It could be useful for more serious stuff that usually ends up mixed into the Shoutbox and that has the potential for a good OP. So, yes, let's see how it goes. :up:

Here's draft op I decided was too woo for you, and couldn't think of a title for, and felt needed more or less, but couldn't decide which.

Untitled.

As Martin Luther Wittgenstein once said, 'I have a beetle...'

There will be no argument here. Some may think that where there is no argument, there is no philosophy. Hume and I beg to differ.

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — Hume

So what follows is not an argument, and not even exactly a description, but an invocation, beetle to beetle, of the religious impulse that is alleged to lie in all men. There will be no facts to dispute, no doctrine, no prescription; feel something, or not.

Hymn.

The lesson is taken from the Gospel of Meno:

Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know? — Plato

Everybody knows the secret, but we have forgotten it. Facts about the world accumulate in the mind and in books and theories and practices. And jolly useful and entertaining they are too, but there is also the psyche, and what is there has always been there, and one is mindful of it or not. Well this is a story we have told ourselves at any rate. And if one does not like the story of anamnesis in relation to science, there is still some room for it in its original place, unless and until science has discovered the good particle.

Or we could say that the source of judgement is always present, acknowledged or not, and that it is other. Other, in the first place from my desires and preferences, other in fact from my self. However, in saying, or rather feeling this, there is a danger of externalising it. The horrors of righteousness follow quickly from this objectified other - my judgement becomes the Word of God to be imposed on you. Don't go there, because that is living in the presence of the devil.

To live in the presence of the Lord is something else entirely. It is always only oneself that is judged.

Hymn.

All of science and all of religion have not saved a single life. It is sometimes proposed that it is the awareness of personal mortality that distinguishes the human from the animal, though elephants and whales dispute this. Anyway, it is there, and we are aware; we will be laid low. So from elsewhere, from an other place, one judges this to be a thing of beauty, a salvation from the suffering self. All that I needed, all that I wanted I have already, gratis - is it a madness, or is it a connection with that other?



Hymn.

I love the ambiguity, the multiple meanings. Like laying down a track in the recording studio, make something of your life, and there again, relinquish that 'me' while you have the chance. And again, have that physical relationship with your lover again, before it's too late.

I have a dream, that our dreams are entwined together... that everybody knows the secret...

:up: Nice! Seems about right to me. But then, I have been eating mushrooms i picked in the backyard. :starstruck:
In general, I find that if half of me says something is too much and the other half says it is not enough, then it’s probably just about right.

Great idea! Kind of a thread nursery or nest until they are ready to fly off on their own. Like a good little crow, owl, or piglet.

You present a deep issue here. There seems to be a conundrum of sorts, which I surmise the general philosophical idea is whether psychology and feelings can be formalized in general into a coherent manner or what frame of reference ought we assume when talking about psychological matters as if the deep psychological claims made by a person are truth apt? Is that correct, according to the Humean quote?

Many people tend to brush aside these issues, due to the above quasi private content of the mind or 'psychology'. It is in some sense an insurmountable obstacle that there never can be any authority in matters pertaining the psyche, unless we're talking about "God" here.

Great idea! Kind of a thread nursery or nest until they are ready to fly off on their own. Like a good little crow, owl, or piglet. — 0 thru 9

Uhh, yea I guess. Haha.

the general philosophical idea is whether psychology and feelings can be formalized in general into a coherent manner... — Posty McPostface

I think Hume's point is that you have to give a shit (or not) whether feelings can be formalised before you set about formalising them. Feelings are prior to philosophy and prior to psychology. One might say, to put it controversially, that the philosopher worships truth. The way I put it previously is that something, some principle or other has to be at the centre of one's life, has to be the most important, and that might be truth, or love, or justice, or oneself, or nothing, or whatever. And that is one's god. Whatever it is, though, it is a matter of feeling, of passion, of giving a damn about something. That is the beginning. Even the most radical nihilist or antinatalist gives a damn, or does not speak. The motive must come first, before reason.

So, you're talking about ideologies then? What if someone disregards all of them? Quietude and stillness ensues? Is that the point?

Not just silence; one would shit one's pants and starve to death.

Not just silence; one would shit one's pants and starve to death. — unenlightened

Those are automatic/involuntary responses, they don't factor into the discussion, I think.

they don't factor into the discussion, I think. — Posty McPostface

Why don't they? Perhaps you worship freedom?

Since we fleshed out all the nuances of your draft, why not start a topic then? Shall we?

[MOD NOTE: The following comments have been moved from the TPF quote cabinet discussion as they are off-topic there @Noble Dust @Πετροκότσυφας @Posty McPostface]



I'm tired of all this Witty worship.

The real question of life after death isn't whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves. — I'm no longer 'here'

If life after death exists, it doesn't necessarily solve any problem; the problem is that there are no problems to be solved; the problem is beginning with the assumption that there are problems to be solved. Life after death says nothing of problems that need solving. Is that trite enough for a Witty worshiper?

The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have known since long. — I'm no longer 'here'

Good on ya Witty! No complaints.

Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery. — I'm no longer 'here'

No; existence is no mystery; existence is the beginning. Begin with existence (i.e. "the world") and then move out from there. What do you see in front of you? A computer screen which you're gawking at, mouth half open. Begin there.

If you and I are to live religious lives, it mustn't be that we talk a lot about religion, but that our manner of life is different. It is my belief that only if you try to be helpful to other people will you in the end find your way to God. — I'm no longer 'here'

Life is religious. Atheism is religious. We talk about life: we talk about religion. Talk isn't the issue. Manner of life is essentially talk. What matters is what isn't expressed; the thing that manner doesn't express. That is universal religion.

If you use your helpfulness to others as a bridge to God, then you're not wise, not helpful, and not any closer to God.

If anyone is unwilling to descend into himself, because this is too painful, he will remain superficial in his writing. . . If I perform to myself, then it’s this that the style expresses. And then the style cannot be my own. If you are unwilling to know what you are, your writing is a form of deceit. — I'm no longer 'here'

Possibly my favorite Witty quote.

The philosopher is not a citizen of any community of ideas, that is what makes him a philosopher. — I'm no longer 'here'

If this is true, then there are virtually no philosophers on this philosophy forum.

That's been ND's deranged screed of the week, thanks!

I'm tired of all this Witty worship. — Noble Dust

:fear:

Sorry you're sad, posty. Do you have any rebuttals? I'm happy to be put in my place if my ideas are terrible. It's possible that they are.

No, you're onto something with people using his profundity and intenseness as a veil of pretentiousness, I think.

Not feeling very philosophical today anyway so I don't have much to say.

No, you're onto something with people using his profundity and intenseness as a veil of pretentiousness, I think. — Posty McPostface

That's the gist of my post; in both content, and, more importantly, in form.

Not feeling very philosophical today anyway so I don't have much to say. — Posty McPostface

Always willing to hear your thoughts, over here.

Always willing to hear your thoughts, over here. — Noble Dust

Thanks, I was once told by a teacher of philosophy upon being asked what would be good advice to adhere to if I wanted to delve into academia, was that she told me not to associate one's self or ego with philosophy.

Going deeper into the issue, is the deep dilemma of treating philsophy as a way of living whilst adherent to that sentiment. Trying to reconcile the two seemingly incompatible notions.

Quite difficult.

Profoundly difficult indeed.

To foolhardily hazard an answer, I see the paradox of "not associating the self/ego with philosophy", vs. "treating philosophy as a way of living" as being unified in an "intuitive" approach. I interpret "not associating the self/ego with philosophy" as an essentially mystical approach; an immanent experience that is pre-rational. The experience of "being" which is best accessed via meditation, art, and other pre-rational techniques. Then, "treating philosophy as a way of living" is the rational approach in which rational arguments are used (after intuition is used) in order to organize philosophical and ethical problems, etc. Just some thoughts.

I did with the prose of my initial post above. Having to spell it out kills the joke...

Anything ending with an 'ism, I suppose.

Read my initial post. What you're looking for is there. I'm guessing you just don't have the ironic sense to get it.

Sorry if that's a little harsh, but what you're asking for is there. That's all I mean.

Yeah, it's a hard one. I figure I'll meditate over it a little and see what I come up with. Feel free to start a topic if you're feeling inspired. I might, though I have no idea how to qualify the subject into a title. Any suggestions?

I'm not in any mindset to start any new threads for a good while; I only do that when I really have an un-scratchable itch. That's just me because I'm very much an autodidact; I know you like to start threads, so go for it if you feel inspired.

As to the topic of any potential thread...it's really not that far off from any other recent threads that deal with fundamentals. For me personally, it's an issue of intuition, which I've gotten into a lot of hot water for in the past. That's how I would personally approach it.

Your initial post contains quotes by W., your comments on them and a remark of being tired by W. worship. Then Posty joined, he said something about people using W. profundity and intenseness as a veil for their own pretentiousness to which, if I understood right, you agreed. — Πετροκότσυφας

Good so far.

Your initial post contains no examples of others doing that. — Πετροκότσυφας

Correct. Why does it need to in order for me to agree with Posty's assertion that Witty worshipers can be pretentious?

What does "ism" have to do with people using his profundity and intenseness as a veil of pretentiousness? — Πετροκότσυφας

From what I gather, you take an individualistic stance on philosophy. So, that assumption is put to question when I assert that everyone ought to derive their own philosophy, but not doing so by living by maxims and profound quotations made by other philosophers, yes?

It needs to contain them because I asked for actual examples of others doing that and you said that your initial post contains them. — Πετροκότσυφας

Ah, you're right. Your rational faculties are sharper than mine; my imagination gets caught up, and I jump ahead.

But yes, my initial post does in fact contain examples of that pretentiousness. I invite you to use your imagination to ascertain them. They are there.

In case you guys want to continue this in a proper thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3614/academic-philosophy-and-philosophy-as-a-way-of-living

Still unsure about the title...

I'd be interested to see how you can conclude that they were pretentious. — Πετροκότσυφας

I concluded so with my commentary, and the admonishment that

That's been ND's deranged screed of the week, thanks! — Noble Dust

Jesus, lighten up man!