Probably one of the main initial impetuses for me, when I was a kid, was people stating normatives that I didn't agree with. "You have to do this," "You can't do that," "You have to do that in this way," etc. I'd ask "Why" and I didn't believe that I was receiving good answers to "Why?"

:grin:
It's "whys" all the way down.

But why do you think you weren't satisfied with initial answers? Stubbornness?

But why do you think you weren't satisfied with initial answers? — Edward

Well, either there were no answers to be had, or they seemed arbitrary and as if people were just accepting things for no good reason.

My guess is that people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, and so on are more likely to be interested in philosophy than people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and are not very open-minded.

Can one tolerate conflict (disagreement)? Is one comfortable with abstract concepts? Does one have the patience for the long read? A strong preference for b&w that doesn't have too many shades of grayscale works against a strong interest in philosophy (and many other subject fields too).

Hmm, I agree with open mindedness and abstracting. Im not sure about ambiguity or b&w thinking.

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. To know something I think it's more debilitating to have a loose definition of things.

I'd also argue that this depends on the subject. Philosophy of logic can't really entertain ambiguity.

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. — Edward

That's what the word means, true. Philosophy is a both a literature and a practice. Philosophy is often read. How much practice enters into a reading of, say, Thomas Aquinas, depends on how much a reader engages with the text. In a freshman philosophy course at a Catholic college, most students are going to read the Aquinas selections for purposes of passing tests. Once done, never again. They probably won't engage. A pre-seminary student, however, might read Aquinas with more engagement, because it has relevance to his future work.

Analogy: When I was an English major, 5 decades ago, I read blocks of literature in order to perform adequately on tests. There just wasn't time to engage with a lot of the material. I was too shallow and naive a student to be able to do that. Alas. I was too stupid to realize I was too stupid. Later on, as I matured, had more life experiences, and became more intelligent, I engaged much more with the literary material I was reading.

TPF participants are self-selecting, so even participants in their late teens may engage, and a lot of our participants range between their 30s and old age. So here, at least, there is more engagement.

Personally, I don't read much philosophy these days (not that I ever did). I'd much rather read history, psychology or sociology, and the like. I love learning so I guess I am a philosopher (by that definition).

For me it's curiosity. If you have a brain capable of conceiving beyond the chaos and mundanities of everyday life you wonder about how and why things work the way they do (or don't). And then, how they could or should work. I too like to be in control - at least to the extent that I understand what's happening, even if I often can't influence it. If you can understand why people make decisions you don't agree with your anger and sense of powerlessness can dissipate.

If you dont want to read the whole thing, I italicized the main points.

To 'philosophize' is its most basic form is 'to think.' So I philosophize that those who aren't afraid of thinking, philosophize. However, philosophy can look different everywhere. While Hispanic philosophers philosophize about community, family systems, and god, the American Eurocentric post-modernists look at generalizable theoretical systems outlining psychology and comprehensive religious frameworks. However, in both systems, people are being represented. The people live similarly, and fall into the same categories, or at least, my understanding of humans is that there are fundamental characteristics that are seen that throughout culture, race, ideology, or society.

Basically, there are a few ways in which people live in a philosophical world and are represented by two venues which define the type of philosophy that can be engaged in: Society and religion.
In a free-speech society, philosophy is allowed to be expressed no matter what your view is. However, in a corrupt society, philosophy is defined differently. Corrupt societies are corrupt because of their trademark ability to want more control than is ethical. They are afraid to lose *place greed here*.

The fear of thinking comes from the need to control. Those in power who are not willing to let go of control fear a power greater than there own, so they limit the ability to learn, reason, analyze, and/or think. They burn books and create punishment for spreading new ideologies. Those who are affected by this do one of four things, follow the rules (They believe them, are ignorant, or are scared), adapt, repress thought, or push back. Those who follow the rules because they believe them, create seemingly unbreakable structures that are created to not allow for individual expression, belief, or identity. Those who follow them because they are ignorant are, well... ignorant. Those who follow them because they are scared to live life afraid of those seemingly unbreakable structures created by enthusiastic followers. Those who adapt create ways to express. Adaptors push the limits and often get in trouble for their ability to follow the rules without believing them. While these set of people may not be willing to change the system outright, and do what they can to stay off the radar, they sure as hell don't appreciate those who follow (or the structure). Then, there are those who repress thought. These people live without understanding why. Their repression is unintentional yet weighs heavily on them and limits their will to be alive in this type of society. Finally, there are the pushers, those who fight the system outright and often die because by the followers hands.
To philosophize in this type of society is to go against the regime, philosophers here are the 'pushers' and 'adaptors' because they question the very existence of the framework. Everyone else is either too dumb to think, too scared to question, or began to question but weren't able to break their repressive state. In these societies personality and character play an immense role in the drive to want to learn more than what is being presented, in this society, to philosophize is to create a new standard of living.

In religious settings, philosophy is defined a bit differently. It is not about thinking, but it's about what path of religion you're focused on. Is the focus of the philosopher on the ideologies of Buddha, finding internal peace through thought and gaining self-understanding through self-analysis, toward enlightenment? Or is the philosophers focus on the pathway of Jesus, whose basis was social reform, synthesizing principles to define new normalities of a spiritual life, rather than a physical one.
Whatever the philosopher's journey, there are two primary pathways of internal ideology that are addressed and expressed in personal life. The first is a religious-based life, that is focused on expressly stated organized belief systems, external focus, and formal structure, with the goal of salvation through only one truth with only one right way. Or is the your internal ideology one of a Spirituality based life, one of belief within all individuals, internal focus, with the goal of determining universal principles, values, and ethics through belief in what is good, true, and beautiful. One defines truth as absolute, the other unites people.
Whether the philosopher is looking to philosophize about the "whys" of the religious pathway or the "hows" of the spiritual pathway, it doesn't matter, because philosophy is to understand something better, and if you have done that, then who gives a **** about why.
But... since you asked. I would have to say anxiety as well.
ill probably end up posting this as an OP on my page becaue I liked where your question took me.

I'm bored, and something's not quite right upstairs, I'm afraid.

On disability and have nothing to do.

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

I find it fascinating to explore concepts. To dive deeply; draw out intricacies; problematize; make connections. Some concepts I keep coming back to: multiplicity, difference, duration, motion, event, immanance, singularity, becoming, virtual.

Obsession, perfection and control. — Edward

Definitely those three, and others. Curiosity, passion, intelligence, critical by nature, assertiveness.

Clarity, peace of mind, seeing how other people view things. Get rid of my sloppy thinking and acceptance of things as they are. Not to find truth, possibly to find meaning.

Because I struggle to understand philosophy.

I do it because I've always done it. I never really figure out why but by best gess is because I like to know we're we start and how to get to were we are.

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

I like to learn, and (if possible) understand too. :up: :smile:

My guess is that people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, and so on are more likely to be interested in philosophy than people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and are not very open-minded. — Bitter Crank

:smile: In other threads, and on other forums, I have found that the most common 'strain' of philosophers have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, seeking to strike it down wherever they find it. Which is not very open-minded either. :chin:

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. — Edward

The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek word "philosophia," which combines the words "philo" meaning "love of" and "sophia" meaning "wisdom."

The etymological definition of a "philosopher" is "lover of wisdom." Therefore, a philosopher is someone who ultimately values wisdom, in other words, someone who seeks it. The ancient Greek philosophers used the word 'sophia' in different ways. For example, originally, Homer used it in connection with craftsmanship, but Aristotle later used it to refer to the highest intellectual virtue (as opposed to phronesis or practical wisdom).

I love learning so I guess I am a philosopher (by that definition). — Bitter Crank

:up:

In other threads, and on other forums, I have found that the most common 'strain' of philosophers have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, seeking to strike it down wherever they find it. Which is not very open-minded either. — Pattern-chaser

That is probably not an intolerance for ambiguity, but is probably an intolerance for asking for a definition, because it is very annoying when people ask for a definition in order to create an unnecessary problem to waste time over. There's an important difference between being open-minded and being naive or a trouble maker. It is a problem when it distracts from bigger problems. It is a problem when we are no longer focusing on the philosophical problem, but are insteas arguing over whether someone can provide a definition, and whether they should or shouldn't, and whether it is "right". There are a number of situations where this might be appropriate, but the problem occurs when it is not so.

I sort of fell into Philosophy after having a bad experience with Psychology at University. I stuck with Philosophy, I suppose, because although a lot of the time you feel like you aren't getting anywhere with it, sometimes it surprises you, and something you thought was very clear and obvious turns out to be full of knots or difficulties and may even be completely wrong.

I guess I don't like to think that everything is settled; that the world is at least close to the way modern science and common-sense describe it, and that there are just minute details left to be ironed out. To me that is an incredibly boring prospect, and the sort of Philosophy I am into reminds us that all these things are not quite so settled after all.

PA

I think it has to do with direction for me. For most of my admittedly short life, I've been told to do things and learn things, but not why I should do or learn those things. Math is a great example. Most kids blow off math as something that only super geniuses and computers need to know, but math does really have a lot of practical applications, and once you get used to it, it can be fun. The same can be said for many other subjects.

I think it is perhaps the ideology of public schooling in America that thrust me upon this strange world. They taught me the way the world works without telling me the whole story. I have knowledge, but I don't know how to apply that knowledge. Or at least I used to lack that, I hope I have little understanding at best now.

Even so, I don't think that an interest in Philosophy makes me different or better than my contemporaries. Even in the best case scenario, I accidentally stumbled onto this. Me stumbling upon videos and books that provoked an already curious mind at the right time could have easily not happened. As the blacksmith helps others by making quality tools, and the butcher helps others by giving them access to food that they would otherwise not be able to have, I wish to combine Philosophy with whatever other gifts I seem to have to improve the world. However, where blacksmiths are paid in currency, I wish to be repaid in simply knowing my work affects something. Going through the struggles of understanding the world while having little to no domestic support has left me wishing only for a purpose. Perhaps an interest in Philosophy fed this ideology, and this ideology fed an interest in Philosophy.

Or maybe I'm lying to myself and I'm a greedy asshole in disguise like so many others. I guess at least I can question that, contrary to most others.

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

All for the chicks and the money.

All for the chicks and the money. — Hanover

A reason I love this forum so much is the sense of humor of the moderators

Did you exit the birth canal philosophizing, what do you mean by naturally inclined, and if you're implying that philosophy is human nature, then what makes you think anyone could avoid philosophizing whether they wanted to or not, therefore making their reason for doing so not only irrelevant but beyond comprehension at an individual level?

i used to go to an independent fundamental baptist church and they said no drinking whatsoever. Ever since then i've tried to find "better" ways to spend my time then drinking alot so i go to forums and argue with people instead. Every decision has its pluses and minuses.

Definitely endless curiosity, and an unmistakable drive to 'figure things out.' Ever since I was a child, I found myself asking lots of 'why' questions. I've got a thirst for knowledge, but don't like to take things are mere face value. I'm always in search for a deeper meaning or explanation to issues. I also love to think and come up with original theories to complex questions - it definitely gives me a good sense of satisfaction when I finally "get it."

Isn't philosophising just musing, but a little more formal? :chin:

I philosophize for a purpose: to discover the usefulness of the useless.

I asked "why" and found the results dissatisfying, but then I asked "how", and the world fell to pieces.