I guess that there is a possibility that it is so, but what do you base this pronouncement on?
Excessive self-reflection and the issue that philosophy must deal with being philosophical pessimism. How to deal with philosophical pessimism could be a great topic to start. It's an issue because it is a dysphoria of the art of philosophy.
Why not? Maybe some people enjoy wallowing in a self-absorbed manner? The temptation to wallow is uninhibited so, there's really no deterrent to the art of philosophical pessimism, and that makes it all the more dangerous or detrimental to positive philosophy?
So, thinking allowed a bit more about this. I find that there needs to be some narrative to philosophy. If that narrative is dictated by negativeistic pessimism, then philosophy has failed as a form of therapy. The individual concerned with forming an identity through philosophy is misguided by pessimism.
Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form?
Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form?
We're often asked about the meaning of certain terms that are used in talking about philosophy. Because philosophising is so varied and its treatment so complex, the list of philosophy-related terms is enormous. For that reason, the National Philosophy Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), maintains a thorough dictionary of philosophical terms, and each of the HealthTalk Philosophy networks also contains a glossary, such as this breast philosophy glossary.
One area of particular interest is the question of the difference between philosophy cure and philosophy remission. Analysts almost never use the term cure; rather, they usually talk about remission.
Complete remission means that there are no symptoms and no signs that can be identified to indicate the presence of philosophising. However, even when a person is in remission, there may be microscopic collections of philosophical questions that cannot be dissipated by current techniques. This means that even if a person is in remission, they may, at some future time, experience a recurrence of philosophising.
Partial remission means that a large percentage of the signs and symptoms of philosophising are gone, but some still remain. Complete remission would therefore be better than partial remission because with partial remission the chances of recurrence are higher.
Analysts will sometimes refer to 5-year cure rate or a 10- or more year cure rate. What they really mean by this is a 5- or more year remission rate. The longer the remission time lasts, the greater the possibility that the philosophising actually has been cured, but there are cases of philosophy recurrence many, many years after remission begins. So if the Analyst says there is a 95 percent 5-year cure/remission rate for a particular philosophy, it means that after five years, 95 percent of people with that philosophy will still be in remission (meaning that you have an extremely high likelihood of not having a recurrence for at least five years). With people living longer and longer, Analysts can now often give remission rates for 10, 15 or even 20 years. In many ways, the approach to most philosophical treatment is to make it a chronic disease that lasts for many years.
Stan: Alright, that's it! No more briefing! From now on, we take action!
Judith: (breaking into the room) Brian's been caught! They're going to nail him up!
Stan: Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
Wittgenstein would tell his philosophy students to go do something useful.
True that, yet he never abandoned philosophy in his entire life. At one point he thought he solved all the problems of philosophy with the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (TLP). But, his mind was convinced it was incomplete and wrote the Philosophical Investigations (PI) as an addon to the TLP. What went wrong with the TLP was that it assumed facts as mind-dependent, in my view.
It's an attitude. How do you confront a self-serving and uninhibited attitude towards the world? Or you can treat it as a deep mood. What good has come out of it?
Well, that's not quite right. Once, to become a school teacher, but that remission was broken after a few years; and again during the second great war, when he went off cleaning hospitals. Remission, not cure.
It's an attitude. How do you confront a self-serving and uninhibited attitude towards the world? Or you can treat it as a deep mood. What good has come out of it?
Well, that's not quite right. Once, to become a school teacher, but that remission was broken after a few years; and again during the second great war, when he went off cleaning hospitals. Remission, not cure.
But, do you really believe that philosophy is the result of an overly obsessive or compulsive mind? I mean, does philosophy seem to you as futile in living life? Many of the questions of philosophy are systematically inchoate. Take the problem of the criterion, it's insolvable in my mind. So, we frantically search for answers to ill-formed questions, per Wittgenstein.
Is quietism the only solution or ultimate attitude that one must profess after dealing with philosophy?
I'm talking about attitudes formed through philosophy. Much of it seems like rationalizations of some Humean sort, where the passions dictate reason, and reason is only instrumental in realizing wants and needs.
...that's like trying to pull on a rug you stand on.
That's it!
But it's not as if a philosopher has a choice, any more than a cancer patient. Proper medication and good personal practices will help, but there is always the chance that some philosophical problem or other will grab at you, and drag you back in.
unenlightenedOctober 09, 2018 at 07:28#2190460 likes
About half the members here have no posts. The mere sight of us chronic sufferers seems sufficient to cure them entirely. What you see in this hospital are the most intractable, chronic cases, but if you look at the world via a news ap, you will see at once that not merely philosophy, but even common sense has been largely eradicated.
Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form?
I prefer the historical method.
But maybe that's a bit misleading, because there are historical methods -- it's not an all-encompassing sort of discipline, but one which teases out the varied and conflicting narratives that arise in the passing of events. I tend to think that this is actually its strength; you get a feel for the many variances that are at play in reading conflicting accounts, and you get a sense for how much of it is a narrative more than How Things Actually Are.
But it's not as if a philosopher has a choice, any more than a cancer patient. Proper medication and good personal practices will help, but there is always the chance that some philosophical problem or other will grab at you, and drag you back in.
So, then, the question becomes, how does one abandon philosophy? I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. It seems like a feature of the mind to be philosophical, and hence the malaise? I suppose time remedies that problem to some significant extent.
What you see in this hospital are the most intractable, chronic cases, but if you look at the world via a news ap, you will see at once that not merely philosophy, but even common sense has been largely eradicated.
Amen, another one of those pieces of gems from unenthlightened-san.
But maybe that's a bit misleading, because there are historical methods -- it's not an all-encompassing sort of discipline, but one which teases out the varied and conflicting narratives that arise in the passing of events. I tend to think that this is actually its strength; you get a feel for the many variances that are at play in reading conflicting accounts, and you get a sense for how much of it is a narrative more than How Things Actually Are.
Yes, I am interested in books that present philosophy as a dialectical method progressing from Plato, to Aristotle, and so forth. Are there any books like that?
Reply to Posty McPostface That kind of reminds me of Hegel's lectures on the history of philosophy. But that's not exactly what I meant by the historical methods -- Hegel is kind of passe in history writing circles and reading his history is more of historical interest in the sense of getting a feel for Hegel than it is for getting a feel for the history of philosophy.
Copleston has an excellent history if you're feeling like taking a large undertaking. It's long. But then, so is the history of philosophy.
Have another look at PI, but instead of looking at what is said, look at how it is said. It's not just a set of ideas, but a way of approaching philosophical questions.
Have another look at PI, but instead of looking at what is said, look at how it is said. It's not just a set of ideas, but a way of approaching philosophical questions.
Admittedly, I've been fixating on the Tractatus. So, what went wrong in the TLP?
A useful way to think of the difference between TLP and PI is to observe that TLP restricts itself to statements. As such it cannot be taken as complete. PI talks of commands and questions and such, and hence talks of ways of doing things, ways of living.
A useful way to think of the difference between TLP and PI is to observe that TLP restricts itself to statements. As such it cannot be taken as complete.
Statements are good. Nice and short and without ambiguity. Is that the thing Wittgenstein left out in addressing language, that is 'ambiguity', 'vagueness', and uncertainty?
Reply to Posty McPostface "the remission rate around here if we are to believe philosophy as therapy?"
That's your mistake. Philosophy is a symptom, not a cure.
Philosophy can consist in a desire to nail it down once and for all; but that is not good philosophy; it is a manifestation of neurosis.
Good philosophy is descriptive and illuminating of our practices. If doing philosophy consists in understanding our practices, then why should we give it up? If doing philosophy consists in trying to nail it down once and for all, then of course we should give it up.
Good philosophy is descriptive and illuminating of our practices. If doing philosophy consists in understanding our practices, then why should we give it up? If doing philosophy consists in trying to nail it down once and for all, then of course we should give it up.
Then how did some many Marxist philosophers or logical positivists got it wrong? It seems we're stuck between Plato and Aristotle as of late.
Then how did some many Marxist philosophers or logical positivists got it wrong? It seems we're stuck between Plato and Aristotle as of late.
I'm not sure what you mean by "got it wrong"? It could be said that both Marxists and logical positivists have tried to nail it down once and for all, couldn't it. On the other hand they have also added some illuminating insights into our practices.
In other words there are both liberating and neurotic aspects to both marxism and logical positivism. It is not a zero/sum game, I would say.
This is not helpful because I still don't know what your "propositional attitudes" to what I had said are. It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to.
It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to.
I can't see how it is question-begging. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you see it as such.
I guess you can phrase it as trust. If you can't have any trust in my being sincere about some Rogerian agreement, then the issue is a non-starter. Hence, without trust, you can't have any agreements made.
Even if I have no doubt about your sincerity that will still not enable me to agree with what you have said, if I don't know what it means.
It simply means that reality is shared and we can agree that the cat is on the mat if we're willing to suspend disbelief in an external world or solipsistic universe.
You could say that doubt may also be inconceivable to the external world realist, but I doubt that: I would say she just hasn't acquired the intellectual tools to doubt, or has an emotional aversion to it which means doubt is not possible to her, given her current intellectual resources. With greater intellectual breadth and depth much more becomes conceivable; which is not to say that everything becomes equally plausible.
Comments (79)
Would philosophy not be the disorder and this forum the therapist's office?
I'm acutely aware of this fact and feel compelled to express my satisfaction with self-absorbed topics of my interest. Others would agree.
Kudos to you Banno. Your our forum therapist right next to @unenlightened.
I had 5 days of holidays, and it rained on every single one of them. Murphie's Law rules the universe.
And just which topics might those be?
Quoting Posty McPostface
I guess that there is a possibility that it is so, but what do you base this pronouncement on?
Every topic on this forum, I suppose.
Quoting Sir2u
Excessive self-reflection and the issue that philosophy must deal with being philosophical pessimism. How to deal with philosophical pessimism could be a great topic to start. It's an issue because it is a dysphoria of the art of philosophy.
I guess that that is as good a reason as anything.
Maybe if you stop staring at your bellybutton you will lean more towards philosophy optimism.
What's that?
Oh, no; that won't work out well.
Why not? Maybe some people enjoy wallowing in a self-absorbed manner? The temptation to wallow is uninhibited so, there's really no deterrent to the art of philosophical pessimism, and that makes it all the more dangerous or detrimental to positive philosophy?
Everything that is not covered by philosophical pessimism. I would have thought that it was obvious. :wink:
Not quite there yet. Give me some time and I might catch the ball.
Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form?
Faery tales.
Indeed. It seems to me that all this is leading to some form of nihilism.
Best look to the experts to clarify our thinking:
Note that last sentence; there is no cure.
Therefore what? Nihilism rules then or solipsistic relativism?
And can you provide a link or PDF to that excerpt?
Why would you think that? What rules is what you do instead of philosophising.
Here's the link... I may not have quoted it verbatim.
Can you expand on that? I feel that a reference to Wittgenstein is necessary here.
Quoting Banno
Yeah, so philosophical pessimism is the cancer of philosophy?
Wittgenstein would tell his philosophy students to go do something useful.
Quoting Posty McPostface
What's that? This...
??
True that, yet he never abandoned philosophy in his entire life. At one point he thought he solved all the problems of philosophy with the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (TLP). But, his mind was convinced it was incomplete and wrote the Philosophical Investigations (PI) as an addon to the TLP. What went wrong with the TLP was that it assumed facts as mind-dependent, in my view.
Quoting Banno
It's an attitude. How do you confront a self-serving and uninhibited attitude towards the world? Or you can treat it as a deep mood. What good has come out of it?
Well, that's not quite right. Once, to become a school teacher, but that remission was broken after a few years; and again during the second great war, when he went off cleaning hospitals. Remission, not cure.
You lost me.
But, do you really believe that philosophy is the result of an overly obsessive or compulsive mind? I mean, does philosophy seem to you as futile in living life? Many of the questions of philosophy are systematically inchoate. Take the problem of the criterion, it's insolvable in my mind. So, we frantically search for answers to ill-formed questions, per Wittgenstein.
Is quietism the only solution or ultimate attitude that one must profess after dealing with philosophy?
I'm talking about attitudes formed through philosophy. Much of it seems like rationalizations of some Humean sort, where the passions dictate reason, and reason is only instrumental in realizing wants and needs.
That's just a tautology. You've said nothing of import.
So, quietism it is then.
That's right. And in parallel, you asked nothing when you asked Quoting Posty McPostface
So, you agree with this attitude or should it be changed through philosophy? But, that's like trying to pull on a rug you stand on.
That's it!
But it's not as if a philosopher has a choice, any more than a cancer patient. Proper medication and good personal practices will help, but there is always the chance that some philosophical problem or other will grab at you, and drag you back in.
I prefer the historical method.
But maybe that's a bit misleading, because there are historical methods -- it's not an all-encompassing sort of discipline, but one which teases out the varied and conflicting narratives that arise in the passing of events. I tend to think that this is actually its strength; you get a feel for the many variances that are at play in reading conflicting accounts, and you get a sense for how much of it is a narrative more than How Things Actually Are.
So, then, the question becomes, how does one abandon philosophy? I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. It seems like a feature of the mind to be philosophical, and hence the malaise? I suppose time remedies that problem to some significant extent.
Amen, another one of those pieces of gems from unenthlightened-san.
Yes, I am interested in books that present philosophy as a dialectical method progressing from Plato, to Aristotle, and so forth. Are there any books like that?
Copleston has an excellent history if you're feeling like taking a large undertaking. It's long. But then, so is the history of philosophy.
Bingo, thanks!
Not at all - it is "how does one do philosophy well?" It's about working out what philosophy can do, and what it can't.
So, what can philosophy do, and what it cannot?
That's one thing it can't do.
Then give me a general layout, and dumb it down a lot for my simple mind.
Thanks!
Have another look at PI, but instead of looking at what is said, look at how it is said. It's not just a set of ideas, but a way of approaching philosophical questions.
Admittedly, I've been fixating on the Tractatus. So, what went wrong in the TLP?
A useful way to think of the difference between TLP and PI is to observe that TLP restricts itself to statements. As such it cannot be taken as complete. PI talks of commands and questions and such, and hence talks of ways of doing things, ways of living.
It died... :death: :flower:
Post something if you want. We got stuck on completing propositions 2.5-3.0
Quoting Banno
Statements are good. Nice and short and without ambiguity. Is that the thing Wittgenstein left out in addressing language, that is 'ambiguity', 'vagueness', and uncertainty?
Quoting Banno
Sure, but people don't live by commands, unfortunately, otherwise ethics would be solved with the ten commandments already.
Sure; but they are not everything. Sooner or later we have to do things - often with words.
The doing was not present in TLP.
Do you see how this relates to the OP?
I do. But, haven't I already negated that with this noetic or Platonic realization?
On dear, that attitude won't help anything for the poor fly.
Pleasure talking with you. :victory:
I feel ailed and dead inside.
That's your mistake. Philosophy is a symptom, not a cure.
That's I think what I meant to point out. Philosophy can be no substitute for life, try and we might.
Philosophy can consist in a desire to nail it down once and for all; but that is not good philosophy; it is a manifestation of neurosis.
Good philosophy is descriptive and illuminating of our practices. If doing philosophy consists in understanding our practices, then why should we give it up? If doing philosophy consists in trying to nail it down once and for all, then of course we should give it up.
Then how did some many Marxist philosophers or logical positivists got it wrong? It seems we're stuck between Plato and Aristotle as of late.
I'm not sure what you mean by "got it wrong"? It could be said that both Marxists and logical positivists have tried to nail it down once and for all, couldn't it. On the other hand they have also added some illuminating insights into our practices.
In other words there are both liberating and neurotic aspects to both marxism and logical positivism. It is not a zero/sum game, I would say.
I would not assert otherwise. Therefore a Rogerian agreement should be achieved if we're both sincere.
What is the 'otherwise" that you are asserting? I would need to know that as well as what a 'Rogerian agreement" is before I could sincerely assent.
Any contrary proposition you could have to my propositional attitudes.
This is not helpful because I still don't know what your "propositional attitudes" to what I had said are. It's obvious that as a definition your "otherwise" would consist in contrary propositions, but I would have to know just what those contrary propositions are, as well as what "Rogerian agreement' is in order to determine whether I could assent. In other words I cannot assent unless i know what i am assenting to.
Then, we've arrived at a systematically inchoate question if we can't even be answering it without question begging.
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about; so we'd best leave it then if you unwilling to explain yourself.
Is this not question-begging or is it?
I can't see how it is question-begging. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you see it as such.
I guess you can phrase it as trust. If you can't have any trust in my being sincere about some Rogerian agreement, then the issue is a non-starter. Hence, without trust, you can't have any agreements made.
Even if I have no doubt about your sincerity that will still not enable me to agree with what you have said, if I don't know what it means.
It simply means that reality is shared and we can agree that the cat is on the mat if we're willing to suspend disbelief in an external world or solipsistic universe.
OK, that sound fine. I don't think the debate around solipsism vs external world is interesting, or even really coherent, anyway.
Also, I assume you mean "suspend disbelief or belief".
But, it is conceivable to a solipsist that never doubts that could exist in principle. One has to always acknowledge that.
You could say that doubt may also be inconceivable to the external world realist, but I doubt that: I would say she just hasn't acquired the intellectual tools to doubt, or has an emotional aversion to it which means doubt is not possible to her, given her current intellectual resources. With greater intellectual breadth and depth much more becomes conceivable; which is not to say that everything becomes equally plausible.
True; but, trust is the heart of the issue no?
Trust in the other's sincerity, you mean? If so, yes, that is a matter of trust.
Sincerety is King then!
So it would seem; without it the situation would appear to be utterly hopeless.