This is something that has been under discussion for some days now in the threads on Heidegger. I started this topic based on just this problem. — Fooloso4
Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? — jgill
:up: :up:Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing?
— jgill
For some, it seems to me, it is as if their words are in search of ideas. If they keep writing sooner or later they will stumble across something to say.
And there are some who just recycle the same idea. — Fooloso4
Plato pointed to the attitude that philosophy is useless, but he did not attempt to make it useful. — Fooloso4
Whatever was he doing in Syracuse, then? — Ciceronianus
Agreed. I'm also not a fan of either dada-like compostmoderns or analysis-for-analysis-sake "specialists". — 180 Proof
:clap: :up::lol: "Compostmoderns" ...the incontinental tradition vs the anals; both have produced a lot of shit and fostered normative correctness in their different ways..." — Janus
A stoic (no doubt, an "elitist") might have said "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people." :fire:Philosophy that is of no significance to everyman is nought but an elitist hobby.
Philosophy that is of no significance to the person in the street is nought but an elitist hobby; which is fine provided the delusion that it is more than that does not set in. Unfortunately... — Janus
“If we were to be shown right now two pictures by Paul Klee, in the original, which he painted in the year of his death-the watercolor "Saints from a Window," and "Death and Fire," tempera on burlap -we should want to stand before them for a long while-and should abandon any claim that they be immediately intelligible. If it were possible right now to have Georg Trakl's poem "Septet of Death'· recited to us, perhaps even by the poet himself, we should want to hear it often, and should abandon any claim that it be immediately intelligible. If Werner Heisenberg right now were to present some of his thoughts in theoretical physics, moving in the direction of the cosmic formula for which he is searching, two or three people in the audi-ence, at most, would be able to follow him, while the rest of us would, without protest, abandon any claim that he be immediately intelligible.
Not so with the thinking that is called philosophy. That thinking is supposed to offer "worldly wisdom" and perhaps even be a "Way to the Blessed Life." But it might be that this kind of thinking is today placed in a position which demands of it reflections that are far removed from any useful, practical wisdom. It might be that a kind of thinking has become necessary which must give thought to matters from which even the painting and the poetry which we have mentioned and the theory of math-·ematical physics receive their determination. Here, too, we should then have to abandon any claim to immediate intelligibility. However, we should still have to· listen, because we must think what is inevitable, but preliminary.“ ( Heidegger, On Time and Being)
Would you make that argument about quantum physics or molecular biology? — Joshs
:up:Would you make that argument about quantum physics or molecular biology? — Joshs
those of us interested in philosophy engage in a true privilege, being able to use thought for its own sake, which reveals aspects of reality other people take utterly for granted — Manuel
And secondly, I think philosophy, if it is not about how to live, is just a hobby. That said I'm not opposed to anyone pursuing ideas for their own sake. — Janus
Here, too, we should then have to abandon any claim to immediate intelligibility.
However, we should still have to· listen, because we must think what is inevitable, but preliminary
Here’s a little secret. Don’t let it get around. Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake. — Joshs
Here's a little secret. Learning how to think as a prerequisite for learning how to live is nihilism. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing ideas for their own sake, and often at the expense of living rather than "pursuing life" for its own sake. — Fooloso4
To complain about the specialization of philosophy is to insist it be a less serious kind of investigation than it is --- the kind that doesn't get anywhere, doesn't get more complex with time. — plaque flag
To me this resentful anti-intellectualism is what takes philosophy to be a mere hobby ... — plaque flag
But trying to impose one's personal lazy limits on professionals is childish. — plaque flag
Unless of course the dualism you are presupposing — Joshs
Here’s a little secret (don’t let it get around). Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake. — Joshs
Is pursuing ideas for their own sake pursuing life for its own sake? I don't think so. If the ideas pursued are about ideas themselves then unless those ideas relate to life they become increasingly removed from the concerns of one's life and the life of others. — Fooloso4
The claim that learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live needs to be looked at in context. The context is certain trends contemporary philosophy. Is reading Heidegger a prerequisite of pursing life? — Fooloso4
— Joshs
Have your already forgotten what you said? — Fooloso4
Here is a good article on what he was doing there. — Fooloso4
So, I believe that we have to give philosophy a new opportunity for its "evolution". — Alkis Piskas
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.