To add to my first reply to your post, I think applying reason to the existence of God or not is also not as fruitful as it may initially seem. If we define God, in the eternal, all-knowing, supernatural, creative being that most do, he/she themself would then be contradictory to the universe in which we live in. It would also be contradictory to our understanding of space, time, creation, etc. So the presumptions required in a logical argument for or against God would still be somewhat weak in my opinion as it would not prove anything nor would it tackle or rule out some of the contradictory components of what God is.

Did you find joy in reading and taking in this book? Why or why not? Did you find it disturbance and a joy? How did it affect your lives initially, if you don't mind sharing?

No matter how brief this encounter is, no matter how tired Sisyphus is, no matter how devoid of aesthetic sense Sisyphus is, it's my contention that the rock that Sisyphus is condemned to roll up the hill has it worse than Sisyphus. It's no longer an issue of how meaningful something can be but how meaningless things can get. — TheMadFool

This is a very interesting take. Thank you for sharing this. I haven't thought about the myth in this light yet, especially the part where you state:

It's no longer an issue of how meaningful something can be but how meaningless things can get. — TheMadFool

I think this definitely is a unique and beneficial way to look at the myth in the context Camus wants. Maybe there is some sort of range not in meaning but meaningless lives? Some people have it more contradictory than others in the world, but this would have to presume that contradiction/absurdity is the breaker of meaning in all accounts of lives under examination. I don't know if Camus and yourself are getting at this? What do you think?

In my opinion, the image of Sisyphus' absurd work is disturbing and difficult to erase. Because I don't think any happiness can be drawn from it. At some point in our lives one feels like a little Sisyphus. And then, what do you do? — David Mo

Great insight here, however, I disagree that there can be no happiness drawn from it. From my experience, it increased my enjoyment and happiness in life based on the sole fact that he convinced me of my intuition - throughout my life - that life is in face absurd and meaningless. In other words, contradictions are apparent in every corner of life, and there is no universal meaning for anyone. This calmed my anxiety and depression to be quite frank. A lot of my anxious thoughts about life used to stem from me not living up to some meaning, standard, or expectations that most people do. This is irrational and anxiety-provoking in my opinion. The depression usually stemmed from my mind is in constant conflict over whether life had meaning or not for most of my life, and how contradictory and absurd people, life, and the world truly is. Parts of the book are disturbing, but, at the same time, I think they can be comforting - like were and are for me.

You bring up some good points, but just because something appears to be ridiculous does not mean there is an existence of something or not. Defining God is extremely important for the arguments, yet, from a logical standpoint, both arguments are inherently flawed based on the 'no evidence' presumptions. We cannot conclude the certainty of God existing or not based on the fact that we don't have evidence for either as well as mere logic. For instance, I can logically prove out that turtles fly but that doesn't mean that they can or not. So, with these for and against God arguments, there is always a jump and there is always faith in either side...

Oh, okay. Gotcha

I understand that I and who I am talking about in my posts are still working. But the original conversation stemmed from people who were working. If you go back and look at the posts, you brought up people supporting people that don’t want to work at all. So that’s why I keep bringing up people who are still ‘working’ because that was the original discussion.

It can be aggressive or not, yes. But the victim still has to do something. They can contribute to their suffering inside this event or attempt to lessen the suffering. I find perception and interpretation a practical way to do so.

Of course it brings us back to the real basics of the human condition. We are so used to the 'comforts', to quote Darkneos and what will happen to those individuals, philosophers or not, who are brought to harshest physical conditions ? I am inclined to think that some will survive and others will crumble. I like to think that I am solid but we all have our limits. — Jack Cummins

I am not claiming that I, or most, or many philosophers, other thinkers, and other individuals, in general, would survive the harshest physical conditions will crumble or survive in a certainty sense at all. Some will survive and some will crumble and, of course, we all have our limits. I agree with this 100%. I used the hypothetical homeless person to illustrate that even people without conventional jobs or luxury can do 'work' with no monetary or material compensation.

Is physical or psychological suffering worse? — Jack Cummins

Depends. I don't think there is any true answer because what if we examine the situation where one causes the other? Let's examine. What if someone suffers from a mental disorder and constantly suffered from early childhood of crippling anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and social issues. Let's assume these features of their mental disorder developed over time and become worse as this person grew up. Now the person, from dwelling on their anxious periods, awkwardness, and cloudy sense of themselves has a confused mind. Their mind haunts them as they are not able to control it and most experiences they remember about their life, time and time again, leads them down a rabbit hole of them remembering that they have these miserable symptoms of their disorder in almost all stages of their life. Now let us develop this hypothetical person even further. As a result of these symptoms of their mental disorder, this person has had extreme trouble having any 'true' friends. When this person was introduced to people in school, sports, or activities people treating them nicely and people treating them poorly. Children and teenagers that they came in contact with through these phases of life thought this person was weird and bullied them sometimes. So, even if they have 'friends' that happen to be nice to them and spend time with them, due to this 'trauma' or poor social experiences they are constantly battling in their mind whether or not people are their 'true' friends or not. Next, due to all of the above, their concentration is poor and they can barely read or write for long periods of time in the way that their school teachers and potential job superiors would want, causing them to be alienated from large parts of society that most people experience. I think this illustrates someone that suffers a terrible mental disorder that has affected their life greatly with grave psychological suffering.

But what about physical suffering? Have people liked so not endured physical suffering due to their mental disorder that causes their psychological suffering? People are not saints. We know this from stories about neglectful and abusive parents. What if these parents neglect and/or physically abuse a person like our example? What if our hypothetical person cannot escape and is not known to the neighbors in the neighborhood, government, social services to save them? I do want to go much further, but I think you get where I am going with this part of the argument. The parents of this person could beat them and inflict physical suffering possibly due to their mental disorder/psychological suffering. So, in this very specific, hypothetical case, there may be a cause of psychological suffering having an effect of physical suffering on that person. Additionally, our hypothetical person could commit a crime against another person caused by their inability to control their impulses or delirium. What if the police show up and beat them senselessly from police brutality, our person is convicted guilty and sentenced to prison where he receives more physical suffering from beatings of other inmates for years?

We can also flip the example around. What if a soldier goes to war and is captured as a prisoner of war where he endures years of physical suffering? What if the physical suffering leads to mental/psychological suffering years after his release once he returns home? Obviously, there are many examples where one can lead to another and many examples where one could endure both. Therefore, from our hypothetical examples, and from everything I've heard about other people enduring both or just one of the forms of suffering, I do not think there one is worse than the other at all.

Also, what happens when someone experiences a profound degree of both at the same time? — Jack Cummins

I do not know as I have never experienced it first hand. There is no way for me to know. But we can ponder and hypothesize.

I hope I answered your questions the best I could for the sake of argument and thought. What do you think about the answer(s) and what is your opinion on the questions? Thanks for asking and engaging in this thread. Cheers!

Good point. Why accept suffering or deal with it at all? What if you can convince yourself that whatever it is you initially react to as suffering eventually becomes something that doesn't bother you anymore?

DISCLAIMER to healing-anger: I am not a psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor, or therapist. So, take my response below with a grain of salt. It is just an opinion and what has worked for me in the past. It is also just my views on toxic people in general and if one should let that person take control of their minds and thoughts or not.

The human mind is more powerful than many people assume. It may be hard to reach that point, but it is worth a shot. For instance, if I am living with a toxic person and interacting with this person is like walking on eggshells every time I try to communicate with them, I still have perception and interpretation on my side. Even if this person becomes abusive, don't let them crush your spirit too. Usually, a toxic person wants to make someone else feel bad about their own situations, experiences, and life. But what if you can push back against them from your own perception and interpretation from the events you encounter with them? I can choose to interpret these instances with this person as miserable, falling into a miserable state of mind about that person, thereby leading to the potential of further suffering when I am alone. But what if I assume judgement on this person in my own mind? What if I then interpret these instances as interactions with this person?

Not labeling them, whenever I think about them, as 'good' or 'bad' or 'toxic' or 'healthy' and simply just become indifferent to this person. First of all, in my opinion, attempting to get to this level is the best thing a person can do in this situation IF they cannot move or get away from the person. Reason why? Because it won't let that toxic person win the domain of your mind. It won't let that person have control over your thoughts and bring negativity and suffering onto you. Second, it generally pisses a toxic person off if you are indifferent to them. It is a form of revenge, which is a way to get back and make yourself feel better for some people and some instances. Finally, it allows you to not focus on them as much.

This is just all my 2 cents on the matter. I have used this technique with people many times in my life. I used to live with someone that was not good for me or that person. We had a lot of problems and it was similar to what you are describing, at least the part about walking on eggshells every time you are around them and interact with them. Best thing I did and learned from that experience, indifference to that other person if the toxicity gets too bad. It allowed me to move on and not care about the situation at all anymore. Once we lived in different houses from one another, we talked about everything, became friends once again, and moved on. Sometimes it may work out for the best like so, sometimes it won't.

I just used it as a hypothetical example to explore the concept of 'work,' and homelessness was just a somewhat extreme case. But I agree with what you were saying about creative 'work' and care 'work' should be treated as work as well.

I did not know that about Dostoevsky, but from reading his works, I definitely feel the force of his work as a writer, author, and literary figure. But, in my experiences reading his texts, it is not just the literary force that strikes me, it is the dialogues and what he is representing often: humans existence and the questions, struggles, and suffering that they must reconcile or renounce within their lives. So, I feel the force of his philosophical love and observation of zooming into The Human Experience. Dostoevsky, in my opinion, also allows this to unfold for the reader in his character creation and the lengths he will go to get the reader so familiar with their personality, experiences, views, etc. Other philosophical novels I have read, especially in the existential camp, don't appear to have as much depth to its characters, plots, and conflicts as Dostoevsky. This doesn't make them necessarily better or worse, that is not what I am trying to get at. What I am trying to explain is that, for me, I think that his literary genius complements the philosophy he is bringing forth. He is not bringing forth a text that proclaims this or that, he is just zooming in on humans and what they experience in this absurd life, and to me, to be able to do that without preaching a bunch of views is brilliant from a philosophical standpoint as well.

I agree here as well. But there is still a difference if you live inside of a capitalist system as money buys mortgage, rent, supplies for work, clothes, food, gas, car, transportation, etc. I guess, if we want to get hypothetical, someone could quit their job, live as a homeless person, spend time scavenging for food, water, shelter, and spend most of their day 'working' by reading philosophical texts, asking questions, and having conversations with people and themselves. They could even start drafting a contribution to philosophy in their mind. So, obviously, if someone doesn't even have a conventional, capitalist job they can clearly be doing work every day, whilst also considering other factors such as the homelessness factor, which clears them from the need for money as the other conventional working person. What do you think?

I don’t think anyone on the thread supported people not working entirely - referring to your two posts talking about supporting people who don’t wish to work. All I’ve seen are comments on supporting someone taking jobs or leaving their current jobs for a job that pays less with less hours.

Most jobs that have higher pay require more hours and commitment. If I don’t want commitment above 40 hours per week, then I can chose my jobs in this light, and I do so in real life, all the time. For me, that is plenty of time to work. I have early mornings, evenings, and the weekends for family, friends, and hobbies. Anything above that, for my life, infringes on my personal life and things I actually view as more important than the mundane jobs I qualify for. I don’t think that this view of work and living a lifestyle like so is ‘parasitic’ at all. Most people with a college education, that is, usually have this opportunity, depending on the status of their financial management, marriage, and spending habits. Someone that has a degree, buying a house, marrying someone too young is too bad. If they can’t move jobs because of this that doesn’t make the people with degrees lifestyles—that have mobility—parasitic, in my opinion.

Someone may not like their job, may not like most of the duties required, and most of the people, but may still love the other aspects of it - family time, location, flexibility, vacation time, salary, etc.

That may be a possibility and a consequence of universal basic healthcare, but that is only a possibility of forces outside the argument. This possibility has to deal with immigration, and who is entitled to this healthcare in the legal language of the law that would be drawn up by legislators. Since you have brought up fairness, how is it fair to people who can't afford items for their health or livelihood? The first thing that comes to mind is insulin prices in recent times, where insulin and EpiPens were costing thousands of dollars. How is this fair to people who can't afford these items? Since there is only 10% of the American population that can afford these items, what are we supposed to do for poor people with diabetes? Even if this isn't the case anymore, there are a plethora of other health problems and costs for those problems that poor people simply cannot afford. So, is the solution to keep this system in place just because of the fear that people may come to the country and mooch off of the free basic healthcare that may be drawn up? This kind of answer is a cop-out, in my opinion, because it deals with the issue of immigration and who exactly is entitled to the some sort of public healthcare services given to these poor citizens.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing this!

Hello, I am sorry you are going through this situation. I am not a counselor or a therapist, but I can try and help with some philosophy. Suffering is a part of life.

Friedrich Nietzsche once said: "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." You can either take that belief as well or not. But suffering still exists for every human in some way or another.

I can't see myself living anywhere else, do any of you accept suffering as part of life? — healing-anger

I accept it as a part of life. I do not think it is life in its entirety. Times will sometimes be hard for some. Times will sometimes be easy for some. Times will sometimes be good for some. Times will sometimes be hard for some. It is just a part of it, in my opinion, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. But, I do not believe that this is a negative aspect of life. And if we accept life as so, then it can help prepare one for harder times, and to know that it may get better, it may get worse, or it may remain the same.

I subscribe to the view that every human is capable of good and evil. The problem of good and evil is definitely through actions and looking at these actions through a moral lens. However, sometimes people do bad things or good things with no intention. So, the intention is where one needs to look.

If someone plots murder and also revels in the fact of what if they are going to do and carry out the act, I would say this an example of evil. The Nazi government's decision to intentionally exterminate millions of people through gas chambers, firing squads, and reveling in the fact that they did it, evil. Joseph Stalin intentionally holding faux courts on his people that opposed any action he did and to instill cruelty and fear into the minds of his people, evil. These leaders and individuals committed atrocities, but they didn't just commit an atrocity, they reveled in the fact that they did and they planned to do so as well. So, if there is a plan, if there is an act, and their pride in the act, I would constitute this as what evil is. To get more specific, if someone murders someone as a part of gang violence due to the pressure of someone else killing them or their family, is this considered evil? I don't think so. This is a typical example of where we must examine dilemma's like so by going 'Beyond Good and Evil' as Nietzsche would prescribe. The absurdity and odd dilemma's life presents require one to go beyond good and evil to examine them properly. Not examining problems like so would be to assume that things are evil when they are not as clear as one thinks...However, the problem of good and evil is nothing I am an expert on, this is all just my humble opinion.

Is it humanly possible to trust no-one? — Hypnos

I don't think this is possible without suicide being in the question. I have heard that this has been the cause of some suicides or one of the many causes of these certain suicides. Trust has to be defined because trust is one of the most subtle and complex concepts that affect everyone's lives.

If someone is betrayed, whether it be cheating, lying, turned in, subject to treachery, etc. there is the allure to not 'trusting' anyone as a part of the emotional reaction. But, in time, these people still trust themselves and still trust someone...

Ah, Dostoevsky, my favorite. I agree with your insights here on both of these philosophers.

Interesting point. I agree, taking a position on whether the human race is small or large, as well as significant or not, is presuming that you know all of this in relation to other races in the universe or if we are alone.

Ignorance is bliss you mean? Because that's what the sense of meaning in religion gives you. You are ignoring to think about the world and life authentically and without filters to feel content with a meaning that has been given to you by others, not yourself. — Christoffer

One can still have a sense of meaning in religion if they 'make' their own meaning post-philosophical suicide, which is what Albert Camus prescribes in The Myth of Sisyphus. He wants his readers to 'rebel' against the absurd and to 'make up' their own personal meaning, even though in reality there is no meaning to life. So, just because someone may have a sense of meaning in religion, there is still a possibility that that person found this sense post-philosophical suicide and after the fact that in reality, they believe there is no meaning. But for comfort and for the sake of 'making' their own meaning, they subscribe to some prescriptions that religion gives them. Also, what about doing this makes this person be thinking 'non-authentically' as you have stated?

Anyway, thanks for your quote and insight. Even though I don't agree, I love hearing others' opinions, especially about this wonderful work from Camus.

Is belief in a religion or some secular ideology a type of avoiding asking life's fundamental questions. It's a refusal to acknowledge that the world is meaningless and indifferent yet humans continually try to find meaning. — Ross Campbell

I believe that one can still believe and subscribe to Albert Camus's views in The Myth of Sisyphus and still belong to a religion or secular ideology. I think his statement that believing in aspects of these beliefs and avoiding asking life's fundamental questions is an extreme statement. Most existential Christians, for example, believe that life is meaningless unless they 'make' meaning through their belief and subscription to their God/savior. So, life is meaningless unless you direct some of your attention and meaning to what God prescribes (referencing the book of the Bible Ecclesiastes here - this is the conclusion of that book). Nietzsche and Camus both argue, and have the view, that although life is meaningless, one has the opportunity to push back on this absurdity and create their own meaning in their life and the experiences in which they will endure.

My view is that Camus's solution would not work for many people including those who are religious. Their belief whether God exists or not provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose in life and to tell them that their belief is philosophical suicide seems rather arrogant I think — Ross Campbell

But what if an atheist goes through philosophical suicide, tabula rasa, and then begins to come toward this aforementioned view that life is meaningless and then 'makes' their own meaning to the fact that life is meaningless unless one acts within their God prescriptions? I bring forth this question because Camus states that one makes their own meaning once they decide to live, this is the entire point of him saying that we must rebel against the absurd and not let it win, which would result in us committing suicide or living with absolutely no meaning (referencing from the rebellion part of The Myth of Sisyphus).

Have you read existential philosophy? Philosophers in this camp such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Jean Paul-Sartre, Fydor Dostoevsky, Soren Kierkegaard, and many others present these questions in their works and their beliefs on the matter. This is my favorite camp of philosophy and it constantly deals with the human experience of existing, whether life has meaning or not, and what to do...

What do you think of this? Is there another reason to exist other than our own feelings? — existentialcrisis

I think emotions play a large part in our reason to persist in existing, but they can also end it: suicide. If someone is feeling so depressed, anxious, or angry at existence they can end their own life. They have domain over that, not anyone else. What I find interesting is that while emotions may have significance in making life what is called 'life.' But, I subscribe also to the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche's Will to Power. Every living thing has the desire and will to survive and move with life, and this is described by the Will to Power. Some humans want power in material form. Some humans want power in the form of knowledge and wisdom. Some humans want power in the form of overcoming suffering. Some humans want power in form of helping others and making an influence.

I subscribe to the view that life is meaningless until you make meaning for yourself. Emotions play a part in life but also this desire to survive, live, and grow in some way. Everyone wants to grow in some way and at some point. Doesn't matter who the person is, and it doesn't matter what form it takes, there is always this desire to live, grow, or even the action of exerting power by taking your own life.

What is the reason for our existence? — existentialcrisis

I have no idea what the reason for our existence is. No one can give a clear answer. There have been many views, but no definite clear answer. In my opinion, our 'reason for existence' is nothing. I feel as it is different for each person based on the view that life is meaningless, and the individual gets to decide, first, whether they want to live or commit suicide based on this belief about life (referencing Albert Camus's philosophy in The Myth of Sisyphus - this is the subject of the book). From here, the human, if choosing to live, can then make their own meaning themselves, and themselves alone. No form of suffering can take away this person's beliefs, perceptions, and interpretations of the meaning of their life and the reason for their existence in their mind.

For instance, a child is brought into the world, recognizes his existence, and then decides to live or not. Once the child is older, in its teenage years, he will confront this problem again. Once it's an adult, the same. Therefore, the reason for an individual existing could start being explained or questioned here. But the reason for the existence of the human race appears to be too grand for a human to ever know. The problem of God comes to mind here. No one truly knows if God exists or if he doesn't exist. They have faith in one side of the argument or not, but there is no evidence. In my opinion, logic doesn't help either case, it's actually a waste of time for the God existing or not arguments. It helps a human try and tackle the problem, but what human has tackled it? If there is a God, then maybe he has an answer? If there isn't a God, then maybe our existence is a coincidence? Maybe there are multiple universes going on? Maybe we are merely in a complex program? Maybe we are all part of a dream? No one really knows the answer to this question. So it is extremely hard...

What is the question? You seem to answer your first question or raise a slightly different issue later in the post. I am wondering because I find this post, and topic, extremely interesting and want to discuss.

Could not agree more that fascism thrives in crisis and that fascism is usually the only solution to the crisis. If we ponder about it, fascism appears to be the only sensible path of action, especially if the 'we' of a local, nation, country, or the world is under threat.

I loved the alien invasion example, and I loved the fact that you subscribe to the view that fascism is within us. I could not agree more with this statement and the first thing that comes to mind is the show Lost and the philosophical problems it is constantly bringing to the foreground. If you have not seen this show, there is a plane crash on a hidden island in the middle of the pacific ocean with hundreds of survivors. However, even in the first couple of episodes the 'strong' and 'leaders' of these survivors exert power and strip their fellow survivors of the civil liberties we are so used to - like the right to property, right to voluntary action, and involvement, etc. For instance, there are so many instances in these first few episodes where guns are pointed at others for the need of their found belongings for medical purposes. There are also death threats to individuals to help these 'leaders,' etc. So, the idea that fascism is within us I can not agree more. If the people of today were placed on a hidden island in the middle of the largest ocean, I guarantee these fascist tendencies would arise almost instantly for survival and order...

Hello, I am very happy to hear that. I have done that with my life for the past couple of years as well.

I vehemently disagree. Life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything around you. As was mentioned in the past philosophy does not answer questions it asks them. So far in my foray into it there were no answers to the questions posited. A lot of views for sure, but no real answer. It also has the habit of annihilating meaning, not providing it. Philosophy is the organon of extinction as one person put it. The same when it comes to movies. Once you start digging into their themes and the like the magic is gone.

It's ironic in a sense, but life is more meaningful and magical if you don't ask questions. — Darkneos

Hello, thanks for adding to the thread and discussion. I really appreciate it and love to hear what everyone has to add. The quote that life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything is probably true, and I agree. But that is an extreme case. If you question everything, yes, probably, life will most likely be a negative experience for one as there will be no clear answer to anything or anyone that person experiences. However, for most, I think questioning the most grey areas and philosophical dilemmas in one's life actually provide enjoyment and some sort of depth to one's life.

In my own life, I definitely have enjoyed life much more the more I question. The less I question things, the more depressed and anxious I am. This is because most social constructs and societal norms do not apply to many people these days. Just because everyone has to get a job and provide for themselves doesn't necessarily mean that they should not question that very system. What if one wants to work less and work for less money to be able to apply themselves in other areas of life more important to them? Well, if they never questioned the system in place, if they never questioned this more 'traditional, conventional' route, then I think it would be much harder for the individual to obtain a state of where they are content with their life. This is just one hypothetical example, but there are many other areas where one should be questioning things, and often, in my humble opinion. What if someone thinks of themselves as unfit to raise children? Should this person go along with others in society that tend to go along the route of getting married and having children? Should this person follow the government's growth view of generations having children more and more children, should they be a part of this movement or not? If someone has crippling anxiety over a certain past mistake or situation, questioning why they might be anxious over that mistake or event and what makes them anxious about these things may actually help give them a clear answer for them to work with. Of course, there are always the extreme cases of someone questioning their every action, every move, and every motive and making themselves more depressed and anxious. But, for most people, I think questioning things can lead to a healthier mental state.

Anyways, this is all just my 2 cents and opinion on your post, and on the subject at hand. Thank you very much for posting in the discussion thread. I love hearing from everyone on the topic, and your post had great insights in it. Cheers!

I’ve sometimes been gently accused on this forum of ‘wandering’ into psychology, as if that’s not a place that philosophy should go. I disagree with this - I understand people’s need to construct boundaries, but I think there is a lot about philosophy these days that needs to align psychology with other areas of thought, or that finds itself knocking on the door to psychology, so to speak, looking for a way through. My personal view of philosophy is that it’s ‘big picture’ thinking (which is unfortunately rare these days - even in philosophy!), so I’m not one to ‘stay in my lane’ in this respect.

Most of my philosophical discussions with my daughter start with her looking for advice and counselling. I can’t pretend I have all the answers, so this works well for us. — Possibility

Thanks for this reply and contribution. I would agree with what you say about how philosophy and psychology knock on each others doors from time to time. It is definitely interesting...

I’d like to push back somewhat on the idea that philosophy isn’t important, or doesn’t have much value. To me, the value doesn’t lie in something tangible or quantifiable, but in how you experience life. — Pinprick

Could not agree more with this quote mate. This is so relevant to my life. Even if there isn't something tangible or quantifiable in studying philosophy for some, there definitely is value for how you experience life, and it may add more in-depth experiences for sure. Suppose we had two men with the same lives materially and situationally, but one actively studied philosophy and another didn't, if we assume that the one that doesn't actively study philosophy doesn't activate all that is being activated with study philosophy on his own, without philosophical material, then there would be a massive difference between the two in terms of depth of experience and the possibility of the student of philosophy having more meaning for sure.

If philosophy is something one does or doesn't do based on whether it's fun or not then isn't it more of a recreational activity than something one does for practical benefits? — Judaka

I see where you are coming from now. This makes more sense as it is probably, for most philosophical folk, more recreational than practical.

Of course people who like philosophy say good things about it but meanwhile when people says something we don't like is important, we're already looking for reasons of why that isn't true. — Judaka

This is a great insight I often overlook. Well said here.

Honestly, even when I'm talking with other philosophers, I usually feel what they are saying is useless and without any practical value. Yet I'd much rather talk about that useless thing than something I find boring. All I am saying is that I think if you investigated yourself thoroughly then you would find that you are not much different from the people who aren't interested in your philosophy. You have your interests and enjoy talking about them and you have things you aren't interested in and don't like to talk about. You are not merely practising philosophy because you've realised importance and utility that others have failed to see, even if that's the explanation you'd like to give. — Judaka

I agree that I am not merely practicing philosophy because I have realized the importance and utility of it, the relative comparison to others is beside the point. I, and probably many others, still practice philosophy for recreation and the practicality, utility in practicing it. I am definitely not much different than others that don't like my philosophy, but that is also beside the point some, in my opinion. What I am trying to say is that most people seem disinterested, and sometimes act so, but they usually still have many philosophical opinions and give them regularly. But when they are confronted with these opinions with someone that practices and studies philosophy regularly, they back off, even if it is a very inviting and respectful discussion that is not condescending or too haughty for them to partake in with the study of philosophy. This is the perplexing part for me. They may be scared or nervous to enter the discussion or have a discussion at that moment or about a certain topic. All I am trying to say is that there seems to be taboo around certain philosophical discussions if it is known to the participants of these discussions going into the discussion that is in fact a philosophical one. But, I have also noticed, in these same people--in my family, friend groups, schoolmates--they love to spew out philosophical opinions while in other explicit discussions: politics is a good example.

Anyhow, thanks for the time to reply mate. I really appreciate it and loved the insights from you. Cheers!

I have a slight misgiving with regards to the characterization of most individuals 'disinterested' in such modes of thought as being 'average' (presumably the case, should one infer from the title of this thread). That may be wise in a statistical context, but not a philosophical one. — Aryamoy Mitra

I am sorry that you have misgivings about the title. I did not mean to demean anyone or mean that people that seem disinterested in my own opinion to be 'average.' But I was simply stating a figure of speech, also, the title only allows so many characters. Most people, in my own experience, seem disinterested in having philosophical conversations. That is what I intended. I have discussed this with many other friends that are into philosophy and they have the same experiences. But I did not mean to imply a hasty generalization either, but it does seem that way.

Philosophy commits no promises, vows or certainties of any kind; it is a journey you elect to embark on without any knowledge of where it shall take you, or what it may bring to you. For many, that's candidly unappealing. — Aryamoy Mitra

I could not agree more with this above quote. Unfortunately, they are missing out, in my humble opinion! But they can live their lives as they want and there is beauty in that.

Discussing the metaphysics of the mind or the structure of human perception is, superficially, tangential to one's foremost motives and predilections. — Aryamoy Mitra

Ah, I see here where you are coming from now. This makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to comment and reply. I appreciate it very much. Cheers!

You do it because that's what you do. — jgill

I love this quote. It is what we do, and I love to do so every day. But I still find it perplexing that so many people have philosophical opinions, yet keep them to themselves. On the surface, it appears as if they do not like discussing philosophy person-to-person or they find it stupid to discuss it or something. I do not know, but this has been my experience with many people. They will have one philosophical conversation, even if they do not notice they are having one, and then will back off on other topics.

Finally, I would say that while a lot of people cannot be bothered with philosophy it can spark off some interesting conversations with strangers. I have been out reading books, libraries or coffee shops and people have started up talking in response to some book I am reading. In most cases I never ever seen the person again but often remember the conversation forever more. — Jack Cummins

This happens to me sometimes too. I love it when it does because it has the same effect on me as well: that I remember it forever. I always remember when someone stops me to talk about interesting books I have in my hand or interesting conversations, especially with strangers.

I don't mind if other people are not interested in philosophy but do mind if they criticize me for my interest. — Jack Cummins

Same here. I mind if people criticize me for my interest and active work in the study of philosophy in my free time. I find it strange that people take so much offense to the subject when they themselves often have philosophical opinions without explicitly labeling their opinions as so.

I get comments from various people I know implying that I should be spending my time more productively — Jack Cummins

I also get the same kind of comments. However, I think it is more productive for my own life to be intensely studying philosophy. It helps my overall well-being and life, and I wouldn't trade studying philosophy for money, status, or material belongings. That is what is precisely so wonderful about the subject...in my opinion.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply and continue the thread. I find this topic extremely interesting for contemporary society. Cheers!

What do both of you think about therapy/advice to others about life and philosophy? Do you think therapy, advice, and counseling have a lot to do with philosophy when it comes down to it? Without being haughty and condescending, when someone usually asks me for advice and suggestions on matters of life, I usually give them a philosophical, opinionated piece of advice that has helped me - through knowledge and/or wisdom from my experiences. People don't seem to dislike or not care about philosophy in this form...

Philosophy is probably less important than understanding how to manage your finances or having competency with mathematics but you might not be interested in that either. — Judaka

This is very interesting to me. I agree but also have some questions to ask you. Philosophy is probably less important to them than understanding how to manage finances or having competency with mathematics, but I find these same people having many opinions about life and social purpose from their own experiences in these camps as well. For instance, even though it is practical for these people to have a job, know finances, date people, get therapy, act on their hobbies, etc., philosophy still haunts most people. What if someone spends a lot of time learning about finances, working, trying to build a family, but things don't work out?

Philosophy usually is needed or is called upon in their phase of reaction and action after these events. Let's discuss losing one's job, since this usually affects other aspects of their life - finances, mortgage/rent, relationships, income, etc. Most people that lose their job want meaning in it. They want to know how they could've lost their job. They want to know why they lost their job. They want to know why it happened to them. Some start questioning themselves. Some start questioning God. Some chuckles and react with dark jokes and smirks. Some are prepared, so when it happens, they are quite calm and start looking for immediate jobs, incomes, assistance. Usually, in most of these scenarios, there are still phases of anxiety, depression, motivation, dedication, calmness amongst different people. But philosophy plays a role sometimes. Sometimes philosophy can help someone become less angry, anxious, and depressed when bad things happen, or when things don't go their way. Maybe philosophy can actually prepare them for these times? I don't want to ramble on too long about this, but I am sure you get where I've gone with this.

So, back to my original post, it is strange to me that philosophy is so scary to most people. Yes, managing finances, competency in skills for jobs, and relationship attention are practical and important. But would you now say philosophy is too?

Thank you for the response. I love to hear fellow philosophy people's opinions on this matter. I just have always found it so fascinating that people don't enjoy it as much as we do. I am the one who isn't necessarily forcing it on anyone. But I do run into instances where there is a philosophical discussion going on even when the participants other than me realize that it is one indeed. Once I start spewing philosophical responses to a seemingly unphilosophical discussion, even though the discussion, in reality, is in fact a philosophical one, the participants are immediately afraid to continue with the discussion or just don't care anymore. This precise moment, time, and time again is what interests me but also bothers me. But, oh well!

Point out the doors and windows, to be opened when they’re ready, and keep asking them questions. — Possibility

I like this quote. This is usually what I do if a person I am talking to is interested and curious. I think this is definitely the best way of dealing with it.

Not all anger is bad, it can be motivating if you manage to direct it in a constructive direction. — ChatteringMonkey

This was a wonderful quote as well. Depending on the type of anger, it is certainly important to keep ChatteringMonkey's words close to home. Not all anger is bad indeed. So, we must think about what anger is 'good' and what anger is 'bad.'