:up:

I think we have fundamentally different structures of experience. — Noble Dust

I doubt that.

maybe you're just more well-adjusted while my neuroses dictate my philosophical thinking more than you. — Noble Dust

I've spent a significant amount of my life fairly fucked up, but my intellect is the healthiest thing about me.

Which is interesting, actually. I wonder to what extent people's interest in self-help correlates to their psychological states or conditions. And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

I've always thought that people's philosophical leanings are heavily influenced by their temperament.

And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

Based on the evidence we see here, definitely not.

Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. — Mikie

That's not how I see it and it's not how it feels from the inside. The fact that I may learn something while doing it doesn't mean that was my purpose for doing it.

I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though. — Mikie

I'm not pushing into the future. I'm being dragged, or maybe riding along. I think saying there is a purpose for everything we do is a linguistic trick. As if every time I find myself someplace that was my planned destination.

to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory. — Mikie

It's not contradictory and it's not wrong, not for me at least.

While I don't deny there have been some strong philosophers who earn their bread in schools, it does seem dangerous to make philosophy so respectable. The prototype was poor and eventually executed. Maybe the 'spiritual' function of philosophy moved into literature, art, politics. — green flag

I don't feel that way. Though I have an expansive notion of philosophy, too.

The academics are those who dedicate their professional life to it -- which is important! There are actors which dedicate their lives to the craft of acting, and I'd put these in similar positions. More importantly, though, I like to note how I benefit from people who have done this. Without academics I wouldn't be thinking what I think today. I owe an intellectual debt to the institution.

I'd say that the prototype is more Plato than Socrates -- Plato learned what that kind of philosophy would do, so set up a school to influence the youth in a less politically charged way. Then he wrote texts for his fellows to read with the purpose of improving the health of the city. At least as I understand it.

From that angle, safe philosophy is all there is :D

Also it's worth noting, especially in light of the notion of popularizing philosophy, that the prototype was an aristocrat -- that philosophy wasn't for us.

The academics are those who dedicate their professional life to it -- which is important! ... Without academics I wouldn't be thinking what I think today. I owe an intellectual debt to the institution. — Moliere

I agree. Having been in academia for many years I have some criticisms of it, but learned to separate the good from the bad.

I agree. Having been in academia for many years I have some criticisms of it, but learned to separate the good from the bad. — Fooloso4

I suspect that much of this must come down to judgement which gets refined as one learns, right? Do you feel you can summarise any basic principles you have identified along the way, that supports you in the process of winnowing the wheat from the caff (philosophically speaking)?

I do value the 'knowledge industrial complex,' and I don't think anyone will muffle Brandom, for instance, but it's not hard to find examples of professors losing their positions for asking the wrong questions, floating the wrong hypotheses, or just being tactless in socalled private life.

If institutions begin to look dogmatic or captured, it becomes harder to trust the claims of those who wave around the credentials they provide. Yet capturing such 'epistemic institutions' is an obvious goal for those seeking power. They rob banks because that's where the money is.

It's not contradictory and it's not wrong, not for me at least. — T Clark

You wouldn’t say that your philosophizing is an uncaused action, right? It has its causes and reasons. I would say it has even (non-theoretical) goals— like everything else. Despite how it may feel. Its a bit teleological perhaps, but nevertheless true — in my view.

When I sit around, I can claim I’m doing “nothing.” It may even feel that way. But that’s really not true. It’s not nothing— it’s something. Of course it is. It’s also a kind of (perhaps subconscious) choice to sit there rather than doing anything else.

I don’t see how it’s possible to act without any purpose or reason— with the major caveat that it doesn’t have to be consciously known to the actor and doesn’t have to be an explicit “goal” or destination. Animals act purposefully and for known reasons, even if they don’t know it.

So finding yourself some place may not be your desired destination, but something got you there: a series of choices and actions. Just because it’s not where you want to be doesn’t negate that you’re trying to get somewhere.

I may have no plan for my day, but I get up and have coffee and take a shower. None of these actions were planned or explicitly thought out. Mostly it’s out of the habit of routine. Does that mean they’re without purpose?

I agree. It brings up the psychology of philosophical investigation and self-examination, which, ironically, seems often unexamined. With respect @T Clark, it might not "feel inside" as if you're doing philosophy for any purpose, but that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying purpose or goal.

You wouldn’t say that your philosophizing is an uncaused action, right? It has its causes and reasons. I would say it has even (non-theoretical) goals— like everything else. Despite how it may feel. Its a but teleological, but nevertheless true — in my view. — Mikie

You and I see this whole subject so differently I don't think we'll be able to come to any agreement. Yes, I do think there are uncaused actions, both in the world at large and in my personal behavior. In Taoism, the philosophy I feel most at home in, the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. Actions arise spontaneously from within without reflection. This is not something theoretical I've learned about, it's something I experience on a regular basis. Do I behave that way all the time, no, but for my writing here on the forum I usually do.

I don't expect you to buy this. Many people on the forum and in the world in general don't. But I do. As I said, it's something I experience personally. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other.

I agree. It brings up the psychology of philosophical investigation and self-examination, which, ironically, seems often unexamined. With respect T Clark, it might not "feel inside" as if you're doing philosophy for any purpose, but that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying purpose or goal. — Noble Dust

I can't think of anything else I can say if you won't accept my description of my personal experience. We can leave it at that.

I accept your description of your personal experience in that I trust you're being honest about it. But are you not of the persuasion that there are often unconscious drives that cause us to do or pursue certain things?

I accept your description of your personal experience in that I trust you're being honest about it. But are you not of the persuasion that there are often unconscious drives that cause us to do or pursue certain things? — Noble Dust

I certainly have drives, both conscious and unconscious motivations, that push me in particular directions and influence my actions. But a drive is not the same thing as a purpose. This is certainly partially a difference in language between us, but it is also a substantive difference in both our experience of how and our understanding of why we behave the way we do.

Much has to do with preferences both for the philosophers I want to read and interpretive practices. Others, of course, might see things very differently.

The only philosophy that is "useful" is the philosophy that provides us with ideas that we can put into practice in order to live better, or ideas which enable us to get past cognitive biases that are holding us back from living better.

Other kinds of philosophy may be enjoyable if you like studying and entertaining ideas just for the sake of it, just for entertainment, like you might enjoy collecting stamps or watching birds.

If pop philosophy fulfills either of these criteria, then it would be either useful or enjoyable. We might also think that being enjoyable is in itself useful. Michel Foucault wrote a book titled The Use of Pleasure; I haven't read it, but I guess it might have something to do with young Italian boys (joke).

I get what you're saying, but this suggests to me that a purpose is always a conscious decision made, which I disagree with. I could have said "unconscious motivations" rather than "drives". I guess it's a rather Jungian view, which I know can be controversial.

There are definitely good criticisms to be made of the university, especially in its modern incarnation.

I suppose I just feel the need to stick up for the institution of philosophy, and the work of academics. I really am in debt to them. Without the modern liberal university I'd still be too poor to live my life, and confused on top of that. I don't feel right if I don't acknowledge that and stand up for it on occasion.

:up:
I feel you. I love my university's library, and I have benefited very much from many scholars who work for universities.

Cool :)

That's good enough for me. I certainly encourage criticism of bad things.

It's wise to be grateful, so it was good that you reminded us of the good. :smile:

I suppose I just feel the need to stick up for the institution of philosophy, and the work of academics. — Moliere

One serious criticism, not just of philosophy, but the humanities, is that the universities keep churning out PhD's in the face of bleak job prospects. It serves them on both ends, paying students who become exploited as TA's and adjuncts.

I always advised my students to not seek advanced degrees unless they had other sources of income when the got out.

I had seriously considered a higher degree in either the sciences or philosophy, and had that opportunity.

One of the reasons I respect the institution so much is that academics will say what you're saying -- even in print. Several books give frank advice about the prospects, and I just had to realize I was the person who went there to be able to support themselves. So, science degree, but I read philosophy on the side. Then, industry.

.

It serves them on both ends, paying students who become exploited as TA's and adjuncts. — Fooloso4

:up:

Yes, I do think there are uncaused actions, both in the world at large and in my personal behavior. In Taoism, the philosophy I feel most at home in, the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. — T Clark

Yeah, if wu wei requires that we abandon the law of causality, it really is woowoo. I don’t interpret it that way— I see it as a kind of “flow” situation.

But yes, if you think there are actions which have “no cause,” then I don’t see how we can continue.

:up:

@Mikie

To put things in perspective, there are Taoist teachers and authors. There is certainly intention and purpose in what they do.

Yeah, if wu wei requires that we abandon the law of causality, it really is woowoo. I don’t interpret it that way— I see it as a kind of “flow” situation.

But yes, if you think there are actions which have “no cause,” then I don’t see how we can continue. — Mikie

Here's what one noted mystic had to say in 1912:

In the following paper I wish, first, to maintain that the word is so inextricably bound up with misleading associations as to make its complete extrusion from the philosophical vocabulary desirable; secondly, to inquire what principle, if any, is employed in science in place of the supposed "law of causality" which philosophers imagine to be employed; thirdly, to exhibit certain confusions, especially in regard to teleology and determinism, which appear to me to be connected with erroneous notions as to causality. — Bertrand Russell - On the Notion of Cause

To put things in perspective, there are Taoist teachers and authors. There is certainly intention and purpose in what they do. — Fooloso4

To put things in the proper perspective, there have been a lot of "Taoist teachers and authors" over the years who have said a lot of things. Going to the source though, The Tao Te Ching:

A good traveler has no fixed plans
and is not intent upon arriving.
A good artist lets his intuition
lead him wherever it wants.
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts
and keeps his mind open to what is. — The Tao Te Ching, Verse 27 - Stephen Mitchell version

That's the essense of wu wei - following intuition with no plans or intentions.

It is not just what a lot of Taoist teachers and authors have said but what the teachers and authors of the Tao Te Ching have said. Whatever wu wei means, and there is nothing close to a consensus on this, it does not exclude the plans and intentions of the authors of the Tao Te Ching to commit to putting things into words.