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

Yes, it is subjective. It's based on a belief that I want humanity to go on. I've been clear about that. Now let's move on to the real world.

I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world. All hypotheticals aside.

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

I share your point of view. Apart from all those other extremes you mentioned, however, I reserve a very special place for philosophy. I hold it to a higher standard, and so I'd like to at least believe that those who engage with it are above average in most of their decisions (and actions).

If it's not having much effect, I (like Jesus) worry about the state of what we're calling "philosophy." If there's no quantifiable change in one's life from one's confrontation with thinking and questioning, then there's a good chance it's become reduced to what's been called purely "reactions activity" -- a kind of hobbyism.

This doesn't necessarily mean philosophy needs to stop being enjoyable, or that we all have to be perfect beings, but if it's merely a hobby, I worry.

. . . 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

Maybe you're right. I'll rephrase: it's not what *I* would aspire to be like.

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

I'm not sure what you mean by support agent. If it's just another enjoyable hobby, more on par with playing music, and nothing else whatsoever, fine. It appears that's the case for many on here. But see my remarks above -- if that's the case, in my view one isn't truly doing philosophy at all. One is treating philosophy as history or as literature or as poetry. But again, this is my own idiosyncracy.

As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. — Judaka

I don't necessarily agree with that, although I think I see where you're going. Look at Stoicism, or even Buddhism. If we forget for a second whether these are "philosophies" or "religions," we notice they're dealing with what philosophers have traditionally wrestled with; self-control, discipline, mastery of the mind, control of emotions, etc., play a very big role indeed.

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

True. Many deal with these things. I just tend to hold philosophy (or philosophers) to higher standard, as one would for, say, one who claims to be a "holy man," etc. What the "many" struggle with shouldn't really be a concern, if one is a philosopher. One overcomes what the "herd" (channeling my Nietzsche) struggles with, values, pays attention to, etc.

I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. — Judaka

Again I agree to disagree. The entire branch of ethics deals with this very issue, as you know. If you relegate philosophy to the purely theoretical, apart from practice or application, fine. It certainly can be that, but that's a matter of definition and a choice. I look at it differently.

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?"

You might take your own advice, get your life in order and stop with all the philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing. Get out in the field and save us from ourselves.

I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. You've gone tit-for-tat with most people here who have tried to address your question. What a waste of a life when you could be out doing something.

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

No, because that question relates to hobbyism. What it's saying is the following: if your life is out of order -- if you're miserable and immature, for example, and see no real changes in your life despite lots of philosophy reading -- then isn't it worth considering putting down the books for a while and straightening it out?

I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. — James Riley

No, I think you are, to be honest. And so far I'm not seeing any. All I see is misreadings. Many of my points are trivialities that you seem determined not to understand.

Your repeated claims of "going out into the field" are good examples. Try harder to understand what the writer is saying, and I'll try to be more clear.

Either philosophers should stop "abstract" philosophizing and do something valuable in the world, by "doing things" or they are wasting time?

But this could be said of almost any activity at all. I don't follow.

Yes, that's not at all what I'm saying.

Ah. I'm missing the main point, or the point altogether, full stop.

Okay, son. You win. "And if it wadn't for this glass eye of mine why I'd shed a happy tear
To think of all that you gonna get by bein' a winner." Bobby Bare.

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: They participated in critical ways in the reproduction of society -- the cultural part in particular. Christian institutions were the source of literate people, for one thing. Young [usually secular] men were trained in the cathedral schools and were hired by important people to keep records, write letters, and so forth. The monasteries maintained libraries and produced copies of books (by hand) for the use of others. There was nobody else doing this in Europe during the medieval period.

The church also Christianized Europe, for better or worse. I don't know whether it was a good thing or not (probably was) but they did it, and it involved a lot of very hard field work.

Finally, the monasteries--cloistered or not--were not inert. They actively occupied the land on which they were situated, making improvements, farming it, practicing the usual agricultural trades.

It is the case that somebody else, some other organization, could have done what the monastics did, but there wasn't anybody else doing it at the time.

There is a convent in St Paul, MN which more closely matches your definition of useless: The nuns are cloistered, and live in concrete block cells where they spend their time praying. Useful? Literally, god only knows. Most nuns have never opted for that sort of 'labor', monks either, though a few have.

In fact, cloistered monks did contribute something — Bitter Crank

Yes. What I said was in reference to a hypothetical cloistered man who "need not contribute anything" to the world. In the real world, monks have contributed a great deal indeed.

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

So I think you run into a vicious circle when you pick out "contribution" as having a special meaning.

First off, what does "contribution" even mean here? Let's say it means everyone should spend time creating new technogy or building a house. They should spend their whole day building. That's all they did. What are we building for? If you say survival of the species, that also begs the question. Presumably there are some emotionally satisfying goods in certain activities. Humans need to survive so they can survive so they can survive seems absurd. If you say there's simply "good" in continuing the survival of the species, you haven't justified or proved it.

If you're saying that there is more emotional satisfaction in creating poetry than reading it, I can get that, if theres evidence somehow, this brings more satisfaction. However, if you say writing poetry is somehow lesser than building a house, I would question the evaluation for reasons I stated, of a viscous circle. It would have to be explained more why this is better other than to keep ourselves alive. Ameoba survive..what is the significance of that in itself?

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.

Have you read Rilkmund? According to him, being and trying to be "useful" is a waste of life, a waste of time. Much like the useful people can denigrate the useless people, so can the useless people look down on the useful people. The upshot, from both camps, is that "She is different from me, and I'm all right."

A perfect example of this is a sense of humour. There used to be a dating site, maybe it's still out there, run and owned by a humourless individual. He considered humour, jokes, completely invaluable, a total waste of human effort. To me humour is the ultimate joy, the ultimate contribution. He hated me, I hated him, especially after he deleted my best one-liners. We both despised the other, based on a very fundamental difference, which could only be appreciated by the side that you sat on.

This is the same with the useful / useless division. I am not saying that useless people have the right to call useful people useless. I am saying that value judgment can't be independent of what side you are on... ultimately deciding who is a good person, and who is not (morally) rests in the hands of the judge, no matter what her opinion is. This of course invites the Autodafe, the Nazi-created Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, domestic violence, et cetera.

Is that better? Violence due to different ideologies, rather than peace via tolerance? I should say peace via tolerance is better, and that can't be fathomed again by the "must contribute" faction...

This can't be decided by philosophical arguments, only by grabbing weapons.

I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. As any sane person does.

Having academic discussions about theory is fine, but I’m not interested in that in this case.

This is the same with the useful / useless division. — god must be atheist

Again hung up on definitions. That’s philosophy for you. I’m not interested in that in this case. To talk about things in pure abstraction gets us nowhere. To use the real world, with real examples, makes it clearer. I’d like to end child abuse. I’d like to help solve that problem. I’d like to help contribute to solving climate change. Etc.

We have to act in the real world largely on belief and tentative assumptions which may prove to be wrong in the future. We’re finite. But having said that, to let this fact prevent you from acting is a grave mistake.

So I’m going on trying to solve problems, cheap skepticism aside: “Well what if climate change leads to MORE happiness? What if the human species dying off is good? What if child abuse is really good? Can you prove it isn’t? What IS abuse, after all?” ... and so on...

I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. — Xtrix

But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself?

what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1

Crickey, your own namesake answered that one.

A man can do what he will, but not will as he will

Survival for its own sake is a justification..concept, not will. Oh and do you know how to make a case without interjections and condescension? I mean I can add "dipshit" at the end of everything I address to you; it's unnecessary but certainly called for.

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.)

From a recent conversation with Snakes

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

It could be that my use of pace is shite. I used it and in read it as "in deference to", I never even googled the other "in deference to contrary opinion" thing! Sorry! I @'d you because I thought we would agree with each other.

No worries! just wanted to make sure. (plus, I think, having seen 'pace' in both forums & formal texts, that it can be legitimately used in both ways - which is a big oversight, imo, on the part of whichever providential agency is tasked with overseeing semantic evolution) But the upshot is - we do agree for sure.

But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1

You're asking me my opinion about that? Obviously I have a thousand ideas of what I'd like to see survive -- but that's personal and irrelevant. Why? Because none of those things will matter if we're dead.

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.

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.

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

I can see now how what I wrote could be seen in this way -- not unreasonably. So to be clear: no, that's not what I believe, of course. Then life would indeed not be worth saving. Now the argument that philosophy is an intrinsic good, quite apart from its effects or "usefulness," is one I sympathize with and recognize to have plenty of truth, but I feel it's incomplete and out of balance if its effects on one's life (and humanity's collective existence) isn't taken into account, because unlike music and dancing I argue it's not done only for its own sake. (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.”)

Again, my view of philosophy as an activity similar to that of spiritual or religious activity is idiosyncratic. But given that belief, I don't treat or judge philosophy as only a matter of enjoyment or as an activity to be done "in itself," although it in many ways often is that.

(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

Can you explain what you think Handel meant by "better" here?

I’ll leave you to ponder it for yourself. Your guess is probably as good as mine.

Survival for its own sake is a justification..concept, not will. — schopenhauer1

How do you come to know this? Do your thoughts carry identifiers - 'Justification', 'Concept', 'Will'?

Say I really wanted my species to survive (or thrive, even), everything I did was motivated by that desire. How would I know that what I had there was not a will that the species should survive but rather a justification (and for what exactly)?

The German 'will' is ambiguous as it translates almost to the English 'want' both ways, but it's fairly uncontested that Schopenhauer was referring to desires of some description. So if wanting the species to survive is just such a desire then why would you question why someone had such a desire, as if they arrived at desires by a process of reasoned thought?

What model of 'desire' are you using whereby a rational answer could be given to the question "Why do you have that desire?"

do you know how to make a case without interjections... — schopenhauer1

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?

...condescension? — schopenhauer1

Who'd have though 'crickey' would raise such an eyebrow. and there was I thinking it charmingly old-fashioned. If putting 'crickey' at the beginning of sentence is comparable to putting 'dipshit' at the end then I've spent much of adult life being incredibly rude. One wonders how I've managed to make it this far without being ostracised entirely.

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

Just thought you might want to know.

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

That's not what I met by interjection. Blimey, Crikey, For fuck's sake.. those kind of phrases.

One wonders how I've managed to make it this far without being ostracised entirely. — Isaac

Agreed, you are incredibly rude and hostile. You and Bartricks should have fun together.

What model of 'desire' are you using whereby a rational answer could be given to the question "Why do you have that desire?" — Isaac

Schopenhauer believed that every character had its own nature outside of the PSR. Thus although it seems we have a sort of spontaneity, it comes from this nature. The motives are already determined by our nature.

But on a broader note, he could be commenting on willing itself. We can't help but will because it is our nature to strive for something in general and due to the PSR often attaches to a particular goal in the world as representation.

In this case, a justification is needed because there was a concretization of survival, not just in the sense that "I eat food", "I go to the bathroom", "I breathe air", but that this is the only thing of value or worth.

But what I was saying doesn't refer to that. Rather, I was asking Xitrix how it is that his justification is not a viscious circle of surviving for surviving for surviving. And he answered me with things like art, beauty, etc. Which I then answered can be things that are not "contributions" in the sense he thought was legitimate in his OP. So the justification for why humanity should continue was not survival alone afterall, but survival to experience the goods of life. I simply brought up that this could mean things that are not classical "contributions" because contributing in itself is hollow without those goods.

But you turned it into a fuckn sarcastic attack as is your nature possibly. As Schopenhauer says...

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

Right. Notice he didn't say that's all he does.