Not that it's impossible to have someone change the way you view things, it just looks to be very rare. — Manuel

Which is curious, if true.

I'm pretty sure people can be 'radicalised' by philosophy. I’ve certainly met those who 'converted' to idealism or became obsessed with Heidegger’s model of time, to the point where perpetually excited and they would talk about nothing else. And then there are those who abandoned their Islamic or Christian faith and became bores about secular philosophy instead.

You would think that if philosophy truly had the power to lift us beyond convention and common sense, it would amount to a profoundly mind-bending and transformative experience for many people.

for many people — Tom Storm

That's the key isn't it? What's "many people"? If you have in mind people like us and people adjacent to us, then we are what, 5% of the population at very best?

One thing is passing interest: oh, I read Plato once or I saw this lecture on Heidegger. Another thing is to become a Platonist or a Heideggerian.

Most people - even in optimal conditions - don't care enough about these issues. Heck even interest in science is low for what I would like it to be, but philosophy today? That's tough.

It becomes more complicated if you pursue the analytic/continental tradition in which I think you do get cults. Some are mostly harmless, Wittgenstein - maybe Popper. Another thing is being a follower of Derrida or Lacan, that exists, is relatively small, but probably not good for thinking, imo.

But that's just how I see things.

If you have in mind people like us and people adjacent to us, then we are what, 5% of the population at very best? — Manuel

Never thought about it. I’m not sure if I should be concerned or amused by this figure,

Most people - even in optimal conditions - don't care enough about these issues. Heck even interest in science is low for what I would like it to be, but philosophy today? That's tough. — Manuel

I wonder if there are some good stats on this. I mentioned philosophy at work a couple of times and people made it clear they thought it was bullshit. Mind you this is a crowd interested in critical theory so go figure.

Another thing is being a follower of Derrida or Lacan, that exists, is relatively small, but probably not good for thinking, imo. — Manuel

Yes, all the smart young kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze.

Yes, all the [emo] kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze. — Tom Storm

:cool: :up:

Yes, all the smart young kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze. — Tom Storm

:lol:

At least most of that fad is behind us now.

I keep wondering if there are transformational understandings about time and self and being and truth and reality that would open up and utterly change one. Surely that's the promise of thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger. — Tom Storm

That’s also the promise of psychologist George Kelly, the one who said that each of us walks around every moment of very day with our own personal construct system. You can think of it as a dynamical, constantly self-updating personal philosophy which doesn’t need to be articulated verbally to oneself or others in order to guide every aspect of our lives and determines our success at coping with emotional, intellectual and ethical challenges.We don’t need Nietzsche and Heidegger in order to do philosophy , since we are already formulating, testing and revising our own philosophical systems all the time. By the way, Kelly collapses these categories together. He gets rid of the separation between will, affect and cognition.

I think life difficulties are much more defined or informed by one's temperament more than what some intelligent person said back in the day.
— Manuel

Well said. A perspective people tend not to consider as they seem to attribute everything to learning and discernment. — Tom Storm

The mysterious concept of ‘temperament’ arises out of creating artificially separated categories out of learning , cognition and affectivity. This prompts us to dismiss a child’s temper tantrum as the product of temperament rather than as their flailing attempts at making sense of social events that impact them.

I do like me a questionaire.

​Ethics in Action: How do you personally resolve ethical contradictions that arise in your everyday life? — Astorre

I don't resort to philosophical analysis for determining what is ethical. I find ethical theories post hoc attempts to describe why you act in instinctively ethical ways. To the extent a contradiction arises, I just weigh the two and try to figure out what is best.

​Coping with Life's Challenges: Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety? — Astorre

I don't. That's the purpose of religion.

​Balancing Depth and Superficiality: How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others? — Astorre

We can learn from everyone. I think it's a mistake to assume the philosophically minded offer more than those not so.

Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how? — Astorre

To the extent being philosophical is synonymous with being even tempered, then I suppose it makes me not tempermental, but I don't think philosophy made me that way. I think that's just the way I am.

The mysterious concept of ‘temperament’ arises out of creating artificially separated categories out of learning , cognition and affectivity. — Joshs

Cool. So can we think of temperament as habitual patterns of sense making? I’m assuming you include in temperament people’s preferences for order, simplicity, chaos, or whatever…

We don’t need Nietzsche and Heidegger in order to do philosophy, since we are already formulating, testing and revising our own philosophical systems all the time. — Joshs

Of course, but in most cases it often seems to take the contributions of others to promote a significant shift in our thinking. Although I’m sure break through moments can also happen from life events. But what does it mean to read Wittgenstein or Heidegger and see the world radically anew? From what you say above, is it correct to think you might define philosophy as an act of sense making?

I keep wondering if there are transformational understandings about time and self and being and truth and reality that would open up and utterly change one.

That's one of the key points of Saint Augustine's autobiography. In his thirties, after a very different sort of life, Augustine became a celibate, gave up his very promising career in the imperial circle, and gave away all his (not inconsiderable) wealth. Only then did he start producing all his influential philosophical texts; although obviously the ideas had been developed over time. It's not an uncommon motif, particularly in earlier philosophical biographies. It seems significantly less common in modern philosophy, although there are examples such as Pascal. It's a sort of "trope" in Eastern thought too, the life of the Buddha being a paradigmatic example. But, just because these are tropes and find their way into hagiography, doesn't mean they aren't real; we do have first hand biographical accounts as well.

There is a similar, but much more limited phenomenon within Marxism, the "Marxist conversion." Yet that tends to be a more limited awakening to a particular political outlook.

It seems significantly less common in modern philosophy, although there are examples such as Pascal. It's a sort of "trope" in Eastern thought too, the life of the Buddha being a paradigmatic example. But, just because these are tropes and find their way into hagiography, doesn't mean they aren't real; we do have first hand biographical accounts as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I was thinking about this kind of thing earlier. I was also considering the difference between attaining ‘enlightenment’ (for want of a better term) and, in the case of Marxists or Muslims, being radicalised.

But I was thinking less ambitiously: more like an understanding about the nature of time, or a perspective offered by phenomenology, and how, even on a smaller scale, such realizations might completely recalibrate one’s way of relating to the world and its “problems.” Not enlightenment, radicalisation, or conversion to a faith, but rather (damn, I’ll have to use the phrase) a paradigm shift. Perhaps 'realization' is the better word.

I have a romantic notion of philosophy as potentially being able to provide this kind of psychological or experiential transformation, not just the lifeless pursuit of analysis and cold reasoning, but a new way of seeing that enlarges our experience in some way. Yet such a description feels rather tendentious, soft and poetic.

The mysterious concept of ‘temperament’ arises out of creating artificially separated categories out of learning , cognition and affectivity.
— Joshs

Cool. So can we think of temperament as habitual patterns of sense making? I’m assuming you include in temperament people’s preferences for order, simplicity, chaos, or whatever… — Tom Storm

We could say they are habits, but not blind or arbitrary habits. They are shaped by the needs of optimal anticipation of events, so to the extent that a particular pattern of interpreting events reproduces itself stably over time, it does this not because of some inertia, but to the extent that it is effective. Emotion crises arise as indications that the patterns we relied on are brining to fail us, and we either have to construct our world to a small and smaller circle of what we can cope with, or begin the process of re-organizing our system of constructs.

We don’t need Nietzsche and Heidegger in order to do philosophy, since we are already formulating, testing and revising our own philosophical systems all the time.
— Joshs

Of course, but in most cases it often seems to take the contributions of others to promote a significant shift in our thinking. Although I’m sure break through moments can also happen from life events. But what does it mean to read Wittgenstein or Heidegger and see the world radically anew? From what you say above, is it correct to think you might define philosophy as an act of sense making? — Tom Storm

All of our behaviors are acts of sense-making, questions we pose to the world that it may either confirm or invalidate. It is certainly true that other people provide rich resources that we can take average of in opening up promising new avenues of thought. But more important than the contributions of others is the audacity, persistence and ingenuity with which we tinker with our ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger will do nothing for us if we are not prepared to rethink them in our own terms, relative to our own concerns and history. Because we must already be prepared to absorb the ideas than any great philosophy has to offer, 90% of the work has already been done before we are ever exposed to the likes of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Whenever someone claims that so and so’s thinking had a life-changing effect on them, I suspect that scratching beneath the surface will reveal such a readiness to be transformed.

Emotion crises arise as indications that the patterns we relied on are brining to fail us, and we either have to construct our world to a small and smaller circle of what we can cope with, or begin the process of re-organizing our system of constructs. — Joshs

Yes. Good point.

Whenever someone claims that so and so’s thinking had a life-changing effect on them, I suspect that scratching beneath the surface will reveal such a readiness to be transformed. — Joshs

Yes, that likely to be accurate.

Thanks.

I have a romantic notion of philosophy as potentially being able to provide this kind of psychological or experiential transformation, not just the lifeless pursuit of analysis and cold reasoning, but a new way of seeing that enlarges our experience in some way. Yet such a description feels rather tendentious, soft and poetic. — Tom Storm

Well, one interesting thing is that back when the primary goal of philosophical education was existential transformation instead of intellectual specialization (i.e., for most of pre-modern though, and for much Eastern philosophy) it was also taught very differently. In order to achieve that sort of transformation, it was very much a sort of "lifestyle" education, with a heavy focus on asceticism, "spiritual exercises," and generally time for silence/contemplation (although not as much for the Cynics).

Whether this actually worked, or how exactly it worked is another question. The ancient sources are often idealized, and we might suspect that some of them are fictionalized (a few are satirical or slanderous). Obviously, it worked in a certain sense, in that life in the community was radically different as long as people stayed in it. From what I know, in-depth guides to practice don't really exist until the Middle Ages, when different monastic communities wanted to compare notes on methods. But by that point their role had already expanded significantly and so they were often dealing with populations that were less zealously committed to the project, or were putting other sorts of concerns first (charity, more general education, good old fashioned corruption, etc.).

I have a romantic notion of philosophy as potentially being able to provide this kind of psychological or experiential transformation, not just the lifeless pursuit of analysis and cold reasoning, but a new way of seeing that enlarges our experience in some way. Yet such a description feels rather tendentious, soft and poetic. — Tom Storm

For Pierre Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84).]

https://iep.utm.edu/hadot/#SH5a

This kind of attitude is bubbling up through independent philosophers rather than academics although again John Vervaeke is both.

Nice quote and exactly what I was thinking of.

Well, one interesting thing is that back when the primary goal of philosophical education was existential transformation instead of intellectual specialization (i.e., for most of pre-modern though, and for much Eastern philosophy) it was also taught very differently. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I hadn't thought of it in terms of existential transformation but I guess that works. There does seem to be a kind of bifurcation between the problem solvers and the dreamers - for want of better terms. And no doubt there's overlap.

I sometimes entertain the idea that modern culture normalizes problematical states of consciousness—restlessness, distraction, alienation—and that philosophy, properly understood, is a discipline that seeks critical awareness of this fact. In that sense, it’s not just abstract speculation but a kind of therapy, aimed at cultivating lucidity. Of course easier said than done as we’re all to some extent immersed in it.

This is the problem I had in mind when I spoke about interaction with others. Many people are driven by prejudices. As Gadamer says, this is not bad, since it gives a person the very possibility of knowledge. But often these prejudices become reinforced concrete for their bearer. In this sense, I often have a contradiction in the relationship between me and others.

The question arises: Is it worth undermining their prejudice, although it does not stand up to criticism? This is exactly what I mean when I say that I am forced to "step on my own throat"

A very subtle definition for philosophy that you voiced: "therapy aimed at developing clarity of thinking."

often these prejudices become reinforced concrete for their bearer — Astorre

Ain’t that the truth. Everyone has them but the wise are willlng to own up to it.

I agree with you. In this sense, philosophy is a dude who sits in your head and criticizes you. In psychology, this is called self-reflection (if I'm not mistaken). Education in general (including philosophy itself) teaches a person to be friends with this dude, and not shut his mouth =)

That’s more Freud’s superego, The philosopher’s aim is always ‘seeing what is’.

But at the same time it is difficult for a philosopher to stop in his criticism. The philosopher begins to ask - "What is "is"?", "What does "to be" mean?" And so on ad infinitum. As they said above - you can't put the genie back in the bottle =)))

Krishnamurti used to say, ‘to see as it is without condemning it or justifying it.’ That is something that stayed with me,

Many people are driven by prejudices. — Astorre

One person’s prejudice is another’s insight.

I agree with you. In this sense, philosophy is a dude who sits in your head and criticizes you. In psychology, this is called self-reflection (if I'm not mistaken). — Astorre

I think it’s often called critical reflection or in nursing, teaching and social work, reflective practice.

But what is often forgotten here is that critical practice also acknowledges strengths: what works, what is possible given limitations and what is successful. Rather than pointing out a need for change or highlighting omissions or flaws, it can actually embolden and be an affirmation of your choices and approaches.

Ethics in Action: How do you personally resolve ethical contradictions that arise in your everyday life? — Astorre

I think that the origin of the problem is not the contradictions, but the concept of ethics. The world, existence, everything is contradictory. We try to find consistencies, but just because our brain needs to simplify things to be able to get some understanding. I think there is no reason why the world should be consistent rather than contradictory. As a consequence, in my everyday life I try to find harmonizations between this naturally contradictory world and my personal need to make some sense of things, in order to live my humanity.

Coping with Life's Challenges: Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety? — Astorre

Yes, I would even say that philosophy is my life, that’s why I call it spirituality, following Hadot’s orientation. This does not mean that philosophy mitigates my difficulties. I don’t think that using philosophy this way gives us an advantage. On the contrary, my philosophy tells me that this world, from a human point of view, is essentially evil and we just need to let our human nature exist at its best, which we don’t know what it means, but we can try to explore.

Balancing Depth and Superficiality: How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others? — Astorre

My perception is that superficiality is not just in uneducated people, but also in 99.99% of philosophers and intellectuals, which includes me of course. I think that what we need is some art of listening, which modern and contemporary philosophy doesn’t teach us so much, because it is made of enormous efforts to define, understand, express, instead of listening. I think that Hadot has shown us that philosophy as a spiritual exercise meant, to a large degree, philosophy as an activity of listening, meditating, contemplating, rather than wanting to get in control of reality and being. This way I can better get, receive, the hidden philosophical language that comes from those people who are commonly considered, even by themselves, uneducated.

Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how? — Astorre

Yes, definitely. On one side it makes me perceive a lot of people as shallow, tragic victims of mass standardization, on the other side my philosophical thinking is largely based on self criticism, which means that one thing that philosophy should teach me and itself is being silent, renouncing to think, to understand, to define, and being more open to what cannot be expressed by words, which is always the source of our words, thoughts and definitions.

Wittgestein said that “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. I disagree. I think that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must, if it is needed, force language, even make violence to language, make it contradictory, absurd, surreal, to make our best attempts to communicate all the same the incommunicable (which is everything in this world). In this context I think that whenever language looks consistent and clear, it is just a bad illusion, a clever trick that we have created to impose our dominion.

My perception is that superficiality is not just in uneducated people, but also in 99.99% of philosophers and intellectuals, which includes me of course. I think that what we need is some art of listening, which modern and contemporary philosophy doesn’t teach us so much, because it is made of enormous efforts to define, understand, express, instead of listening. — Angelo Cannata

I'm quite content to be superficial, to be honest.

But I wonder if this inability to listen well has a contrapuntal echo in people’s inability to read well. I notice that when people read, they often recreate the writing in the light of their own values and interpretive frameworks. To some extent this is unavoidable, but perhaps there is a line where the reading and recreating becomes self-serving, distorting and blind to new ideas.

The opposite aspect could be worth positive consideration: fortunately wrong reading is unavoidable, so that life and creativity is possible. I am aware that this way we end up to total confusion, so it might be useful to keep it in a human context to avoid such confusion. This means that both understanding and misunderstanding could be managed in such ways to promote what we humans perceive as some kind of good, of progress, especially if it includes self-criticism.

So much for consistency and clarity. What a relief it is to dispense with them!

fortunately wrong reading is unavoidable, so that life and creativity is possible. — Angelo Cannata

I think you and I might agree that there are degrees of misreading. If you came away from Das Kapital seeing it as a guide for trusting corporations and stock markets to solve all social problems, then we have likely crossed a line into uselessness.

:grin: That's really a nice one!

in everyday life…a simple person, with ordinary views, with simple desires and good intentions. Perhaps philosophy teaches us this? — Astorre

Philosophy unteaches us this.

Right? At least that is how the philosopher is born, when he sees through something that just a moment ago was solid and opaque. When he has unlearned what he thought he knew. And then philosophy unteaches us that, and we no longer see “things” nor do we see “seeing things” the same again.

Philosophy is the rational struggle to get back to being the simple person, with a clear simple view, able to be witnessed by and shared with any ordinary person. Philosophy teaches us that is no longer likely, try as we may to make a simpler understanding.

And so on ad infinitum. As they said above - you can't put the genie back in the bottle =))) — Astorre

Exactly, trying to put the genie back.

We’ve leaned that we’ve been lost all along so the first thing we know is the question - where the hell am I?

But it’s not “ad infinitum”. It’s just one small finite step at a time. To reach, ad inifinitum you have to stand still and not move at all. But I see progress in this.