What is a 'real' philosopher and what is the true essence of philosophy ?
Please don't be offended by my question, because it is written with a certain amount of humour. The reason I am asking is because I began saying during interaction with someone in my recent thread discussion that this site allows me to pretend to be a philosopher. However, on a serious level, there are a whole spectrum between academic philosophy and every person who thinks. It is a whole spectrum just like the idea of the established writers and everyone who writes at all.
There are probably certain criteria for measuring success, and even amongst people who have been published there are some published writers and philosophers who are considered as more important or significant. I would certainly not say that popularity is necessarily the main measure, but some people might disagree. So, I am asking what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers?
Edit: I have edited my title, after @emancipate asked me this question, as one which underlies my one of the what is a real one. The two questions do appear to be interconnected in a deep way.
There are probably certain criteria for measuring success, and even amongst people who have been published there are some published writers and philosophers who are considered as more important or significant. I would certainly not say that popularity is necessarily the main measure, but some people might disagree. So, I am asking what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers?
Edit: I have edited my title, after @emancipate asked me this question, as one which underlies my one of the what is a real one. The two questions do appear to be interconnected in a deep way.
Comments (207)
Any measure of what it means to be a philosopher has to be measured against what one intends; if you engage in philosophical discussions to stimulate yourself, I think you are doing philosophy, even if perhaps you would not be considered a philosopher per say.
And I don't think success is the best criterion for whether or not one is a "real" philosopher, nor popularity, but rather seriousness about their craft. You can tell if someone is serious pretty quickly. For instance, I agree with Sam Harris on religion, but his take on how the US is a "well-intentioned giant" is just not serious. As for what determines seriousness, that's a little open to interpretation.
I suppose I would say that seriousness is an attention to principles and a fact-based dialectic.
Couldn’t have said it better :100: :up:
1. How to think? A way of thinking that includes diverse elements that begins with understanding questions, includes clarifying the meanings of words, thinking critically, being skeptical, being imaginative and creative, and ends when a satisfactory solution, understanding, answer, or even impasse has been reached. Socrates is a classic example of such a philosopher.
2. What to think? Knowledge, knowing how much ground has been covered in a particular branch of philosophy, understanding the different perspectives offered by past philosophers. The basic idea here being that it would be a pathetic waste of time to reinvent the wheel and a philosopher's time and energy are better spent picking up where other's have left off.
A real philosopher would know both how to think? and what to think?
Only the real philosophers know the secret handshake.
It depends on whether one is referring to oneself or someone else. To say of oneself that one is a philosopher is just vain & pretentious (NB: on a good day I'm barely a "half-ass freethinker"), even more so if "philosopher" is one's job title. However, to say of another, without irony, that she is a philosopher, regardless of title, I think, suggests she is/seems always engaged in endless conversations with mostly dead thinkers and fools, heretics and poets, from which she spins speculative webs and tells weird tales that call familiar ideas, and even reason itself, into question – in effect, she deliberately disturbs of our peace of mind by whipping raw our biases/prejudices with dark paradoxes & lyrical puzzles. Call someone "philosopher" and lash yourself to the nearest mast! :point:
Besides the dialectical dead, I nominate (in no particular order) ... paralyzed musicians, pregnant chronic-insomniacs, junky clerics / nuns, comedians in foxholes, elderly prostitutes, vegan taxidermists, blind barbers, career suiciders, "AA" bartenders & terminally-ill children at play. Despair – not "wisdom", now for millennia – is the beginning (of the end?) of philosophy. :up:
edit:
I highly recommend
Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot.
I think the tension which I see in the various replies is over the whole level of expertise. As Toothymaw points to issue of seriousness. Personally, I see philosophy as a serious matter, but just try not to take myself too seriously. Tim points to the importance of ability, and Madfool to the way in which training in thinking is important.
In considering the whole area of training, many people study philosophy, but there is not a pathway to becoming a philosopher, aside from an academic career and the academic career world of philosophy can be seen as elitist in some ways. Of course, there is scope for any person writing philosophy. It would be possible for someone who had not even studied philosophy to do so, and the person could be self taught or learned to think analytically in some other discipline.
What I think is wonderful about this site is that it is possible for us to all express our thoughts. Probably most of us consider ourselves as amateurs, but that there are probably some who have a professional background, such as teaching philosophy. However, do believe that it is important for philosophy to be developed as a serious pursuit of thinking and analysing that is not just confined to academic circles.
I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher.
I know that your remark about the 'secret handshake' of the philosophers was a joke, but what does worry me is a possibility that the idea does express some degree of truth. While expertise probably counts for something, I am sure that there are complex power dynamics and an elite hierarchy within establishing philosophy circles. I have known people who are professors, because they have doctorates and published their writings. I wonder what such individuals make of a site such as this one, which gives the amateur a platform for expression and exchange of ideas.
Quoting bert1
I am aware that you do believe that the academic world of philosophy is important, but also the whole demystification of ideas in general. I think that it is about getting the right balance. I am obviously not opposed to the importance of academic philosophy and do agree that there needs to be some kind of lead from the academic. This applies to all forms of knowledge. If there was no lead from universities and people with some kind of training, it would be a situation of people being able to come up with any ideas.
How philosophy is viewed and practiced probably varies across the world. You are in America and it may be that there is some kind of culture in which philosophy is recognised outside of academic circles. In England, I am not really aware of open forms of exchange of philosophy outside of academic life. People study philosophy and are expected to get jobs which don't involve any philosophy. So, philosophy is seen as remote from life and the study of it is not really seen as training for any further pursuit of philosophy. It is elitist and most bookshops only have a small philosophy section. Of course, the internet opens up possible sources of information, but having access to it doesn't mean that people know how to interpret the ideas which they have access to. I studied modules of philosophy, but apart from reading books, I am not aware of any kind of venues for philosophy discussion. Of course, there are other fields of discussion of ideas and philosophy can be brought into these in some ways.
I am not saying that I would wish to become a philosopher and I do see myself as a complete amateur, enjoying discussion of it, but I do think that philosophers often seem detached in ivory towers, remote from the affairs of real world. Of course, this could be that there have been such giant figures in the history of philosophy, that it is seen almost as a sacred domain. Also, it could be that in this information age of facts people don't seem to aspire towards becoming philosophers because it seems shrouded by unsolved mysteries.
Not really, and probably even less than England. America is absurdly anti-intellectual in general.
Yes, it is interesting to know how many people on the forum would care what the 'snobby' philosophers would make of us. I think that it would be a varied picture because the nature of discussion varies so much. But, everyone who is using the forum logged into the site labelled 'Philosophy Forum', and chose to join, meaning that some kind of interest in the philosophy is the common denominator.
I imagined you having some kind of community of philosophers, so I am obviously wrong. If only..
Perhaps my problem is that I just don't have the right armchair. I just can't wait until coffee shops are open and I can go back and sit on a comfortable chair, reading my book and leading the life of an armchair philosopher.
I answered your reply amidst some others and looking back on the thread just now, I realise how important your points were. Obviously, there are various ways of determining success in some understanding of philosophy and it may not matter if one is considered to be an officially a philosopher or not. Who really has the authority to decide who is a philosophy and who is not, ultimately.
However, as you say, in exploring our interest in philosophy, it does seem that, the philosopher would develop the ability to think. You stress that it would involve knowing how to think. You also said, 'What to think ? But I wonder if you really meant what to think about. That is because rather than a specific form of reasoning being developed, it may be a basic agenda or sense of focus. I also wonder if it would be about actual answers, but a whole approach to knowledge, because the answers may shift in a accordance by new knowledge and facts.
There were philosophy discussion clubs for philosophy students at colleges, but nothing for mature adults that I’m aware of. Looking for something like that is what brought me here.
Thank goodness we have this forum. It does give us so much scope. We get so much opportunity to share ideas with people internationally and on such diverse topics that it does seem better than many courses. Also, there seem to be discussions from so many angles on every topic in philosophy and the possibility of creating innovative ones too.
For myself, it is the problem of Jude the Obscure. Too well read to be accepted by my fellow workers; Under qualified to be taken seriously by academics. I resented the location for several decades but now no longer care. All the texts are still here. The places I was hoping to be invited into are unappealing.
They mean the same thing to me. Maybe not but then you'll have to edify me on the difference.
Most people would probably make fame and influence or official position, even slight, a requirement. So a published philosopher who has people "talking about him" or a professor at a university who is paid and produces students who are apt in philosophical concepts and processes when they were not before. Can you teach philosophy without being a philosopher? I suppose, after all that's why there are lesson plans.
On that last bit, the idea of "results", as undefinable as that may be in philosophy. You can teach someone to think logically, ie. logic 101, etc but that in and of itself isn't philosophy only a way to go about it. If you can successfully make someone see things, or at least the possibility of things, in a way they did not before... of course is that just persuasion? I like to personally think philosophy should have some positive effect on human society, culture, and life so I incorporate the idea of that in many things. But is that not just motivational speaking or rationalization or some may even say "look at the bright side" distraction? Depends who you ask for sure.
We all engage in philosophy throughout our lives, sometimes without knowing it. We often call these moral dilemmas or even simply the decision making process. You drive by an abortion clinic and you see people holding up signs or perhaps you watch a news story about cloning or artificial intelligence.., you may begin to ponder things such as right and wrong. This doesn't make you a "real philosopher" though.. yet it could spur your transition into becoming one. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step after all.
Basically like someone said earlier, a serious, prolonged, non-passing interest and engagement in the philosophical process. You can be a "real" philosopher without being noteworthy. Not to some people of course.. I guess their argument would be, why wouldn't you be? :p
I see 'what to think' and 'what to think about' as being completely different. The first would imply that there was a set body of knowledge which lead to certain conclusions. On the other hand, what to think about is more of a sketch of knowledge and a certain idea of what are important areas, but with no definite conclusions. In other words, what to think would be prescriptive whereas the latter leaves room for one to arrive at one's own conclusions.
One obvious example I can think of is when in nursing, the nursing code of conduct is prescriptive. It lays out a set of guidelines which are to be adhered to, and these are not negotiable. In contrast, a module on the medical ethics on my course in Social Ethics looked at basic set out an agendas of discussion and basic arguments, like the deontological vs consequentialist positions but it involved room for arriving at one's own conclusions. I know that this is applied ethics, but it is still derived from philosophy.
The particular significance which I see is the scope for being able to develop one's own ideas and I do think that this has particular bearing on us as amateur philosophers. We have centuries of profound philosophical thinking before us and people in academic positions, but are able to use knowledge to develop our own individual viewpoints.
While there are likely to be certain people are considered to be the 'real' philosophers, I do think that every human being is entitled to develop their own ideas. If philosophy is seen as the domain of the experts of knowledge it takes away the power and freedom of all human beings to think their own thoughts. Of course, no one can tell us what to think because we have our own thoughts, as private. However, on a social level, there is a whole way in which people who not seen as experts, and not in positions of power, can have restrictions on the expression of their own ideas and views.
I do agree with your emphasis on how we engage in philosophy all our lives and how, in many ways, we can all be philosophers. Of course, what we think is unlikely to be noteworthy. What I do think is central is people being entitled to freedom of thought and expression. At the moment, all of us are in the position of having a lot of information and are in an excellent position to partake in the philosophical quest.
It is hard to be sure what will happen in the future. It probably comes down to education and material conditions. For example, at the moment, most of us but not everyone, has access to some internet access. But, if poverty becomes widespread this may mean that people cannot afford computers and smart phones. So, access to information is dependent on material circumstances. Also, the whole power structure has a bearing upon knowledge, starting with the media and what people are guided to think. So, even though I suggested in my answer to the Madfool that we are able to think for ourselves, in some ways, I think that many people do look for expert opinion and are told what to think, rather than being in the position of forming their own views.
When you speak of being noteworthy in thinking, it is true that most of us do not have thoughts which stand out from the crowd. However, even this does have some social and political dimension. That is because aside from whether our thinking is of quality, certain ideas are likely to be accepted or rejected because they are ranked by others and by those in higher social positions of power.
I think that there is probably some difference in philosophy and mathematics as academic or general pursuit, although I know that there is a philosophical dimension. But, the difference which I see is how differently the two play a direct role in our lives. Maths is relevant for financial accountancy and for statistics in life and the people who go into these are probably mathematically trained. We use maths in daily life.
However, philosophy involves all the big questions of life after matters in the whole way in which we understand life. That is why it is questionable if should be left to the academics. Of course, I asked the question of what is a 'real' philosopher, and it is possible that the academics may consider themselves to be the 'real' ones, especially if they have a title of professor. However, they write in academic journals and apart from students of philosophy it is unlikely that many read their writings, although that probably applies to maths. But, as philosophy is at the heart of human existence it seems that the official word of philosophy is detached from the world of most people.
As it is, the philosophers are writing in journals and even though they may see themselves as important perhaps they only play a marginal role..In particular, during the time of the pandemic, I am not aware of philosophers having a voice, despite all the ethical issues which are abundant. Really, the politicians have replaced the role of philosopher, as being the ones who evaluate the facts and knowledge arising in the sciences.
The question presupposes that philosophy has a 'real' essence. Tell us what the essence of philosophy is and I'll tell you what a 'real' philosopher is.
You raise an excellent question which could be seen as a subtext to the one I am asking. However, I am not sure that I have the knowledge or authority to answer it myself alone. It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this.
Despite Aristotle defend back in Ancient Greece that the essence of philosophy is trying to find happiness I would say that the true essence is not being part of the "wall" as another "brick".
Philosophy is a way to get out of mediocrity and live a life where we can question everything to improve our knowledge.
If this is philosophy at its deepest roots, the origin of all meaning, then everyone is a philosopher to the extent that they consciously participate in the discovery and creation of this meaning.
Its one of those grand open-ended questions that pervade the history of philosophical thought (what is truth? What is beauty? What is justice? Etc). I tend to doubt the effectiveness of these type of questions to reach a consensus. Rather, we tend to get nowhere (and everywhere) with such questions, since every philosopher brings a divergent thought to the matter. This highlights (to me) that philosophy is proliferated by difference, and therefore a key metaphysical characteristic of philosophy must be: difference.
But there are many books on this. Heidegger, D&G and Agamben each have produced books with the same title "what is philosophy?".
:point: Necessarily, 'necessary facts' are impossible; therefore, only contingent facts are possible.
I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. Before psychology emerged as a separate discipline in its own right the psychology of happiness was covered in philosophy. However, the in ancient thinking philosophy was concerned with wisdom and this probably is more of a philosophy concern, rather than one which can be covered in psychology.
I think you are inferring the special usage of "necessary," but it wasn't used.
I do think that what it means to be a human being could be seen as a central question because it is essential to each person. It is one which permeates our lives and cannot just be answered by the people who are ranked as the philosophers.
Yes. And philosophy shouldn't be just for philosophers, should it?
Agreed. You are right in this quote. I think is a task of psychology too because this science has the object of literally the study of mind and our behavior. So it could be interesting what are thoughts from a psychologist about "searching happiness"
Also, I think it is interesting to point out that there are even an index of "happy countries"
Which should be the facts to consider about typing one country happier than other?
I think, rather, it's the understanding – adaptive (by process of eliminating 'maladaptive') uses – of knowledges (e.g. sciences, history, arts, care of self, etc) that's gradually 'improved' by philosophizing.
No ... not a clue what "special usage" you're referring to.
:up:
I assumed you were distinguishing between necessary and contingent truths, except I never made mention of the word "necessary." So I am not sure what you are referring to there.
I have just found one definition of philosophy which I find interesting, and it is from George Stuart Fullerton(1859):
'The philosopher is a man to whom is committed what is left when we have taken away what has definitely established or is undergoing investigation according to approved scientific methods. He is Lord of the Uncleared Ground, and may wander through it in his compassless, irresponsible way, never feeling that he is lost, for he has never had any definite bearings to lose.'
I am sure that is a definition which many present day philosophers would challenge, because the questions of science are embraced. But, I find Fullerton' s statement because it is about looking at what questions cannot be answered by direct reference to factual knowledge.
Yes! Couldn't have said it better. I like how you expressed it as "eliminating maladaptive" because sometimes our self thought cannot help if we are not making the right questions.
For example: the basic color patterns (yellow, green, blue and red) can give us a lot of interesting stuff if we philosophy about it. As John Locke did about primary and secondary attributes, etc...
I am not saying that the view is suggested is one that is the best possible one, but I think that it is worth reflecting on, because I do think that many people do believe that science can provide all the answers and that philosophy is almost like an unnecessary appendix. Personally, I think that it is worthwhile for philosophy to be knowledge based. If anything, I think that it has plenty of dialogue with science, but is perhaps not enough with other wider disciplines such as anthropology and the social sciences. I would imagine the best possible philosophy to be able to be truly multidisciplinary in its scope of knowledge.
I am definitely not in favour of philosophy being the exclusive territory of the philosophers. I am approaching the topic as a person rather than as a philosopher. However, I do think that as human beings we can gain so much from philosophy, and it is for this reason that it is worth reading and thinking about philosophy. In one of the earliest comments, @TheMadFool made some important points about the whole way in which the development of thinking is central to the pursuit of an interest in philosophy.
I think that speculative metaphysics is central and is what makes philosophy so interesting. It is this side of it which gravitates and, keeps me transfixed, in reading and writing on this site.
I am a real philosopher; insofar as I seek to communicate an idea abut how the world is, and how it might be - if we believed something else, in my view - rather more reasonable. I am inadequate to the task of reconstructing 400 years of alternate history and thought; less yet - illustrating the world that would have resulted otherwise, had science been afforded its due. But it is nonetheless a vocation; a duty I feel relates to my very being, to point out - over and over again, that our relationship to scientific knowledge is mistaken; and the flip side of recognising that error, is key to a long and glorious future.
I appreciate the audacity of such a claim; and no doubt it weighs upon me, but humankind approaches upon a catastrophe - such that I have no choice but to speak out. If it were not possible to secure the future - I'd settle down and sail into the infinite sunset, largely content. But it is possible; and that is what I aim to point out. That accepting science is true and acting accordingly, man would harness magma energy on a monolithic scale, two three times current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle - and continue to grow into the future.
I do believe that the brink of catastrophe is one of the biggest philosophical issues of our time, although not the only one. I have been in a s number of discussions on this site on the topic. I see it as a topic to be addressed by philosophers, scientists and politicians. I think that one of the biggest problems is the petroleum crisis which is going to occur. From brief interaction with you, I know that you see science as the solution. I am not wishing to dismiss the findings of various scientists, but I see it as complex because politics comes it to but the scientists have different political persuasions rather than one unified perspective.
I think that what your post points to, apart from the very real threat of global catastrophe, is that all the different structures of knowledge and power interact. Politics comes into science and philosophy. As far as philosophers, or people interested in philosophy, are concerned, there is a danger that global catastrophe may not be looked at fully. I do wonder if one of the reasons why people develop philosophies of nihilism is because they see the possibility of the end of civilisation. Certainly, I believe that the reason why people often choose antinatalist positions is because they believe that the future will be unbearable.
Personally, coming from my amateur philosophy position, I want to see environmental concerns on the agenda, but I am interested in many other aspects of philosophy too.
So philosophy is a peculiar discipline, a praxis of interrogation conducted not from a certain point of view, but of these certain points of view, while recognising that 'pure objectivity; is impossible. That discovery itself by the way is a philosophical discovery, since it pertains to our relationship with the world. A philosopher is someone who engages in those practices and, but that is purely my opinion, shows that he engages in it by writing the results of her enquiries down. The reason I think that is because I hold being to be relational. I can think of myself to be a boxing champ but if no one else recognises it, I simply am not. It is also a honorific title and therefore 180 is right when he states that it is pretentious to call yourself one, if not self contradictory as per the philosophical tradition: by doing philosophy you also learn how little you in fact know, as already pointed out by one of its founding fathers Socrates. When you call someone else a philosopher it might denote that she has a certain position for instance as an academic philosopher, or it may be a description of admiration.
Now that is not to say that although few of us are philosophers here in the above sense, we are not doing philosophy. We are doing that in many threats, at least those that deal with our presuppositions of our relationship to the world and parts of it. We do it at different levels though, just like many of us are on a cchess site and play chess but would be hard pressed to consider themselves 'chess players'.
In the future I envisage, a petroleum crisis does not occur because we harness limitless clean energy from magma, and use that energy to extract carbon from the atmosphere. That so, we do not need to quit fossil fuels right away, cold turkey, compounding loss of revenues with the cost of massive infrastructure changes.
We will have the energy to extract carbon in future, so the existing fossil fuel infrastructure can at least live out its natural life, insofar as we "plant a tree" - metaphorically speaking, by investing in the technology to harness limitless clean energy.
This allows for a supply side approach to sustainability, that gives us more time and more choice in how we proceed, and so makes a sustainable future politically possible; ultimately, because it is economically beneficial, and the least disruptive solution to a real and serious threat.
I think it must be very difficult for philosophers, politicians or scientists to express as ambitious a view as I have, for they operate within the bounds established by the ideological architecture of society. My hope is that, outside looking in - with a reputation none can damage further than I have damaged it myself, that I can ask the rude and stupid question professional people are too intelligent and polite to ask. If I can do that I will have done my duty.
I am not sure of the exact details of what can be done for the environment, such as energy, because while I read a certain point of science that is not my background, and it is very specialised. Even amongst professional philosophers it may be that they do not have sufficient knowledge of matters such as chemical engineering. Generally, I am wishing to gain more knowledge on possible solutions, including energy solutions and sustainability.
Another related issue is the sphere of influence. I don't know what role or work position you have because it affects one's level of influence. I am not saying that if we are not in prominent positions we have no influence, but it does have a bearing on how much people will listen to us.
Would there be a minimum standard of knowledge a person needs before being eligible for this august appellation?
Socrates aka the father of western philosophy was Greek, ugly(take a look at his bust) and also a self-avowed gadfly, annoying everybody with his deep nevertheless embarassing questions.
Thus, in a sense, a real philosopher is any hideous and annoyinng Greek you happen to cross paths with.
Yes, it is funny, because we can hope that being good looking won't be the essential attribute required to be a philosopher, even in this time. I know someone who seems to make decisions about who to vote for in local elections on the basis of who is the most handsome. We don't want philosophy to come down to pin-up posters to put up on the wall. Socrates can be the role model for the philosopher, in appearance, with no airbrushing required.
But philosophy is far from the only field that inquires into any of those topics, and no definition of philosophy would be complete without demarcating it from those other fields, showing where the line lies between philosophy and something else. Philosophy is not the same thing as religion, nor just sophistry; its not science, because it's independent of a posteriori facts, but neither is it just about ethics; and it's not the same thing as math, despite being all a priori, nor is it just a genre of literature, a form of art.
Philosophy uses the tools of mathematics and the arts, logic and rhetoric, to do the job of creating the tools of the physical and ethical sciences, i.e. for studying what is real and what is moral. It is the bridge between the more abstract disciplines and the more practical ones: an inquiry stops being science and starts being philosophy when instead of using some methods that appeal to specific contingent experiences, it begins questioning and justifying the use of such methods in a more abstract way; and that activity in turn ceases to be philosophy and becomes art or math instead when that abstraction ceases to be concerned with figuring out how to practically answer questions about what is real or what is moral, but turns instead to the structure or presentation of the ideas themselves.
Who is a real philosopher? The question is largely whether philosophy is a personal activity, or an institutional one. Given that I think that the faculty needed to conduct philosophy is literally personhood itself (sapience, consciousness and will), it should come as no surprise that I think that philosophy is for each and every person to do, to the best of their ability to do so.
Nevertheless, institutions are made of people, and I do value the cooperation and collaboration that has arisen within philosophy in the contemporary era, so I don't mean at all to besmirch professional philosophy and the specialization that has come with it. I merely don't think that the specialized, professional philosophers warrant a monopoly on the discipline.
It is good that there be people whose job it is to know philosophy better than laypeople, and that some of those people specialize even more deeply in particular subfields of philosophy. But it is important that laypeople continue to philosophize as well, and that the discourse of philosophy as a whole be continuous between those laypeople and the professionals, without a sharp divide into mutually exclusive castes of professional philosophers and non-philosophers. And it is also important that some philosophers keep abreast of the progress in all of those specialties and continue to integrate their findings together into more generalized philosophical systems.
But who is really "a real philosopher"? I feel torn between two answers.
On the one hand, if asked if someone else was "a real philosopher", I would just look at whether they do the activity that is philosophy, professionally or not; if they did any kind of study of those broad fundamental problems using those kinds of methods described above, I'd say yeah, they're a philosopher, especially if they wrote those thoughts down somewhere, or discussed them with others regularly.
But if asked if I was a "real philosopher"? I feel like I'd be compelled to answer "eh, not really", because I don't actually do this for a living.
I do agree with your point about whether or not one makes a living out of being a philosopher being an important marker. I can remember saying in a thread on art that I would define a professional artist as someone who makes a living out of it. However, I am aware that in some ways it is a materialistic evaluation. I would use such an evaluation to dismiss myself as not being a philosopher, but not in my view of others.
If I am reading someone else's ideas, my view of their work would most definitely be based on the quality of their ideas and writing and it would not matter whether or not they had earned any money for it. As far as philosophy is concerned, I think that it is probably hard to make money out of it unless one is a tutor. Even if someone writes a book, I would not imagine that they many philosophy books make a lot of money, unless they become bestsellers, which may mean that they would have to be popular.The most popular philosophy books would not be the best quality ones necessarily. It seems that philosophy in its quest for knowledge and truth , and, probably some other disciplines, may turn the values we usually base ideas of success upon upside down.
My life-long aspiration :point: gnóthi seautón ... panta rhei ... pan metron ariston ... tetrapharmakos —> aponia, ataraxia (& eudaimonia) ... apatheia ...
:death: :flower:
That's true to some extent. I was in a small international group that met periodically at various universities, and when we published a piece I would guess twenty or thirty might have read it. Larger groups in more popular areas of math would have greater readerships. But intense specialization has made communication among mathematicians difficult sometimes. Maybe the same is true of philosophy.
Gn?thi seauton: Know thyself. I never quite understood what it means.
Is it a call to understand one's strengths and weaknesses and chart one's course through life based on that knowledge? All to do with eudaimonia? That's sound advice if you ask me.
Does it prod us to self-reflection that involves going beyond the merely practical aspects of living (above) and diving deeper into the mind to discover what the mind itself is, the mind's relationship with the body, and how the person (mind & body) interacts or should interact with other persons and the world at large? Does it assume, for instance, that the mind is a reflection of the universe and to understand it, is to understand the universe itself?
Panta rhei: Everything flows
[quote=Heraclitus]Change is the only constant[/quote]
[quote=Parmenides]Change is an illusion[/quote]
:chin:
Don't forget Zeno and his paradoxes.
Pan metron ariston: In all things, moderation is best
:up: :100:
Easy to say, hard to do.
[quote=Shakespeare]Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives[/quote]
[quote=God]Do as I say, not as I do[/quote]
Tetrapharmakos: Four-part remedy
1. Don't fear god.
2. Don't worry about death
3. What is good is easy to get
4. What is terrible is easy to endure
:up: Pearls of wisdom!
Aponia: Absence of pain (as the greatest pleasure). I really like this for it measures pleasure with pain and thus it avoids the problem of infinite pleasure as the greatest pleasure. It's like defining sweetness in terms of bitterness and the sweetest substance would simply be the absence of bitterness and we don't have to go through the trouble of looking for a sweet sweetest substance. You get the idea.
Ataraxia: A state of equanimity/tranquility achieved, in my humble opinion, by appreciating the good and coming to terms with the bad. It quite possibly refers to being happy about all that's favorable and learning to accept all that's inevitable.
Eudaimonia: Flourishing/prosperity. Analogous to flowers in a garden. Under the right conditions, the seeds planted reach their full potential; for instance, a rose seed becoming an ideal or the perfect rose.
Apatheia: Undisturbed by the passions. Perhaps this refusal to be swayed by emotions, good or bad, is grounded in the fact that emotions, whether pleasant or unplesant, tend to cloud one's judgment. A glance at a list of informal fallacies should suffice to prove this point.
Wonderful. I feel rejuvenated and inspired after reading all this. Thanks
I certainly haven't found many philosophy discussion groups in England. I did have an informal one to go to in someone 's home to at one point and I am still in touch with one person in the group. After lockdown eases I am going to have a good look to see if I can find any others. Of course, we do also have the possibility of starting them. I know that my local library has art and writing groups run by volunteers. So, when libraries reopen, if I have the time I may try to see if I could start a little philosophy discussion group. Perhaps, other people on the forum would wish to set up discussion groups in their own locations, but obviously it is a very different form of exploration of ideas than writing on a forum.
I really love the post you wrote. It has many points of wisdom. The only one which I am not at all sure about is, 'What is terrible is easy to endure. ' I find coping with the 'terrible' extremely difficult and find it opens up plenty of 'black hole' states. I don't find it too hard if I can spend time working my way out of the black holes, but it does take time and energy. When we were discussing the ineffable of the mystics on another thread , I was thinking that I am more familiar with unutterable truth of the diabolical. Perhaps we need a philosophy of the terrible.
I had my doubts about that one but why split hairs. Obviously, Diogenes Laërtius hadn't seen it all. To be fair though, ceteris paribus, this, the fourth remedy covers ordinary people's lives, no? For example, doesn't it apply to you?
Actually, the whole experience of suffering is the starting point for searching in many ways. It prompted the quest of the Buddha, and I am sure that it led many to think deeply. If life was all fun there would be no motivation to create ot think beyond the norms of convention. However, I think that there is probably a fine line between being broken by terrible experiences or of transformation of thought from them. It is a question of how much stress is good for us? But, it may be that a certain amount of time in the dark underworld gives rise to a higher level of consciousness if one is able to overcome adversity in some meaningful way.
Jack, We are on the ship of fools and it is sinking. A real philosopher knows the way home. The ship is filled with philosophers expressing opinions without any knowledge of the way home. From book V1 of Plato's Republic:
[i]Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering -- every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary.
They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly kaids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?[/i]
The one who knows must be eliminated to satisfy the world of opinions. This is the human condition. What kind of education teaches what we are, our lives in Plato's cave, and what is necessary for freedom for those who are drawn to the experience of truth rather than inevitable destruction?
“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.” —Basarab Nicolescu
The point is that only a real philosopher like a philosopher king is capable of it. We don't have many of them in public anymore so the ship is sinking under the weight of opinions.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Neither Nietzsche nor Spinoza or Kierkegaard made their living in philosophy or were part of academia during most or all of their writing careers.
BTW, since you live in the London area, have you tried these philosophy groups?
https://www.meetup.com/topics/philosophy/gb/17/london/
I don't know if you wished to make a comment, because you seem to have sent an empty message.
That may be so , but that hasn’t stopped me. I don’t have a PhD and never took a single
course in philosophy, and yet I have been able to publish my philosophical work in academic journals such as the British Society of Phenomenology.
That's interesting. I have never actually heard of the British Society of Phenomenology. I may look it up. I am fairly interested in phenomenology but have not read that much on it at present. Are you entirely self taught in philosophy or have you studied a related field, such as psychology?:From posts which I have read by you, it seems that your interests lie in the border between philosophy and psychology.
Absolutely, I sometimes think that the Doors track which is most relevant for the current time is, 'When the Music's Over.'
My degree was in cognitive science. To me psychological discourse is simply a less self-aware ( or ‘naturalized) form of philosophical thinking.
[i]"Dance on fire
as it intends
Music
is your
only friend
Until
the end ..."[/i]
Yes, I think we need some kind of philosopher king to show us the way. The only problem is that the philosophers are not really considered as kings at all. But, @Joshs just pointed out that Nietzsche's, Spinoza and Kierkergaard were not famous in their time. So it may be that the true philosopher kings or queens will probably not be seen at the time. I am sure that probably applies to Simone Weil, your biggest influence. I do believe that the important thinking which may be needed will not be looking back on the past but on where humanity is going.
"Blood is the rose of mysterious union" :broken:
Quoting Jack Cummins
"Beware lest a statue slay you!" ~Freddy Zarathustra
I replied to your second post before seeing your first. Thanks for the link with listings of philosophy activities in London. I was not really looking prior to lockdown and was busy working. However, after all these months stuck in a room, I will be glad to go out and explore new horizons and unknown possibilities.
In some ways, it could be that the true philosopher kings or queens may not emerge from the world of philosophy but from within the arts, especially music. I think that it is possible that some people may take offence at such a suggestion. I am not wishing to put philosophy down, especially as I am genuinely interested in it. I am just thinking that is sometimes the lyrics and songs that guide me through life as much as the books I read. Certain albums by the Doors, U2, Dylan, David Bowie and all the current ones are central to my life and philosophy quest. I wonder to what extent many other people feel that way too.
I think many people would agree with you. I don't hold this view myself but I don't listen to rock/pop music. What do you feel is the wisdom gleaned from these sources?
I think that you are missing so much by not having an affinity with rock and other related genres. But, of course, I realise that is my bias. I grew up listening to such music and was searching through record shops in childhood and adolescence. I would spend hours looking for a wonderful album, reading the lyrics before being them. I don't search in such an intense way, but I do feel that the music I listen to is central to my existence. I do like live music events as well. On the psychiatric ward I was working on last year, a patient who used to talk about music with me, said, 'If you became manager, I expect we would have a jukebox on the wall.' However, it is hard to explain the wisdom gained from the various music genres, it because it is experiential.
What philosophy do you get from it?
It is probably about entering into certain mental states rather than actual philosophy. I remember one of the consultant psychiatrists I worked with joking that the lyrics of Oasis were thought disordered. I got into understanding my shadow side, in the Jungian sense, through exploring new metal and punk. As far as philosophy from lyrics, I recommend albums by U2, such as 'The Unforgettable Fire' and ' The Joshua Tree'.
I read a lot, ranging from psychology and philosophy, as well as many other forms of writing, but I would be completely miserable without music, although I usually don't do the two together because they require full attention.
Yes, I believe that we need muses for philosophia, rather than just philosophy texts. Possibly the reason why many people may go outside of the disciplines of philosophy, such as those within academic institutions is because the writers of some texts in the twentieth century, were rather obscure. It may not have had the zest of writings of earlier times. I am not saying that analytical thinking is not important. However, in order to inspire people, it may be that the philosopher of the future will have to go in a direction which will leave the reader turning pages in suspense, as meaning leaps from the pages.
Novelists like Hemingway write spell-binding stories that could be considered philosophical. I think you are on to something.
IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion.
Wittgenstein made the point that a good book of philosophy could be written just using jokes.
:up:
True, but can a person be awakened by a philosopher who knows the way? At the same time can phony philosophers do a great deal of harm? Can a person acquire the "inner taste" to recognize the difference? Read the idea in context.
[FROM THE REPUBLIC - PLATO]
The philosopher desires all knowledge. Justice, beauty, good, and so on are single, though their presentation is multiplex and variable. Curiosity about the multiplex particulars is not desire of knowledge, which is of the one constant idea--of that which is, as ignorance i?s of that which is not. What neither is nor is not, that which fluctuates and changes, is the subject matter of opinion, a state between knowledge and ignorance. Beauty is beauty always and everywhere; the things that look beautiful may be ugly from another point of view. Experience of beautiful things, curiosity about them, must be distinguished from knowledge of beauty; the philosopher is not to be confounded with the connoisseur, nor knowledge with opinion. The philosopher is he who has in his mind the perfect pattern of justice, beauty, truth; his is the knowledge of the eternal; he contemplates all time and all existence; no praises are too high for him.
"No doubt; still if that is so, why do philosophers always show themselves either fools or knaves in ordinary affairs?"
A ship's crew which does not understand that the art of navigation demands a knowledge of the stars will stigmatise a properly qualified pilot as a star-gazing idiot, and will prevent him from navigating. The world assumes that the philosopher's abstractions are folly, and rejects his guidance. The philosopher is the best kind of man; the corrupted philosopher is the worst; and the corrupting influences brought to bear are irresistible to all but the very strongest natures. The professional teachers of philosophy live not by leading popular opinion, but by pandering to it; a bastard brood trick themselves out as philosophers, while the true philosopher withdraws himself from so gross a world. Not in the soil of any existing state can philosophy grow naturally; planted in a suitable state, her divinity will be apparent.
a real philosopher not only needs the drive to experience perfect patterns of the forms but also an atmosphere which encourages it which doesn't exist in academic philosophy. There is no money in it.
You're right about that. Both western and eastern philosophy began from a sense of general dissatisfaction/discontentment with life, the way people were living, thinking, and interacting among themselves and with the world. What were the specifics of this dissatisfaction/discontentment? Beginning with bad reasoning and the fantastical ideas about the world and ourselves it spawns, there were a whole lot of reasons for philosophers to be dissatisfied with. As it seems to me, suffering - its causes, what perpetuates it - is in part, if not entirely so, due to warped, false, and harmful weltanschauungs generated by irrationality and its loyal henchman ignorance. To early philosophers then, the solution to suffering was to be found in rationality and knowledge thus gained. The idea, it seems, was/is to discover truths about the world and ourselves in order to either put to service those that were in our favor and to accept with stoicism those that weren't. The objective in doing this being to effectively deal with anxiety, angst, pain (suffering) that to philosphers arise from mistaken views of the world and ourselves. Thus, Gn?thi Seauton - if we're unhappy, sad, suffering, the fault lies in us for it seems we have unrealistic expectations of the world and ourselves, expectations that bespeak minds that are out of touch with reality. Definitely not a good thing!
Real men would not participate.
Perhaps I have built a corner of refuge for the shadow philosophers, trapped in the cave, who would like to be able to grasp ultimate reality, but if nothing else, can express their dreams of that reality.
It is hard to know sometimes how many the fault lies within us or outside of ourselves when we are suffering. We could ask what is suffering objectively? Here, I think that some might argue that physical suffering is more real than mental, but I would see that perspective as rather narrow. But, of course, in thinking about our own suffering, as the cognitive behavioral theorists recognize it is our interpretation of experience which leads to our suffering, not the experience. It may be on that basis that we can begin to create our own philosophical interpretations of life. We can draw on thinkers of the past, but perhaps we need to make our own unique philosophies to live by and to help us become people who have some influence as well. But, it is not easy, especially for the shadow philosophers, such as me.
The idea is to fit our minds into the way the world is and not to try making the world fit into our minds. Many have suffered not knowing that difference, including myself. Everyone it seems has an idea about the world, specifically as concerns how it should be. Granted even that such a mindset has been the driving force of what we call progress and yet, true or not, this seems only a brief lull in the storm for even greater challenges may be just around the corner assuming of course that we're not mistaken about progress and that it is truly what people think it is - progress.
I see your point about the idea of the muse. I suppose where it gets complicated philosophically is whether muses exist or are a symbolic idea. I would be inclined to believe that the muses are parts of our personal psyches, in the creative process of arts, philosophy and science rather than as objective forces. Of course, that is in line with the scientific paradigm of current thinking.
Yes, it is a tension between us fitting into the world mentally and the world fitting towards us. In many ways, it is easier to change our thinking than the world. But, even then, it surprisingly difficult even with psychology to aid us. I have never had cognitive behavioral therapy but have read books on it. It does seem to be like a philosophical approach really because it looks at specific form of examining errors in thinking. I have wondered why it seems to have remained in psychology and has not been used more as a foundation for an analytic approach within philosophy applicable to our daily thinking about life.
It is interesting that Wittgenstein suggested that a philosophy could be written in jokes. I have never been a big fan of comedy, but I can usually see the funny side of life. I think that sometimes philosophy can seem so intense and there needs to be some light side. I believe in the idea of life being tragicomic, and, often, daily life can be so surreal.
Surely a person who enjoys singing is a singer, just as a bird is a singer if it has a song to sing. But this does not mean the person sings well, nor that the bird has a pretty song to sing.
I am a writer. I have given much time to writing for most of my life. I have not published a book but I still consider myself to be a writer because that is what I do.
I think we want to encourage people to read philosophy and to think philosophically, and cutting them out of thinking of themselves as philosophers may not be the best way to promote philosophy. I don't think anyone has the right to exclude anyone from the group of philosophers. I think looking down on people and acting superior to others, excluding the other, is a bad behavior. Hum, makes me think of Christianity. The religion is known for being inclusive, but not all Christians are inclusive.
Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.
It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.
We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man.
Of course, I am not wishing to suggest that anyone should not see themselves as a philosopher. You probably know enough about me to know that I am not prescriptive and I believe that creation of identity for ourselves. I really began this thread when I began to think about what is a real philosopher when I was in discussions with someone on the thread about fantasy and decided I was playing at being a philosopher on this site.I feel that life is full of surreal games. But, this morning I liked playing around with the idea of being a shadow philosopher.
After reflection and interaction, I decided that my real area of interest was what is philosophy involve really. We spend time pursuing our interest in it and the various perspectives because it is so large a subject. However, we could perhaps strip it down to the basic central core issues. However, believe that people would not even agree, because it comes down to our underlying values. Really, I do think that every human being who exists has to work out some kind of philosophy in life. Of course, it is ongoing, although it is possible that many people don't change the views they are brought up with in many ways. I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking.
You may find it strange, but I find the whole area of psychology of theories as one of the most interesting. I read ' Beyond Freedom and Dignity,' by B F Skinner and it is so interesting in the consideration of the whole question of free will. Perhaps, if I manage to get a copy of it I will create a thread on it. I do believe that it is a book which is central to the whole interface between psychology and philosophy. It was so central to the development of determinism as a philosophy. I actually find psychology to be a fascinating area but, unfortunately, my own experience is that it can become shallow when the philosophical arguments underlying it are not understood in their fullest depth.
I do believe that novelist are able to juggle and play around with ideas in philosophy. I have not read Hemmingway at present, but apart from existentialist philosophers such as Camus, a couple of the most interesting philosophical novelists who I have come across are Philip K Dick and Will Self. I find Will Self's critique of sanity as a fascinating exploration of the whole surreal evaluation of our understanding of reality.
But if you study the "Ship of Fools" with a little humility it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole does not know how to escape Plato's cave or the eventual catastrophe of arguing over which way the ship should go. Opinions lead to conflicting opinions until society falls apart. Then the cycle begins again. Is that our only alternative? must humanity remain not human and trapped in animalistic binary thought? Can philosophy of a certain quality reveal the way out?
Edited to add: I have a spiel about toxic masculinity that talks about strong/weak and wise/stupid. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll talk about wise/stupid. I say that it is impossible for wise to complain about stupid. When one who is perceived to be wise is complaining about someone he/she perceives to be stupid, they are exhibiting stupidity. This is toxic.
In the academic environment, it is the teacher who, through Socratic dialogue, encourages a student to walk himself into a corner where he slaps himself for everyone's entertainment. This is using logic as a weapon. It can also be used in non-academic environments.
Whereas true wisdom asks each and every single question with a sincere intellectual curiosity, in the hopes the answer might be enlightening and lead to more questions. Thus, while degrees and pieces of paper might represent investment of time and resources, it is the motivation behind the next question which controls, in my mind, whether or not one is a philosopher.
As you are fairly new to the forum, I am interested to know your views of what it means to be a philosopher. I am not asking that to put you on the spot, just to give you a chance to speculate if you wish, as this is an open area of debate really.
In what way do you think that philosophy stands out as the muse? Is it about analytic understanding?
There's no glory in confusion.
There's lucidity in confusion.
I think that confusion can be a starting point. We would not need to find the way if we hadn't got lost in the first place. I have got lost literally many times, including ending up taking a wrong bus and finding myself in the country wastelands in the night. The wilderness and wastelands are the precipice of discovery.
Too often it is the end point as well. Quoting 180 Proof
Any lucidity shines in the removal of the confusion.
Getting out of confusion is important, but the whole process of being in it and finding the way are central to understanding too. I am not talking purely in an abstract way, but do believe that I have learned so much from the chaos of taking ideas apart. In this sense, I embrace the postmodernist idea of deconstruction. However, I don't see the broken state as the end, but I am still putting the ideas together.
I prefer to call taking ideas apart Analysis.
Hence, analytic philosophy is the unknotting of confusion.
I expect that deconstruct and analysis are similar but deconstruction implies more of a situation of being thrown into an absence or suspension of meaning in the process, rather than just the detailed examination.
Yeah, and we wouldn't need to walk upright and have greater use of our opposable thumbs if we hadn't fallen out of the trees in the first place ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1ZoCJSo
... "thaumazein (traumatize) the monkey!" :monkey:
I like the Peter Gabriel song about monkeys. Actually, my first philosophical shock was the theory of evolution because it was not what I had been brought up to believe. I was in a comprehensive school at the time and asked my parents to get me moved to the Catholic school. However, a few years later I discovered that some of my teachers believed in evolution. I think that my mother still believes the Book of Genesis account. I was also surprised to find out that one of the friends I went to school with does too, including the actual existence of Adam and Eve.
I listened to it on my phone with a CD playing in the background, so I didn't give it full attention. I only know his album, 'So'. I easily twisted it in the direction of talking about evolution, so I am probably inclined to bounce from one idea to another. It may be a bit of a skewed philosophical method really. It is probably association of ideas.
Perhaps, it is worth me paying more attention to him. Which albums do you recommend?
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates
Can you imagine saying this on the ship of fools? All these educated individuals expressing and arguing over their opinions would be so insulted and enraged they would throw you overboard.
'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. A very true proverb.
update:
Peter Gabriel (#4, "Security"), 1982
:point: esp. the track "Lay Your Hands On Me" (which, like "Biko", was phenomenally shamanistic :fire: in concert each time I'd seen him in the late 80s)
What's the reference for this? I keep hearing this 'quote' from Socrates - where is it? (Don't say 'The Apology' - I want to know exactly where)
What if they were telling the truth, and honestly, truthfully know even less about helmsmanship than the people who say they do but probably don't?
Or, maybe, the conclusion is that nobody can accurately be assessed as the most apt helmsman? Do we then go unhelmed(?), or do we have to somehow figure out between all of us how to navigate the ship, knowing that none of us can be fully trusted as the certainly best helmsman on board?
One thing is clear by observing society. None of the leaders, none of the leaders in politics, the arts, and education know the way out. They are content to argue and express opinions on a sinking ship.
Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.”~ Plato.
I agree with you. It is our individual responsibility to make efforts to remember the way out and to practice it with the help of others who have previously made these efforts.
Does knowledge exist that we are ignorant of or is Man doomed to argue over opinions or the medium between knowledge and ignorance on a sinking ship?
I was hoping you would say that. I am a little nervous about some people's apparent preference for a strong authoritarian leader.
I am watching the report of the people's struggle with the regime in Myanmar and the Rohingya refugees. In so many places the government and the people are not at peace. Leaders are trying to stay in power with violence. Where there are not good leaders, people are starving their economy is too poor to meet their needs. How can people live like this? Are the fine, educated people who are arguing philosophy here, thinking about the things that really matter? Is arguing against using the word "God" the best we can do? Do we really need to find fault with what someone for not knowing enough about the philosophy taught in college classes when millions of people have serious life-threatening problems? Should we be doing anything about "those people" or is it okay to ignore them their sufferening?
"What is a 'real' philosopher and what is the true essence of philosophy ?"
Let me be very clear, I could not pass a philosophy exam and most people here would argue I am not a philosopher, but philosophy means a love of knowledge and perhaps the best thing we can do with our ability to learn and think is to find ways to stop suffering and empower people to stop the suffering. Is what Nietzsche thinks about that important?
My father who was an engineer on the Apollo that went to the moon said we avoid thinking as much as we can. I think I would love knowing nothing and worshipping a pharaoh as a god, with full faith he would take good care of us. My thoughts torment me and yet, I do not want to sink into senility and be a body without a functioning brain.
Quoting Banno
Now that is perfect! I will 100% agree with Banno.
I believe we made life much better than it once was. Most civilizations have advanced so much they name their children at birth and the people expect to live to old age and die before their children do. But we have too much inequality and too much avoidable human suffering, so we still have a lot to do and I am glad we still have big challenges! Those challenges can give our lives purpose and give us a reason to get up in the morning. I would rather have this than a heaven where I am not needed.
Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions?
Since our “own” reality is the only reality may know for sure, everything else is just philosophy anyway.
Have you found a reference for that quote yet?
Online one's mostly a dialectical rodeo clown; otherwise, just another wayward fool who happens to be studying-recovering from folly.
Quoting Tobias
And what about the lived (existential) implications for e.g. 'well being' or 'agency' of those philosophical relationships? (Asking for a friend. :smirk:)
There are fields of philosophy that do already address political and economic questions, like political philosophy. Many of the questions of political philosophy depend on more foundational ethical questions, so ethics more broadly is instrumentally relevant to that. And a lot of questions in ethics depend on epistemological, ontological, and even linguistic questions, so all of that stuff is also instrumentally relevant to the really important stuff.
My big project, in my book you've surely heard me talk about already, is basically to go over all of the ontological, epistemological, etc, topics in a way that ends up pretty much just building up to the conclusion that, as regards academic institutions and their investigation of questions about what is, the physical sciences that have largely displaced traditional religion in that domain are the right way to do things; and then, starting from the same principles as that process, go through all of the ethical, etc, topics in an analogous way, to come up with the groundwork for "ethical sciences" that should likewise displace traditional states in the domain of political institutions and their investigation of questions about what ought to be, hopefully answering those questions about morality much more effectively, just as the physical sciences have been much more effective in answering questions about reality.
Not a facetious question, but one I've only barely answered in recent years (though I've circled it like hawk / buzzard for decades); my ultimate concern is the impossible (or modal-ontological 'impossibility') which is categorically indicative of nonbeing (and, from this speculative focus, how reason is constituted, or driven, by evading the/se abyss/es via (e.g.) superstitions, myths, fantasies, magic, X-of-the-gaps, etc) – embodied meontology. 'My project' concerns exploring and proposing ways of reasoning, which do not rely on (evading, denying) the impossible, in order to reduce – unlearn – misery (i.e. frustration of agency via harm, indifference, error ...) that more often than not is caused by expectations misaligned with actuality.
(Didn't mean to 'threadcrap' ... If that's what I've done, Pfhorrest, we can continue via PMs.)
Anyway, the ultimate concern for me is to lay out a better way of figuring out what to do, especially in matters that affect all of us, than what we currently have; in precisely the same way that modern physical sciences are evidently better ways to tell what the world is actually like than religion was.
To put it in the terms of @Nikolas's (reference of Socrates') helm of a ship: we've already gone over why a wide variety of methods of settling on who to helm a ship all fail spectacularly, and now we're at the point of either settling on the first and worst option (go with whoever the half-blind strongman captain picks), or else standing around doing nothing as the ship runs aground. Since obviously neither of those are acceptable options, we're left asking "well what do we do then?" Answering that is the ultimate concern.
I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.
I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine.
The quote is attributed to Socrates but probably came from Plato's writings since Socrates never wrote anything down.. But since it is a translation known as the Socratic paradox and refers to the essence of Plato's apology, I see no reason to doubt it.
For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.?
When Socrates was told the Oracle claimed Socrates to be the wisest man in Athens, he wondered how it can be true since he knows nothing.
Simone Weil Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.
The opinions concerning the economic situation are all well known and part of cave life. The value of real philosophy is exposing the human condition for what it is and opening one to the possibility for leaving the cave.
Would you be so kind as to draw a distinction with a relevant difference between what Nickolas said and that which is attributed to Socrates which apparently he never said? How are the two "not at all equivalent"? Thanks.
Then came the realization only those properly processed through college education would get a bureaucratic job or sit in the seats of power. Their vision of the world is their college education and that education was so lacking it wasn't teaching them about life. Or it could have just my professor who would only accept information that came from the abstracts in the last ten years.
I have to run- bottom line, I saw a lot wrong with education and the preparation of students. Your book sounds very interesting!
By contrast someone who believes they know they know nothing has a false view. For if they 'know' that they know nothing then they know something, not nothing.
So only someone lacking in wisdom but loving of maxims would say "the only true wisdom is knowing one knows nothing". And that's not Socrates.
Since philosophy concerns generalities – "how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term" (Sellars) – I find 'how we (ought to) do' more adequate to philosophical inquiry than 'what we (ought to) do', but maybe your project will break new ground.
So when you say "The simple fact is that Socrates never said it", what you really meant to say is that we have no evidence that he said it, nor would he have said it if he were wise.
Would one not be be wiser to admit they don't know that Socrates didn't say something?
I believe Socrates never uttered those words. I am very well justified in that belief. And if - as it is - it is also true that he never said them, then I know that he never said them. If I thought I knew that I didn't know whether he said them or not I would be unwise, not wise. It is not wise to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge.
In my opinion, you run afoul of the admonition that you agree is wise. You said "His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it." Yet you claim to know what you do not know. You jump from that which you allege to be a fact, to an admission that it is merely your belief, and that you think your belief is well founded. Then you jump back to the truth of it as proof that he never said it.
Quoting Bartricks
I believe you would be very wise to know that you do not know what Socrates did not say. It's not a matter of you knowing that you don't know. It's that you don't know. You weren't there and you have not kept a record of every word uttered by Socrates. You have not received knowledge by claiming you know something you do not know. Quite the contrary. It is unwise to do so.
To assume you know Socrates never said something when you have no proof that he did not, makes your "belief" no better than a lover of maxims. It is assumed Socrates was wise. That does not mean he didn't say something that you don't know he did not say.
Again, "to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge is the opposite of wise" (Bartricks).
Am I wise if I think I do not know whether he said that or not?
I think it might be wise to let you have the last word.
I do see 'standing around doing nothing' while the ship sinks as one of the dangers of the current philosophers. Also, saying we don't know anything, as discussed by a few people here, whether Socrates said it or not, doesn't seem particularly helpful. All this would seem like dismissing the philosophical quest. It seems better to try to put ideas together systematically, as you are doing.
The same is true in respect of "The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing". It's not something Socrates said. It's something people who have not read the Apology think he said because that's what youtube and wikipedia have told them. It's an incredibly stupid saying - it doesn't make sense - and that's sufficient to make it incredibly unreasonable to think Socrates said it. That and the fact it was just made up.
Yes, I think that it is unlikely that Socrates said that we can't know anything. Of course, we cannot know everything, but to settle for just saying that we don't know anything would seem to defeat the whole purpose of philosophy. However, our knowledge is limited and life is unpredictable.
:up: Thanks :cool:
It is a good question and one that I find difficult to answer, because I have a rather deductive mind. For me, understanding the assumptions (theory) might lead to increased well being in practice. Is that reasonable, I do not know, but I do think that there is some sort of equivocation at play in the word philosophy. On the one hand ones own growth spriitual growth or, maybe more apt edification and the other the first principles aka metaphysics. They are linked, but just as theory and practice are linked and they are in common parlance separated. I consider that the question of existential implications belong to 'prudentia', practical wisdom. Of course prudencia and scientia are related, but at least to me, not the same thing. I feel philosophy belngs to the realm of scientia and for instance my work as a lawyer to prudentia. even though I try to take just decisions.
I very much agree. A question, I suppose, is which is the independent value and which dependent – the priority of the relation? I say "prudencia" before (with, of course, positive feedback from) "scientia". What say you?
Philosophy was written before mass education or it was based on the Bible and the earlier philosophies and it did not include women. I am so accustomed to males saying my posts have no value I just ignore them. It would be wonderful to replay history, with women always having equality and being as respected as males. :lol: I am sure when speaking of philosopher-kings, people are thinking of strong males who do not listen to those foolish women. I am quite sure that sends my alarms off much more than a man would be alarmed by the notion of philosopher-kings. Maybe a hundred years from now men will find value in what a woman says? It is a cultural thing. Not all cultures are so patriarchal.
.
Lately I have been immersed much more in the social sciences and in law than in philosophy and you see the same dichotomy over and over again. I keep holding on to the same thing here as I have in the past. The relation is dialectical, i.e. mutually constitutive. I do not see a primacy over prudentia because it might give you the right outcome but not tell you why it is the right outcome and the same goes for scientia, it might give you rules (or structures, or whatever universal) but what is a rule if there is no-one to apply it? It is a chicken and egg question. What came first? Well the process through which chickens and eggs were created. in Hegelian terms ; the movement of the concept ;) (Incidentally I now work wihat a prof who does not allow the G.W.F.' s name to be spoken aloud...)
What do you make of Žižek's Lacanization of Hegelian Marxism? (Sorry :yikes: ...well, not really :smirk:)
Some notes on Hadot from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
https://iep.utm.edu/hadot/
Agree with the opening line. I think analytical philosophy, typical of the English-speaking universities, is devoid of many truly philosophical insights, having reduced philosophy to a formulaic discipline of 'positions' which are almost entirely intended for an audience of specialist peers. There's a few breakout philosophers who succeed in writing for a non-specialist audience, like Alain De Bouton, Jules Evans, Mary Midgely (recently deceased), Raymond Tallis, and Thomas Nagel. And I guess Žižek has to be included because he's well-known outside academia. Can't think of many others.
The last paragraph, about the 'practices of self-mastery', is a lot like what is sometimes taught, and what should be taught, by Buddhist teaching centres, as their conception of practice amounts to something very like 'philosophy as a way of life'.
I like the four aspects offered by Jung. Self-awareness seems very important to me and thinking of the four aspects can help us develop self-awareness. You appear to be emotionally calm and I am not sure why you would need to work your emotions? Now if you were excitable that could be something you would want to change. But contemplative and calm is a good thing.
Meditation is something we might all benefit from because our brains chatter so much and can be very fickle! But it can be hard for me to be still and meditate so I like walking or swimming while meditating. I have also found doing math helps settle my brain down and helps me focus. Sometimes I get too excited while reading and that is when turning to math is most helpful. I might go back and further between math and reading.
Personally, I use college lectures and other audio explanations of life to calm my mind and fall asleep. It has to be something interesting enough to hold my attention, especially if I am upset about something. Also, the quality of the speaker's voice is very important. I have heard so many professors who are bad speakers, that I think voice training should be mandatory for professors. I really want to know what they have to say but if their voices are irritating I can not listen for long. Long ago, a sociology professor put me to sleep every day in his class. I really wanted to hear what he had to say, so I was totally focused on his words, but his voice was so monotone it was hypnotic and I could not stay awake. :rofl: That is why I use lectures for falling asleep.
Now that would be worthy of a great civilization! Poverty does not have to mean ignorance. With libraries and other resources, we can educate ourselves for free and with relatively little money we can get even more. If I am traveling, I like to read about the history of the place I will be visiting. It is really fun if the traveling is done by train and takes a few days giving me time for the reading broken with the experience of the adventure.
It is appalling that the US stopped funding public broadcasting and the stations must beg for money. This has resulted in many hours of cooking shows instead of programs that could be more worthy of our time. The mass ignorance in the US is inexcusable. I am sure we could do better. Living in the sunshine has to be better than living in the cave. Wanting to be enlightened is better than wanting to remain ignorant.
I agree completely, and it's no mere coincidence that my political philosophy is modeled on my philosophy of academics, and in both I treat governance as analogous to education. In my view, governance properly understood is basically a form of moral education, and it therefore needs to be founded in a properly conducted form of moral research; and in contrast, states declaring by fiat (even majoritarian fiat, i.e. democracy) that something must be just because they say so and don't you dare question it, is as backward a way of doing things as religion. States and religions both operate on the principle of "because ___ says so", and that's no way to do anything; yet we still need governance and education. We've mostly solved the question of how to educate without ever falling back on "because ___ says so"; and my project is to come up with a way to govern likewise.
As I understand, the US modeled its education after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth. It prepared everyone for good moral judgment and for civic and political leadership. This education relied strongly on literature, the Greek and Roman classics, and hero stories from around the world. It was called a liberal education or classical education. My examination of a small selection of old textbooks indicates the classical education was Americanized. For sure American heroes replaced Greek and Roman heroes. We created an American mythology for the purpose of preparing the young, and their immigrant parents, to be good citizens. In 1958 this was replaced with the German model of education for technology, and some have seen a similarity between the past 4 years and Germany's period of the Nazi, with Hitler in power. For sure we now have the reactionary politics that Germany had and we are no longer united.
Some of us find the result of education for a technological society with unknown values; destroying the American heroes and mythology; leaving moral education to the church, very damaging to democracy in the US. So I really want to know what you are up to and what you are thinking about.
I am impressed that we are thinking of ourselves as powerful nations that have international responsibility. This demands a new philosophy because it is not equal to the personal drive for morality and personal concern for entering heaven. Our abundance today is demanding government provide us with a higher morality and we want to know our international moral role.
Science brought us into a new age. Now the power of technology and our abundance is pushing us to enter another new age.
There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people, or culture. It is only through education for a civil culture that we can have liberty.
Online summaries often don't do justice to philosophers but that one captures Hadot's main points adequately. My own stance, or project (as I've been discussing a bit with @Pfhorrest), attempts to bring the modern analytic and existential "tools" to a (spiritual? I prefer ecstatic ...) praxis of unlearning misery (i.e. folly, stupidity) which is both a congenital species defect and, in many forms, a socialized-internalized norm. 'Academic philosophy', in the main, is a historicist and scientistic / literary slog – without exemplifying a singular way of life, or well-being – that merely catalogues specimens of reason-in-amber (or formaldehyde) at the expense of excluding, or deracinating, adjacent (e.g. non-inferential, intuitive) traditions & practices of well-being. This is where I'm confident you, Hadot & I overlap, Wayf ...
I've been doing a long series of threads about it here for over a year now, following the list of topics from my aforementioned book (which is really more a series of essays, link in my profile). The basic (abbreviated) outline of the project is:
- An overview of the definition, aims, methods, faculties, practitioners, and usefulness of philosophy, that then necessitates...
- Pragmatic arguments to adopt general principles that could be summed up as saying that there are correct answers to be had for all meaningful questions, both about reality and about morality, and that we can in principle differentiate those correct answers from the incorrect ones; and that those correct answers are not correct simply because someone decreed them so, but rather, they are independent of anyone's particular opinions, and grounded instead in our common experience.
- A groundwork philosophy of language, as well as specific aspects of its structure (math/logic) and presentation (art/rhetoric), that enable everything else that's going to come to make literal sense.
- An account of the criteria by which to judge something as real, that boils down to satisfying all sensations (observations).
- An account of the mind that has those sensations and does the judging of them.
- An account of the methods by which to apply those criteria to attain knowledge.
- An account of the social institutes to apply those methods and spread that knowledge, i.e. education.
- An account of the criteria by which to judge something as moral, that boils down to satisfying all appetites (pain/pleasure, enjoyment/suffering, etc).
- An account of the will that has those appetites and does the judging of them.
(This is where am right now on the series of threads here, though the rest are prepared already).
- An account of the methods by which to apply those criteria to attain justice.
- An account of the social institutes to apply those methods and spread that justice, i.e. governance.
- An end-cap account of how to inspire curiosity and understanding ("enlightenment") so that people will use those methods of knowledge and establish and support those educational institutions, how to inspire courage and acceptance ("empowerment") so that people will use those methods of justice and establish and support those governmental institutions, and how knowledge and justice combine to guide action in all aspects of life, and how such enlightenment and empowerment can enable us to find meaning in that life and overcome doubts and fears in the face of the apparent futility of learning or achieving anything.
I was interested to see your links, which go back a bit before I joined the site. I think that your project sounds great. The one thing that I am not sure about, however, is your suggestion that we can find 'correct' answers to many questions. I am not just saying that I disagree with it, but that it is a complete contrast to what so many other people on this thread are saying. I know that you are suggesting backing this up with 'common experience,' but many dispute this. Personally, I don't come from the point of view that knowledge is not possible at all, and I do believe in systemic ways of seeing, but it does all seem to be a very careful art of juggling and there are so many competing perspectives.
The US traditionally relied on religion for a culture. This worked fine when it went with liberal education and the transmission of culture for democracy. Religion does not produce a culture for democracy. Disney "Lion King" is not wonderful values for our children! No way would Jefferson and Ben Franklin be taking their children to that movie and leave talking about the wonderful value lesson. A lion king and associating the mass with hyenas is not a movie for democracy. Religion without the transmission of the culture based on liberal/classical education is a disaster! As the author of the book "Eat the Rich" said the US one-parent family policy is not working any better than China's one-child families. In so many ways we are in crisis and we need your book to pull us out of this crisis.
To answer the question in the title of this thread- the essence of philosophy is to have a civilization that does not self-destruct. We need to understand, in a democracy, everyone needs to be prepared to manifest a civilization that does not self-destruct. That is the only way to have liberty, not anarchy, and police state authority over the people.
.
:gasp: You do not speak with education for democracy. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please. It is only the freedom to decide what is right or wrong. Now we may not agree with a law but we protect our liberty by obeying the law. Second, we must take action to change a law or a policy if we believe it is wrong. Democracy is important because we participate in making our laws. They are our laws, not laws imposed on us by a king (or a Military Industrial Complex). Our laws and policies are supposed to be a consensus of the people. Not Homeland Security and being tracked through education, banking, and medical care, federal government control of education, closing schools that do not comply with federal government standards.
:gasp: The education for technology the US has had since 1958 is not education for democracy so we are destroying our democracy. From what you have said this is not just a problem in the US.
I am reading and thinking about what you said to me about democracy, but I think that you replied to @Pfhorrest but did not click on the name, but I have clicked it here, so that may make it obvious that the comment you wrote previous to the one to me was intended for Pfhorrest.
I have thought a bit about how you say that I do not speak 'with education for democracy.' I think that is partly because I don't really have much sense of being in a democracy. I am not really sure that I feel that people in society are listened to by leaders and politicians. I realise that we are not free to do exactly as we please and do believe that we need certain laws, but I do find the implementation of law a bit abstract in some ways. I don't really have much sense of any involvement in the creation of laws and social policies. Having a vote in England seems to be the only involvement, but I am speaking of English politics. I have been on a few marches, but don't feel that the politicians are very interested in those at all.
" Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." ~ Plato
Are there correct answers (opinions) for all meaningful questions? If Man is a tripartite soul lacking inner unity, what is the correct opinion of love? The scientist sees it intellectually, the artist sees it emotionally, while the mechanic just wants to get to it. Yet if there is a correct opinion, how can these three attributes agree if they don't understand each other? How can they evolve from previously formed opinions into knowledge?
I saw that part of Pfhorrest's discussion as interesting because it is questionable whether we can find the correct answers to many philosophical questions. I know that you suggested in a discussion we were having in another thread that we could find truth rather than opinion. It does seem to be an underlying one in many of the threads. It does seem that so many of the issues in philosophy involve mysteries and throughout history people have sought to answer them differently. Obviously, each question is unique. I am inclined to think that, generally, we may only be able to come up with opinions, but that some opinions are far more knowledge based than others.
If you are right it makes Simone's search and the purpose of her life along with those with the same need futile. I prefer to believe there is a small minority who have transcended opinions in their need to experience the quality of consciousness in which truth abides.
Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:
At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes,but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.
I have nothing against opinions but have the greatest admiration for those rare ones who transcended their attachment to them in order to open to knowledge. Isn't that really the higher purpose of philosophy?
It is hard to know, but I would not dismiss the visionaries and outstanding thinkers who have paved the way with their insights. It seems to me that relativism has gone too far in deflating the whole quest for truth.
This is more or less my conclusion as well. Something or another is the completely correct answer, but we can never be sure that any particular option is that. We can, however, be sure that one option is further from that than another, and so get arbitrarily close to that completely correct answer over time.
"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." - Plato
Relativism is nothing more than additional subjective opinions which change with external circumstances. The only people who can transcend relative opinions are those rare ones who have experienced the domain of what Plato called the unchangeable forms. They have experienced the inner cognitive direction that leads to the reality of the forms and objective knowledge. That inner experience makes it possible to transcend attachments to dualistic opinions.
I went through a phase a few years ago in which relativism did seem a really good option, because it did seem that there were so many perspectives. However, I see the relativist viewpoint as very weak, because it avoids any commitment to any specific one.
I think that relativism is a good way of going beyond mere acceptance of what one was taught to believe in childhood, but not a good conclusion to come to in the long term. I see the development of a unique perspective on truth as the goal, but coming to this individual grasp of truth takes time. I am hoping that through reading and writing to come to this. But I think that when one works hard to develop knowledge it is possible to go a bit further than mere opinion.
It's odd that pluralism is readily accepted as a hallmark of a modern or post-modern society, while relativism consistently figures in controversial and pejorative disputes. And yet they essentially are the same thing.
I think that relativism and pluralism are slightly different because pluralism seems to be about competing truths, rather than just seeing them as being just equal. It has some greater sense of constructing a model from the various pictures.
I didn't ever respond to your thread on Dennet because I began a book called 'The Four Horsemen,' involving Dennett, and a couple of others but I just can't get into.
See, I'd interpret that more as relativism, while pluralism acknowledges the fundamental plurality of our collective reality. Pluralism seems more descriptive while relativism has more normative connotations.
Perhaps different writers have used the terms relativism and pluralism slightly differently. However, what I see as the main aspect is that we strive towards finding truth but do not put that of others down as lesser.
Having argued a short while ago that one can go beyond mere opinion to knowledge based truth, am I going back to the point of seeing only opinions? It is complex, because I do see it as problematic if anyone thinks they have the definitive truth. Yet, it does seem that some particular theories or ideas are derived from knowledge and clearly thought out thsn those which just seem shallow, and only a subjective opinion.
Relativist opinions are not competing truths one stronger than another in comparison. They are opinions contingent on more or less universal circumstances, some are scientific laws, some are social conventions, and some others are personal subjective realities. What really has never been shown is that absolutely absolute truths exist at all, anywhere anytime. Moral absolutes are highly desirable dogmas, relative absolutes so to speak, but not absolute logical necessities. Plato's (relative) absolutes dogmatically require a god of logic and transcendent eternity to logically hold. He understood this much, do we?
In the discussion above, I was thinking more about relativism in thinking about metaphysics. I believe that moral relativism is more complicated. That is because whereas reality involves the subjective experience, there is a certain objective reality.
On the other hand, moral decisions have a wider scope, ranging beyond intentions and consequences in the individual's life. The consequences of any action are far reaching, because any given act of a person has benefits and disadvantages for self and others. In making a choice at any moment it does seem that situations are unique and the specifics of circumstances seem to need to be juxtaposed in decisions. I find it hard to see anything which is absolutely wrong in all circumstances apart from murder and rape, which I think most, but not all people would see as almost always wrong. So, what I am suggesting is that I think that searching for knowledge based moral decisions is even more complicated than other philosophical ones. However, I can see that what I have said is probably far from true as an absolute.
Your experience is true for everyone.
Coming from my family and the political talk at our dining table, my sister and I were groomed to be political activists. Also in the 1960s most of us were socially moved to be politically active. We chanted things like "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". It was a really different time in history. Now we are old and President Biden is doing the social things we thought should be done in the 60ties. That might have something to do with having a lot of seniors voting right now.
I was radicalized when the state took my grandchildren. At that time Grandparents were starting to organize in a fight for their grandchildren and the governor of the state wanted to change things. I joined the grandparents and helped them get media attention and to do a conference, and I was at every meeting with the officials. The result of this activity was a complete change in the policy, putting grandparents first when the state had to take children, then extended family and not a paid foster parent unless there is no family. I was fighting for family and therefore far more motivated than normal.
I also was the leading advocate for homeless people, and in my city, the response to homeless people radically changed. I organized the homeless men, we got media attention, we attended public hearings, and spoke whenever possible. I was so glad when others realized something needed to be done and took over. :rofl: That is not exactly how my professors expected a student to use education, but two of them knew I would take a different path and I regret what I have to say about bureaucratic organization is ignored. So much of our power, or the lack of it, is about organization. Here is where philosophy has a problem- it tends to be head stuff, not practical stuff.
Anyway, you speak for most people and a lot of them don't even vote. We have a city council and a county council and of course, state legislature and our nightly news says nothing about what they are doing. :rage: This problem is far worse than it was when I participated in a hunger strike on the steps of the state capital building. We have a serious media problem and a lack of political interest problem. This kicks back to the education problem. Anyway, what I am saying is not philosophy so I will stop. :zip:
One more thing, the US Constitution as about agency A democracy is about everyone being a part of this. Philosophically do we support this or not?
By communicating with each other. The gods argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is an imitation of the gods.
The love issue is very much helped by reading books and articles about it. People who have children might want to begin with reading books and articles about child-rearing. In the past we didn't have near the science we have today, and it might seem cold and counter to emotional love to become well informed, but for centuries poets and theater have expanded our awareness.
But God knows the young people don't want to hear what the old people have to say. We seem to be compelled to rush into life without getting informed. :lol: However, as all civilizations have more and more long-lived people, I am rather excited about how this might change civilizations. If we return to education in the humanities, really exciting things could happen. I hope we return to family values and I am afraid of what might happen as more and more children grow up with single parents and do not have role models for successful, long-lasting relationships, while education grooms them to be products for industry.
Socrates was an example. He wrote nothing. I think the only minimum requirement is to have read at least one philosopher, ancient or modern and then continue on the types of issues that person was wrestling with. But this is my first impulse.
Even this minimum requirement may be superfluous. As long as you try to be rigorous in terms of being honest with yourself and you try to look for answers instead of going through it the easy way - some aspects of New Age for example, aren't very serious - you can be considered a philosopher. The burden would be on those who disagree to say why anyone needs anything more to be considered a "real philosopher".
Yeah, that seems ... well, in my own terms, I conceive of 'relativism' denoting incommensurable perspectives from which to interpret X (i.e. subjective, perhaps "normative") and 'pluralism' denoting complementary aspects of Z itself (i.e. objective). (R) Discrete paths taken on a mountain & (P) topological descriptive features of a mountain, respectively.
Socrates is an interesting role model for philosophy. It has already been pointed out that he was ugly and, as you pointed out, he didn't write books. However, he was prepared to die in defence of his quest for truth...
Plenty of people we don't know, die all the time fighting for they believe in. Socrates happens to be a vivid example in our imagination because Plato wrote about it, and Plato's writing survived for thousands of years. Of course, many of those who die for what they believe in may not call themselves philosophers.
Philosophy is a way of thinking about things, usually in a deep manner. If this resonates with you, and if other people think you are a philosopher, then you are one. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Quoting Pantagruel
Sorry if I'm barging in but by my understanding relativism draws its metaphysics from pluralism as therefore subsumes it as a dependency because relativism necessarily arises when we have the symmetrical conflicts of pluralism. Given relativism's broad coverage across philosophy, it likely has a metaontological range, if not a metaphilosophical one.
Relativism can also be descriptive, evaluative, or prescriptive. Often the last two seem to be called normative relativism. Sometimes the last one seems to be called methodological relativism. Then there is obviously the plurality of domain-dependent relativisms which substantiate it individually (but not globally).
I am glad that you have joined in the discussion on relativism and pluralism, and the question of how they are distinguishable. Your points are useful for considering this.