Right. Notice he didn't say that's all he does. — Xtrix

:up: :ok:

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone — Blaise Pascal

You weren't happy with, and I quote, "...a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world." My point is that at least such people don't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all.

You weren't happy with, and I quote, "...a cloistered monk who contributes nothing to the world." My point is that at least such people doesn't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all. — TheMadFool

:clap:

What you don't can often be much more important than what you do.

My point is that at least such people doesn't add to our woes. Sometimes, in my humble opinion, not creating a problem is far far better than being even a perfect solution to one. That's all. — TheMadFool

Yes, theoretically. But that’s a truism. In the real world, anything we do can unwittingly become awful. If we fight against a repressive government, and overthrow it, who’s to say it wouldn’t provoke the next reign of terror?

Perhaps not killing Hitler is better than killing him. Perhaps doing nothing about climate change is better than doing something. Etc.

I don’t see the real world relevance here. I stand by my statement: doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life.

doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life — Xtrix

To each his own I suppose and then there's the fact that there are two ways one can make big mistakes with very severe consequences, there are acts (SINS) of commission (my focus) and omission (your focus). It seems that we're both right in our own different ways.

I've been thinking about these sayings relative to philosophy (and religion, and even science), and I come to a truism: it really doesn't matter what you think or believe or profess if your actions are awful. — Xtrix

:100:

I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth. — Xtrix

This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life.

Using only personal experience, I am much more likely to seek out and listen to someone mature, well-mannered, disciplined, attentive, and patient over someone with high credentials, wealth, fame, long experience, or knowledge and expertise in some domain (be it "philosophy" or anything else) -- at least when it comes to the most important questions of all (in my opinion): how do I live? What do I do? What is a good life? — Xtrix

Yeah this makes sense. What you might want to do is talk to an expert in ancient Greek philosophy or maybe stoicism is ever get the chance because those two areas hit on your areas of interest exactly and the expert in ancient Greek philosophy will be able to distill how the Greeks approached these essential questions very clearly.

I mention this only because I get caught up in abstract problems, philosophical or political or historical, and often ignore what should be mattering most to me: what I actually do: how I treat my body, how I interact with others, the kind of work I produce, the quality of my thinking, my attention and concentration, my discipline, the quality of my habits and routines, regulating of emotions, and so forth. — Xtrix

:100:

This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real.

In conclusion, the point is a simple one: shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing? — Xtrix

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live.

What you don't can often be much more important than what you do. — Manuel

Excelente señor/señora!

doing nothing and contributing nothing is a waste of life
— Xtrix

To each his own I suppose — TheMadFool

What a strange position. Again, if this is the kind of conclusion that “philosophy” results in, then it’s no wonder it’s become a joke.

I don’t see how that statement should be controversial. You’re stuck in some abstracted world of hypotheticals.

This is more or less the ancient Greek approach to things - it's a little more practical in contrast to later philosophy, especially 19th century philosophy which tended to concern itself more with abstract systems and questions. A lot of philosophy today is also more abstract and less concerned with daily life. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn’t realize it when I posted, but you’re exactly right: it is very much Greek. All the better!

This is largely why I've been posting here less. I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real. — BitconnectCarlos

Me too. I hadn’t posted much in weeks prior to this. So little is accomplished. Ditto with other social media. And reading in general, for that matter.

Taking more time to simply walk and think for oneself without the aid of any inputs is a blessing, if one is so inclined to make it a priority.

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah— and so what comes of all this philosophizing if one ends up stressed, bitter, egotistical, angry, and obsessive? We’re at a point in history where it just won’t do to put your head down and concentrate on minutia of one kind of another. We need all hands on deck— ESPECIALLY those more intellectually inclined.

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions.

I'm actually doing work to better myself as opposed to spending all day arguing with internet strangers about some irrelevant topic or asking someone whether colors are real. — BitconnectCarlos

It should and when people put philosophy first I hate to generalize but they end up bitter intellectuals who get upset that others don't recognize their greatness or brilliance. Sounds like a great life to live. — BitconnectCarlos

I think if being on this forum were only bitter arguments that you'd be right (I stay away from politics usually because of this.) Also agree that philosophy-identified types can be and often are like thirsty, unrecognized artists, angry that they can't get the deference due to their profundity. But there's a good side too, where one has the experience of sharing in the gift of the tradition. I'm grateful to the philosophers I love, and it's nice to share in this gratitude, celebrate certain insights, get tips and tricks and leads from others.

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions. — jgill

The distinction between doing and not doing is curious to me. It sounds very Protestant work ethic - 'Don't just sit in your room, get out there and do something!" "Idle hands are the devil's workshop"

The distinction between doing and not doing is curious to me. It sounds very Protestant work ethic - 'Don't just sit in your room, get out there and do something!" "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" — Tom Storm

But there was a part of being a part of God's favor and grace attached to it. Other than "You're a sack of shit if you don't do X, Y, Z, and X, Y, Z is what I deem as good" I don't see the compulsion.

Perhaps a bunch of hypothetical imperatives should be used:

"If you want the pleasure of accomplishment, then do X".

Not wishing to be in God's favor is the same thing as being a sack of shit.

Not wishing to be in God's favor is the same thing as being a sack of shit. — Tom Storm

But taking the Protestant out of the PWE, all it says is, "You're a sack of shit because I say so. Well, okay, then. Goodbye.

The subject of this thread has an existential interpretation. If one creates meaning in their life by engaging in certain projects wholeheartedly, then, yes, to some degree you are what you do, and what you are transcends the biological creature accomplishing those functions. — jgill

Everything's an existential interpretation.

Besides, what's the alternative? That we are what we think and believe? Yeah, maybe -- but maybe that's true for cats and frogs, too. Who cares.

But taking the Protestant out of the PWE, all it says is, "You're a sack of shit because I say so. Well, okay, then. Goodbye. — schopenhauer1

Huh? The point is that the PWE has significantly influenced secular culture just as Christian ethics have influenced our human rights frameworks. The vestigial traces of the PWE remains a cultural force inside and outside Christianity. It says hard work is a virtue and laziness is bad and no one gets something for nothing and many other permutations of this sentiment.

It says hard work is a virtue and laziness is bad and no one gets something for nothing and many other permutations of this sentiment. — Tom Storm

Right, so instead of God thinks you're a sack of shit, it's just people that think you are a sack of shit. Not sure what was hard to get.

However, if it's a cultural norm, then what's the justification? It used to be God's grace. Not in secular PWE. Aristotle used eudaimonia for his virtue theory (signaling) to end the viscous circle. Perhaps we can copy that here.

what's the justification? — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's the question. Justification is not always available.... that's the problem with dying religions. As Nietzsche writes, the ghostly shadows of God's death reman with us for a long, long time. As someone from Protestant background who holds no god belief, I am sympathetic with virtue ethics.

What a strange position. Again, if this is the kind of conclusion that “philosophy” results in, then it’s no wonder it’s become a joke.

I don’t see how that statement should be controversial. You’re stuck in some abstracted world of hypotheticals — Xtrix

Quite possibly but, as you're fully aware, philosophy isn't really about finding definitive answers. In fact, as is repeated ad nauseum, philosophy is all about making sense of issues (questions) that lack a clear answer. Ergo, debate - like the one we're engaged in - is both inevitable and necessary. FYI I'm not claiming that I'm right; all I'm attempting to do is offer a different perspective, one in which what you assert is not wrong of course but is deficient in the sense that it ignores/overlooks an entire side of the story. Apologies if this comes off as unphilosophical.

FYI I'm not claiming that I'm right; all I'm attempting to do is offer a different perspective, one in which what you assert is not wrong of course but is deficient in the sense that it ignores/overlooks an entire side of the story. — TheMadFool

Anything is arguable. There's “another side” to anything as well, sky’s the limit.

It’s not that it’s unphilosophical — it’s right in the middle of what’s usually interpreted as philosophy. But we have no clue what philosophy “really is,” and if this kind of thinking is what leaps to mind, we’re in sorry shape indeed.

My post was not geared toward extreme (and endless) hypotheticals. Take it as an appeal to common sense, if you must. For the purposes of a better life — for an individual and for humans writ large— I’m talking about real action in the real world.

Yes, certain tentative assumptions need to be made. But they’re so trivial that you questioning them is like questioning gravity. Maybe some people find that fun or profound— I don’t. So forgive ME if that’s unphilosophical — but I hope it is.

Recall from OP: “ Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else.”