Methinks profundity is just another name for truth. We're so deluded that when, once in a blue moon, we do encounter truth, it feels as though it's not just truth, but something more! It's not truth simplicter, it's now a profound truth! Such is life!

We're so deluded that — Agent Smith

I have at least a hundred questions for you based on these words alone Agent Smith but can I at least ask:

In your opinion, was this an accidental/deliberate result of the nefarious actions of historically rich, powerful, influential individuals/groups?
Are we 'so deluded' despite all the efforts of the classical/modern philosophers/scientists or were some/all/the majority of them complicit in your perceived goal to 'delude' the majority of their own species?

I don't think there's a syndicate or organization with the sole purpose of generating and perpetuating delusions. All I can say at the moment is we don't seem to be 100% rational, a necessity, won't you agree?, for our second birth (we are born twice I believe), 1^st physically, then 2^nd mentally. Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team?

Hmm, so goal here is mostly to generate "deepities"?

"A deepity, as Dennett characterizes it, is a sentence or other utterance that has more than one interpretation; it has “two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true.”

Maybe good criteria for evaluation: If it sounds deep, there is probably some confusion somewhere.

"pseudo-profound bullshit"?

I don't think there's a syndicate or organization with the sole purpose of generating and perpetuating delusions — Agent Smith

Yeah, I agree. There are many nefarious groups/organisations but I don't think there has ever been a group that is so well structured, that they have the power to fool all of the human population of the planet all of the time. Perhaps some groups can fool a large number of people often, but not all of the people all of the time.

All I can say at the moment is we don't seem to be 100% rational, a necessity, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Rational is such a relative term, isn't it? It requires the confirmation of others and it's easily abused and obfuscated. If I claim to be 100% rational at all times and everyone around me agree's because I might kill them if they don't then we have the rationality of autocrats like Putin or madmen/opportunists like Trump. Yet what you say has merit. Rational thinking is not always the best way to deal with irrational situations, so I agree if you are suggesting that not being 100% rational all the time is a necessity for survival.

for our second birth (we are born twice I believe), 1st physically, then 2nd mentally. Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team? — Agent Smith

You would have to give me some more about your idea of a 'mental' birth moment/time frame?
I assume you are not contrasting with the evanhellical notion of 'born again.' I assume you are typing about a moment of 'self-clarity,' as to 'who you are,' and 'what you want,' that you are 'content' with. This is why I value these two questions so much but what exactly do you mean by 'mental birth,' if it's different from what I have suggested?

:lol: Perhaps you could offer me a little trust that my intentions are honorable and offer a little more depth of your own personal opinion towards the viewpoints I raise in the OP, beyond ""pseudo-profound bullshit"

Perhaps you could say which of my sentences in the OP best fit your two categories below, in your opinion and why?

On one reading it is true but trivial, and on another it is false but would be earth-shattering if true. — Yohan

I think Dennet was quoting a 'child,' when he used the term 'deepidy.'.

When I read/participate in a thread, the word 'profundity,' or its equivalent conceptualisations, seems to be the main/ultimate/perceived goal of the exchange. — universeness

I meant that a lot of what goes on in philosophy here might be using words or concepts out of context to generate pseudo-profound questions or answers. Which may be related to looking for "profundity". Maybe I'm making a strenuous connection.

I think Dennet was quoting a 'child,' when he used the term 'deepidy.' — universeness

I think it's a play on "Deepak" and "deep"

I meant that a lot of what goes on in philosophy here might be using words or concepts out of context to generate pseudo-profound questions or answers. — Yohan

Ok, but you use the words 'might be,' so you must have an opinion about their reasoning?
Are the individuals you are typing about just malcontents?
Do you think it's more sinister than that and they have their own personal agenda or a group agenda?
Do you think they deliberately quote words or concepts out of context as part of an overall plan?
Why would some individuals HERE on THIS FORUM want to 'generate pseudo-profound questions or answers?' Are some of them trying to recruit towards a cause?

I think it's a play on "Deepak" and "deep" — Yohan

No, I don't think it's anything to do with Deepak Chopra.

According to: https://www.edinburghskeptics.co.uk/skepdayJan/Deepity

The term was "First coined by Miriam Weizenbaum, the daughter of a friend of American philosopher Daniel Dennett."

Ok, but you use the words 'might be,' so you must have an opinion about their reasoning?
Are the individuals you are typing about just malcontents?
Do you think it's more sinister than that and they have their own personal agenda or a group agenda?
Do you think they deliberately quote words or concepts out of context as part of an overall plan?
Why would some individuals HERE on THIS FORUM want to 'generate pseudo-profound questions or answers?' Are some of them trying to recruit towards a cause? — universeness

Actually I doubt it's done on purpose, so I think that covers all your questions.

No, I don't think it's anything to do with Deepak Chopra.

According to: https://www.edinburghskeptics.co.uk/skepdayJan/Deepity

The term was "First coined by Miriam Weizenbaum, the daughter of a friend of American philosopher Daniel Dennett." — universeness

Actually I doubt it's done on purpose, so I think that covers all your questions. — Yohan

Ok, but no, I don't think that covers all my questions at all, but if you think what you have typed via Dan Dennet closes the thread for you then, fair enough.

I am convinced that I will die happier due to my pursuit of profundity/wisdom than I would if I died as a 'happy clappy hippy.' Do you see it quite differently?

I love the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?' I enjoy listening to people trying to answer them without referencing anything outside of them. I am the father/mother/son/brother of.....
My name is......, my job is......, I want to be a.....
I have yet to find anyone who can answer those questions to their own satisfaction, even when they claim they can do exactly that, my follow-up questions normally make them edit their previous responses.
Do you think that it's possible for any human being to currently claim the following at the end of their life:
I did it my way!
I die truly happy!
Will you be able to make such claims and would your claims stand up if your 'main life events,' were viewed by others in 'true story,' movie format? — universeness

I think that my pursuit of profundity/wisdom is a choice I make to forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die. I’m content with that, at least, and I consider it more of a risk to eudamonia to try and protect any illusion of constant happiness in life.

I also think that if we believe we can answer ‘who are you?’ and ‘what do you want?’ with any certainty, then we’re setting ourselves up for a rude shock at some point down the track. From the moment we make such definitive statements about ourselves, the truth of them has already altered to some extent.

I don’t think we ever manage to do things entirely our own way - intersubjectivity is an unavoidable aspect of self-consciousness that leads us to these questions in the first place. But I think it’s possible to reach the end of our life satisfied with its uniqueness and fullness, and whether anyone agrees with us is out of our hands, and no longer our concern.

Ok, but no, I don't think that covers all my questions at all, but if you think what you have typed via Dan Dennet closes the thread for you then, fair enough. — universeness

Lol you have misinterpreted my intentions again. I don't want to dismiss your thread. I like the topic.

I think that my pursuit of profundity/wisdom is a choice I make to forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die. — Possibility

When you say 'choice I make.' Could you have chosen otherwise or was the compulsion too strong to pursue wisdom? I think I NEED to pursue such to give meaning and purpose to my life. Is that what you mean by 'forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die.' Do you think others can be equally satisfied by prioritising family/love/power/wealth and possessions/fame over seeking profundity?
I know that's a very subjective question but I have never been convinced by anyone who I would say has one or more of the list I suggest above and claims to be 'content.' I could list my reasons for that opinion but I am more interested in the opinions of others as to what they think could make them more or as content as the pursuit of new knowledge/wisdom/profundity.

I also think that if we believe we can answer ‘who are you?’ and ‘what do you want?’ with any certainty, then we’re setting ourselves up for a rude shock at some point down the track. From the moment we make such definitive statements about ourselves, the truth of them has already altered to some extent — Possibility

There certainly is risk involved in posing the two questions at yourself constantly, especially if your answers don't self-satisfy. You risk mental instability I think but the two questions seem so vital to me.
I have never achieved certainty when trying to answer them for myself but I have been able (so far) to use them as 'personal positive measures of meaning/purpose,' in my life.

But I think it’s possible to reach the end of our life satisfied with its uniqueness and fullness, and whether anyone agrees with us is out of our hands, and no longer our concern. — Possibility

A good comment. :smile:

Why does it seems so important to so many of us to continue to struggle and wrestle with 'the big questions,' and at some point in our life, become convinced that we have personally achieved some deeper, wiser more profound understanding of life, — universeness

The opening post was very scattershot, all over the place. Lots of seemingly unrelated questions. So I'll just pick the one I'm interested in answering.

My goal is self-awareness. I don't think that's unusual. If I were a Buddhist or Taoist, I'd probably try to accomplish that through meditation. As an intelligent westerner, I primarily do it through intellectual contemplation. Thinking. Thinking is what I do and have always done. Before I retired I thought for a living as an engineer. Now I think recreationally here on the forum. For me, that is what philosophy is - a path, not the only path, to self-awareness.

Lol you have misinterpreted my intentions again. I don't want to dismiss your thread. I like the topic — Yohan

If that's the case then, Sorry Yohan! I'm sure you agree, the best solution to misinterpretation is further explanation and clarification.

The opening post was very scattershot, all over the place. Lots of seemingly unrelated questions. So I'll just pick the one I'm interested in answering — T Clark

Offering a little order to a perceived initial chaos, is beneficial to all readers, I'm sure.

My goal is self-awareness. — T Clark

But to what depth/breadth/length? Awareness of self may first happen in the womb, obviously that is not what you are referring to so which word(s) would more accurately describe your goal.

I primarily do it through intellectual contemplation. Thinking. Thinking is what I do and have always done. — T Clark

By myself, whilst staring at my large print of the hubble deepest field image or before I fall asleep etc and during many other 'time slices,' I do the same and I would call these 'time slices,' very 'happy,' not 'hippy happy,' but 'happy,' I ponder all of the recent sensory info I have taken in and try to 'learn,' or/and confirm/edit/replace previous/current viewpoints. But I am interested on how others prioritise what you term 'intellectual contemplation,' when compared to but not completely exclusive of love/family relationships/social status/wealth/power and influence/possesions etc.

Now I think recreationally here on the forum. For me, that is what philosophy is - a path, not the only path, to self-awareness. — T Clark

Do you see your 'intellectual contemplations' as 'recreational,' then? Is that its priority level for you?
I know you typed 'here on the forum.' Does that mean that you assign much more personal importance to your intellectual contemplations, outside the boundaries of TPF?
Your use of 'self-awareness' here is too 'surface,' for me.

Who are you and what do you want?

I ask myself these questions and get frustrated.

How do you currently answer these questions or is that not the point of this thread?

Maybe I am a finite being seeking infinity, on the one hand, and an infinite being seeking a particular focus or unique meaning and role, on the other. A role can be limiting in one sense, but enabling in another. (Is that deepity?)

I also get 'frustrated,' because my current answers seem flawed to me.
I will try to 'word' them here but I can feel the frustration rise as I try to find the words I want/need to use.
How can I judge my own level of honesty and sincerity as I attempt to type my answers?

Who am I:
Overwhelmed and quite scared when others rely on me/need me.
Confident and self-assured but not always.
A lifelong learner but an armchair warrior, not the activist I feel I should be.
Very empathetic towards most but don't carry the load as well as I would like to.
Very vengeful in my thoughts towards those who abuse what I perceive as innocents.
My intentions towards others are honorable.
I advocate the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you).

I could go on but I always end up with a list that is too long, too complex, requires revision and seems to contradict in parts. But I have used these two questions since I first heard them used as a 'summary of self.'

What do I want:
To take the basic means of survival for granted.
To be part of the solution not part of the problem.

I can go on with this list as well but I can start to sound a bit messianic if I do and I can start to sound like someone looking for something to sacrifice themselves to.
So I get frustrated and think 'rip it up and start again.'

I ask myself these questions and get frustrated — Yohan

This seems good to me. Perhaps that's why I seek more wisdom by exchanging thinking on such forums as TPF. Personal psychotherapy can take many interesting forms. Who/why/what am I and what do I want and why do I want it? are I am sure, the basic questions asked by all philosophers from Egypt and Greece through to now.
I find that, despite the frustration, asking and answering the two questions I mentioned, in particular, have been for me, very beneficial. Overall, I currently quite like me, which is a good thing, as I am with me all of the time.

which word(s) would more accurately describe your goal. — universeness

I think "self-awareness" is the right word.

But I am interested on how others prioritise what you term 'intellectual contemplation,' when compared to but not completely exclusive of love/family relationships/social status/wealth/power and influence/possesions etc. — universeness

Intellectual contemplation is what I do. I don't try to do it. I don't will myself to do it. I just do it. It does itself. It doesn't interfere with other aspects of my life. It's how I address them. It's like asking whether my interest in screwdriver usage interferes with me driving screws.

Do you see your 'intellectual contemplations' as 'recreational,' then? — universeness

Yes. I don't do them with any specific reason. As I noted, they do themselves.

Is that its priority level for you? — universeness

It's not a question of priority. It's what I do.

Your use of 'self-awareness' here is too 'surface,' for me. — universeness

I think you and I have a different understanding of what self-awareness is.

I think you and I have a different understanding of what self-awareness is — T Clark

I agree.

Twice Born
1. Physical (you exit the womb)

Note, because our brains are so large and women's birth canals so small, we're born physically and mentally immature as infants.

2. Mental (your body brain matures, your IQ and EQ improves, you become an adult who can think for him/herself). For animals, this coincides with physical birth; if you'll take the time to notice, animals can walk, even run, feed, etc. within minutes after birth).

2. Mental (your body brain matures, your IQ and EQ improves, you become an adult who can think for him/herself). For animals, this coincides with physical birth; if you'll take the time to notice, animals can walk, even run, feed, etc. within minutes after birth). — Agent Smith

Ok, I understand what you have typed but I don't personally see much value in the 'twice born' description you offer.

Question is, should Spock be a leader or a member of a team? — Agent Smith

In the OP I asked the question, 'Are you generally mad/bad/sad/indifferent/confused/scared/stable/self-assured/profound?'

The Spock character was always portrayed as emotionally indifferent, very stable and very self-assured, yet every time he was in full command and he tried to make all decisions based on pure logic, he fails. The writers made sure he failed. I greatly value logic but I also value instinct, intuition, and emotion as the writers of Star Trek do.

In your own pursuit of profundity/knowledge, have you experienced more threat from madness/badness/sadness etc than you have made gains in stability/confidence/pleasure etc?
Do you think the personal struggle for what you would consider personal enlightenment is worth it compared to the proposed 'bliss of ignorance?'
I have often thought Jordan Peterson for example, struggles with his personal sanity and that this might be due to his wish to and his approach towards tackling 'the big questions.'

Do you think that it's possible for any human being to currently claim the following at the end of their life:
I did it my way!
I die truly happy! — universeness

Yes. I think it happens a lot, actually.

I love the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want? — universeness

Unanswerable - those questions are stilted and already loaded with assumptions.

Yes. I think it happens a lot, actually — Tom Storm

Any more detail? Can 'I did it my way,' ever be the madman's final insult, which is more like an evil 'so f*** all of you,' I don't care how many died because I did it my way?
The person who gave up all they had, lived very basically, spent their lives helping the poor and hungry of the world? Can they truly die happy without concern about what's still left to do and whether or not there is someone who can/will take their place?

I hope you are correct Tom and you see these two deathbed exclamations as positives, stated by someone who had a fulfilled and happy life, which benefitted the vast majority of people that they encountered and not the more negative suggestions I made above. I think it's vital that we all take responsibility to try to help ensure that as many people as possible can live such lives. Perhaps such as the antinatalists will then fade away forever, the more we can exemplify such individual fulfilled lives.

Unanswerable - those questions are stilted and already loaded with assumptions — Tom Storm

Again, a little more detail might allow me to attempt a fruitful response.

Any more detail? Can 'I did it my way,' ever be the madman's final insult, which is more like an evil 'so f*** all of you,' I don't care how many died because I did it my way?
The person who gave up all they had, lived very basically, spent their lives helping the poor and hungry of the world? Can they truly die happy without concern about what's still left to do and whether or not there is someone who can/will take their place? — universeness

This seems to be setting up a scenario drenched in unnecessary moral rumination and hand-wringing. Most people live and die and do not require the consolations of philosophy or deep dives into ethical concerns. In life, they do what they can - they love, they raise children and maybe even take care of some friends/neighbors along the way. They have meaningful relationships with others, do a job they enjoy and generally stay out of other people's business. Job done. I've known many of these people and they tend to die happy and leave others who regret their death.

I love the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want? — universeness

Those sorts of questions sound like something you'd hear asked on an NBC news profile. The problem with them is they force people into narrow pathways.

The first question assumes that people think of themselves in a such a way that allows them to describe their life in sound bites. People tend to feel who they are, they don't communicate it. But of greater concern is the question itself - what does it mean to ask 'who' someone is? My answer to that question would be: What are you trying to find out?

The second question 'what do you want?' is equally stilted. Just what are you asking? Again the question feels like it's trying to narrow the range of human experience into a constricted template that doesn't fit a life lived. Again, I am not sure what you are asking. What does 'want' mean or refer to?

Well, now that you mention it, knowledge is a struggle and the educational system we have at the moment is a huge waste of time for the simple reason that for a decent life, all one needs is common sense.

Knowing the equations for conic sections or the chemical formula of turpentine or the staple diet of the French, most of the stuff you learn in school, is perhaps meant to hone this life skill but it's a rather convoluted and painful way of doing so. I've seen people with no formal education doing better than those with. Where did we go wrong?

When you say 'choice I make.' Could you have chosen otherwise or was the compulsion too strong to pursue wisdom? I think I NEED to pursue such to give meaning and purpose to my life. Is that what you mean by 'forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die.' Do you think others can be equally satisfied by prioritising family/love/power/wealth and possessions/fame over seeking profundity?
I know that's a very subjective question but I have never been convinced by anyone who I would say has one or more of the list I suggest above and claims to be 'content.' I could list my reasons for that opinion but I am more interested in the opinions of others as to what they think could make them more or as content as the pursuit of new knowledge/wisdom/profundity. — universeness

I feel like the option is always there for me to sink into the joy of my current situation, and ask no more questions in this march towards an inevitable death. And I’ve done that for a time, afraid to ask for more in case the asking risked what I already had. But I’m done living in fear, and I think the option is always there to seek something more, no matter what you acquire. I have found that seeking wisdom puts all these other pursuits into perspective: I am conscious that pursuing family/interconnectedness masks a yearning for ‘me’ time, focusing on wealth ignores a craving for the simple things in life, and seeking power disguises a longing for interconnectedness.

I do think that deliberate ignorance is at the heart of any claim to be content pursuing nothing from life. I think we all seek something, even if it’s the status quo in a world of flux, or some level of non-existence. Maslow said ‘you will either step forward into growth or backward into safety’ - it seems the majority of existence will choose safety when it comes down to it, and that can keep them busy enough to maintain, in itself.

I think there are also many who, in prioritising profundity, have settled for the safety of simply being the smartest person in the room.

Which leads me to ask: when you say that a person has family/love/power/wealth/fame, how are you making that assessment? Is it through self-comparison, part of their own claims, or is there some objective status they’ve attained? In my own pursuit of wisdom, I would say I’m ‘content’ with the level of family, love, power, wealth and fame I currently have, simply because these are not my focus.

There certainly is risk involved in posing the two questions at yourself constantly, especially if your answers don't self-satisfy. You risk mental instability I think but the two questions seem so vital to me.
I have never achieved certainty when trying to answer them for myself but I have been able (so far) to use them as 'personal positive measures of meaning/purpose,' in my life. — universeness

I think I get what you’re saying now - I do think it is essential to be aware of my localised situation, and to orient it in the broader context of reality as I determine and initiate ongoing action, but I don’t think the answers are for anyone else’s benefit. In fact, I think that putting them into words, even for ourselves, limits the focus of our potentiality in the next moment. Our existence, even simply in this moment, is so much more than any ‘I am...’ statement could describe, and we have so much more potential than any ‘I want...’ statement could articulate moving forward. But the process of asking does keep bringing us back to our actual interaction with the world - which is sometimes neglected in this pursuit of profundity. Wisdom is more about the accurate application of understanding in relation to the world, than simply possessing knowledge.