I agree. I would even say: the objective in philosophers’ mind was not “to discover how to live the good life”, but “to live the good life”. I mean, the aim was not to understand or to discover something, but, first of all, to immediately experience it. They, more or less consciously, realized, or felt, that making philosophy produced immediately, automatically, an inner experience that can be called “good life”. Let’s say a spiritual experience, considering Pierre Hadot’s research.

Have you asked philosophers what their opinion of the good life is? It sounds like you think philosophers generally don't have an opinion on this. How do you know the topics they cover are auxiliary to what they consider "the good life"?

As facts stand, philosophers have all but forgotten the original question (what is the good life?). They're now only interested in topics auxiliary to the main one viz., to reiterate, the good life. — Agent Smith

I think a key problem is that since modernism (probably) this construct of 'the good life' has been hard to formulate and believe in. It sits better with idealism as I see it, wherein the logos holds immutable all truth, goodness and beauty and these are as transcendental as the language of math. Today we find ourselves bickering: 'good' according to who?

The objective of many current day philosophers is to endulgence in hundreds of -isms. So they can pretend to be alive while actually repeating ideas of others.

Are philosophers missing the forest for the trees? — Agent Smith

Agent Smith! My man! Exactly! They study the meaning of the roots, how the bark looks in UV light, if a tree can be reduced to parts, if it makes a sound in the wind if we're not there to hear, if the tree has a function, the meaning of the word "tree", our knowledge of trees, the tree as an -ism, the tree as pleasure, the evolution of a tree, the tree in the light of God, etcetera etcetera, without knowing what a tree is. Likewise for a forrest.

I agree. I would even say: the objective in philosophers’ mind was not “to discover how to live the good life”, but “to live the good life”. — Angelo Cannata

They (philosophers) aim for the perfect life, it must be known how to live such a life before one can even attempt to live it. Philosophers, in their desire for a flawless life, forget that reality is messy and is gonna throw you the proverbial curve ball, every now and then, that you have no idea how to tackle. It's back to the drawing board then - your weltanschauung needs tweaking or needs to be replaced with a better one. This constant realignment of your worldview should terminate at some point or, if you're like me, can be a never ending story. It's a scientific enterprise if you ask me.

Have you asked philosophers what their opinion of the good life is? It sounds like you think philosophers generally don't have an opinion on this. How do you know the topics they cover are auxiliary to what they consider "the good life"? — Philosophim

Elementary my dear Watson! — Sherlock Holmes

Deduction!

Agent Smith! My man! Exactly! They study the meaning of the roots, how the bark looks in UV light, if a tree can be reduced to parts, if it makes a sound in the wind if we're not there to hear, if the tree has a function, the meaning of the word "tree", our knowledge of trees, the tree as an -ism, the tree as pleasure, the evolution of a tree, the tree in the light of God, etcetera etcetera, without knowing what a tree is. Likewise for a forrest. — EugeneW

:up:

Have you asked philosophers what their opinion of the good life is? It sounds like you think philosophers generally don't have an opinion on this. How do you know the topics they cover are auxiliary to what they consider "the good life"?
— Philosophim

Elementary my dear Watson!
— Sherlock Holmes

Deduction! — Agent Smith

As it has been noted over the years by many, sometimes when Sherlock Holmes claims to use deduction, it is actually "Induction". You're doing that now Agent.

It's no different than saying, "Why do all firefighters hate the color blue?", then giving no examples. You're making broad assumptions about a profession based on...what? Have you asked a statistically significant number of firefighters? Have you asked even one? Are you just assuming they don't like the color blue based on how they act?

Why don't you ask some philosophers about the good life? What does it mean to them, and is it their primary motivation? Painting people with a broad brush of opinionated water while pretending it is factual colored oil may leave an image in your head that you want, but creates no tangible painting that others can see.

If you want to know, ask me for starters. Put some color on your palette.

As it has been noted over the years by many, sometimes when Sherlock Holmes claims to use deduction, it is actually "Induction". You're doing that now Agent — Philosophim

It's not just induction, Sherlock Holmes' method involves all styles of inference, including but not limited to induction i.e. deduction does feature in his modus operandi.

It's no different than saying, "Why do all firefighters hate the color blue?", then giving no examples. You're making broad assumptions about a profession based on...what? Have you asked a statistically significant number of firefighters? Have you asked even one? Are you just assuming they don't like the color blue based on how they act? — Philosophim

Tim Toady Bicarbonate! Nevertheless, points worth noting.
Also note, these are inductive questions, statistical to be precise.

Why don't you ask some philosophers about the good life? What does it mean to them, and is it their primary motivation? Painting people with a broad brush of opinionated water while pretending it is factual colored oil may leave an image in your head that you want, but creates no tangible painting that others can see. — Philosophim

I'm not painting people with any brush or color. I'm calling it as I see it. Like scientists aka natural philosophers, have forgotten philosophy's main purpose (the good life) as evidenced by how they treat ethics as a hindrance, to be removed asap, certain branches of philosophy have completely ignored the (main) quest, the good life. Maybe it's like this story in the Arabian Nights where 3 princes split up and go in different directions, vowing to meet again at the same spot after a year of seeking their own respective fortunes. I hope it is.

TIMTOWTDI (There is more than one way to do it) BSCINABTE (But sometimes consistency is not a bad ..)

TIMTOWTDI (There is more than one way to do it) BSCINABTE (But sometimes consistency is not a bad ..) — EugeneW

:up: Gracias señorita.

You're making broad assumptions about a profession based on...what? — Philosophim

No, no, he has a point! :up:

Everything for you, my love! :love:

Philosophy is simply a way of looking at things and if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change!
To consider something as being GOOD or BAD, is a product of being judgemental and I suppose we are ALL judgemental to some degree, however I disagree that the the object of philosophy is to live the good life.
We are alive right now because NOW is the only time where all life finds itself. Although we may prefer that things be different then what they are here and now, the truth may only be found in what IS, not in what might be.

Philosophy is simply a way of looking at things and if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change!
To consider something as being GOOD or BAD, is a product of being judgemental and I suppose we are ALL judgemental to some degree, however I disagree that the the object of philosophy is to live the good life.
We are alive right now because NOW is the only time where all life finds itself. Although we may prefer that things be different then what they are here and now, the truth may only be found in what IS, not in what might be. — Present awareness

Do you mean to say philosophy is more like a personal truth than a universal one? That kinda makes sense to me, solipsistic undertones there, but I take no issue. If it's true, then it's true no matter what I think/say/do, oui?

Then next paragraph is also worthy of note. What IS are facts, what MIGHT BE are dream-like and aligning one's expectations with facts is, I hear, paradoxically liberating instead of oppressive.

A little birdie told me thinking of good and bad as absolutes is not a a good idea. As Philosophim was kind enough to point out "add color to your palette". However, ethics, given the circumstances, is a major issue. Especially since it seems to be entwined with well-being, not just of an individual, but of the globe itself. Your position on the matter is too defeatist for my taste. From your vantage point it'll seem like I'm asking for the impossible. I suppose it boils down to points of view. Mind you, I'm not Polyanna/Dr. Pangloss. Neither is it that you're a Gloomy Gus/Negative Nancy! What IS is!

Update

It appears that philosophers are under the impression that to know how to live the good life and then to live it we have to be expert metaphysicians, logicians, epistemologists, aestheticians, and ethicists. I suppose they're right. If so, time to eat my own words, pass the sauce please! Premature ejaculation! :lol:

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow

Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — The Buddha

:flower:

I can't say what 'the good life' is but I can't conceive of it not including

amor dei intellectualis deus, sive natura
ataraxia
aponia
apatheia (i.e. amor fati)
solitaire et solidaire (i.e. non serviam)

& getting one's kicks. — 180 Proof

:death: :flower:

Please wait, I'm on another call. Thanks for the awesome input!

Deus, sive natura: God or Nature. Not an offer of choice, a statement. Spinoza at heart, eh!

Ataraxia: Equanimity via, inter alia, aporia (bewilderment, more like awe & wonder). The warrior's code à la Bushido (Samurai).

Aponia: Absence of pain, an existence I'm unfamiliar with. Negative utilitarianism. :up: Pain is the hole in our hedonic vessel. Unless you fix it, no amount of pleasure is gonna fill that vessel of ours.

Apatheia (i.e. amor fati): The wild horse tamed, finally. Phew! That was tough! In modern psychology, a symptom of depression (emotional blunting); there are no rules, if there are rules, they can be bent/broken. One way to treat hypothermia is to give the patient an infection and induce fever! Reality is not just stranger than we can imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine!

Accept one's fate, welcome it with open arms and life is easier. Isn't this a bit defeatist? Stoicism written all over it. I like it, what in the world do you want to achieve? You're gonna die anyway, like everybody else! Pater sancte, sic transit gloria mundi!

Solitaire et solidaire (i.e. non serviam): Could be conflated with loneliness and tribalism/groupism. Solipsism anyway, temet nosce (re Delphic Oracle).

I feel like new!

Philosophy began with one objective in mind - to discover how to live the good life. — Agent Smith

Can you back this up with some reference?

To answer this seemingly simple query, philosophers needed to deal with other matters like truth & knowledge (epistemology), reason (logic), good and bad (ethics), gods, free will (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), so on and so forth. In short, as far as I can tell, all the various branches of philosophy are subgoals that we need to attain just so that we can finally answer the question "what is the good life?"

Philosophers soon realized the complexity and profundity of the problem. Each subdiscipline of philosophy turned out to be a tough nut to crack that required entire lifetimes of study.

As facts stand, philosophers have all but forgotten the original question (what is the good life?). They're now only interested in topics auxiliary to the main one viz., to reiterate, the good life.

Are philosophers missing the forest for the trees?

If the original goal of philosophy really was "the good life", then, after all those complex and lengthy excursions into epistemology, ontology, etc. etc., that original goal began to appear too pedestrian to be taken seriously any longer.

I was once at a lecture on virtue epistemology by Duncan Pritchard. He also spoke about "living the good life". It struck me as too superficial to take seriously. Talking about Gettier problems for an hour and then about the "good life" -- how does one put those two together?

Can you back this up with some reference? — baker

Simply connected the dots, you know a result of doing the math, adding 2 and 2 together.

However, I'll attempt a rough proof: The Greek fascination for eudaimonia, exemplified by Socrates and perhaps those who came before and after, no less. What is eudaimonia any way? Isn't it, at the end of the day, a word that encapsulates the good life (flourishing).

Before you object, lemme remind you that I did say it isn't going to be a solid proof.

If the original goal of philosophy really was "the good life", then, after all those complex and lengthy excursions into epistemology, ontology, etc. etc., that original goal began to appear too pedestrian to be taken seriously any longer.

I was once at a lecture on virtue epistemology by Duncan Pritchard. He also spoke about "living the good life". It struck me as too superficial to take seriously. Talking about Gettier problems for an hour and then about the "good life" -- how does one put those two together? — baker

Ja, all these various problems, some even paradoxes, in the different subdisciplines of philosophy were only discovered and put under the microscope so to speak in order to complete the main quest: The good life.

To illustrate, here's a typical math problem in high school:

Johnny has $50. He buys 2 special pens that cost $10 each. How much money does he have left?

Subplot/Subproblem/Sub-quests: We have to first find out how much he spent. 2 × 10 = $20. Epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, logic are the $20.


Main problem/Main quest: $50 - $20 = $30. The Good Life