I think in many ways we have very small minds. Some people really make a difference through their actions. Which is why I sometimes get short with people, though I know I’m no different; talk the talk or walk the walk. If you’re typing away here then you’re not doing the walk. But we can create something of ourselves by our opinions and posts and altruistic ideas. We’re probably good people but essentially selfish and lazy. I think very few people live a philosophical life, what and who are we? We create ourselves in self indulgent ways, in ways we don’t have to pay for.

We create ourselves in self indulgent ways, in ways we don’t have to pay for. — Brett

This is a good point. And while these forums are great, they also hide us from one another. So much of the truth is physical. Think of how quickly we judge people when we can see and hear them. Walking the walk comes into play here in regards to health, style, and comportment. If someone hasn't learned how to eat or to move their body in the world, it's not easily hidden. And comportment (body language) might say as much about the stand they take on their existence as their words. Of course knowing how someone spends their money and where they get it is hugely illuminating.

Discussions about philosophy usually take a self-help angle, they're posited as being beneficial and helpful to others. — Judaka

A person could argue that philosophy always has a political charge -that the philosopher is always trying to lead people.

I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. — Judaka

But why would we want to be seen as team-players if there weren't some truth in it? We are very much social beings, but our current lifestyle emphasizes competition and clashing worldviews. So these days we are largely sewn together by money.

It is almost to the point where I wonder if that's the reason some people engage in philosophy. To be righteous and fight for the oppressed, help the innocent and condemn those they see as the problem. All while never having to actually do anything besides sharing opinions and arguing them.


It is not a good thing to be seen as selfish, uncompassionate, self-serving, self-interested. I'm not saying we're not team players or that people can't be collaborative, of course, that's a part of who and what we are. I'm just saying, the collaborative, benevolent, altruistic motivations are put on display because they are interpreted by others and perhaps oneself to mean that you are a good and kind person. Which gives status.

I'm not really saying that's a conscious motivation for most people but I just feel that conversations are completely dominated by this angle of good-doing. When you look at peoples' actions in real life, yes there is good-doing but also a lot of other feelings and interpretations beyond "what's good for us". Even some of the most out-there posters on this forum still argue in terms of humanitarianism and what's right. We're all just saints who want what's best for everyone else all the time and have nothing more to say? From the posters I like the most to the ones I dislike the most, they all talk about what's best for everyone else. I don't know anyone who talks about things in other terms.

I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. Or is it just because people who think collaboratively gravitate towards philosophy in the first place? — Judaka

I'd assume its because the human species is collaborative by its nature, and species that work together soon overcome species that work individually. Idiot humans who are brainwashed into believing they are all-important 'individuals' are a bit like fleas perhaps?

I don't think we're like this because we're a benevolent species, I think it's perhaps because people instinctively or subconsciously see merit in being seen as a caring, dependable team player. Or is it just because people who think collaboratively gravitate towards philosophy in the first place?

Personally, I don't engage in philosophy because I want to be seen as caring or a good team player. I think most of the more serious philosophers or students of philosophy engage for the exchange of ideas. If I'm talking to someone I'm probably probing them about something and I'm seeking a really well thought out defense of that idea that I'm probing about.

So, tl;dr... it's about improving my own understanding.

I'm just saying, why do you automatically start talking about "species that work together"? That's the highest possible level of analysis even if it conveniently ignores the value of competition. Collaboration itself in real-world examples is mostly motivated by self-interest, it's only really in high-level philosophy where we pretend like we're all part of a big family. Your biggest enemies aren't other species, you know that.

Also, we aren't solving the world's problems here. If you are talking about how to do it, the question has to be asked about why? How can something totally lacking in pragmatism also be completely divorced from morality and image?


I think most people would say that. The question is that if we look at what people are doing rather than talking about doing, what does that indicate? If it is true that people have their ideas and pursuits measured and validated by a claim for utility and justice for the masses then I want to ask that question about it.

Would you agree that our opinions in philosophy are more benevolent than we are? There's no prejudice, no counterweight to compassion, no self-interest and competition is just kind of ignored. Wouldn't that make philosophy a feel-good exercise which paints a picture of our intentions and concerns as only containing the aspects of our nature we most want to put on display?

From the posters I like the most to the ones I dislike the most, they all talk about what's best for everyone else. I don't know anyone who talks about things in other terms. — Judaka

This is what Spengler called 'ethical socialism' as a kind of default setting of our age. We unconsciously assume that there is one right way and that it is our duty to find and impose it. Secular thought is still 'religious' in terms of a default enlightenment humanism. Solomon wrote of the 'transcendental pretense.' This is basically the assumption of a universal humanity. Certain enlightenment philosophers took their experience of being human and understood it as the way of being human. We don't think of a plurality of ways of being scientific and rational. There is one rationality, one science, one humanity. I'm not against these assumptions, but it's interesting to bring them to consciousness.

I'm just saying, the collaborative, benevolent, altruistic motivations are put on display because they are interpreted by others and perhaps oneself to mean that you are a good and kind person. Which gives status. — Judaka

I think it's useful to look into why we value objective truths. Roughly they are objective because they work for everyone. If I ramble on about my preferences, I'm likely to bore or annoy others. If, however, I speak of things accurately that are important to both of us, then I'm actually contributing. I am listened to and valued because the objectivity of my knowledge accords with the self-interest of my listeners.

More generally, I think enlightened self-interest explains much of morality. Don't do unto others what you don't want done to you. What we want to avoid is a war of all against all. We want to not be robbed and murdered, so we resist our own urges to rob and murder. And we cage people who do. Once we have peace and security, we find many of our highest pleasures in relationships. What we want from most strangers, though, is that they leave us alone.

I remember StreetlightX starting a thread on crowds. Though the issue was probably different, the notion of a crowd seen as a collaboration seems relevant.

What is a crowd? A group united under a banner, whatever that is, cooperating with each other for some cause or purpose; the cause or purpose serving as a glue that brings people together. However, there exist other classifications of humanity e.g. race, gender, religion, affection, etc. that divides and subdivides the crowd into smaller and smaller chunks until we arrive, finally, at the individual, the indivisible, structural and functional unit of a crowd.

So, it's not that we're collaborating for a purpose greater than us as much as we're using the crowd to further our own interests.

Would you agree that our opinions in philosophy are more benevolent than we are?

Could you give me an example? Under the banner of philosophy you have everything from Hobbes to Rousseau to Rothbard to Marx. If you think philosophers are too high-minded look at Hobbes or Adam Smith.

The question is that if we look at what people are doing rather than talking about doing, what does that indicate?

If you want to talk about how to get people to be actually do more good you might want to go to a psychology forum or a sociology one. Philosophers work at identify the good.

The "we" here is us, of course, I don't just lump every philosopher who ever walked under the sun as the same. I actually don't want to talk about how to get people to do more good, I'm actually tired of that topic and I'm complaining about it. I'm saying that it's all we talk about and I'm investigating why that is. If we limited discussion to just career philosophers, I don't think I would have brought up this issue.


Typical of SteetlightX, making threads about garbage leftist ways of thinking. Philosophers don't agree with each other even when it comes to do-gooding, we are definitely not a single-minded mob.


I think you've provided really logical and reasonable counter explanations for this phenomenon.

This is what Spengler called 'ethical socialism' as a kind of default setting of our age. We unconsciously assume that there is one right way and that it is our duty to find and impose it. — thing

Good point, agree.

Solomon wrote of the 'transcendental pretense.' This is basically the assumption of a universal humanity. Certain enlightenment philosophers took their experience of being human and understood it as the way of being human. We don't think of a plurality of ways of being scientific and rational. There is one rationality, one science, one humanity. — thing

Another good and relevant point. I'd add truth to this list as well, I think that people today are very focused on talking about things from the perspective of this universal humanity. Tribalism still exists but it always seems orientated around having different visions or interpretations of doing what's best for all of us (in philosophy, not politics).

If I ramble on about my preferences, I'm likely to bore or annoy others. If, however, I speak of things accurately that are important to both of us, then I'm actually contributing. I am listened to and valued because the objectivity of my knowledge accords with the self-interest of my listeners. — thing

it's a fair point and I relate with it, is this what requires us to keep up a facade that our contribution to topics involves pragmatic utility to the listener or society. Like, "listen to me because I can make things better!" It does feel like when people are offering utility, it's universal, I don't hear people offer wisdom about how to get one over your competition in philosophy and utility is generally offered as useful for everyone regardless of your circumstances, excluding the mega-rich.

I think enlightened self-interest explains much of morality — thing

Well, I certainly agree generally speaking, especially when it comes to "don't do's". Though things become a bit more complicated when it comes to economics, politics and higher-level morality. Which generally seems to be orientated around the concept of "one humanity" and how to better it.

Generally, you give a pretty reasonable picture of why we try to be so collaborative, I like some of these things but sometimes it does feel like it's just a facade which has grown popular because it's very positive and socially useful. Like it's just too hard to argue against it without seeming like a terrible person.

Helping and teaching others is half the meaning of life (the other half being learning and helping yourself), inasmuch as meaningfulness means being important to the functioning of the universe, being more connected to things other than yourself. The more input to you (learning and, let's call it for the sake of rhyme, "earning") and the more output from you (teaching and helping), the more the universe flows through you, the more important you are to it. And of course you have to make sure that the information and action flowing through you are correct, which is just what truth and goodness, knowledge and justice, etc, are all about.

garbage leftist ways of thinking — Judaka

This makes me disinclined to engage with you further.

I'm a nihilist/moral relativist and I don't know what you're talking about. I don't agree that meaningfulness means being important to the functioning of the universe. I don't think the universe needs me to function - or anybody. Also, the universe doesn't care about me and isn't something which can consider me important. I also don't agree with your singular approach to truth, goodness, knowledge and justice "etc". There's a lot that's subjective about those things, isn't there? Rhetorical question, I don't think we can discuss this topic, we're lightyears away here.

This makes me disinclined to engage with you further. — Pfhorrest

I can understand why you might say that, based on my knowledge about you which is limited. Would it help if I said far-leftist? Re-read what Themadfool just said, is that really what you want? If people are lobbying together for climate change, is it really important to divide those people by their sex, age, race, gender, sexual orientation and other bullshit? Is that what makes an individual? I don't really want to talk about identity politics and the way the far-left divides people but yeah, it's pretty garbage.

I actually don't want to talk about how to get people to do more good, I'm actually tired of that topic and I'm complaining about it. I'm saying that it's all we talk about and I'm investigating why that is.

That's funny because I really don't discuss this topic very much if at all in philosophy. Certainly haven't discussed it that much around here.

If you're just trying to bash disingenuous virtue signaling then sure go ahead.

Morality can get a little emotional though. If you're going to take a totally amoral or flippantly nihilistic take on meta-ethics then yeah i guess you might face a little backlash. I don't think saying there's something objectively wrong with genocide should count as being disingenuously moralistic.

Meaning is significance or importance. All of those words have linguistic senses (the meaning of a word is what it signifies, what its import it, in the sense of what information it conveys) but also the more familiar practical senses of "importance" and "significance" define "meaning" in the sense used in the phrase "meaning of life". To have meaning, to be meaningful, is to be significant or important. What is significant or important (that is, meaningful) about anybody's life? That depends entirely on how influential they are on things other than themselves, and how positive that influence is. That's a really roundabout way of saying that your life is as meaningful as the good that you do; you're important inasmuch as something would have been worse without you around.

As to the evaluation of "good" and "worse" and so on, relativism just reduces to nihilism, and nihilism just reduces to giving up on even trying to answer the question, which only guarantees that you will never find the answer. Even if we cannot know whether or not there are answers to be had, all we can then do is either try to find them if we can, pushing on even if we don't find immediate success at that endeavor; or give up and not try. We can never know that success (at answering questions of what is better or worse, etc) is impossible; only, at most, that it has not been achieved yet.

Okay, I might be purposefully conflating talking about what's good, how to do good and how to get people to do more good. If your experience in philosophy has been different than mine then that's fine, might be a little hard to relate to each other though. Just means your interests and mine in philosophy are probably a little different.


I don't agree with your definition of meaning. I believe all meaning comes from interpretation and essentially comes down to "this means that" or in other words, what information can be taken from the thing we're taking information from or forming opinions about. I mean information as both intersubjectively true and subjectively true.

You've got an avatar with some leaves in it, I might take that to mean that you like nature. I could be totally wrong and it also doesn't mean that I think it's important or significant that you have an avatar with leaves or that I think you like nature. You may also tell me, "no, I don't like nature" but that doesn't mean I have to believe you, maybe I refuse to believe that anyone with leaves in their avatar couldn't like nature. The way I am using the word means and meaning now isn't different when it comes to a question like "what is the meaning of life?".

Now, I'm already a nihilist, I don't think there is an objective meaning to life, I think that I can interpret my own meaning or purpose. I didn't give up on answering the question of life's meaning, or what's good and worse. I just reject that those questions have answers which supersede my own personal interpretation. My importance to myself is unconditional, I don't even ask myself this question. Basically, I don't feel the need to negotiate with you about what means what.

I guess you fall under the category of what @thing was talking about, embracing a universal humanism which strives to find an answer that can be the answer for everyone?

It sounds like you reject all but the linguistic meaning of “meaning”, which is itself just linguistically false. When someone asks about the meaning of life, they’re not asking what the word “life” means in that sense, they’re asking why is life — anyone’s in particular, or all of it in general — important, or significant, in the sense of why it matters. And that’s a perfectly cromulent use of the word “meaning” that predates the linguistic one.

I’d just like to go back to this statement of mine.

We create ourselves in self indulgent ways, — Brett

It might be more accurate that we create ourselves because we are so very little.

Who exactly are we? Some of us might have been in the position where we find yourself reduced to nothing but the moment, we no longer have anything to grab onto to define who we are. When we retire we no longer have a job or skill that defines us, if we move away from where we have always lived there are no longer others who act like a mirror to our existence. Eventually we find that ee only exist in the moment, if we are talking to someone all that is real is how we treat that other person, it’s not really about us. Our identity is totally constructed. Some of my friends are artists, I know that that’s their identity, not being fathers or husbands, which is just another identity anyway.

I think collaborating is natural, it’s been a constructive behaviour in our evolution, but I don’t think the necessity is there any longer except on a superficial level, or maybe altruistic level. I don’t think the world requires us to be collaborative anymore to achieve our individual wants. That may not be a very pleasant thing to realise. Maybe collaboration is like an aspect of morality, a holdover from the past and it feels a little threatening morally to ditch it altogether. So we cling to it. Virtue signalling is an obvious example I think.

To be honest I don’t see much collaboration going on here, despite what people might think. Conversations begin well enough then very quickly get acrimonious. I don’t see a lot of listening and sharing, what I call humility and curiosity, taking place.

So we are not really who we say we are, we’re just constructed identities and collaboration is a civilised item in our bag of tricks.

I don't, it's just meaning comes from interpretation so without stipulating who's doing the interpretation then the question doesn't make much sense.

What you're saying makes sense if we treat meaning like knowledge to be discovered. Objective meaning. All I'm saying is that meaning is subjective, a subject must interpret what something means. Whether it's the importance of life, what one should do with their lives, how one should treat life or any other such question. It's all for the individual to decide and no higher power exists to tell them that they're objectively wrong because there's no such thing as objective meaning.

That's my stance anyway.


I think that what on the surface appears to be collaboration is actually either forced by necessity, a show or in order to compete in a competitive world. I think it's also more important to be shown as someone who wants to work together with everyone to make the world better but absolutely no necessity to actually do that work. Though thing has changed my mind a bit on exactly why we are focused on collaboration and altruism in philosophy. I wonder whether people really feel comfortable putting other ideas and priorities on display?

If someone said they want to focus on their art and fuck the world's problems, compared to if they are always showing themselves to care. For many of us, is there really no fear about what others might think? Also, as an artist doing your own art versus trying to help people and solve problems, is it easier to feel validated and useful?

I wonder whether people really feel comfortable putting other ideas and priorities on display? — Judaka

I think being really honest and working from an original thought of your own, to develop even the merest seed, and putting it out there is quite difficult. Some of the OPs I’ve put up have almost disappeared without trace. No one seemed to engage with them. Maybe they were nonsense? I have no idea. But to get people to engage with you then I guess you have to appear collaborative and your post needs to be reasonably accessible. So collaboration may be a tool of making ground. It also involves some compromise. Artists don’t compromise, they don’t collaborate unless it’s in their interests. They really have an unhealthy obsession in relation to the rest of the world. Philosophers are no different. When I read about their lives I see nothing any different from the driven artist.

We participate in The Philosophy Forum because we like to collaborate at least to some extent. This site is, by its nature, collaborative. Solitary people who want to spout whatever philosophy or stupid nonsense they believe in, solo, can do so in the comfort of their own homes. Just open your mouth and start blathering away. Or they can open a blog on Tumblr and just scribble into the abyss.

As it happens, collaboration is one of the more successful ways of doing business in the world, whether it is feeding the poor and hungry, working for Exxon, or serving in the Mafia, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, or whatever criminal enterprise one is employed by.

Some individuals don't collaborate. Social isolates who live under bridges on rural freeways don't collaborate, for instance. Isolated monks and nuns who live solitary lives in prayer don't collaborate. Rattlesnakes don't collaborate. Mad dogs don't collaborate.

Are Do-gooders any different than mafia hitmen, as far as collaboration is concerned? Probably not.

Well, let's not characterise human interaction as collaboration thoughtlessly, there is very little collaboration taking place on this forum and that wasn't what this thread was about. I've discussed many topics with you but I don't think I've collaborated with you on anything. Forums like this for me can be characterised by people feeling like they cannot change anyone else's mind, their opinions not really being cared about and people spending most of their time debating others.

It can be entertaining, validating, enlightening but we're not collaborating on anything. We're not even making or doing anything.

What I'm actually talking about is how we talk about collaborating and how we talk as if we're entirely altruistic. Now, you may be entirely altruistic, for you, I'm willing to concede that's actually just how you are. However, in real-world social environments where there's status, prestige, egos, competition, general dislike for some people and our emotions/psychology to worry about, are people as selfless then? Isn't philosophy just a special topic where selflessness and selfishness look the same?

Where if you're the most helpful, best contributor, who is ethical and caring, then you're also satisfying your desires of looking good, feeling good and presenting an admirable image of yourself to others and yourself. Couldn't it become difficult to share unpopular opinions that don't promise to help others or which portray you in a negative light?

I have become suspicious because while I can expect some of us to be this way most of the time and most of us to be this way some of the time. I am starting to think that everyone is this way nearly all of the time.


Is it the fate of an uncompromising philosopher in this setting, to perhaps make threads that nobody appreciates or responds to? Is it the fate of an uncompromising artist to not have their art enjoyed by others? Or is it just difficult to go out on a limb, however, sometimes it can work out?

Is it the fate of an uncompromising philosopher in this setting, to perhaps make threads that nobody appreciates or responds to? Is it the fate of an uncompromising artist to not have their art enjoyed by others? Or is it just difficult to go out on a limb, however, sometimes it can work out? — Judaka

I think it’s very likely that others will not respond to uncompromising posts. They make begin the conversation then pass. As for an artist it’s difficult to know if they’re ever compromising. Picasso, though his work appeared original and compromising, might very well have compromised at a particular period to reach the people buying art at that time. But he appeared to be uncompromising which appealed to the market.

It is quite difficult to go out on a limb. You may be producing absolute rubbish or you may strike a vein.

It’s interesting that we’re using the word compromise, which is not so removed from collaboration. We certainly understand the meaning and use of compromise. If you asked why do we compromise then the answer would not be so difficult. Isn’t it to get at least part of what we want instead of losing everything?

453

↪iolo
I'm just saying, why do you automatically start talking about "species that work together"? That's the highest possible level of analysis even if it conveniently ignores the value of competition. Collaboration itself in real-world examples is mostly motivated by self-interest, it's only really in high-level philosophy where we pretend like we're all part of a big family. Your biggest enemies aren't other species, you know that.

Also, we aren't solving the world's problems here. If you are talking about how to do it, the question has to be asked about why? How can something totally lacking in pragmatism also be completely divorced from morality and image? — Judaka

That is not me, I'm afraid.

Your stance is self-serving garbage to anyone who sees functional humans as intrinsically social beings.

What I'm actually talking about is how we talk about collaborating and how we talk as if we're entirely altruistic. Now, you may be entirely altruistic, for you, I'm willing to concede that's actually just how you are. However, in real-world social environments where there's status, prestige, egos, competition, general dislike for some people and our emotions/psychology to worry about, are people as selfless then? Isn't philosophy just a special topic where selflessness and selfishness look the same? — Judaka

I don't equate collaboration with altruism, but think of it as working together for a common goal. Collaboration does not imply egalitarianism either, but simply requires some degree of consideration of other's inputs. It is the underlying political component of most human interaction, which requires that everyone's input at least be heard and discussed prior to rendering a decision that will impact them. It is the opposite of dictatorial, which is usually a very ineffective personal or business style. To be a true dictator requires power that few have, leaving most Napoleons all by their lonesome.

Human beings are intrinsically social? That's just not a valid response. Can only see our social nature as collaborative? I daren't try to figure out what you're thinking.


As philosophers, aren't we always thinking about how things should be by ourselves? People form opinions on economics, politics, religion and so on without actually needing any kind of consensus. We don't actually do anything because we're not involved in the decision-making process and so while we're not dictatorial, we're also not dependant on input from others either.

My question is basically
1) Do you agree that posters on this forum generally and quite strongly emphasise altruistic and humanitarian aims?
2) Do you agree that people in the real world, while still being generally good people, are less concerned with being as altruistic?
3) If you agree then why do you think this is?

Human beings are intrinsically social? That's just not a valid response. Can only see our social nature as collaborative? I daren't try to figure out what you're thinking. — Judaka

The validity of the response seems to be going over your head. If you want to say that collaboration is not an essential characteristic of (functional) sociality, then it seems you daren't try to figure out what you are thinking.

I never said collaboration is not an essential characteristic of society but I have said the opposite.

I'm not saying we're not team players or that people can't be collaborative, of course, that's a part of who and what we are. — Judaka

I'm suggesting that the ideal of being collaborative and altruistic is put on display while other motivations aren't. Which leads to an imbalance in the representation of ideas in forums like these. I'm asking whether that is true, if so why that is and whether that undermines the discussions here.

Does real philosophy take place in action, is the street the only true place to live out your philosophy, can it be applied to the street? Otherwise what purpose does it serve? If you feel it doesn’t need a purpose then what is it you’re doing?

If you’re on the Internet, typing away, arguing about justified belief or whether we’re moral features, are you actually engaged in philosophy?

Are we really living our philosophical ideas in posts on this forum?

As @Judaka asks, are we talking about ethics, values, collaboration but not actually living them out there in the world where the rules change from street to street, the true reality in action.

Under pressure would we maintain those ethical ideas we claim to find so essential for living and so important in our concern for others. Are we really just living out a philosophy of inaction? No harm done, but no good either.