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. — Xtrix

I wouldn't call what I wrote an argument. It isn't a syllogism or a logical form, it's a rhetorical appeal to the alignment of philosophy with purposiveness in life.

It seems to me there are two ways to undermine philosophy as a whole: the naive way and the informed way. The naive way is where you "just don't see the point", the informed way is where philosophy as an abstract praxis has virtues/utility denied of it through argument or empirical observation by someone who's actually been committed to it. The naive way is is practiced by engineer stereotypes, the informed way has a few philosophical luminaries (those inspired by Buddhism, Diogenes, Wittgenstein...) associated with it.

But (pace @csalisbury), there's this tendency for everyone to sometimes engage in philosophical reflection. "Dialogue with others" - absolutely. How much is your life enriched by if you approach a conversation with someone philosophically? I mean you can learn so much, be changed so much, by the words of a stranger if you bring to the encounter any kind of framework or product of sustained understanding. I'm sure you'll have a catalogue of conversations that "you will (and now have) remembered for the rest of your life", how much of that comes with the philosophy? As a means of engagement with the world, being able to be moved by its form as well as its content, so to speak.

And perhaps that's recreational? I mean it doesn't give you a living wage most of the time, but it sustains you, no? It lets you keep going, it imbues the remainder of life with a significance and impact that it may not have had otherwise. It seems to me, if you've got the temperament, philosophy is very close to meaning of life stuff. And you know, it's not like "transferrable skills" is something that's value neutral. It seems to me if you have this kind of temperament, your friends will value you as a guide.

It seems to me very odd to me that insight into how norms/values/life is constructed, how things "hang together in the most general sense" (Sellars) is devalued. For lifers like us, perhaps, the doubt of its utility is just another instance of what we already do?

I guess I'll have to get used to the snideness of people on the internet. It's not like I'm such a saint myself either. If it makes you feel better

When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution? — Xtrix

He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either.

Hold on a minute, my last sentence reminded me of a wild thought I've had in the past: What if the world is held together, through some metaphysical-type prayer that we are not, and never will be aware of? Just a thought. Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making?

Another thought: Those who think humanity needs all hands on deck may be working at cross-purposes. Maybe we need fewer hands.

Thinking out loud.

And perhaps that's recreational? I mean it doesn't give you a living wage most of the time, but it sustains you, no? It lets you keep going, it imbues the remainder of life with a significance and impact that it may not have had otherwise. It seems to me, if you've got the temperament, philosophy is very close to meaning of life stuff — fdrake

:100:

That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you.

When humanity needs all hands on deck, what is the cloistered man's contribution?
— Xtrix

He need not have a contribution. — James Riley

Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack.

If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you?

It's a terrible position, in my view.

Maybe they are humble, unappreciated work horses doing all the heavy lifting with God, while the rest of us try to dance ourselves into a grave of our own making? — James Riley

There are plenty of these types who have existed -- mainly bums on the street. Some huddled away in a monastery, some who never interacted with other people at all, etc. Maybe some are/were great people, who knows? And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. If they are like Emily Dickinson, then fine -- but remember, had she not at least written anything down, no one would have any memory of her whatsoever, and she would have had almost no impact on the world at all.

Likewise, I can walk around all my life believing in my own specialness, and how great a philosopher I am, and it's one of those things that can't really be challenged in the way that other activities can -- like medicine or masonry. Anyone can make the claim that he or she is a philosopher, or a special person, etc., and there's often no real way to test it. But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't.

Charlatans and egomaniacs make grandiose claims all the time -- and there's really no way to disprove their claims, which is by design. I see this a lot with modern "artists," as well. So there's an aversion to any kind of empirical "proof" or quantitative measuring, because that may turn out to show how mediocre they really are.

I see a lot of this in philosophy too. A lot of it is just pure garbage. But it affords some people (in the past, even myself) with the comfort that they're somehow superior, yet without ever having to do any real, hard work -- without ever having to do anything at all, really.

That's an occupational hazard in what's labeled "philosophy," I think. One worth looking out for.

That was a good read, Xtrix. Thank you. — NOS4A2

Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration.

Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions engaging with you -- which I try to avoid -- as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence. Which, given the stakes, I'd still argue are appropriate.

Here's another example. While I thank you for the comment, for full disclosure it's worth pointing out that you're also a good illustration of the type of person who I don't simply disagree with, but who is also dangerously ignorant and unwittingly helping humanity race to annihilation -- and that's not an exaggeration. Thus I have quite a hard time controlling my emotions, as you've demonstrated time and again that you're beyond rational discourse, and so leave no recourse but contempt and violence.

It is an exaggeration, if not an outright fantasy. We’ve never met.

what good are you? — Xtrix

I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us."

And that's the point: we can't know, because they never actually did anything. — Xtrix

That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. And not parading themselves around so you can see it. Who are you to see it? Who are any of us to see it? That's the ontological problem: all play things made of straw. It doesn't matter what we think.

But if you look at what they really do, and it doesn't seem all that special, odds are it isn't. — Xtrix

I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us.

We’ve never met. — NOS4A2

More lies.

what good are you?
— Xtrix

I suppose that depends on the definition of the word "good." Let's say he kills everyone on the planet. There are are lot of entities that might be better off. Maybe it's not all about "us." — James Riley

True, it does depend on answers to that question. That's partly what I'm doing: applying that question to our actions, including the activity of "deep thinking" which we call philosophy.

We could argue anything we'd like -- perhaps other species would be better off if we're no longer around, etc. But I don't take those games too seriously. I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief.

That is not the point. The point is, you don't know that what they did. You don't know that maybe the only reason you or any of us are here is because they have been busy with the cosmos, karma, god, whatever, keeping it from killing us. — James Riley

Yeah, but now you're off in outer space. Maybe it's the Moon People meditating on Eudoxus -- or anything else you can imagine. I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. Let's try to keep it to the real world.

I would not expect an Atlas to play odds, or to daily prove his worth to the likes of us. — James Riley

Fine. But I'm talking about real people in the real world, which I presume you belong to. Yes, that's what I believe. I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid.

In my opinion the disjunction is between saying and doing rather than thinking and doing. What I do may be independent of what I say, but not of what I think.

I don't care to waste time debating that. If you don't share it, that's fine -- no hard feelings. But I operate on the basis of that belief. — Xtrix

I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. Just saying.

I'm not too interested in that line of reasoning. — Xtrix

Some more unsolicited counsel: If there is a lack of interest in something, don't engage.

I'm making that leap of faith. If you're not with me on that fairly basic belief, then there's really no point in going on I'm afraid. — Xtrix

If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. The fact that I am here, engaging you, proves I'm not with you on that.

"You Are What You Do"

I am what I eat.

As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do.

I know you don't seek my counsel, but if that is your belief, you might consider getting out there in the field instead of talking a good game here on a philosophy board. — James Riley

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well. — Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself?

If I were with you on that, I wouldn't be here talking. I'd be out in the field. — James Riley

Again, what field? It's the most basic belief there is, really, other than maybe "something exists." If debating that is what you consider philosophy, then yes I'm not that interested in philosophy I guess.

As for the moral character and internal self, I am what I think. Not what I do. I do not do much. I eat, basically, metabolize and empty myself. I don't do much. If I were what I did... have you, those who subscribe to the truth of the title of the thread, done much? I can count on one hand the people I've met socially or professionally who have DONE something. By "Do" I mean something that is worthwhile, unique, and not a copy-cat-do. — god must be atheist

Thinking is an activity, and so a kind of "doing." But reagrdless, I like to separate them too -- so in reference to your question: first we have to ask "What's worthwhile?" -- and that's a personal question, of course, and worth talking about with others. But if you're right about no one really "doing" much in this sense, then we're very impoverished indeed. In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy.

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out): — Xtrix

Out doing. You know, helping humanity, or whatever. It seems your waxing on here is equivalent to sitting on a hill top. And even if your participation here were one step better than being cloistered (like you might convince someone to join you in the field) or your engagement here somehow constituted work for humanity, really, you could do much more out in the field.

Again, what field? — Xtrix

The one you want to help.

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? — Xtrix

Maybe I enjoy philosophy.

Getting out where? This was the belief (which you left out):
— Xtrix

Out doing. — James Riley

When I say to look at what people do, I'm not saying that philosophy isn't doing anything. It is. Reading is doing something. I'm meaning it in the context of an entire life, however. So watching sports if fun, and not a problem in itself, for example, but if that's ALL you do, perhaps that's an issue. Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well.

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.

Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.

Easy.

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree.

Whether or not we agree that humanity survives is related: we're part of humanity. So we agree there too.

Easy. — Xtrix

I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack."

It is I that postulated there might be worth in such a life.

If you contribute nothing to the world except your own satisfaction, even when there are real problems to be solved, what good are you? — Xtrix

See my thread here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10642/credibility-and-minutia

Likewise, if you spend all your time reading philosophy books, or contemplating the universe, or in prayer with God, and in other aspects of life (other areas of "doing") you're immature, impolite, cheap, inconsiderate, etc., perhaps that says something as well. — Xtrix

That reminds me of the old saw about the next unborn being a potential Hitler or Einstein. You don't know if the cloistered monk might not be worse for your desires or better, if he were to engage in the field. Either way, you are bringing your subjective idea of what people should be doing (betterment of mankind?) to a table that might be deemed better set with an absence of man.

If it is true that we are what we do, a corollary is that we do it with, to, for, by somebody else. As John Dunne said,

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
... any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind...

The philosophizing recluse is an extreme, of which there are probably not many actual examples. More common are the professional or devoted amateur philosophers, who are narrowly focussed, and likely involved with other people who are similarly narrowly focussed. They occupy islands with a small number of inhabitants. Their "field" is very proscribed.

There are groups of extremophiles who are similar to philosophers: Old line socialists and anarchists come to mind. They are very narrow in their views, quite restricted in their activities. Actually there are quite a few 'specialties' in which a sort of OCD takes over, whether the subject matter is Jane Austin, bird watching, or body builders.

Most of these extremophiles are not harmful to society; they are more just irrelevant. I am thinking of actual people I know who fit as extremophiles. They are not bad people.

The really bad people in this world are immensely involved with other people as racketeers of various kinds -- Bernie Madoff to Mark Zuckerberg.

Most people fall in between the extremes, in the middle. Their lives are indifferent, good, or bad (a continuum) as they live out the roles, the possibilities, of their particular lives.

From my POV, the quality of a life is determined by what we do, with whom, to whom, by whom, for whom. Any individual on earth has opportunities to make positive contributions in their interactions with other people. Most people act in small positive ways most of the time. When large numbers of people act in negative ways, and larger negative ways at that, life for other people begins to deteriorate. Lots of examples of both the positive and the negative.

. . . 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. — Xtrix

You mean one-dimensional? You might be surprised. :cool:

More fantasy.

In which case I'd recommend anyone run as fast as possible from philosophy. — Xtrix

Absolutely, absolutely. Provided for that person philosophy is to serve as a support agent. For me philosophy is compelling, inasmuch as I can't divorce myself from it; I love it; I enjoy it. I love it partly because it's beautiful, and partly because I get positive enjoyment from it, with just the right amount of effort put into it.

So in a sense, philosophy is a support agent for me too, but in a different sense: it is my wild mistress, I love it for its own being, our relationship is playful and sensuous, it is not something I need praise or a sense of purpose to provide me with.

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? — James Riley

:point:

(In words, good stuff!)

As I mentioned, things like controlling your emotions fall outside the scope of philosophy. Intellectually recognising an imperative is one thing, actualising it is another. Philosophy is mostly useless for the latter in my view. You realise that your emotions get the best of you and cause you to act in a way contrary to what you understand to be best, well, that's the same with everyone. Many anguish over such things, they know what they do is counterproductive or wrong but the reason they do what they do stems from essentially a lack of self-control.

To me, philosophy is about characterising, contextualising, describing, categorising and so on, as appropriate to the specific context. What a good philosopher produces is a valid, robust and compelling understanding or assertion. This thread is an example of philosophy, you are giving your thoughts about a context, the meaning of action and inaction to you, etc. It doesn't really matter if you're a hypocrite because your hypocrisy would just be a result of your inability to live up to your own expectations.

Actualising your ideals or acting in accordance with your philosophy requires more than just for you to have the philosophical views you have. It requires strength, discipline, repetition, freedom and all sorts of things, depending on the context. Of course, if it is your view that actualising is necessary then that's that, we know where the other stands and that's fine.

I will say that most of philosophy is not about something that one should or can practice. What about your views of what should be done about the ultrarich, or the role of the government, or how the oppressed should react when you aren't rich, or part of the government, or oppressed? It is good to be the change you want to see in the world and to be able to demonstrate that you're living in accordance with your ideals but that's a quite specific scenario. And not being able to live up to your ideals doesn't make your belief in them untrue, we aren't perfect and it's reasonable for us to fall short of our lofty ideals and to realise we could be better.

"Don't listen to what your teachers tell ya, you know. Don't pay attention. Just see what they look like and that's how you'll know what life is really gonna be like." -- Woody Allen — Xtrix

Excelente señor/señora! Muchas gracias!

My very own experience with this idea of teachers who don't look anything like what comes out of their mouths has been male gynecologists in teaching hospitals and no I'm not a medical professional.

Good isn't something you are, it's something you do — Kamala Khan (Ms. Marvel)

I should've taken Kamala's words to their logical conclusion.

I start from a simple premise of wanting to survive and wanting humanity to survive as well.
— Xtrix

So like I said, if you truly don't agree with that -- why not go kill yourself? — Xtrix

Maybe I enjoy philosophy. — James Riley

So then you want to go on living for philosophy, in which case you agree that you want to go on living. So we agree. [...]

Easy. — Xtrix

I'm sorry, but maybe I confused you with someone who said: "Then that's an utter waste of life, if you ask me. This individualist kind of thinking, exemplified in the stories where a person isolates themselves from the rest of humanity, seems to be missing a very important piece of a good life, at least the kind that Aristotle talks about. Completely out of whack." — James Riley

I don't see how this quotation is relevant. What you quoted was in response to this:

He need not have a contribution. Like the guy on the mountain top with the beard. He doesn't contribute much either. — James Riley

I really don't see where this is going anymore, and I don't care too. Perhaps just a misunderstanding. But I'll reiterate: I start with a belief: I'd like to see humanity survive. Therefore, I'd like to contribute to solving the problems humanity faces (nuclear weapons, climate change, unregulated greed, political corruption, etc). If a philosopher contributes nothing whatsoever to humanity -- if he "need not have a contribution," then yes I consider that an utter waste of life, whether he "enjoys" it or not.