I just started reading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche, and (in the first part at least) he discusses the problems with philosophy (as he sees it) in great detail. Really quite interesting. I haven't read any negative accounts of philosophy in awhile-philosophers are a prideful bunch, perhaps because of how much criticism philosophy gets in the modern day, not many are willing to admit that a lot of it is, in fact, contradictory bullshit. Definitely read Nietzsche if you haven't already.

Yes, Nietzsche. I've read a ton of his work.

Nietzsche rejects the correspondence between concepts and the particulars of experience, or "nerve stimuli". I prefer to interpret his notions of Dionysian/Apollonian, will to power, and eternal return in relation to this. What he is saying, in essence, is that there is no true ground (the Dionysian) upon which to construct a conceptual scheme (the Apollonian). For him, there is only the 'will to power' in creating and imposing a conceptual scheme, and the ultimate and inevitable demise of rational truth - the 'eternal return' to an irrational dream.

After Wittgenstein claimed that most of the problems of philosophy are due to the way we use language, he made the next bold claim and stated that the remainder are psychological. I pretty much agree with these assertions and think that many of the problems of philosophy, which are related to ethics are essentially about attitudes. Others might differ.

Yes-haven't gotten to that part yet!

I regret replying now-I am by no means qualified enough to answer your question.

My position is that the problems of philosophy are phantasms, and that modern day reductionism/analytics is not only guilty of perpetuating the nonexisting problem, but compounding it, mutilating it beyond recognition and into a greater delusion that, again, thinks something might actually be resolved. — Merkwurdichliebe

I agree, at least when it comes to much of philosophy. To keep metaphysicks going, such critiques must be (falsely) assimilated by those too attached to metaphysicks to let it go. So we get metaphysicks^2, metaphysicks^3, and so on. To play these 'anti-metaphysickal' games, one of course has to steeped in the lower levels of metaphysicks. This is like having to master A Course In Miracles before one is allowed to dismiss it. Life is short. We have to make choices.

Am I mistaken to say that Nietzsche also does blame language/interpretation for issues in philosophy?

Quiet with that nonsense. I appreciate any input you make. I wasn't even thinking of Nietzsche until you mentioned him. And it was very relevant.

There's an online edition of one of Bertrand Russell's books with the same title, Problems of Philosophy. I know this because the chapter on universals is of particular interest to me.

In response to your contention - I would argue that philosophy is a subject, with a curriculum, and a recognisable set of problems and issues. A lot of people dismiss it without understanding that, in the same way as a lot of people use the word 'metaphysical' for anything 'vaguely spiritual', without understanding that metaphysics as a formal subject has likewise a body of content and domain of discourse.

My view is that even if philosophy does indeed comprise phantasms, they are nevertheless phantasms that continue to exert considerable influence over the mind. So just saying 'boo, phantasms', might not show any insight into what those phantasms are and why they are the subject of philosophy. In fact, in our day and age, I think that is the most common reason.

Another factor is that philosophy is profoundly rooted in history, particularly, the history of consciousness. By that I mean, the ancients lived in an imaginative universe utterly different from our own. This wasn't simply because they believed the world was held up by elephants or surrounded by crystal spheres. Rather it's because their conception of man and nature was different to ours, in ways we can barely fathom. So being able to be critically aware of that, instead of (as is most usual) dismissing the ancients as scientifically uninformed, takes considerable imagination in its own right.

I could say more, but that's enough for starters. (Although I have sometimes reflected that it's impossible for the same person to at once admire Nietzsche and Plato. And I admire Plato.)

Yes, but Nietzsche pretty much the dark psychologist of philosophy trivialized much of philosophy into psychobabble like the will to power and some other crap about ethics belonging to the ubermensch. I refer to him as the drama queen of philosophy...

So we get metaphysicks^2, metaphysicks^3, and so on. To play these 'anti-metaphysickal' games, one of course has to steeped in the lower levels of metaphysicks. — ghost

Well stated. That is getting at the heart of my position.

:clap:

Well stated. That is getting at the heart of my position. — Merkwurdichliebe

I was excited to see your post. I had to pipe up and support it.

My view is that even if philosophy does indeed comprise phantasms, they are nevertheless phantasms that continue to exert considerable influence over the mind. So just saying 'boo, phantasms', might not show any insight into what those phantasms are and why they are the subject of philosophy. In fact, in our day and age, I think that is the most common reason. — Wayfarer

Absolutely. Philosophy has a unspeakable personal value for me. I might say it has saved me in a strict eschatological sense of the term saved.

Yes I'm getting that vibe only a dozen or so pages in! But it is a refreshing view point, and I appreciate his defence of the anti-realists of his time, he says at least they are willing to shun the prevailing views and so on.

Thanks. :smile:

Philosophy has a unspeakable personal value for me. — Merkwurdichliebe

Same here. I love philosophy. I consider it a central expression of what some would call my spirituality.

My distaste for phantasms is connected to a pursuit of the true and the real. Since philosophers generally want the true and the real, I'm ultimately just calling many approaches dead ends. What these approaches have in common is getting lost in language, including getting lost in language about getting lost in language. The goal is roughly the same, something like virtue.

I want to address your point about Witt.

But first I will say Nietzsche's psychobabble is highly open to interpretation, but he does make some extremely valuable contributions when you can get past his insanity. I think of Witt. as a sane Nietzsche, although he was insane in his own right.

Anyone here know Hadot?

many of the problems of philosophy...related to ethics are essentially about attitudes. — Wallows

I agree.

And, speaking of Nietzsche, he's largely valuable as one more eloquent attitude to have spent some time with. In my mind, being educated is connected to having exposed one's self to many ways of looking at the world. Our own attitudes are often made more virtuous and eloquent this way, or so I continue to think and hope.

I could say more, but that's enough for starters. (Although I have sometimes reflected that it's impossible for the same person to at once admire Nietzsche and Plato. And I admire Plato. — Wayfarer

I understand the antithetical relation of Nietzsche to Plato, but I personally admire both for what they have to offer in themselves. The notion of perspectivism, introduced by Nietzsche, excuses Plato from his criticism by regarding them as independent conceptual schematics or systems of thought.

I don't know. He despised a lot of philosophers before him and hated Christianity. Can you imagine a world full of people admiring Nietzsche? Not a pleasant world I think.

Anyone here know Hadot? — Wayfarer

Just looked him up.

Wittgenstein had claimed that philosophy was an illness of language and Hadot notes that the cure required a particular type of literary genre.[7] — Wiki

Sounds fascinating. But what one often sees is Wittgenstein himself becoming part of the disease. The disease is a hungry Hegelian hippo. Before long one needs Wittgenstein^2 as a cure for Wittgenstein.

Yep, good philosopher.

Can you imagine a world full of people admiring Nietzsche? Not a pleasant world I think. — Wallows

It would definitely be anarchistic. But I also admire Plato, and a world full of people admiring both Plato and Nietzsche would result in a populace with a very balanced understanding.

Nope, tell me more...

Hadot's recurring theme is that philosophy in Antiquity was characterized by a series of spiritual exercises intended to transform the perception, and therefore the being, of those who practice it; that philosophy is best pursued in real conversation and not through written texts and lectures; and that philosophy, as it is taught in universities today, is for the most part a distortion of its original, therapeutic impulse. — Wiki

The 'real conversation' theme is great, as is insisting on the gap between academic concerns and philosophy that matters to us as worldly mortals. We also largely read to become better people. So books are merely an aid to our lives outside of books.

I think this connects to the phantasms theme. It's in the interest of some academics that the water remains muddy. Insider jargon also helps to disguise the ignorance of professionals not only from non-specialists but also from those professionals. The 'ignorance' I have in mind is not of the body of metaphysicks that they preserve but of the limited power and relevance of metaphysicks.

Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre). ...According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

IETP.

I only have his Plotinus, but I've also read Philosophy as a Way of Life. I think his insight into philosophy as being a practice - praxis - is important.

What in my opinion happened is that a great deal of value in Greek and ancient philosophy got incorporated into Christian theology and was often seriously mis-translated in the process. So with the turn away from Christianity in Western culture, a great deal of the original philosophical insights were lost along with it - hence the flatland of modernity.

Actually I think one recent influential philosopher who has explored this theme, apart from Hadot, was Habermas, in his dialogues with Catholicism.

So just saying 'boo, phantasms', might not show any insight into what those phantasms are and why they are the subject of philosophy. — Wayfarer

I agree, but I'd also stress that new phantasms are created in the science of phantasms, and this is what I mean by metaphysicks^2 and metaphysicks^3. If we take the phantasms too seriously, then we have to become ghostbusters who...only pay attention to the ghosts we are supposed to be busting. But the whole point was to turn our attention to better paths to virtue in all its forms

Another factor is that philosophy is profoundly rooted in history, particularly, the history of consciousness. By that I mean, the ancients lived in an imaginative universe utterly different from our own. This wasn't simply because they believed the world was held up by elephants or surrounded by crystal spheres. Rather it's because their conception of the man and nature was different to ours, in ways we can barely fathom. So being able to be critically aware of that, instead of (as is most usual) dismissing the ancients as scientifically uninformed, takes considerable imagination in its own right. — Wayfarer

I don't see many philosophical problems prior to Cartesian philosophy. I am inclined to attribute all philosophical problems to modern philosophy.

I always saw a major distinction between ancient and modern philosophical thought. One example is the contrast between Socratic ignorance and Cartesian doubt. My fundamental philosophical presuppositions definitely align more closely to the ancient than the modern.

What in my opinion happened is that a great deal of value in Greek and ancient philosophy got incorporated into Christian theology and was often seriously mis-translated in the process. So with the turn away from Christianity in Western culture, a great deal of the original philosophical insights were lost along with it. — Wayfarer

Thanks. :up:

That is very insightful. So, by the time of copernicus, it only took a tiny nudge to flip it all on its head. And we are dealing with its consequence in the present.