• csalisbury
    2.2k
    But philosophically speaking, a lot of philosophers take the I to be a representation of the will, or Will, and to be one and only. And so there is this notion of "my will", pointing to something definite, if not quite. But of course, if there is a multiplicity of I's or Will's, then it makes no sense to talk that way.Pussycat

    sure, Schopenhauer it sounds like. What do you understand by 'will'?
  • Pussycat
    272
    sure, Schopenhauer it sounds like. What do you understand by 'will'?csalisbury

    By 'will', we normally think of what we want to do, but I think it is what we think is right, right to do, right in an absolute sense. When we are absolutely certain that a course of action, or thinking, was the correct one and could not be otherwise. But when we ponder on the same situation and think otherwise, then this conflict of wills becomes evident.
  • csalisbury
    2.2k
    By 'will', we normally think of what we want to do, but I think it is what we think is right, right to do, right in an absolute sense. When we are absolutely certain that a course of action, or thinking, was the correct one and could not be otherwise. But when we ponder on the same situation and think otherwise, then this conflict of wills becomes evident.Pussycat

    I think that's right. And I think, in that stroke, the whole idea of 'will' becomes void, like you said. Still. We live, and see what we do, and then reflect, and think we want to realign in a certain way, act in a better way. But if you self-tyrannize, and will yourself to will the right thing, that tends to backfire. So there's a new situation?
  • Pussycat
    272
    A new situation? What do you mean? I guess there is always a new situation, you can't step into the same river twice, like they say. But I don't think that there is a "right thing", there are just different perspectives, interpretations, or 'wills', that try to be rational about stuff, that strive to rationalize and justify their own, their behaviours, each on its own right. But in the core, everything is pretty irrational, or mystical, I believe, there can be no rational dispute over foundational attitudes or stances or worldviews, since they are ulta rationem.
  • Pussycat
    272
    But this brings us back on topic, because I think that philosophy, as it has been developed, perceives everything to be rational or logical, and fails to see the ... how to call it, the irrational aspect. Most probably this is why Schopenhauer was so pissed with Hegel! :)
  • csalisbury
    2.2k
    If Schopenhauer was pissed with Hegel on those terms, he wouldn't have written WWR! A system is a system is a system. He was probably more upset with a lack of attention. Imagine two kids building two lego structures. Two prodigies at building lego structures building lego structures.
  • Pussycat
    272

    Yes, well Arthur was always upset, upset with something, a hard man to please, I wouldn't have invited him for supper, that's for sure. But do you think he suffered from an attention deficit disorder?
  • Pussycat
    272
    But yeah, let us entertain that thought, that philosophers are no truth seekers, no wisdom seekers either, that truth and wisdom are in fact myths promulgated by them, because in essence what they really are is attention seekers, what say you sally?
  • csalisbury
    2.2k
    But yeah, let us entertain that thought, that philosophers are no truth seekers, no wisdom seekers either, that truth and wisdom are in fact myths promulgated by them, because in essence what they really are is attention seekers, what say you sally?Pussycat

    I'd been drinking the last time we talked. Looking back, I was surly and projecting. I'm an attention-seeker myself, so I'm probably more likely to diagnose others with the same. Still, even if I use philosophy as way of getting attention, I genuinely enjoy reading difficult texts alone, working them out., putting thoughts in order. So there's the attention-seeking aspect, and the material itself. The material can be used to get attention, but its almost like one subself using the work of another subself, the way a wheeler and dealer will leap on the work of a creative for his own gain. I guess that's the same with all things, and the relative weight of either part depends on the individual in question.

    I would still say that the thing of doing philosophy is something different than the pursuit of wisdom, though they may both be tributaries of something upstream. As has been said on this thread, there's a strong litigious element to much of philosophy. I also think there's a strong public-wrestling aspect to it. You see that even today in the most dry and academic of philosophy. There's an strong agonistic aspect that I think might be more central than the widsom-seeking aspect. Still, I don't necessarily think most philosophers are disingenuous in the sense they claim to do one thing, while secretly knowing what they're really doing. Analagously : a lot of finance guys probably really do believe the hayek-derived approbation of the freemarket and that allows them to do one thing, in real life, while telling themselves a parallel story that explains themselves to themselves in agreeable terms.
  • Pussycat
    272
    I'd been drinking the last time we talkedcsalisbury

    Well, I am drinking most of the time, especially when engaging in conversation, so I'm really ok with that. :cheers:

    Looking back, I was surly and projectingcsalisbury

    Really, I wouldn't have noticed!

    I'm an attention-seeker myself, so I'm probably more likely to diagnose others with the same. Still, even if I use philosophy as way of getting attention, I genuinely enjoy reading difficult texts alone, working them out., putting thoughts in order. So there's the attention-seeking aspect, and the material itself. The material can be used to get attention, but its almost like one subself using the work of another subself, the way a wheeler and dealer will leap on the work of a creative for his own gain. I guess that's the same with all things, and the relative weight of either part depends on the individual in question.csalisbury

    I think that the magnitude of the attention-seeking is important, normal people normally seek attention from their surroundings - the poeple they interact with -, whereas philoshophers seek attention from the whole, which is normal, if you think of it, since philosophy, traditionally speaking, has to do with the whole: philosophers do not speak to normal or common people, but to this notion of the whole. Whoever undestands this, is on the same page with them, whoever not, is considered inadequate or simply not ready yet.

    I would still say that the thing of doing philosophy is something different than the pursuit of wisdom, though they may both be tributaries of something upstream. As has been said on this thread, there's a strong litigious element to much of philosophy. I also think there's a strong public-wrestling aspect to it. You see that even today in the most dry and academic of philosophy. There's an strong agonistic aspect that I think might be more central than the widsom-seeking aspect. Still, I don't necessarily think most philosophers are disingenuous in the sense they claim to do one thing, while secretly knowing what they're really doing. Analagously : a lot of finance guys probably really do believe the hayek-derived approbation of the freemarket and that allows them to do one thing, in real life, while telling themselves a story that explains themselves to themselves in agreeable terms.csalisbury

    Well maybe philosophers are so cunning that they managed to cun themseleves, being storytellers and all.
  • csalisbury
    2.2k
    I think that the magnitude of the attention-seeking is important, normal people normally seek attention from their surroundings - the poeple they interact with -, whereas philoshophers seek attention from the whole, which is normal, if you think of it, since philosophy, traditionally speaking, has to do with the whole: philosophers do not speak to normal or common people, but to this notion of the whole. Whoever undestands this, is on the same page with them, whoever not, is considered inadequate or simply not ready yet.Pussycat

    For sure. I feel like this is the source of the infamous arrogance of philosophers. I think it applies to a lot of types, but philosophers can be some of the worse offenders. At its simplest, its a devaluation of those around you combined with an over-valuation of the thing you're into. And then valuing or devaluing others depending on how well they can do the thing you're into. Again, I think this applies to all sorts of things, but I also think its true people into philosophy often do this more intensely (myself included, though I hope I'm getting better.)

    I do think @Snakes Alive's characterization of philosophy as a folk tradition is helpful, in this respect, because it helps brings everything down to earth.
  • Pussycat
    272
    For sure. I feel like this is the source of the infamous arrogance of philosophers. I think it applies to a lot of types, but philosophers can be some of the worse offenders. At its simplest, its a devaluation of those around you combined with an over-valuation of the thing you're into. And then valuing or devaluing others depending on how well they can do the thing you're into. Again, I think this applies to all sorts of things, but I also think its true people into philosophy often do this more intensely (myself included, though I hope I'm getting better.)csalisbury

    Yes, I think that philosophers have made an art out of devaluating others, especially ethical philosophers. But if they are so arrogant and offending, would that justify us to repay them with their own medicine?

    I do think Snakes Alive's characterization of philosophy as a folk tradition is helpful, in this respect, because it helps brings everything down to earth.csalisbury

    Ah, it's been days since his last appearance, maybe he was eaten alive by snakes?? But I am still not sure what he means by "folk tradition", why doesn't he just say "tradition", what are these little folkers doing there?
  • StreetlightX
    4.9k
    But I am still not sure what he means by "folk tradition", why doesn't he just say "tradition", what are these little folkers doing there?Pussycat

    It's a diminutive of course. Non-virtue signalling, if you will.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.