In order to be happy one needs to accept the deal happiness offers. Life probably won't provide happiness exactly on the terms one imagines would be perfect. — Bitter Crank

What deal is that?

Yeah, that's a very suggestive line. We might also say that the limits of my experience are the limits of what I can mean --and, more troubling, what I can understand. In my view, we have to be someone to understand them. But the human imagination is powerful. So the right words can allow us to be them sufficiently to have a breakthrough. Hence the massive importance of the poet. — macrosoft

Wittgenstein was a sort of mystical poet. Have you read any of his works? Start with the Tractatus, it's pure enjoyment.

Well other philosophers talk about living one's own death. I think of it as the continual incremental death of the small self. Now it's very easy for this all to become evangelic and systematic. That obscene possibility haunts it from its origins. Everything can become cheap. — macrosoft

Cheap in what way? Grows confused.

The limits of my world are the limits of my language.

I hope they are pieces of wisdom. One man's meat is another man's poison. I'm often ambivalent about sharing. In some moods I find a great joy in it. In other moods, I want to get back on the other side of the wall and keep my own counsel. Like Francis Wolcott, 'I don't want you to...have seen me.' — macrosoft

Indeed. Thanks for sharing though. We can never truly know the answers to some things; but, we can try.

About irritability, yes. But I can only speak from experience. This was also written about in Steppenwolf, a great novel. I'd say that there is a certain violence in spirituality. 'Our God is a consuming fire.' Metaphors, passwords, secret handshakes. — macrosoft

Go on...

I reckon after we die we choose our existence, we can create whatever, (for ourself, not for others) But I suspect we eventually get the urge for the feeling of the unknown. — TWI

Oh, another one of those questions we can always ponder about; but, never fully know.

I doubt it, but we don't really need it in its general form. What humans really crave and indeed find at least for stretches is certainty enough about their positions in life. Like trusting a spouse or a friend. Like feeling at home in one's career (until maybe you or it changes.) Or feeling at home in one's fundamental grasp of the world (that things make sense and are justified.) Basically closure is more or a feeling and acting than a theoretical entity. Yeah, we can theorize about it in the abstract, but that usually means we already experience it where it counts. That's why we can simply play with concepts, because life isn't currently tearing us to pieces and we aren't suffering real doubt (identity crisis.) — macrosoft

More pieces of wisdom. Thanks, I'll ponder over it.

In the meantime tell me if you agree with Schopenhauer?

The aesthetic realm is where I would want to reside. Forever in amazement with such things as math and geometry.

It's starting to set in now! — TWI

Oh dear. We must banish it forever. Care to join me?

I had to Google him (ooer' missus) I would have to spend time digesting that. I do believe we use our brains to project the appearance of the objective world, if that will do as an answer! — TWI

Haha. Well, I suppose one can always be content with one's life. Now, where's that boredom you spoke about?

Sure, I think that's in the mix too. Basically the point of a friendship is largely that one can finally be sincere in a world of prudent faking. And by faking, I don't mean lying necessarily. I mean keeping one's counsel, swallowing one's objections for various reasons. A large reason is that they would not be understood in the right spirit, so that the desired relief would not result from the failed attempt at disclosure. — macrosoft

The epistemic closure comes to my mind. Can it ever be attained?

Again, "Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?" — Terrapin Station

Yes, that's a general idea. But, the truth is such a vague concept. Can we ever do away with it?

But philosophy is all rebellious in some sense. It's easier to hide behind a flag or a bumper sticker with a warm mob. What is it that lures or drives some humans to think 'away' from their 'initial' mob or initial community more than others ? Probably lots of things. Some philosophers have said 'irritability.' Others have talked about really facing one's mortality. I think there's a connection to religion, where Truth serves as a substitute for God. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

Yeah - most of the time. Mind you I do enjoy a spot of ennui now and then. — TWI

Do you agree with Schopenhauer?

I don't think you can, it's the transition from one state to another that makes you happy. After that boredom sets in. — TWI

I never quite get bored. Isn't the world entertaining enough on its own?

As I mentioned, we have to start with a minimum of affection, respect, and curiosity. — macrosoft

What about sincerity?

Basically, yes. It's a critical thinking toolkit. Expecting philosophy to build up some big cache of conclusions that have widespread consensus throughout the field amounts to not getting what philosophy is in my opinion.

Of course, some folks will say that I'm way off base in the above, but that's just the idea, isn't it?

It's the old joke re the "Two Laws of Philosophy:"

(1) For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.
(2) They're both wrong. — Terrapin Station

If that's true, then philosophers can agree on certain things. Why the disagreement?

What if philosophy is something like the essence of being human? Or one of the highest modes of human existence? I think it is or at least can be. — macrosoft

So, why so much disagreement about various issues? Is this just moral relativism stated another way?

But then how can happiness be experienced if it's not precede by a period of unhappiness. — TWI

Indeed. It seems the two are intrinsically linked. How do you reach a stable equilibrium?

I'd say look to the difference between a talk between friends and a kind of evangelism that insists it has THE truth. Some of the best and most deeply joyful conversations involve really connecting with someone on the grand and terrible issues of what life and death are all about. In these conversations we speak for ourselves from our own experiences. We try to meet in the middle (understanding one another) because there is already affection, respect, and curiosity. We are open. We don't just want to send or convert. And while we do hope for some amount of mirroring, we also hope to be surprised and learn. — macrosoft

True wisdom. Thanks!

But, how do you reach Rogerian agreements between such opposing views as supremacism or such matters?

Indeed. It seems like a hard bargain.

As maxim, 'when you have no idea, do not try to express it' has somewhat to recommend it. However, in this case even if you have no idea, you must answer with your life. You can call that systematically inchoate if you like, does it help? — unenlightened

I don't know. Hence, my question.

?? There are thousands of years of philosophy "intellectualizing"/analyzing ethical questions. So I'm not sure how we can say that it's not possible. — Terrapin Station

Yes, that is true. But, we are in constant disagreement even about the smallest of issues. Isn't that indicative of a flawed methodology?

Philosophy is a field in which there is going to be continued disagreement about even the most fundamental claims. Some would even say that looking at philosophy as a field where we should be reaching widespread consensuses is essentially not getting what philosophy is about, because the gist of the discipline is its methodological tools, part of which involves regularly looking for and challenging various assumptions that are made in premises, in ideas of entailment, etc. — Terrapin Station

Then what job does a philosopher have? A questioner of truth?

I'm not sure what you're asking. — unenlightened

I'm asking whether there is any merit to philosophical quietism? Or must we be loud and rambunctious about the issue of God, life, ethics, and so on?

Knowing that you don’t know something is vastly preferable to thinking you know something you don’t. — Wayfarer

What do you mean??

I mean, WHO knows these things?

Why do we even bother?

What do you think @unenlightened?

Going off on a tangent. I think epistemically inchoate questions are rife in philosophy. One cannot encounter them without introducing a dialectical method to philosophy.

I believe in liberalism but not scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

True, that. Good point. I don't believe in liberalism at all, that is without regulation.

But it is just those kinds of domains of discourse which are being dissolved in the acid of modernity and globalisation. It is possible to re-imagine the substance of those myths in modern terms but it’s not at all easy. — Wayfarer

Can you expand on the "acid of modernity and globalization"? I think this is an assault on liberalism; but, am unsure.

Give it a try, but it's hard to speak for the decisions of the future you to continue or not. — macrosoft

Thanks for the enlightening post. I'm not quite ready yet. Well, I'm ready as can be; but, I don't want to rush the decision. Plus, student loans suck.

Not if they’re explored in the context of a ‘domain of discourse’. The reason they’re ‘inchoate’ is because of the chaotic state of culture. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by that?

A lot of people would be willing to live on Mars. Not everyone, but there would be more people than could be accomodated. — Terrapin Station

We don't know how many. The numbers would be initially low. Only the brave few would be going on a one-way trip.

Okay, why social conditioning? What sort of social conditioning? What does the fact that you feel an urge to connect with people and that most people prefer to be around other people have to do with the topic?

No one would be going to Mars alone. It would be a group of people. So people would be able to connect with other people, they'd be around other people, etc. — Terrapin Station

Social conditioning because the idea will never take off without some form of social conditioning of people to want to take the leap to Mars.

As far as epistemology relates to these matters, the situation is similar. A person can try with limited success to formalize their epistemological way of being. But much of what is going on is 'behind' any particular sentence. This connects to your post on attitudes. 'Attitude' points at a global approach or a fundamental grasping of existence in a certain way. This fundamental grasping is not the sort of thing that can be squeezed into a few sentences (or, if so, only with great talent via an apt metaphor.)And this strong metaphor as metaphor doesn't give itself way cheaply. It requires interpretation. — macrosoft

Very good post. I think, the limits of our world limit effective discourse. So, some moderator is required to moderate the crowds. How do you implement that is another question worth pursuing.

I would phrase this in terms of the limits of the analytic approach. — macrosoft

Yes, what are these limits and how do they dictate discourse?

Is your criteria for inchoate, that it can be answered in too many ways for there to be any common ground to advance any position? — schopenhauer1

Yes. It is too vague a question for there to be useful agreement on.

Okay, so if it's a group of people why are we focusing on urges to be social, to connect with people as if that would be something we'd need to make adjustments with respect to? — Terrapin Station

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

I heard that Musk will offer money to those that want to move, so I'm not sure it will necessarily be the elite of a nation. It might as well be the average folk too.