Third World Man is Joni Mitchell’s favourite Dan song. — Wayfarer

I read that. She's a perceptive sort. I agree with her that Gaucho isn't given the credit it's due.

but in the universe of discourse, most of our intellectual history has not been face-to-face, but rather through books, letters, essays. — Fooloso4

True. So far, in any case. I wonder if communication via social media will come to be face-to-face communication through Zoom or holographs or images in virtual reality or some other device. it will be interesting to learn whether the lack of thought and inhibition will persist when that takes place.

so, what about ‘they call Alabama the Crimson Tide, call me Deacon Blues’? You know what that’s about? — Wayfarer

I don't, beyond the fact that Alabama, the Crimson Tide, is one of the winners in the world, and the voice of the lyrics has chosen "Deacon Blues" as his name when he loses.

Hey thanks for setting me straight on that lyric. Always thought it was a reference to a 'latter day' someone or other. (BTW, for bonus points, I know what the Crimson Tide reference means, ask if you're curious.) — Wayfarer

I'm a big fan of Steely Dan, and the solo work of Donald Fagen. Part of the fun for me is figuring out the various references in the lyrics. They managed to insert certain phrases into popular culture, like "Gentleman Loser" (the name of a bar featured in William Gibson's cyberpunk novels). I think they reintroduced "gaslighting" into popular discourse with Gaslighting Abbie from the Two Against Nature album put out in 2000.

My feeling is that social media, email, text messages; the technology of the Internet and communications, discourages thought (and other things as well, such as prudence, consideration, patience). The emphasis is on responding, quickly and emotionally. Little or no effort is involved. The inhibitions imposed by face-to-face contact are absent. There's no need to verify or justify claims, and challenges may be ignored. There's no need to think, and no reward for thinking. The desire is to be the equivalent of the loudest know-it-all at the nearest bar.

On January 8th, 2022 the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Philadelphia Eagles with a score of 51-26. — SwampMan

Well, Hume was talking about miracles, you see (violations of the laws of nature). Your talking about the score of a football game. Perhaps this defeat of the Eagles by the Cowboys doesn't amount to a violation of the laws of nature.

Could you be more specific here? As I see it, his only fault was that he underestimated the enemy. He had 4 years in office and instead of ensuring his loyal people are places in positions of power, he kept calling each other names with some cnn journalist. — stoicHoneyBadger

"Stoic"?

Theoretical physics of how the universe works is out of my control. It just is what it is. Some physics has no real use for humans. Should we not think about it? — schopenhauer1

I have to admit I don't know enough about theoretical physics to say whether it may have a "real use." I suspect it may, but don't know. It strikes me that it has a real use for someone who is a physicist, obviously, if they for example are paid for being one. It also seems from what I read that physics may be used in technology.

Regardless, though, I think there's a distinction between considering how the universe came to exist and considering why it came to exist, and why not nothing. Considering how the universe came to exist may actually be answerable, and the answer to that question may provide insight into how things work, which may be of benefit to us. To the extent the question why there is something instead of nothing doesn't seek to determine how things came to be, I don't think it's an answerable question at all. Do we want to concern ourselves with an unanswerable question--something that isn't a question?

But the axiom at we shouldn't disturb ourselves with things beyond our control addresses well-being, wisdom, living the good life, primarily. Seeking answers to pseudo-questions is certainly to pursue something outside of our understanding, and in that sense control.

Thinking about it is in our control. — schopenhauer1

Certainly, you may think about what why there is something rather than nothing if you wish. I don't say you can't; I say you shouldn't, unless you want to disturb yourself about something completely beyond your control. Like why you're not Arthur Godfrey, or Jimmy Durante, or nothing at all, instead of yourself.

I made a list of what traits one should have to be able to call himself a Man. — stoicHoneyBadger

Not a list of traits one should have to be able to call himself an ideal Man, you see. I wonder what list of traits one should have to call himself "Jesus."

What is X? What is a truth statement? What justifies X action? Yeah. — schopenhauer1

You think that when we determine what something is, or what is true, or what justifies an action, we disturb ourselves with something completely beyond our control? All these determinations relate to how we live and conduct ourselves, which are things in our control. Why there is something rather than nothing, though, does not.

There are very few you think can be called a "Man" in the world, it seems.

And thus ends philosophy. — schopenhauer1

Only if philosophy consists of being disturbed by something completely beyond your control, in which case--

DIE, PHILOSOPHY, DIE! (copyright Ciceronianus 2022).

Things just are. 'Nuff said.

consciousness is you, the subject, the one who is waiting to be met. — Angelo Cannata

So much for consciousness, then.

...we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience...
— Ciceronianus

I just thought this was too obvious to be worth mentioning. — jas0n

It should be obvious, but I doubt it is. So, I think it should be emphasized, lest we fall into the Never-Never Land of relativism or mere speculation and obfuscation.

The idea is that thinking about things properly makes an end to aimless, useless thinking. — baker

Agreed.

In its proper application, the analytical mind exhausts itself. — baker

I, for one, don't accept that analysis (reasoning) is inherently suspect, regardless of method or the results of its application, merely because it's engaged in by human beings. The analytical mind, properly applied, would make no such assumption.

I don't think Dewey ever maintained that habits, or customs, or culture or what have you (name your preferred source of prejudice) prevent us from making reasonable judgments, or preclude us from using what he called "inquiry" (which includes logic and the scientific method) to come to warranted conclusions. Quite the contrary, in fact.

I had the impression from your replies, which seem to me to be vague and perhaps even evasive, that you'd rather not commit yourself to any conclusion or make any judgment on what is the (admittedly unimportant, relatively speaking) matter at hand. That's fine. But I agree with Dewey that as significant as what he called "habits" may be, we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience.

So I confess I'm less than fond of attitudes along the lines of "Any judgment or claim we make is tainted, so maybe this or that other judgment or claim is just as good if not better" and the ambivalence which results from them.

The German soldier is equated to a bloodthirsty ape. — _db

Doesn't seem bloodthirsty to me. Why did the poster convey to you the idea the ape, or German soldier, drank blood or was thirsty for it?

We are loaded with prejudices, AKA culture. So we need them and yet they are in our way. Metaphors, pictures, myths. Is there a system without some unjustified master concept, some kind of grand narrative that's true for no reason? Look for an image of their hero, their ego ideal, their proposed what-we-should-all-be. I've never met/read anyone, including myself, without holes in their story, things they take for granted without noticing it, a roleplay of some version of the hero. — jas0n

It strikes me that there's a point when the inclination to discount any assertion or argument because we can't really know anything since we're permeated with prejudices and "culture" should serve to end discussion as well as judgment. Why bother?

Why the fear of magical thinking? Can you prove that magical thinking is bad? — jas0n

Wouldn't be more apt to ask whether magical thinking is philosophy?

Was Helena Blavatsky a philosopher? What about Aleister Crowley? What about other kinds of thinking, e.g. religious, or New Age? Was Ram Dass a philosopher? The Dalai Lama? John Lennon?

If you wish, you can claim most anyone of these individuals or others who "think great thoughts" are/were philosophers.

These are matters which don't yield to thought. Addressing them are tasks for the artist or mystic or the religious. What is sought is an evocation, a showing, a revealing rather than argument or demonstration.

The ruling metaphor here is the eye which can see everything but itself. — jas0n

A curious metaphor, as there is no eye that sees anything, really. Our eyes don't see. We do. And we see ourselves with some frequency. So, just what is intended by this "metaphor"? What does it describe?

The four horsemen are primarily polemicists. Hitchens wrote very well, on a number of things; the others I haven't read much. They say nothing new about the abundant problems of institutional religion and the so-called proofs of God's existence, as far as I know.

It brings to mind an analogous scenario in which a chess player recklessly plays white by rashly forcefully moving his pawn first in foolish anticipation that doing so will indeed stupefy his adversary. — FrankGSterleJr

The chess player who plays the white pieces moves a pawn first quite often. It's common, in fact. There's nothing rash about doing so, and nobody playing the black pieces would be surprised, let alone stupefied, by such a move.

So you're a partisan in the "Analytic-Continental" divide to the degree that any discourses which do not meet the peculiar standards of the Anglo-American Analytical tradition (or schools) you consider "anything but philosophy"? — 180 Proof

No, as that would exclude Dewey. I don't think he can be said to be in the Analytical tradition. And, it would exclude most philosophers in the Western tradition, who were still philosophers though misguided (e.g. Descartes).

I don't think it's a question of exclusion so much as a concern with inclusion. How big is the tent of philosophy? Was Dostoyevsky a philosopher? Timothy Leary? Is Eckhart Tolle a philosopher? What about Deepak Chopra? Erich Fromm? Max Weber?

I find it hard to consider someone a philosopher solely because they think or write about "big questions."

‘Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing?( — Joshs

I think "how" there is something may be an answerable question but one to be resolved, if at all, by science rather than by philosophy. "Why" can't even be considered until we know how.

Thank you.

Ah (or is it AHHHH?), the philosophy of orgasms. "For a good time, call....[insert (yuk-yuk) whatever philosopher comes (yuk-yuk) to mind]."

La petite mort sums it up well enough, if it must be addressed at all in philosophy. And it will be, I know.

Yes, I see. That's interesting. What's that quote from?

Heidegger believes that we dont simply experience a world, each of us produces a world. For each of us, all of the particular objects and events that we experience are interwoven as a totality of relevant relations. When we recognize an object as something , it is already familiar
to us at some level in its belonging to our larger pragmatic dealings with the world. From time to time , these overarching schemes by which we interpret our world undergo transformation. We re-frame the frame. When we do this , we wonder anew at the world, because now we look at all its particulars with fresh eyes. This is how science evolves, through such gestalt shifts in outlook. — Joshs

I don't think this constitutes wondering that there are things in the world, which seems more along the lines of "wondering why there is something rather than nothing." That's what my questions addressed, for what they're worth.

Perhaps you've read N. Perhaps, more likely, you've not bothered to study his work. — 180 Proof

I've read Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and The Birth of Tragedy, I recall. I may have read The Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols; they seem familiar as they're described. I say "may have" because it was some time ago. It's fair to say I've never studied him.

I may have been too influenced by the Anglo-American philosophical tradition when it comes to my conception of philosophy. In that tradition, I think, we don't encounter writers like N or some others of the more modern "Continentals" as philosophers. We might encounter them as social critics, or satirists or non-philosophical authors, though.

But I don't think this is a purely Anglo-American prejudice. We don't see writers like Nietzsche in the tradition of ancient philosophy, or in Medieval philosophy, or in Enlightenment philosophy. Nietzsche and others like him seem to have appeared in the last two centuries or so, in Europe; I would say Europe of the Romantic tradition, post-Revolutionary and post-Napoleonic France.

Writers like Nietzsche can inspire, can be insightful, can provide new ways of viewing things. So can art, or religion, or mystical experiences. So, I suspect, might Buddhism, or Zen, or Taoism or reading works associated with them. I simply think philosophy is distinct; it isn't the same as those paths, and I think that when it tries to mimic them it fails.

we are filled with wonderment that things are in the world. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why, and when, would we wonder that things are in the world? What else would be "in the world"?

What would we expect to be the case if there were no things in the world? What would we think to be an alternative? "Gee, if nothing existed, then....." Then what?

But how do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why would anyone want to do that? To learn what, to know what, for what purpose?

You might be describing why I like him. There are places I'd still want to critique Nietzsche... but I actually think it's safe to say that most philosophers think too much. — SatmBopd

He certainly isn't tedious or dry, which is to his credit, but neither are poets or prophets, or passionate critics of our lives. I don't think of them as philosophers, though. One doesn't have to be a philosopher to be insightful and profound.

It seems to me that Freddie the Frenzied had a unique style and way of thinking which was declarative rather than reflective, or analytic. He's righteous, he bears witness rather than explains. He floods us with his thoughts. His writing is an avalanche of opinions.

This is unusual in a philosopher (I suppose I should say those I've read), and seems to me to be unphilosophical. That's not to say he's unintelligible, or lacking in insight, but he doesn't explain--he doesn't argue, which is what the philosophers I've read do.

Perhaps philosophers you've read are similar to him.

. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? — SatmBopd

I don't think Frantic Freddie was a philosopher. I think he was an insightful, interesting, passionate critic of art and culture, who never had the patience or the inclination to make an argument or analysis. Instead, he issued proclamations; declarations, sometimes vehement, often absolute, accompanied by rhetorical questions and exclamation points. A voice crying in the wilderness, similar in some respects to a religious figure, come to condemn us for our inadequacies. Someone who did not think as much as emote.

Refining and furthering Friedrich Neitzsche’s project of creating new values and transcending the limitations of humanity by understanding/ creating the Ubermensch is the only interesting or important philosophical project. — SatmBopd

Well, get to it then.

The Democratic President specifically asked for a woman rather than a man, and yet the nominee cannot explain the difference between a woman and a man.

If the nominee does not know whether they are a woman or a man, then perhaps they should recuse themselves from the nomination, as the President specifically asked for a woman. — RussellA

It's simple really. From the standpoint of a lawyer or judge, a woman is, of course, whatever the law in question says a woman is, just as a man, or anyone or anything is whatever the law says it is. All else is irrelevant in assessing the legal qualifications of a person.

We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. — Carlikoff

Speak for yourself.

I'm sure many won't accept that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist, but it's a far more reasonable conclusion than that it does care, given the available evidence. Regardless, though, it seems childish to attribute caring to the universe. It suffices that we're parts of it. Does the universe care that the Earth has a moon? Things (including humans) merely are, as far as we know.

That should suffice, as far as "meaning" is concerned. We are, undoubtedly. How should we live is a pertinent question, but it's unrelated to "the meaning of life." We don't require a particular "meaning of life" to live happily, tranquilly, free of disturbance. It's singularly futile to maintain we must have a particular reason, or adhere to a particular meaning or maxim, to want to live happily, tranquilly, and free of disturbance.