Should philosophy be about highest aspirations and ideals?
I am feeling a bit despondent because so much of the discussion on this site is about destruction as an ideal. Of course, there are some very positive issues and discussions as well. Also, everyone is entitled to their views and discussions. But having just read arguments in favour that it would be better if people were no longer brought into the world and in favour of murder I am wondering about the loss of highest aspirations for philosophy.
Please don't think that I am trying to outlaw anyone's opinions but I am just wondering what is happening in philosophy if these are the new aspirations? Is philosophy itself collapsing into chaos?
Please don't think that I am trying to outlaw anyone's opinions but I am just wondering what is happening in philosophy if these are the new aspirations? Is philosophy itself collapsing into chaos?
Comments (39)
I am not sure what you are saying at all. I think discussion about limits, extremes and desires are worth discussing if that is what you mean.
I think it's more just a reflection of the forum than of philosophy itself. There are some members who are very into anti-natalism, and, I think as you put it "destruction as an ideal." I'd chalk this up to some of the members on the forum, but I just personally tend to avoid these topics because I've already had these types of discussions and I'm done with them now. I'm not going to entertain a pro-murder argument so I just avoid the thread.
Yes, you are quite right. It is best to ignore some threads if the discussion doesn't seem helpful. I did not make any response to the one on murder because I just knew it would be pointless if people had certain views I came away feeling really fed up after two people kept defending their beliefs that it would be better if humans did not exist any longer because it would end suffering.
Saying that there are some really interesting posts, with very high levels of philosophical debate. I have just spent too much time reading the site on my phone because I am spending a lot of time at home presently. I do think that it is good that the site provides an open forum this does mean that some really extreme views are going to predominantly at times. But, I of all people do appreciate diversity and I would not want chocolate box discussion but ideas which generally areas for deep thought.
Philosophy is about questioning all things. To take what we assume, and really examine it at a logical level. Perhaps someone is concerned about such negative things, and is asking because they seek an answer to an emotional quandry they have.
If you wish to answer their questions, strive to find the positive side. Really dig into their assumptions and see if it holds out. We should not be afraid that people ask questions about even the worst things. We should only be afraid that we do not give a proposal its just due and put it through its paces.
That being said, I'm glad your voice is here. Don't worry about the doom and gloom people. Do what is right and meaningful by you. We can control nothing else.
Actually, the reason I did engage in discussions with the people with views that human beings would be best not existing was because I wished to understand where they were coming from. It also was in the context of discussion and pain which is worthy of exploration.
The point where I got really fed up was after I explained that I had never procreated and I thought that he or she did not. Then the person said that they had procreated, was not experiencing suffering and just wished that they did not exist in case they ever had to suffer. I came away feeling the whole discussion had been rather despondent about all this.
But I guess this was just a bad experience and this happens in all interaction. I have only been using the site for about a month, so I will learn from it. I am willing to explore and question almost all areas of debate with as open mind as possible but the point at which I will seek to withdraw is when I feel too despondent to continue.
I had got to that point when I just started seeing the latest discussion was a logical defence of murder. I am not a moral absolutist but the thread did start to disturb me. Obviously, my disturbance is my issue and not anyone else's problem, but it was at this point that my own spontaneous response was to create this thread, really in attempt to balance discussion agenda.
Nevertheless, as I probably said in an earlier response I do like discussion which is controversial and thought provoking. I like exploring unknown territories, but just need to know when to switch off when it gets overwhelming.
I think one of my thoughts when I began this thread was whether others were feeling as I felt about some of the threads. I do think feelings about discussion need to be expressed rather than mere abstract logical arguments
While you should disengage when it becomes too stressful, without challenge these views would be reinforced within an echo chamber. This would be unhelpful for either side of the argument, provided their goal is the truth.
I definitely agree that philosophy is not supportive therapy. It is love of wisdom, but why does that only "partly depend on finding the truth''?
Philosophy forums may over represent the phenomena that concerns you, because they tend to be dominated by privileged young suburban white almost men who are in the process of discovering that the world is not always a nice place. As they go through this stage they sometimes get carried away. I call it college sophomore syndrome.
When I was that age I went on a binge of reading writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn with his horrific descriptions of the Russian gulag, in between reading epic volumes about the Holocaust, and so on. It was a phase. I got over it.
I actually remember the first moment it dawned on me that you couldn't always count on things to work out. I was maybe 12, walking down the block towards the beach at night. Nothing bad was happening at that moment, other than my maturing juvenile nerd brain awakening to the reality of suffering for the first time.
Little suburban white boys. We have such transitions.
Just asking here, but do you believe that there is a consensus in philosophy as to what are the highest aspirations and ideals?
I will be back with questions but I need to stand back and think clearly. But I will be back, after reflection, because there is so much to discuss but in the meantIme if anyone wishes to say there areas of concern I will do my best to incorporate them into any threads which I create.
We need to examine all aspects of reality and the creators of this site need to be thanked for creating a wonderful means of debate and discussion, in all its diversity.
I am replying to your question as to whether there is a consensus to the highest ideals and aspirations. I don't think that there is an actual consensus but I am interested in ethics as well as many other areas of philosophy. This would include areas such as medical ethics, economic ethics, as well as war, peace and the future.
But I am certainly not part of the moral right. I like exploring issues from as many angles as possible
I am very influenced by postmodernism and the whole deconstruction of language.
OK... my reason for asking you that question was if there isn't any clear consensus as to what 'highest ideals and aspirations' are then why should philosophy be bothered to set a target with intentional focus upon a goal that itself has never been agreed upon or have a unified standard of measure for levels of ideals or aspirations?
(Banno's jigsaw puzzle might well apply here.)
The question as it stands seems to imply that such a consensus or standard of measure not only exists, but can be in some way defined.
I've been away from philosophy for quite a bit and was beginning to wonder if I missed that memo.
Anyway...
... I'm intrigued by value theory (of which ethics is a sub-set) as well as questioning questions.
It is all about getting the right balance. We can descend to underworld and rise to shamanic ecstasy. But sometimes it is all about survival mode as well as the fate of humanity. I guess
I just don't have that much sympathy with antinatalism. I just don't understand it and I can make more sense of death metal than the antinatist stance. But I prefer goth, ranging from Bauhaus, The Cure and Marilyn Manson and even a bit of Fields of the Nephilim at the right time.
You might be surprised, but there are more with this sort of 'polarity' than you'd think.
They tend to play with the cards tighter to their chest.
Don't confuse acoustical volume with quantitative volume. ;)
Yep!
I am most certainly prepared to read the antinatalist philosophy. I am prepared to read all views because reading is the one thing I find easier to do more so than anything else, especially the most mundane tasks like washing and dressing
What I will do is read though, because sometimes, especially with this site, it is so easy to react immediately. It is all about listening to even the most extreme viewpoints before leaping to reply. I don't have much sympathy with the antinatalists but I have to hear them to the fullest. I was impressed by Shopenhauer1's list of hates at least.
Not all entities seek higher states, some have dark purpose or are simply built to remain stagnant/sedentary. The solider is taught to be as a solider, not to envision internal or social change for a army of such beings would not produce the result the military training peoples are attempting to achieve.
[quote=Gilles Deleuze]Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful.[/quote]
:death: :flower:
Secularism, Decadence and Nihilism. The three virtues of the new generations that seek destruction. Don't worry about such thoughts, as things will get even worse...
But people are waking up to social inequalities more than ever in the time of Covid_19. Perhaps philosophy will be part of the ethical dilemmas of our time, especially the core values needed for the survival of many.
Social inequality has always existed and will always exist. Decay itself is the act of this new generation to take advantage of the possibility of lamenting and resenting the poorest even though they do nothing to help them. To believe that you can have economic, and social equality in a finite Universe, where things are finite and possibilities are too, is crazy.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Philosophy will simply be another political tool for the eventual indoctrination of the masses - as it was in Late Antiquity -, and after its function is accomplished, it will be discarded completely - in the form of the creation of another school of thought that is dogmatic, like theology during the Middle Ages -. You really don't believe that philosophy - let us be honest, from the moment it became accesible for the masses, it was no longer philosophy - will endure the way it is currently described and established, do you?
Quoting Jack Cummins
The status quo of our time is "breaking the status quo". Everyone is special and unique, until everyone is not anymore...
I don't think that it is all negative. The suffering of many in the world at the time of Covid_19 is leading to a lot of questioning. Nothing can be taken for granted any longer and even the politicians are not saying they have the answers.
Of course there are many social inequalities but these are not going to be eradicated easily. But people who have previously considered themselves as invulnerable are becoming vulnerable. People who would have never thought that they would have to seek support through benefits are having to do so.
There are many dangers of the current time, especially world wars. The fight could be over the vaccine for Covid_19. American government was first scapegoating China for the virus but if the vaccine launched works it could be a fierce political fight over resouces.
Perhaps the philosophers' role is to steer thinking in a way which is transformative rather than nihilistic.
I don't think you understood my previous point. These inequalities will NEVER be eradicated as there will always be a group claiming to have less than the rest. Humanity does not exist to live in conformity and equality with everyone, it lives to compete and be the best, which in itself is already a biological structure of the social hierarchy. If that is already part of our biology, it is a waste of time to be resentful for the cause of the weakest, unless it is used as a tool to exacerbate his ego towards his social niche - ex: I regret the misery in Africa and how I am very saddened for the afflicted. With this act, I am well seen in the eyes of those around me, while said Africans remain in misery and suffering -. This is horrendous and disgusting, this negative-egoism...
Quoting Jack Cummins
I can say that WWIII will not be due to a poor vaccine. I do not give 40 years that we will be fighting for the last sources of oil in the world, or we will be fighting for the simple offended ego of this intolerant mass ...
Quoting Jack Cummins
In fact, this type of thinking can be useful if a given philosopher is not biased and turns his philosophy into a mere vehicle through which he will preach his political bias - something that happens and a lot today -.
I am not really in disagreement with your point about people will always be arguing that others are being treated unequally.
I think that the problems were around long before Covid_19. In a previous thread comment I said that at times I wonder if the Covid_19 situation and the whole lack of its management is in some ways a deliberate strategy to reduce population control. This may be a bit conspiracy theory but I do believe that there is more going on politically than portrayed in the media. I question it all really.
I would also say that I am not a complete optimist but I would like to see possible positive ways forwards. I get depressed and my whole approach is about personal and global healing. We all have biases and the need to acknowledge them is important.
I don't believe we can ever be perfect or that an exact utopia can be created but I would advocate a philosophy which can rise above the egoism of politics. I think we need a whole new type of vision and world leaders and if enough people awakened who knows what could happen. Surely, it is something to strive for rather than the antinatalism which seems to be at the forefront of this site. Surely, better ways of achieving sustainable living are more creative than collapsing into despair and nihilism.
The pandemic was a plate full of arguments for the media and for politics. Quarantine was one more way for the state to demonstrate its strength over the population. Step by step, you'll eventually destroy the world...
Quoting Jack Cummins
It is good that you are optimistic, as this will be the necessary mindset when the bad times come. I'm not trying to appear apocalyptic or pessimistic, but, by my studies, we are very close (1) or to the end of our current way of life and not for the better or (2) close to the total collapse of society. Between the two, I still don't know which one will be the real one.
I do consider think we are already in a post-apocalyptic age. The people I know are already in day to day survival mode.
At times I am tempted to cave into depression and despair on a personal level and in interaction with the daily world. But something inside of me, the life force perhaps, drives me onwards to struggle for a better way to live.
I hope that you are not right that the worst is yet to come.
We are all tempted by giving up daily, but the grace of existence is being able to let time feel the anguish of waiting for your eventual death.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Me too friend...
I will.bear this in mind and keep plodding on with the daily realities of the philosophers plight
because it is not easy but part of the quest.
I am not an academic but struggle with the questions of philosophy day by day and wish to make a contribution. I am neither a complete egoist or a subscribed philosopher of noble aclaom but I believe that we can all take part in drawing up issues for debate rather than leave it all in the hands of those in authority.
Because some truths have not been found. So it does not depend on the end result of finding the truht, it depends mostly on continuing the quest of trying to find the truth.
I do agree that the quest for truth is a goal rather than a static end to be achieved. I dare'nt think what the one truth to end all others would be if it could be found. Whose ends would it serve?
As it is we have the many viewpoints fighting to be heard amidst a chaotic world. We can search for those which seem more truthful and useful and hopefully see better ways of thinking. But if the world as we know it still exists at the end of this century perhaps the most en vogue thinkers will be seen as antideluvian because a whole new paradigm of perspective might have emerged from the depths of the gutter of the collapsing world.
Philosophy is corrupted when it spends a lot of time in the hands of the self-proclaimed "sages" and it eventually passes from philosophy to biased opinion within a few generations. It is good that amateurs philosophers continue to emerge and continue to make their views public whether they are controversial or not. At least with this, we can delay the future dogmatic hegemonic way of thinking that will arise - in the west at least -.
I would demolish the sages and say that perhaps our words which can guide the future.
Perhaps we are amateurs but the world that we have known is crumbling.I miss libraries as a source of knowledge. I hope that they reopen, but one day, but for now perhaps the views proclaimed on websites, for better or worse.
I prefer paper books and real bodily humans talking but in the waves of uncertainty perhaps it will never happen, or for a while at least.
So, in the meantime, despite my sense of being a bit of a punk philosopher, perhaps we will have to be the best possible thinkers trying to make sense of it all, and as I said earlier today in another, perhaps for better or worse, as we are writing on an an official site we may end up being quoted for better or worse by philosophy students, as we are writing on an official website.