The Philosopher's Dilemma - Average People Being Disinterested In Philosophical Discussion.
Most people, on the surface, just do not care for philosophical discussion. I am not surprised. Most philosophy discussions, arguments, and topics require people to think about things that may make them initially uncomfortable. However, is this right? Willful ignorance of important discussions that may potentially lead to breakthroughs seems pathetic to me. Yet, again, the human experience is pathetic sometimes.
How have you all dealt with this problem? Have any of you had success in promoting respectful philosophical discussions with people around you that were initially lukewarm about them? Have any of you made breakthroughs in getting more and more people interested in philosophy?
How have you all dealt with this problem? Have any of you had success in promoting respectful philosophical discussions with people around you that were initially lukewarm about them? Have any of you made breakthroughs in getting more and more people interested in philosophy?
Comments (42)
You can’t push people into philosophical discussion. It’s a matter of finding the right questions that grab their interest. My son, a mathematician, is intrigued by a problem that appears logical on the surface, but isn’t. My daughter, a creative thinker, is intrigued by an unsolved mystery of everyday experience. The trick is then not to kick their assumptions out from underneath them too quickly, or they will scramble for the nearest ‘solid ground’ and cling to it for dear life. Point out the doors and windows, to be opened when they’re ready, and keep asking them questions.
I think philosophy is something like 5% important and 95% entertaining/stimulating and if someone doesn't find it entertaining or stimulating then they're unlikely to be interested in it and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Philosophy is probably less important than understanding how to manage your finances or having competency with mathematics but you might not be interested in that either. At least, surely, there are things with clear merit to them that you don't do because you have other interests? Nutrition, fitness, knowledge of computers, something? Most philosophy simply isn't more useful than these things and a lot of it has no practical use at all. Even if you see the 5% important without finding it entertaining, you're not likely to be interested in talking about it. I think you'll have to settle for talking with like-minded people.
Thank you for the response. I love to hear fellow philosophy people's opinions on this matter. I just have always found it so fascinating that people don't enjoy it as much as we do. I am the one who isn't necessarily forcing it on anyone. But I do run into instances where there is a philosophical discussion going on even when the participants other than me realize that it is one indeed. Once I start spewing philosophical responses to a seemingly unphilosophical discussion, even though the discussion, in reality, is in fact a philosophical one, the participants are immediately afraid to continue with the discussion or just don't care anymore. This precise moment, time, and time again is what interests me but also bothers me. But, oh well!
Quoting Possibility
I like this quote. This is usually what I do if a person I am talking to is interested and curious. I think this is definitely the best way of dealing with it.
Quoting Judaka
This is very interesting to me. I agree but also have some questions to ask you. Philosophy is probably less important to them than understanding how to manage finances or having competency with mathematics, but I find these same people having many opinions about life and social purpose from their own experiences in these camps as well. For instance, even though it is practical for these people to have a job, know finances, date people, get therapy, act on their hobbies, etc., philosophy still haunts most people. What if someone spends a lot of time learning about finances, working, trying to build a family, but things don't work out?
Philosophy usually is needed or is called upon in their phase of reaction and action after these events. Let's discuss losing one's job, since this usually affects other aspects of their life - finances, mortgage/rent, relationships, income, etc. Most people that lose their job want meaning in it. They want to know how they could've lost their job. They want to know why they lost their job. They want to know why it happened to them. Some start questioning themselves. Some start questioning God. Some chuckles and react with dark jokes and smirks. Some are prepared, so when it happens, they are quite calm and start looking for immediate jobs, incomes, assistance. Usually, in most of these scenarios, there are still phases of anxiety, depression, motivation, dedication, calmness amongst different people. But philosophy plays a role sometimes. Sometimes philosophy can help someone become less angry, anxious, and depressed when bad things happen, or when things don't go their way. Maybe philosophy can actually prepare them for these times? I don't want to ramble on too long about this, but I am sure you get where I've gone with this.
So, back to my original post, it is strange to me that philosophy is so scary to most people. Yes, managing finances, competency in skills for jobs, and relationship attention are practical and important. But would you now say philosophy is too?
What do both of you think about therapy/advice to others about life and philosophy? Do you think therapy, advice, and counseling have a lot to do with philosophy when it comes down to it? Without being haughty and condescending, when someone usually asks me for advice and suggestions on matters of life, I usually give them a philosophical, opinionated piece of advice that has helped me - through knowledge and/or wisdom from my experiences. People don't seem to dislike or not care about philosophy in this form...
A few people with degrees in philosophy make their living by offering Philosophical Counseling. But their professional niche is very small compared to Psychological Therapists, Religious Counselors, and Mystical Psychics. If you are in a large city, it might be worth looking into as a paid vocation. :smile:
Philosophical Counseling : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_counseling
I expect someone who's interested in mathematics to be competent at it but I have no such feelings towards someone interested in philosophy. I'm not saying philosophy has no importance, I'm saying it has some utility but so do many things that neither you nor I am doing but we're doing philosophy, why is that? I think it's because we find philosophy interesting and fun, no? If philosophy is something one does or doesn't do based on whether it's fun or not then isn't it more of a recreational activity than something one does for practical benefits?
Of course, philosophers love to create value (through philosophy) for their efforts but that kind of thing is ubiquitous and seemingly part of human nature. If I'm good at or interested in something, the chances of my positive feelings towards that thing simply skyrocket. Of course people who like philosophy say good things about it but meanwhile when people says something we don't like is important, we're already looking for reasons of why that isn't true.
Honestly, even when I'm talking with other philosophers, I usually feel what they are saying is useless and without any practical value. Yet I'd much rather talk about that useless thing than something I find boring. All I am saying is that I think if you investigated yourself thoroughly then you would find that you are not much different from the people who aren't interested in your philosophy. You have your interests and enjoy talking about them and you have things you aren't interested in and don't like to talk about. You are not merely practising philosophy because you've realised importance and utility that others have failed to see, even if that's the explanation you'd like to give.
I have a slight misgiving with regards to the characterization of most individuals 'disinterested' in such modes of thought as being 'average' (presumably the case, should one infer from the title of this thread). That may be wise in a statistical context, but not a philosophical one.
That being said, 'most' individuals are enslaved by Darwinism, live to satiate their most fleeting impulses, dream no further than the practicality of their life and are inevitably constrained by their own imagination. Truthfully engaging in philosophy (not merely as a pastime) necessitates a sacrifice of some, if not all of those dimensions to one's character.
'Sometimes philosophy can help someone become less angry, anxious, and depressed when bad things happen, or when things don't go their way. Maybe philosophy can actually prepare them for these times?'
I couldn't agree more. In fact, the overwhelming majority of therapeutic treatments are in some form or measure, underpinned by humanistic branches of thought; Existentialism and its psychological applications are a prototypical example.
It seems to me, however, as has been illustrated by others above, that the philosophies that are identified by cognitive operations of the highest abstraction solicit the least degree of interest amongst their participants. Discussing the metaphysics of the mind or the structure of human perception is, superficially, tangential to one's foremost motives and predilections.
How one is to react, believe and mediate themselves out in a chaotic world is the very essence of several philosophies. In terms of moral or transcendental values, they have invariably been of tremendous insights. Despite this, however, they remain accessible only to those who are willing to abandon all presuppositions, apprehensions and instinctual constraints (far easier said than done) they may be subject to.
Philosophy commits no promises, vows or certainties of any kind; it is a journey you elect to embark on without any knowledge of where it shall take you, or what it may bring to you. For many, that's candidly unappealing.
If you are a serious philosopher you might pursue some arcane topic to exhaustion and write about it, posting your thoughts on the web, and obtaining some small satisfaction in doing so - even if few others show interest. I've done that in a tiny sliver of mathematics, and one of my colleagues expressed it well by saying, Its like being a retired priest and always looking for inspiration in the scriptures, You do it because that's what you do. :cool:
I don't mind if other people are not interested in philosophy but do mind if they criticise me for my interest.
Actually, I think I have always managed to find people to converse with about philosophical questions from when I was about 10 or 11 years old. Most of the various friends I have found who take an interest in the subject do not read books on that nature.
But generally I do feel that a lot of people are quite prejudiced against the pursuit of philosophy as a serious interest. I get comments from various people I know implying that I should be spending my time more productively. A lot of the criticism seems to be against it on the basis that it does not add much to life, especially in material terms.
But I am not going to worry too much about other people's prejudices.
Finally, I would say that while a lot of people cannot be bothered with philosophy it can spark off some interesting conversations with strangers. I have been out reading books, libraries or coffee shops and people have started up talking in response to some book I am reading. In most cases I never ever seen the person again but often remember the conversation forever more.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This happens to me sometimes too. I love it when it does because it has the same effect on me as well: that I remember it forever. I always remember when someone stops me to talk about interesting books I have in my hand or interesting conversations, especially with strangers.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Same here. I mind if people criticize me for my interest and active work in the study of philosophy in my free time. I find it strange that people take so much offense to the subject when they themselves often have philosophical opinions without explicitly labeling their opinions as so.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I also get the same kind of comments. However, I think it is more productive for my own life to be intensely studying philosophy. It helps my overall well-being and life, and I wouldn't trade studying philosophy for money, status, or material belongings. That is what is precisely so wonderful about the subject...in my opinion.
Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to reply and continue the thread. I find this topic extremely interesting for contemporary society. Cheers!
I love this quote. It is what we do, and I love to do so every day. But I still find it perplexing that so many people have philosophical opinions, yet keep them to themselves. On the surface, it appears as if they do not like discussing philosophy person-to-person or they find it stupid to discuss it or something. I do not know, but this has been my experience with many people. They will have one philosophical conversation, even if they do not notice they are having one, and then will back off on other topics.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
I am sorry that you have misgivings about the title. I did not mean to demean anyone or mean that people that seem disinterested in my own opinion to be 'average.' But I was simply stating a figure of speech, also, the title only allows so many characters. Most people, in my own experience, seem disinterested in having philosophical conversations. That is what I intended. I have discussed this with many other friends that are into philosophy and they have the same experiences. But I did not mean to imply a hasty generalization either, but it does seem that way.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
I could not agree more with this above quote. Unfortunately, they are missing out, in my humble opinion! But they can live their lives as they want and there is beauty in that.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Ah, I see here where you are coming from now. This makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to comment and reply. I appreciate it very much. Cheers!
Quoting Judaka
I see where you are coming from now. This makes more sense as it is probably, for most philosophical folk, more recreational than practical.
Quoting Judaka
This is a great insight I often overlook. Well said here.
Quoting Judaka
I agree that I am not merely practicing philosophy because I have realized the importance and utility of it, the relative comparison to others is beside the point. I, and probably many others, still practice philosophy for recreation and the practicality, utility in practicing it. I am definitely not much different than others that don't like my philosophy, but that is also beside the point some, in my opinion. What I am trying to say is that most people seem disinterested, and sometimes act so, but they usually still have many philosophical opinions and give them regularly. But when they are confronted with these opinions with someone that practices and studies philosophy regularly, they back off, even if it is a very inviting and respectful discussion that is not condescending or too haughty for them to partake in with the study of philosophy. This is the perplexing part for me. They may be scared or nervous to enter the discussion or have a discussion at that moment or about a certain topic. All I am trying to say is that there seems to be taboo around certain philosophical discussions if it is known to the participants of these discussions going into the discussion that is in fact a philosophical one. But, I have also noticed, in these same people--in my family, friend groups, schoolmates--they love to spew out philosophical opinions while in other explicit discussions: politics is a good example.
Anyhow, thanks for the time to reply mate. I really appreciate it and loved the insights from you. Cheers!
Quoting Pinprick
Could not agree more with this quote mate. This is so relevant to my life. Even if there isn't something tangible or quantifiable in studying philosophy for some, there definitely is value for how you experience life, and it may add more in-depth experiences for sure. Suppose we had two men with the same lives materially and situationally, but one actively studied philosophy and another didn't, if we assume that the one that doesn't actively study philosophy doesn't activate all that is being activated with study philosophy on his own, without philosophical material, then there would be a massive difference between the two in terms of depth of experience and the possibility of the student of philosophy having more meaning for sure.
I’ve sometimes been gently accused on this forum of ‘wandering’ into psychology, as if that’s not a place that philosophy should go. I disagree with this - I understand people’s need to construct boundaries, but I think there is a lot about philosophy these days that needs to align psychology with other areas of thought, or that finds itself knocking on the door to psychology, so to speak, looking for a way through. My personal view of philosophy is that it’s ‘big picture’ thinking (which is unfortunately rare these days - even in philosophy!), so I’m not one to ‘stay in my lane’ in this respect.
Most of my philosophical discussions with my daughter start with her looking for advice and counselling. I can’t pretend I have all the answers, so this works well for us.
I vehemently disagree. Life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything around you. As was mentioned in the past philosophy does not answer questions it asks them. So far in my foray into it there were no answers to the questions posited. A lot of views for sure, but no real answer. It also has the habit of annihilating meaning, not providing it. Philosophy is the organon of extinction as one person put it. The same when it comes to movies. Once you start digging into their themes and the like the magic is gone.
It's ironic in a sense, but life is more meaningful and magical if you don't ask questions.
Quoting Possibility
Thanks for this reply and contribution. I would agree with what you say about how philosophy and psychology knock on each others doors from time to time. It is definitely interesting...
Quoting Darkneos
Hello, thanks for adding to the thread and discussion. I really appreciate it and love to hear what everyone has to add. The quote that life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything is probably true, and I agree. But that is an extreme case. If you question everything, yes, probably, life will most likely be a negative experience for one as there will be no clear answer to anything or anyone that person experiences. However, for most, I think questioning the most grey areas and philosophical dilemmas in one's life actually provide enjoyment and some sort of depth to one's life.
In my own life, I definitely have enjoyed life much more the more I question. The less I question things, the more depressed and anxious I am. This is because most social constructs and societal norms do not apply to many people these days. Just because everyone has to get a job and provide for themselves doesn't necessarily mean that they should not question that very system. What if one wants to work less and work for less money to be able to apply themselves in other areas of life more important to them? Well, if they never questioned the system in place, if they never questioned this more 'traditional, conventional' route, then I think it would be much harder for the individual to obtain a state of where they are content with their life. This is just one hypothetical example, but there are many other areas where one should be questioning things, and often, in my humble opinion. What if someone thinks of themselves as unfit to raise children? Should this person go along with others in society that tend to go along the route of getting married and having children? Should this person follow the government's growth view of generations having children more and more children, should they be a part of this movement or not? If someone has crippling anxiety over a certain past mistake or situation, questioning why they might be anxious over that mistake or event and what makes them anxious about these things may actually help give them a clear answer for them to work with. Of course, there are always the extreme cases of someone questioning their every action, every move, and every motive and making themselves more depressed and anxious. But, for most people, I think questioning things can lead to a healthier mental state.
Anyways, this is all just my 2 cents and opinion on your post, and on the subject at hand. Thank you very much for posting in the discussion thread. I love hearing from everyone on the topic, and your post had great insights in it. Cheers!
I did that with my life, very successfully. The system doesn't necessarily have to be changed; one has to use one's imagination to solve this problem. Don't ask the government to grant your wish.
Hello, I am very happy to hear that. I have done that with my life for the past couple of years as well.
I like spending time writing on this site and exploring creative realms but one of my mother's friends made some comment about the fact that I was ' doing nothing'. I am busy reading, with ongoing writing and art projects along with philosophy but that counts for nothing in many ways in many people's eyes.
Some reading this site may see me as having an inflated ego, airing my views but that has to be seen in context. In many ways I am viewed as a complete failure, deserving to be thrown in the rubbish bin of society.
I stand by my right to philosophise. But my opinions and even the more credible thinkers are ranked lowly on the scale in the hierarchy of importance by those in power and the subservient masses.
Philosophy was i revered as mportant for ancient people but in the post apocalyptic society of today it is seen as mere esoterica.
For many I suspect working at a job you enjoy, or at least tolerate, provides an existential dimension to your life. I fail to see that your post provides any revelations about society. In my case I worked at a job I enjoyed and gave me time off for an important avocation.
But I admit, times have changed and it would be much more difficult to do what I did these days.
"At either end of the social spectrum there is a leisure class", E. Beck 1960s.
"Don't exactly enjoy" leaves a lot of wiggle room. You probably have statistics to back up your statement. A couple of others on this forum have expressed a desire for society to support those who don't wish to work. How do you feel about that idea?
Quoting Darkneos
I agree with this. :up:
Someone may not like their job, may not like most of the duties required, and most of the people, but may still love the other aspects of it - family time, location, flexibility, vacation time, salary, etc.
I don’t think anyone on the thread supported people not working entirely - referring to your two posts talking about supporting people who don’t wish to work. All I’ve seen are comments on supporting someone taking jobs or leaving their current jobs for a job that pays less with less hours.
Most jobs that have higher pay require more hours and commitment. If I don’t want commitment above 40 hours per week, then I can chose my jobs in this light, and I do so in real life, all the time. For me, that is plenty of time to work. I have early mornings, evenings, and the weekends for family, friends, and hobbies. Anything above that, for my life, infringes on my personal life and things I actually view as more important than the mundane jobs I qualify for. I don’t think that this view of work and living a lifestyle like so is ‘parasitic’ at all. Most people with a college education, that is, usually have this opportunity, depending on the status of their financial management, marriage, and spending habits. Someone that has a degree, buying a house, marrying someone too young is too bad. If they can’t move jobs because of this that doesn’t make the people with degrees lifestyles—that have mobility—parasitic, in my opinion.
There is also the question of what we consider as work. Some people are out of work but contributing through caring roles or creative pursuits. While we need money to survive, is work simply about doing tasks for which we get paid?
I agree here as well. But there is still a difference if you live inside of a capitalist system as money buys mortgage, rent, supplies for work, clothes, food, gas, car, transportation, etc. I guess, if we want to get hypothetical, someone could quit their job, live as a homeless person, spend time scavenging for food, water, shelter, and spend most of their day 'working' by reading philosophical texts, asking questions, and having conversations with people and themselves. They could even start drafting a contribution to philosophy in their mind. So, obviously, if someone doesn't even have a conventional, capitalist job they can clearly be doing work every day, whilst also considering other factors such as the homelessness factor, which clears them from the need for money as the other conventional working person. What do you think?
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but would not want to become homeless. I have moved twice this year and I am grateful to have accommodation. If I had to sleep out in the streets, especially in winter, and scavage for food I think I would be too drained to draft ideas for philosophy.
I just used it as a hypothetical example to explore the concept of 'work,' and homelessness was just a somewhat extreme case. But I agree with what you were saying about creative 'work' and care 'work' should be treated as work as well.
Okay, your case of homelessness is an extreme reality but unfortunately this could be the grim reality for many, including many who do wish to find work.
Of course it brings us back to the real basics of the human condition. We are so used to the 'comforts', to quote Darkneos and what will happen to those individuals, philosophers or not, who are brought to harshest physical conditions ? I am inclined to think that some will survive and others will crumble. I like to think that I am solid but we all have our limits.
Is physical or psychological suffering worse? Also, what happens when someone experiences a profound degree of both at the same time?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am not claiming that I, or most, or many philosophers, other thinkers, and other individuals, in general, would survive the harshest physical conditions will crumble or survive in a certainty sense at all. Some will survive and some will crumble and, of course, we all have our limits. I agree with this 100%. I used the hypothetical homeless person to illustrate that even people without conventional jobs or luxury can do 'work' with no monetary or material compensation.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Depends. I don't think there is any true answer because what if we examine the situation where one causes the other? Let's examine. What if someone suffers from a mental disorder and constantly suffered from early childhood of crippling anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and social issues. Let's assume these features of their mental disorder developed over time and become worse as this person grew up. Now the person, from dwelling on their anxious periods, awkwardness, and cloudy sense of themselves has a confused mind. Their mind haunts them as they are not able to control it and most experiences they remember about their life, time and time again, leads them down a rabbit hole of them remembering that they have these miserable symptoms of their disorder in almost all stages of their life. Now let us develop this hypothetical person even further. As a result of these symptoms of their mental disorder, this person has had extreme trouble having any 'true' friends. When this person was introduced to people in school, sports, or activities people treating them nicely and people treating them poorly. Children and teenagers that they came in contact with through these phases of life thought this person was weird and bullied them sometimes. So, even if they have 'friends' that happen to be nice to them and spend time with them, due to this 'trauma' or poor social experiences they are constantly battling in their mind whether or not people are their 'true' friends or not. Next, due to all of the above, their concentration is poor and they can barely read or write for long periods of time in the way that their school teachers and potential job superiors would want, causing them to be alienated from large parts of society that most people experience. I think this illustrates someone that suffers a terrible mental disorder that has affected their life greatly with grave psychological suffering.
But what about physical suffering? Have people liked so not endured physical suffering due to their mental disorder that causes their psychological suffering? People are not saints. We know this from stories about neglectful and abusive parents. What if these parents neglect and/or physically abuse a person like our example? What if our hypothetical person cannot escape and is not known to the neighbors in the neighborhood, government, social services to save them? I do want to go much further, but I think you get where I am going with this part of the argument. The parents of this person could beat them and inflict physical suffering possibly due to their mental disorder/psychological suffering. So, in this very specific, hypothetical case, there may be a cause of psychological suffering having an effect of physical suffering on that person. Additionally, our hypothetical person could commit a crime against another person caused by their inability to control their impulses or delirium. What if the police show up and beat them senselessly from police brutality, our person is convicted guilty and sentenced to prison where he receives more physical suffering from beatings of other inmates for years?
We can also flip the example around. What if a soldier goes to war and is captured as a prisoner of war where he endures years of physical suffering? What if the physical suffering leads to mental/psychological suffering years after his release once he returns home? Obviously, there are many examples where one can lead to another and many examples where one could endure both. Therefore, from our hypothetical examples, and from everything I've heard about other people enduring both or just one of the forms of suffering, I do not think there one is worse than the other at all.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I do not know as I have never experienced it first hand. There is no way for me to know. But we can ponder and hypothesize.
I hope I answered your questions the best I could for the sake of argument and thought. What do you think about the answer(s) and what is your opinion on the questions? Thanks for asking and engaging in this thread. Cheers!
Not on this thread, but in the past on this forum. I recall Frank Apisa (who was expelled) was one. I certainly never took that position. I've mentioned before meeting young Brits in England in 1985 who pooled their doles to rent a house, and then pursued their common interest, which paid nothing.
I understand that I and who I am talking about in my posts are still working. But the original conversation stemmed from people who were working. If you go back and look at the posts, you brought up people supporting people that don’t want to work at all. So that’s why I keep bringing up people who are still ‘working’ because that was the original discussion.
Oh, okay. Gotcha