I forgot to mention: the Woody Allen quote is from Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity, discussing subject matter which is ill-positioned to produce any positive effects in one's life whatsoever. Particularly, when we're talking about positive effects which are likely to be recognised and appreciated by people who don't share our philosophical ideas.

Firstly, with social and communication skills such as being well-mannered and patient in conversation, well, these are just good traits for having people listen to you. No matter what I say, no matter its value, if I say it rudely and impatiently, of course, you are not likely to listen to that. If I don't care to hear what you have to say, it is unlikely you're going to repay me with caring to hear what I have to say, in a normal conversation.

The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. Get a schedule, get your 8 hours sleep, eat healthily, do your regular exercise, put first things first, treat others like you'd yourself like to be treated, groom yourself and the list goes on.

I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion.

It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck.

Perhaps 'abstract thought' (and the heroic posing that goes with it) functions like a drug. Is it caffeine or meth? Depends on the person & phase of life perhaps.

Good post.

Seeking to be the one who acts is also keeping an eye out for who is doing that amongst the people you live amongst. Being visible expands what one can observe. Much of philosophical discourse is entangled with different takes of what is possible and what possibility could mean. It is like anything else, if it is a clue to what you want to find then it is worthy, if it is a distraction, then it is not.

More easily gestured at than explained, of course.

Philosophy is mostly a recreational activity — Judaka

I don't agree with that, but it's not an irrational position.

The things one can do to produce positive effects in their life are generally, in my view, simply too simple to be useful for a deep philosophical thinker. — Judaka

Very true. Simple in nature but extremely hard in practice. And pretty rare, in fact.

I think you could argue, prioritise getting your life in order before *insert any recreational activity*. The more someone is committed to a recreational activity, where that be gaming, sports or philosophy, the more I expect that they are going to live a less "balanced" life and sacrifice more for that passion. — Judaka

I see your point, yes. But I think of philosophy as something that can be profoundly beneficial. If it isn't, and is on par with video games, then fine. But I don't see it that way. Nor do I put keeping up with the news in the same category -- I think that is important, and more so than simple entertainment.

When philosophy becomes sport, or fashion, or some fleeting recreation, then yes -- one should simply balance it with the rest of your life. But ditto for religion or spirituality -- which is likewise very common. But what's the point of that if it doesn't lead to real change in your life? That was Jesus' point. I see philosophy as much more like spirituality/religion than sports or video games. But that's me.

And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive.

It wouldn't really make sense that having a complex and nuanced understanding of history, geography, geopolitics or philosophy or anything like that - would help your personal life. They're all fairly terrible subjects to be asking "what good is it to me to know this". if you don't think it is interesting and of value to know by itself, without further producing any positive changes in your life, then your interests kind of suck. — Judaka

Eh, that's a pretty superficial way of looking at it. Odd to mention after you say philosophy is mostly "recreation," too. Does this imply only what's pleasurable or "fun" is done "for itself"? That's hardly doing it "for itself," though -- which is really a meaningless phrase.

But regardless, there's no real split between "personal life" and some other activity. It's all integrated. Not everything has to "improve" your life, no...particularly things like hobbies, or candy or sex or sitcoms or anything else you like. But the question of "What is a good life?" and "How should I be spending my time?" is hardly an irrelevant question to ask, whether about video games or history.

I'm not arguing they have to be a drag or a grim duty, either. Philosophy and history ARE fun and interesting, of course.

Again, strangely enough you're proving my point by your assertion that philosophy (or history, or politics) is "mostly recreational," while at the same time should be interesting and valuable "in itself" without question. In other words, enjoy sports without concern for your "personal life," because it should be seen as valuable in itself. But balance it well, like a diet -- a little candy never hurts.

Not convincing, really.

Perhaps 'abstract thought' (and the heroic posing that goes with it) functions like a drug. Is it caffeine or meth? Depends on the person & phase of life perhaps. — j0e

I think it certainly can become an addiction, a habit, a hobby, etc -- like anything else, yes. Something we mindlessly do for "fun." And that's fine. But that's not how I feel about it, nor do I think that's how one SHOULD think about it. Again, I quoted Jesus for a reason here. There are parallels. If you claim to be a devout, Bible-reading Christian, and nothing shows up in your actual life -- what's the point of the Bible reading? Or take Aristotle as another example -- you are what you do, not what you think you are. I can't go around claiming I'm a carpenter if I don't have any skills of cutting and shaping wood. (I suppose I could, but I'd be a fraud.)

It is like anything else, if it is a clue to what you want to find then it is worthy, if it is a distraction, then it is not. — Valentinus

I think I agree with you, but I don't think I completely understood fully what you meant here. If philosophy is just a diversion, then yes I think at that point it's on par with these "spiritual" people who are petty, unfocused, impolite, impatient, etc. Just a kind of hypocrisy. It's another form of hobbyism, where there's no real action.

In other words, "Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking.

"Where's the beef?" What has all this reading and philosophizing accomplished? What is it doing for you or others? That's not totally fair, of course, but I insist it's worth asking. — Xtrix

The "philosophizing" is not something that has a result or value by itself. For my part, I am not sure at any point whether a particular expression of it concerns what concerns the direct relation to one's life you are talking about.

On the other hand, the same uncertainty makes me unsure of separating it from my agency as a kind of navigation where one can say this ship went here and another went there. The desire to make it one thing or another is one of the issues being discussed in philosophy.

beautiful

The "philosophizing" is not something that has a result or value by itself. — Valentinus

Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there's no value and no result in doing so, then why do it? You argued earlier that there's a value in itself, apart from any personal connection or gain. Now there's no value whatsoever "by itself"? Maybe I'm not following you.

Appreciate the response nonetheless.

beautiful — matt

Thank you?

Not sure what "by itself" means. Thinking is an activity, and philosophy is a certain kind of thinking -- at least that's how I think of it. If there's no value and no result in doing so, then why do it? — Xtrix

You brought up the idea that some of this activity of thinking was not important to being an active and effective agent in the life we are alive in. I thought I was talking about your distinctions, not mine.

Maybe a better way to express my point here is not in quoting Jesus and using parallels with religion, but to switch to what's called "political hobbyism," where many people inform themselves and Tweet and write long Facebook posts, etc., but don't actually gain any power. Eitan Hirsch wrote a book about this, "Politics is for Power." What I'm saying is somewhat related to this.

You brought up the idea that some of this activity of thinking was not important to being an active and effective agent in the life we are alive in. — Valentinus

Then I wasn't clear enough. It's not that I don't think it's important; quite the opposite. But in the same way a Christian would consider reading the Bible and prayer to be important -- and I want to apply the point that Jesus made about Christians (or Jews in that case) to philosophers (even amateurs or philosophical hobbyists, of which I include myself): by the fruits you will know them.

What are the fruits of this group of philosophers? Judging myself only (but I know it's true of many others), I am often petty and rude and impatient and aggravated, especially online. Not a lot of "wisdom" there that I'm supposedly in love with, and others are often turned off by that -- and they're right to be, even if they're otherwise wrong about this or that (which they usually are :wink: ).

I'd rather be unphilosophical and live a good life than read philosophy all day long and be a miserable asshole. I guess that's my point.

So I think it's extremely important, so important that I take it seriously enough to ask the question of its effects and its "use" (for lack of a better term) and its impact on us as individuals and in society generally. I think, ideally, it should make us better human beings. And if it isn't, then we're exactly like one of those mathematicians who, while perhaps brilliant in that domain, are otherwise not what one would aspire to be like.

Or take Aristotle as another example -- you are what you do, not what you think you are. I can't go around claiming I'm a carpenter if I don't have any skills of cutting and shaping wood. (I suppose I could, but I'd be a fraud.) — Xtrix

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. An important difference between carpenters and self-anointed philosophers, though, is that this site can provide the illusion of doing the work (builds the house of being.)

If someone said playing team sports has helped them with communication, trust, teamwork, work ethic, the importance of planning and etc, that's fair. Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits.

For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might.

Why do I want - or value - an answer to this question that is "better" than those kinds of simple answers? Well, it's not because it's purely fun, I genuinely value a deeper and more considered answer, I value my own answers, which I came to with a lot of effort and consideration. I'm just not surprised when someone who has that simple answer is totally uninterested in that. I personally really value recreational activities that aren't just "fun", I enjoy creating something or gaining a skill.

And that's basically what I'm saying in this post: if philosophy, or math, or religion, or politics, etc., simply becomes an addiction or a "hobby," then maybe it's time to move on to something more productive. — Xtrix

Well, that's fair. Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. Therefore, it is a personal question, what is the purpose of philosophy, why are we thinking about it and how do we know we're getting from it what we want? There's no one right answer.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. An important difference between carpenters and self-anointed philosophers, though, is that this site can provide the illusion of doing the work (builds the house of being.) — j0e

:lol: Touche.

Philosophy also has its own set of benefits that people who dive into philosophy can cite but I think at its heart, philosophy is practised by people who enjoy it. I wouldn't spend so much time pondering philosophical questions if it wasn't stimulating and enjoyable. I don't consider it "work" and if it was boring, I wouldn't spend time on it just because I wanted those profound benefits. — Judaka

Sure -- again, as I said before, I'm not saying it's an either/or: either grim duty that's "good for you" or fun activity with no other value. I do think, however, that the emphasis being put on "enjoyment" turns philosophy into merely another hobby among many.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. Philosophy isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not simply for fun -- it's actually deadly serious, unlike any other human endeavor, in fact -- including its offspring, science. If it's truly happening, it's not really a "hobby" at all. At least that's what I'd argue.

For questions like "what do I want to do with my life", I think that this question is not necessarily that philosophical. In that, someone could say "work with animals, have a family, be kind to my friends and travel" and that's a fine answer, a pretty normal answer. "What is a good life", if the reply was "live healthily, with friends, good food and a career you enjoy", that's fair, right? I just don't think people who don't care for philosophy are going to dive into the books, the forums, the thinking about "what a good life is" and trying to come up with their best answer - as you or I might. — Judaka

Yes, and I wouldn't expect them to. Most people probably would answer in such ways, and that's fine.

I think the question "What do I want to do with my life" itself may not be considered very "philosophical," but it certainly shades over into philosophy. I see the question as resting on philosophical grounds, as most questions do (perhaps all questions, ultimately) -- namely the one you mentioned: "What is a good life" and then, further, "What is good?"

Philosophy is directly related to determining the value of our activities, including, philosophy. — Judaka

Exactly. Put another way, it's thinking about thinking. Or questioning about questioning? Either way, I'm seeing that it's perhaps a bit Nietzschean, in the sense of asking about the VALUE of "truth." I suppose in a way I'm asking something similar.

But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? We who engage with thinkers of the past and ask perennial human questions about the world? I can speak for myself, as I have before -- and I have only indirect evidence from this forum. Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight.

That should be worrying to us, I think.

Penetrating topic.

Way back in a college class we discussed whether "who the person was" could be separated from "what the person did". Back then I probably thought that the person's identity was separate from the person's actions. Fifty+ years later, I would now say that "what you are" (your identity) flows from "what you do".

In a number of instances, I don't come out ahead in the "who you are is what you do" formulation. A lot of what I did worked against who / what I thought I was. I would now claim that there is no exalted self above the dirt and mud of life as we live it. Who we are is the way we deal with the dirt and mud of real life.

The way we live our lives--what we do, the actions we take--IS our lives. We can't be crooks on the one hand (like Bernie Maddoff in real life or Tony Soprano in the TV show) and be a good person on the other hand, as both of these guys were to their families.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. Philosophy isn't something to be taken lightly. It's not simply for fun -- it's actually deadly serious, unlike any other human endeavor, in fact -- including its offspring, science. If it's truly happening, it's not really a "hobby" at all. — Xtrix

Don't forget war. But I can relate to the puritanical urge, which is something like an urge to be virtuously effective & significant. We might speculate that genuine philosophy is always political, a continuation of war.

It's this urge that would call the fun approach to thinking a frivolous escapism. The 'warrior' has no patience for the clown, unless the clown is a satirist dissolving the enemy in verbal acid. But there are anarchist clowns whose target is 'the spirit of seriousness' and any principle that wants to organize them into some higher Cause.

The kind of world I'd be proud to help create is the kind of world that abounds in intellectual fun and in which escapism is no longer tempting. On the other hand, maybe we like the drama of of the trauma. I recently flossed while watching Saving Private Ryan.

And I, perhaps in a quasi-Christian "puritanical" way, want to reject that notion. — Xtrix

I understand. I share your views but I see the gap between those who think like us and those who disagree as stemming from mostly this enjoyment and interest in the topic. I don't say it is recreational to demean it, I say it is recreational because it is not related to our work, we do it in our spare time and we do it because we enjoy it. People who don't do it might be getting fitter or richer than us, having more fun with their friends, competing at sports on a higher level, there's only so much time in a life and we spend it doing what we enjoy. I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ.

But I feel it's closer to the Christian analogy: what kinds of lives are we living, we philosophers? — Xtrix

What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality?

Based on much of what I read here -- including my own "contributions" -- it's not a pretty sight. — Xtrix

Well, I think philosophy forums can be explained like this; you are a horror movie enthusiast on a forum about rom-coms. You're here to discuss the greatness of the great horror movies but you're instead appalled and disappointed to see all these people being excited about rom-coms, a genre you despise. In many of the threads I read on this forum, I disagree with about everyone, I have a bone to pick with most of the comments I read and it's not surprising. I like to think I conduct myself well enough but probably most people think the same about what I write, finding most of it disagreeable, wrong, misguided - whatever.

The evaluation of our ideas and their worth is a big part of philosophy, why would we think what we think if we didn't see it had value - even just the value of being right. The more time I devote to philosophy, the further away I get from an opinion I would have had if I didn't, I feel more convinced about my way of thinking. Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight.

In many of the threads I read on this forum, I disagree with about everyone, I have a bone to pick with most of the comments I read and it's not surprising. — Judaka

Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight. — Judaka

:point:

I like the honesty. Blood will be spilled. I think we are here for that, even if it doesn't always feel good to bleed.

shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing? — Xtrix

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human.

I should whittle this down because I don't think I'm doing it justice, but I'm too lazy, so here's my stream of consciousness:

An Indian (American), speaking of his cultural traditions (I can't remember what tribe), told me "We are what others perceive us to be." I initially took umbrage. After all, it is normal for a Western European mentality like mine to think of ourselves, as individuals, as more than what we show the world; somehow deeper, more complex, profound, better, secret. "No one can tell me what am, damnit!"

On the other hand, there was something about the way he said it, and the context, that bespoke some wisdom that made me want to think deeper. There was some communal, tribal feel to his words.

Where I was saying "no one", he had used the word "others", which is plural. So I tried to parse that. To the extent a single person is perceiving me, I can find solace in knowing that, whether they are mistaken or correct, at least I still get to see myself as somehow more than what that one person perceives. Thus, if someone sees me as bad, then maybe that person is seeing something I am blind to. Or, if I admit that I am, indeed, and in part, bad, then the person is correct, but only to the extent of that part. I think I can live with that. Either way, the perception is part, not whole.

On the other hand, when I use the plural, where I am deemed to be an amalgamation of all the perceptions of all that perceives me, I must ask: What more can I be than what I show to all the world? If I am hiding something about myself, can I really say that what I am hiding is the real me? If I think that my thoughts somehow make me, secretly, some deeper being but I simply don't show that side of me to the world, then isn't that a form of denial?

It makes sense that I am only what I put out there. That does not mean that some individual person can't be wrong about me.

But here is where I think the genius of his tribal, or communal wisdom comes in:

To tell another person they are wrong about me is to tell them that they are not who they think they are, and they cannot trust their own perceptions. I, in a sense, steal their perception. I perceive them as wrong, and to that extent, they are. For my perceptions of them could likewise be entitled to respect. My perception of them is mine, and I perceive them as wrong.

The way to resolve differences, or come to an objective view of a truth (should I deem another person wrong), is not to steal their perceptions, but to offer them another view of me, or the situation.

Who am I to tell the person standing over there, looking back at me, that their eyes are wrong? Their ears are wrong? They are wrong? I am not over there looking back at me. I am here. I might think that entitles me to some greater authority about what is here, but I know it's hard to see myself without a mirror. Other people are that mirror. I may or may not like I see in the mirror, and I might even find the mirror to be flawed, But it is still what it is, like it or not. Maybe that's why I don't use mirrors much. Come to think of it, many a tribal people did not have mirrors, save the occasional still water. So, they served as each other's mirrors, and adjusted their actions and who they were accordingly. Hence the effective use of ostracization, where physical punishment was rarely needed; where virtue was made of necessity, and the respect for individuality, nuance, and choice.

Even if, from some clear and objective perspective, the mirror might be wrong, I don't smash the mirror, or steal it or hide it. It's not my mirror. If I don't like what it shows, then I don't have to look at it. If I think I am better than what I see, I stop perceiving myself in another person's perception of me. I don't look. I stop perceiving. I see how far that gets me. LOL!

The other person is either lying about what they perceive, they perceive it correctly, or they perceive it incorrectly, but they perceive it. I won't steal another's perception. I let them have it.

And if I want to change another's perception of me, I won't argue the point or try to steal their perception.
I will change what they see. But that is only if I care. If I don't care, then I'll do what I do anyway, and I'll be me. But part of my might be wanting to change their perception, if only to change my own perception of me. In that case, again, I will try to change.

I think we are all part of All, and we are All perceiving itself from every possible perspective, human, animal, plant, rock, whatever. Each has a perspective. I'll not try to steal that from All, lest I be perceived as a thief.

Figured it's worth pointing out on the Forum sometimes. Let's not get caught up in abstract thought at the expense of everything else. — Xtrix

I think it's a pretty philosophical thing to feel like philosophy is insufficient. If it's, as @Judaka says, recreational - it can be an art, like conceptual sculpture, art criticism, a combat sport... Religious figures, spiritualists aren't feeling like their studies and rituals are worthless. Us? We read, it can change how we see things. Where else are you going to learn what you learn by practicing philosophy?

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human. — James Riley

Excellent point.

For example, I read several papers every morning. Why? To stay informed about what's happening in the world. I consider that important. I often think about it. But so often that's the extent of it -- it has taken up my time, and has no effect on my life otherwise. I don't write about it or discuss it with others in any way, I take no action to change any of it (nor can I, most of the time), and so I often wonder whether this is the best use of my time. — Xtrix

I do the same thing and feel somewhat similar. But you answered your own "wonder": "To stay informed about what's happening in the world."

"I consider that important." It is.

Now let's turn that around: only do those things that have an effect on your life, using whatever metric you think fulfills that goal. I assume this means, focus on family, work, exercise and the like, but put aside the world and "philosophy."

Would you be happier or more satisfied?

As for me if, If lose philosophy, novels, music and news, I don't think life would be worth much to me. To some, all these aspects could be considered impractical. Then most excellent to impracticality. :)

I see your perspective on being lost in abstract thought. On the other hand, we are gifted in having the capacity to think as elaborately as we do. It's one of the aspects that makes us most unique. To not engage with it some manner, would be a bit sad, I think.

We are here on some cosmic fluke. To try and not engage with this miracle would be "worse than a crime, it would be a mistake."

I agree with Manuel. I used to have a friend who went to the gym 4-6 times a week. We were sort of best friends for a while. I failed university, but he dropped out of both high school and the military. I've spent 10 years going to gyms. Physicians told me there was nothing wrong with my muscles, but that I probably had 'poor skill' in using them. Is that genetic? I don't know. I just know that it was frustrating enough for me to quit. One of the better decisions in my life.

He was struggling in life so I tried to teach him English. So he could educate himself. To him it felt extremely threatening. Like him trying to teach me weightlifting. Afraid you're getting yourself injured.

When lockdown ends we're going out for dinner again. Making stupid jokes and talking about shallow things again. It's our common ground. Where we can be happy in each other's company.

You know, at the end of the day this is a virtual reality. I'd rather be here than at an actual insurrection.

"I consider that important." It is. — Manuel

I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself.

I remember the press I used to trust getting in line behind, and cowering before those who said "You don't support the troops!" and "You can't question a President in a time of war" etc. A good, liberal press, stood back and chewed their nails. They should have stood up on their hind legs. Credibility is a strange thing: hard to earn, easy to lose, and even harder to get back.

I would periodically go off into the wilderness for a month or more. No comm with another human being. While it did not happen on the occasion of 9/11, I often wonder, what if I had gone in on 9/10 and come out a month later, with the world all a-flutter? Would my absence have meant shit to anyone, including me? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO! In fact, the lack of jet trails in the sky would possibly have been the only thing I noticed, and that would have been a good thing. So natural should be such a state, that maybe I would not have even noticed that.

So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. Especially if "intelligence" gets a body all spun up on the BS of mankind. Too each his own, I reckon.

A good, liberal press, stood back and chewed their nails. They should have stood up on their hind legs. Credibility is a strange thing: hard to earn, easy to lose, and even harder to get back. — James Riley

That's true. It's not easy to find sources one believes to be reliable, but with some looking around it's achievable. Bias is probably impossible to avoid and that's not necessarily a bad thing, I don't think.

Would my absence have meant shit to anyone, including me? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO! In fact, the lack of jet trails in the sky would possibly have been the only thing I noticed, and that would have been a good thing. So natural should be such a state, that maybe I would not have even noticed that. — James Riley

Also true. But then we could've had a similar attitude to WWII, Vietnam, heck, even events in Ancient Greece. There's nothing wrong with not caring much or finding it less useful or valuable. But are such events important? I'd be hard to argue otherwise.

Too each his own, I reckon. — James Riley

That's what really matters at bottom.

I mean if you find something interesting or important and other people do not, what can you say aside from platitudes: "I think learning how we got here is Important", "We should be concerned about Global Warming or Nuclear Wars or wars in general." (?)

But as you said to each his own. It would be boring if we all agreed on everything or had the exact same interests.

During covid I quit mainstream (social) media. The facts were being spinned and twisted, it was just not credible anymore. People started saying: "This is how politics work. They cannot retract it nor apologize. Everyone is just trying to survive."

Well, I'm glad I survived the brainwashing machine that controlled me for a lifetime. If I end up on the wrong website I only have myself to blame.

Last elections I didn't vote. Felt like Simon and Garfunkel in Mrs. Robinson

Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose. Anyway you look at it you lose

C'est la vie, or even better: That's life!

C'est la vie, or even better: That's life! — TaySan

:100:

It would be boring if we all agreed on everything or had the exact same interests. — Manuel

:100:

The way we live our lives--what we do, the actions we take--IS our lives. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. How philosophy fits in with that is relevant, I think.

I do understand your position though, I feel I could fully agree with you if I was being less considerate of how people differ. — Judaka

I understand. To be even more clear, I'm asking how philosophy fits in when we look at what we are actually doing in life and ask ourselves "Am I living the life I want to live?" It always depends on the person.

What is a philosopher supposed to produce or showcase to demonstrate their quality? — Judaka

I can't give any formula, of course. But if the tendency is simply to resign oneself in an ivory tower, spending endless hours (however enjoyable) reading texts and pondering realism, and generally not acting in a way that's admirable (to me), while I may agree with this person's writings (or art, or mathematics), I loathe what he is and would aspire to be the opposite.

Again, I'm putting philosophy in the same dimension as religion, really. That doesn't make them the same, but they're asking similar questions.

Many posters here, including yourself really, I am not a huge fan but I kind of understand, you're surrounded by viewpoints you despise and you're not necessarily wrong for believing what you believe. Well, I expect blood to be spilled, it is what it is, a philosophy forum will never be a pretty sight. — Judaka

Yeah, I'm often not very nice. I can't help it sometimes. But I never really gain anything from acting in such a way. People, conversation, and collaboration should be priorities to me -- I know this. Yet how I act often works against these values, for reasons you mentioned: emotional reactions to others' being "wrong" or having drastically different taste. That's a common problem -- I see it all over. Shouldn't philosophers be somewhat "beyond" that? Would Aristotle take my attitude? I doubt it.

And so it goes for others, as well.

shouldn't getting your life in order come before more philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing?
— Xtrix

Not if philosophizing/reading/writing/lecturing is what you are. In that case, your life might be in order. At least as far as we can, considering we are human. — James Riley

I'm not sure what you mean by "what you are". If we are what we do, and what we do is read and write and philosophize, there's nothing wrong with that in my view. My point is that philosophy is different from other endeavors, more on par with spiritual activities, and so if one is truly thinking philosophically and doing so often, and yet one is an impatient, cruel, impolite, miserly person -- these "fruits" signify something fairly off with the person as a whole. Why should I take anything seriously about life, being, causality, or ethics from such a person? Whether they're correct or not, they're basically hypocrites. "Love of wisdom" -- what is wisdom if not also phronēsis?

I think it's a pretty philosophical thing to feel like philosophy is insufficient. If it's, as Judaka says, recreational - it can be an art, like conceptual sculpture, art criticism, a combat sport... Religious figures, spiritualists aren't feeling like their studies and rituals are worthless. Us? We read, it can change how we see things. Where else are you going to learn what you learn by practicing philosophy? — fdrake

Where else? By thinking and questioning, and by dialogue with others. It's not only reading, after all.

Otherwise I don't think I fully understood your argument here.

I do agree it's philosophical to ask about philosophy. No doubt about it.

Now let's turn that around: only do those things that have an effect on your life, using whatever metric you think fulfills that goal. I assume this means, focus on family, work, exercise and the like, but put aside the world and "philosophy."

Would you be happier or more satisfied? — Manuel

I doubt it. That's the classic "unexamined life." I don't think shutting out the world and never questioning things often leads to a happier life, no.

But again, I'm not against philosophy. I'm actually obsessed with it, and have been for a long time. There does come a time, however, where one should ask about what one is doing in the world and whether it's useful in any real sense, practically or otherwise. If it becomes just another habit, or hobby, then it's another amusement, as sports or news-reading is.

Better examples are Christians who don't live by Christian principles and political hobbyists who don't get involved in the community. Very different, of course, but more in line with those examples.

This is all very personal to me, obviously. I'm not attempting any sweeping claim about what proper philosophy is or even what a proper life is, in detail. This is all evidence and citation-free stuff, so take it how you will.

We are here on some cosmic fluke. — Manuel

That's one story, yeah. Maybe it's true, maybe not. I reject supernatural explanations, but I also reject more and more this scientism that's fashionable these days. It's stated with utmost certainty that it's basically become dogma. Who's to say what's a "fluke"? But I digress....



I fail to see the relevance of your story, but thanks for posting nonetheless.

I often wonder about that. I used think keeping up with current events (intelligence) was a sign of intelligence, if nothing else. And that's assuming the source(s) of intelligence is/are credible. Now I'm not so sure. With AI and Deep Fake and and my perception of the loss of credibility among once-trusted sources, I feel like I might be wasting my time, considering there is little I can do but vote, or track intelligence down myself. — James Riley

Interesting. This deserves another thread altogether, really. I will say: whether it's a waste of time or not is determined, in my view, by how you use the information you're spending so much time consuming. If it has some effect, even a small one -- in conversations, for example -- then I wouldn't say it's a complete waste of time. Better to be informed than not. But if you're truly engaged in your community or state, beyond merely voting, then it becomes very relevant indeed. If it's simply another hobby (read: addiction), then the use in that case is just satisfying some craving and little more. Then it becomes especially important to ask: "Does this fit into a life I want to be living?"

So, the cloistered man in his ancient books may be lacking in intelligence, but flowing over with wisdom. Fine by me. — James Riley

True, but my argument is that the cloistered man doesn't have much "wisdom" either. The very fact that one is cloistered, removed from society, is in itself a form of foolishness at times. What's the sense of it all if the world is burning around you? When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?

Last elections I didn't vote. — TaySan

Here's a good example of how philosophy doesn't always translate to the real world very well. In my opinion.

If philosophers, who are supposed to be thinking, reflective, questioning people, don't have the judgment to make the right decision in this case (the action of voting), then I for one have very little interest in reading or listening to almost anything else this person says. Especially when there are others out there who *do* get it right and are also interested in philosophy.

No offense meant to you -- not voting has its justifications at times, and I think the view of "both parties" being bad has a plenty of truth in it. I used to feel the same way, in fact. I see now how wrong I was, though.