Are all philosophers insane?

Not insane. Just very talkative. :smile:

Probably YES.

But in a nice way.

It seems that NOTHING is going to be resolved in a philosophical discussion, but the conversation can often get interesting on tangents.

Take the beginning of that last sentence, for instance.

Nothing is going to be resolved:

What is really being said there? Are we saying the discussion is futile...or are we suggesting that we can resolve the issue of "nothingness?"

Sorta like..."There's nothing to be afraid of."

Is that an attempt to allay fear or is it calling attention to the ultimate, unavoidable danger.

We can have insane thoughts when dealing with volatile information such as 'before the big bang'. Harmony can be found in all legitimate theories, that sometimes insanity is a stepping stone to greater sanity, or it is just that.

I'm not saying this insanity is good, but we shouldn't repent all insanity, but to rather guide the insane and analyse strange theories.

Quoting Pinprick

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods. That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong?

yes we are all doomed to always get it partially wrong.

Quoting Pinprick

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results

Of course repeating the same actions in order to, over time, get different results could be a definition of 'to practice'. And practicing leads to all sorts of skills.

Reply to Coben

Isn't that stupidity? Not insanity.

Beating a man to death for wearing a rival football team's attire is a better descript.

There are environments where you can go insane.

I wouldn't rule out insanity, I'd rule out stupidity.

I like it when the lion roars, truthfully thinking that it is more powerful than another because of it.

If it comes down to being either "insanity" or "stupidity"...keep in mind that insanity is sometimes cured!

Quoting wiyte

Isn't that stupidity? Not insanity.

Do mean you the guy I was responding to should have written 'stupidity' instead of 'insanity'? For whatever it's worth, I've seen both versions a few times. Either way, there are plenty of good reasons to repeat actions even if the first results of these actions are under par.Quoting wiyte

Beating a man to death for wearing a rival football team's attire is a better descript.

Of?

Reply to Coben
Yeah.

insanity.

Quoting wiyte

insanity.

God it, yeah.

Quoting Pinprick

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, [i]unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods.[/u] That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong?

I'm inclined to agree with you but I haven't quite figured out where exactly the problem lies - is it with the subject (philosophical questions) or the method (logic) or perhaps both are culpable for the quagmire philosophy is in?

Logic seems to have proved its utility and efficacy in a multitude of arenas; math is worth mentioning since it's become a must if you want to make anything a science; by this I mean that logic has proven its value as a good enough method for truth-finding purposes.

So, the problem likely originates in philosophy itself. As an example, let's take god. It's quite obvious that god's existence hasn't be proven. However the concept of god was probably born from an intuition about an explanation for the world we inhabit. By intuition I mean to imply something not given the adequate amount of thought - a rough idea, so to speak. Also take a look at morality - the basic notion of good and bad precedes formal philosophy and logic. It too is basically an intuition and didn't receive formal treatment until much later. The examples of philosophical questions I mentioned above arose from intuitions, understood herein as vague notions. Isn't it then inevitable that when subjected to the rigor of logic, they should fail to yield clear-cut answers to vital questions? Could it be that much of philosophy today is about tackling vague notions of days past with the precision tool of logic with predictable results - confusion. I don't know if Wittgenstein is relevant here.

Quoting Pinprick

A common, although perhaps inaccurate, definition of insanity is repeating the same actions, but expecting different results. If that is true, then wouldn’t philosophers certainly qualify as insane? If there is any consensus among philosophers, it’s that no single philosopher got everything right. We seemingly argue continuously with each other with usually no one really coming out ahead in any objective sense. Yet, we continue on using the same methods (logic, reason, and intuition) all the while expecting different results (getting everything right).

Now, I have my doubts that we are even capable of pursuing knowledge, or wisdom, any other way, unless you fancy revelation or divine inspiration as better methods. That being said, is it possible that we are doomed to always get it partially wrong?

Empirical scientists never "get it all right". Neither do mathematicians. Neither do painters or musicians, lawyers or politicians, ballplayers or mail carriers. Neither does anyone.

Philosophers are no different from other intelligent animals in this regard. We're all fated to live with ignorance, error, and confusion, along with knowledge, correctness, and insight. We're all fated to fail as well as to succeed. That doesn't mean we don't learn anything or develop skills along the way. And it surely doesn't mean every judgment and every perspective is equally wrongheaded in every regard.

To me it seems mistaken to suggest that the task of philosophy is "to get it all right".

I say philosophical activity is like physical activity: In the first place, animals like us can't abstain from such activity, it happens whether we want it or not. In the second place, we can be more or less ignorant about the fact that it happens and about how it happens, and more or less ignorant about the consequences of its happening one way or another. Once we've caught a whiff of the process, we can take it up more or less responsibly or we can neglect it. Either way we reap the fruit of our action. We become philosophically fit or unfit somewhat as we become physically fit or unfit. The consequences of such habits are not only personal, but also interpersonal, cultural, and political.

Quoting Coben

Of course repeating the same actions in order to, over time, get different results could be a definition of 'to practice'. And practicing leads to all sorts of skills.

That makes sense, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to tell if your skills are improving or not. I guess making fewer mistakes could be a marker for improvement, but does making fewer mistakes get you closer to the truth? My way of thinking is that if you look at the 2,000 plus years humans have been using philosophical methods you realize that our methods inevitably lead to flawed results. It’s like we are continually trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We desperately need a different peg, but none can be found, so we just continue shoving.

Quoting TheMadFool

I'm inclined to agree with you but I haven't quite figured out where exactly the problem lies - is it with the subject (philosophical questions) or the method (logic) or perhaps both are culpable for the quagmire philosophy is in?

I’d question that the problem lies in being human. We’ve evolved to think in certain ways about certain things. Perhaps there are ways of thinking that simply aren’t available to us? We only have five senses, but perhaps there could be other modalities through which we could view the world that would provide a different perspective, or insight, into the way we think? I don’t think there’s any way of knowing if these other modalities could exist, but perhaps they’re possible?

Quoting TheMadFool

Logic seems to have proved its utility and efficacy in a multitude of arenas; math is worth mentioning since it's become a must if you want to make anything a science; by this I mean that logic has proven its value as a good enough method for truth-finding purposes.

Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example.

Quoting TheMadFool

Could it be that much of philosophy today is about tackling vague notions of days past with the precision tool of logic with predictable results - confusion. I don't know if Wittgenstein is relevant here.

I’d say a lot of it is that, but even the new ideas and theories that spring up from time to time seem to be flawed in some way.

Quoting Cabbage Farmer

Empirical scientists never "get it all right". Neither do mathematicians. Neither do painters or musicians, lawyers or politicians, ballplayers or mail carriers. Neither does anyone.

Right, not all the time, but what exactly has philosophy gotten right at all? Is there any subject that philosophy has solved completely? Math has solved arithmetic (how to add, subtract, etc.). Science, by its very nature, will always stand on the cutting edge of discovery and the unknown, but it at least has a very good understanding of the rudimentary levels of physics, biology, etc. Where has philosophy succeeded? How do you know if someone is philosophically fit or unfit?

What is the authentic knowledge, I mean, the completely right knowledge? The knowledge of what it is. What it is is only known by that who can have an immediate experience of it. We, the human beings, cannot have that kind of experience of what it is because we are sensitively limited. The only thing we can do is suppose how it is what it is. A supposition is a possibility. We should approach to the best posibility of how it is what it is.

Quoting Pinprick

That makes sense, but I’m not sure that there is a good way to tell if your skills are improving or not. I guess making fewer mistakes could be a marker for improvement, but does making fewer mistakes get you closer to the truth?

You would be fooled less, in the context of a philosophical discussion. Being fooled less - by your own poor arguments, by the poor arguments of others, by noticing fallacies, by noticing where semantic assumptions are taking place (as a few examples) - you would be less likely to be convinced of things that are false. That is closer to the truth or less far from the truth, at the very least. Quoting Pinprick

My way of thinking is that if you look at the 2,000 plus years humans have been using philosophical methods you realize that our methods inevitably lead to flawed results. It’s like we are continually trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. We desperately need a different peg, but none can be found, so we just continue shoving.

Well, for me this bird's eye view is a very hard one to demonstrate or counter. However from my in situ view, my own practice doing philosophy had led to my noticing when arguments are sound or not to a much greater degree. This keeps me from being misled. Which keeps me from being led into falsehood.

And i would guess, though now we are into guessing, that philosophers today would have much more correct ideas about what is the case, than philosophers from long ago. Of course they are aided in this from other fields, but it also includes their own long work through the generations.

Quoting Pinprick

but perhaps there could be other modalities through which we could view the world that would provide a different perspective, or insight, into the way we think? I don’t think there’s any way of knowing if these other modalities could exist, but perhaps they’re possible?

Well, considering that philosophical problems are problems precisely because of poor logic, don't you think you're holding the wrong end of the stick? For instance, had it been a philosopher who first thought of god, he would've immediately trashed the idea because it's inconsistent and there would be no philosophy of religion. I'm telling you, some, if not most, philosophical problems are of this nature. It's something like a chess grandmaster, the philosopher, trying to make sense of a 4 year old child's, pseudothinker's, chess moves: there's simply no logic to the child's gameplay.



Quoting Pinprick

Yes, but there are other ways in which logic fails. Consider the irrationality inherent in quantum physics for example.

I know nothing of quantum physics, so, can't comment.

Quoting Coben

You would be fooled less, in the context of a philosophical discussion. Being fooled less - by your own poor arguments, by the poor arguments of others, by noticing fallacies, by noticing where semantic assumptions are taking place (as a few examples) - you would be less likely to be convinced of things that are false. That is closer to the truth or less far from the truth, at the very least.

I can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become. I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems. This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job. Or I guess another way of putting it is that some philosophical problems are unsolvable, in that they can never be completely resolved, at least not by using philosophical methods.

Quoting Coben

And i would guess, though now we are into guessing, that philosophers today would have much more correct ideas about what is the case, than philosophers from long ago.

Maybe. I think today’s philosophers can rule out several theories in various fields as a result of science, but it seems to me like the big questions in philosophy are still unanswered.

Quoting Pinprick

I can agree with this, but the issue is that mistakes will still be made, regardless of how skilled you become.

I agreeQuoting Pinprick

I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems

I have no idea what an AI would be like as a philosopher. Symbolic logic can be programmed but applying that to reality - iow semantics, and understanding the world, all the content of useful deduction, for example - is a whole nother ball of wax. It seems to me how the damn this is programmed, 'raised', what sensory systems and information gathering systems it has and the personality that is 'grown' could make for just about anything including a psychopath AI that concludes we are like a mould on bread it wants to eat.Quoting Pinprick

This leads me to think that logic, as well as whatever other philosophical methods, are the wrong tools for the job

Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers.Quoting Pinprick

Maybe. I think today’s philosophers can rule out several theories in various fields as a result of science, but it seems to me like the big questions in philosophy are still unanswered.

Welll, philosophy in general is very words on a page focused. And the one we tend to know is very middle class academic, bow down to science, Western with a lot of assumptions that fit all that. It's a subculture with a lot of pressure on it. And that pressure distorts and limits it, just as pressures distort and limit other subcultures. In general that is. Individuals may break out of that box.

Quoting Coben

Individuals may break out of that box.

I might say, only the individual is capable of breaking out of that box, and philosophy is an essential and invaluable tool for helping one achieve that. I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy (whether solitary or amongst company) philosophy has its greatest value for the individual.

When it comes to philosophizing with each other, we still philosophize as individuals, and all debate can be simply be regarded as an attempt at validation (of one's views) by consensus. Unfortunately, most philosophy in the present day is argumentum ad populum, and that seems like fun to me.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

I might also add: since it is always the individual that practices philosophy

It's a very social field and one is immersed in the other philosophers, as one must be. And there are very strong currents in philosophy. You can't just go off and think. Or you can, but you will likely just reinvent the wheel - since one has absorbed via culture and language all sorts of philosophical assumptions- if one is lucky. One is more likely to reinvent something vastly less useful than the philosophical wheel.

Quoting Coben

since one has absorbed via culture and language all sorts of philosophical assumptions- if one is lucky. One is more likely to reinvent something vastly less useful than the philosophical wheel.

And is it not still the individual who does it all, and to the individual for who it is most valuable, regardless whether that one is reinventing the wheel or merely studying the historic tradition? And who else should it be useful to?

It is very evident that the philosophical wheel has proved to be extremely inadequate in cultivating a healthy society at any place or any time, and has gradually mutated into a muddle of nonsense for people like you and I to play with. It is quite obvious that the philosophic tradition has little to no beneficial value for the collective, other than instilling cultish tendencies in the individual. I suspect that there are very few individuals out there, speaking in the strictest sense, and extemporaneously of course.

But I do mostly agree with you.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

And is it not still the individual who does it all, and to the individual for who it is most valuable, regardless whether that one is reinventing the wheel or merely studying the historic tradition? And who else should it be useful to?

useful to? well to that person and potentially others, depending on that individuals goals. But what I meant was that individuals are both separate from and immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds.

Quoting Coben

immersed in the minds of others. Immersed!. We don't have pure, separate minds.

Well, I'm more than willing to hear how that works out. I always assumed that telepathy was fiction, and that the thought that I experience is confined to my mind alone. Furthermore, how is it that my mind can exist within the mind of another, and still continue to remain my mind?

And even if we are talking about individual minds relating to each other through a collective experience, I cannot fathom how they could relate to each other directly, say through immersion. Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking. If one is to express thought externally, it can only be accomplished indirectly, via a medium of communication ... I certainly have a hard time equating thought and communication.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

Well, I'm more than willing to hear how that works out. I always assumed that telepathy was fiction, and that the thought that I experience is confined to my mind alone. Furthermore, how is it that my mind can exist within the mind of another, and still continue to remain my mind?

Setting aside the issue of telepathy for now, you use language right, when you think. That language has, for example, dead metaphors THROUGHOUT which are ideas from other minds. You have introjected assumptions from parents, teachers, peers, media. Your mind has been influenced by the minds of the books you've read, the movies you've seen and so on. This was pouring into you well before you ever started questioning memes and further even the ways you question and what you question also flowed into you. Cultural biases, and subcultural biases and all the aimed at your unconscious ideas in advertising, films, politics. Sure, you can go off into a cave and avoid all this....now. But you carry with you the thoughts and tools and heurististics of other minds. And this also involves threats within that culture about what not to think and what the ideal is like and so on that will affect how you begin to look at the memes you have. Cognitive dissonence avoidence, denial, confirmation bias in introspection and a host of other factors also trot into that cave also. You are a social mammal with a culture, even when alone.Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

Thoughts are private, when one thinks, the actual thinking travels no further than the mind doing the thinking.

One you start 'thinking for yourself' it's already a fait accompli. Sure, we can unravel stuff, but if you haven't noticed that you parents' thoughts and ideas in media and language based assumptions are still having a powerful set of effect in your mind now, then the great challenge hasn't even begun.

You mind is whatever you identify with 'in there' is immersed and made up of ideas and contructs and metaphors and assumptions made by other people that poured into you - much of it as subtext and subliminal - and to whatever extend to read social media, newspapers, watch films, it is still pouring into you. Even if communication and thoughts were not, somehow, part of a flow of mind, all of that is affecteding your mind and made up its construction as you grew up and also affected whatever tools, goals, abillity to notice you bring to questioning various parts of this.

If you think you are an island, well, you're like those human-made islands in Dubai.

Quoting Pinprick

I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems.

As an aside to this general discussion, but with some relevance, I am proud to know that I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time.

I tend to believe a lot of us, beyond philosophy, are insane, and our image of sanity is wrong.

As said prior, insane is not, as a rawity, completely negliable, you can be comfortablely or intellectually insane.

I like to capture a good thought with insanity about it for some time, sometimes, during my thought process.

Quoting Coben

Logic without intuition, for example, can do very little. Just shuffle symbols, perhaps play checkers.

I can agree that logic is more useful with intuition, but even their combination, along with whatever other philosophical methods you want to add, aren’t good enough to fully resolve much of anything. There are legitimate competing theories in every branch of philosophy with highly regarded and respected philosophers supporting each theory. And this is how it has always been, and I’m suggesting, always will be, precisely because philosophical methods are not capable of resolving philosophical questions like “what is the meaning of life,” “why is there something rather than nothing,” “what is the good life,” “what is beauty,” etc.

Quoting Frank Apisa

I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time.

Lol, I agree. :rofl:

Reply to PinprickLots of things can be resolved, perhaps the big questions cannot. But all this is a long way from 'insanity'. Further I think some of the big questions can be resolved for individual thinkers. IOW they can find a position that makes their life work better for them in the context of their values. Beyond that once they choose certain axioms, philosophy can help them draw conclusions and develop positions that work for them. I feel pretty good about what I have arrived at for me in relation to three out of four of those questions you cited. I can't convince everyone else what they should believe, but perhaps that is not possible or necessary. It's not something I feel any pressure from myself to manage. As far as why the something rather than nothing issue, I think the question itself provides a kind of critique of certain assumptions. It seems rather binary to me. We cannot resolve conflicts around big issues so doing philosophy is insane. To me it seems like some humbler goals and a sense of a spectrum of possible use is a healthier attitude about philosophy.

From a mathematician's perspective, many, if not most, philosophical issues lack closure and are endlessly debated - sometimes with very fuzzy definitions to begin with - and thus not really satisfying. However, philosophers seem to be very intelligent and, from many posts on this thread, usually impressively literate and knowledgeable. Especially those engaged in discussions about set theory and its parallel universe in computer science. I continue to learn things about these subjects by trying to follow discussions.

Definitely not insane.

… or, in the words of the Cheshire Cat, “we’re all mad here”.

It’s the ones that take themselves to be fully, absolutely, infallibly sane that you have to watch out for. They’re mad too, just differently (one can tell by their mad reactions to being informed of this).

While I’m quoting form Lewis Carrol …

Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”

Also

Mad Hatter: “Everyone wants some magical solution to their problems and everyone refuses to believe in magic.”

To be less lighthearted in my reply, philosophy takes time. And, if its goal is the gaining of wisdom, it is then a never-ending endeavor. No wisdom is ever perfect. As to repetition expecting different results, is “if at first you don’t succeed, try and try again” to be shunned as something only lunatics do? A mostly rhetorical question, given that the attempts are made in different ways. (just noticed Reply to Coben beat me to this :razz: )

@Coben

Quoting Coben

Sure, you can go off into a cave and avoid all this....now. But you carry with you the thoughts and tools and heurististics of other minds.

I'm sorry, it is just not that simple. If a mind seeks to transmit what it thinks to a second mind, this requires communication. Now, perhaps you are thinking that communication serves as some type of preservation chamber in which thought can be housed so that it remains identical to itself as it exits one mind and enters another. But this is not the case, otherwise we would see people agreeing much more with each other.

Communication is dialectic in that there occurs two qualitative turns. The first is the transmogrification of private thought into a communicable medium that can be apprehended by another. The second is when the communication apprehended is appropriated in the other's mind by its abstraction back into (private) thought.

Unfortunately in ordinary everyday communication (the means by which individuals are conditioned by the generation), it is impossible to verify whether a communication accurately expresses a thought, or whether a thought correctly reflects what has been communicated, yet we generally take it for granted that thought and communication have very conducive relation, and we proceed quite confidently with loads of dispute. If such a disconnect in communication separates individual minds that drastically, I can only wonder what gaping divide it might cause between generations.

And yet, you are correct - there are innumerable clones out there comparing and copying each other. As I said: I suspect that there are very few individuals out there. In my opinion, this is insanity. Need evidence, just look at this lame coronavirus hysteria. If philosophy, and being a philosopher can assist me in becoming more of an individual and standing apart from my retarded generation by even the tiniest degree, I would call this sanity, or at least less insane.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

I'm sorry, it is just not that simple.

I don't think it's simple, at all. But none of what you write changes the fact that ideas have been pouring into you for years from others. That you modify, translate, falsely interpret these ideas, reconfigure them, misunderstand them, in addition to taking in reasonably close approximations doesn't change the fact that your mind has been constructed with tremendous input from other minds and this is still going on if you are not isolated from communicating with the others. And the language we get also carries with it all sorts of implicit and explicit ideas and makes it harder to have certain ideas and models of reality. Then all the things that one DOES to achieve various goals, which we learn through imitating others - often forced to use these heuristics - also imply a lot about reality, what other people are and how they are motivated, what 'works' in the world.

It doesn't matter at all if communication is not some perfect transfer of a thought, it does however lead to, in the growing person the creation of all sorts of thoughts in that mind. One of our advantages as an animal is that unlike other animals a huge amount of information can be transferred to us about all sorts of things, and these make us competent navigators, including speakers, in our cultures. There is a downside to this, of course. And side in the full spectrum between the good and bad sides of this.

This is why when we learn languages quite different from our native one, have powerful non-verbal experiences - psychoactive drugs, ritual extremes etc. -, enter and master life in a very different culture, have long term complicated interactions with animals, preferably not ones that are commonly domesticated at least also, we realize all sorts of assumptions we have been making. And we did not choose to make these assumptions. Those assumptions entered us via the culture.

Even what you criticize in your post - the idea that ideas are put in language and perfectly transferred to another person - which is simillar to REddy's critiques of the metaphors around language, see The Conduit Metaphor - is a widespread assumption about language that children learn from the metaphors people use around them. IOW while criticizing a position of mine I don't really have, your argument points out a common cultural assumption that gets passed on to us via communication and is extremely widespread that people do not come up with on their own. They come up with it because it is built into the language. Language made before they were born. And while is changing this language, the dominance of that metaphor keeps being passed on so far.

https://msu.edu/~orourk51/800-Phil/Handouts/Readings/Linguistics/Reddy-TheConduitMetaphor-1979.pdf

Quoting Coben

But all this is a long way from 'insanity'.

If insanity is defined as above, then repeatedly using the same philosophical methods that have failed so many times before, and expecting them to succeed would fit that definition.

Quoting Coben

Further I think some of the big questions can be resolved for individual thinkers.

This doesn’t make sense. If the issue is truly resolved, then there would be no disputing it.

Quoting Coben

IOW they can find a position that makes their life work better for them in the context of their values. Beyond that once they choose certain axioms, philosophy can help them draw conclusions and develop positions that work for them.

I agree, but individually we could all be wrong. Simply being convinced that what you believe is true is different than it being true. This is why it’s silly to think that everyone could have their own beliefs about science that just works for them individually.

Quoting Coben

I can't convince everyone else what they should believe, but perhaps that is not possible or necessary.

If it’s not possible, it is because the issue has not been resolved. If it isn’t necessary, it means that true knowledge/wisdom isn’t the purpose of using philosophical methods.

Quoting Coben

We cannot resolve conflicts around big issues so doing philosophy is insane.

I would add “if you expect to find solutions to the big questions.”

Quoting Coben

To me it seems like some humbler goals and a sense of a spectrum of possible use is a healthier attitude about philosophy.

Any suggestions? Personally, I view philosophy as a hobby that people take seriously. IOW, we do philosophy because it’s enjoyable. The possibility of discovery is exciting, the sense of pride (and arrogance) that comes with believing you have the answers to some of life’s most enduring questions is pleasurable. It is the challenge of pushing the rock back up the hill again that is inviting. But I try not to deceive myself that it is anything more than just a hobby.

Reply to Pinprick Insane relative to the everyman, yes.

Reply to BraydenS Insane according to the definition I provided?

Reply to Pinprick No, Insane as uncommon mentally.

Relative to the everyman, with your definition, they might actually be some of the most sane people to ever exist.

Reply to Coben thanks for the reply, and for the link

Quoting Coben

But none of what you write changes the fact that ideas have been pouring into you for years from others. That you modify, translate, falsely interpret these ideas, reconfigure them, misunderstand them, in addition to taking in reasonably close approximations doesn't change the fact that your mind has been constructed with tremendous input from other minds and this is still going on if you are not isolated from communicating with the others.

I believe your analysis nails it perfectly on the head in explaining the non-individual.

However, the individual does not need to remove oneself from society, nor avoid human contact in order to isolate, or enter the cave. Don't forget that ideas can be ignored, doubted, rejected or disposed of, and without the least notice of another.

The ideas which I have treated as such (ignored, doubted, rejected or disposed of) stand as the heaviest influence upon my individuality because of my negative relation to them, they effectively imbue me with the ability of resignation - to stand dialectically opposed to the very thing that defines me. Needless to say, it is comfortingly paradoxical, and only something that can be derived from from the philosophical wheel (which is freely available to all), which in turn, I have applied uniquely to myself... And regardless of whether my thoughts are derived externally, my appropriation of these ideas form an intricate complex of internal thought qualities that make up my unique individuality.

Quoting Coben

we realize all sorts of assumptions we have been making. And we did not choose to make these assumptions. Those assumptions entered us via the culture.

Once a person discerns the culture (what I prefer to call the generation) from himself, he awakens to individuality. He needs no ideas that originate internally, rather, ideas derived externally through his unique relation to the generation are enough. Through appropriation of thought communications that are universally available to all, he makes them unique to himself, and whether he becomes more or less of an individual is only a matter of how far he cultivates his uniqueness in himself, which is directly related to how capable he is of resigning from the generation.

Quoting Coben

while criticizing a position of mine I don't really have,

No offense meant. I was simply being facetious in implying you held that position, I didn't really think you held it. Consider it a bad attempt at a bad joke.

Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

However, the individual does not need to remove oneself from society, nor avoid human contact in order to isolate, or enter the cave

I agree, and the fact that you came up with something like REddy's critique of how language works means that you managed to get around a cultural bias. One can use other people, books, movies, great art often undercuts assumptions, science, meditation, relationships with people from other cultures, relationships with animals and so on to undermine biases and also, first, to make them visible. I am not saying we cannot change.Quoting Merkwurdichliebe

No offense meant. I was simply being facetious in implying you held that position, I didn't really think you held it. Consider it a bad attempt at a bad joke.

Ah, ok, no worries, thanks for explaining.

Quoting Coben

I agree, and the fact that you came up with something like REddy's critique of how language works means that you managed to get around a cultural bias. One can use other people, books, movies, great art often undercuts assumptions, science, meditation, relationships with people from other cultures, relationships with animals and so on to undermine biases and also, first, to make them visible. I am not saying we cannot change.

I don't think we have much disagreement here. I do recognize that the generation has an immense impact on the development of people - latent individuals who have not yet taken ahold of themselves as individuals. My prescription is philosophy.

Reply to Merkwurdichliebe I do think philosophy can help, I think active relationship type experiences are even more important. Cross cultural experience, learning other languages, altered states of consciousness, travel, cross class experiences, cross species experiences, really intense and respectful long term encounters with the opposite sex where one really tries to be open to what the other person is experiencing and saying, interactions with people with odd and unique minds, therapy, phenomenlogy of language (which might never come up in philosophy, though it's a part of it, contemplation, time in nature not as a tourist but immersive, long study of interpersonal dynamics including feedback from those people and experts, anthropology....you also need to get to a place where you can tolerate a lot of cognitive dissonence and further to be able to accept the most ego-dystonic stuff imaginable in yourself. Without that one's introspection will have such a powerful confirmation bias that one simply cannot see what one is assuming and why one is assuming it. One will buy one's own pr. I think we vastly overestimate the power of thinking about things with words. We can notice in interactions with others how seldom people change their minds because someone else made a compelling argument around deep beliefs. Life experience, especially radically new life experience, however often leads to change. And active interaction with feedback (or perhaps a better word would be 'response' from that 'other'), rather than simply passively experiencing something, can be even more valuable.

Reply to Coben

Yes, I agree. No problems here. :smile:

Reply to Merkwurdichliebe :smile:

Reply to Coben

I thank you for your assistance.

Reply to Pinprick Insanity is an ill-defined notion anyway.
Anyway here is an interesting sentence to be amused.

Every genius is necessarily insane, but not every insane person is a genius.

Quoting MathematicalPhysicist

MathematicalPhysicist
38
?Pinprick Insanity is an ill-defined notion anyway.
Anyway here is an interesting sentence to be amused.

Every genius is necessarily insane, but not every insane person is a genius.

I like Albert Einstein's take on the question:

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius."

Reply to Frank Apisa That's a stupid thing to say.
:-D

Reply to MathematicalPhysicist :rofl:

Reply to Pinprick I do not believe the purpose of philosophy is or was to get everything right. The discipline is purely intellectual which implies that the problems are purely intellectual, which is to say that philosophy is concerned with coming to solutions for internal convictions or beliefs. The arguments are then formed from opposing beliefs, using the methods of philosophy to justify one's position, and what is true is that which is not contradictory or the argument doesn't contradict itself. Does this mean that philosophers are insane? Well, only if they speak incoherently and believe unintelligible things.

There's no way to get everything right when the ultimate truth is ineffable.