Live and let live. — SYT

What say you?

@TheMadFool :up: :up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

That just about sums it up pretty neatly. This was a nice thread.

Perhaps this topic can be very important because phillosophy, especially today, is at risk of being too separated, too far from the mass, from common people. We might also argue that it doesn’t matter if people are wrong or lazy. It is too easy for a teacher to complain about his pupils. The difficult thing, the real challenge, is working to create connections with those who are different, and in this case the different ones are the ones that, for some reasons, are or appear lazy or wrong. So the problem is: how can we do philosophy differently, to make it immersed in its history, rather than isolated in its golden tower? A fantastic solution to this problem was the style adopted by Jesus, who talked in parables, that is, short stories very easy to understand and, at the same time, very concentrated in meaning. We can’t just say “People are stupid and lazy, they don’t understand anything”: even if we are right on this, saying this can’t be a final solution.

Problem is that philosophy is mostly seen in the academic form rather that its literal meaning / practice.
No one teaches philosophy only the philosophy of others and that is what is lacking.

There is value in the view from the mountain top, and value in a view not from the mountain top. Society would collapse if everyone was inspecting and challenging everything all the time. Society needs those within the group consensus, and those without.

This is a daily experience for me. I've been happily married for 40 years to someone who is just as intelligent and educated as I am, but thoroughly non-philosophical. Our conversations swing wildly back and forth from the big picture to the detailed view. :-) Two of me in the same house would be one and a half too many. :-)

But some is good. Ideally, someone is attempting to stand back and see the larger picture some of the time. But the practical among us will ask, what do you philosopher people intend to do about the big picture? Um, well, er, you see, I mean, we'll get back to you on that....

A fantastic solution to this problem was the style adopted by Jesus, who talked in parables, that is, short stories very easy to understand and, at the same time, very concentrated in meaning. — Angelo

Yea, I'm not Christian or religious, but I agree with this. The parable method has proven it's value in connecting over thousands of years. You know, the Bible is the best selling book of all time. We don't have to agree with everything in the Bible to appreciate this accomplishment.

Were I religious I might argue that the Bible was deliberately written to address the largest questions in a somewhat vague imprecise inconclusive manner so that we would argue over it's meaning for thousands of years, thus keeping a focus on the largest questions. This might be compared to the skillful philosophy professor who answers every question with another question.

A problem we seem to be having today is that many of us wish to interpret the parables within the scientific paradigm. We often wish for the parables to state clear unambiguous provable fact. But maybe books like the Bible are better compared to art, where one can share deep truths about the human condition within fictional stories.

In my opinion, the answer takes the work that the academic professes to enjoy, but I'm not so sure he/she really wants to do the work. The work is in formulating questions. It takes a great deal of time, patience and work for people like me to formulate a probing, non-threatening, inciteful question to ask the mentally weak or lazy person. Indeed, I am a mentally lazy person myself, so I'm more inclined to argue (in the lay sense of the term) than to formulate good questions. But like most people, I will entertain a question.

A fantastic solution to this problem was the style adopted by Jesus, who talked in parables, that is, short stories very easy to understand and, at the same time, very concentrated in meaning. — Angelo

That is good too, but I think it also takes time, patience and work to put together a parable. At least it does for me.

Granted, there are brilliant people who seem capable of working up a good question or parable off the cuff, but that ain't me. Those people, like Socrates, Jesus, et al, should be sought out. If you find an academic, a professor, or anyone else for that matter, who has mastered the art of the question or parable, latch on to them and don't let go until you've exhausted them, or it's otherwise time to move on.

One final point on the question and the questioner: I think a lot can be discerned in the genuine intellectual curiosity of the person asking the question. If they sincerely want to know what it is that a lazy/weak mind is thinking, the question will not be set up to prove something. It will be set up to understand. And people will often be amazed at what the process reveals.

I wish I had patience and the desire to understand. But some people are insufferable. Like me. :razz:

There will always be mentally lazy/ weak people. They exist as a point of reference for which to determine those who are mentally strong and diligent. And vice versa of course.
We are a distribution of varying mental capacity with most in the middle and few at the extremes.
But even if you promote the weakest of us to improve by say 5% then still there is a bottom rung it just so happens to be five percent higher than previously.

It’s all relative and importantly, all necessary.

As a result you can find yourself living with people who are simple in thought who don't give the extra effort to think from a philosophers perspective. — Tiberiusmoon

There are many people who are not "simple in thought" who are not interested in philosophy. The lack of respect you show for others is either 1) not philosophical or 2) a good reason for people to avoid philosophy.

I am a mentally lazy person myself — James Riley

As am I.

the question will not be set up to prove something. It will be set up to understand. And people will often be amazed at what the process reveals. — James Riley

It has struck me that it is often the clarity with which a question or idea is presented that is most important. More important that the answer. There's a quote that I really like. I can't remember it or who said it, but here's a paraphrase - Clarity is so unfamiliar it is often mistaken for truth.

Clarity is so unfamiliar it is often mistaken for truth. — T Clark

HA! Good one. And it explains the appeal of some charlatans. Their followers might call it "brute honesty" and "political incorrectness" or "common sense". It works well with confirmation bias in an echo chamber, and finds it's way into the vernacular of the moron and pseudo-intellectual.

Truth has an awful burden to bear, having to deal with clarity and what not, and it's not always up to the task. Nevertheless, it's out there, somewhere, trudging along.

This is an observation of an assumption, you maybe mistaken when I use philosopher as a context which shows the conclusion of your comment.

I refer to a process of study not philosophy itself, the "lack of respect" as you put it assumes I dont have any without any mention or proof.
As I mentioned before; "simple in thought" refers to their process of study being different, much like how one can lift heavy objects with ease if they train to lift weights.

I refer to a process of study not philosophy itself, the "lack of respect" as you put it assumes I dont have any without any mention or proof. — Tiberiusmoon

The title of this discussion - "How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people?"

QED.

Yes and I already explained this in the post, dont judge a book by its cover bro.

Another nice proverb is "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

But, what context are you talking about? Living within society? As family and friend? What?

Living within society

And what's the context of this living within society? Talking with people?

That and more, the judgements of others that are so half assed it causes issues for others.
Especially for people who are in higher positions. . .

:100: It certainly reads this way.

a

How can you assume you know anything about how a person thinks by just talking to them. — intpath32

Its call sociology or social science, were not psychic.

Also mentally weak people as you call them might really be victims of an abusive power structure that never nurtured their creativity but instead scolded and punished it. — intpath32

Or a system that fails in education only vaguely grasping bias concepts which leads to "victims of an abusive power structure that never nurtured their creativity but instead scolded and punished it."
Like your doing in your latter comment of:

Get your head out the clouds because philosophy at the point you are at is useless, it is just mental masturbation — intpath32

You contradict yourself.

As a result you can find yourself living with people who are simple in thought who don't give the extra effort to think from a philosophers perspective. — Tiberiusmoon

Each person has one's own place within a society, and many of these places do not require complex philosophical thought, so there is not need to compel these people toward it. What is a problem though, I believe, is bad habits of thought. Bad habits may enter into any field or discipline involved in complex thought, and may in some cases be associated with a form of laziness. For instance, in some cases we are encouraged to accept the principles presented by others whom we apprehend as authorities, without asking for justification. This form of laziness seems to pervade modern academia.

a

Laziness and weakness are the great civilising characteristics of humanity. They are what motivate every labour saving device ever invented, from the wheel to the faucet. The lazy and weak should therefore be venerated as the leaders of society.

Most philosophers and scientists are weak and lazy thinkers,stuck in their dogmas and comfort zones.
Trading common sense for conformity.
@Tiberiusmoon

So maybe a better term is some kind of Nomadic thinker? (Thinking outside the box to put it loosely)
Vs settled thinking.

Most philosophers and scientists are weak and lazy thinkers,stuck in their dogmas and comfort zones.
Trading common sense for conformity. — Mystic

I see the word "common sense " has started to come up more in the threads, one wonders why. :-)

+1 with the caveat that in some cases it is less of laziness but more of dogmatic. Perhaps even a lack of intelligence.

@Tiberiusmoon Yep,that sounds good!

yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important.