You Are What You Do
Some well-know adages:
"...by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
"Actions speak louder than words."
"You are what you do."
I've been thinking about these sayings relative to philosophy (and religion, and even science), and I come to a truism: it really doesn't matter what you think or believe or profess if your actions are awful.
This doesn't negate the contribution of a philosopher, or scientist, or clergyman, or artist -- that, I believe, is usually a mistake. But it should certainly give one pause. In egregious cases especially -- for example, of major hypocrisy (like the Catholic church and the Spotlight exposé).
One can read a Schopenhauer, or Heidegger, or watch the Cosby Show for that matter, and still learn from/enjoy it. But the longer I live, the more pause it gives me. (In the same way a Buddhist monk asking for money (as the frauds do in Central Park) or an obese physical therapist would give me pause.)
Using only personal experience, I am much more likely to seek out and listen to someone mature, well-mannered, disciplined, attentive, and patient over someone with high credentials, wealth, fame, long experience, or knowledge and expertise in some domain (be it "philosophy" or anything else) -- at least when it comes to the most important questions of all (in my opinion): how do I live? What do I do? What is a good life?
In a case where the person is ugly, uneducated, poor, and unknown, but who has the aforementioned characteristics, I'd want to know what his or her secret is. I've encountered people like this in my life, especially in the workplace.
I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth.
I'm sure many others who (rightly) consider themselves educated, informed, and even successful people do the same thing (I'm not claiming this describes me).
All of these important considerations can get neglected in the spell of analysis, reading, consumption of news, abstract thoughts, semantics, and other "internal" activity that really has no effect on my life -- unless put into practice somehow, and very often it doesn't.
For example, I read several papers every morning. Why? To stay informed about what's happening in the world. I consider that important. I often think about it. But so often that's the extent of it -- it has taken up my time, and has no effect on my life otherwise. I don't write about it or discuss it with others in any way, I take no action to change any of it (nor can I, most of the time), and so I often wonder whether this is the best use of my time.
Well, likewise, when thinking "philosophically," when wrestling with what's traditionally called philosophical questions, or when ruminating over something I've read from a dead thinker, I am often left with similar feelings. What good would this be to others? What good is it to myself? Why would anyone listen to me anyway -- even if I was on to something -- if they were uninspired by my life or my behavior?
In conclusion, the point is a simple one: shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?
Figured it's worth pointing out on the Forum sometimes. Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.
Reminds me a bit of the following joke:
"Don't listen to what your teachers tell ya, you know. Don't pay attention. Just see what they look like and that's how you'll know what life is really gonna be like." -- Woody Allen
"...by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
"Actions speak louder than words."
"You are what you do."
I've been thinking about these sayings relative to philosophy (and religion, and even science), and I come to a truism: it really doesn't matter what you think or believe or profess if your actions are awful.
This doesn't negate the contribution of a philosopher, or scientist, or clergyman, or artist -- that, I believe, is usually a mistake. But it should certainly give one pause. In egregious cases especially -- for example, of major hypocrisy (like the Catholic church and the Spotlight exposé).
One can read a Schopenhauer, or Heidegger, or watch the Cosby Show for that matter, and still learn from/enjoy it. But the longer I live, the more pause it gives me. (In the same way a Buddhist monk asking for money (as the frauds do in Central Park) or an obese physical therapist would give me pause.)
Using only personal experience, I am much more likely to seek out and listen to someone mature, well-mannered, disciplined, attentive, and patient over someone with high credentials, wealth, fame, long experience, or knowledge and expertise in some domain (be it "philosophy" or anything else) -- at least when it comes to the most important questions of all (in my opinion): how do I live? What do I do? What is a good life?
In a case where the person is ugly, uneducated, poor, and unknown, but who has the aforementioned characteristics, I'd want to know what his or her secret is. I've encountered people like this in my life, especially in the workplace.
I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth.
I'm sure many others who (rightly) consider themselves educated, informed, and even successful people do the same thing (I'm not claiming this describes me).
All of these important considerations can get neglected in the spell of analysis, reading, consumption of news, abstract thoughts, semantics, and other "internal" activity that really has no effect on my life -- unless put into practice somehow, and very often it doesn't.
For example, I read several papers every morning. Why? To stay informed about what's happening in the world. I consider that important. I often think about it. But so often that's the extent of it -- it has taken up my time, and has no effect on my life otherwise. I don't write about it or discuss it with others in any way, I take no action to change any of it (nor can I, most of the time), and so I often wonder whether this is the best use of my time.
Well, likewise, when thinking "philosophically," when wrestling with what's traditionally called philosophical questions, or when ruminating over something I've read from a dead thinker, I am often left with similar feelings. What good would this be to others? What good is it to myself? Why would anyone listen to me anyway -- even if I was on to something -- if they were uninspired by my life or my behavior?
In conclusion, the point is a simple one: shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?
Figured it's worth pointing out on the Forum sometimes. Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.
Reminds me a bit of the following joke:
"Don't listen to what your teachers tell ya, you know. Don't pay attention. Just see what they look like and that's how you'll know what life is really gonna be like." -- Woody Allen
Comments (110)
Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity, discussing subject matter which is ill-positioned to produce any positive effects in one's life whatsoever. Particularly, when we're talking about positive effects which are likely to be recognised and appreciated by people who don't share our philosophical ideas.
Firstly, with social and communication skills such as being well-mannered and patient in conversation, well, these are just good traits for having people listen to you. No matter what I say, no matter its value, if I say it rudely and impatiently, of course, you are not likely to listen to that. If I don't care to hear what you have to say, it is unlikely you're going to repay me with caring to hear what I have to say, in a normal conversation.
The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. Get a schedule, get your 8 hours sleep, eat healthily, do your regular exercise, put first things first, treat others like you'd yourself like to be treated, groom yourself and the list goes on.
I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion.
It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck.
Perhaps 'abstract thought' (and the heroic posing that goes with it) functions like a drug. Is it caffeine or meth? Depends on the person & phase of life perhaps.
Good post.
Seeking to be the one who acts is also keeping an eye out for who is doing that amongst the people you live amongst. Being visible expands what one can observe. Much of philosophical discourse is entangled with different takes of what is possible and what possibility could mean. It is like anything else, if it is a clue to what you want to find then it is worthy, if it is a distraction, then it is not.
More easily gestured at than explained, of course.
I don't agree with that, but it's not an irrational position.
Quoting Judaka
Very true. Simple in nature but extremely hard in practice. And pretty rare, in fact.
Quoting Judaka
I see your point, yes. But I think of philosophy as something that can be profoundly beneficial. If it isn't, and is on par with video games, then fine. But I don't see it that way. Nor do I put keeping up with the news in the same category -- I think that is important, and more so than simple entertainment.
When philosophy becomes sport, or fashion, or some fleeting recreation, then yes -- one should simply balance it with the rest of your life. But ditto for religion or spirituality -- which is likewise very common. But what's the point of that if it doesn't lead to real change in your life? That was Jesus' point. I see philosophy as much more like spirituality/religion than sports or video games. But that's me.
And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive.
Quoting Judaka
Eh, that's a pretty superficial way of looking at it. Odd to mention after you say philosophy is mostly "recreation," too. Does this imply only what's pleasurable or "fun" is done "for itself"? That's hardly doing it "for itself," though -- which is really a meaningless phrase.
But regardless, there's no real split between "personal life" and some other activity. It's all integrated. Not everything has to "improve" your life, no...particularly things like hobbies, or candy or sex or sitcoms or anything else you like. But the question of "What is a good life?" and "How should I be spending my time?" is hardly an irrelevant question to ask, whether about video games or history.
I'm not arguing they have to be a drag or a grim duty, either. Philosophy and history ARE fun and interesting, of course.
Again, strangely enough you're proving my point by your assertion that philosophy (or history, or politics) is "mostly recreational," while at the same time should be interesting and valuable "in itself" without question. In other words, enjoy sports without concern for your "personal life," because it should be seen as valuable in itself. But balance it well, like a diet -- a little candy never hurts.
Not convincing, really.
I think it certainly can become an addiction, a habit, a hobby, etc -- like anything else, yes. Something we mindlessly do for "fun." And that's fine. But that's not how I feel about it, nor do I think that's how one SHOULD think about it. Again, I quoted Jesus for a reason here. There are parallels. If you claim to be a devout, Bible-reading Christian, and nothing shows up in your actual life -- what's the point of the Bible reading? Or take Aristotle as another example -- you are what you do, not what you think you are. I can't go around claiming I'm a carpenter if I don't have any skills of cutting and shaping wood. (I suppose I could, but I'd be a fraud.)
Quoting Valentinus
I think I agree with you, but I don't think I completely understood fully what you meant here. If philosophy is just a diversion, then yes I think at that point it's on par with these "spiritual" people who are petty, unfocused, impolite, impatient, etc. Just a kind of hypocrisy. It's another form of hobbyism, where there's no real action.
In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking.
The "philosophizing" is not something that has a result or value by itself. For my part, I am not sure at any point whether a particular expression of it concerns what concerns the direct relation to one's life you are talking about.
On the other hand, the same uncertainty makes me unsure of separating it from my agency as a kind of navigation where one can say this ship went here and another went there. The desire to make it one thing or another is one of the issues being discussed in philosophy.
Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there's no value and no result in doing so, then why do it? You argued earlier that there's a value in itself, apart from any personal connection or gain. Now there's no value whatsoever "by itself"? Maybe I'm not following you.
Appreciate the response nonetheless.
Thank you?
Quoting Xtrix
You brought up the idea that some of this activity of thinking was not important to being an active and effective agent in the life we are alive in. I thought I was talking about your distinctions, not mine.
Then I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I don't think it's important; quite the opposite. But in the same way a Christian would consider reading the Bible and prayer to be important -- and I want to apply the point that Jesus made about Christians (or Jews in that case) to philosophers (even amateurs or philosophical hobbyists, of which I include myself): by the fruits you will know them.
What are the fruits of this group of philosophers? Judging myself only (but I know it's true of many others), I am often petty and rude and impatient and aggravated, especially online. Not a lot of "wisdom" there that I'm supposedly in love with, and others are often turned off by that -- and they're right to be, even if they're otherwise wrong about this or that (which they usually are :wink: ).
I'd rather be unphilosophical and live a good life than read philosophy all day long and be a miserable asshole. I guess that's my point.
So I think it's extremely important, so important that I take it seriously enough to ask the question of its effects and its "use" (for lack of a better term) and its impact on us as individuals and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. An important difference between carpenters and self-anointed philosophers, though, is that this site can provide the illusion of doing the work (builds the house of being.)
If someone said playing team sports has helped them with communication, trust, teamwork, work ethic, the importance of planning and etc, that's fair. Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits.
For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might.
Why do I want - or value - an answer to this question that is "better" than those kinds of simple answers? Well, it's not because it's purely fun, I genuinely value a deeper and more considered answer, I value my own answers, which I came to with a lot of effort and consideration. I'm just not surprised when someone who has that simple answer is totally uninterested in that. I personally really value recreational activities that aren't just "fun", I enjoy creating something or gaining a skill.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, that's fair. Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. Therefore, it is a personal question, what is the purpose of philosophy, why are we thinking about it and how do we know we're getting from it what we want? There's no one right answer.
:lol: Touche.
Quoting Judaka
Sure -- again, as I said before, I'm not saying it's an either/or: either grim duty that's "good for you" or fun activity with no other value. I do think, however, that the emphasis being put on "enjoyment" turns philosophy into merely another hobby among many.
And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. Philosophy isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not simply for fun -- it's actually deadly serious, unlike any other human endeavor, in fact -- including its offspring, science. If it's truly happening, it's not really a "hobby" at all. At least that's what I'd argue.
Quoting Judaka
Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to. Most people probably would answer in such ways, and that's fine.
I think the question "What do I want to do with my life" itself may not be considered very "philosophical," but it certainly shades over into philosophy. I see the question as resting on philosophical grounds, as most questions do (perhaps all questions, ultimately) -- namely the one you mentioned: "What is a good life" and then, further, "What is good?"
Quoting Judaka
Exactly. Put another way, it's thinking about thinking. Or questioning about questioning? Either way, I'm seeing that it's perhaps a bit Nietzschean, in the sense of asking about the VALUE of "truth." I suppose in a way I'm asking something similar.
But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? We who engage with thinkers of the past and ask perennial human questions about the world? I can speak for myself, as I have before -- and I have only indirect evidence from this forum. Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight.
That should be worrying to us, I think.
Way back in a college class we discussed whether "who the person was" could be separated from "what the person did". Back then I probably thought that the person's identity was separate from the person's actions. Fifty+ years later, I would now say that "what you are" (your identity) flows from "what you do".
In a number of instances, I don't come out ahead in the "who you are is what you do" formulation. A lot of what I did worked against who / what I thought I was. I would now claim that there is no exalted self above the dirt and mud of life as we live it. Who we are is the way we deal with the dirt and mud of real life.
The way we live our lives--what we do, the actions we take--IS our lives. We can't be crooks on the one hand (like Bernie Maddoff in real life or Tony Soprano in the TV show) and be a good person on the other hand, as both of these guys were to their families.
Don't forget war. But I can relate to the puritanical urge, which is something like an urge to be virtuously effective & significant. We might speculate that genuine philosophy is always political, a continuation of war.
It's this urge that would call the fun approach to thinking a frivolous escapism. The 'warrior' has no patience for the clown, unless the clown is a satirist dissolving the enemy in verbal acid. But there are anarchist clowns whose target is 'the spirit of seriousness' and any principle that wants to organize them into some higher Cause.
The kind of world I'd be proud to help create is the kind of world that abounds in intellectual fun and in which escapism is no longer tempting. On the other hand, maybe we like the drama of of the trauma. I recently flossed while watching Saving Private Ryan.
Quoting Xtrix
I understand. I share your views but I see the gap between those who think like us and those who disagree as stemming from mostly this enjoyment and interest in the topic. I don't say it is recreational to demean it, I say it is recreational because it is not related to our work, we do it in our spare time and we do it because we enjoy it. People who don't do it might be getting fitter or richer than us, having more fun with their friends, competing at sports on a higher level, there's only so much time in a life and we spend it doing what we enjoy. I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ.
Quoting Xtrix
What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality?
Quoting Xtrix
Well, I think philosophy forums can be explained like this; you are a horror movie enthusiast on a forum about rom-coms. You're here to discuss the greatness of the great horror movies but you're instead appalled and disappointed to see all these people being excited about rom-coms, a genre you despise. In many of the threads I read on this forum, I disagree with about everyone, I have a bone to pick with most of the comments I read and it's not surprising. I like to think I conduct myself well enough but probably most people think the same about what I write, finding most of it disagreeable, wrong, misguided - whatever.
The evaluation of our ideas and their worth is a big part of philosophy, why would we think what we think if we didn't see it had value - even just the value of being right. The more time I devote to philosophy, the further away I get from an opinion I would have had if I didn't, I feel more convinced about my way of thinking. Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight.
Quoting Judaka
:point:
I like the honesty. Blood will be spilled. I think we are here for that, even if it doesn't always feel good to bleed.
Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human.
I should whittle this down because I don't think I'm doing it justice, but I'm too lazy, so here's my stream of consciousness:
An Indian (American), speaking of his cultural traditions (I can't remember what tribe), told me "We are what others perceive us to be." I initially took umbrage. After all, it is normal for a Western European mentality like mine to think of ourselves, as individuals, as more than what we show the world; somehow deeper, more complex, profound, better, secret. "No one can tell me what am, damnit!"
On the other hand, there was something about the way he said it, and the context, that bespoke some wisdom that made me want to think deeper. There was some communal, tribal feel to his words.
Where I was saying "no one", he had used the word "others", which is plural. So I tried to parse that. To the extent a single person is perceiving me, I can find solace in knowing that, whether they are mistaken or correct, at least I still get to see myself as somehow more than what that one person perceives. Thus, if someone sees me as bad, then maybe that person is seeing something I am blind to. Or, if I admit that I am, indeed, and in part, bad, then the person is correct, but only to the extent of that part. I think I can live with that. Either way, the perception is part, not whole.
On the other hand, when I use the plural, where I am deemed to be an amalgamation of all the perceptions of all that perceives me, I must ask: What more can I be than what I show to all the world? If I am hiding something about myself, can I really say that what I am hiding is the real me? If I think that my thoughts somehow make me, secretly, some deeper being but I simply don't show that side of me to the world, then isn't that a form of denial?
It makes sense that I am only what I put out there. That does not mean that some individual person can't be wrong about me.
But here is where I think the genius of his tribal, or communal wisdom comes in:
To tell another person they are wrong about me is to tell them that they are not who they think they are, and they cannot trust their own perceptions. I, in a sense, steal their perception. I perceive them as wrong, and to that extent, they are. For my perceptions of them could likewise be entitled to respect. My perception of them is mine, and I perceive them as wrong.
The way to resolve differences, or come to an objective view of a truth (should I deem another person wrong), is not to steal their perceptions, but to offer them another view of me, or the situation.
Who am I to tell the person standing over there, looking back at me, that their eyes are wrong? Their ears are wrong? They are wrong? I am not over there looking back at me. I am here. I might think that entitles me to some greater authority about what is here, but I know it's hard to see myself without a mirror. Other people are that mirror. I may or may not like I see in the mirror, and I might even find the mirror to be flawed, But it is still what it is, like it or not. Maybe that's why I don't use mirrors much. Come to think of it, many a tribal people did not have mirrors, save the occasional still water. So, they served as each other's mirrors, and adjusted their actions and who they were accordingly. Hence the effective use of ostracization, where physical punishment was rarely needed; where virtue was made of necessity, and the respect for individuality, nuance, and choice.
Even if, from some clear and objective perspective, the mirror might be wrong, I don't smash the mirror, or steal it or hide it. It's not my mirror. If I don't like what it shows, then I don't have to look at it. If I think I am better than what I see, I stop perceiving myself in another person's perception of me. I don't look. I stop perceiving. I see how far that gets me. LOL!
The other person is either lying about what they perceive, they perceive it correctly, or they perceive it incorrectly, but they perceive it. I won't steal another's perception. I let them have it.
And if I want to change another's perception of me, I won't argue the point or try to steal their perception.
I will change what they see. But that is only if I care. If I don't care, then I'll do what I do anyway, and I'll be me. But part of my might be wanting to change their perception, if only to change my own perception of me. In that case, again, I will try to change.
I think we are all part of All, and we are All perceiving itself from every possible perspective, human, animal, plant, rock, whatever. Each has a perspective. I'll not try to steal that from All, lest I be perceived as a thief.
I think it's a pretty philosophical thing to feel like philosophy is insufficient. If it's, as @Judaka says, recreational - it can be an art, like conceptual sculpture, art criticism, a combat sport... Religious figures, spiritualists aren't feeling like their studies and rituals are worthless. Us? We read, it can change how we see things. Where else are you going to learn what you learn by practicing philosophy?
Excellent point.
Quoting Xtrix
I do the same thing and feel somewhat similar. But you answered your own "wonder": "To stay informed about what's happening in the world."
"I consider that important." It is.
Now let's turn that around: only do those things that have an effect on your life, using whatever metric you think fulfills that goal. I assume this means, focus on family, work, exercise and the like, but put aside the world and "philosophy."
Would you be happier or more satisfied?
As for me if, If lose philosophy, novels, music and news, I don't think life would be worth much to me. To some, all these aspects could be considered impractical. Then most excellent to impracticality. :)
I see your perspective on being lost in abstract thought. On the other hand, we are gifted in having the capacity to think as elaborately as we do. It's one of the aspects that makes us most unique. To not engage with it some manner, would be a bit sad, I think.
We are here on some cosmic fluke. To try and not engage with this miracle would be "worse than a crime, it would be a mistake."
He was struggling in life so I tried to teach him English. So he could educate himself. To him it felt extremely threatening. Like him trying to teach me weightlifting. Afraid you're getting yourself injured.
When lockdown ends we're going out for dinner again. Making stupid jokes and talking about shallow things again. It's our common ground. Where we can be happy in each other's company.
You know, at the end of the day this is a virtual reality. I'd rather be here than at an actual insurrection.
I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself.
I remember the press I used to trust getting in line behind, and cowering before those who said "You don't support the troops!" and "You can't question a President in a time of war" etc. A good, liberal press, stood back and chewed their nails. They should have stood up on their hind legs. Credibility is a strange thing: hard to earn, easy to lose, and even harder to get back.
I would periodically go off into the wilderness for a month or more. No comm with another human being. While it did not happen on the occasion of 9/11, I often wonder, what if I had gone in on 9/10 and come out a month later, with the world all a-flutter? Would my absence have meant shit to anyone, including me? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO! In fact, the lack of jet trails in the sky would possibly have been the only thing I noticed, and that would have been a good thing. So natural should be such a state, that maybe I would not have even noticed that.
So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. Especially if "intelligence" gets a body all spun up on the BS of mankind. Too each his own, I reckon.
That's true. It's not easy to find sources one believes to be reliable, but with some looking around it's achievable. Bias is probably impossible to avoid and that's not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think.
Quoting James Riley
Also true. But then we could've had a similar attitude to WWII, Vietnam, heck, even events in Ancient Greece. There's nothing wrong with not caring much or finding it less useful or valuable. But are such events important? I'd be hard to argue otherwise.
Quoting James Riley
That's what really matters at bottom.
I mean if you find something interesting or important and other people do not, what can you say aside from platitudes: "I think learning how we got here is Important", "We should be concerned about Global Warming or Nuclear Wars or wars in general." (?)
But as you said to each his own. It would be boring if we all agreed on everything or had the exact same interests.
Well, I'm glad I survived the brainwashing machine that controlled me for a lifetime. If I end up on the wrong website I only have myself to blame.
Last elections I didn't vote. Felt like Simon and Garfunkel in Mrs. Robinson
Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose. Anyway you look at it you lose
C'est la vie, or even better: That's life!
:100:
:100:
Exactly. How philosophy fits in with that is relevant, I think.
Quoting Judaka
I understand. To be even more clear, I'm asking how philosophy fits in when we look at what we are actually doing in life and ask ourselves "Am I living the life I want to live?" It always depends on the person.
Quoting Judaka
I can't give any formula, of course. But if the tendency is simply to resign oneself in an ivory tower, spending endless hours (however enjoyable) reading texts and pondering realism, and generally not acting in a way that's admirable (to me), while I may agree with this person's writings (or art, or mathematics), I loathe what he is and would aspire to be the opposite.
Again, I'm putting philosophy in the same dimension as religion, really. That doesn't make them the same, but they're asking similar questions.
Quoting Judaka
Yeah, I'm often not very nice. I can't help it sometimes. But I never really gain anything from acting in such a way. People, conversation, and collaboration should be priorities to me -- I know this. Yet how I act often works against these values, for reasons you mentioned: emotional reactions to others' being "wrong" or having drastically different taste. That's a common problem -- I see it all over. Shouldn't philosophers be somewhat "beyond" that? Would Aristotle take my attitude? I doubt it.
And so it goes for others, as well.
Quoting James Riley
I'm not sure what you mean by "what you are". If we are what we do, and what we do is read and write and philosophize, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. My point is that philosophy is different from other endeavors, more on par with spiritual activities, and so if one is truly thinking philosophically and doing so often, and yet one is an impatient, cruel, impolite, miserly person -- these "fruits" signify something fairly off with the person as a whole. Why should I take anything seriously about life, being, causality, or ethics from such a person? Whether they're correct or not, they're basically hypocrites. "Love of wisdom" -- what is wisdom if not also phron?sis?
Quoting fdrake
Where else? By thinking and questioning, and by dialogue with others. It's not only reading, after all.
Otherwise I don't think I fully understood your argument here.
I do agree it's philosophical to ask about philosophy. No doubt about it.
Quoting Manuel
I doubt it. That's the classic "unexamined life." I don't think shutting out the world and never questioning things often leads to a happier life, no.
But again, I'm not against philosophy. I'm actually obsessed with it, and have been for a long time. There does come a time, however, where one should ask about what one is doing in the world and whether it's useful in any real sense, practically or otherwise. If it becomes just another habit, or hobby, then it's another amusement, as sports or news-reading is.
Better examples are Christians who don't live by Christian principles and political hobbyists who don't get involved in the community. Very different, of course, but more in line with those examples.
This is all very personal to me, obviously. I'm not attempting any sweeping claim about what proper philosophy is or even what a proper life is, in detail. This is all evidence and citation-free stuff, so take it how you will.
Quoting Manuel
That's one story, yeah. Maybe it's true, maybe not. I reject supernatural explanations, but I also reject more and more this scientism that's fashionable these days. It's stated with utmost certainty that it's basically become dogma. Who's to say what's a "fluke"? But I digress....
I fail to see the relevance of your story, but thanks for posting nonetheless.
Quoting James Riley
Interesting. This deserves another thread altogether, really. I will say: whether it's a waste of time or not is determined, in my view, by how you use the information you're spending so much time consuming. If it has some effect, even a small one -- in conversations, for example -- then I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. Better to be informed than not. But if you're truly engaged in your community or state, beyond merely voting, then it becomes very relevant indeed. If it's simply another hobby (read: addiction), then the use in that case is just satisfying some craving and little more. Then it becomes especially important to ask: "Does this fit into a life I want to be living?"
Quoting James Riley
True, but my argument is that the cloistered man doesn't have much "wisdom" either. The very fact that one is cloistered, removed from society, is in itself a form of foolishness at times. What's the sense of it all if the world is burning around you? When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?
Quoting TaySan
Here's a good example of how philosophy doesn't always translate to the real world very well. In my opinion.
If philosophers, who are supposed to be thinking, reflective, questioning people, don't have the judgment to make the right decision in this case (the action of voting), then I for one have very little interest in reading or listening to almost anything else this person says. Especially when there are others out there who *do* get it right and are also interested in philosophy.
No offense meant to you -- not voting has its justifications at times, and I think the view of "both parties" being bad has a plenty of truth in it. I used to feel the same way, in fact. I see now how wrong I was, though.
I wouldn't call what I wrote an argument. It isn't a syllogism or a logical form, it's a rhetorical appeal to the alignment of philosophy with purposiveness in life.
It seems to me there are two ways to undermine philosophy as a whole: the naive way and the informed way. The naive way is where you "just don't see the point", the informed way is where philosophy as an abstract praxis has virtues/utility denied of it through argument or empirical observation by someone who's actually been committed to it. The naive way is is practiced by engineer stereotypes, the informed way has a few philosophical luminaries (those inspired by Buddhism, Diogenes, Wittgenstein...) associated with it.
But (pace @csalisbury), there's this tendency for everyone to sometimes engage in philosophical reflection. "Dialogue with others" - absolutely. How much is your life enriched by if you approach a conversation with someone philosophically? I mean you can learn so much, be changed so much, by the words of a stranger if you bring to the encounter any kind of framework or product of sustained understanding. I'm sure you'll have a catalogue of conversations that "you will (and now have) remembered for the rest of your life", how much of that comes with the philosophy? As a means of engagement with the world, being able to be moved by its form as well as its content, so to speak.
And perhaps that's recreational? I mean it doesn't give you a living wage most of the time, but it sustains you, no? It lets you keep going, it imbues the remainder of life with a significance and impact that it may not have had otherwise. It seems to me, if you've got the temperament, philosophy is very close to meaning of life stuff. And you know, it's not like "transferrable skills" is something that's value neutral. It seems to me if you have this kind of temperament, your friends will value you as a guide.
It seems to me very odd to me that insight into how norms/values/life is constructed, how things "hang together in the most general sense" (Sellars) is devalued. For lifers like us, perhaps, the doubt of its utility is just another instance of what we already do?
He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either.
Hold on a minute, my last sentence reminded me of a wild thought I've had in the past: What if the world is held together, through some metaphysical-type prayer that we are not, and never will be aware of? Just a thought. Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making?
Another thought: Those who think humanity needs all hands on deck may be working at cross-purposes. Maybe we need fewer hands.
Thinking out loud.
:100:
That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you.
Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack.
If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you?
It's a terrible position, in my view.
Quoting James Riley
There are plenty of these types who have existed -- mainly bums on the street. Some huddled away in a monastery, some who never interacted with other people at all, etc. Maybe some are/were great people, who knows? And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. If they are like Emily Dickinson, then fine -- but remember, had she not at least written anything down, no one would have any memory of her whatsoever, and she would have had almost no impact on the world at all.
Likewise, I can walk around all my life believing in my own specialness, and how great a philosopher I am, and it's one of those things that can't really be challenged in the way that other activities can -- like medicine or masonry. Anyone can make the claim that he or she is a philosopher, or a special person, etc., and there's often no real way to test it. But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't.
Charlatans and egomaniacs make grandiose claims all the time -- and there's really no way to disprove their claims, which is by design. I see this a lot with modern "artists," as well. So there's an aversion to any kind of empirical "proof" or quantitative measuring, because that may turn out to show how mediocre they really are.
I see a lot of this in philosophy too. A lot of it is just pure garbage. But it affords some people (in the past, even myself) with the comfort that they're somehow superior, yet without ever having to do any real, hard work -- without ever having to do anything at all, really.
That's an occupational hazard in what's labeled "philosophy," I think. One worth looking out for.
Quoting NOS4A2
Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration.
Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions engaging with you -- which I try to avoid -- as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence. Which, given the stakes, I'd still argue are appropriate.
It is an exaggeration, if not an outright fantasy. We’ve never met.
I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us."
Quoting Xtrix
That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. And not parading themselves around so you can see it. Who are you to see it? Who are any of us to see it? That's the ontological problem: all play things made of straw. It doesn't matter what we think.
Quoting Xtrix
I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us.
More lies.
True, it does depend on answers to that question. That's partly what I'm doing: applying that question to our actions, including the activity of "deep thinking" which we call philosophy.
We could argue anything we'd like -- perhaps other species would be better off if we're no longer around, etc. But I don't take those games too seriously. I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief.
Quoting James Riley
Yeah, but now you're off in outer space. Maybe it's the Moon People meditating on Eudoxus -- or anything else you can imagine. I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. Let's try to keep it to the real world.
Quoting James Riley
Fine. But I'm talking about real people in the real world, which I presume you belong to. Yes, that's what I believe. I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid.
I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. Just saying.
Quoting Xtrix
Some more unsolicited counsel: If there is a lack of interest in something, don't engage.
Quoting Xtrix
If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. The fact that I am here, engaging you, proves I'm not with you on that.
I am what I eat.
As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do.
Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):
Quoting Xtrix
So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself?
Quoting James Riley
Again, what field? It's the most basic belief there is, really, other than maybe "something exists." If debating that is what you consider philosophy, then yes I'm not that interested in philosophy I guess.
Thinking is an activity, and so a kind of "doing." But reagrdless, I like to separate them too -- so in reference to your question: first we have to ask "What's worthwhile?" -- and that's a personal question, of course, and worth talking about with others. But if you're right about no one really "doing" much in this sense, then we're very impoverished indeed. In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.
Out doing. You know, helping humanity, or whatever. It seems your waxing on here is equivalent to sitting on a hill top. And even if your participation here were one step better than being cloistered (like you might convince someone to join you in the field) or your engagement here somehow constituted work for humanity, really, you could do much more out in the field.
Quoting Xtrix
The one you want to help.
Maybe I enjoy philosophy.
When I say to look at what people do, I'm not saying that philosophy isn't doing anything. It is. Reading is doing something. I'm meaning it in the context of an entire life, however. So watching sports if fun, and not a problem in itself, for example, but if that's ALL you do, perhaps that's an issue. Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well.
So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.
Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.
Easy.
I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack."
It is I that postulated there might be worth in such a life.
See my thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia
That reminds me of the old saw about the next unborn being a potential Hitler or Einstein. You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
... any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind...
The philosophizing recluse is an extreme, of which there are probably not many actual examples. More common are the professional or devoted amateur philosophers, who are narrowly focussed, and likely involved with other people who are similarly narrowly focussed. They occupy islands with a small number of inhabitants. Their "field" is very proscribed.
There are groups of extremophiles who are similar to philosophers: Old line socialists and anarchists come to mind. They are very narrow in their views, quite restricted in their activities. Actually there are quite a few 'specialties' in which a sort of OCD takes over, whether the subject matter is Jane Austin, bird watching, or body builders.
Most of these extremophiles are not harmful to society; they are more just irrelevant. I am thinking of actual people I know who fit as extremophiles. They are not bad people.
The really bad people in this world are immensely involved with other people as racketeers of various kinds -- Bernie Madoff to Mark Zuckerberg.
Most people fall in between the extremes, in the middle. Their lives are indifferent, good, or bad (a continuum) as they live out the roles, the possibilities, of their particular lives.
From my POV, the quality of a life is determined by what we do, with whom, to whom, by whom, for whom. Any individual on earth has opportunities to make positive contributions in their interactions with other people. Most people act in small positive ways most of the time. When large numbers of people act in negative ways, and larger negative ways at that, life for other people begins to deteriorate. Lots of examples of both the positive and the negative.
You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool:
More fantasy.
Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. For me philosophy is compelling, inasmuch as I can't divorce myself from it; I love it; I enjoy it. I love it partly because it's beautiful, and partly because I get positive enjoyment from it, with just the right amount of effort put into it.
So in a sense, philosophy is a support agent for me too, but in a different sense: it is my wild mistress, I love it for its own being, our relationship is playful and sensuous, it is not something I need praise or a sense of purpose to provide me with.
:point:
(In words, good stuff!)
As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. Intellectually recognising an imperative is one thing, actualising it is another. Philosophy is mostly useless for the latter in my view. You realise that your emotions get the best of you and cause you to act in a way contrary to what you understand to be best, well, that's the same with everyone. Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control.
To me, philosophy is about characterising, contextualising, describing, categorising and so on, as appropriate to the specific context. What a good philosopher produces is a valid, robust and compelling understanding or assertion. This thread is an example of philosophy, you are giving your thoughts about a context, the meaning of action and inaction to you, etc. It doesn't really matter if you're a hypocrite because your hypocrisy would just be a result of your inability to live up to your own expectations.
Actualising your ideals or acting in accordance with your philosophy requires more than just for you to have the philosophical views you have. It requires strength, discipline, repetition, freedom and all sorts of things, depending on the context. Of course, if it is your view that actualising is necessary then that's that, we know where the other stands and that's fine.
I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. What about your views of what should be done about the ultrarich, or the role of the government, or how the oppressed should react when you aren't rich, or part of the government, or oppressed? It is good to be the change you want to see in the world and to be able to demonstrate that you're living in accordance with your ideals but that's a quite specific scenario. And not being able to live up to your ideals doesn't make your belief in them untrue, we aren't perfect and it's reasonable for us to fall short of our lofty ideals and to realise we could be better.
Excelente señor/señora! Muchas gracias!
My very own experience with this idea of teachers who don't look anything like what comes out of their mouths has been male gynecologists in teaching hospitals and no I'm not a medical professional.
I should've taken Kamala's words to their logical conclusion.
Quoting James Riley
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting James Riley
I don't see how this quotation is relevant. What you quoted was in response to this:
Quoting James Riley
I really don't see where this is going anymore, and I don't care too. Perhaps just a misunderstanding. But I'll reiterate: I start with a belief: I'd like to see humanity survive. Therefore, I'd like to contribute to solving the problems humanity faces (nuclear weapons, climate change, unregulated greed, political corruption, etc). If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.
Yes, it is subjective. It's based on a belief that I want humanity to go on. I've been clear about that. Now let's move on to the real world.
I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world. All hypotheticals aside.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I share your point of view. Apart from all those other extremes you mentioned, however, I reserve a very special place for philosophy. I hold it to a higher standard, and so I'd like to at least believe that those who engage with it are above average in most of their decisions (and actions).
If it's not having much effect, I (like Jesus) worry about the state of what we're calling "philosophy." If there's no quantifiable change in one's life from one's confrontation with thinking and questioning, then there's a good chance it's become reduced to what's been called purely "reactions activity" -- a kind of hobbyism.
This doesn't necessarily mean philosophy needs to stop being enjoyable, or that we all have to be perfect beings, but if it's merely a hobby, I worry.
Quoting jgill
Maybe you're right. I'll rephrase: it's not what *I* would aspire to be like.
Quoting god must be atheist
I'm not sure what you mean by support agent. If it's just another enjoyable hobby, more on par with playing music, and nothing else whatsoever, fine. It appears that's the case for many on here. But see my remarks above -- if that's the case, in my view one isn't truly doing philosophy at all. One is treating philosophy as history or as literature or as poetry. But again, this is my own idiosyncracy.
Quoting Judaka
I don't necessarily agree with that, although I think I see where you're going. Look at Stoicism, or even Buddhism. If we forget for a second whether these are "philosophies" or "religions," we notice they're dealing with what philosophers have traditionally wrestled with; self-control, discipline, mastery of the mind, control of emotions, etc., play a very big role indeed.
Quoting Judaka
True. Many deal with these things. I just tend to hold philosophy (or philosophers) to higher standard, as one would for, say, one who claims to be a "holy man," etc. What the "many" struggle with shouldn't really be a concern, if one is a philosopher. One overcomes what the "herd" (channeling my Nietzsche) struggles with, values, pays attention to, etc.
Again I agree to disagree. The entire branch of ethics deals with this very issue, as you know. If you relegate philosophy to the purely theoretical, apart from practice or application, fine. It certainly can be that, but that's a matter of definition and a choice. I look at it differently.
I guess you answered your own question, then, when you asked: "shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?"
You might take your own advice, get your life in order and stop with all the philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing. Get out in the field and save us from ourselves.
I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. You've gone tit-for-tat with most people here who have tried to address your question. What a waste of a life when you could be out doing something.
No, because that question relates to hobbyism. What it's saying is the following: if your life is out of order -- if you're miserable and immature, for example, and see no real changes in your life despite lots of philosophy reading -- then isn't it worth considering putting down the books for a while and straightening it out?
Quoting James Riley
No, I think you are, to be honest. And so far I'm not seeing any. All I see is misreadings. Many of my points are trivialities that you seem determined not to understand.
Your repeated claims of "going out into the field" are good examples. Try harder to understand what the writer is saying, and I'll try to be more clear.
But this could be said of almost any activity at all. I don't follow.
Yes, that's not at all what I'm saying.
Ah. I'm missing the main point, or the point altogether, full stop.
Okay, son. You win. "And if it wadn't for this glass eye of mine why I'd shed a happy tear
To think of all that you gonna get by bein' a winner." Bobby Bare.
In fact, cloistered monks did contribute something: They participated in critical ways in the reproduction of society -- the cultural part in particular. Christian institutions were the source of literate people, for one thing. Young [usually secular] men were trained in the cathedral schools and were hired by important people to keep records, write letters, and so forth. The monasteries maintained libraries and produced copies of books (by hand) for the use of others. There was nobody else doing this in Europe during the medieval period.
The church also Christianized Europe, for better or worse. I don't know whether it was a good thing or not (probably was) but they did it, and it involved a lot of very hard field work.
Finally, the monasteries--cloistered or not--were not inert. They actively occupied the land on which they were situated, making improvements, farming it, practicing the usual agricultural trades.
It is the case that somebody else, some other organization, could have done what the monastics did, but there wasn't anybody else doing it at the time.
There is a convent in St Paul, MN which more closely matches your definition of useless: The nuns are cloistered, and live in concrete block cells where they spend their time praying. Useful? Literally, god only knows. Most nuns have never opted for that sort of 'labor', monks either, though a few have.
Yes. What I said was in reference to a hypothetical cloistered man who "need not contribute anything" to the world. In the real world, monks have contributed a great deal indeed.
Quoting Xtrix
So I think you run into a vicious circle when you pick out "contribution" as having a special meaning.
First off, what does "contribution" even mean here? Let's say it means everyone should spend time creating new technogy or building a house. They should spend their whole day building. That's all they did. What are we building for? If you say survival of the species, that also begs the question. Presumably there are some emotionally satisfying goods in certain activities. Humans need to survive so they can survive so they can survive seems absurd. If you say there's simply "good" in continuing the survival of the species, you haven't justified or proved it.
If you're saying that there is more emotional satisfaction in creating poetry than reading it, I can get that, if theres evidence somehow, this brings more satisfaction. However, if you say writing poetry is somehow lesser than building a house, I would question the evaluation for reasons I stated, of a viscous circle. It would have to be explained more why this is better other than to keep ourselves alive. Ameoba survive..what is the significance of that in itself?
Have you read Rilkmund? According to him, being and trying to be "useful" is a waste of life, a waste of time. Much like the useful people can denigrate the useless people, so can the useless people look down on the useful people. The upshot, from both camps, is that "She is different from me, and I'm all right."
A perfect example of this is a sense of humour. There used to be a dating site, maybe it's still out there, run and owned by a humourless individual. He considered humour, jokes, completely invaluable, a total waste of human effort. To me humour is the ultimate joy, the ultimate contribution. He hated me, I hated him, especially after he deleted my best one-liners. We both despised the other, based on a very fundamental difference, which could only be appreciated by the side that you sat on.
This is the same with the useful / useless division. I am not saying that useless people have the right to call useful people useless. I am saying that value judgment can't be independent of what side you are on... ultimately deciding who is a good person, and who is not (morally) rests in the hands of the judge, no matter what her opinion is. This of course invites the Autodafe, the Nazi-created Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, domestic violence, et cetera.
Is that better? Violence due to different ideologies, rather than peace via tolerance? I should say peace via tolerance is better, and that can't be fathomed again by the "must contribute" faction...
This can't be decided by philosophical arguments, only by grabbing weapons.
I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. As any sane person does.
Having academic discussions about theory is fine, but I’m not interested in that in this case.
Quoting god must be atheist
Again hung up on definitions. That’s philosophy for you. I’m not interested in that in this case. To talk about things in pure abstraction gets us nowhere. To use the real world, with real examples, makes it clearer. I’d like to end child abuse. I’d like to help solve that problem. I’d like to help contribute to solving climate change. Etc.
We have to act in the real world largely on belief and tentative assumptions which may prove to be wrong in the future. We’re finite. But having said that, to let this fact prevent you from acting is a grave mistake.
So I’m going on trying to solve problems, cheap skepticism aside: “Well what if climate change leads to MORE happiness? What if the human species dying off is good? What if child abuse is really good? Can you prove it isn’t? What IS abuse, after all?” ... and so on...
But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself?
Crickey, your own namesake answered that one.
Survival for its own sake is a justification..concept, not will. Oh and do you know how to make a case without interjections and condescension? I mean I can add "dipshit" at the end of everything I address to you; it's unnecessary but certainly called for.
I actually think we agree here (though I'm still shaky on the meaning/usage of 'pace.' I'd long taken it to mean 'contra, with respect' but have since seen it used in different ways elsewhere, so I may misunderstand you.)
From a recent conversation with Snakes
It could be that my use of pace is shite. I used it and in read it as "in deference to", I never even googled the other "in deference to contrary opinion" thing! Sorry! I @'d you because I thought we would agree with each other.
You're asking me my opinion about that? Obviously I have a thousand ideas of what I'd like to see survive -- but that's personal and irrelevant. Why? Because none of those things will matter if we're dead.
It's an odd question, really. But yes, in general I think beauty and love and music and discovery and spirituality and joy, etc., are all worth living for and worthy of survival. If that seems incredibly obvious and unoriginal, it's because it is: we all share these sentiments. Unless we're pathological.
Ok, so intrinsic goods.. got it. What I'm trying to get at is that some of these things are ones that your OP seem to deem as useless.. Poetry, playing music to yourself, joy doing something non-social, etc.
I can see now how what I wrote could be seen in this way -- not unreasonably. So to be clear: no, that's not what I believe, of course. Then life would indeed not be worth saving. Now the argument that philosophy is an intrinsic good, quite apart from its effects or "usefulness," is one I sympathize with and recognize to have plenty of truth, but I feel it's incomplete and out of balance if its effects on one's life (and humanity's collective existence) isn't taken into account, because unlike music and dancing I argue it's not done only for its own sake. (It's arguable that music and dancing are done for their own sake either -- as Handle said: "“I am sorry... if I have only succeeded in entertaining them; I wished to make them better.”)
Again, my view of philosophy as an activity similar to that of spiritual or religious activity is idiosyncratic. But given that belief, I don't treat or judge philosophy as only a matter of enjoyment or as an activity to be done "in itself," although it in many ways often is that.
Can you explain what you think Handel meant by "better" here?
I’ll leave you to ponder it for yourself. Your guess is probably as good as mine.
How do you come to know this? Do your thoughts carry identifiers - 'Justification', 'Concept', 'Will'?
Say I really wanted my species to survive (or thrive, even), everything I did was motivated by that desire. How would I know that what I had there was not a will that the species should survive but rather a justification (and for what exactly)?
The German 'will' is ambiguous as it translates almost to the English 'want' both ways, but it's fairly uncontested that Schopenhauer was referring to desires of some description. So if wanting the species to survive is just such a desire then why would you question why someone had such a desire, as if they arrived at desires by a process of reasoned thought?
What model of 'desire' are you using whereby a rational answer could be given to the question "Why do you have that desire?"
Quoting schopenhauer1
Absolutely not, no. I'm afraid I have no idea how I would partake in a discussion, in this format, if my writing a post is considered an 'interjection'. I mean, one presumes that when you click 'Post Comment' you've finished that particular contribution and other can respond at that point. Are we, rather, to wait a polite amount of time to see if you've anything else to say first?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who'd have though 'crickey' would raise such an eyebrow. and there was I thinking it charmingly old-fashioned. If putting 'crickey' at the beginning of sentence is comparable to putting 'dipshit' at the end then I've spent much of adult life being incredibly rude. One wonders how I've managed to make it this far without being ostracised entirely.
Just thought you might want to know.
That's not what I met by interjection. Blimey, Crikey, For fuck's sake.. those kind of phrases.
Agreed, you are incredibly rude and hostile. You and Bartricks should have fun together.
Schopenhauer believed that every character had its own nature outside of the PSR. Thus although it seems we have a sort of spontaneity, it comes from this nature. The motives are already determined by our nature.
But on a broader note, he could be commenting on willing itself. We can't help but will because it is our nature to strive for something in general and due to the PSR often attaches to a particular goal in the world as representation.
In this case, a justification is needed because there was a concretization of survival, not just in the sense that "I eat food", "I go to the bathroom", "I breathe air", but that this is the only thing of value or worth.
But what I was saying doesn't refer to that. Rather, I was asking Xitrix how it is that his justification is not a viscious circle of surviving for surviving for surviving. And he answered me with things like art, beauty, etc. Which I then answered can be things that are not "contributions" in the sense he thought was legitimate in his OP. So the justification for why humanity should continue was not survival alone afterall, but survival to experience the goods of life. I simply brought up that this could mean things that are not classical "contributions" because contributing in itself is hollow without those goods.
But you turned it into a fuckn sarcastic attack as is your nature possibly. As Schopenhauer says...
Right. Notice he didn't say that's all he does.
:up: :ok:
You weren't happy with, and I quote, "...a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world." My point is that at least such people don't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all.
:clap:
What you don't can often be much more important than what you do.
Yes, theoretically. But that’s a truism. In the real world, anything we do can unwittingly become awful. If we fight against a repressive government, and overthrow it, who’s to say it wouldn’t provoke the next reign of terror?
Perhaps not killing Hitler is better than killing him. Perhaps doing nothing about climate change is better than doing something. Etc.
I don’t see the real world relevance here. I stand by my statement: doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life.
To each his own I suppose and then there's the fact that there are two ways one can make big mistakes with very severe consequences, there are acts (SINS) of commission (my focus) and omission (your focus). It seems that we're both right in our own different ways.
:100:
Quoting Xtrix
This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah this makes sense. What you might want to do is talk to an expert in ancient Greek philosophy or maybe stoicism is ever get the chance because those two areas hit on your areas of interest exactly and the expert in ancient Greek philosophy will be able to distill how the Greeks approached these essential questions very clearly.
Quoting Xtrix
:100:
This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real.
Quoting Xtrix
It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live.
Excelente señor/señora!
What a strange position. Again, if this is the kind of conclusion that “philosophy” results in, then it’s no wonder it’s become a joke.
I don’t see how that statement should be controversial. You’re stuck in some abstracted world of hypotheticals.
I didn’t realize it when I posted, but you’re exactly right: it is very much Greek. All the better!
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Me too. I hadn’t posted much in weeks prior to this. So little is accomplished. Ditto with other social media. And reading in general, for that matter.
Taking more time to simply walk and think for oneself without the aid of any inputs is a blessing, if one is so inclined to make it a priority.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah— and so what comes of all this philosophizing if one ends up stressed, bitter, egotistical, angry, and obsessive? We’re at a point in history where it just won’t do to put your head down and concentrate on minutia of one kind of another. We need all hands on deck— ESPECIALLY those more intellectually inclined.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think if being on this forum were only bitter arguments that you'd be right (I stay away from politics usually because of this.) Also agree that philosophy-identified types can be and often are like thirsty, unrecognized artists, angry that they can't get the deference due to their profundity. But there's a good side too, where one has the experience of sharing in the gift of the tradition. I'm grateful to the philosophers I love, and it's nice to share in this gratitude, celebrate certain insights, get tips and tricks and leads from others.
The distinction between doing and not doing is curious to me. It sounds very Protestant work ethic - 'Don't just sit in your room, get out there and do something!" "Idle hands are the devil's workshop"
But there was a part of being a part of God's favor and grace attached to it. Other than "You're a sack of shit if you don't do X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z is what I deem as good" I don't see the compulsion.
Perhaps a bunch of hypothetical imperatives should be used:
"If you want the pleasure of accomplishment, then do X".
But taking the Protestant out of the PWE, all it says is, "You're a sack of shit because I say so. Well, okay, then. Goodbye.
Everything's an existential interpretation.
Besides, what's the alternative? That we are what we think and believe? Yeah, maybe -- but maybe that's true for cats and frogs, too. Who cares.
Huh? The point is that the PWE has significantly influenced secular culture just as Christian ethics have influenced our human rights frameworks. The vestigial traces of the PWE remains a cultural force inside and outside Christianity. It says hard work is a virtue and laziness is bad and no one gets something for nothing and many other permutations of this sentiment.
Right, so instead of God thinks you're a sack of shit, it's just people that think you are a sack of shit. Not sure what was hard to get.
However, if it's a cultural norm, then what's the justification? It used to be God's grace. Not in secular PWE. Aristotle used eudaimonia for his virtue theory (signaling) to end the viscous circle. Perhaps we can copy that here.
Yes, that's the question. Justification is not always available.... that's the problem with dying religions. As Nietzsche writes, the ghostly shadows of God's death reman with us for a long, long time. As someone from Protestant background who holds no god belief, I am sympathetic with virtue ethics.
Quite possibly but, as you're fully aware, philosophy isn't really about finding definitive answers. In fact, as is repeated ad nauseum, philosophy is all about making sense of issues (questions) that lack a clear answer. Ergo, debate - like the one we're engaged in - is both inevitable and necessary. FYI I'm not claiming that I'm right; all I'm attempting to do is offer a different perspective, one in which what you assert is not wrong of course but is deficient in the sense that it ignores/overlooks an entire side of the story. Apologies if this comes off as unphilosophical.
Anything is arguable. There's “another side” to anything as well, sky’s the limit.
It’s not that it’s unphilosophical — it’s right in the middle of what’s usually interpreted as philosophy. But we have no clue what philosophy “really is,” and if this kind of thinking is what leaps to mind, we’re in sorry shape indeed.
My post was not geared toward extreme (and endless) hypotheticals. Take it as an appeal to common sense, if you must. For the purposes of a better life — for an individual and for humans writ large— I’m talking about real action in the real world.
Yes, certain tentative assumptions need to be made. But they’re so trivial that you questioning them is like questioning gravity. Maybe some people find that fun or profound— I don’t. So forgive ME if that’s unphilosophical — but I hope it is.
Recall from OP: “ Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.”