Are Philosophical questions a lack of self-esteem?
Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self.
I think most serious philosophical questions are based on this.
How else to explain doubting the senses,solipsism,descartes demon etc,etc.
I think most serious philosophical questions are based on this.
How else to explain doubting the senses,solipsism,descartes demon etc,etc.
Comments (148)
where is @Foghorn ?
Not sure you have made a strong case. I think you could equally argue philosophical doubt (as distinct from self doubt) emerges from the human arrogance to know all there is and be in control of all things.
Humans are meaning making creatures, we are bound to speculate endlessly in order to shore up our grip on reality.
I don't think we have to endlessly speculate,unless one is a philosopher with low self-esteem!
Conviction/truth comes from positive self esteem.
Then arrogance is stupidity (un-intelligent), isn't it? Rather silly and worthless, considering it has no legs to stand on. It isn't backed by anything other than delusions of grandeur.
If philosophical doubt is a measure then it begins and ends in just one observation, one doesn't know anything, except that one is and objective world is. The latter is still debatable and subject to be questioned. The rest of the philosophical bickering can be considered speculations in the innocent, but may have other malicious reasons in the conflict mongers.
Therefore, getting off the horse, and approaching the subject matter with some humility is the first sign of intelligence. That is if the inquirer is serious and sincere. The rest is just...well...i better not say it in words..
[quote=Human, All-Too-Human]Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.[/quote]
I think you are confusing low self esteem with humility. Doubting oneself and ones perspective is good philosophy, a necessary part of looking at things from different points of view which is essential to philosophy.
Bravo!
Turn your dialectical skepticism on your own provisional certainty!!!
Provisional certainty! Lol!
I am not committed that that view I simply put it as an alternative to what the OP provided us. It seems to me that he OP's thesis could go in several directions. Maybe what I should have said is that philosophical questions are propelled by human confidence that truth can be identified.
I like food. Do I need philosophy to determine if this is true!
Well, one can backtrack all they want after proposing what seems like a rebuttal.
" Maybe what I should have said is that philosophical questions are propelled by human confidence that truth can be identified."
Then that would be a serious error. It's doubt and skepticism that propels a philosophical inquiry. Not confidence, So......getting off the horse would seem an intelligent action.
I was making the point that what the OP said can go in many directions. The very opposite of a self-esteem problem is just as likely. I gave two versions of an alternative. Neither of which I am committed too.
My comments were based on what was said. I don't care what any person is committed to or believes in. Hope this clarifies. Though thanks for explaining.
Philosophy generally struggles to identify what truth is. Hence the various theories of truth.
I have argued many times that philosophy doesn't matter much in ordinary life. So what?
I just want to say something real quick and end. When you give rebuttals (though you call it "alternatives") , it affects the person's credibility if they switch and say "oh, i was just giving some alternatives, these aren't my rebuttals". Something to think about if you wish.
Well it depends on how you define philosopher but the humility of which I speak is a person accepting they do not know and then trying to figure it out (humility) as opposed to a person who thinks they already know and then trying to figure out how to support that conclusion. (Opposite of humility).
You're welcome to think that. I disagree totally. What we often do here is explore propositions and how likely they are. Sometimes the best way to demonstrate that a proposition is inadequate is to show how an alternative would fit just as well. You do not have to agree with the alternative to use it. It does its job by demonstrating that the argument made by the other person is far from certain.
I think that in trying to see philosophy questions as stemming from fear, you are missing how curiosity and wondering are essential to human life. You make it seem as if the ideal is to be a happy robot, who doesn't ask questions. Philosophy and questioning goes back to ancient times, and is central to the evolution of human life.
I don't think OP is saying that one shouldn't question but his/her point, as far as i understand, is the approach of such questioning. I think OP is questioning the approach. Maybe he/she could have phrased the OP better.
And yes. ideally, the idea is a state where no questions or answers remain. The premise of all these questioning is to come to that, otherwise one will be considered off the hinges if they keep on questioning. And yes, a joyous life seems to be a worthwhile endeavor.
What’s a proper dialectician to do, with so little to work with.
Place has become a farging metaphysical kindergarten lately, I swear.
Therefore, everything is made of words, deep down.
And he certainly lied when he said all he knew is that he didn't know. The myth of the humility of philosophers is a romantic lie. Look at plato,Kent,hegel,schopenhauer,nietzsche,Wittgenstein etc,all arrogant folk who thought they could create some new world beating exclusive model of truth that applied to everyone. Is that humility?
But your self esteem is absolutely vital to your and everybodies self being.
@skyblack has loosely identified that its the approach of questioning everything that i find bogus. It's as if a philosopher thinks he can reinvent the wheel. It's the questioning of things that are already certain.
It's the fact that a life of head in the clouds abstract thinking is neurotic and though good in the short term ends up with no real answers anyway. I mean,for all the years of philosophy there is hardly any agreement on anything! And the ultimate aim of life is joyful expression,not intellectual models.
You want to read books about art theory or be an artist?
Certain in his uncertainty!!! Dogmatic in his provisional certainty!!!
Quoting Mystic
How do you know "Excessive reflection is a sign of low self esteem"? What examples can you cite of the title 'philosopher' being used to bolster prestige?
Also,from the texts and life's of
Nietzeche,plato,Wittgenstein,aristotle,Kent,hegel.
Hegel thought his work was the aim of history.
That kind of arrogance only comes from paranoia and fear,AKA low self esteem. Their esteem comes from exaggeration,lambasting others and narcissism.
Wow! I didn't know we had such a scholar among us! Good to know. If I have any questions about the life's or texts of "Nietzeche,plato,Wittgenstein,aristotle,Kent,hegel" I'll give you a shout!
More like your a crusader for the myth of sustainability,with a penchant for clichéd humour.
I have questions.
For instance, Kent - how come no-one recognised him when he put his glasses on?
Quoting Mystic
Hey, I never tell the same joke twice. ...I mean, hey, sustainability is not a myth!
I like some of em. But a lot of dross in between.
Your timing is off.
And your getting your kunts mixed up...
Quoting Mystic
How gracious of you to notice all the dross in between. Maybe I should give up being a crusader for the myth of sustainability, and become a stand up comedian. Or failing that, a priest!
But practice...
Quoting Mystic
Thank you for your sage advice. But I must away, for even now - I begin a long and arduous journey in search of the one true humour!
Your so much better when not preaching doom and gloom about the weather...
After much philosophical reflection, La Rochefoucauld concluded that self esteem is the reason why we do most of what we do. We want to feel proud of ourselves, so even when we think we are being generous and selfless, we still unconsciously look at ourselves in the mirror saying "ain't I look good?"
That is a rather sobering outlook on humankind, one that does NOT pump up our self esteem at all, and nobody is obliged to believe it, but I think it's a good "hypothesis zero": unless proven otherwise, people tend to like themselves more than they like others, and they are prone to lie to themselves about how good they are.
In this perspective, philosophy is but one of many acts of self-affirmation, an act of pride by the philosopher, which consists in reviewing the deepest assumptions and presupositions of "common sense" (or anything else passing for normative), and showing how they could be rephrased or reformulated better.
However,I have met folks that absolutely do not fit this observation. And those folks come from a place of confidence,not doubt and inferiority.
Yes, and sometimes this self-confidence is well-placed.
But there are those who have no trauma and no doubt and are fully confident. They don't need testing through doubt. Their confidence already expresses their trustworthiness.
They look upon philosophers as either neurotic or going through trauma.
It's at least that.
But in all seriousness, what the heck does low self esteem have to do with philosophy?
It makes no sense at all.
Well,question the assumption Philosophers are searching for truth rather than just bolstering their esteem.
That doesn't make sense.
This is the nature of philosophical questions, they tend to be foundational.
Life is foundational.
Yours is a philosophers disease. Such,that you can't even yet fathom or understand what I'm saying.
Clue; what is the real motivation for skepticism and doubt on obvious facts?
Even if I were to concede that those particular philosophers lacked humility that wouldnt mean all of philosophy lacks humility. There are scientists who lack humility do you think science lack humility because if them?
Certainly philosophy has aspects of what you are talking about, when the discussions go in circles or the topics are endlessly rehashed. Thats a fair criticism in my view, but Im not sure what that has to do with self esteem.
What I would defend is the process of asking questions and what sing doubt as a method to figuring out the answers to those questions. Its healthy to question ones positions and views, especially the ones we hold on the frontiers of knowledge or that we hold most dear.
Doubt as a foundation is negative,and symptomatic of an unsure person. Hardly inspires confidence does it?
If the truth is reliable and valid then one should accept it. I don’t know anyone who uses doubt as a foundation. Doubt is more of a tool in philosophy, part of a method.
I agree there is some wishy washy pointless philosophy that appeals to a certain kind of intellectual sado-masochistic philosopher type bit painting with that broad brush means you miss out in the good things about philosophy, like ethics and critical thinking.
Critical thinking is available to anyone,not the exclusive province of philosophers.
Philosophers can't even agree on what truth is.
The truth of something requires no agreement. Whether or not someone agrees something is true has no bearing on whether or not its actually true.
If you want to learn about ethics philosophy is one source for that. For really deep ethical questions I would say its the best source.
Likewise with critical thinking, yes it is something that everyone possesses or makes use of on some level but if you want to learn about critical thinking you should read some philosophy, or do some philosophy.
But which philosopher has attained truth then? Especially when many are diametrically opposed.
Tell me practically,give me some ethical and philosophical truths you heve gleaned during your critical journey?
People who haven't been seriously tested yet should be grateful for that, and not look down on those who've been tested.
Life is some kinda test. Darwinian, economic or godly, pick an type of test you like best, but it's a kind of test. And rest assured that your turn will come. And you will cope with it the way you can.
Of course, there is something beautiful about innate grace. Most kids seem to have it originally, and then life chips at it progressively. [I]The children who die young become angels. Those who survive become devils.[/i] (Mohamed Choukri - Bread Alone)
While some people live a rather protected life and can keep their innocence longer, generally being an adult means to be able to cope, more or less, with some amount of trouble, and that often takes away facile confidence.
It's when the going gets tough that the tough get going.
Well I wouldn’t say there is one philosopher who gets it all right, but from Decartes to Harris I’ve learned not just things which I think are true but useful methods for thinking as well.
If two philosophers have diametrically opposed views, one or both are wrong. Just like with anything else.
Quoting Mystic
Like I said Decartes “I think therefore I am”. Thats true. Utilitarianism is a decent ethical system and learning about where it is weak helped form my own ethical framework. Being exposed to ethical philosophy in general has helped form my own ethical framework. Ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem challenge peoples pre-conceived notions of ethics and morality and test them.
Ive come to conclusions about ethics, meaning, religion, spirituality, society and people through philosophy. Most of it is of practical value in my life.
I'm not a fan of utilitarianism or the trolley problem as they are too contrived.
Descartes cogito is correct. But blatantly obvious anyway.
No proof needed for existence! He could have said feelings equally validly. And the cogito should also apply to other minds and matter as well.
I'm not saying you can't benefit from philosophy but I would give YOU the credit rather than the philosophers or philosophy you mentioned.
Its both me AND the philosophy. :wink:
If my comment seemed fair to you then maybe your problem is less with philosophy and more with the philosophers themselves when they make appeals to philosophical authority? Beginners in philosophy are often snarky and arrogant about the new tools and ideas they are given through philosophy for example.
That happens, and it is indeed obnoxious but I wouldnt say representative of all philosophy.
Arrogant fools are abundant whatever kind of person you are talking about.
Im not sure what criteria you are using in that assessment but cannot agree. That simply hasnt been my experience.
I love it. It's so dark! It's not untrue. There's something we're responsible to in our thoughts - and it's not clear what that is. I conceive of "it" in terms of the truth value of a scientific understanding of reality, and sustainability as a value, as objective as is possible to be - in that one must exist in order to have values! It's the principle value! Existence - at stake! If in that regard alone there might be dispensation from the Gods to look to a scientifically valid prospect for a prosperous and sustainable future, then Amen! The energy is there, we need it. It will work. please!
How dark is that?
Quoting Mystic
I shouldn't resist. That's the point. And yet I'm enormously careful in my fearless investigations - I have no desire to turn the apple cart upside down. I like apples! I want more apples! More carts! And I want them sustainably - and that's not too much to ask!
1. Everything is philosophical when you dig deep enough. Why did you chose Karens? Why are Karens seen as real bad right now in the US? What's the zeitgeist here?
2. There's also human tragedies of all kinds: disease, accidents, crimes. The list is long. People often try to make sense of what happens to them.
Before karens it was sheep and before then idiots or whatever. No zeitgeist. Common sense observation and experience.
Yes,we make sense of things,that's human,not the province of book philosophy.
Again, the same could be said of any discovery anyone makes. They are finding something no one else did, thats the nature of a discovery not philosophy.
What happened to you? Did a rabid band of philosophers kill your parents or something? Did you just come to this forum to slam the great philosophers? Thats fine if you did, thats what everyone else does here just without forsaking philosophy altogether.
I don’t think the points you’ve made so far have done much to show your claims about philosophy are true, but by making those claims and asking questions you are playing the part of Socrates perfectly.
Thats philosophy and Im sorry to be the one to break this to you but you are doing philosophy, you are in fact a philosopher.
Not everything is as it seems, but thank you.
I quite agree on the deceptions of the human and his/her mind and heart.
Its a depressing trait of the human condition.
Yes.
Well, if your critique is aimed as academic philosophy, I share your doubts, but people do philosophy all the time in their lives. Even "academic philosophers generally suck" is a sort of philosophy.
To let you know Mystic seems to have been banned as well.
Ah, you lasted a long time.
Someone should start a thread on what is your darkest philosophical thought.
My post was a FYI seeing that you were replying to a non existent poster. It wasn't a character analysis.
Not that it matters but curious, how do you know it was a "her"? Is there a disclosure on the profile page?
Not always. Philosophical inquiry can perfectly well come from the realization that appearances can be deceptive. A greater power of observation and analytical thought, curiosity, etc., etc.
It's a tightrope walk. On one side is obsequiousness (low self-esteem) and on the other side is hubris (high self-esteem). Both ain't good for you but one is worse than the other. No prizes for guessing which one. Hint: Einstein's other formula: Ego = 1/Knowledge. Ego (self-esteem) and knowledge bear an inverse relationship.
Anyway, this might shed some light on the issue :point: Scylla & Charybdis Choose the lesser of two evils or err on the side of caution.
This is how psychologically normal people think of philosophy (which they hold in very low regard).
Where would you apply that, other than in relation to optical illusions and similar?
In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc....
But would you apply reasoning like this to things like other minds,the existence of a self,etc,etc.
Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? Or is proof and philosophically reasoning needed for everything?
@Apollodorus @baker
But the question is how a person will interpret and handle such "deceptive appearance".
How would our confident non-philosopher from the OP interpret it?
People typically seem to have a list of things they consider obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic. What exactly is on that list can differ greatly from one person to the next. For example, to one person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is their lord and savior. To another person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is not their lord and savior.
Because of such differences, it's hard to make sense and utility of notions like "obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic".
Well, even "directly obvious" things may become less obvious on investigation and "intuition" is not always accurate.
Proof and philosophical reasoning is needed according to what you aim to achieve in a particular situation and/or in life in general.
I was simply illustrating cases where experience tends to contradict appearance and may cause someone to start analyzing things philosophically. In other words, the motivating factor doesn't need to be "lack of self-esteem" as the OP suggests.
That would depend on the person. My main point was to show that deceptive appearances exist and that their cumulative effect may be to lead someone to critical thought in general and from there to philosophical reasoning.
Quoting baker
That would be rather hard to tell and I think we are unable to find out anytime soon. Apparently, he was banned and unless he reincarnates as one of the many new members ....
That would depend on what you mean by "true". Most things in everyday life we tend to take for granted without worrying too much about the "truth" of them.
Quoting Trinidad
My feeling is that I don't need reasoning to exist as such. Conceivably, I could exist as self-aware intelligence or consciousness without reasoning. However, I don't know what would happen if I stopped reasoning for a long period of time, so it's hard to tell.
Trying to embody the confident non-philosopher: once the confident non-philosopher encounters an illusion, a deception, he blames, faults, criticizes, but he does not reflect philosophically.
Sure, but such things are inconsequential, for the most part.
And, above all, he does never doubt himself. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.
I'm saying you don't need reasoning to know that you exist. It's self evident.
If you put it that way, then you are probably correct. I have no reason to doubt that I exist. So, I don't doubt and don't reason about it.
What about yourself? How do you see it?
And if a person plays sports or meditates they can see working out problems can be done without linguistic thinking.
Is that your personal experience? Do you play sports and meditate? And who or what do you think it is that does those things?
I see a lot of philosophers jumping down rabbit holes and coming to no conclusions. Just look at this forum and the history of philosophy.
Exactly. It appears that the OP is right after all.
The usual Big Issues -- the meaning of life, right and wrong.
Sure, there are such people. What's your point?
Yes. Philosophers and would-be philosophers. Some of them seem to jump down rabbit holes and go so far down that they never come back up.
So, what made you join this forum, if you don't mind my asking?
in religion and its derivatives,philosophy and science.
Its very interesting to study the motivations and ideologies that people produce.
I'm also very aware of the current religion science debates and i find these intriguing as well.
It can't be taught. But like Buddha nature it can be nurtured back to full power. Meditation and sports helps a lot.
Very interesting. I happen to have similar interests myself, though I am trying to keep an open mind and not go down too many rabbit holes, at least not all at once.
So, is people's motivation to produce and engage in religion that is your main area of interest or religion itself?
I'm interested in both,the psychology of religion/science/philosophy and religion itself.
I was brought up Muslim. Have studied almost every other religion,with special emphasis on buddhism and gnosticism.
How about yourself?
Because clearly, some people have it, and some don't, from early on in life.
Then how did those who have it, got it?
"Buddha nature"??
That's awfully general. "Meditation"???
With confident people it is their intrinsic nature,hence my Buddha nature comment.
Meditation and sports. General so you can choose your own type.
Hence, luck.
That's like saying that any type of meditation and any type of sports increase one's self-confidence.
They do not.
No,it's like saying try any of the various sports or meditation that suits you. I have seen them increase confidence. Give them a fair shake.
I'm quite intrigued by how people think so I like reading religion, philosophy and psychology. I think Platonism is closest to Christianity and the most influential system in western philosophy in general, so I would say this is my main area of interest, though I tend to find other traditions interesting too. Do you classify Buddhism as a religion?
I classify buddhism as a religion to many,and a philosophy to others.
Or mop-ping might also work, no?
I tend to see the hierarchy as Platonic and the Kabbalah as influenced by Platonism, possibly via Islamic philosophy and Sufism.
But I agree that there doesn't seem to be much interest in Platonism here and the few threads started by some tend to prefer a materialist and atheist interpretation of Platonic dialogues.
Activity does help in clearing some of that intellectual funk.
Sufism is very interesting.
It's amazing to me that anyone could regard plato as a materialist. Neo platonism is essentially a continuation and addition to platonism. The dialogues are for the novice students and to help debating prowess.
You're in the right place then.
Quoting Trinidad
"Neo-Platonism" is a modern term. Platonists tend to see their philosophy as one system with different currents.
Plato was a thoroughly spiritual and political man acquainted with the mysteries. He is not just the academic some people make him out to be.
What do you think of the Euthyphro discussion?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11182/euthyphro
The actual dilemma only applies to an omnibenevolent omnipotent god,and I don't think the Greeks saw divinity in this way. Neither did plato. The dilemma does destroy the literal concept of an omnibenevolent god,but not the concept of divinity itself.
Like most of his dialogues this is for novices. The real stuff is the timaeus,the Republic,the laws and the unpublished material elucidated by plotinus et Al.
Platos work has an exoteric and esoteric dimension.
Those who think plato was a pure rationalist or dialectition ignore his political and religious goals and his aqaintance with the mysteries.
of the work of the divine is implementation of divine rule. Platos political agenda.
And the final part is merging with the divine,or recognising oneself as divine.
Thanks for that. I think I have included that in the comment I just posted now.