But my point is what is it about humanity that you want to survive, besides survival itself? — schopenhauer1

You're asking me my opinion about that? Obviously I have a thousand ideas of what I'd like to see survive -- but that's personal and irrelevant. Why? Because none of those things will matter if we're dead.

It's an odd question, really. But yes, in general I think beauty and love and music and discovery and spirituality and joy, etc., are all worth living for and worthy of survival. If that seems incredibly obvious and unoriginal, it's because it is: we all share these sentiments. Unless we're pathological.

I want humanity to survive, yes. I’d like to contribute to solving the problems it faces. As any sane person does.

Having academic discussions about theory is fine, but I’m not interested in that in this case.

This is the same with the useful / useless division. — god must be atheist

Again hung up on definitions. That’s philosophy for you. I’m not interested in that in this case. To talk about things in pure abstraction gets us nowhere. To use the real world, with real examples, makes it clearer. I’d like to end child abuse. I’d like to help solve that problem. I’d like to help contribute to solving climate change. Etc.

We have to act in the real world largely on belief and tentative assumptions which may prove to be wrong in the future. We’re finite. But having said that, to let this fact prevent you from acting is a grave mistake.

So I’m going on trying to solve problems, cheap skepticism aside: “Well what if climate change leads to MORE happiness? What if the human species dying off is good? What if child abuse is really good? Can you prove it isn’t? What IS abuse, after all?” ... and so on...

In fact, cloistered monks did contribute something — Bitter Crank

Yes. What I said was in reference to a hypothetical cloistered man who "need not contribute anything" to the world. In the real world, monks have contributed a great deal indeed.

Yes, that's not at all what I'm saying.

If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.
— Xtrix

I guess you answered your own question, then, when you asked: "shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?" — James Riley

No, because that question relates to hobbyism. What it's saying is the following: if your life is out of order -- if you're miserable and immature, for example, and see no real changes in your life despite lots of philosophy reading -- then isn't it worth considering putting down the books for a while and straightening it out?

I could be wrong here, but what I perceive is you're looking for an argument. — James Riley

No, I think you are, to be honest. And so far I'm not seeing any. All I see is misreadings. Many of my points are trivialities that you seem determined not to understand.

Your repeated claims of "going out into the field" are good examples. Try harder to understand what the writer is saying, and I'll try to be more clear.

I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. — Judaka

Again I agree to disagree. The entire branch of ethics deals with this very issue, as you know. If you relegate philosophy to the purely theoretical, apart from practice or application, fine. It certainly can be that, but that's a matter of definition and a choice. I look at it differently.

You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man. — James Riley

Yes, it is subjective. It's based on a belief that I want humanity to go on. I've been clear about that. Now let's move on to the real world.

I'll put it this way: I have no interest whatsoever in a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world. All hypotheticals aside.

From my POV, the quality of a life is determined by what we do, with whom, to whom, by whom, for whom. Any individual on earth has opportunities to make positive contributions in their interactions with other people. Most people act in small positive ways most of the time. When large numbers of people act in negative ways, and larger negative ways at that, life for other people begins to deteriorate. Lots of examples of both the positive and the negative. — Bitter Crank

I share your point of view. Apart from all those other extremes you mentioned, however, I reserve a very special place for philosophy. I hold it to a higher standard, and so I'd like to at least believe that those who engage with it are above average in most of their decisions (and actions).

If it's not having much effect, I (like Jesus) worry about the state of what we're calling "philosophy." If there's no quantifiable change in one's life from one's confrontation with thinking and questioning, then there's a good chance it's become reduced to what's been called purely "reactions activity" -- a kind of hobbyism.

This doesn't necessarily mean philosophy needs to stop being enjoyable, or that we all have to be perfect beings, but if it's merely a hobby, I worry.

. . . and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.
— Xtrix

You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool: — jgill

Maybe you're right. I'll rephrase: it's not what *I* would aspire to be like.

In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.
— Xtrix

Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. — god must be atheist

I'm not sure what you mean by support agent. If it's just another enjoyable hobby, more on par with playing music, and nothing else whatsoever, fine. It appears that's the case for many on here. But see my remarks above -- if that's the case, in my view one isn't truly doing philosophy at all. One is treating philosophy as history or as literature or as poetry. But again, this is my own idiosyncracy.

As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. — Judaka

I don't necessarily agree with that, although I think I see where you're going. Look at Stoicism, or even Buddhism. If we forget for a second whether these are "philosophies" or "religions," we notice they're dealing with what philosophers have traditionally wrestled with; self-control, discipline, mastery of the mind, control of emotions, etc., play a very big role indeed.

Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control. — Judaka

True. Many deal with these things. I just tend to hold philosophy (or philosophers) to higher standard, as one would for, say, one who claims to be a "holy man," etc. What the "many" struggle with shouldn't really be a concern, if one is a philosopher. One overcomes what the "herd" (channeling my Nietzsche) struggles with, values, pays attention to, etc.

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well.
— Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? — Xtrix

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree. [...]

Easy. — Xtrix

I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack." — James Riley

I don't see how this quotation is relevant. What you quoted was in response to this:

He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either. — James Riley

I really don't see where this is going anymore, and I don't care too. Perhaps just a misunderstanding. But I'll reiterate: I start with a belief: I'd like to see humanity survive. Therefore, I'd like to contribute to solving the problems humanity faces (nuclear weapons, climate change, unregulated greed, political corruption, etc). If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.

Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.

Easy.

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):
— Xtrix

Out doing. — James Riley

When I say to look at what people do, I'm not saying that philosophy isn't doing anything. It is. Reading is doing something. I'm meaning it in the context of an entire life, however. So watching sports if fun, and not a problem in itself, for example, but if that's ALL you do, perhaps that's an issue. Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well.

As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do. — god must be atheist

Thinking is an activity, and so a kind of "doing." But reagrdless, I like to separate them too -- so in reference to your question: first we have to ask "What's worthwhile?" -- and that's a personal question, of course, and worth talking about with others. But if you're right about no one really "doing" much in this sense, then we're very impoverished indeed. In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.

I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. — James Riley

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. — Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself?

If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. — James Riley

Again, what field? It's the most basic belief there is, really, other than maybe "something exists." If debating that is what you consider philosophy, then yes I'm not that interested in philosophy I guess.

what good are you?
— Xtrix

I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us." — James Riley

True, it does depend on answers to that question. That's partly what I'm doing: applying that question to our actions, including the activity of "deep thinking" which we call philosophy.

We could argue anything we'd like -- perhaps other species would be better off if we're no longer around, etc. But I don't take those games too seriously. I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief.

That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. — James Riley

Yeah, but now you're off in outer space. Maybe it's the Moon People meditating on Eudoxus -- or anything else you can imagine. I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. Let's try to keep it to the real world.

I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us. — James Riley

Fine. But I'm talking about real people in the real world, which I presume you belong to. Yes, that's what I believe. I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid.

When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?
— Xtrix

He need not have a contribution. — James Riley

Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack.

If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you?

It's a terrible position, in my view.

Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making? — James Riley

There are plenty of these types who have existed -- mainly bums on the street. Some huddled away in a monastery, some who never interacted with other people at all, etc. Maybe some are/were great people, who knows? And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. If they are like Emily Dickinson, then fine -- but remember, had she not at least written anything down, no one would have any memory of her whatsoever, and she would have had almost no impact on the world at all.

Likewise, I can walk around all my life believing in my own specialness, and how great a philosopher I am, and it's one of those things that can't really be challenged in the way that other activities can -- like medicine or masonry. Anyone can make the claim that he or she is a philosopher, or a special person, etc., and there's often no real way to test it. But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't.

Charlatans and egomaniacs make grandiose claims all the time -- and there's really no way to disprove their claims, which is by design. I see this a lot with modern "artists," as well. So there's an aversion to any kind of empirical "proof" or quantitative measuring, because that may turn out to show how mediocre they really are.

I see a lot of this in philosophy too. A lot of it is just pure garbage. But it affords some people (in the past, even myself) with the comfort that they're somehow superior, yet without ever having to do any real, hard work -- without ever having to do anything at all, really.

That's an occupational hazard in what's labeled "philosophy," I think. One worth looking out for.

That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you. — NOS4A2

Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration.

Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions engaging with you -- which I try to avoid -- as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence. Which, given the stakes, I'd still argue are appropriate.

The way we live our lives--what we do, the actions we take--IS our lives. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. How philosophy fits in with that is relevant, I think.

I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ. — Judaka

I understand. To be even more clear, I'm asking how philosophy fits in when we look at what we are actually doing in life and ask ourselves "Am I living the life I want to live?" It always depends on the person.

What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality? — Judaka

I can't give any formula, of course. But if the tendency is simply to resign oneself in an ivory tower, spending endless hours (however enjoyable) reading texts and pondering realism, and generally not acting in a way that's admirable (to me), while I may agree with this person's writings (or art, or mathematics), I loathe what he is and would aspire to be the opposite.

Again, I'm putting philosophy in the same dimension as religion, really. That doesn't make them the same, but they're asking similar questions.

Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight. — Judaka

Yeah, I'm often not very nice. I can't help it sometimes. But I never really gain anything from acting in such a way. People, conversation, and collaboration should be priorities to me -- I know this. Yet how I act often works against these values, for reasons you mentioned: emotional reactions to others' being "wrong" or having drastically different taste. That's a common problem -- I see it all over. Shouldn't philosophers be somewhat "beyond" that? Would Aristotle take my attitude? I doubt it.

And so it goes for others, as well.

shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?
— Xtrix

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human. — James Riley

I'm not sure what you mean by "what you are". If we are what we do, and what we do is read and write and philosophize, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. My point is that philosophy is different from other endeavors, more on par with spiritual activities, and so if one is truly thinking philosophically and doing so often, and yet one is an impatient, cruel, impolite, miserly person -- these "fruits" signify something fairly off with the person as a whole. Why should I take anything seriously about life, being, causality, or ethics from such a person? Whether they're correct or not, they're basically hypocrites. "Love of wisdom" -- what is wisdom if not also phronēsis?

I think it's a pretty philosophical thing to feel like philosophy is insufficient. If it's, as Judaka says, recreational - it can be an art, like conceptual sculpture, art criticism, a combat sport... Religious figures, spiritualists aren't feeling like their studies and rituals are worthless. Us? We read, it can change how we see things. Where else are you going to learn what you learn by practicing philosophy? — fdrake

Where else? By thinking and questioning, and by dialogue with others. It's not only reading, after all.

Otherwise I don't think I fully understood your argument here.

I do agree it's philosophical to ask about philosophy. No doubt about it.

Now let's turn that around: only do those things that have an effect on your life, using whatever metric you think fulfills that goal. I assume this means, focus on family, work, exercise and the like, but put aside the world and "philosophy."

Would you be happier or more satisfied? — Manuel

I doubt it. That's the classic "unexamined life." I don't think shutting out the world and never questioning things often leads to a happier life, no.

But again, I'm not against philosophy. I'm actually obsessed with it, and have been for a long time. There does come a time, however, where one should ask about what one is doing in the world and whether it's useful in any real sense, practically or otherwise. If it becomes just another habit, or hobby, then it's another amusement, as sports or news-reading is.

Better examples are Christians who don't live by Christian principles and political hobbyists who don't get involved in the community. Very different, of course, but more in line with those examples.

This is all very personal to me, obviously. I'm not attempting any sweeping claim about what proper philosophy is or even what a proper life is, in detail. This is all evidence and citation-free stuff, so take it how you will.

We are here on some cosmic fluke. — Manuel

That's one story, yeah. Maybe it's true, maybe not. I reject supernatural explanations, but I also reject more and more this scientism that's fashionable these days. It's stated with utmost certainty that it's basically become dogma. Who's to say what's a "fluke"? But I digress....



I fail to see the relevance of your story, but thanks for posting nonetheless.

I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself. — James Riley

Interesting. This deserves another thread altogether, really. I will say: whether it's a waste of time or not is determined, in my view, by how you use the information you're spending so much time consuming. If it has some effect, even a small one -- in conversations, for example -- then I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. Better to be informed than not. But if you're truly engaged in your community or state, beyond merely voting, then it becomes very relevant indeed. If it's simply another hobby (read: addiction), then the use in that case is just satisfying some craving and little more. Then it becomes especially important to ask: "Does this fit into a life I want to be living?"

So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. — James Riley

True, but my argument is that the cloistered man doesn't have much "wisdom" either. The very fact that one is cloistered, removed from society, is in itself a form of foolishness at times. What's the sense of it all if the world is burning around you? When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?

Last elections I didn't vote. — TaySan

Here's a good example of how philosophy doesn't always translate to the real world very well. In my opinion.

If philosophers, who are supposed to be thinking, reflective, questioning people, don't have the judgment to make the right decision in this case (the action of voting), then I for one have very little interest in reading or listening to almost anything else this person says. Especially when there are others out there who *do* get it right and are also interested in philosophy.

No offense meant to you -- not voting has its justifications at times, and I think the view of "both parties" being bad has a plenty of truth in it. I used to feel the same way, in fact. I see now how wrong I was, though.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. An important difference between carpenters and self-anointed philosophers, though, is that this site can provide the illusion of doing the work (builds the house of being.) — j0e

:lol: Touche.

Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits. — Judaka

Sure -- again, as I said before, I'm not saying it's an either/or: either grim duty that's "good for you" or fun activity with no other value. I do think, however, that the emphasis being put on "enjoyment" turns philosophy into merely another hobby among many.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. Philosophy isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not simply for fun -- it's actually deadly serious, unlike any other human endeavor, in fact -- including its offspring, science. If it's truly happening, it's not really a "hobby" at all. At least that's what I'd argue.

For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might. — Judaka

Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to. Most people probably would answer in such ways, and that's fine.

I think the question "What do I want to do with my life" itself may not be considered very "philosophical," but it certainly shades over into philosophy. I see the question as resting on philosophical grounds, as most questions do (perhaps all questions, ultimately) -- namely the one you mentioned: "What is a good life" and then, further, "What is good?"

Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. — Judaka

Exactly. Put another way, it's thinking about thinking. Or questioning about questioning? Either way, I'm seeing that it's perhaps a bit Nietzschean, in the sense of asking about the VALUE of "truth." I suppose in a way I'm asking something similar.

But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? We who engage with thinkers of the past and ask perennial human questions about the world? I can speak for myself, as I have before -- and I have only indirect evidence from this forum. Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight.

That should be worrying to us, I think.

I'm a critic of his, if anything — Aryamoy Mitra

Good for you!

You brought up the idea that some of this activity of thinking was not important to being an active and effective agent in the life we are alive in. — Valentinus

Then I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I don't think it's important; quite the opposite. But in the same way a Christian would consider reading the Bible and prayer to be important -- and I want to apply the point that Jesus made about Christians (or Jews in that case) to philosophers (even amateurs or philosophical hobbyists, of which I include myself): by the fruits you will know them.

What are the fruits of this group of philosophers? Judging myself only (but I know it's true of many others), I am often petty and rude and impatient and aggravated, especially online. Not a lot of "wisdom" there that I'm supposedly in love with, and others are often turned off by that -- and they're right to be, even if they're otherwise wrong about this or that (which they usually are :wink: ).

I'd rather be unphilosophical and live a good life than read philosophy all day long and be a miserable asshole. I guess that's my point.

So I think it's extremely important, so important that I take it seriously enough to ask the question of its effects and its "use" (for lack of a better term) and its impact on us as individuals and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.

Maybe a better way to express my point here is not in quoting Jesus and using parallels with religion, but to switch to what's called "political hobbyism," where many people inform themselves and Tweet and write long Facebook posts, etc., but don't actually gain any power. Eitan Hirsch wrote a book about this, "Politics is for Power." What I'm saying is somewhat related to this.

beautiful — matt

Thank you?

The "philosophizing" is not something that has a result or value by itself. — Valentinus

Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there's no value and no result in doing so, then why do it? You argued earlier that there's a value in itself, apart from any personal connection or gain. Now there's no value whatsoever "by itself"? Maybe I'm not following you.

Appreciate the response nonetheless.

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following.
— Xtrix

I'll keep posting as long as you continue not to see the point.

I guess that'll be a while, given you're a Peterson devotee. So be it. :yawn:

Perhaps 'abstract thought' (and the heroic posing that goes with it) functions like a drug. Is it caffeine or meth? Depends on the person & phase of life perhaps. — j0e

I think it certainly can become an addiction, a habit, a hobby, etc -- like anything else, yes. Something we mindlessly do for "fun." And that's fine. But that's not how I feel about it, nor do I think that's how one SHOULD think about it. Again, I quoted Jesus for a reason here. There are parallels. If you claim to be a devout, Bible-reading Christian, and nothing shows up in your actual life -- what's the point of the Bible reading? Or take Aristotle as another example -- you are what you do, not what you think you are. I can't go around claiming I'm a carpenter if I don't have any skills of cutting and shaping wood. (I suppose I could, but I'd be a fraud.)

It is like anything else, if it is a clue to what you want to find then it is worthy, if it is a distraction, then it is not. — Valentinus

I think I agree with you, but I don't think I completely understood fully what you meant here. If philosophy is just a diversion, then yes I think at that point it's on par with these "spiritual" people who are petty, unfocused, impolite, impatient, etc. Just a kind of hypocrisy. It's another form of hobbyism, where there's no real action.

In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking.

Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity — Judaka

I don't agree with that, but it's not an irrational position.

The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. — Judaka

Very true. Simple in nature but extremely hard in practice. And pretty rare, in fact.

I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion. — Judaka

I see your point, yes. But I think of philosophy as something that can be profoundly beneficial. If it isn't, and is on par with video games, then fine. But I don't see it that way. Nor do I put keeping up with the news in the same category -- I think that is important, and more so than simple entertainment.

When philosophy becomes sport, or fashion, or some fleeting recreation, then yes -- one should simply balance it with the rest of your life. But ditto for religion or spirituality -- which is likewise very common. But what's the point of that if it doesn't lead to real change in your life? That was Jesus' point. I see philosophy as much more like spirituality/religion than sports or video games. But that's me.

And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive.

It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck. — Judaka

Eh, that's a pretty superficial way of looking at it. Odd to mention after you say philosophy is mostly "recreation," too. Does this imply only what's pleasurable or "fun" is done "for itself"? That's hardly doing it "for itself," though -- which is really a meaningless phrase.

But regardless, there's no real split between "personal life" and some other activity. It's all integrated. Not everything has to "improve" your life, no...particularly things like hobbies, or candy or sex or sitcoms or anything else you like. But the question of "What is a good life?" and "How should I be spending my time?" is hardly an irrelevant question to ask, whether about video games or history.

I'm not arguing they have to be a drag or a grim duty, either. Philosophy and history ARE fun and interesting, of course.

Again, strangely enough you're proving my point by your assertion that philosophy (or history, or politics) is "mostly recreational," while at the same time should be interesting and valuable "in itself" without question. In other words, enjoy sports without concern for your "personal life," because it should be seen as valuable in itself. But balance it well, like a diet -- a little candy never hurts.

Not convincing, really.

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following.
— Xtrix

I forgot to mention: the Woody Allen quote is from Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That you class Jordan Peterson and Deepak Chopra in the same neighborhood of competency, is frightening. — Aryamoy Mitra

Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following. — Xtrix

Yes, Hitchens' razor. Classic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Well done. :clap:

What's rather sad is that you haven't placed forth any constructive criticisms; many of which I might concur with. — Aryamoy Mitra

Very true. Nor do I care to. They're so irrelevant as to not even be worth the effort. Pointing out that they're frauds, when possible, is sufficient. As it is with most charlatans. If I said Deepak Chopra was basically a fraud, I don't see many disagreeing -- unless it's a New Age forum. But if someone did, I would certainly not be willing to quote him chapter and verse and have a long debate about it. Those who are "fans" won't be swayed anyway. Likewise for Peterson's following. Anyone with such poor judgment isn't even worth debating. So I leave it to them. And to you.

Some of that is true, some is blatantly ridiculous. My feeling is that Chomsky could intellectually mop the floor with any of those writers, as he's done in nearly every debate I've seen.

To accuse him of being a "bully" of some kind is common, and kind of a joke. He's not a pushover, true. But he's never insulting and always sticks to the facts, whether or not he's curt. Sam Harris made the same claims, for example. And I like Sam. But if you read the e-mail exchanges, it's pretty clear that Chomsky, although clearly being cantankerous, is also factually correct. The same is true in most cases. He's very rarely factually wrong, so far as I can see. That's all I'm interested in -- not in opinions about his personality, his voice, or his writing style. Even if the claims are true about those things -- and they usually aren't -- it's more or less irrelevant.

So already to compare to JP or Zizek is irrelevant, because neither say anything value even despite their posturing.

If you're referring to JP, I really doubt you can, or are of the temperament to have read Maps of Meaning. Either way, feel free to drown yourself in pretense. — Aryamoy Mitra

Like, for example, by reading Maps of Meaning?

I literally can't even type the titles of these turds without laughing a little. They sound so profound. Again: "an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory" sums it up nicely.

If you find him obfuscating, that's a personal misgiving - unless you can substantiate it with more than a derisive piece of journalism. — Aryamoy Mitra

It's a personal misgiving to think this fraud is "profound." What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A rather thorough, accurate article is all you deserve -- and you're lucky you got that. Please go read more Maps of Meaning and be happy with it, I don't care.

I readily admit that I may be projecting here. When I began a sincere attempt to investigate the foundations of Chomsky’s political philosophy, I had a heck of a time figuring how to integrate his ideas with other political thinkers I had some familiarity with. Was he a fan of Marx? No. he stated explicitly that he was not a Marxist. Well, what about the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school? No luck there. Postmodernists like Foucault? His discussion with Foucault , available on youtube , clearly puts that out of play. I finally came to the conclusion that Chomsky goes back to the very early era of socialist theorization, when Marx was just one among a variety of responses to capitalism, which was at that time still relatively young. — Joshs

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. Anarchism has a long tradition, and he talks very clearly about it. Related to socialism, Marxism, communism, etc., but not identical. This isn't hard to find out. So why you think it's his trying to evade being "labeled" is kind of odd. He's also, to use your term, a very big fan of Marx indeed. Also Rudolph Rocker, Bakunin, and other anarchist thinkers.

This suspicion was strengthens considerably by a long video I watched of a debate between Chomsky and Dershowitz on Israeli politics. I began the video fully prepared to be on Chomsky’s side. After all , he is on the left and Dershowitz is a conservative. I really wanted him to nail Dershowitz to the wall. But to my surprise I became more and more exasperated with Chomsky’s performance. Dershowitz, as you would expect , presented straightforward lawyerly arguments that I expected to see Chomsky directly refute. — Joshs

I really can't see how anyone watches that debate and comes out thinking that Dershowitz wasn't a complete and utter weasel and fraud. Chomsky literally destroys him, and I've known people who are ultimately on the side of Dershowitz agree -- a terrible showing. Especially when he invokes "Bill Clinton told me so" when confronted with the long, extensive documentary record which Chomsky refers to and gives a sampling of. If you showed up "fully prepared" to be Chomsky's side, and yet came away "exasperated," perhaps you're simply not listening. Chomsky is a rather dull speaker, and rattles off facts and figures and terminology that's very hard to follow -- so there's a double-whammy there. Dershowitz, on the other hand, is just a buffoon -- but keeps it simple and uses a lot of debate tricks and appeals to the audience.

Maybe we're just living in different realities, I don't know. I don't even care to defend Chomsky -- but on the two points you mention, it's just too off track to ignore.

It really speaks to your character that you'll invite secondary sources for the determination of your stances on primary ones, before acting facetiously so as to evade it. — Aryamoy Mitra

Because both these men, and you, mean so little to me that's it's not worth the effort of writing it myself. If that's hard for you to figure out, again that's your issue.

Yes, I've read both of those frauds. Hence why I agree with Robinson.

I guess if I agreed with his political
philosophy I would notice his passive-aggressive style of argumentation less. — Joshs

Give me one example of what you consider passive-aggressive. He's had thousands of interviews, so it shouldn't be hard to point to one.

Perhaps , like me, you notice their personal idiosyncrasies because you dislike their ideas. — Joshs

Well they don't really say much, and that's the point. As far as posturing goes -- yeah, that's pretty obvious. I wouldn't care so much if they had anything useful to say, though. But I really can't find anything. Could just be me -- who knows? But I don't see any reason to waste time with them.

I’m assuming youre a fan of Chomsky’s political thinking? — Joshs

A fan? I think Chomsky is clear and relevant. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's never irrelevant or obfuscating.

Chomsky is a brilliant psycho-linguist but as a political theorist is an egomaniac to rival the other two, — Joshs

I see no basis for this remark. I really don't see Chomsky as an egomaniac in anything, politics or otherwise. Especially not to "rival" Peterson and Zizek. Give me a break.

Exactly. I think it's just an avoidance of real work. It's much easier to pontificate about truisms. But also it's a kind of trickery to sell books, be famous, and gather a following. Very self-serving. Peterson and Zizek are both egomaniacs.

Give me 5 minutes of someone like Noam Chomsky over either of their oeuvres.

Have you read Maps of Meaning? Have you chanced across his lectures of Existentialist Psychology? Are you acquainted with his contentions to New Atheism? — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured." -- From "The Intellectual We Deserve"

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

"Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

But we do not live in a reasonable world. In fact, Peterson’s reach is astounding. His 12 Rules for Life is the #1 most-read book on Amazon, where it has a perfect 5-star rating. One person said that when he came across a physical copy of Peterson’s first book, “I wanted to hold it in my hands and contemplate its significance for a few minutes, as if it was one of Shakespeare’s pens or a Gutenberg Bible.” The world’s leading newspapers have declared him one of the most important living thinkers. The Times says his “message is overwhelmingly vital,” and a Guardian columnist grudgingly admits that Peterson “deserves to be taken seriously.” David Brooks thinks Peterson might be “the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now.” He has been called “the deepest, clearest voice of conservative thought in the world today” a man whose work “should make him famous for the ages.” Malcolm Gladwell calls him “a wonderful psychologist.” And it’s not just members of the popular press that have conceded Peterson’s importance: the chair of the Harvard psychology department praised his magnum opus Maps of Meaning as “brilliant” and “beautiful.” Zachary Slayback of the Foundation for Economic Education wonders how any serious person could possibly write off Peterson, saying that “even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good.” We are therefore presented with a puzzle: if Jordan Peterson has nothing to say, how has he attracted this much recognition? If it’s so “obvious” that he can be written off as a charlatan, why do so many people respect his intellect?"

Says it better than me. Worth a read before wasting a second more on this fraud.

Shouldn't have foreseen anything less myopic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Yeah, it's a shame I don't put more effort into Jordan Peterson-like witticisms, like the following:

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high. — Aryamoy Mitra

:lol:

Posturing and appeals are quintessential of every academic. — Aryamoy Mitra

Then you aren't very widely read. It's no wonder you think this, considering you laud the likes of Jordan Peterson and his "profound" contributions to...something or other.

Insofar as their 'non-real work' is concerned, it's only a shame that they haven't met your exalted standards. — Aryamoy Mitra

Exalted, no. That I have standards, yes. If you call asking for something beyond truisms "exalted," that's your issue. I asked for what exactly the "work" is. You, like all those taken in by Peterson's superficiality, can't point to any. I suppose "cleaning your room" is one piece of that profound work?

Eh, I'm already bored. It's not even worth discussing this bore.

For Heidegger, Nietzsche and Holderlin became those figures whereas Kierkegaard was one step removed from this circle. This is what I meant by his being ‘disparaged’ by Heidegger. — Joshs

:up:

Is your high horse conveniently tethered nearby — Tom Storm

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high. — Aryamoy Mitra

Oh how witty.

He's laid forth a substantive, and profound set of arguments that underpin the utility of Theistic beliefs — Aryamoy Mitra

:rofl:

he's been tremendously contributory towards Hegelianism (and certain psychoanalytic fields). — Aryamoy Mitra

What are these contributions, exactly? Where is the work?

Both are pseudo-intellectual charlatans. A lot of posturing, a lot of appeals to the masses, a lot of truisms dressed up, lots of italics, and absolutely no real work whatsoever. Not one thing they say can be disproved— by design.

If you’re into them, you’re welcome.

I am well aware of Peterson's work — Tom Storm

JP's a brilliant thinker, — Aryamoy Mitra

anything is permitted (Zizek has made this point) — Tom Storm

Zizek and Peterson. This is what we spend our time reading? Good heavens.