I think artistic types are the least likely to be interested in philosophy. It’s us verbal guys that get sucked into the intricacies of philosophical ideas. We prefer to be alone because we’re introverted and socially awkward.

In my experience, those who are interested in Philosophy are not identical in personality type to those drawn to ethics (and perhaps morality).

One idea/theory is every human decision has a philosophic basis/bias. You have to believe this to see this.
Like psychology, believe it's the basis/bias/ explanation of all human decisions, see it that way.

Personally, CURIOSITY! Everything about anything that falls across the path of living and the path of living as well, of course. That's philosophy.

Definitely not a social klutz, comfortable about verbal expression, as a single child can take or leave company but like frequent own time and space. Slow thinker with opinions that are never rust on....possibly squeezes into some profiles of a philosopher, who knows.

naked smile

Do you think you are like this, or is my theory just generalisation? — Rob J Kennedy

Most people I know are not just disinterested in philosophy; many are mildly hostile about it, seeing it as pointless wankery which never arrives anywhere. Which, I must say, it often seems to be.

I think it probably takes a life event or a remarkable encounter with someone to awaken an interest - when we suddenly find that our worldview has been shaken by new perspectives. We can either shut this down or wonder some more about other things we may have missed in making sense of life. But equally a lot of philosophy seems to involve people making post hoc rationalisations for what they already believe - theism, idealism, materialism - often with a view to convincing and coercing others with their arguments

I think there are numerous ways philosophy might be of interest. Many people just pursue it as though it were a passionless game of logic, with no real connection to life. Others see it as mostly as a history of ideas. Others want to write manifestos. There are many different types: from the genuinely learned to the strident monomaniac.

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

I generally like to think that it is philosophy that makes me interested in it, but there is no necessity that all philosophers have the same motivation. And there are grades of horseshit n'all. But if I had to speculate and generalise, I would invite philosophers to look for some circumstance that caused them to question their own identity; identity is the origin of world view, and it is when one cannot quite make sense of one's world view that one falls unwilling into philosophy. And because identity is entirely fabricated, there is no escape.

I think some philosophers are frustrated gobblers. Perhaps we only start to think when we stop getting what we want.

Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outer circumference of Energy. — Blake

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. They are people who care about politics and the arts. They are writers. They are introspective and educated. Usually highly educated. They want the world changed in one way or many ways. — Rob J Kennedy

A reasonable analysis, but bear in mind not everyone who has become accustomed to solitude (or "loneliness" as you put it) or who finds peace in such "prefers to be alone", per se (ie. an only child growing up in a rural or unsafe neighborhood or who otherwise wasn't generally allowed to "roam about" like most, etc).

For me, it probably has a bit more to do with "being right" and outsmarting those around me than I'd like to admit. Personally, I was always fascinated with science, discovery, not so much reading but definitely facts, creativity, and mastery (or at least knowledge) of the world around me. I liked watching "smart kid" shows like "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius" and writing down all the interesting "discoveries", facts, and "inventions" thinking I could one day do them myself. Reading "Ripley's Believe it or Not" was a fun time as well. I like to think it was because it "challenged the world as I knew it" but, it's just as likely it was, as my former English professor would say, I'm "easily impressed (entertained)". Just me and my Itty Bitty book light and I was transported into a world all my own for hours at a time completely immersed in an always new and ever-changing world of possibility, particularly on long car rides.

It was fun at a young age to make those around you, particularly persons of authority (teachers, pastors, and of course my own dear parents) think or second-guess themselves or otherwise just pay greater attention to you, which was its own reward in its own right, even if it did get on their nerves at times. Grew up as an only child with what I'd have to say was an unusually large amount of solitude and time to myself. You definitely come up with ways to entertain yourself mentally. I didn't get into actual philosophy until my late teens, however. Not really sure why. Probably an older cousin of mine. Always reading Nietzsche and that one Russian guy. Super fun to be around, always had something interesting to say. Perhaps I just wanted to be a bit more like him and a bit less like myself at that time in life. Could be partly due to the media and social expectation (the "wise respected elder" in movies, getting rewarded with praise and stuff for good grades in school along with the opposite for the inverse, etc.); always wanted to be a well-to-do, scholarly sophisticate when I grew up. Just seemed like that's the way people were supposed to be.

I also didn't really like secrets or the idea of not knowing things those older or in authority knew and not only kept but would regularly joke about to themselves (but not I) while in my presence as if I wasn't there. Especially the way they would almost gleefully flaunt such knowledge in the form of verbal sentiment such as "It's a grown up thing" or "That's not for children" or "You'll understand when you're older", etc. I just wanted to know what was so funny or so terrible about something that seemed to not be any sort of big deal or make any sense to me at the time. Why I would get in trouble, why saying this word or doing this thing is bad but not the other all while not really giving me a satisfactory answer in my fledgling mind. I guess I also didn't like being wrong or outsmarted in front of people. Oh, the overbearing shame! Even at such a tender age. Ah, to be the lad who always knew just what to say, to be consistently looked up to as wise, funny, or what have you. Never a truer feeling of bliss felt; social acceptance.

That's what I would say were some contributing factors to my personal interest in philosophy and "intellectual pursuit" in general, without giving it more than a few minutes of thought, at least. I'm weird though so I wouldn't read too far into it. Each person is different, as are their specific desires and motivations behind such. Somewhat, at least. :smile:

Politics are hard and for the though. The religion is something different than philosophy. At the end, it is to avoid politics and avoid religion.

I like to think that I have about the normal number of friends and acquaintances. There’s about 30 people I’m in regular contact with, and almost all are people like me, directly connected to the arts in some way. Teachers, composers, poets, painters, writers and such. Yet not one of these people, or any of my relatives ever talks about, or ever mentions or reads anything about philosophy or philosophers. — Rob J Kennedy

You may not talk explicitly about philosophy or philosophers, but that doesn't mean that you dont ever think philosophically. Every time you take a step back from your art and think about how you are approaching it , and question how you might gain a different perspective on it, you are thinking philosophically. Artistic movements are comprised of innovators who asked themselves how they could express themselves through their art in a way that departed from the accepted approaches surrounding them. Only a minority of these artists ( William Blake, Terrance Malick, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Shelley, DuChamp, Wagner, Sartre, etc) will feel comfortable, however, in articulating their philosophical insights as full realized, concrete verbal concepts. It is this latter skill you appear to have in mind as what you call philosophy. Is there some specific personality type we could link to this? I doubt it. I certainty wouldn’t say that philosophers are inherently more introverted or isolated than painters, poets or novelists. Any form of creativity that is non-collaborative will require long periods of solitude.

I would turn the OP’s question on its head. What does it say about someone who calls themself an artist and yet who has no interest in philosophy? My suspicion is that if none of your artistically-inclined acquaintances have any interest in philosophy, then they are also less likely to be interested in modes of creativity outside of their narrow domain, or be interested in significantly innovating within their domain. Great art movements have always been filled with eclectic, curious souls whose art borrows widely from poetry , philosophy, politics, science, literature and spirituality, and everything in between. Perhaps what appears to you as a peculiarity of philosophy is more a symptom of a lack of innovative spirit among your social circle.

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

The main reason I became interested in philosophy was because of my interest in art.

How is it possible to create art without knowing what art is?

What art is is a philosophical problem.

Science is looking at a situation, coming up with a hypotheses, then testing it. But in this case, most of the words are all clearly defined.

Philosophy is looking at words we use in our daily lives and trying to figure out their definitions. Words like 'knowledge' for example. What is it really? How do we know? What is 'good'? Its not that we couldn't create definitions that then could be scientifically tested, its the creation and refinement of the definitions to be logical and detailed.

The type of person who questions why they do what they do is most likely to be attracted to philosophy. The type of person who cannot simply exist as part of a cultural process in both language and behavior is most likely to be attracted to philosophy. They do not have to be weird or lonely individuals, only those who suddenly look at what they're doing and ask, "Why?"

I like to think that I have about the normal number of friends and acquaintances. There’s about 30 people I’m in regular contact with, and almost all are people like me, directly connected to the arts in some way.

I would challenge this: maybe I am off here, but I don't think most people have thirty people they regular are with that share in their deep interests. Don't get me wrong: that's impressive, Rob! Good for you!

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy?

I think most people engage in philosophy when something catastrophic in their life forces them to (in order to cope). Maybe I am too cynical, but I don't think most people look to poetry, art, truth, and wisdom too keenly with an extreme invested interest unless they are going through some serious internal battles.

On the other hand, if you are wondering not why the average person might get interested in it (and why they tend not to be interested at all) but, rather, why the people prominent in philosophy (as a hobby or profession) tend to be interested in it; then I think you are right to point out that they tend to be introverted, analytic, intelligent, socially-awkward and have a yearning for wisdom.

I can tell you right now I got sucked in naturally because I am kind of autistic, socially awkward, extremely introverted, analytic, brutally honest (with myself), and I yearn for absolute truth. I cannot live without doing philosophy, just as much as I cannot live without eating....in all seriousness.

:up:

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy? My theory goes like this.

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. They are people who care about politics and the arts. They are writers. They are introspective and educated. Usually highly educated. They want the world changed in one way or many ways.

Do you think you are like this, or is my theory just generalisation? — Rob J Kennedy

I wouldn't say that any of this is false. What I would say, however, is that there is a lot more to it than that. Speaking for myself, and only for myself (though I'm sure there are others who feel more or less the same about the following), the main thing that draws me to philosophy is the desire and the will to understand the Universe, which, as far as I'm concerned, is identical to Reality itself. What is this "thing" that we call Reality? What sort of thing is it? Why is it this way (i.e., it has gravity in the physical sense) instead of that way (i.e., a world in which there is anti-gravity instead of gravity)? Why is there a reality to begin with? Why is there something, rather than nothing? Could there have been nothing? Must there be something? If so, must there be this something instead of that something? What is the difference between "this" and "that" when you take these words out of context? Is there a difference? What sort of difference is it? Etc.

Yes, Kazan, I think you are very much right in thinking that " every human decision has a philosophic basis/bias."

Even small decisions are weighed by most people inho. There has to be some rationale behind every thought and action.

I can't say I've ever found anyone with enough knowledge of philosophy to be hostile towards it. And that's a real pity because many of my friends already talk and sound like philosophers.

You say, "I think it probably takes a life event or a remarkable encounter with someone to awaken an interest", and I was trying to recall what it was that triggered my interest in philosophy, and I'd have to put it down to me being a poet when younger.

One of the other things that pushed me into philosophy was the characters who wrote it. I've yet to find a boring philosopher who did not shake up thinking or the status quo in some way.

I've been trying to read everything I can about Simone de Beauvoir; what a full and expansive life she had. And then you add her philosophy and literature on top and that and it makes for about 10 people's lives.

One of the other things that pushed me into philosophy was the characters who wrote it — Rob J Kennedy

Some of our remarkable encounters with people are via their books. I have not had that experince with philosophy but I have via essayists and novel writers (Salman Rushdie, Saul Bellow, Gore Vidal).

I'd have to put it down to me being a poet when younger. — Rob J Kennedy

What triggered that interest? Poetry does seem to appeal to many people who are philosophically inclined.

Do you recall the first time you encountered philosophy and what was it?

I think you've hit on something there Bert. "Perhaps we only start to think when we stop getting what we want." That requires extra thinking from me.

You are right in saying that some prefer not to be alone. I think a lot about Nietzsche and his seven summers of wandering around Sils Maria. Yes, he was alone and created his Zarathrustra there, and others, but like his profit coming down from the mountain, I read it that it was Nietzsche himself who wanted to come down from his mountain and be among the living.

You say, "Each person is different, as are their specific desires and motivations behind such." You hit on the exact point I was trying to raise without saying it directly. See, I think the opposite. I suggest that there is something unique, something so similar in people who are drawn to philosophy that it could be pinpointed if we were to graph it. Be it a specific emotion denied, a lack of friends, or a spark, instilled by someone. I believe there is one common cause/reason for people who have an interest and love of philosophy. I just can't prove it.

Oh yes, most definitely Joshs. You say, "You may not talk explicitly about philosophy or philosophers, but that doesn't mean that you dont ever think philosophically."

I get that all the time from people I know, yet, if I was to mention Plato to them, they would say they know the name but nothing of his philosophy. Hence the reson for this post.

You say, "My suspicion is that if none of your artistically-inclined acquaintances have any interest in philosophy, then they are also less likely to be interested in modes of creativity outside of their narrow domain", well, that is and is not true of my friends. Some have broad artistic interests, and others very narrow.

Yep, poetry led me into philosophy.

You say, "Philosophy is looking at words we use in our daily lives and trying to figure out their definitions."

I have this saying that's a bit cumbersome, but hopefully, gets the point across, it goes like this. The trouble with people is we invent things that need explaining instead of being able to explain the things we invent.

This search for meaning in words and ideas we invent is either a waste of so much time or is ultimately very useful, is a quandary for me. The words/ideas of just soul and God have taken up so much of our time and effort and have amounted to little more than division, is for me, I wish they weren't invented because we still have no explanation for either. Hence, words creating philosophy and philosophy creating words, and what is the outcome?

Yes I have 30 regular acquaintances. I was merely guessing that others do. Certainly, when younger, I had many more. Being in the arts, especially in music as I am, classical music is mostly ensemble work, and in those groups, you have to develop closeness. The music doesn't work otherwise.

And yes, philosophy has become a type or food for me too.

You say, "the main thing that draws me to philosophy is the desire and the will to understand the Universe," I try to seperate understanding the universe from philosophy. I see philosophy as solely a human-made construction. Of course, there are flow-on connections and questions, but for me to try and make sense of both, I let science try to explain the physical world.

Poerty ask questions and tries to tell people what life feels like. I guess philosophy is similar.

There is also something about focused, concentrated language in poetry. Personally I have no interest in poetry but I do like music which does for me what others say poetry does for them. And I don't mean lyrics.

I let science try to explain the physical world. — Rob J Kennedy

Science and Philosophy do not necessarily exclude each other. They have the same origin, in fact. The pre-Socratics were scientists as well as philosophers. Think of Thales of Miletus, or Pythagoras, for example.

:up:

↪unenlightened Do you recall the first time you encountered philosophy and what was it? — Rob J Kennedy

A hard question. When I was 12 ish, I was reading Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Hesse, and considering what I should do with my life. I put it in a juvenile poem as a choice between love and non-attachment. But I had no idea at the time that any of this had any relation to 'philosophy'; rather, it was an exploration forced on me by the awareness of the complete falseness and hypocrisy of the moral and social system of the all male boarding school I found myself condemned to.

So at least for me, I began to ask deep questions because of the inadequate answers that society was providing. But I didn't call that philosophical until I had been at university studying philosophy and psychology for a couple of years more or less by accident. :grin: