Biological body seeks for physical comfort and pleasure, and philosophical mind seeks truths and certainty. Hence Philosophy.

This is from the transcript of the video What is Philosophy Good For? from YT channel Carefree wandering.

And now a third definition of what
philosophy is and of what it is good for.
For me personally the difference between
continental philosophy and analytic
philosophy can be explained by
the different
kind of
types of people
who do
either of those two,
so i like to understand continental
philosophers and i see myself
in that very tradition
as something like failed writers or
failed poets. Some people who don't
really manage to write a good fictional
book and then
they resort to philosophy. And in a very
similar way i like to think of analytic
philosophers as failed mathematicians or
failed scientists as some sort of
nerdish types who are maybe not good
enough in math or in physics to make a
career in that field. And of course there
is this kind of subspecies of human
beings like myself - failed writers or in
the analytic philosopher's case failed
mathematicians - and they need something
to do, and that's what philosophy
provides them with. It is some kind of
occupational therapy.
For this species of people, the failed
writers and the failed mathematicians, it
gives them something to do
because otherwise they would be totally
useless in society. So
it's a kind of blessing of philosophy
that gives people uh
like myself some sort of dignity and uh
even a paid job if we're lucky — Hans-Georg Moeller

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Hesse at 12, wow. The only thing I was doing at that age was picking my nose.

I'm from Australia, and for the vast majority of people here in the 1960s, when I grew up, education was a horrible joke. I left school at 15. The school I went to did not even have music as a subject. The whole school did not own one musical instrument. And as for university, it was not even a word in my society.

You may have had a stifling boarding school education, but judging by your writing, at least you had an education. I did not. I never knew even how to think deeply until I was mid-20s.

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced.

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced. — Rob J Kennedy

That's an amazing thing to hear, and I say that as a professional philosopher. I can't believe that someone actually gets something that useful out of philosophy. It's honestly the most flattering thing that I have ever heard about my profession.

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced. — Rob J Kennedy

What are a couple of examples of what philosophy has taught you about life?

Specifically, two things philosophers have taught me is, one, like Epicurus said, the best way to live is to be in a community of like-minded people, to live and eat simply and be open to others.

Two, Sartre, etc., once I was thrown into this world, I am responsible. This is my world and I make it.

I live by both these maxims.

Specifically, two things philosophers have taught me is, one, like Epicurus said, the best way to live is to be in a community of like-minded people, to live and eat simply and be open to others.

Two, Sartre, etc., once I was thrown into this world, I am responsible. This is my world and I make it.

I live by both these maxims. — Rob J Kennedy

Smart maxims to live by.

Thanks.

Heh. Wow. I never thought I'd meet such a kindred spirit!

It would seem that this forum is a community of like-minded people. We just live in different time zones.

heh, fair.

I'm just surprised to see someone express a continuity between Epicurus and Sartre. I mean I see that continuity but I'm not used to others expressing it, so I find it pleasing because it feels like independent confirmation.

I find it pleasing because it feels like independent confirmation. — Moliere

This happened to me with Hegel, before reading Deleuze's book Nietzsche and Philosophy. Before reading Deleuze's book, I had wondered if someone could philosophically argue for the concept of the "affirmation of the affirmation" (since Hegel's philosophy is usually said to contain 1) affirmation, 2) negation, 3) negation of the negation). I never developed that thought, it was just some random thing that I used to wonder from time to time, so it was a bit of an interesting surprise to find out that in Nietzsche's writings (according to Deleuze) there is something like an "affirmation of an affirmation".

I don't put much stock in such concepts myself, if I even put any stock in them to begin with, but it was just one of those odd things that happen from time to time.

I'm just surprised to see someone express a continuity between Epicurus and Sartre. — Moliere

Do people still read Sartre and take him seriously? I recall Camus and Sartre being fashionable in Australia just after the war; mixed into a kind of beatnik, socialist sensibility. By the 1980's, people were still reading Camus (perhaps because he is easier to follow) but existentialism became a bit of an embarrassment for a while - if you were an enthusiast, you were seen as a throwback to your parent's generation. Any thoughts from you side of the globe?

Do people still read Sartre and take him seriously? I recall Camus and Sartre being fashionable in Australia just after the war; mixed into a kind of beatnik, socialist sensibility. By the 1980's, people were still reading Camus (perhaps because he is easier to follow) but existentialism became a bit of an embarrassment for a while - if you were an enthusiast, you were seen as a throwback to your parent's generation. Any thoughts from you side of the globe? — Tom Storm

That tracks with my experiences, though cuz I did theatre stuff I ran into Sartre and Camus much earlier than becoming interested -- and much much before beginning to understand -- their philosophy.

When I was 20-ish I got to play the part of Joseph Garcin, which was my introduction to Sartre -- I had already known about Camus from other friends and, funnily enough and without any reason, hated him at the time :D

I imagine the embarrassment over existentialism has to do with the feeling that the world's problems had finally been solved and all that was left was grouching -- but that idea is born from ignorance.


EDIT: I didn't answer your original question. I don't think people still read Sartre and take him seriously in the general sense, but his shorter works are commonly referenced in my experience.

You don't need to read Being and Nothingness to be taken seriously, at least.

IMX I've heard people reference things like No Exit and Existentialism is a Humanism, as well as general notions of what he's going on about in B&N -- so I've read selections before but only recently become re-interested in pursuing a full understanding of B&N

Cool, thanks for that. Is it correct to consider B&N to be a sort of Heidegger-lite? I like the essential notion of existentialism; that humans have individual freedom, choice, and responsibility in creating meaning in an indifferent or even 'absurd' universe. It seems intuitively correct, even if there are pitfalls inherent in such intuitive responses. Themes like authenticity and dealing with uncertainty remain with us as central preoccupations.

I have come across a fair amount of people who began philosophy courses, often not completing them, because they just found that they could not relate to it. Some seem to love and some seem to hate it. I have always been drawn to it, discovering the philosophy section in the library when I was about 12 or 13. There may be some underlying disposition to examining assumptions and ideas, although, of course, within the 'minority' who like it people come from such different angles.

I have come across a fair amount of people who began philosophy courses, often not completing them, because they just found that they could not relate to it. — Jack Cummins

Do you think this might be about how the subject is taught and how institutions work, rather than philosophy itself?

Apologies for not reading the entire thread before responding ...

I often wonder, what makes a person interested in philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

My 'philosophical interest' was/is rooted in everyday encounters with stupidity (i.e. maladaptive, incorrigible behavior) in all of its insidious forms as both an enabler of and constraint on practice (or agency). Though I've always had strong affinities with Zapffean-Camusian absurdism, more than anything else I'm a fallibilistic Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. committed to a critical form of anti-supernaturalism).

What is it about them that draws them to read, study and discuss philosophy?

In practice, IME philosophy is an infinite game (i.e. fractal-like maze, not 'solvable' labyrinth) one falls into and cannot / doesn't want to escape from (unless you're a fly named "Ludwig" trapped in his own flybottle). :smirk:

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others.

Yes. Solitaire ...

They are people who care about politics and the arts.

... et Solidaire. Yes.

They are writers.

Yes ... sentences cage me.

They are introspective and educated.

Yes ... very bookish.

They want the world changed ...

Yes ... and themselves.

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Hesse at 12, wow. — Rob J Kennedy

Yeah, not normal I know. I was brought up with 4 older sisters and was reading fluently by 3. No telly in the house, but plenty of books, and I devoured them by the dozens (without understanding everything obviously). The kids around me at school were struggling with Enid Blyton. :groan: So I was a bit of a loner...

Philosophy has taught me more about life than anything I have studied, or experienced.
— Rob J Kennedy

That's an amazing thing to hear, and I say that as a professional philosopher. I can't believe that someone actually gets something that useful out of philosophy. — Arcane Sandwich

That surprised me too; but I'd guess you were learning all the time, even if you weren't being well educated, about people and life, so that you could recognise those principles as valuable.

I definitely think that the way philosophy is taught is a factor in why people are put off by it. That is because it can be made so obscure and remote from life to be made uninteresting.

Is it correct to consider B&N to be a sort of Heidegger-lite? — Tom Storm

I wouldn't call it Heidegger-lite, no. It reads more clearly than Heidegger to me (at least in translation to English), but it's just as hard in the sense that he's using words in an original way while making original arguments about metaphysics.

I've heard it said that you can just skip to Sartre without reading Heidegger before, though I see a huge influence from Heidegger there -- I've also heard it said that Sartre misread Heidegger so you can dismiss B&N and go straight to B&T as the real deal.

So far I think what it amounts to is one camp didn't want to have to read two huge books that use similar concepts but with different vocabularies -- they already knew Heideggerese and didn't want to learn Sartre-ese :D Totally understandable, but ultimately I think they're both valuable and difficult, only different.

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. — Rob J Kennedy

I don't know why people pursue philosophy, just like I don't know why anyone pursues any career. The preference of being alone I might be able to give you an amusing example of. I'm an OG, so back in the day our vehicles had carburetors. I was trying for the first time in my life to clean one, which involved taking it completely apart. To reassemble it, the parts had to go back in a specific order. On this glorius day, after I'd prettey much got it all apart and was ready to move on, several of my friends dropped by and I got pulled away from the task at hand. When I eventually came back I had no clue to the proper order of reassembly and wound up having to buy another carburetor.

If you've been on a thought for awhile; if it's out there and you're following along (which can take some time) solitude is a blessing.

Too true Jack. I have taken two short philosophy courses at our Australia National University (ANU) over the last two years. And both were specific, directly related to the subject matter, informative and helpful. One was the Philosophy of Pop Music and the other on Post Modernism.

However, the ANU full philosophy degree is about 80 completely academic philosophy after the fundamentals. I sat in as an audit student on one unit, I chose it on purpose to see what I would have to be learning, it was called Normative Ethical Theory and it was almost incomprehensible.

For most of the degree, it is like I need a degree in how to figure out the degree.

That is because it can be made so obscure and remote from life to be made uninteresting. — Jack Cummins

Not necessarily that. I studied philosophy at University in the 1980's. The head of the philosophy department once said to me, "You are not here to learn, you are here to parrot our ideas and accept our assessments of the important matters." The lectures and tutorials were interesting, but they were leading us to specific conclusions, which I experienced as coercion and took as antithetical to philosophical practice. I'm suspicious of a process whereby students end up as variations of their professors.

Wow. I had a much different experience. The emphasis upon thinking for oneself was difficult to endure as it involved lots of criticism of what one said.

I'm suspicious of a process whereby students end up as variations of their professors. — Tom Storm

Sounds like a typical PhD program in mathematics. Occasionally a student flies off in an interesting exploration of their own. Usually knowledge advances incrementally.

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/959747

A post from a 2020 thread What has philosophy taught you? ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/331143

what makes a person interested in philosophy? — Rob J Kennedy

Hey Rob - love it.

What is this "thing" that we call Reality? — Arcane Sandwich

What is it really? How do we know? — Philosophim

us verbal guys that get sucked into the intricacies of philosophical ideas. We prefer to be alone — T Clark

it is philosophy that makes me interested in it — unenlightened

(Love that.)

You may not talk explicitly about philosophy or philosophers, but that doesn't mean that you dont ever think philosophically...

I would turn the OP’s question on its head. What does it say about someone who calls themself an artist and yet who has no interest in philosophy? — Joshs

I like to think I'm an artist - I wrote songs, played them for years in bars, really wanted to be an artist. Had a bunch of friends. Hung around college grads and non-college grads alike.

I wouldn't say I preferred being alone as T Clark said but I get that he said that, because I never minded being alone (I'm never "lonely"). I'd say I was introverted, but I've always been in public positions (like singing my songs and at work..), so I'm really more a center-leaning introverted type with plenty of extroverted behavior.

The introversion is important though, because, to me, it is equally a source of art and philosophy - it provides the well for doing the work of the artist and the philosopher. But I digress...

It was early, in high school, that I discovered philosophy. We read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" (just that section of The Republic); I had no clue what I was reading, and in one class, my teacher made it clear to me that nothing is as it has always seemed. All that was plain before my eyes, instantly evaporated. "Seeing" delivered only shadows, and the truth of anything and everything was on the table, all in disarray. And the whole class was arguing whether anyone could prove what "brown" really was. I got it. I got the bug immediately, reading Aristotle for Morons books (Mortimer Adler), and on to major in philosophy in college. I ate it all up. Had the band the whole time.

But on that day in high school when I got it that none of us really get anything, things were not the least bit bad. It was exhilarating, like playing a great song with friends. Eerything in the world was just as beautiful as it was before, but, because of what Plato said, somehow everything was new. Like when some people first realized the sun didn't circle around the earth, but the opposite was occurring as the earth spun on it's axis. The same world was somehow more beautiful, because I saw something new just as well.

Everything is much richer and deeper, if we want to go there. And I did want to go there.

That was what got me into philosophy.

That was what led me to ask:

What is this "thing" that we call Reality? — Arcane Sandwich

What is it really? How do we know? — Philosophim

us verbal guys that get sucked into the intricacies of philosophical ideas. We prefer to be alone — T Clark

it is philosophy that makes me interested in it — unenlightened

What they said.

On a practical level, to sort of echo (and digress from) what Joshs said about thinking philosophically, I am of the opinion that all of us do philosophy; it is part of being a person; it is using language and making generalizations and forming descriptions, to make arguments, and test conclusions, and tear away illusion, and challenge the words of others. Learning philosophy is learning how to clarify thoughts and language. It is like the art of logical relations.

Philosophy proper is as unique a science as biology is unique from quantum physics; we are not all biologists or physicists. And we are not all philosophers; but we can tell the difference between a physicist, and me, who is not a physicist, and to do that, we have to do philosophy. We all create a big picture view (universalize), place ourselves in it (particularize), and organize everything else around and between these (relate these) - we are human, constructing the meta in the physics, fixed in motion. (Already my description of what all humans do is pissing off various other philosophers, but then, who in thousands of years has summed up philosophy in a few sentences?)

And the artists, who can completely empty their mind, not thinking at all, but instead performing their art, leaving all intention to melt into the motion of the body, "following the muse" that is always, already there, the motion itself that always guides as it drives us - these artists, though they are not philosophizing, often generate the most philosophically interesting creations. So, philosophy is inevitable with the human, and I would say united with our arts. Good art will always inspire a philosopher, just as a clear bit of wisdom or just the visceral, hard truth, (like the clarity of a distinct and new perspective) informs and inspires the artist.

Last thing I want to say here, is that, although the real work of the philosopher is lonely work, dialogue is a big motivation - we read and think, and then write, for hours alone, but we write to throw something out at the rest of the world, and we want to see what bounces back. And some of us mostly dialogue - which makes TPF in a sense what philosophizing really is. We have to be interested in challenges to what we think, so we have to be interested in capturing what we think in words. And we are just as interested in confirming agreement, as we are disagreement (especially when these lead to further honest analysis), and we don't begrudge our own or others' error, nor covet the discovery a better, maybe opposite view. We live for what we think, meaning: what I think is worth my own time, and may even be what there is to think for any thinking being. Peer review completes a certain justification in what I think, keeps philosophy tied to science (though it often falls into poetry, or mysticism, or theology). Even though most people (including me) are easily wrong about what they think, philosophers care about what people can really think, and say with any lasting gravity.

...extremely introverted, analytic, brutally honest (with myself), and I yearn for absolute truth. I cannot live without doing philosophy, just as much as I cannot live without eating.... — Bob Ross

It's both as much a salvation as it is a burden, this philosophy thing - hopefully more salvation. Philosophizing is one of those purely human things we do, so I agree, I can't live without it. The unexamined life is impossible to live, because being a person, means examining life. We look IN, not just around, with our eyes - and with our eyes in the light, sometimes we see wisdom and foolishness as hiding between the red and green things and everything else...

You said "yearn" for truth, and I would say it that way too. At the same time I would say, I would never fear or shrink away from any truth, meaning, all of the truth is the same to me, having itself torn everything else down (marking error and the false as illusion) and built everything that is in its image, as what alone remains all the time is always and only, the absolute.