There wouldn't be much to philosophy if it weren't for the philosophy.

Some one's philosophy may amount to a way of living. Quite certainly this can be seen in what is called "The Way." Even Jesus has this title for his followers, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

I find it useful to use the distinction between procedural and declarative propositions when analyzing my mind's content. Is this thought (x) declarative or procedural? Does it state something about the world or does it state something that I can do?

When you keep some track of your thoughts, the patterns and the like, rather it be through repeated introspections or insight provided by an other, you can come to self-actualization in the mind, which is a realization about yourself (declarative or procedural).

I don't know if you are fine just the way you go about analyzing things, with your own reference frames or if you think there are other methods. Here I make mention of one. I like the idea that philosophy offers both declarative and procedural content.

I don't know if you are fine just the way you go about analyzing things, with your own reference frames or if you think there are other methods. Here I make mention of one. I like the idea that philosophy offers both declarative and procedural content. — Josh Alfred

Can you expand on the declarative and procedural content you are talking about? I'm quite interested.

One example that came to mind quite quickly was Kant's Categorical Imperative, which I am sure your familiar with. Its a procedural philosophy. His categories, on that hand, are of declarative nature. Its ethics vs. epistemology, in another lingo.

Socrates said it best: the unexamined life is not worth living.
Many other great philosophers have endorsed this opinion.
But it is important that the examination is done in a proper manner and only out of bewildered curiosity, and not for the mere sake of profit, idleness or exhibitionism. And not as self-help for psychological issues arising from complex societies. There is psychology for that. And psychology is not love of knowledge, philosophy is.
Stoicism has lost its meaning to the modern man, who thinks it means ‘hardening’ yourself by uncomplainingly suffering life’s more unpleasant moments. But it actually means accepting that whatever happens in nature is perfect as what is absolutely perfect is the very meaning of what is natural. There are no mistakes.
Also beware of the common mistake of overcompensating for confusion. If one is not careful, that humility, though looking nice to other people, can lead not to cynicism but a world-denying mysticism where everything is false because there are no truths, everything ought to be doubted because there is no knowing, and there is no mind besides the senses because everything is its opposite.

Philosophy alienated me from friends and family! So it taught me something with regards to that.

What's everyone even calling "philosophy"? And don't we already more or less know the answers? Don't get me wrong, I've got the gist of what it is, but it seems to me that there are different senses in use. Philosophy as this, philosophy as that, philosophy as the other. Perhaps a good way of putting it is that philosophy is a multi-tool, like religion is, but with philosophy I don't want a refund. I like it and it helps me in ways. It has improved my critical thinking skills and my knowledge, which I consider useful and a good thing. Although, as with anything, it has pros and cons. Whatever it is, I'm obsessed with it and addicted to it, and have been for the past ten years.

Anything new, exciting, or insightful in that answer, @Wallows? I don't particularly think so myself. But that's where it lead me by thinking about it and answering honestly, instead of trying to be quirky or profound, which others will almost inevitably try to be if you attract enough replies, and at least a few will almost inevitably fail. I'm just waiting for the brief and cryptic attempt at conveying wisdom. It usually shows up at some point in a discussion like this.

Wittgenstein taught me a thing or two. He helped me to beware of philosophy and its bewitching tendencies. I am more disillusioned now than I once was.

Philosophy alienated me from friends and family! So it taught me something with regards to that. — Pussycat

Yes, there is a certain amount of alienation present with practicing philosophy. In my Life and death class I took at a local community college, the instructor was very cognizant of making sure that the existential questions raised by the coursework, didn't leave students in a disoriented state.

Anyway, going back to Wittgenstein, I believe that his main point that he tried to pass on to others was that philosophy can cause more confusion than necessary. Hence, I suppose there is an appeal to philosophical quietism.

Anyway, going back to Wittgenstein, I believe that his main point that he tried to pass on to others was that philosophy can cause more confusion than necessary. — Wallows

A very valuable lesson indeed.

Perhaps a good way of putting it is that philosophy is a multi-tool, like religion is, but with philosophy I don't want a refund. I like it and it helps me in ways. — S

How has it helped you?

It has improved my critical thinking skills and my knowledge, which I consider useful and a good thing. Although, as with anything, it has pros and cons. Whatever it is, I'm obsessed with it and addicted to it, and have been for the past ten years. — S

Yes; but, has it made you a more ethical person, who is concerned with the problems of others? I can't say I am a very ethical person. I mean, I do desire the good, whatever that is and I try and put a smile on every new face I meet.

I'm just waiting for the brief and cryptic attempt at conveying wisdom. It usually shows up at some point in a discussion like this. — S

Then you are aiming at being pretentious, are you not? Oh dear...

How has it helped you? — Wallows

I went on to give a few examples. But here, have some more. It has helped me to analyse all sorts of things, like stuff related to logic, meaning, and psychology. It has helped me see things for what they are. It has drawn me to certain ways of thinking and acting. It has improved my writing.

Yes; but, has it made you a more ethical person, who is concerned with the problems of others? I can't say I am a very ethical person. I mean, I do desire the good, whatever that is and I try and put a smile on every new face I meet. — Wallows

Being more concerned with the problems of others doesn't necessarily make someone a more ethical person. It could make someone more of a fool who undervalues their own interests. I'll go with Aristotle's golden mean here.

I'm not very ethical in some traditional respects, no. But that's just tradition. Tradition isn't necessarily what's right. I've learnt a thing or two by way of Nietzsche here.

I try to put a smile on the faces of the customers I meet in my workplace, because I'm expected to do so as part of my job. It helps them feel good, and when they feel good, they're more likely to buy from us. I would much rather treat them with indifference, except the rare ones who are actually interesting. Sometimes I end up spending all day looking for the interesting ones with my lantern, but they're so hard to find.

Then you are aiming at being pretentious, are you not? Oh dear... — Wallows

By waiting? Anyway no, I am not. The opposite, actually. I am aiming at being honest, and that includes honesty in my criticism, and I aim to do this with a conscious disregard for "etiquette". That's my modus operandi.

Did you not say that Cynicism has taught you to be less aware of what other people think of you, and instead, with some confidence, continue what you have been doing regardless of their thoughts and beliefs? That's what I put into practice here all the time. Sometimes it gets me in trouble. Apparently, according to Baden, I've been overusing "bollocks" and "Play-Doh" and "fucking". Given that Baden is an administratior, the suggestion seems to be that if I don't play by his rules, which I judge to be quite superficial, then I risk action being taken against me.

Diogenes was great. He got himself into trouble too, but he didn't let that trouble him too much, or even at all. He didn't merely use colourful language, he masturbated in the marketplace. He also mocked Plato, and told Alexander the Great to step aside from blocking the sun.

You sound like more of a people pleaser. That I am certainly not. Not here at least.

So, what has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

Beginning with what it may be said to do......
“...For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error....”

......coupled with what it may be said to actually be......
“....certification as to the pure and legitimate origin of fundamental conceptions...”

.....then personally, I can say there exists a certain kind of philosophy that has taught me at least a more precise and hence more comfortable way to think, without contradicting my experience.

So, what has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

Perhaps "philosophy" is no more instructive or therapeutic than collecting and classifying beetles as a hobby (or a job). I mean, any concerted effort to understand the world is beneficial. The effort, in itself--whether one tracks down the last beetle or not--leads to more organized, wider-aperture thinking.

Some colleges offer classes in "critical thinking", which seems odd to me. Shouldn't "critical thinking" be the modus operandi of the entire operation, from Art to Zoology? Analyzing periods of painting, or classifying plants both involve similar kinds of thinking (well, up to a point: contemplating the difference between two related species of plants won't be quite the same as comparing two paintings).

You, Wallows, are a good philosophic example. You actively ENGAGE with philosophical material - ideas. Students' engagement is what a good teacher wishes for. (Sometimes I engaged; quite often I treated the content of a class as garbage to be gotten rid of at the end of the term. Bad student!)

If you mean by "philosophy" philosophers, those teachers of philosophy who taught me in college, and people who write/talk about philosophy, several things, including, most notably:

How to read, and think, critically;
Not to concern or disturb myself unduly with matters beyond my control;
That we are parts of, and not apart from, the universe;
That Cicero was right, and there is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it; and
That there are philosophers, and those who discuss philosophy, who think an inveterate, unrepentant Nazi and anti-Semite was one of the greatest if not the greatest philosopher in our sad history.

So, what has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

Nihilism. Thanks for nothing, philosophy!

I recovered though.

Mostly as an antidote to ideology. It's relieving to know you don't have to trust anyone, even if they appear convincing.

That I'm an idiot. Not really. But that I was ignorant - still am, but less pure. And that there a a lot more idiots than I imagined. Not really, but you know what I mean.

That I'm an idiot. Not really. But that I was ignorant - still am, but less pure. And that there a a lot more idiots than I imagined. Not really, but you know what I mean. — tim wood

I also learnt that you're an idiot. :razz:

@tim wood, takes the cake...

Nothing.

Nice post!

Like a lot of things in life; most Philosophy is dynamic, not static. Exceptions might include Logic and Existentialism.

Knowing the right philosophical questions to ask is a process theretofore... .

Perhaps, I hope, a better ability to distinguish between "trash" and "non-trash" in discussions. Also, although controversial, that a rational approach to things is in most cases the best approach if your aim is to arrive at the Truth (of a matter).

Philosophy was the path upon which I attained enlightenment, and when you become enlightened you realise that what we call "learning is only the process of recollection."

You have all the wisdom inside yourself, and it is only the ego that stops us from experiencing it.

Of course, that begs another wonderful question: is wisdom inside, outside or both?

In my opinion, that is a bit knotty and obtuse... there's no need to complicate issues with this idea. Wisdom is the bridge by which you reach the truth. It doesn't have a location. It is what it is, irrespective of it's moorings

Wisdom is the bridge by which you reach the truth. — PhilCF

Intelligence is nothing more than
making connections to form networks
of firing neurons and such within one’s mind
which represent the world before us
in some reproducible pattern
as we are taught early on the outcome
of our actions through physical experience;

wisdom is building upon that experience
to make further connections
which allow us to predict outcomes
we’ve yet to experience,

and genius is the extent to which we can take
such connections to the pinnacle
of that which doesn't even have a clear connection
grounded in the real world,

but is somehow being represented
by that which we've touched
and predicted to form the mountain
from which we stand to finally get a glimpse of it.

Nice words, but it makes no mention of the very highest peak of psychological attainment - and that my friend... is enlightenment. Which is when you learn (through direct experience) that we are all innately wise, and yet dumb and limited because we blinded by ego.

dumb and limited because we blinded by ego — PhilCF

WISDOM
(wise-dom)

Is the superior judgment, understanding,
And application that is based
On both knowledge and experience,
Far surpassing erudition; a quality of being wise.
The antonym is “folly”.

It goes so deep that one may even
Easily ignore one’s own (conditioned) thoughts
Which arise that are unknowable beliefs
Falsely identified as truth and fact
(A second level view: beliefs about beliefs, sort of).

One who has it may be be called a Wiz
(No relation to the magic of a wizard).
Learning feeds it.

Some run into the walls of life,
Time and time again, ever bashed and injured,
But never ever learning.

“Wishes” seen but only through one’s own eyes.
“Say” that they ought not to,
That they shouldn’t; but,
Wisdom notes that they still do, the reality—
That they can’t, they don’t, and they won’t.

Such is the human condition for some
That may be immune to learning,
The curse that prevents the will
From becoming wider and having more choices.

Yet, the ultimate vision remains available
For the rest and one day the “some”
May be swept up into its sum.

Sounds like a Maslonian mantra: Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.

Philosophy has taught me that philosophy brings out the idiot in a lot of people without them realising it. It's definitely a double-edged sword.

What has philosophy taught you? — Wallows

That it's not for me.