Yes, I believe that we need muses for philosophia, rather than just philosophy texts. Possibly the reason why many people may go outside of the disciplines of philosophy, such as those within academic institutions is because the writers of some texts in the twentieth century, were rather obscure. It may not have had the zest of writings of earlier times. I am not saying that analytical thinking is not important. However, in order to inspire people, it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages.

it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages — Jack Cummins

Novelists like Hemingway write spell-binding stories that could be considered philosophical. I think you are on to something.

The problem is that we have no way of judging who on the ship is an able helmsman independent of the opinions of those on the ship, who all think themselves able helmsman. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as able helmsmanship or that it is not better that the ship be helmed by someone who is able rather than someone who merely thinks he is but isn’t. It’s just to say that everyone on the ship reckons that they are the most able helmsman and so on account of that the one who most deserves the helm.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion.

Jack, I listen to music, just not that kind.

it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages. — Jack Cummins

Wittgenstein made the point that a good book of philosophy could be written just using jokes.

You misread me. I see Philosophia as a muse and not that she is inspired by one. Each philosopher is 'shocked, amazed, traumatized' by existence (or nonexistence) to think, and thereby (maybe) philosophize. The arts sciences history and politics are subjects of the muses.

:up:

↪Nikolas The problem is that we have no way of judging who on the ship is an able helmsman independent of the opinions of those on the ship, who all think themselves able helmsman. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as able helmsmanship or that it is not better that the ship be helmed by someone who is able rather than someone who merely thinks he is but isn’t. It’s just to say that everyone on the ship reckons that they are the most able helmsman and so on account of that the one who most deserves the helm.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion. — Pfhorrest

True, but can a person be awakened by a philosopher who knows the way? At the same time can phony philosophers do a great deal of harm? Can a person acquire the "inner taste" to recognize the difference? Read the idea in context.


[FROM THE REPUBLIC - PLATO]

The philosopher desires all knowledge. Justice, beauty, good, and so on are single, though their presentation is multiplex and variable. Curiosity about the multiplex particulars is not desire of knowledge, which is of the one constant idea--of that which is, as ignorance i​s of that which is not. What neither is nor is not, that which fluctuates and changes, is the subject matter of opinion, a state between knowledge and ignorance. Beauty is beauty always and everywhere; the things that look beautiful may be ugly from another point of view. Experience of beautiful things, curiosity about them, must be distinguished from knowledge of beauty; the philosopher is not to be confounded with the connoisseur, nor knowledge with opinion. The philosopher is he who has in his mind the perfect pattern of justice, beauty, truth; his is the knowledge of the eternal; he contemplates all time and all existence; no praises are too high for him.

"No doubt; still if that is so, why do philosophers always show themselves either fools or knaves in ordinary affairs?"

A ship's crew which does not understand that the art of navigation demands a knowledge of the stars will stigmatise a properly qualified pilot as a star-gazing idiot, and will prevent him from navigating. The world assumes that the philosopher's abstractions are folly, and rejects his guidance. The philosopher is the best kind of man; the corrupted philosopher is the worst; and the corrupting influences brought to bear are irresistible to all but the very strongest natures. The professional teachers of philosophy live not by leading popular opinion, but by pandering to it; a bastard brood trick themselves out as philosophers, while the true philosopher withdraws himself from so gross a world. Not in the soil of any existing state can philosophy grow naturally; planted in a suitable state, her divinity will be apparent.

a real philosopher not only needs the drive to experience perfect patterns of the forms but also an atmosphere which encourages it which doesn't exist in academic philosophy. There is no money in it.

Actually, the whole experience of suffering is the starting point for searching in many ways. — Jack Cummins

You're right about that. Both western and eastern philosophy began from a sense of general dissatisfaction/discontentment with life, the way people were living, thinking, and interacting among themselves and with the world. What were the specifics of this dissatisfaction/discontentment? Beginning with bad reasoning and the fantastical ideas about the world and ourselves it spawns, there were a whole lot of reasons for philosophers to be dissatisfied with. As it seems to me, suffering - its causes, what perpetuates it - is in part, if not entirely so, due to warped, false, and harmful weltanschauungs generated by irrationality and its loyal henchman ignorance. To early philosophers then, the solution to suffering was to be found in rationality and knowledge thus gained. The idea, it seems, was/is to discover truths about the world and ourselves in order to either put to service those that were in our favor and to accept with stoicism those that weren't. The objective in doing this being to effectively deal with anxiety, angst, pain (suffering) that to philosphers arise from mistaken views of the world and ourselves. Thus, Gnōthi Seauton - if we're unhappy, sad, suffering, the fault lies in us for it seems we have unrealistic expectations of the world and ourselves, expectations that bespeak minds that are out of touch with reality. Definitely not a good thing!

The thread is on a par with talk of what it is to be a "real" man.

Real men would not participate.

Perhaps I have built a corner of refuge for the shadow philosophers, trapped in the cave, who would like to be able to grasp ultimate reality, but if nothing else, can express their dreams of that reality.

:wink: :up:

It is hard to know sometimes how many the fault lies within us or outside of ourselves when we are suffering. We could ask what is suffering objectively? Here, I think that some might argue that physical suffering is more real than mental, but I would see that perspective as rather narrow. But, of course, in thinking about our own suffering, as the cognitive behavioral theorists recognize it is our interpretation of experience which leads to our suffering, not the experience. It may be on that basis that we can begin to create our own philosophical interpretations of life. We can draw on thinkers of the past, but perhaps we need to make our own unique philosophies to live by and to help us become people who have some influence as well. But, it is not easy, especially for the shadow philosophers, such as me.

suffering — Jack Cummins

The idea is to fit our minds into the way the world is and not to try making the world fit into our minds. Many have suffered not knowing that difference, including myself. Everyone it seems has an idea about the world, specifically as concerns how it should be. Granted even that such a mindset has been the driving force of what we call progress and yet, true or not, this seems only a brief lull in the storm for even greater challenges may be just around the corner assuming of course that we're not mistaken about progress and that it is truly what people think it is - progress.

I see your point about the idea of the muse. I suppose where it gets complicated philosophically is whether muses exist or are a symbolic idea. I would be inclined to believe that the muses are parts of our personal psyches, in the creative process of arts, philosophy and science rather than as objective forces. Of course, that is in line with the scientific paradigm of current thinking.

Yes, it is a tension between us fitting into the world mentally and the world fitting towards us. In many ways, it is easier to change our thinking than the world. But, even then, it surprisingly difficult even with psychology to aid us. I have never had cognitive behavioral therapy but have read books on it. It does seem to be like a philosophical approach really because it looks at specific form of examining errors in thinking. I have wondered why it seems to have remained in psychology and has not been used more as a foundation for an analytic approach within philosophy applicable to our daily thinking about life.

It is interesting that Wittgenstein suggested that a philosophy could be written in jokes. I have never been a big fan of comedy, but I can usually see the funny side of life. I think that sometimes philosophy can seem so intense and there needs to be some light side. I believe in the idea of life being tragicomic, and, often, daily life can be so surreal.

I think psychology has two parts to it: 1. finding out how we think, patterns in them obviously and 2. constructing theories that explain how we think. The first of these has merit while the second one leaves much to be desired.

I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher. — Jack Cummins

Surely a person who enjoys singing is a singer, just as a bird is a singer if it has a song to sing. But this does not mean the person sings well, nor that the bird has a pretty song to sing.

I am a writer. I have given much time to writing for most of my life. I have not published a book but I still consider myself to be a writer because that is what I do.

I think we want to encourage people to read philosophy and to think philosophically, and cutting them out of thinking of themselves as philosophers may not be the best way to promote philosophy. I don't think anyone has the right to exclude anyone from the group of philosophers. I think looking down on people and acting superior to others, excluding the other, is a bad behavior. Hum, makes me think of Christianity. The religion is known for being inclusive, but not all Christians are inclusive.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, — Pfhorrest

Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.

It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.

We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man.

Of course, I am not wishing to suggest that anyone should not see themselves as a philosopher. You probably know enough about me to know that I am not prescriptive and I believe that creation of identity for ourselves. I really began this thread when I began to think about what is a real philosopher when I was in discussions with someone on the thread about fantasy and decided I was playing at being a philosopher on this site.I feel that life is full of surreal games. But, this morning I liked playing around with the idea of being a shadow philosopher.

After reflection and interaction, I decided that my real area of interest was what is philosophy involve really. We spend time pursuing our interest in it and the various perspectives because it is so large a subject. However, we could perhaps strip it down to the basic central core issues. However, believe that people would not even agree, because it comes down to our underlying values. Really, I do think that every human being who exists has to work out some kind of philosophy in life. Of course, it is ongoing, although it is possible that many people don't change the views they are brought up with in many ways. I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking.

You may find it strange, but I find the whole area of psychology of theories as one of the most interesting. I read ' Beyond Freedom and Dignity,' by B F Skinner and it is so interesting in the consideration of the whole question of free will. Perhaps, if I manage to get a copy of it I will create a thread on it. I do believe that it is a book which is central to the whole interface between psychology and philosophy. It was so central to the development of determinism as a philosophy. I actually find psychology to be a fascinating area but, unfortunately, my own experience is that it can become shallow when the philosophical arguments underlying it are not understood in their fullest depth.

I do believe that novelist are able to juggle and play around with ideas in philosophy. I have not read Hemmingway at present, but apart from existentialist philosophers such as Camus, a couple of the most interesting philosophical novelists who I have come across are Philip K Dick and Will Self. I find Will Self's critique of sanity as a fascinating exploration of the whole surreal evaluation of our understanding of reality.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great,
— Pfhorrest

Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.

It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.

We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man. — Athena

But if you study the "Ship of Fools" with a little humility it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole does not know how to escape Plato's cave or the eventual catastrophe of arguing over which way the ship should go. Opinions lead to conflicting opinions until society falls apart. Then the cycle begins again. Is that our only alternative? must humanity remain not human and trapped in animalistic binary thought? Can philosophy of a certain quality reveal the way out?

It's probably been said before, but I'd say a real philosopher is a lover of wisdom. I'd say wisdom is curiosity, and curiosity manifests itself as a question. A real philosopher loves questions, and the true essence of philosophy is a tolerance for answers, but only so long as they raise more questions.

Edited to add: I have a spiel about toxic masculinity that talks about strong/weak and wise/stupid. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll talk about wise/stupid. I say that it is impossible for wise to complain about stupid. When one who is perceived to be wise is complaining about someone he/she perceives to be stupid, they are exhibiting stupidity. This is toxic.

In the academic environment, it is the teacher who, through Socratic dialogue, encourages a student to walk himself into a corner where he slaps himself for everyone's entertainment. This is using logic as a weapon. It can also be used in non-academic environments.

Whereas true wisdom asks each and every single question with a sincere intellectual curiosity, in the hopes the answer might be enlightening and lead to more questions. Thus, while degrees and pieces of paper might represent investment of time and resources, it is the motivation behind the next question which controls, in my mind, whether or not one is a philosopher.

I agree with all that. What I meant was that it would be great to actually have a leader who is wise, to be able to rely on a truly wise person for direction and guidance. The rest of what I wrote that you didn’t quote was about the difficulties of being sure that that’s what we’re really going to get from someone.

Well, as I said, I believe philosophy has always been / is, objectively, the muse of the arts, sciences, history ...

As you are fairly new to the forum, I am interested to know your views of what it means to be a philosopher. I am not asking that to put you on the spot, just to give you a chance to speculate if you wish, as this is an open area of debate really.

In what way do you think that philosophy stands out as the muse? Is it about analytic understanding?

Reflective, or metacognitive, inspiration. Read Twain or Kafka. Read Ovid or Mary Shelley. Read Shakespeare or Toni Morrison. Listen to "Strange Fruit" or "Strange Days". Study Burckhardt or Dilthey, C.L.R. James or Howard Zinn. And on and on ...

Philosophers are just confused.

There's no glory in confusion.