letting you know that whatever your presuppositions — Tom Storm

I agree. For me, that recognition is a function of my intellectual self-awareness.

I don't know what spiritual practice is — Tom Storm

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness.

I've come to realize is right there in what I feel and see around me — Janus

I think that is the source of the transcendental realm. It's why so much of my philosophy is based on introspection, for which I have been criticized.

Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other. — Tom Storm

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other.

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness. — T Clark

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much.

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other. — T Clark

I was referring to something different. A lack of empathy. Specifically those who arrogantly assume that their truth, their experience has to be everyone else’s. They tend to project their beliefs onto others. Maybe my wording was ambiguous. It’s a pet hate of mine - “I see the world like this, therefore you must too.”

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much. — Tom Storm

Philosophy helps me recognize how my mind works. How I know what I know. Why I believe what I believe. Why I care about what I care about. Why I'm interested in what I'm interested in. And on a good day, why I do the things I do or don't do the things I don't do. I call that intellectual self-awareness.

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'?

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'? — Tom Storm

For me, spirituality means self-awareness - emotional, intellectual, physical, perceptual, social. Spiritual practice is an activity that makes me more self-aware.

Got ya.

Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful? — Tom Storm

It is for me, but I definitely attribute that to my being raised with all these questions like they had certain answers and always finding the answers unsatisfactory, but the questions remained. Then eventually I came across this whole subject called philosophy that seemed to delight in that very exercise! At the very least in the spirit of finding the limits of reason.

But if someone is happy with their life? One of the things I like about Epicurean philosophy is that while there was a master, the life of the philosopher is not thought to be special -- but just one of the roles people play within a community. Some people tend the garden, some people learn the words, some people teach the words, but it's an interdependent community and the philosopher is not made special by the practice.

And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them.

One of the things I like about Epicurean philosophy is that while there was a master, the life of the philosopher is not thought to be special -- but just one of the roles people play within a community. Some people tend the garden, some people learn the words, some people teach the words, but it's an interdependent community and the philosopher is not made special by the practice.

I’ve read enough of Epicureanism to acknowledge the connections between it and the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic schools. The only difference is that Epicureanism remains agnostic about a first cause (i.e. God) while the other three schools affirm this (completely through reason, of course). I’ve also been thinking about the differences between religious Buddhism versus what I term “philosophical” Buddhism (to be distinguished from the various schools of Buddhist philosophy like Zen, Madhyamika, and Yogachara), that is, the historical conception of Buddhism prior to it being formed as a religion. I think there are several ideas in Buddhism that parallel ideas in Stoicism and Epicureanism as well as phenomenology and existentialism. Buddhism seen in its historical form can definitely benefit people (not to say it shouldn’t be followed as a religion; I was not raised a Buddhist so I know very little of its practice as a religion).

Philosophy helps me recognize how my mind works. How I know what I know. Why I believe what I believe. Why I care about what I care about. Why I'm interested in what I'm interested in. And on a good day, why I do the things I do or don't do the things I don't do. I call that intellectual self-awareness.

And this is what several of us think the overall point of philosophy is, solving real world issues and helping us deal with our own problems. I don’t like it when people try to canonize one philosophy or philosopher as the “end all, say all” theory of everything. I advocate a form of eclecticism but have enough background knowledge in Greek philosophy and, through my graduate program, Thomism, to stick more towards the western tradition. Anything eastern (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian) is primarily through my own reading. I think that it is interesting to think about what St. Thomas Aquinas would talk about with contemporaries of his in the East, for example, the Neoconfucians. Similarly, I think it is just as important to think about what Socrates would talk about with Buddha. There’s needs to be a conversation between West and East.

I advocate a form of eclecticism — Dermot Griffin

I advocate for using what works. That keeps things open for taking what I find useful from all sorts of sources. Almost all of my philosophy background is from personal reading. When you get to bottom, I'm with Emerson:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost—and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men, but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self Reliance

This post is not at all to suggest that the usage of philosophy is a replacement for modern psychiatry and psychotherapy. — Dermot Griffin

Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"?
Where did you get all this from? :gasp:

And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them. — Moliere

I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.

Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"? — Alkis Piskas

Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work - it's not all chemical treatment and evil practitioners, no matter what the movies and TV shows say.

I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. — Tom Storm

Hrm!

I don't see them as unrelated, obviously.

What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions?

What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.

I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually.

But cannibalization and syncretism for the purposes of self-help: sure! I see that. I do it!

I don't see it as a bad thing, though. I see it as the fledgling beginnings of a philosophy. The syncretic form is great for working things out for yourself, which I certainly believe that's where I started, but then I think it starts to become apparent that the syncretism doesn't really work at certain cracks, and that the only reason these concepts are being brought together is the common thinker who thought them and thought they were cool or seemed to work or what have you.

Basically I see it as part of a philosophical journey that one can choose to take, if they want to or not. Eventually I think it possible to start reading texts and letting them breathe on their own and seeing why other people thought differently from you. I think that's when philosophy proper really begins, at least of the non-academic sort, and certainly of the more casual sort too. But still there's that drive for consistency and the pleasure of seeing the ideas at work, and also of making it about something more than just yourself -- not just your own self-help tool, but something which appeals to others.

And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident?

What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions? — Moliere

Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier.

I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually. — Moliere

No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology.

And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident? — Moliere

Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense.

Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier. — Tom Storm

The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy?

But I think this is part of what makes philosophy particularly interesting to me -- that it doesn't close off the study of people who would answer "Yes" to the above question. Whereas the syncretic approach would provide a more solid answer, in the way the self-help books do: people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one.

But philosophy would leave the question open.

No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology. — Tom Storm

Got it.

You know, as an advocate for philosophy, I'm tempted to say "see, it has a use!"

But I feel you're expressing a kind of skepticism to the approach. Am I misreading you?

For my part I'm fine with any discipline using philosophy, even syncretically, though it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy -- not every useful use of philosophy need be philosophy proper. Sometimes it's just a useful place to begin, and put to rest when you realize the concepts are clear.

Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense. — Tom Storm

A bit loosy goosey on my part in an attempt to show that after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. (philosophy proper is a social practice)

The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy? — Moliere

I don't think this is the rejoinder. There's an assumption implicit here that wisdom and truth bring happiness. I don't agree. Note, I am not saying that wisdom brings unhappiness. I would also say in parentheses that wisdom does not necessarily provide answers or solutions. It's often about developing more probative questions. No one gets out of here alive... Wisdom might involve us living with discomfort rather than with reassuring myths.

it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy - — Moliere

I'm not sure we can make that distinction. While I agree that there may be good and bad philosophy, who is to say what is in scope and what is not? Some people think Heidegger is an empty charlatan who plays with neologisms, some think he is the greatest philosophical thinker of the 20th century.

after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. — Moliere

I'm not sure how many people ever arrive at an insight like this.

people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one. — Moliere

I think we live in the cult of personal change and transformation - from social media influencers to Marie Kondo minimalism and the rush to embrace Stoicism. This decade it's Jordan B Peterson, 30 years ago it was Louise Hay. Naturally some people are more sophisticated and read better books, but the idea that we are unhappy, unworthy, not good enough seems to haunt many people's lives.

I don't think this is the rejoinder. There's an assumption implicit here that wisdom and truth bring happiness. I don't agree. Note, I am not saying that wisdom brings unhappiness. I would also say in parentheses that wisdom does not necessarily provide answers or solutions. It's often about developing more probative questions. No one gets out of here alive... Wisdom might involve us living with discomfort rather than with reassuring myths. — Tom Storm

I agree that's my assumption.

Do you have a belief with respect to what does bring happiness?

I'm not sure we can make that distinction. While I agree that there may be good and bad philosophy, who is to say what is in scope and what is not? Some people think Heidegger is an empty charlatan who plays with neologisms, some think he is the greatest philosophical thinker of the 20th century. — Tom Storm

Not in a final way, I agree there -- but also in making the distinction I'm exploring the notion itself. I often wonder about philosophy proper vs. a pop philosophy (non-pejorative) vs. a pop philosophy (pejorative).

In making the argument for or against Heidegger we get to see what the values of philosophy are that people hold, though. Making the judgment is a part of the practice. We recognize that the judgment could be faulty, but it's a place to start.

I'm not sure how many people ever arrive at an insight like this. — Tom Storm

Me either.

But I think that people can come to see it.

I think we live in the cult of personal change and transformation - from social media influencers to Marie Kondo minimalism and the rush to embrace Stoicism. This decade it's Jordan B Peterson, 30 years ago it was Louise Hay. Naturally some people are more sophisticated and read better books, but the idea that we are unhappy, unworthy, not good enough seems to haunt many people's lives. — Tom Storm

That's insightful!

Any idea why?

Firstly let me say I've really enjoyed our discussion and find your approach refreshing and positive. We don't always see things the same way, but we have managed this respectfully. Thank you.

Do you have a belief with respect to what does bring happiness? — Moliere

I don't think we can go and find happiness. I think it happens as a by-product of other thing, when you are not looking, or if you are not too jammed full of expectations and shopping lists of must haves. I also think it is possible to be 'happy' and be a bad person.

In making the argument for or against Heidegger we get to see what the values of philosophy are that people hold, though. — Moliere

Agree - this is an important point. All critical judgements in the end are in relation to held values.

Any idea why? — Moliere

Not really. Some clues for me are that marketing and advertising (totalizing approaches which dominate and lubricate our times) are predicated on making people feel deficient. We are groomed to find solutions to problems which frequently don't exist. This sits neatly upon religocultural views which in the West often construct our identity as sinners and unworthy and in need of transformative redemption. We are socialized towards guilt and self-loathing and a search for deliverance, notions which are cradled in a dynamic tension with advertising's driving narrative that 'you' deserve success and prosperity. Etc...

Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work — Tom Storm

Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. It only believes in brain. Certainly, there may be exceptions, as in any other field. Even Carl Jung --the only name that is familiar to me in your list-- believes that the soul is a manifestation of the body. He also uses the term as somthing given, known by everyone. As besides all psychologists do.
Psychologists talking about death? Of course. They deal with it all the time. It is the primary fear for every patient. But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. Of course, everyting is possible. But "bread and butter"? You must have a lot of experience on the subect to say that.

Can you share with us some of this experience by giving some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list?

Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. — Alkis Piskas

Psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists - are different disciplines, with many varieties of each. Amongst the psychotherapists I've known were also rabbis, priests and minsters of religion, so atheism is not compulsory. Many are interested in spirituality and hold non-specific theistic beliefs. Many consider Jung to have been a mystic and an idealist - his archetypes - analogous with Platonic forms. Bernardo Kastrup writes about this in Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. The infamous Jordan B Peterson seems to be some kind of Christian existentialist.

But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. — Alkis Piskas

some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list? — Alkis Piskas

There are lots of bad therapists out there, just as there are many bad plumbers and philosophers. Here's one of the better ones, a small taste of the matter with Irvin Yalom talking about the issue of death and how some therapists avoid it and how it might be talked about.

All this is quite interesting. Although I don't think the OP is talking about these exreme cases ...
Anyway, it's always good to know. Thanks for the refs! :up:

Firstly let me say I've really enjoyed our discussion and find your approach refreshing and positive. We don't always see things the same way, but we have managed this respectfully. Thank you. — Tom Storm

Same. :)

I love this stuff. Might be a reason why I stick around here.

I don't think we can go and find happiness. I think it happens as a by-product of other thing, when you are not looking, or if you are not too jammed full of expectations and shopping lists of must haves. I also think it is possible to be 'happy' and be a bad person. — Tom Storm

I agree happiness is not a thing one can find. That's part of its elusiveness for the unhappy.

My strategy is your latter -- don't be too jammed full of expectations or shopping lists of must haves. Also, don't even try to be happy. But when you're in pain that's a lot harder to do than say.

And I agree that one can be happy and bad, of course. So there's something to be said for happiness not being the ethical end-all-be-all.

I believe, at least, that happiness curbs some cruelty, and people are more generous when they aren't frustrated. But I recognize there's another side of desire that works differently -- that one can be cruel and happy, and even more satisfied by cruelty than simple desire.

All critical judgements in the end are in relation to held values. — Tom Storm

Yup :). It's inescapable, I think. There's always some value-theoretic commitment to any judgment.

Some clues for me are that marketing and advertising (totalizing approaches which dominate and lubricate our times) are predicated on making people feel deficient. We are groomed to find solutions to problems which frequently don't exist. This sits neatly upon religocultural views which in the West often construct our identity as sinners and unworthy and in need of transformative redemption. We are socialized towards guilt and self-loathing and a search for deliverance, notions which are cradled in a dynamic tension with advertising's driving narrative that 'you' deserve success and prosperity. Etc... — Tom Storm

That's interesting -- and then, upon trying the cure we find it unsatisfactory, so we think "time to try another one" and so the loop continues.

I think I just got stuck on philosophy, basically. I found more satisfying answers, and more importantly questions and methods, there. But also I've never really hidden the fact that my motivations come from a religious background. I have no problem with saying that philosophy operates on a plain in-between the everyday and the spiritual. Bertrand Russell made a similar comment about philosophy that it's somewhere between religion and science.

I think the shopping experience is part of what a free society looks like -- when you have options you try them out. But yeah I'm not too keen on guilt as a motivator. I think it's overused because we want people to be predictable.

:up:

I started to watch the video and will continue later. That's quite impressive from a psychiatrist. I mean I could expect it from a psychoanalyst ...

BTW, I wonder whom is he showing the finger to in the video ...

Ha! I think that finger means, 'Up yours Death!'

Yes, that fits well.

That's interesting -- and then, upon trying the cure we find it unsatisfactory, so we think "time to try another one" and so the loop continues. — Moliere

Sounds about right.

I think I just got stuck on philosophy, basically. I found more satisfying answers, and more importantly questions and methods, there. But also I've never really hidden the fact that my motivations come from a religious background. — Moliere

Yes, I think most things boil down to personal preferences and then, often, we select some reasoning as post hoc justifications. I never pursued philosophy, but I did read a little comparative religion and explored a range of spiritual schools 30 years ago. But I've simply found the notion of gods incoherent. The arguments against theism are just garnish. I have come to the conclusion that I simply lack sensus divinitatis - which is probably a Protestant notion more than a Catholic one.

Yes, I think most things boil down to personal preferences and then, often, we select some reasoning as post hoc justifications. I never pursued philosophy, but I did read a little comparative religion and explored a range of spiritual schools 30 years ago. But I've simply found the notion of gods incoherent. The arguments against theism are just garnish. I have come to the conclusion that I simply lack sensus divinitatis - which is probably a Protestant notion more than a Catholic one. — Tom Storm

The philosophy of God, in the big picture of all philosophy, is part of what I like about philosophy -- not irrelevant, but also not the most important thing: just another topic to consider and move on from if it doesn't speak to you. There are certainly theist philosophers, and even the god of the philosophers, but I don't feel a connection to any of that. What I feel a connection to is other people, to their way of life, how they find meaning in it all, and how we can possibly all find ourselves living a meaningful life. It seems important to so many people that I have a hard time simply rejecting the practices.

But that sensus divinitatis stuff? Complete nonsense. At least to me. Surely an experience of the divine isn't a sense -- if it were then there would be about as much agreement on the divine as there is on where the table is at, which we can certainly see is not the case.

I think the arguments for/against the existence of God are falling into a linguistic trap that's easy to fall into -- the notion that names must have this or that predicate, when in fact(at least by my reckoning) there is no such thing as God, and the locution comes to have predicates we admire because we admire God. Things like power, knowledge, and goodness.