It didn’t sound remotely cold and brutal to me. Frank is up to his old tricks again.

I guess that means you're going to ban me. All I can say is that I really didn't understand why.

You seem to have partially clarified yourself within this discussion so no, I’m not thinking of banning you. And the original comment was at least ambiguous, rather than downright obnoxious, so…well done!

I think of philosophers as outliers in society. Most of humanity revolves around forming patterns of behavior and those patterns can be formed into societies and cultures. And most of our psychology has its roots in the very early stages of sociological constructs of hunter/gatherer groups.

Anthropologists have theorized that groups were often formed around decided societal structures, but because of that, the groups became static. If hunter/gatherers stayed in one place for too long it stagnated development and growth and could lead to the downfall of that group. So evolutionarily we formed certain individuals who couldn't easily be conformed to normal societal structures. They were unable to conform to patterns of behaviors and therefore were "at odds" with the rest.

The vital part of their existence was to explore, to embrace the unknown as something to research and find out more about. They were often leaders of smaller groups and fractions that left the original group to either find new sources of food, get a sense of the greater surroundings, and/or establish new settlements when the original group became unsustainably large and needed to break apart to sustain health and well-being.

Some theorize that these people are the reasons we still have people with heightened capabilities of thought, like ADHD, Asbergers, etc. due to their common attributes of having anti-social problems.

But I think that it's broader than this in that the "great minds" in philosophy, science, and pioneers actually function within the same context.

The basic function underlying any outlier of society that "thinks outside the box" is that they have some problems adjusting to cultural and societal norms around them. They are not afraid of breaking these norms because they don't have the common pattern of conformity that the rest have. They are not able to be easily manipulated and they are less likely to simply agree with what's "standard" around them.

They are driven to "seek out" the unknown because that's their natural state.

But the great minds and thinkers throughout history are just the ones we know about. It's easy to see just how broad this group is and I think a great key to spotting these psychological patterns in someone is whether or not they are actively involved in questioning the norms, ideas, and ideals around them.

In that sense, I think many on this forum generally fit that psychological pattern. Otherwise, they wouldn't have actively sought out a forum like this.

Thanks for that. I have come across a few refugees from the Witnesses, and the rigidity of that society does seem to lead to a performed 'acceptable' interaction whose unreality can become unbearable, and yet so ingrained that one cannot any more find one's authentic being. As if inauthenticity were infectious. So the veil between you and the world becomes also a veil between you and yourself.

And from there, it is more understandable that @fdrake's implied denial of the existence of an authentic self would seem brutal. In old-fashioned psychological terms, one needs to establish an unproblematically robust ego first, before considering a philosophy that negates or transcends it.

In old-fashioned psychological terms, one needs to establish an unproblematically robust ego first, before considering a philosophy that negates or transcends it. — unenlightened

I can see that, and I agree. I've always admired people who have unproblematically robust egos. I'm not on a journey to get one of those, though. There's just no way to get there.

The brutal coldness of behaviorism and eliminativism is basically the same thing as the death of God. Waking up to a pile of myths in a world of floods and holocausts.

Remember that book that said the ego is the part of you that thinks you're all alone? For humanity, the death of god is the first step into the bright light of the human Ego. In eliminativism, the light goes out.

It occurs to me that a person with a strong ego may not be aware of the cold darkness because they're walking around with a hat with a bright spot light on it, illuminating the world with Nietzsche's anathema: hope. Thus the Marxism.

At some stage in this confessional thread one might start to see a pattern; so far the obvious pattern is that philosophers like to display their examined lives, and think it serious and worthwhile to do so. And who am I to disagree? — unenlightened

If you won't, I will. Who am I to do so? A lawyer, who can't stop being, or playing, an advocate. Wait. I'm a tortured lawyer. Some day I'll reveal the reasons why I was fated to become one.

It's an old story, isn't it? Let's talk about ME. It's true philosophers have been known to indulge in this--most notoriously Augustine and Rousseau. But it's something we all do, now and then.

The formal training in philosophy I experienced so long ago might be characterized as narrow, but I'm thankful that it avoided speculation along these lines, just as it avoided seeking to discover the meaning of life. In many ways, it cheerfully undermined attempts to address the supposed great questions of humankind, when it bothered addressing them at all. You know the names; Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, etc.; those whose business it was to show the fly the way out of the bottle.

I became convinced, and still am convinced, that what philosophers had to say in this respect was said long, long ago as part of the effort to determine how best to live. That took place before Christianity, before Romanticism, before people came to understand that "God is dead" and despaired because of it, before nihilism, existentialism; in short, before we became devotees of angst.

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

before we became devotees of angst. — Ciceronianus

I see you're a big fan of Euripides. Because of all the angst in his plays. I'm being sarcastic. But in a friendly way.

The image of cheerful philosophers torturing lawyers is just too delicious; we'll just slowly pour the whiskey into the bottle until the flyster either flies or floats out.

I see you're a big fan of Euripides. — frank

Well, as portrayed by Aristophanes.

he image of cheerful philosophers torturing lawyers is just too delicious; we'll just slowly pour the whiskey into the bottle until the flyster either flies or floats out. — unenlightened

Name one cheerful philosopher. But I've suffered the tortures of the damned, sir.

Well, as portrayed by Aristophanes — Ciceronianus

He's hilarious. It's weird thinking of people being that funny so long ago.

And that may be a fool’s errand. I think that’s Neitzsche’s point anyway. I tend to agree. But you did say “to the extent possible,” so I take your point. — Mikie

The effort is the point. It's not where you get, it's how you got there. That's philosophy.

Name one cheerful philosopher. — Ciceronianus

Democritus (et al).

I became convinced, and still am convinced, that what philosophers had to say in this respect was said long, long ago as part of the effort to determine how best to live. That took place before Christianity, before Romanticism, before people came to understand that "God is dead" and despaired because of it, before nihilism, existentialism; in short, before we became devotees of angst. — Ciceronianus

Thus, I've always had a strong affinity for Epicureanism (second only to Spinozism in recent decades).

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

Well, 'academic philosophers' for sure. :wink:

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers. — Ciceronianus

There is important truth in this.

Name one cheerful philosopher.
— Ciceronianus
Democritus (et al). — 180 Proof

I stand corrected.

Thus, I've always had a strong affinity for Epicureanism — 180 Proof

Stoicism for me, but like Seneca, I have great regard for Epicurus

Very well stated, but the point could equally be made that philosophy used to contemplate these larger questions, but that its scope has been deliberately narrowed by those modern exponents of it that you mention, perhaps to avoid the very kind of self-examination that the OP is trying to elicit. Enables those exponents to conceal themselves behind the jargon of professionalism and to direct awkward and embarrasing questions into thickets of technicalities.

Consider for example Kierkegaard, a philosopher with whom I am only sliightly familiar. But his entire ouvre is very much first-person oriented and addressed to questions of just those kinds.

Stoicism for me, but like Seneca, I have great regard for Epicurus — Ciceronianus

Likewise, I've also learned from Seneca (& Epictetus).

Edited:Too much information.

I thought it was really cool of you to share it.

Thank you.
Maybe I will bring it up in another context someday. I withdrew it because I realized that I was not participating in the OP because I did not try to connect the account to my thinking or what I believe.

Very well stated, but the point could equally be made that philosophy used to contemplate these larger questions, but that its scope has been deliberately narrowed by those modern exponents of it that you mention, perhaps to avoid the very kind of self-examination that the OP is trying to elicit. Enables those exponents to conceal themselves behind the jargon of professionalism and to direct awkward and embarrasing questions into thickets of technicalities.

Consider for example Kierkegaard, a philosopher with whom I am only sliightly familiar. But his entire ouvre is very much first-person oriented and addressed to questions of just those kinds. — Wayfarer

But to what extent is philosophy useful to this self-examination as you call it? What can such necessarily subjective reflection by philosophers achieve that isn't achieved far better by others who are not expected to be constrained by reason, or the need to explain rather than evoke?

I know little about that VERY Melancholy Dane, Kierkegaard, but he seems more a theologian or commentator/apologist for religion than a philosopher.

hrmm I have said that philosophy begins in religion, because I think that's where I'd first encountered ideas that I'd still describe as "philosophical", and I was a bit contrarian on those ideas (and, relative to my birth, still am)

I wouldn't call it a loss in faith, but rather being raised with certain answers as a means for grasping the world, and disagreeing with those answers probably primed my mind for the question-and-answer ambiguity that is common to philosophy. It's not like I have many more answers now than I did then -- if anything philosophy has been a psychological relief for me because it's shown me how all those beliefs just aren't all that important.

For me, the old philosophical goal of liberation, then, keeps being a psychologically rewarding reason to continue pursuing philosophy. More than religion, I've found way more personal liberation in philosophy.

But I also just enjoy complicated things, and thinking -- somehow along the way, while those were some initial psychological proddings that got me into philosophy, I got what I call "bitten by the bug": while I am still interested in my personal philosophy, of course, I really started to fall in love with it as a topic unto itself.

There's an aesthetic element to my appreciation, now. And while I started out insisting on truth, that was a Christian belief all along, and it's become less important with time. Hence, liberation.

:up:

know little about that VERY Melancholy Dane, Kierkegaard, but he seems more a theologian or commentator/apologist for religion than a philosopher. — Ciceronianus

He wasn't melancholy. He had a fearsome, biting wit, and his works are energized.

His most famous works are about identity.

But to what extent is philosophy useful to this self-examination as you call it? — Ciceronianus

'The unexamined life is not worth living' is one of the Socratic maxims. Philosophy itself means, not just the 'love of wisdom' but 'love-wisdom' and it's cultivation. I've been following a series of posts on Medium by a scholar of stoic philosophy, and that is its entire focus. Placing the question in the context of one or another philosophical school allows you to situate the maxims and concepts of philosophy in the context of others who have followed the same path. (This approach is historian of philosophy Pierre Hadot's claim to fame, in such books as Philosophy as a Way of Life. Alain Du Bouton and Jules Evans are two contemporary philosophers who have established a popular following - i.e. they're not academics - and much of whose writing is addressed as "practical philosophy".)

I had in mind the fellow who wrote light-hearted, jaunty things like this:

Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth - look at the dying man's struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.

There are, as is known, insects that die in the moment of fertilization. So it is with all joy: life's highest, most splendid moment of enjoyment is accompanied by death.

Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic if it is pulled out I shall die.

Trouble is the common denominator of living. It is the great equalizer.

Happiness is the greatest hiding place for despair.

But I understand these are merely short quotations, though there seem to be quite a few along these lines. They strike me as a bit gloomy. But I don't mean to characterize all of his work.

'The unexamined life is not worth living' is one of the Socratic maxims. Philosophy itself means, not just the 'love of wisdom' but 'love-wisdom' and it's cultivation. I've been following a series of posts on Medium by a scholar of stoic philosophy, and that is its entire focus. — Wayfarer

The unexamined life, yes. Not the unexamined "me." Our lives are lived in an environment, and include much more than us; we don't live, really, when we concentrate on ourselves.

I don't know the scholar you refer to, but ancient Stoicism and other ancient schools taught how to live, as I said before, and perhaps that's what the scholar is referring to.

The unexamined life, yes. Not the unexamined "me." — Ciceronianus

Pretty fine distinction, in my view.

Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre). His work has been widely influential in classical studies and on thinkers, including Michel Foucault. According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

Quite germane to the conception of philosophy as a quest for truth.

But I understand these are merely short quotations, though there seem to be quite a few along these lines. They strike me as a bit gloomy. But I don't mean to characterize all of his work. — Ciceronianus

Sure. Beware of people who are all clowns and balloons. There's likely something hiding in the shadows there.