• InternetStranger
    155
    It was oft said that one ought sing the praises of the mystery, "since great is the philosopher in your midst". And yet, to a certain degree, human beings resit philosophy—the gem of existence! Why? They oft make excuses, such as, I have life to worry about. Yet, is this not an appalling shirking of one's duty to roar philosophically, and to heroically inquire into what is?
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    I philosophize because I have a kind of obsessive neurosis and I can't not. One side-benefit of this neurosis is that a lot of philosophy is sincerely beautiful - and I get to experience that. But the trade-off is the same neuroses that have led me to a place where I can appreciate certain kinds of beauty have barred me from other types of beauty, which I often suspect are more beautiful. There are a lot of ways to roar! If others don't take to philosophizing, thats ok
  • Sir2u
    1.2k
    Yet, is this not an appalling shirking of one's duty to roar philosophically, and to heroically inquire into what is?InternetStranger

    For most people a meow is excess work never mind roaring.

    But why do you think of it as a duty? Is there some sort of built-in "ought to" function that controls the inquire process or does it just get switched on when it is convenient?
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    And yet, to a certain degree, human beings resit philosophy—the gem of existence! Why?InternetStranger

    Fear of uncertainty, I would bet.
  • InternetStranger
    155
    "
    But why do you think of it as a duty?"

    It seems to follow as corollary of philosophy's status as the highest activity vouchsafed to human beings. The rest is "stamp collecting".
  • InternetStranger
    155


    "obsessive neurosis"

    What does this mean? That philosophizing is an aberration? Like pedophilia for the moderns, or the anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthy period? Or, the bright gleam of the bowers built by the Bower bird? An animal, which, however, it seems, is not quite aware of its own work as work.
  • Sir2u
    1.2k
    It seems to follow as corollary of philosophy's status as the highest activity vouchsafed to human beings. The rest is "stamp collecting".InternetStranger

    But most humans are not philosophers, they resist it. That is why I asked why you see it s a duty for people to be philosophers.
  • InternetStranger
    155


    "But most humans are not philosophers, they resist it. That is why I asked why you see it s a duty for people to be philosophers."

    I'm with Socrates so far as he made the starkly patent truth vocal in propounding that a life that does not inquire is no human life. Ergo, all humans are philosophers.

    Of course, as it seems, one can resist one's highest possibility. That is so, but it is also something perplexing.
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    Fear of uncertainty, I would bet.Wayfarer

    I'd say the opposite. Philosophers, in general, seem more fearful of the uncertain than most. That's why they're always cautiously circling around it, with state-of-the-art tools to tame it.
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    Repetition compulsion is a psychological phenomenon in which a person repeats a traumatic event or its circumstances over and over again. This includes reenacting the event or putting oneself in situations where the event is likely to happen again [...]

    ' Repetitions of traumatic events for the purpose of achieving a belated mastery...seen first and most clearly in children's games',although the 'same pattern occurs in the repetitive dreams and symptoms of traumatic neurotics and in many similar little actions of normal persons who...repeat upsetting experiences a number of times before these experiences are mastered.Such traumatic repetitions could themselves appear in active or passive forms. In a passive form, one chooses his or her most familiar experiences consistently as a means to deal with problems of the past, believing that new experiences will be more painful than their present situation or too new and untested to imagine. In the active, participatory form, a person actively engages in behavior that mimics an earlier stressor, either deliberately or unconsciously, so that in particular events that are terrifying in childhood become sources of attraction in adulthood. For instance, a person who was spanked as a child may incorporate this into their adult sexual practices; or a victim of sexual abuse may attempt to seduce another person of authority in his or her life (such as their boss or therapist): an attempt at mastery of their feelings and experience, in the sense that they unconsciously want to go through the same situation but that it not result negatively as it did in the past.
    — wikipedia
    (my bolding)
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    What does this mean? That philosophizing is an aberration? Like pedophilia for the moderns, or the anti-communist hysteria of the McCarthy period? Or, the bright gleam of the bowers built by the Bower bird? An animal, which, however, it seems, is not quite aware of its own work as work.InternetStranger

    more like the bower bird, and yeah I'd give a shiny nickel to be able to feel what the bower bird feels as it sets about making its bower, without, probably, a clear understanding of the end-product.
  • InternetStranger
    155


    I don't know, I don't think it has a "clear understanding" in any sense, not just of the view towards an "end-product".

    One speaks as much of "epistemic drive" as of death drive. Are they the same? Is Socratic wonder a military bombardment in the psyche?
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    I think it probably has some feeling though, however simple.

    For me socratic wonder is very much a military bombardment. Or maybe its that the space of wonder is guarded by artillery, so i want to get there but can't without going through a seemingly endless prepatory reconnaissance phase.

    I don't think its that way for everyone, but it seems to characterize a lot of canonical philosophers. I think some of the sturdier, more grounded athenians may have taken a less-complicated pleasure in Socrates' thought. Idk about Socrates, he talked to himself, wandered around scrapping for fights, related to basically everyone ironically and seems to have been an alcoholic (how else would he have outdrank everyone, and remained conscious, in the symposium?)
  • ChatteringMonkey
    52
    In poker theory betting to gain information is allways wrong.

    If we assume there are some things we want in life, and our time and resources are limited, gathering information also has a cost.

    If the average cost of the risk we take by making decision based on incomplete information is less than the cost of gathering information, then the cost is not worth it.

    My guess would be, following that line of reasoning, that the amount of time one spends on philosophy is not worth it, if we only attribute instrumental value to it.

    So then it would only be justified if the activity has some other intrinsic value for you, like some kind of enjoyement or experience of beauty.

    Whether it has that intrinsic value or not for someone will ultimately depend on the type of person one is.

    And since i don't believe one chooses who one is, the answer to the question will vary from person to person.

    So it depends.
  • InternetStranger
    155


    "Or maybe its that the space of wonder is guarded by artillery, so i want to get there but can't without going through a seemingly endless prepatory reconnaissance phase."

    Brilliant image.

    " ironically and seems to have been an alcoholic (how else would he have outdrank everyone, and remained conscious, in the symposium?"

    In order not to be accused of being too loose, I must introduce pedantry. Socratic irony seems to mean, chiefly, dissembling of a real superiority, in order not to offend. However, he was slaughtered, and so, one might suppose, there is some flaw in his method of concealment. Think of Lieutenant Colombo! That is another kind of deliberate masquerade for a purpose. Hehe..

    It is said Socrates could remain teetotal as readily as he could imbibe fulsomely.
  • Ciceronianus the White
    635
    It seems to follow as corollary of philosophy's status as the highest activity vouchsafed to human beings. The rest is "stamp collecting".InternetStranger

    If you're right, then it seems to me philosophy doesn't involve inquiry into "what is" and in fact has little to do with it, if it would have any interest in it at all.
  • InternetStranger
    155


    " philosophy doesn't involve inquiry into "what is" "

    At first blush I disagree, since it presupposes what the human and what philosophy is. But I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is the reason? Do you mean because "what is" is determined as what always is, as something fixed?
  • Ciceronianus the White
    635
    At first blush I disagree, since it presupposes what the human and what philosophy is. But I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is the reason? Do you mean because "what is" is determined as what always is, as something fixed?InternetStranger

    Well, you've said that philosophy is "the highest activity vouchsafed to human beings." You've also said the rest (presumably that which is not philosophy) is "stamp collecting."

    I disagree that the rest is "stamp collecting." So, I think that to characterize it as "stamp collecting" is at best erroneous, and indicates neither an understanding of nor appreciation for the rest of "what is" beyond philosophy. And, because characterizing it as "stamp collecting" seems to me express contempt for it, I don't think any useful, fair or insightful inquiry will take place regarding that which is not philosophy (at least as to other human activities) by those who say it is "stamp collecting."
  • Banno
    2.9k
    Philosophy as therapy versus philosophy as exhibitionism.
  • Jeremiah
    1.1k
    In the end all that philosophy really tells us is what we already knew
  • Sir2u
    1.2k
    I'm with Socrates so far as he made the starkly patent truth vocal in propounding that a life that does not inquire is no human life.InternetStranger

    What he actually said was "The unexamined life is not worth living". Well that was his opinion anyway, I have never seen any evidence to back it up though.

    You do not have to be a philosopher to examine your life, a lot of people simple ask themselves, "am I happy, content with what I have?" then answer "it ain't f*****g worth the work to get any better". Examination done, go back to the telly and six pack and watch football.

    Ergo, all humans are philosophers.InternetStranger

    Show me how that adds up. From the premises you stated it could just as easily be all humans that don't inquire are not alive. Or not human.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment