This is my position on philosophy. There is no progress, and philosophers need to stop fooling themselves into thinking there will be.

As far as metaphysics is concerned, I personally consider that, as well as theology, to be to philosophy what the vermiform appendix is to biology. It was a once useful organ that, due to evolutionary processes, has been rendered a redundant organ. For the most part it exists in a benign state, but can become inflamed with the potential of causing harm to the body to the point of endangering it's continued existence.

At this point in time, the best know procedure to remedy this harm or endangerment of removal of this redundant organ. — Mayor of Simpleton

I think I agree with you on this. Metaphysics, to me, seems like hogwash and can do more harm than good. I am extremely skeptical about metaphysical claims.

Since when does philosophy include gurus?

Since when does philosophy somehow create a 'plug and play' connection with being 'wise'? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not necessarily "guru" in the sense of an ascetic living on a mountaintop, but in the sense of having a heightened sense of intuition, general wisdom, knowing how to live the good life, etc.

I suppose I have noticed that I have been assigning a quasi-apotheosis to many philosophers, making them out to just know everything there is to know.

Thanks for the patient replies thus far MoS.

I think, like many people as well, I don't really understand what exactly philosophy is. I can recognize philosophy when I see it, but if asked to define what philosophy is or what it attempts to do, I would be stumped.

One of the reasons I believe I have been so confused lately is because I think I have misunderstood the goals of science and philosophy. Science is a philosophy, but philosophy is not a science. I was expecting philosophy to be as productive as science has been. Philosophy doesn't do that. Philosophy clarifies concepts, eliminates irrationality, explores new ideas, etc. I don't think there really is a point to philosophy, but unfortunately academic philosophers seem to treat it like it's extraordinarily important. It really is just a recreational activity, for the most part.

Dietrich's case is exactly what I was trying to argue about in a different thread. I enjoyed the essay, although I felt it was a little clunky at times. Now I'm looking for a good counterargument that doesn't just validate the original argument.

I can see a possible counterargument. The author uses the examples of philosophical "camps" a lot, such as consequentialism vs deontology, as examples of the gridlock in philosophical communities.

But look at this forum. We have a bunch of people with differing opinions discussing topics and trying to change each others' minds. Sure, we might not belong to strict philosophical camps, but we still hold positions, This is no different from the academic camps. These guys have just thought about it much more and are still in debate.

Unless I was misunderstanding him, the author seemed to be concluding that philosophy inevitably leads to gridlock via camps. I'd argue that this is the inherent nature of philosophy, and it is foolish to assume otherwise.

Touché.

Philosophy does not necessarily make someone arrogant. But it does have a propensity to do so.

True, but there are still conferences and symposiums for philosophy that cost money.

I hadn't heard of the NEH. But I looked it up and learned that the NEH has a budget of $160 million. The NSF has a budget of $7.0 billion.

We accept that some scientific work has immediate technological applications, and other is pure "pie in the sky" research. Why oughtn't it be the same for philosophy? — Arkady

I think possibly because the scientific pie in the sky research is at least headed for a consensus. This is why we give grants to theoretical physicists and not philosophers.

The point implies a sort of definitive answer (must be). Is that at all the case with such a field investigation and accumulation of knowledge... various investigations and various knowledge, as in plural?

It would appear to me that philosophy touches on far too many investigations and is in the pursuit of too many fields of knowledge to ever settle on a single point to it all. Philosophy is set of multi use tools and applied in many a different context; thus establishing a single purpose seems a bit off. — Mayor of Simpleton

Science touches on countless investigations, from physics to biology to chemistry and the specialized fields. The point of science is to settle our curiosities about the world and make accurate predictions of the world.

So what about philosophy?

My take is that intellectual masturbation is less an activity, but more an accusation of those engaging in philosophy who feel either bored, disinterested or left out of the debate. — Mayor of Simpleton

True. I don't find the philosophy of language to be very interesting at the current moment, for example. In fact I find it boring as hell.

Astronomy could be seen as intellectual masturbation, and yet most people including myself find it at least curiously interesting. So I guess one person's sleeping pill is another person's caffeine.

Are you sure you mean conclusions or do you mean consensus? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, that is what I meant. Last time I checked, the scientific consensus for global warming was 97+%. The philosophical consensus for the nature of time, for example,...mixed and it always will be.

Do philosophers gain any new knowledge? Does a philosophical theory count as knowledge? Or is it just unprovable speculation? This is the biggest point I'm getting at here. If there is no way of verifying something, then why assert it? Why even try if it is futile? Has philosophy given us any knowledge? Is there any consensus on anything?

It doesn't make any sense, to me, to formulate complex arguments, debate and critique and assert and attempt to get to the "truth" if it is impossible to get to it. It's completely worthless.

Yes, ethics and political philosophy can help us in the real world, I will give you that. But metaphysics? How the hell do we verify if a theory in metaphysics is correct? We can't! It's absurd!

All it can give us is a warm little feeling of "I think this is the way the universe is" but nothing more. The only confirmation we are going to get from a normative ethical position is "well, this makes sense to me..." There's never going to be an E=MC^2 of philosophy. There's not even going to be an agreement on what the definition of a word is.

Philosophy is the love of knowledge — Mayor of Simpleton

I used to think this of philosophy as well. I used to think philosophy was an underrated thing that held countless intellectual secrets. I thought by reading philosophy I would gain knowledge about the world and be wise, know the fundamentals of the universe and become like a guru almost.

And this doesn't make any sense now. From my perspective, philosophy is just a mis-mash of disagreements and confusion.

Why isn't science part of the "love of knowledge"? Surely science has given far more than philosophy has.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm bitter after getting pissed on by other people on a separate forum.

Thanks for the reply.

EDIT: To add one more thing: what are you expecting to get out of philosophy?

At its best, doing philosophy makes us better people — Baden

I can see how it may make us more patient or better thinkers but an overall better person, nah. If anything philosophy makes someone arrogant and reclusive.

Philosophy is, in my mind, one of the most useful things to do. It helps us master whatever craft we're engaging in on a higher level of sophistication, and defeats the ability of others to mystify or dupe us. — Shevek

Would you agree that philosophy is something that is inherently part of a human being? To think philosophically, to use reason, it is inevitable and unavoidable?

I agree with you, I study philosophy on my own time and for fun as a hobby.

As I get older though, more and more subjects bore me as they are usually more of the same without a real resolution. — Benkei

This is a very important point I was trying to get across. Philosophy for the most part seems to just revolve around and around and around the same thing until everyone gets bored and a new idea pops up. There's a reason there's a National Science Foundation and not a National Philosophy Foundation. Much of philosophy is, to the dismay of its practitioners, utterly worthless to society.

But philosophy itself can sometimes offer substance and relief, whereas astrophysics cannot. — The Great Whatever

Erm, I like to go out with my telescope at night and look at DSOs, planets, and stars, and although this is not astrophysics, it is very substantial and relieving of my boredom.

With all due respect, this is quite simply philosophical navel-gazing. Philosophy is not "better" than other fields. If anything, it often falls behind the advancements of science by not utilizing the evidence gathered by science.

A scientist could easily say that the philosopher is wasting their brainpower on fruitless ideas that will never be solved, and should be doing something more productive.

Additionally, I would like to know why you like philosophy. I feel the reason I like philosophy is because I like rational argumentation.

Why did a metaphysician become a metaphysician? Why not a scientist?

I really don't like quoting philosophers as a form of argument, but I think this applies well. At least it might stimulate discussion.

The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment from life is to live dangerously.

-Nietzsche

Because really, what do you have to lose?

Anyway, I think I'm done with the tangent. Thanks for producing that, I asked you because I didn't think that you could, but I stand corrected. — Wosret

I haven't actually read anything specifically by Nietzsche, only commentaries and criticisms like the one produced above. I am by no means an expert on Nietzsche; I'm only parroting what I have read elsewhere. Which actually goes against the Nietzschean idea of making up your own mind... ;)

In discussing what can be translated into English alternately as “pity,”
“sympathy,” or “compassion,” Nietzsche almost always uses variations on
the German term Mitleid—literally, “suffering-with”—and only rarely
uses alternative German terms such as Mitempfinden, Mitgefu¨hl (both
“feeling-with”) or Sympathie.

-The Compassion of Zarathustra, p. 60

A true compassion of
strength would not be the distinctive symptom of the imminent demise of
the once strong, but an expression of life and power successfully at work
in the very moment of compassion.

-The Compassion of Zarathustra, p. 66

The distinction between pity and compassion is that pity leaves two people in misery, while compassion leaves no people in misery. Both stem from empathy, but pity is simply defeatist while compassion is motivating. The strong should take care of themselves, and help others out of the muck to get them to pursue their Ubermensch.

We cannot, being creatures of habit, do anything other than to expect the future to resemble the past, but we would do better to fight this irrational tendency. — John

But not expecting things is setting one up for either disappointment or tragedy.

I wasn't citing authority necessarily, just adding to the conversation. I felt it was important to bring to the discussion the difference between pity and compassion in the Nietzschean sense.

Also, a dictionary is not necessarily the best source for definitions in philosophy, since philosophers tend to have slightly different opinions of what a specific word means.

whereas feeling empathetic, sympathetic misery for the suffering is good. — Wosret

Nietzsche would vehemently disagree. Feeling pity for another person only breeds more suffering. Compassion, not pity, is the good.

My immediate thought is that intelligence (reason) cannot possibly support either optimism or pessimism (considered simply as expectational dispositions). As Hume points out our convictions that the future will resemble the past are not convictions of reason, but of mere habit. (See Hume’s ‘problem of induction’). — John

It's not that induction isn't rational (otherwise science would be irrational), it's that there is no way of logically proving via deduction what the future will hold. Predictions aren't necessarily irrational, though.

Pessimism:
1. a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future
2. Philosophy a belief that this world is as bad as it could be or that evil will ultimately prevail over good.

Optimism
1 hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something
2 Philosophy the doctrine, esp. as set forth by Leibniz, that this world is the best of all possible worlds.
• the belief that good must ultimately prevail over evil in the universe. — Bitter Crank

The first point of the comparison regarding the personal feelings towards the future is psychological pessimism/optimism. A person who does not try to achieve because they may fail is a psychological pessimist, while a person who does try is a psychological optimist.

Philosophical pessimism, on the other hand, seems to be (at least to me) quite often paired with nihilism. The very lack of meaning, divine guidance, and substance behind existence is seen as a very troublesome thing, something that cannot coexist with flourishing existence. Things like the lack of any deity, the possibility for suffering and current predicament of suffering, the lack of a self despite our evolutionary intuitions, the passing of time and the irony of human history, the complete and utter lack of sympathy from the universe or god, the alienation of the human being, the tragic misstep of human evolution producing conscious beings, the hopelessness in the face of an increasing population of sentient meat tubes, the paradoxical problem of achieving sustained happiness in a societal machine powered by destructive emotions, the eventual demise of all life via entropy, etc. The pessimist asserts that there is no recovery from the loss of these values. Existence is seen, at the very least, a burden, and at the worst, a nightmare.

And while there is nothing inherently wrong with being a psychological optimist, a pessimist would think it is crazy to believe this optimism is applicable to the wider scheme of things as a philosophical position.

yet am profoundly annoyed when others dismiss Sam Harris without actually reading his work. — invizzy

This is a curious example to use. You don't necessarily need to actually read his work to understand that he is spouting the same old stuff philosophers have been saying, except it's outdated by over a century. It's embarrassing to call his work philosophy. He's not a philosopher, he's a neuroscientist who dabbles in philosophy and makes a fool of himself when he tries to merge the two domains.

This is THE reason I have come to love philosophy, at least "good" philosophy. Outside of this, you get idiots proclaiming they know that God doesn't exist on their cheesy blog, with ten stupid little jabs at religion. Or people who assume consequentialism is just obviously true, that moral realism is obviously wrong, and that their elementary, intellectual antics are super amazeballs compared to the serious work done by philosophers in the past. This is not to say that I am immune to spouting idiotic stuff, rather just that I am fed up with the arrogance of the average person.

I used to make stop motion animation movies.

Now I'm into astrophotography. But I'm not very good at it.

I want to take up an instrument but haven't gotten around to it.

Sometimes I write stories or poetry.

Maybe it was just his accent getting in the way, but isn't Zizek basically defining eudaimonia? A "flourishing" of the spirit, a sense of poise, readiness, acceptance, an underlying sense of purpose and accomplishment? He describes becoming excited about a new idea and ready to suffer: but this is exactly what eudaimonia is. Aristotle thought happiness (eudaimonia) was the settling of the soul in the most appropriate spot.

At least someone seems to agree...

I like how your example of a positive thing is pathetic compared to how utterly terrible the negative one is. Even in your own constructed examples, you can't win. Who in their right mind would be thrilled by those chances? Oh, boy, looking at the stars! — The Great Whatever

What you fail to realize is the probability of these happening. The probability of me getting impaled in a car crash? So negligible that it's not worth worrying about. The probability of me being able to enjoy a clear night sky? High enough that I should expect to have a good time.

Should I climb a mountain during a thunderstorm? Of course not, even if the view is spectacular. The probability of me getting struck by lightning is non-negligible. I would rather not be killed or permanently maimed by a thunderbolt.

It seems to me that any philosophical position that must claim that eating a cookie is torture has gone wrong somewhere. — The Great Whatever

Not the actual act of eating a cookie, but rather the continuation of tanha. Too much sensual pleasure leads to an addiction. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seem to have an addiction to sensual pleasures, pleasures that are almost always disappointing and merely prolong the addiction.

I think a lot of it is, but there's just so much suffering in life that even removing that leaves you with too much to be acceptable, and of course still vulnerable to contingencies of suffering beyond your control. — The Great Whatever

Of course there is suffering, that is part of the nature of conscious life. But I disagree that there is necessarily an overwhelming amount of suffering, though. It certainly is not worth it to take the chance and have a child, but if you are already here then you have the chance of having some really cool experiences. Yes, tomorrow I could get in a car accident and have a pole rammed through my abdomen, impaling me. But tomorrow is also supposed to be a clear night sky, at least where I live. And I rather like looking at the stars.

Suffering is going to happen. It is inevitable. How you deal with the suffering is a different question altogether.

Certainly eating a cookie can make you happy -- true, only for a little bit, but why is a little bit not better than not at all? — The Great Whatever

Consuming a cookie will give you a temporary relief from that specific tanha. This is not happiness. I would go as far as to say that eating this cookie is a form of learnt self-torture. Happiness occurs when tanha is extinguished, when you are perfectly okay with your current situation.

In accepting pain, do I think, 'alright, I'm in pain?' But how does that help? — The Great Whatever

Yes. Realizing you are suffering is the first step to mindful living. The next step is to locate the source of suffering. I think you might be surprised at just how much suffering is self-caused and not out of our control.

So one can be happy without feeling any pleasure whatsoever? What sort of feeling is happiness, then? If it is not a feeling, why is it worth pursuing, since it seems that feelings are all that can possibly matter to us? And since if a feeling is good in its own right, it seems just to be pleasure, in what sense can we say happiness is worthwhile insofar as it is not pleasant or identical with pleasure? — The Great Whatever

What I meant by pleasure is any strictly sensual experiences. Like eating a cookie. A cookie will not bring you happiness, only temporary relief from the burden of desire.

Eudaimonia, or flourishing, is the "goodness" that is focused on in several philosophies, including Epicureanism, Buddhism, and Utilitarianism. You cannot achieve eudaimonia by eating a cookie. Eudaimonia, happiness, contentedness, these are separate from sensual pleasures, although most often they are accompanied by sensual pleasures. Without trying to be vague, eudaimonia is a different kind of pleasure. It is something that makes your life worth living instead of something that must be relieved. It is difficult to explain, but you will know when you experience it. Think about when something "clicks" and you just "get it", and suddenly love doing whatever you are doing. You finally learned to do a layup with ease. You can point out all the constellations in the sky and navigate around the night sky. You have found someone that appreciates you almost as much as you appreciate them. You are in a process, a journey, in which the result is simply a continuation of the journey, and you are perfectly okay with that.

This is what I feel is truly tragic about the human condition. It's not that we are suffering, but rather we are suffering when there are alternatives. We pursue excessive hedonism and build vast structures of ambition, only to see the hedonism disappointing and our structures crashing down.

Why don't you belong on a philosophy forum? :(

Art has become a commercial commodity instead of an exploration. It is now, more than ever (even the Renaissance), all about who can keep the attention of potential wealthy buyers. It doesn't even have to be "good" art. It just has to be attention-grabbing, different, unique, odd, or any other quality that sets it apart from other pieces. Now we have consultants that tell you which pieces of art were good, instead of judging the piece of art by how well it resonates with you.

Sometimes I enjoy modern art. But I can't stand it when someone tries to shove a stupid explanation behind it (the gray was chosen for its neutrality - bah), let me decide what I think it is about. I think the worst part about modern art is that it is impossible to tell the difference between an artist and a con artist, and you end up leaving the gallery wondering if you actually liked the piece or were influenced by a description below the piece. Or you leave the gallery wondering if you either hated the piece, or were just too skeptical to open up to the possibility that the artist was actually committed to doing art and not just money and fame.

I liked the part where you talked about chickens, that was very interesting.

I would like to add some more thoughts to why a pessimist may have a certain temperament.

Society in general seems to be built upon a stack of lies, a stack of "feel good" tricks and impossible delusions. The perpetual existence of the human race is given to be intrinsically valuable, for example. Literature, films and shows, video games, political decisions, etc are filled with plots of an evil villain who is out to kill all life. For example, I just got done finishing a quest line in a mmorpg that required me to defeat an antagonist that wished to wipe out all life on a planet to feed his eternal hunger, and he would have later gone on to eat all life in the galaxy if I hadn't stopped him. The rational of stopping him was said to be the preservation of the galactic civilization. My priorities were that this antagonist would have caused a horribly large amount of suffering. But when the final battle was over, I was left with a happy-sing-song tune playing in the background while wondering if what I did was right, wondering if something like this happened in real life, would I be an active part in opposing it.

This is just one example that shows the incongruency between my pessimistic outlook and the general outlook of society. Another would be birth, as well as the myth of progress, capitalism, religion, and politics. I am surrounded by a society that is fundamentally different than I would prefer it to be. It is comedic at best and despairing at worst. This is why I end up "escaping" from the world via books, video games, music, and philosophy, especially the latter two. And even the escapism sometimes doesn't work, as shown above.

Someone can obviously not just turn off nociceptors, or just "stop" feeling anxiety or any other kind of mental disturbance.

What you can do is to accept the pain that is present, limit your desires and strivings, and focus on fulfilling lasting goals and achievements.

As I said earlier: I reject the idea that pleasure is synonymous with happiness. Happiness, for me, is synonymous with contentedness and eudaimonia, and although pleasure often does accompany happiness, it is itself a completely separate feeling that cannot cause happiness by itself. Empty pleasure is suffering in itself, merely a distraction from the discontent.

If you experience happiness, you know why it is worthwhile.

But it's not up to me to determine. Pain feels bad no matter what my opinion is. That's why it's pain. If it were up to me, pain would never bother me because I'd just choose not to let it bother me. But I obviously can do no such thing, which is why pain is something dangerous at all in the first place. — The Great Whatever

But like I said above, the existence of pain and happiness are not mutually exclusive. I agree that pain is inevitable. But there is a certain amount of control someone has over the amount they receive and how much the pain affects them.

You may be right, but I don't know what pre-Socratic philosophy you would be talking about here. — The Great Whatever

Neither do I, I just remember reading that somewhere. :P

Existentialists do not talk about delusions of freedom as liberating. Certainly Sartre would not, anyway. — The Great Whatever

Camus at the very least talks about rebelling against life regardless of reality.

It seems to me that one motive for their general temperament is the feeling of being a traveler in a foreign land, or worse, a prisoner in a foreign land depending on how it is determined. — Thorongil

Or, as Cioran says: “Is it possible that existence is our exile and nothingness our home?”

even upon learning them, an element of mystery still remains and eludes us, gnaws at us. — Thorongil

The universe is fundamentally irrational. There is no reason to believe we will ever know everything.

In light of this ignorance, who could bring a child into it or more generally acquiesce to the direction of the crowd? They know scarcely any more than you do about why they're here. — Thorongil

I like this a lot.

Yet the pessimist will accept despair if they are still able to maintain what I shall call a praxis of humility. This involves never acting hubristically or in ignorance if one can help it, which is the only rational response to the situation of being alive. — Thorongil

I would like to quote a song:

"And if I claim to be a wise man,
Well, it surely means that I don't know"

-Kansas, "Carry on Wayward Son"

I would add to your praxis, that one should act compassionately. We are all in the same boat, thrown out into sea, alienated, afraid, and on the edge of drowning. It's all that we can do to stop from capsizing or sinking our ship. So when you come across a fellow seaman, show them a few knots, help patch their ship, and send them on their way. Maybe someday they will help you.

I agree with nearly everything you have said, Thorongil. Well said. (Y)