What has philosophy taught you?
Given my Wittgenstein rub of treating philosophy as therapy, does this imply that the activity of 'philosophy' is actually a form of self-actualization?
Spending time doing philosophy can be understood as a form of self-help or self-guided therapy. One learns the basics of valid inference, understands logical fallacies, (hopefully) understands biases and the negative impact of opinions or beliefs in understanding things as they really are.
One emerges from their dealings with philosophy with knowledge about themselves with respect to the world. Arguably, philosophy then becomes a remedy for disquietude, confusion, uncertainty, and even hopelessness. Of course, someone might point out that indulging in feelings of despair or discomfort through continental philosophy and the likes doesn't necessarily equate with positive psychology.
From personal experience, I can affirm that philosophy has caused me to appreciate things more. I have realized that the Buddhist mantra of desire being the source of my suffering. Stoicism has hardened me towards negative externalities. Cynicism has taught me to be less aware of what other people think of me, and instead, with some confidence, continue what I have been doing regardless of their thoughts and beliefs. Wittgenstein has taught me that philosophy should not be understood as an academic goal; but, a lifelong goal of a way of being and to live by.
So, what has philosophy taught you?
Spending time doing philosophy can be understood as a form of self-help or self-guided therapy. One learns the basics of valid inference, understands logical fallacies, (hopefully) understands biases and the negative impact of opinions or beliefs in understanding things as they really are.
One emerges from their dealings with philosophy with knowledge about themselves with respect to the world. Arguably, philosophy then becomes a remedy for disquietude, confusion, uncertainty, and even hopelessness. Of course, someone might point out that indulging in feelings of despair or discomfort through continental philosophy and the likes doesn't necessarily equate with positive psychology.
From personal experience, I can affirm that philosophy has caused me to appreciate things more. I have realized that the Buddhist mantra of desire being the source of my suffering. Stoicism has hardened me towards negative externalities. Cynicism has taught me to be less aware of what other people think of me, and instead, with some confidence, continue what I have been doing regardless of their thoughts and beliefs. Wittgenstein has taught me that philosophy should not be understood as an academic goal; but, a lifelong goal of a way of being and to live by.
So, what has philosophy taught you?
Comments (69)
Some one's philosophy may amount to a way of living. Quite certainly this can be seen in what is called "The Way." Even Jesus has this title for his followers, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
I find it useful to use the distinction between procedural and declarative propositions when analyzing my mind's content. Is this thought (x) declarative or procedural? Does it state something about the world or does it state something that I can do?
When you keep some track of your thoughts, the patterns and the like, rather it be through repeated introspections or insight provided by an other, you can come to self-actualization in the mind, which is a realization about yourself (declarative or procedural).
I don't know if you are fine just the way you go about analyzing things, with your own reference frames or if you think there are other methods. Here I make mention of one. I like the idea that philosophy offers both declarative and procedural content.
Can you expand on the declarative and procedural content you are talking about? I'm quite interested.
Many other great philosophers have endorsed this opinion.
But it is important that the examination is done in a proper manner and only out of bewildered curiosity, and not for the mere sake of profit, idleness or exhibitionism. And not as self-help for psychological issues arising from complex societies. There is psychology for that. And psychology is not love of knowledge, philosophy is.
Stoicism has lost its meaning to the modern man, who thinks it means ‘hardening’ yourself by uncomplainingly suffering life’s more unpleasant moments. But it actually means accepting that whatever happens in nature is perfect as what is absolutely perfect is the very meaning of what is natural. There are no mistakes.
Also beware of the common mistake of overcompensating for confusion. If one is not careful, that humility, though looking nice to other people, can lead not to cynicism but a world-denying mysticism where everything is false because there are no truths, everything ought to be doubted because there is no knowing, and there is no mind besides the senses because everything is its opposite.
Anything new, exciting, or insightful in that answer, @Wallows? I don't particularly think so myself. But that's where it lead me by thinking about it and answering honestly, instead of trying to be quirky or profound, which others will almost inevitably try to be if you attract enough replies, and at least a few will almost inevitably fail. I'm just waiting for the brief and cryptic attempt at conveying wisdom. It usually shows up at some point in a discussion like this.
Wittgenstein taught me a thing or two. He helped me to beware of philosophy and its bewitching tendencies. I am more disillusioned now than I once was.
Yes, there is a certain amount of alienation present with practicing philosophy. In my Life and death class I took at a local community college, the instructor was very cognizant of making sure that the existential questions raised by the coursework, didn't leave students in a disoriented state.
Anyway, going back to Wittgenstein, I believe that his main point that he tried to pass on to others was that philosophy can cause more confusion than necessary. Hence, I suppose there is an appeal to philosophical quietism.
A very valuable lesson indeed.
How has it helped you?
Quoting S
Yes; but, has it made you a more ethical person, who is concerned with the problems of others? I can't say I am a very ethical person. I mean, I do desire the good, whatever that is and I try and put a smile on every new face I meet.
Quoting S
Then you are aiming at being pretentious, are you not? Oh dear...
I went on to give a few examples. But here, have some more. It has helped me to analyse all sorts of things, like stuff related to logic, meaning, and psychology. It has helped me see things for what they are. It has drawn me to certain ways of thinking and acting. It has improved my writing.
Quoting Wallows
Being more concerned with the problems of others doesn't necessarily make someone a more ethical person. It could make someone more of a fool who undervalues their own interests. I'll go with Aristotle's golden mean here.
I'm not very ethical in some traditional respects, no. But that's just tradition. Tradition isn't necessarily what's right. I've learnt a thing or two by way of Nietzsche here.
I try to put a smile on the faces of the customers I meet in my workplace, because I'm expected to do so as part of my job. It helps them feel good, and when they feel good, they're more likely to buy from us. I would much rather treat them with indifference, except the rare ones who are actually interesting. Sometimes I end up spending all day looking for the interesting ones with my lantern, but they're so hard to find.
Quoting Wallows
By waiting? Anyway no, I am not. The opposite, actually. I am aiming at being honest, and that includes honesty in my criticism, and I aim to do this with a conscious disregard for "etiquette". That's my modus operandi.
Did you not say that Cynicism has taught you to be less aware of what other people think of you, and instead, with some confidence, continue what you have been doing regardless of their thoughts and beliefs? That's what I put into practice here all the time. Sometimes it gets me in trouble. Apparently, according to Baden, I've been overusing "bollocks" and "Play-Doh" and "fucking". Given that Baden is an administratior, the suggestion seems to be that if I don't play by his rules, which I judge to be quite superficial, then I risk action being taken against me.
Diogenes was great. He got himself into trouble too, but he didn't let that trouble him too much, or even at all. He didn't merely use colourful language, he masturbated in the marketplace. He also mocked Plato, and told Alexander the Great to step aside from blocking the sun.
You sound like more of a people pleaser. That I am certainly not. Not here at least.
Beginning with what it may be said to do......
“...For, as the world has never been, and, no doubt, never will be without a system of metaphysics of one kind or another, it is the highest and weightiest concern of philosophy to render it powerless for harm, by closing up the sources of error....”
......coupled with what it may be said to actually be......
“....certification as to the pure and legitimate origin of fundamental conceptions...”
.....then personally, I can say there exists a certain kind of philosophy that has taught me at least a more precise and hence more comfortable way to think, without contradicting my experience.
Perhaps "philosophy" is no more instructive or therapeutic than collecting and classifying beetles as a hobby (or a job). I mean, any concerted effort to understand the world is beneficial. The effort, in itself--whether one tracks down the last beetle or not--leads to more organized, wider-aperture thinking.
Some colleges offer classes in "critical thinking", which seems odd to me. Shouldn't "critical thinking" be the modus operandi of the entire operation, from Art to Zoology? Analyzing periods of painting, or classifying plants both involve similar kinds of thinking (well, up to a point: contemplating the difference between two related species of plants won't be quite the same as comparing two paintings).
You, Wallows, are a good philosophic example. You actively ENGAGE with philosophical material - ideas. Students' engagement is what a good teacher wishes for. (Sometimes I engaged; quite often I treated the content of a class as garbage to be gotten rid of at the end of the term. Bad student!)
How to read, and think, critically;
Not to concern or disturb myself unduly with matters beyond my control;
That we are parts of, and not apart from, the universe;
That Cicero was right, and there is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it; and
That there are philosophers, and those who discuss philosophy, who think an inveterate, unrepentant Nazi and anti-Semite was one of the greatest if not the greatest philosopher in our sad history.
Nihilism. Thanks for nothing, philosophy!
I recovered though.
I also learnt that you're an idiot. :razz:
Nice post!
Like a lot of things in life; most Philosophy is dynamic, not static. Exceptions might include Logic and Existentialism.
Knowing the right philosophical questions to ask is a process theretofore... .
You have all the wisdom inside yourself, and it is only the ego that stops us from experiencing it.
Of course, that begs another wonderful question: is wisdom inside, outside or both?
Intelligence is nothing more than
making connections to form networks
of firing neurons and such within one’s mind
which represent the world before us
in some reproducible pattern
as we are taught early on the outcome
of our actions through physical experience;
wisdom is building upon that experience
to make further connections
which allow us to predict outcomes
we’ve yet to experience,
and genius is the extent to which we can take
such connections to the pinnacle
of that which doesn't even have a clear connection
grounded in the real world,
but is somehow being represented
by that which we've touched
and predicted to form the mountain
from which we stand to finally get a glimpse of it.
WISDOM
(wise-dom)
Is the superior judgment, understanding,
And application that is based
On both knowledge and experience,
Far surpassing erudition; a quality of being wise.
The antonym is “folly”.
It goes so deep that one may even
Easily ignore one’s own (conditioned) thoughts
Which arise that are unknowable beliefs
Falsely identified as truth and fact
(A second level view: beliefs about beliefs, sort of).
One who has it may be be called a Wiz
(No relation to the magic of a wizard).
Learning feeds it.
Some run into the walls of life,
Time and time again, ever bashed and injured,
But never ever learning.
“Wishes” seen but only through one’s own eyes.
“Say” that they ought not to,
That they shouldn’t; but,
Wisdom notes that they still do, the reality—
That they can’t, they don’t, and they won’t.
Such is the human condition for some
That may be immune to learning,
The curse that prevents the will
From becoming wider and having more choices.
Yet, the ultimate vision remains available
For the rest and one day the “some”
May be swept up into its sum.
Sounds like a Maslonian mantra: Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being.
That it's not for me.
Icarus.
I suggest a healthy wallow or two ...
:cool:
I learn from - am reminded daily by - philosophizing
• that 'philosophy' is, in effect, the daily discipline of Fools in life-long recovery from Folly via reflective praxes such as contemplating, critiquing, even shaming, public as well as private Foolishness (i.e. idiocy (e.g. vide Žižek, Zapffe) or stupidity (e.g. vide Kahneman, Welles, Cipolla) or bullshit (e.g. vide Frankfurt, Taleb) or ...);
• that medicine for the Healthy (i.e. one who knows that s/he doesn't know what s/he doesn't know ~ 'sad Socrates') more often than not poisons the Sick (i.e. those who don't know that they don't know that they don't know ... ~ 'satisfied Swine');
• that the world - whatever is the case - consists in nothing but answers to which we must supply - re-search/create - the right questions;
• that how to discern the important from the interesting is interesting precisely because it's profoundly important;
• that nothing ultimately matters, including also that it ultimately doesn't matter that 'nothing ultimately matters';
&
Buddha - Don't put your value in possessions. Peace
JC - If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. Peace
Prophet Mohammed - It's OK to fight if the fight is noble. Peace.
Peace is the meaning of life. It's only when a man looks to interpret the word of God that you get abominations and genocide. You get Protestants Vs Catholics, Jihad and all that other contemptible nonsense.
No, it's 42.
Maslow + Heidegger.
Peace is the meaning of death. One rests in peace. The meaning of life is strife.
No, it's 42.
Quoting PhilCF
So I designed my own curriculum, comprising philosophy, anthropology, history, psychology and comparative religion. So, in that context, I'm sure I was an exasperating smartase new-ager, but the staff at unisyd all treated me with absolute courtesy and professionalism, much more than I probably deserved. But I decided philosophy as then taught was not for me, I decamped to comparative religion, which I dubbed 'the department of mysticism and heresy', and did an Hons thesis on Emerson and Richard Maurice Bucke. Much later in life I came to realise that Plato was a genius. And here we are.
To think. :up: :smile:
If you still play, do you still go for electric or acoustic?
Switched to keyboards, although can still play rhythm guitar.
Ask not what philosophy can do for you, but what you can do for philosophy." John F Kennedy.
Hahahaha! that's too funny!!!!
Hey Wayfarer, just remember, before the government banned acid, scientist's were using it and making new discoveries while tripping!
....and keep woodshedding that guitar...better yet, keep jamming with friends!!!! My band's on break :(
That people believe a lot of weird shit, but it's entertaining at that.
You mean, out of those people who are attracted to philosophy forums, many of those people believe a lot of weird shit? Don't - perhaps inadvertently - sully the reputation of all of those people out there (and a few of them here) with enough common sense not to believe all of that weird shit. The weird shit detracts from the value of philosophy, except, like you say, for entertainment value.
The one big exception would be religion. I can't believe how many people outside of the whacky little world of philosophy fall for that one.
Profundity lays here.
Learning to see things for what they are is important. Not necessarily to see through them, as though they're a sham and truth is on the other side. There's often a consensus for a good reason. Too many people in philosophy develop an aversion to what's right in front of their eyes. This is sometimes mislabeled as 'taking things for granted' just because the answer to some questions is obvious. Not everything is an unfathomable mystery requiring a philosopher to solve. What do philosophers ever actually solve, for that matter? I suppose the fortunate ones might solve their own problems which philosophy itself helped to bring about, like overthinking things and learning to unlearn what you already know. The ultimate goal might be to reach a point where you can just walk away from it.
Then there is the distinction between philosophy and philosophyOf(X), with X being mathematics, science, religion, or any other possibly domain-specific choice. The classics are usually philosophyOf(X) with X=philosophy itself. They are not necessarily the most interesting part of philosophy. Domain-specific philosophy often ends up being more interesting than ... meta-philosophy.
Ontology is fascinating and in my impression a naturally-arising question. What is mathematics? What is science? What is X? What is Y? The only problem is that there is rarely a single, generally-accepted answer. The method of ontology may not be that effective. The only sub-discipline in philosophy that is possibly even worse in that regard, is aesthetics. Is there even anything objective to aesthetics?
Ontology is often classified under metaphysics, but I disagree with that. For example, the question "What is engineering?" does not appear as metaphysical to me.
Concerning metaphysics, to cut a long story short, it invariably degenerates into an exercise of infinite regress.
Concerning ethics, I see the same problem as in metaphysics. Like Aristotle wrote, if nothing is assumed, then nothing can be concluded. So, ethics without mentioning the foundation from which one reasons, is just another exercise in infinite regress.
Logic has been annexed by mathematics in the 19th century. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer part of philosophy.
It is epistemology that I consider to be the true flagship of philosophy. At some point, I thought that category and/or computability could replace epistemology, but I have abandoned that view. Epistemology can never be a ramified, axiomatic theory. It is about patterns that are detected "empirically" in the abstract, Platonic world of knowledge. It is not possible to predict by using some basic rules what new patterns will end up emerging pretty much spontaneously. Epistemology is much more a question of describing correctly what you see.
Is philosophy useful? Is philosophy meaningful? You could ask the same question about mathematics. Using a process of abstraction, we tend to remove semantics, until none is left. All that remains is empty structure. Is an empty structure useful? No. You will need to fill it up again with semantics in order to achieve some measure of usefulness. So, by using abstraction we seek to obtain useless and meaningless structures. We cannot complain at the same time that the results that we seek, have the properties that we actually wanted in the first place.
All sorts of things...
The aim, for me at least, was to critique my own worldview/perspective/belief system in order to identify and isolate any and all questionable beliefs. Basically, I wanted to avoid forming, having, and/or holding false belief about anything. The reality check immediately preceding that change was 'earth shattering' so to speak. I became painfully - on a visceral level - aware that a number of different things were not the way I had thought/believed.
An important way of thinking occurred to me via reading and/or doing philosophy.
It involves what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.
Wasted?! Doesn't sound like such a terrible misuse of time to me! I'm in my early 40s and I've been learning guitar, piano, synthesis, computer music production, and music theory for the first time and I am loving it! I wish I would have started playing seriously when I was young! I think music is among the best things we have as human beings. It is among the first things I think about when I wonder if life is worth living. When I hear people advocating human extinction, I imagine the world without any experiences of music. What a tragedy! And understanding and playing it, especially improvising, is far more satisfying than just listening. "Wasted..." :roll: :wink:
If some teenager who plays guitar and enjoys it were to tell me that they might give it up, I'd say, "NO! Now's the time! You'll never again have a brain as plastic as yours is now. But don't just fiddle around with it. Really learn it in depth! If you are going to do it, really do it!"
As for acid, well, I left most of that kind of thing behind, mostly out of fear for my sanity, as my last LSD session, 20 years ago, caused a psychotic break. But I did have some truly amazing experiences that forever changed my orientation toward everything. Not what I'd call a waste of time! Some of the most important experiences in my life involved psychedelics. The beauty I experienced! Thinking about it now even tempts me to once again believe in God! Still, I sometimes wonder if those substances damaged me psychologically in certain ways.
I would bet your drug experiences are partly what led you on the path that you describe. No?
I was being ironic. My dear departed dad, whom I loved, was an Assoc. Prof in Medicine aged early 30’s, world-famous in his field. Whilst not exactly a black sheep, I was also not a shining star career-wise. In fact with the wisdom of hindsight I was simply not ready to leave home and forge a path at school-leaving age. Guitar was the first thing I found that I actually loved doing - much of the academic world, save a few strands of English, seemed completely meaningless. But pragmatically, the odds of actually making it as a guitarist, is like making it as a pro surfer; the mundane realities of paying your way, even if you’re family is well off, soon hit you. What’s that Jack Kornfield book? ‘After the ecstasy, the laundry’. Exactly like that. Had to do a ton of drudge work just to pay the rent. So I will never regret the path I took, but also it never really ‘paid off’ in obvious ways; I’m still doing drudge work, albeit now at a higher skill level (i.e. working on documentation systems). And still trying to improve and practice. But, thanks for your comments, well spoken. :pray:
Perhaps. But your post exhibits the fundamental importance of 'metaphilosophy' insofar as it's presupposed in general (re: topics) and/or in particular (re: criteria-distinctions & methods) by each "domain-specific" philosophy (e.g. of mathematics, etc).
Are you sure?
https://www.behindthename.com/name/jupiter
Everything and nothing. I feel like, after years of independent research or whatever, I just don't really agree with anything anymore. I have some vague inclinations towards Deleuze and Sartre, whom seem to be somewhat mutually incompatible, recently developed interests, which I admittedly haven't really investigated, in Nominalism, Neutral Monism, Zen Buddhism, embodied consciousness, and, apparently, The Absolute, though, have never liked Hegel, and am hoping that this concept is in Totality and Infinity. All that I have is a disjointed assemblage of theories that doesn't really seem to add up to anything at all. You'd think that philosophers would have a lot of good life advice, but the only thing that I think that I've gotten from anyone really is the kind of humility exemplified by Socrates. Albert Einstein once said that "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know", but he wasn't even a philosopher.