So I would say that reality and thus life retains a certain uniqueness for each individual from the social circles we have and the people we interact on a day to day basis — simplyG

Indeed, every reality is unique. :smile:

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking or trying to communicate. Is it what reasons people might have to pursue philosophical enquiry?

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Philosophy might be many things, but, whether a person is happy or unhappy, it often involves examining beliefs and presuppositions to determine whether they are true or justified.

Philosophy is only going to appeal to a percentage of people who have any reason to be interested in the subject. People have all sorts of ways to manage unhappiness; substance use, consumerism, hobbies, travel and other distractions, not philosophy so much. For some, religion may play a role.

From this perspective it appears that reality in this day and age (especially with social media involved) is a type of social bubble which is self created by the choices of the individual — simplyG

I remember people complaining about others living in bubbles well before the internet. There's always been the issue of people inhabiting a class or social group which has its own rules and values and is often ignorant of the wider world. In the days of newspapers, we often knew what bubble people belonged to by what paper/magazine they had delivered.

People have all sorts of ways to manage unhappiness; substance use, consumerism, hobbies, travel and other distractions, not philosophy so much. For some, religion may play a role. — Tom Storm

Good point, Tom.
But I wonder if one of the ways of facing unhappiness is to accept it. I mean, the act of comprehending and accepting that life has more negative/'sad' days than happy ones, and life tends to be more mediocre than we ever thought.
It is true that this way of thought goes to nihilism usually. I disagree because giving up with life doesn't necessarily mean being a nihilistic.

On the other hand, the line of taking drugs for facing whatever problem is blurred, don't you think? I take everyday Bromazepam and CBD to calm my anxiety down. Maybe it is not the best way to do so, but I don't know other. Even, if I got removed from those meds I would end up in a very pessimistic mood.

But I wonder if one of the ways of facing unhappiness is to accept it — javi2541997

Yes. I think the default setting for most emotional states is to accept it - happy or not. We often assume how we feel is normal. We may not even be certain what it is we are feeling. Nevertheless, off we go, looking for distractions.

I take everyday Bromazepam and CBD — javi2541997

I wasn't referring to prescribed medication under treatment. I was thinking about self-medicating indiscriminately with booze and other substances.

I wasn't referring to prescribed medication under treatment. I was thinking about self-medicating indiscriminately with booze and other substances. — Tom Storm

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge on this matter, Tom. Believe it or not, I see that treatment medication is under a big social taboo. Whenever I tell someone that I take those, I perceive that they think I take them for pleasure, that it is a terrible mistake to think so... I am even grateful to those chemists and psychiatrists who work on the research of mood meds. They helped me a lot.

I undertand.

Whenever I tell someone that I take those, I perceive that they think I take them for pleasure — javi2541997

Sometimes people need medication. We would not take this view with a diabetic who needs regular insulin medication.

Sometimes people need medication. We would not take this view with a diabetic who needs regular insulin medication. — Tom Storm

Exactly! :up:

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.

Why philosophy?

It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.

Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.

My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.

This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Hi. I guess these are the "more than one questions" you are talking about, right?
Well, I will answer thoroughly the first of them, as I cansider it more important. Besides, it's already a topic by itself.

Why philosophy?

It is certain that each one has one's own reasons for doing or being engaged in philosophy, although there must be some common grounds among people. I also believe the same applies to science, art, athletics and other human occupations and hobbies. We can observe passion and devotion in any of them. We can also observe simple pleasure, enjoyment, even fooling around.
Now, someone can be seriously involved or engaged in philosophy --meaning hard study, etc.-- for different reasons. Someone might do that as a quest for knowledge or because one loves "philosophizing" -- reasoning, argumentation, mental and spiritual development, and so on. Someone else might do that for one's career as a philosophy teacher. Someone else might do that because one wants be part of a philosophical elite club. And so on.

Now, I believe you are talking about the first case, i.e. one "does" philosophy for oneself as a quest for knowledge and personal mental and spiritual development, in general.

My personal experience in this has been the following: although I loved philosophy since my college years, I was never really engaged in it, I mean as a "philosophical thinker", a philosophizer. I was read a lot, a lot of books and got involved in Eastern philosophy, more for reasons of self-improvement, as a self-help endeavor. Then, for a very long time --about 35 years-- I had almost nothing to do with philosophy, except from some sparse thinking and reading about philosophical matters. But in 1980 I started to study the mind and got involved deeply involved in this field for 5 years, theoretically and practically (self-help activities). It's only when I joined Quora (2017) and started answering questions in subjects I knew well, including philosophy and the mind, that I started to "think philosophically". And then I also joined TPF, about 2 years ago, that the plane really took off! What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. My reasoning --esp. critical reasoning-- my awareness and my reality of the world as well as myself have risen to new levels, little by little but on a stable basis.

This is "Why philosophy?" as far as I am concerned! :smile:

***

Question no. 2: If a person is happy who needs it?

Based on my own experience, philosophy can be very helpful to a person who is in bad mental state, as I was in 1976. A book by the Indian philosopher Krishnamurti, "The Only Revolution", had changed that state dramatically. It was also my initiation to Eastern philosophy which I studied for more than one year.
But, as I described above, the reasons wants to be involved in philosophy, in one way or another, do not have to do esp. with one's mental state.

***

Question no. 3: It’s often recognized that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between?

My opinion is that aphorisms of the type "ignorance is bliss" are much worse than convenient: they are harmful. They are used by oppressive people who want you to be a docile, submissive being, listening only to them. We all know about the Christian "Have faith and doubt not". I think it's disgusting.

As for suffering, just saying that "life is suffering so you must accept that" is equally harmful. One must offer real help to mitigate if not eliminate this suffering. This is what Siddhartha Buddha did with his preaching. He didn’t say "Believe in God and you will be saved or cured" or "Have faith" and all these totally unacceptable "advices".

Sp, the truth does not lie somewhere in between. The truth lies elsewhere! :smile:

What was the key in all that: writing. By writing I was clarifying my thoughts by putting them down, in front of me, face them, evaluating them, distilling them, making them solid. — Alkis Piskas

Good point, Alkis. As always, you have nailed it. It is a pleasure to read your posts because they are clear and solid, not like mines. These are chaotic and complex to follow up!

Yes. I think the default setting for most emotional states is to accept it - happy or not. We often assume how we feel is normal. We may not even be certain what it is we are feeling. Nevertheless, off we go, looking for distractions. — Tom Storm

I think this I wrote in another thread might be of relevance in this discussion:

That is to say some sort of communal recognition of the situation. That is we must exhaust the idea of progress, scientific enthusiasm, pleasures, and happiness in this life to understand the situation and come to a sort of resignation. Unlike Hartmann though, I don't think it necessarily has to be Nirvana, but maybe a sort of quietude and recognition that it's "all vanity".

Right understanding through a communal catharsis will then take away the barriers of optimism. It would be a recognition that suffering is real and inherent in the human condition. That we resolve not to start it for others. That we empathize with the suffering of others and let others grieve that suffering, helping find solutions. In this sense, Schopenhauer's "compassion" and "empathy" is the correct foundation for a "positive ethics" (actions to perform instead of prevent). But this kind of foundation is only done out of seeing others as "fellow-sufferers". I can't emphasize that enough. In our hedonistic culture we are inculcated and bombarded with optimistic slogans. But these simply become an impediment to the true understanding of the inevitability and pervasiveness, in fact inherent quality that suffering has in the human condition. That is why Buddhism and Schopenhauer's understanding of suffering isn't "just" hedonic calculus but is a deeper sense of dissatisfaction that is even had when we are supposedly hedonically not harmed. And thus, since it is inherent, we must recognize it which means taking the empathetic pessimistic stance of compassion. — schopenhauer1

Hi, Thanks for your always kind words. :pray:
All these are only ideas. You too have offered very interesting and challenging ideas, as well as a new perspective based on Japanese wisdom!

This leads to the individuals recognition that they’re in a self created bubble allows room for their self emergence from it and different perspectives on life and reality and maybe a pursuit of knowledge be that self-knowledge or philosophy.

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

The truth is somewhere in between. Life is not suffering. Life is one huge experimental lab that anyone could explore and try things out. It should allow you to think and be satisfied, be unhappy, or happy about what you find. (JS Mill might help here as a reference). Philosophy is a refuge to those who find that material things do not make them satisfied -- or they find that material possessions or wanting material possessions leave them empty. Science is also that -- many inventors in the past had devoted their entire life -- often dying without success -- working on their projects. Then, there's the artistic or creative realm where you can bury yourself just creating.

Bubbles are good -- if it leaves you not wanting other-wordly things. If it leaves you self-sufficient. I don't allow in my little circle individuals who suck. The energy vampires, as you some call them, have no life other than dump on you their dramas. And it's repeated everyday, multiple times a day. If you examine the way they think, there's really nothing exciting happening there.

I'm not that difficult. At least... not anymore. Reality can only be accepted if one is well enough to accept it. Denial is default, unless one is good enough to be undenial. I spent most of my adult life unconsciously & subconsciously looking for enlightenment. I wasn't aware of it. I was raised in a very christian family. I just wanted to do Christ's will. That's my life. Maybe everything is predetermined. Maybe not. Who knows. Perhaps reality can only be accepted once one has attained sufficient enlightenments.

Perhaps reality can only be accepted once one has attained sufficient enlightenments. — Kevin Tan

I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'reality'.

You put that very well.

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? — simplyG

You can be happy and bored or otherwise acknowledging there's more to discover or enrich one's life or understanding with. That is to say just because you're satisfactorily entertained or otherwise occupied and largely content doesn't mean you're "happy". In fact, you could even venture as far to say philosophy is far from the pursuit of happiness despite the nomenclature of "love for wisdom". We associate love with happiness, but as I'm sure we can all attest to, this is not always so.

It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

They're musings that seem to have stood the test of time, at least to the majority of persons. If you were born into 18th century royalty, your life would be far from suffering. If you're born in a dangerous jungle without knowledge to survive and avoid predators, ignorance is quite the opposite of bliss. People just tend to go with things that seem to work more often than not and call it truth. After all, it must be at minimum closer to truth than fiction. Right?

Please include more direct questions in your OP. While your musings are appreciated, they - at least for myself - become difficult to "unpack and attack" as they say in the world of intellectual debate.

I mean the way that everything that exists in existence is.

Perhaps reality can only be accepted once one has attained sufficient enlightenments. — Kevin Tan

I mean the way that everything that exists in existence is. — Kevin Tan

Paradoxically, approaching to the truth objectively makes us gets far-away from happiness itself. This is due to the fact that happiness is subjective and could "crash" with the objective concept of reality.

If a person is happy who needs it ? — simplyG

I think the idea of happiness is not useful to address problems, because you can never tell if you are really happy: somebody under the effects of alcohol, or drugs, or just specific situations, might think they are happy and then, later, realize how fake that happiness was. In this sense philosophy is very useful exactly to those who think they are happy. I think an essential power of philosophy is its ability to criticize, criticize deeply. It can criticize happiness and unhappines. In this sense I think that what you wrote:

the philosophers aims should be to maximise human happiness and reduce suffering — simplyG

is not really the noblest, the highest task of philosophy.

It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss — simplyG

In the context of what I said, considering that ignorance is able to make people feel happy, we might consider that, whenever you are happy, most probably you are so because you are in a degree of ignorance. But the same can be said about unhappiness, especially when it becomes a metaphysics of existence: if you decide that life is unhappiness, very likely you are ignoring something.

As a consequence, if we don’t want be ignorant, we are prevented from being both happy or unhappy. We are forced to experience both things and see our soul torn by these strong emotions: unfortunately life is able to destroy our happiness by suddenly introducing the worst things, but also viceversa, life is able to force us to forget unhappiness by introducing experiences that seduce, attract, possess you with extreme feelings of bliss and happiness. In this sense I would say that life is violence, not only that violence that makes you suffer, but also the violence of good experiences that irresistibly force you, at least to a high degree, to forget your suffering.
I think that, in the middle of this condition, we can only try to find the best ways not to solve it, but to cross it, to go through it.

It's a negative view of life. Negativity is not bad. It integrates the unpleasant parts of ourselves. In Dutch the word 'geweldig' means amazing! However, the literal meaning of the word is 'violently'! I'm not a man of many words.

In this sense I would say that life is violence, not only that violence that makes you suffer, but also the violence of good experiences that irresistibly force you, at least to a high degree, to forget your suffering. — Angelo Cannata

:clap:

There’s a difference between hedonic pain and pleasure versus the deeper dissatisfaction that Eastern philosophies and Schopenhauer often discuss.

I’m not surprised in a culture of instrumentalism, that this would be the case.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking or trying to communicate. Is it what reasons people might have to pursue philosophical enquiry? — Tom Storm

I guess it’s for the sake of self introspection which can yield useful knowledge about oneself.

I remember people complaining about others living in bubbles well before the internet. There's always been the issue of people inhabiting a class or social group which has its own rules and values and is often ignorant of the wider world. In the days of newspapers, we often knew what bubble people belonged to by what paper/magazine they had delivered. — Tom Storm

Bang on there, thank you for bringing it up. Do you think this is healthy or unhealthy? To me it strikes as unhealthy as individuals should have a healthy level of curiosity of what is happening outside their little world.

You can be happy and bored or otherwise acknowledging there's more to discover or enrich one's life or understanding with. That is to say just because you're satisfactorily entertained or otherwise occupied and largely content doesn't mean you're "happy". In fact, you could even venture as far to say philosophy is far from the pursuit of happiness despite the nomenclature of "love for wisdom". We associate love with happiness, but as I'm sure we can all attest to, this is not always so. — Outlander

The initial shock of self imposed ignorance should make one angry or perhaps even sad that previously they did not think of the matter at hand in different ways. For me philosophy is more like a Swiss Army knife than a hammer whose many little tools (epistemology, metaphysics etc) allows one to tackle problems from many different angles.

I guess it’s for the sake of self introspection which can yield useful knowledge about oneself. — simplyG

Interesting. I hear this often and I think what you say is fair - but I just can't think of a single example of where I have yielded useful knowledge about myself in any such process.

To me it strikes as unhealthy as individuals should have a healthy level of curiosity of what is happening outside their little world. — simplyG

I guess we have to now because of the global effects of untrammelled capitalism and environmental degradation. But it wasn't that long ago what was happening in the next village didn't much matter. I think it is ok to only be aware of your own bubble, as long as this doesn't cause harm to others. The fundamentalist Christian, Fox News watching bubble is not so good.