You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man. — James Riley
From my POV, the quality of a life is determined by what we do, with whom, to whom, by whom, for whom. Any individual on earth has opportunities to make positive contributions in their interactions with other people. Most people act in small positive ways most of the time. When large numbers of people act in negative ways, and larger negative ways at that, life for other people begins to deteriorate. Lots of examples of both the positive and the negative. — Bitter Crank
. . . and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.
— Xtrix
You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool: — jgill
In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.
— Xtrix
Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. — god must be atheist
As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. — Judaka
Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control. — Judaka
I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. — Judaka
If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not. — Xtrix
If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.
— Xtrix
I guess you answered your own question, then, when you asked: "shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?" — James Riley
I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. — James Riley
I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world. All hypotheticals aside. — Xtrix
In fact, cloistered monks did contribute something — Bitter Crank
In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking. — Xtrix
If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not. — Xtrix
If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.
This is the same with the useful / useless division. — god must be atheist
I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. — Xtrix
what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1
A man can do what he will, but not will as he will
But (pace csalisbury), there's this tendency for everyone to sometimes engage in philosophical reflection. — fdrake
I actually think we agree here (though I'm still shaky on the meaning/usage of 'pace.' I'd long taken it to mean 'contra, with respect' but have since seen it used in different ways elsewhere, so I may misunderstand you.) — csalisbury
But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1
It's an odd question, really. But yes, in general I think beauty and love and music and discovery and spirituality and joy, etc., are all worth living for and worthy of survival. If that seems incredibly obvious and unoriginal, it's because it is: we all share these sentiments. Unless we're pathological. — Xtrix
Ok, so intrinsic goods.. got it. What I'm trying to get at is that some of these things are ones that your OP seem to deem as useless.. Poetry, playing music to yourself, joy doing something non-social, etc. — schopenhauer1
(It's arguable that music and dancing are done for their own sake either -- as Handle said: "“I am sorry... if I have only succeeded in entertaining them; I wished to make them better.”) — Xtrix
Survival for its own sake is a justification..concept, not will. — schopenhauer1
do you know how to make a case without interjections... — schopenhauer1
...condescension? — schopenhauer1
I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world — Xtrix
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone — Blaise Pascal
Absolutely not, no. I'm afraid I have no idea how I would partake in a discussion, in this format, if my writing a post is considered an 'interjection'. I mean, one presumes that when you click 'Post Comment' you've finished that particular contribution and other can respond at that point. Are we, rather, to wait a polite amount of time to see if you've anything else to say first? — Isaac
One wonders how I've managed to make it this far without being ostracised entirely. — Isaac
What model of 'desire' are you using whereby a rational answer could be given to the question "Why do you have that desire?" — Isaac
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone
— Blaise Pascal
Just thought you might want to know. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.