@Joshs

But there are powerful , often subversive ideas embedded in a piece of music or a work of literature , and the particular bits of technique and style that belong to that expression are unified by a thematic meaning , which can also be called a worldview. No matter how many stylistic changes a writer like Dickens or Shelly or Kafka might experiment with, their work as a whole amounts to variations on a theme, that theme being a worldview , at the same time psychological and philosophical. Often, Our dislike for a form of music or literature isn’t just subjective preference , but an inability to assimilate the worldview expressed by that creation. It has seemed to me that the persons I know with only a passing interest in and acquaintance with pop music , and an intense interest in classical music invariably identify with a more traditionalistic worldview. When I listen to classical music from the 1700’s through the early 20th century I am inspired to think via older philosophical tropes , but this same music represses my ability to push the boundaries of my thinking.

But the exact same applies to philosophical texts. All are the worldview of the writer.
I read a novel whilst allowing for the worldview,and i judge the insights on their relation to my real life experience.

@Jack Cummins

However, I think that what the novelists are able to do is go into so much more than interior monologues, and capture the sensory dimensions of existence, as well as the mythic aspects of life.

An exceptional insight Jack.
Although interior monologues are a great source of insight as well,of which the novelist and poet are far better than the academic.

@Joshs

I became disillusioned by novels at a relatively early age.I found myself noticing that the author was applying an implicit psychological understanding of others to the narrative structure and characters , and I couldn’t help but compare their insights to those of various psychological theorists. The psychological insights of the novelists always proved inferior. Dickens , for instance , is a Romantic moralist, and I think there are better ways of understanding people. I haven’t yet come across a novel that has caught up to the leading edge of philosophical and psychological thinking

I do agree that novelists express their own psychological understandings onto characters,why wouldn't they?! It's their "novel" understanding of the world. But the more astute novelists pick up insights consciously and unconsciously which correlate with actual human behaviour and motivations.
Amongst psychologists it's guys like James,freud,adler who also have great insights,but they are also exceptional writers,especially William James.
Even Nietzsche is great writer. Not your standard philosophical prose.
In contrast hegel,Kant,Wittgenstein,just turgid,with a few lines of oasis in a desert of jargon.

@Bartricks Dostoevskys underground man part one is one of the greatest ever expositions on the free will debate. So much better and richer than the standard pedantry on philosophy forums.
Of course,free will is obvious,except to the confused.

@counterpunch Excessive reflection is a sign of low self esteem. And the title philosopher often used to bolster prestige,an appeal to authority.

@180 Proof Moonlighting as some absurdist sage with a baroque posting style full of zappa,kafka,camus,et Al.
Certain in his uncertainty!!! Dogmatic in his provisional certainty!!!

@Mww Spoken like a true Elitist!

@Manuel Is pain just a word?

@Jack Cummins

skyblack

130

I think that in trying to see philosophy questions as stemming from fear, you are missing how curiosity and wondering are essential to human life. You make it seem as if the ideal is to be a happy robot, who doesn't ask questions. Philosophy and questioning goes back to ancient times, and is central to the evolution of human life.— Jack Cummins


I don't think OP is saying that one shouldn't question but his/her point, as far as i understand, is the approach of such questioning. I think OP is questioning the approach. Maybe he/she could have phrased the OP better.

And yes. ideally, the idea is a state where no questions or answers remain. The premise of all these questioning is to come to that, otherwise one will be considered off the hinges if they keep on questioning. And yes, a joyous life seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.

@skyblack has loosely identified that its the approach of questioning everything that i find bogus. It's as if a philosopher thinks he can reinvent the wheel. It's the questioning of things that are already certain.
It's the fact that a life of head in the clouds abstract thinking is neurotic and though good in the short term ends up with no real answers anyway. I mean,for all the years of philosophy there is hardly any agreement on anything! And the ultimate aim of life is joyful expression,not intellectual models.
You want to read books about art theory or be an artist?

@Tom Storm Quantum mechanics is a model,which has 57 interpretations,and a model which scientists don't understand. Just another theory. It's implications are that science is very very limited in its models and is not reality. Not real and not required in the main.
But your self esteem is absolutely vital to your and everybodies self being.

@DingoJones OK. But did socrates really come across as humble in the dialogues? He came across as a pedant who gleefully liked to make people squirm,a misanthrope.
And he certainly lied when he said all he knew is that he didn't know. The myth of the humility of philosophers is a romantic lie. Look at plato,Kent,hegel,schopenhauer,nietzsche,Wittgenstein etc,all arrogant folk who thought they could create some new world beating exclusive model of truth that applied to everyone. Is that humility?

@Tom Storm That's because philosophers have low self esteem or have been damaged. How else to explain their theories having little relation to normal life according to you?

@Tiberiusmoon Look at your use of the word subjective here. Now look at your view from nowhere chimera of truth. How many perspectives do you need before you see an elephant?

@Tom Storm Truth CAN be identified? So we don't have access to innate truths? Only philosophical questioning determines truth?
I like food. Do I need philosophy to determine if this is true!

@180 Proof A perfect example of gaslighting and bullshitting.
Turn your dialectical skepticism on your own provisional certainty!!!
Provisional certainty! Lol!

@180 Proof Go to sleep mate. You are flapping your gums only.

@DingoJones It's extremely rare to find a philosopher with "humility". Give me an example?

@180 Proof Your "self esteem" consists of quoting nietzeche as an authority!?
Bravo!

@Tiberiusmoon If you read my post you can see where I'm coming from. The parable is goofy. It's easy to understand but not a good parable.
Why not address what I wrote?

@Tom Storm Well,low self esteem can lead to some trying to know and control everything,AKA arrogance. ( an impossible and delusional task!)
I don't think we have to endlessly speculate,unless one is a philosopher with low self-esteem!
Conviction/truth comes from positive self esteem.

@skyblack Common sense is criminally underrated!

@Tiberiusmoon And how many folks spend their life 20 inches from a tree?!
The point is from common sense we would say it's a tree. That's not a bias. Bias and perspective are different.
And who assumes all you see is all there is? When I see a tree from the front I know it also has a back,even though I don't see it.
In real life these pseudo biases on common sense matters are vastly overblown.

@Jack Cummins You worry too much Jack!
Remember there's more than one way to skin a cat!

@Tiberiusmoon The blind man and the elephant is a bad parable.
When I look at a tree what is the observational bias?

@skyblack The word Soul carries a lot of baggage.
Personality then. Everybody should know what that is.
Past is known as a term but in this context is still too impersonal.

@Tiberiusmoon Time dilation is common sense. Everyone experiences it.

@skyblack You could change the word past to Soul and I think this would be clearer and less abstract.
Other than psychological time,the other time is mechanical time. But time is only perceived by living beings,so in a sense its all psychological,no?

@Tiberiusmoon This is where excessive reliance on definitional words can lead to trouble.
Your viewpoint here Is leading to skepticism on even the senses.

@Jack Cummins Yes,on this site we should have diversity of opinions and views,I agree.
I think reading ideas is in fact a kind of verbal competition which improves one's life skills,but talking,experiencing and writing are better than just reading.

yeeeaahh, common sense is not rational sense but a culturally biased sense.
Because common sense is in itself a culturally biased assumption of logic.
Which is why the practice of philosophy is so important.— Tiberiusmoon


Rather, common sense is rooted in intelligence, rather than philosophical or academic biases. But it may require common sense to see this.

I totally agree with @skyblack here @Tiberiusmoon.
To think common sense is culturally biased is to fall foul of postmodern skepticism.

@skyblack I agree!
Common sense should be more common! I mean there are things that are obvious to non academically-corrupted folk.

@Tiberiusmoon Yep,that sounds good!

@skyblack Always the past? Mutation in psychological time? Could you clarify these two a little?

@Jack Cummins Thank you! I might dig up that thread!
I am what I am,I make no apologies to those who worship science or dialectics!
Yeah,most folks will have some outlet for expression,even if it's tatoos,selfies,nonsense conversation and pink hair!

@skyblack Dialectics miss the immediate intuitive certainties of life. Dialectics are a sign of uncertainty and wanting to conceptualise/control life's flow.

@skyblack Truth and certitude can be regarded loosely as similar.
I'm using the word belief in a non technical way. Substitute know if needed.Can truth be known,can certitude be known.
Experience is also the present and the future.

@Jack Cummins Silence does say so much! I agree!
In the general public people conform to avoid discomfort.
I don't foresee any explosive upheaval. People rant and rave online or in private to express their frustrations.
You would be surprised how well bread and circuses placates people!

Most philosophers and scientists are weak and lazy thinkers,stuck in their dogmas and comfort zones.
Trading common sense for conformity.
@Tiberiusmoon

@skyblack Do you believe in intuitive or non discursive truth? Rather than authority let's say certainty. Do you believe in certainty?
I say yes to both,there is certainty in experience. Intuition being experience. Its the discursive/intrusive thoughts which are the problem. A problem that is reduced or eliminated by meditation or consistent Focusing.

@Jack Cummins Compare sartres fiction to his academic work. Academia is many times dry and pedantic. Too abstract.
Continental philosophy at least is more descriptive and more social commentary. A lot of analytical philosophy is philosophy about philosophy.
Life can't be abstracted!