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

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?

And yet, to a certain degree, human beings resit philosophy—the gem of existence! Why? — InternetStranger

Fear of uncertainty, I would bet.

"
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".

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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?)

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.

"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.

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.

" 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?

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."

Philosophy as therapy versus philosophy as exhibitionism.

In the end all that philosophy really tells us is what we already knew

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.

"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."

I'm following the remark of Rutherford, as you perhaps know. One can take up any cause in the style laid out by Max Weber; so long as one sets down a framework and keeps to it, it is wissenschaft, careful study, but not true knowledge. It is no more the real stuff than is stamp collecting done in a serious and rigorous manner. Which is to say, it is ultimately arbitrary. I appreciate the view you propound, however, its weight, its truth or non-truth, it seems to me, is a matter for philosophic research. Only the essential truth of the human being has the piercing power to ask this question and move into this question as though to measure it. Ergo, it is the human being and it is the most serious pursuit of the human being.

I'm not with your view because one would have to ask it, rather than take it up as a conviction that does justice to mankind as what sounds right to a man of sound heart and mind, but... prior to investigation.

"In the end all that philosophy really tells us is what we already knew"

Not sure how the whole of human life could be described as showing what one already knows. Since philosophy and the human being are the same, this does not persuade me.

"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."

That's the brilliant classicist Jowett's translation. Often classicists are quite impossible when it comes to philosophic meaning. What Socrates said is closer to what I put down. It was a definition as a formulation of his soul's opinion. He held this, we hold this, just as we hold that Crete is an Island. As, I believe, even given the intervening millennia, it still is.


"You do not have to be a philosopher to examine your life"

Exacto! Now you are closer (you already were) to seeing it, the path of Socrates', and what he knew. To be human is to philosophize.

"From the premises you stated it could just as easily be all humans that don't inquire are not alive. Or not human."

Humans can sink bellow the level of human beings, become beasts. Only true philosophic exercise tempers the barbarous animal, makes it human. Such is true education. Think of the harrow of beastliness under which Nebuchadnezzar was stricken. Hitler and his fellows, for instance, were fittingly called wild beasts. They sank bellow the level of the human being.

I don't know Rutherford. I had to read Weber in one connection or another in one class or another in one school or another, long ago, and haven't been inclined to read him since then. I was brought up Catholic, you see (not one now, though). Never understood those heretic Protestants. Damn their ethic, anyway.

In the Western tradition, philosophy has been distinguished from the mundane, day-to-day lives of everyone (philosophers included) since Plato, probably before. It's supposed to be the study of a kind of a postulated "higher reality" which differs from the base, mutable "lower reality" in which we live. I think that's a misguided view and so react negatively when philosophy is portrayed as the study of something superior in some profound sense to life as lived.

It is a good thing then that I don't have a burning desire to persuade you.

Personally, I think philosophy is for those who are not focused enough for STEM study and research. However, don't worry, as you can keep piggybacking off the findings and pretend it was your own brilliance.

" I think that's a misguided view and so react negatively when philosophy is portrayed as the study of something superior in some profound sense to life as lived."

Rutherford isolated the nucleus of the atom. He wasn't, however, concerned with its possible applications. He died believing nothing would come of that discovery, and that the release of the energy from the nucleus would not mean much. He gloried in the knowledge for its own sake, i.e., real knowledge. Not "stamp collecting".

Weber in many respects controls the universities today. The notion of the "ideal type" is very powerful. The notion of a "fact value" distinction (which, make no mistake, became powerful through Weber, though it was developed by Simmel and stems from Nietzsche, Hume is only accidentally and retrospectively credited with this because of Kant/Nietzsche) controls the whole academic product and the methodology of each field (just as much and more in the those social sciences were it is explicitly rejected, because it still founds those disciplines in their methodology:, e.g., sociology, ethnology, anthropology and the rest of the Kulturwissenschaften). The systematic expulsion of subjectivity, political science, not political philosophy.

Ergo, the point is, philosophy is no other world. Think of living in a tribal life of scarcity and without education. Is it not closer to barbarity? According to the Roman historian Florus, Numa tamed the barbarous Romans, and prepared them for human life. This was through his piety, what piety is, is the subject of the Euthyphro. It is quite instructive to see how the way of experience exercised through speech, which is not something added on to the body, but since understanding is bodily, it is the body, comes to live in the race, human beings. Ergo, the raising up is what you are now because of what has been philosophized.

"Personally, I think philosophy is for those who are not focused enough for STEM study and research.[/quote]"

However, since philosophy is the human being itself, this is a starkly senseless claim. E.g., since you yourself are a philosophic being producing a drearily naive philosophy (or, merely retailing what has been placed in your soul by your experience, i.e., of your environment, which is culture). One can show reaction norms predict you(s) will oft be produced by the current conditions. That is patently obvious!

Of course, surely it is a simple enough word, Russel says: philosophy is the unknown, science is what is known. All that is science, was once philosophy.

I would modify that to say, there is no certainty with respect to the knowing of the known. And so the pervading storm of philosophy is one's most serious concern.

Superficial nonsense. What actual skills do you have that could be used to advance STEM research?

As a philosophic being, who has been well able to defend yourself, by generating a cheep philosophy. Though, I feel you misuse your essential powers, that is your affair, naturally.

Worthy! Most worthy is the Posturer.

Or should that be: Unworthy! Most unworthy is the Posturer!