather than more when it comes to deep subjects. — christian2017

But, when a person engages in philosophy, then is that a waste of time?

As far as the OP, I have two things to say. The first is that your opening statement is inaccurate. Philosophy, for thousands of years, has been a mental gymnastics domain for the wealthy, the educated intellectual, the sane, for the most part. The second thing I wanted to say ties into the first, and it is that philosophy is available to more common people and has far different utility than it did 3,000 years ago. It isn't for everyone, and it's never been for everyone. It isn't even for everyone who exhibits a strong desire to attempt to exercise some form of it.

These days, philosophy is more of a flippant pastime. Those who pay for an education in philosophy gain little more than a false sense of superiority and a trolling platform on social media, unless they're motivated enough to write a book or become a teacher and achieve some measure of success by passing on the useless 700 year old obsolete information on which they've been instructed. It's all just flowery words and broken logic, name dropping and religious fervor for ideas most of which weren't even good when they were first written centuries ago.

I guess I didn't phrase that quite right, but the way that I intended to phrase it is that people who use drugs are more likely to end their boredom with something other than things like philosophy forums. — christian2017

And again, if so, then I am still very much the exception to this. I have 9,000 comments here, 12,000 posts on the old forum, and I have spent a great deal of time on a philosophy forum over the last ten years. Currently, it is a daily activity.

I also, as I mentioned, happen do drugs more often than the average person.

You're a smart guy, do away with the drugs. They're a dead end. — Wallows

I'm aware that they're not exactly harmless little drops of magic. But we were just talking about demanding something of someone. You questioned whether it was any different to evangelism. And, of all people, I certainly do not simply bow down to an imperative like, "Do away with the drugs". No, do away with the do away-ing: wasn't that sort of your message here? I don't want your cure. I'm a free spirit.

But you're right about one thing: I am a smart guy. I'm also a mad philosopher.

I'm not sure where "content people" fit in here. If you're content, then you're likely not using enough of a given substance to have a significant impact on your consciousness.

As far as the OP, I have two things to say. The first is that your opening statement is inaccurate. Philosophy, for thousands of years, has been a mental gymnastics domain for the wealthy, the educated intellectual, the sane, for the most part. The second thing I wanted to say ties into the first, and it is that philosophy is available to more common people and has far different utility than it did 3,000 years ago. It isn't for everyone, and it's never been for everyone. It isn't even for everyone who exhibits a strong desire to attempt to exercise some form of it. — whollyrolling

OK, so maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater; but, if the aim is to become sharper at critical thinking, or better at rhetoric, then isn't all the rest of philosophy redundant.

I may be coming off a little harsh here in saying that nobody needs philosophy. But, when is enough enough?

I'm aware that they're not exactly harmless little drops of magic. But we were just taking demanding something of someone, and I certainly do not simply bow down to an imperative like, "Do away with the drugs". No, do away with the do away-ing: wasn't that sort of your message here? I don't want your cure. — S

To remain consistent in my theme here, I don't command you or have any authority over the choices you make in life. But, I have had some (extensive) experience with drugs myself, and nothing good ever came out of it. Just my two cents. Take it or leave it.

you can get past the rhetoric and the eloquent words of some famous philosopher but at the end of the day some what they say may be true. Even country bumpkins engage in philosophy and i would argue very often the country bumpkins have something that the elites may never have. I do recognize you touched on some of this in your response.

"And again, if so, then I am still very much the exception to this. I have 9,000 comments here, 12,000 posts on the old forum, and I have spent a great deal of time on a philosophy forum over the last ten years. Currently, it is a daily activity.

I also, as I mentioned, happen do drugs more often than the average person."

absolutely. Its not a one size fits all as far a i'm concerned.

But, I have had some (extensive) experience with drugs myself, and nothing good ever came out of it. — Wallows

I don't believe you, though. I believe that the scales tipped against it in your case, or at least you reached that conclusion, but not that nothing good ever came out of it. I think that that's your antagonism talking. You project your own experience on to others, overstepping your bounds. But you mean well.

In my opinion, philosophy as a field of study is regressive and fundamentally useless to society, but discussion, debate and "philosophizing" can be useful or entertaining, possibly even enlightening, as a pastime for individuals or groups of people.

You project your own experience on to others, overstepping your bounds. But you mean well. — S

No, I don't dare project my sentiment/feelings/emotions/experience onto others. Idiots do that. If you need a word for it, it might be a simple matter of caring for your welfare, which you abhor. But, as you said, I mean well.

Hence, I find anyone who advocates philosophy as therapy, where nobody is asking for it in some sort of contradiction.

How does one progress from this dilemma? — Wallows

What's the contradiction? It's not a contradiction, but a paradox at best. It can make sense to advocate what's in someone's best interest, even if that someone is against it.

How does one progress from this dilemma? — Wallows

Keep trying or move on.

In my opinion, philosophy as a field of study is regressive and fundamentally useless to society, but discussion, debate and "philosophizing" can be useful or entertaining, possibly even enlightening, as a pastime for individuals or groups of people. — whollyrolling

Here I would disagree with you. Who would imagine that some bloke like Marx would shape not one, not two, but many societies in the world? Likewise, Comte or Locke had a profound influence on the constitution of the USA. Or Plato on the Islamic Republic.

It's scary what philosophy can influence.

It can make sense to advocate what's in someone's best interest, even if that someone is against it. — S

So, you're telling me at one end that drugs are not bad (just an example); but, a lifestyle choice. On the other end, I'm asking you what utility do drugs have to an individual?

That's a damn fine analysis.

Yes, as a result of Karl Marx, approximately 120 million innocent people have died, several economies have failed or are failing, several bitter revolutionary uprisings have caused social and political unrest and needless human suffering, that's quite some society shaping.