Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do? — substantivalism
Except, if blindness yielded vast catechisms of iron-clad, faithful, resolve and beautiful imagery in our minds over the dullness of what lay before us if we opened ours.I will simply suggest that illusion arises as a possibility from the existence of vision, but that does not make blindness preferable. — unenlightened
To search for what cannot be settled and always demand skeptical humility as if to always rationally castrate oneself for 'seeing'.Likewise one can deceive oneself if and only if one can also possibly be honest with oneself. To be open to both possibilities is to already be a philosopher. — unenlightened
If that is the case then I have instilled a new hatred for 'philosophers' of various sorts as they mislead each other by claiming their beyond aesthetics but do it regardless. Masking their claims in authoritative language and absolutist terms to give their ego greater credence.Philosophy raises the strictly pragmatic to that of aesthetic reflection... Even the philosophy of Pragmatism itself is an aesthetic view of things. It is to not walk in the world from one task to another, but to look at the whole, and see it upon reflection, whether that be metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and values. These are things that take a secondary-reflection and not meant necessarily as to obtain some practical end. In this way, philosophy acts as therapy from the mundanity of everydayness, the feeling of being instrumental, and of only survival, and filling up one's free time with proscribed activities of society. — schopenhauer1
That requires a certain breadth of care with the material of all others we've taken from which I may not possess for years. Its best that I stay silent until that time but I will have rather egregious slip ups out of personal weakness.It is when one can be critical of one's own dearly held philosophies, that one can be open to the synthesis of one's own efforts with others, participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks. — schopenhauer1
participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks. — schopenhauer1
In greater force given it seems to me that philosophy and those who participate in it seem rather plentiful in their appetites' for the cannibalizations of themselves as well as those around them........
Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do? — substantivalism
I don't ask this merely in the sense of a negative reading of self-deception nor an admission of some childish thought process we have all had in times past regarding anything but ourselves. Such as those of non-religious fevers who decry the religious of dogmatic irrationalism but they themselves retain similar looking ad hoc rationalist intuitions of bare content. In a similar way their arise the eliminative materialists whose philosophy either borders on mere tautology or outright rejection of what allows for them to investigate these subject matters in the first place. The religious and mystics who try their best to bolster their own philosophical foundations with the vaguest impressions of the unknown. — substantivalism
However, even those assumptions (or meta-beliefs) of the pyrrhonians or the falsificationists could be carved away and in their own time found lacking. Further, even those who espouse these doctrines may not live up to their namesake and many would gladly even abandon them momentarily despite their intuitiveness for the pleasure of other philosophical desserts. — substantivalism
"See! It is dead and not one facet of it remains! From here on out it will haunt me no longer!" — substantivalism
But it's not clear to me what you mean by "self-deception." — Ciceronianus
--SocratesI neither know nor think I know
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.