Have they considered the benefits of dehancing their lives?

If "my life" is that which I desire and what I desire feels bad then even by the psychological egoist's standards dehancing one's life could lead to a better outcome than enhancing it.

Suppose the love of money within a career that's rewarding. Then one can enhance their life by volunteering for more work and obtaining more reward. There are only so many hours in the day, though, and if they have loved ones then this enhancement can lead to sorrow and loss in some other regard that the enhancement didn't consider.

Which is a long winded way of saying: It's worthwhile to think and reflect. "Enhancement of life" might not be all it's chalked up to be.

For me, reducing philosophy to the "why" is a simplification. But there is something interesting implicit in what you have said. To say why the "why" is important is to say that in order to do justice to philosophy in terms of its goal and purpose, you must do more philosophy. For example, my idea of what philosophy is (the discovery of problems) is linked to the ontology I adhere to (the virtual, the problematic and the actual). This is why different philosophers, according to their own philosophy, have different ideas about what philosophy is and what it is for. There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. In other words, meta-philosophy is philosophical in itself.

There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. I — JuanZu

I think this is a good point. For some people philosophy is about fixing the plumbing (Midgely) and for others it's about existence disclosed (Heidegger).

For me, reducing philosophy to the "why" is a simplification. But there is something interesting implicit in what you have said. To say why the "why" is important is to say that in order to do justice to philosophy in terms of its goal and purpose, you must do more philosophy. For example, my idea of what philosophy is (the discovery of problems) is linked to the ontology I adhere to (the virtual, the problematic and the actual). This is why different philosophers, according to their own philosophy, have different ideas about what philosophy is and what it is for. There is no single answer to what philosophy is; it depends on the philosophy from which you position yourself. In other words, meta-philosophy is philosophical in itself. — JuanZu

Well you could just become a Pyrrhonist and say "nuts to all that".

If only I could quell my curious desire -- opting into becoming a pyrrhonist is much easier than becoming one, let's say.

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

I wonder what the minimum standard would be for someone to be called a philosopher? — Tom Storm

Being a "Philosopher" is usually someone who does it for a living such as educators, scholars, and thinkers who publish books critiqued by peers. Time and effort spent, not money, defines them.

You will find that there are methods common among them:

1. Studied extensively the writings of those who came before them.
2. Formed analyses and critiques towards other philosophical works.
3. Formed their own theses to debunk or agree with other philosophical works.
4. Tried not to re-invent the wheels, but built up on previous works by others.
5. Got their works analyzed and critiqued by their peers before and/or after publication.

Being a "Philosopher" is usually someone who does it for a living such as educators, scholars, and thinkers who publish books critiqued by peers. Time and effort spent, not money, defines them.

You will find that there are methods common among them:

1. Studied extensively the writings of those who came before them.
2. Formed analyses and critiques towards other philosophical works.
3. Formed their own theses to debunk or agree with other philosophical works.
4. Tried not to re-invent the wheels, but built up on previous works by others.
5. Got their works analyzed and critiqued by their peers before and/or after publication. — L'éléphant

Nice. That would have been my guess too. I think 4 is particularly relevant. Most of us are in the wheel reinvention business.

Most of us are in the wheel reinvention business. — Tom Storm

:grin:

I don't remember who that thinker was who commented on this behavior against other philosophers who seemed to have been doing it in their writings. But yes, there was a mention of this behavior within the philosophical community.

"So, we come full circle via a strange loop. Every experience of every entity including ourselves engenders expression which contributes to ongoing conceptual construction.

That feedback is philosophy - the way whose truth is our life. It is inseparable from a human, being. "


I found this part odd because humans seemed to have survived a long time before philosophy so I wouldn't say it's truth is our life. — Darkneos

Not that I'm in full agreement with the quoted remark, but my take on the issue of "Is there a purpose to philosophy":

Yes: improved eudemonia … obtained via greater wisdom … toward which one supposedly has an affinity. Hence, "philo-sophia". Or at least that’s the traditionally maintained view. In contrast, a significant portion of the modern view holds it that wisdom in all its forms (artistic, analytic, scientific, etc.) is worthless, replacing its esteem with esteem for ever greater cash wads and power over others … which are also esteemed in the name of the very same end of improved eudemonia. And something tells me that ethics has something to do with this general bifurcation. One does on occasion hear a child being praised for being wise beyond their years, but I’ve never yet heard praise in the form of “loaded with cash beyond one’s years” or else “domineering beyond one’s years”.

I also as of yet don’t see why the same generalized dichotomy of means toward the very same end of improved eudemonia would not have been around since the dawn of mankind: same brains throughout, just different outfits and such.

That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives. — Darkneos

My guess is that such people do not pursue philosophy as a way of life.

I have come to see that philosophy is a practice like meditation, exercise, learning musical instruments, tai chi, martial arts, and similar enterprises. As with all such practices, the goal is self-awareness. Philosophy is a practice that focuses on becoming more aware of our internal mental processes. This is certainly how it is for me.

That's generally the main issue I hear people talk about with philosophy, it doesn't really enhance our lives. — Darkneos

It's certainly not for everyone. The average person engages in something because they seek immediate benefit. Or as they'll put it "for it to be useful eventually." It's almost like an advanced form of language. People use it to "sound smart" and "impress others" and of course to better cope with and appreciate the ups and downs of this hectic thing we call life. Unfortunately, it doesn't "work" on people smarter than yourself.

Besides, the average person just scrolls through TikTok or any social media feed and all the "helpful" quotes that resonate with the average person, or to be fair, stood the test of time organically, are all right there and all you have to do is repeat it around others to sound smart. Sort of self defeating, but not entirely I suppose, seeing as it does proliferate wisdom to the common man, which arguably, was the purpose. I imagine Socrates or any one of these wise people just got annoyed at the average person and wanted to "fix" them, thus making the world a better, or at least less annoying place. Just my theory.

:up: :up:

very good :up:

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle."

Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is.

Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is. — Banno

You joke, but I think this is fair. I like my bottle, it's home. In a similar way, why leave Plato’s cave when there’s a permanent puppet show and everything is warm and predictable? And we know the sun causes cancer...

There's no place like home, it's said.

Yes. But so often the fly is comfortable where it is. — Banno

Aren't you comfortable where you're at? You can't really think there's no knowledge left anywhere that would fundamentally alter your sense of understanding of the world or perhaps even yourself. Can you?

Ignorance is bliss. There's nothing wrong with that. Until there is, I suppose. :confused:

Yeah but if the bar is that low you could make the case for any sort of ticket machine being a philosopher since it "Accepts or rejects some set of values or other".

The point is more to examine the things that you hold and why you hold those to be true, that's generally the core of philosophy in my experience. — Darkneos

The ticket machine cannot state that it has accepted or rejected values. The ability to state what is on one's mind would seem to be a minimum requirement for doing philosophy

I agree with you that an important part of philosophy consists in questioning one's assumptions and conclusions, but the rudiments of philosophy consist in having assumptions and reaching conclusions.

Yes, I've often aspired to this, philosophically speaking, anyway. But there are too many cute and counterintuitive ideas out there not to be at least half-interested in the subject. — Tom Storm

Oh, I agree—I'm interested in any and all speculative ideas, even though I take many, even most, of them with a grain of salt.

My prejudice is that unless someone has genius of some kind and can generate innovative theories without any special training (e.g., Wittgenstein), or unless they have some expertise that allows them to see the world differently, who cares what they think? — Tom Storm

I tend to agree with Hegel that the history of philosophy consist, for the most part, in "the same old stew, reheated", and I think any interesting new ideas in philosophy have always come on the back of science.

, then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle?

Annoyingly:

Both/and/or

or

Something else.

then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle? — Banno

Apparently, per one of the mods here, "all language is art." Therefore, all art is language. Perhaps, it can be best likened to painting a picture. Not necessarily a nice picture, but an accurate one. To the best of one's ability, of course. And once presented to another, it's up for that person to compare and contrast that to the one they've painted themselves, be it unrealistic, unwarranted, inaccurate, or any or all of the above. To decide if one's interpretation of the world could not be improved, if not slightly. And we all know, in systems theory, relatively slight and seemingly nominal changes can have quite deep and everlasting effects. :smile:

I have come to see that philosophy is a practice like meditation, exercise, learning musical instruments, tai chi, martial arts, and similar enterprises. As with all such practices, the goal is self-awareness. Philosophy is a practice that focuses on becoming more aware of our internal mental processes. This is certainly how it is for me. — T Clark

Well we can't really be aware of our internal mental processes since much of it happens unconsciously.

I like what Wittgenstein said about the purpose of philosophy: "To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle." — Ciceronianus

The irony though is that philosophy also shows there is no way out of the bottle. Rather philosophy is more getting into someone else's bottle (which is sorta what he's doing with the remark, albeit unknowingly).

then is the purpose of philosophy showing the way out, or shaking the bottle? — Banno

Not really, it shows that you can never really know if you're out of it. Plato's cave is fine and all but the assumption in there is that we know what being out of the cave looks like. The painful reality is that like 50 different thinkers all believe they know what's outside the cave.

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed.

Philosophy's "purpose" is flourishing –
to understand and practice aligning expectations (i.e. judgments) with reality.

Well we can't really be aware of our internal mental processes since much of it happens unconsciously. — Darkneos

Sure we can. You’re right that you don’t have access to everything. But then again, the kinds of subjects that philosophy covers tend to be associated with conscious attention and intention. It’s also true that the more aware you become, the more of your unconscious mental activity becomes conscious.

Plato's cave is fine and all but the assumption in there is that we know what being out of the cave looks like. — Darkneos

As opposed to the assumption that we don't know what being out of the cave looks like...

Yep. That we know about our unconscious shows that it is not outside of our ruminations...

The fly bottle is self-imposed. — Ciceronianus

Yep.

My preferred interpretation of W's statement is that the fly bottle is something the fly has contrived and by which it mistakenly thinks of itself as apart from the rest of the world instead of a part of the world. So, showing it the way out would include correcting misconceptions, e.g. the belief in an "external world" which can't truly be known, mind/body and other dualisms. The fly bottle is self-imposed. — Ciceronianus

I like this.

You can't avoid holding philosophical positions. And I find that often the people most dismissive of philosophy are the people trying to push their own (e.g. Creationist sites are often even more derisive of philosophy departments than they are of evolutionary biologists, say).

That said philosophy as a formal area of study does require certain cognitive skills and a lot of patience. Not everyone can do it.

I often regret not studying philosophy at Uni, but on the other hand, I do glaze over sometimes in very abstract discussions on definitions. And there are several topics in philosophy that I feel are pretty silly but have reached the threshold where you can't just question the whole premise any more.
I probably don't have the chops for it.