Yeah. If I wasn't just stuck in this era of history I'd be looking down the barrel like a dead donkey at some other kind of cultural excess. Could be power, art, religion etc. This one's a doozy though I reckon.

I think desire (except erotic) is based on a lack and what we desire has to be some combination of reason and pleasure which is perhaps a description of the will. Some hold that our desire is not ours but the desire of others, that what we ultimately want is recognition, and that want is structured by the desires of others.

I am not so sure Philosophy is sunk. If someone like Jordan Peterson, regardless of what you think of him, can sprout out of obscurity into a major cultural figure over a very short period, it suggests to me that people are interested if they can understand what is being said and if what is being said could make a difference in their lives.

I am not so sure Philosophy is sunk. — Cavacava

I heartily agree. <Hands over one of the many small buckets littering the hulll>

If someone like Jordan Peterson, regardless of what you think of him, can sprout out of obscurity into a major cultural figure over a very short period, it suggests to me that people are interested if they can understand what is being said and if what is being said could make a difference in their lives. — Cavacava

But is it philosophy?

I guess that's where my hesitance comes in. It depends on how we understand philosophy. And as it is understood now, even if I don't like the outcome, I am tempted to say nothing. Though I think that notion of philosophy should be challenged -- who could do it but philosophers?

Yes, he is very much a mixed bag but others are coming out to question him such as Sam Harris. I have not watched their debate yet, not really interested in much either has to say, except for the dramatics, but people are interested ,,,each of their conversation racked up over 300K views.

And yes, but is it really philosophy? It seems like they are grappling with ideas in the conversations I have listened to even though I disagree with them on points like Peterson's blanket criticism of Marxism or Harris's view on determinism.

I don't know if I'd include either as doing philosophy... though I guess that's the stickler of the question.

There is something about popularizes of thinking like Harris and Peterson that just seems off. When I read or listen to them they seem to commit some very obvious mistakes in thinking, and they almost don't seem accidental. They seem like the sort of mistakes which are hard to pinpoint, especially if what they say appeals to someone.

I am tempted to call them sophists, rather than philosophers.

But the question to me is how do you distinguish sophists from philosophy, sans-institutional boundaries?

Or, as related to the OP -- to what extent does desire enter philosophy while still looking like philosophy?

There is something wrong with philosophy as practiced today, I'd say. And the criticisms are well worn on this board, without need of repeating. But how do you come from those criticisms and make something that is both unlike philosophy as practiced today, but still something that resembles philosophy, as opposed to some other practice? (like politics, social activism, psychology, sophistry, and so forth)

And at the same time sidestep the dreaded guru pitfall for that matter

By guru pitfall do you mean where a single person is able to dicate to others when they are right or when they are wrong?

Or what?

Because I can see a place for such action, in a stepping-stone manner. Just not in an ultimate manner.

Alas the Guru effect.

Even at its best it's a very poor substitute for one's own faculties. It its worst it devolves into a 'psychological game' (e.g. R.D. Laing) where one participant exchanges autonomy for freedom from the discomforts of uncertainty and responsibility. The other exchanges genuine intimacy for the pleasure of power. Not long afterwards we're all drinking the Cool-Aid.

Cool-Aid — Kym

Kool Aid. To those of us who grew up drinking that crap (krap?) it matters. Then came Funny Face Drinks - Injun Orange, Chinese Cherry; after protests changed to Jolly Olly Orange and Choo Choo Cherry. Then, of course, came Jim Jones.

Yeah, that last bit. Gives you the willies! ("willees"?)

AFK for a time guys. Sorry for any lack of responses

I had to read the wiki entry on Laing; I didn't see anything there that lead me to think he did a disservice to people. But I just may not know what he did. I think I get a gist of what you're after, but...

This is actually another point on meta-philosophy that "could have gone different". Philosophy today is largely organized along a Peripatetic model -- healthy minds involved in dialectical inquiry seeking after truth in order to grow into great leaders. Back in the day those healthy minds were largely the sons of nobles, and the purpose of said studies was to train them to be tomorrow's leaders. We no longer have nobility, but the whole general training to be tomorrow's leaders thing isn't too far off the mark -- especially at Ivy League institutions, it's virtually the same model.

But not all minds are healthy. Most of the time we are irrationally attached to this or that. We can get in our own way. To the point that we actually are already at a loss of autonomy and freedom. In such a case it may be the only option to treat someone differently than we do others -- like a doctor.

Now, determining when that is the case is not easy. But I don't see having someone in the role of a doctor of the mind as intrinsically wrong. I do understand how said relationship can go wrong; what you describe seems to be an extremely unhealthy relationship. (I'm looking at you, Lacan!)

But there are times when someone needs to be more than a tutor dialectically and reasonably helping a healthy mind to grow, but not quite a full-fledged doctor either -- but it would have to be, I think, motivated by concern for a friend with the end goal of helping them become autonomous.

Such a relationship is not one of equals. There is a power differential established by this medical model. I'd contend that there is a way of doing this that is not creepy and weird. More like a mentorship, or a midwife of the soul, than the pleasure of power over others.

No, I don't think this is an experiment doomed to failure. In fact I suspect the Greeks got a lot of their ideas via the silk road. So perhaps there's an artificial E-W division anyway. But there's many a pitfall to had. The one I mentioned is the one I've experienced first hand. — Kym

Well - yes - that really isn't hypothetical. Pyrrho of Elis, the founder of scepticism, founded the school after meeting wise men in India and Persia (gymnosophists, magi), during his travels with the host of Alexander the Great. Onesikritos of Astypalaia, a cynical philosopher who studied under Diogenes, also had similar experiences.