Yes Arne, almost everyone I know that sees philosophy as more than just an idea, or something in books, fits that description.

Glad to know there are others. I just wish I personally knew some.

All the best,
Rob

Thanks

Cheers

Too true Jack. I have taken two short philosophy courses at our Australia National University (ANU) over the last two years. And both were specific, directly related to the subject matter, informative and helpful. One was the Philosophy of Pop Music and the other on Post Modernism.

However, the ANU full philosophy degree is about 80 completely academic philosophy after the fundamentals. I sat in as an audit student on one unit, I chose it on purpose to see what I would have to be learning, it was called Normative Ethical Theory and it was almost incomprehensible.

For most of the degree, it is like I need a degree in how to figure out the degree.

It would seem that this forum is a community of like-minded people. We just live in different time zones.

Specifically, two things philosophers have taught me is, one, like Epicurus said, the best way to live is to be in a community of like-minded people, to live and eat simply and be open to others.

Two, Sartre, etc., once I was thrown into this world, I am responsible. This is my world and I make it.

I live by both these maxims.

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Hesse at 12, wow. The only thing I was doing at that age was picking my nose.

I'm from Australia, and for the vast majority of people here in the 1960s, when I grew up, education was a horrible joke. I left school at 15. The school I went to did not even have music as a subject. The whole school did not own one musical instrument. And as for university, it was not even a word in my society.

You may have had a stifling boarding school education, but judging by your writing, at least you had an education. I did not. I never knew even how to think deeply until I was mid-20s.

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced.

Poerty ask questions and tries to tell people what life feels like. I guess philosophy is similar.

You say, "the main thing that draws me to philosophy is the desire and the will to understand the Universe," I try to seperate understanding the universe from philosophy. I see philosophy as solely a human-made construction. Of course, there are flow-on connections and questions, but for me to try and make sense of both, I let science try to explain the physical world.

Yes I have 30 regular acquaintances. I was merely guessing that others do. Certainly, when younger, I had many more. Being in the arts, especially in music as I am, classical music is mostly ensemble work, and in those groups, you have to develop closeness. The music doesn't work otherwise.

And yes, philosophy has become a type or food for me too.

You say, "Philosophy is looking at words we use in our daily lives and trying to figure out their definitions."

I have this saying that's a bit cumbersome, but hopefully, gets the point across, it goes like this. The trouble with people is we invent things that need explaining instead of being able to explain the things we invent.

This search for meaning in words and ideas we invent is either a waste of so much time or is ultimately very useful, is a quandary for me. The words/ideas of just soul and God have taken up so much of our time and effort and have amounted to little more than division, is for me, I wish they weren't invented because we still have no explanation for either. Hence, words creating philosophy and philosophy creating words, and what is the outcome?

Yep, poetry led me into philosophy.

Oh yes, most definitely Joshs. You say, "You may not talk explicitly about philosophy or philosophers, but that doesn't mean that you dont ever think philosophically."

I get that all the time from people I know, yet, if I was to mention Plato to them, they would say they know the name but nothing of his philosophy. Hence the reson for this post.

You say, "My suspicion is that if none of your artistically-inclined acquaintances have any interest in philosophy, then they are also less likely to be interested in modes of creativity outside of their narrow domain", well, that is and is not true of my friends. Some have broad artistic interests, and others very narrow.

You are right in saying that some prefer not to be alone. I think a lot about Nietzsche and his seven summers of wandering around Sils Maria. Yes, he was alone and created his Zarathrustra there, and others, but like his profit coming down from the mountain, I read it that it was Nietzsche himself who wanted to come down from his mountain and be among the living.

You say, "Each person is different, as are their specific desires and motivations behind such." You hit on the exact point I was trying to raise without saying it directly. See, I think the opposite. I suggest that there is something unique, something so similar in people who are drawn to philosophy that it could be pinpointed if we were to graph it. Be it a specific emotion denied, a lack of friends, or a spark, instilled by someone. I believe there is one common cause/reason for people who have an interest and love of philosophy. I just can't prove it.

I think you've hit on something there Bert. "Perhaps we only start to think when we stop getting what we want." That requires extra thinking from me.

Do you recall the first time you encountered philosophy and what was it?

I can't say I've ever found anyone with enough knowledge of philosophy to be hostile towards it. And that's a real pity because many of my friends already talk and sound like philosophers.

You say, "I think it probably takes a life event or a remarkable encounter with someone to awaken an interest", and I was trying to recall what it was that triggered my interest in philosophy, and I'd have to put it down to me being a poet when younger.

One of the other things that pushed me into philosophy was the characters who wrote it. I've yet to find a boring philosopher who did not shake up thinking or the status quo in some way.

I've been trying to read everything I can about Simone de Beauvoir; what a full and expansive life she had. And then you add her philosophy and literature on top and that and it makes for about 10 people's lives.

Yes, Kazan, I think you are very much right in thinking that " every human decision has a philosophic basis/bias."

Even small decisions are weighed by most people inho. There has to be some rationale behind every thought and action.

Good point. And as we all know, blondes have more fun. I wonder if all this applies to the blonde male also?

I was just reading about how different blonde and brunette women are treated across society. Blonde women still get the majority of the breaks.

We are conditioned to react to them in predictable ways. — Vera Mont

I totally agree, Vera Mont. Perceived beauty is a process of our conditioning. I read in a book that old chestnut the other day, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Right next to that it was written "Beauty is in the pen and brush of the creator."

Hey BC,
While beauty can be a good thing as you say, it depends if it's engineered beauty or "natural beauty". Beauty can have very discriminatory aspects. Such as people perceived to be beautiful getting things "average" looking people do not.

But goodness in a person, whether it is perceived or not, as far as I can tell does not hold discriminatory aspects. I'd say on average that "good people" get far less in life than a beautiful person does.

I think most people would think that the concept of beauty is an aesthetic one. But the connection people make to beauty and goodness does seem to be quite strong.

I'm at a loss to explain this to myself, outside the halo effect. Which, I know this effect is strong in me. Maybe I feel this way because of the way literature shows "ugly people" as evil and untrustworthy, read Dickens, Fagin was not beautiful.

On another angle, do we equate poverty as the opposite of beauty?

Nice thoughts Outlander.

While I was thinking in general terms of a person’s physical beauty, the inner beauty of a person, could also be seen as an extension of their goodness too. As in beautiful outside and in could both be equated to goodness in a person.

On a connected note, as everything is commodified today, the "Beauty Industry", promotes beauty as a positive for goodness and badness. The "bad girl look", sells very well. Though, I find it interesting how the beauty industry equates the "bad girl look" to the tomboy look.

So many avenues to travel when talking about beauty/goodness.

Very rational, Vera Mont. I’d suggest that all of us who could give did, it would make a huge difference.

Hi All,
The reason I asked the question, was because after reading Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he states, page 13, in the revised version, that, "Offhand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of greater sum advantages enjoyed by others."

Based upon the majority of replies to this tread, Rawls is right. We have proved his statement to be correct. It seems most are in favour of not redistributing wealth so others can have the basic goods to the extent that others have them. Or am I wrong?

However, I was thinking, and I am assuming this here, most of us do not have excess wealth to give away to those who may be in need of help. So it's simply a matter of supply and demand. We don't have the supply to meet their demand.

When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? Does it mean if you have enough wealth and you have the opportunity to increase the prospects of others you should.

I give a small amount each month to a charity. I always think that those who can afford to do this should. It could only help make things more equal for some others.

That why you don’t impose equality. You set up safety nets to help people who are not able to help themselves. Then, when basic needs are met, people can focus on personal growth, development and advancing society. This already happens in many countries. Sometimes its effective, sometimes not, but at least they are trying.

Hey BC,

It sounds like you are saying there is no point in even raising the question.

For me, it’s a question that needs to be asked if the human race wants equality. For it is inequality that separates humanity. Maybe most of us don’t want equality, but I don’t believe that. There is good will, but at what point does that good will stop?

Should it come down to people who have a lot, having most of their lot taken away to support those that don’t? You know, the greatest good for the greatest number.

I hope that is taught in schools everywhere, Frank.

Everyone has the choice to disobey. It's in human nature, look at any child. We need more individual rebellion.

what do you think would happen if every soldier refused their orders?

To do your questions justice Tom, would require a book length response. But I will say that existentialism appeals to me because it speaks directly to me. Part of the theory says, once you are born, you are responsible. I believe, that where posiible, if we were all more responsible for our descisions, we would have a better world. For me, that is the whole point of philosophy. And that's to make a better world.

As philosophy is a non-subject for about 98% of humanity, I’d say it compares pretty low.

36%, so far.

Yes, Jack, I agree. When someone asked me if I was, I was relectant to answer. I think if one was to afirm their loyalities to one philosophy or another, you would have had to spent a lifetime inside that philosophy. I have not.

Well, I don’t agree with you Abhiram.

Both Sartre and de Beauvoir said that existentialism is best understood through plays, literature and poetry. The unified structure you speak of is completely inherent and obvious in these formats.

Can you prove there can’t be a perfect definition of existentialism?

If you’ve read the novels of existentialists writers, you will find in them, the structure of the philosophy of existentialism.

Rob

Well 180 Proof, as it’s the philosophy I have read about the most, and the one that interests me the most, I’d have to say yes.

I have read about 50% of everything that Simone de Beauvoir wrote, plus books by Robert G. Olson and Hazel Barnes, plus Sartre, whom I find rather impenetrable, especially Being and Nothingness. So, I’ve still a long way to go to understand it better; it does attract me.

I read the other day that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for everyday he was alive. And I’d be willing to bet that de Beauvoir did the same. So lots to read, just from those two.

After reading all the replies to this subject, it's clear that metaphysics means different things to different people. With something that is "non-physical", I understand why this would be so.

The reason I asked the question, "what is your best description of Metaphysics?", was because I wanted to see how other saw metaphysics, and now, I've got that.

However, I'm still captured by the English philosopher and historian R. G. Collingwood's description. One, because as someone pointed out, it is poetic, and two, obviously for Collingwood, his description best expressed metaphysics for him, and it fits my description of metaphysics.

I feel we have expanded on the description and hopefully, for others, and myself, it has made the subject clearer.

Here's Collingwood's description again, just for the sake of clarity.

“I write these words sitting on the deck of a ship’; his pen moves across the page. ‘I lift my eyes and see a piece of string – a line, I must call it at sea – stretched more or less horizontally above me. I find myself thinking “that is a clothes-line”.’ But this single proposition, ‘that is a clothes-line’, cannot be verified by observation. A minute examination of the string, a scientific investigation of its parts, cannot reveal its truth, because ‘that is a clothes-line’ means, in part: ‘it was put there to hang washing on. And this at once situates the object against a vast, rationally structured background of human life and history – a background that contains clothes and baths and soap, hygiene and standards of taste, ideas about cleanliness and smell and beauty, and reasons and motives and desires.

This transcendent background, the reality that surrounds us, is the subject matter of metaphysics, and without it Ayer’s favoured propositions are left, like the clothes-line, hanging in the air.“

I can understand love letter to the two. After reading about Chateaubriand, I think I might have done the same thing.

Yes, corporate speak is the death of originality.

Hi Tom,

I'm learning French and all French translations to English are never word for word, they can't be. So yes, translations often distort.

I like SbDs writing and thoughts. Her ideas are not philosophical, as she said many times, "Sartre is the philosopher”. I think the best way into her non-fiction is through her diaries. I've read America Day by Day and herWar Diary.

I said earlier that, "I can tell how aligned their thoughts are to mine", because my thoughts on many subjects were aligned to her’s even before I ever heard of her. Take this example, it's about something I hate, small talk.

Simone de Beauvoir framed this problem well in her America, Day by Day diary written in 1947. After a heated discussion one day with people she has just met, and whereupon meeting them the next day, she noted, “it is not customary in the country to push discussions very far. Polite speech curbs passions; if some sharp difference of opinion suddenly threatened to reveal itself, the conversation ceased and they fell back on polite formulas. We misunderstood each other in our politeness: they agreed to everything I said”.

I had this thought well before I ever read her diary. There are many other instances.

What I also find amazing is the number of ideas she had, well, about almost everything. I read somewhere that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for every day he was alive. SdB would be the same I reckon.

I ain’t bright, what’s AVL?