This is something that has been under discussion for some days now in the threads on Heidegger. I started this topic based on just this problem. — Fooloso4

I see. Offering that contextualization as part of your OP would have clarified things greatly......

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing? — jgill

For some, it seems to me, it is as if their words are in search of ideas. If they keep writing sooner or later they will stumble across something to say.

And there are some who just recycle the same idea.

Is it possible some philosophers when writing run out of ideas, but continue writing?
— jgill

For some, it seems to me, it is as if their words are in search of ideas. If they keep writing sooner or later they will stumble across something to say.

And there are some who just recycle the same idea. — Fooloso4

:up: :up:

I don't think I could define philosophy proper, or the philosopher -- but I think philosophy is wider than a particular institution of philosophy in the same way that mathematics is wider than any particular institution of mathematics. And even more I'd say philosophy is wider than institutions -- that philosophy would continue on with or without the institutions.

Philosophy is something that people do. It's cross-cultural. And from my memories of running Socrates Cafe style meetings what I found was that people without technical background frequently had philosophical thoughts, but they didn't have a venue to express them in or a sounding board or exposure or access. We'd form reading groups of texts from people who regularly attended and were interested too, so it wasn't just discussing our own ideas but for people really turned on by philosophy we'd get to go back to some texts.

Plato pointed to the attitude that philosophy is useless, but he did not attempt to make it useful. — Fooloso4

Whatever was he doing in Syracuse, then? Better to say he never succeeded in making it useful.

Whatever was he doing in Syracuse, then? — Ciceronianus

Here is a good article on what he was doing there.

It is not that he did not succeed in making it useful, he did not succeed in persuading Dionysius I and Dionysius II to become philosophers.

It is because philosophy is not useful that they were not persuaded to practice philosophy, that is, to live a just life. Of what use is it to a king to be just? This is what is at issue in Thrasymachus' challenge to Socrates in the Republic. "How", he asks, "is justice to my advantage".

Although not useful in an instrumentalist sense, Socrates in the Republic attempts to persuade them that it is to one's advantage to be just. The just soul is a healthy soul, one in which there if a proper balance of appetites, spiritedness, and reason. We do not desire bodily health because it is useful, so too, we should not desire the health of the soul because it is useful.

Whether or not one is persuaded to live a just life depends on the person and not the argument.

Agreed. I'm also not a fan of either dada-like compostmoderns or analysis-for-analysis-sake "specialists". — 180 Proof

:lol: "Compostmoderns" ...the incontinental tradition vs the anals; both have produced a lot of shit and fostered normative correctness in their different ways..."a pox on both your houses" I say.

Philosophy that is of no significance to the person in the street is nought but an elitist hobby; which is fine provided the delusion that it is more than that does not set in. Unfortunately...

:lol: "Compostmoderns" ...the incontinental tradition vs the anals; both have produced a lot of shit and fostered normative correctness in their different ways..." — Janus

:clap: :up:

Philosophy that is of no significance to everyman is nought but an elitist hobby.

A stoic (no doubt, an "elitist") might have said "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people." :fire:

Philosophy that is of no significance to the person in the street is nought but an elitist hobby; which is fine provided the delusion that it is more than that does not set in. Unfortunately... — Janus

Would you make that argument about quantum physics or molecular biology?

“If we were to be shown right now two pictures by Paul Klee, in the original, which he painted in the year of his death-the watercolor "Saints from a Window," and "Death and Fire," tempera on burlap -we should want to stand before them for a long while-and should abandon any claim that they be immediately intelligible. If it were possible right now to have Georg Trakl's poem "Septet of Death'· recited to us, perhaps even by the poet himself, we should want to hear it often, and should abandon any claim that it be immediately intelligible. If Werner Heisenberg right now were to present some of his thoughts in theoretical physics, moving in the direction of the cosmic formula for which he is searching, two or three people in the audi-ence, at most, would be able to follow him, while the rest of us would, without protest, abandon any claim that he be immediately intelligible.

Not so with the thinking that is called philosophy. That thinking is supposed to offer "worldly wisdom" and perhaps even be a "Way to the Blessed Life." But it might be that this kind of thinking is today placed in a position which demands of it reflections that are far removed from any useful, practical wisdom. It might be that a kind of thinking has become necessary which must give thought to matters from which even the painting and the poetry which we have mentioned and the theory of math-·ematical physics receive their determination. Here, too, we should then have to abandon any claim to immediate intelligibility. However, we should still have to· listen, because we must think what is inevitable, but preliminary.“ ( Heidegger, On Time and Being)

Would you make that argument about quantum physics or molecular biology? — Joshs

Firstly, I would have thought both of those are of significance to the people.

And secondly, I think philosophy, if it is not about how to live, is just a hobby. That said I'm not opposed to anyone pursuing ideas for their own sake.

Philosophies that are concerned with how to live can be useful even to those who don't have the interest, time, patience or capacity to appreciate the ideas therein in their fullest complexity and nuance.

I rather take it that those of us interested in philosophy engage in a true privilege, being able to use thought for its own sake, which reveals aspects of reality other people take utterly for granted, and thus miss out on what it truly means to be an experiencing being in the fullest sense of the word.

Granted, they make up for this in other ways.

If it's a way of life, it's not because of some ethical system, but because of the possibility of revelation. I don't think a way of living is entailed by pursuing philosophy, but for many others, it can be.

So be it, different strokes and all...

:up: Good point, but does Stoicism not have something to say to the intellectually unsophisticated if they are at least thoughtful?

Would you make that argument about quantum physics or molecular biology? — Joshs

:up:
To complain about the specialization of philosophy is to insist it be a less serious kind of investigation than it is --- the kind that doesn't get anywhere, doesn't get more complex with time. To me this resentful anti-intellectualism is what takes philosophy to be a mere hobby -- bongtalk about god, refried relativism, infinitely ironic dada poetry, metaphors for mystical whatnot, and so on --and all of this is fine in an informal space like this. This place is ideal for freestyle cultural criticism, piecing togther some edifying discourse for personal existential use. Great ! But trying to impose one's personal lazy limits on professionals is childish. Some people, some of the time, aren't that interested in their star sign or who will save their soul. They want to know how language works, what counts as science and why....dry stuff if you just want a feelgood bedtime story or culture war goo.

those of us interested in philosophy engage in a true privilege, being able to use thought for its own sake, which reveals aspects of reality other people take utterly for granted — Manuel

:up:

Oh yes. My comment was addressed to the epithet "elitist hobby", that philosophy outside the academy is (still) more than that.

And secondly, I think philosophy, if it is not about how to live, is just a hobby. That said I'm not opposed to anyone pursuing ideas for their own sake. — Janus

Here’s a little secret (don’t let it get around). Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake.

Here, too, we should then have to abandon any claim to immediate intelligibility.

This has always been the case.

However, we should still have to· listen, because we must think what is inevitable, but preliminary

For Heidegger the philosopher wears the robe of the prophet. The sacred and holy voice of Being.

Here’s a little secret. Don’t let it get around. Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake. — Joshs

Here's a little secret. Learning how to think as a prerequisite for learning how to live is nihilism. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing ideas for their own sake, and often at the expense of living rather than "pursuing life" for its own sake.

Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake. — Joshs

:up:

Here's a little secret. Learning how to think as a prerequisite for learning how to live is nihilism. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing ideas for their own sake, and often at the expense of living rather than "pursuing life" for its own sake. — Fooloso4

Unless of course the dualism you are presupposing (thought-action, inner-outer, fantasy-reality, rationality-irrationality) in opposing ‘ideas’ to ‘life’ is incoherent.

To complain about the specialization of philosophy is to insist it be a less serious kind of investigation than it is --- the kind that doesn't get anywhere, doesn't get more complex with time. — plaque flag

Specialization and seriousness are not the same. Getting more complex is not in itself getting anywhere.

To me this resentful anti-intellectualism is what takes philosophy to be a mere hobby ... — plaque flag

It is neither resentful nor anti-intellectual. If by hobby you mean something done in one's leisure time, then one is in the good company of Plato and Aristotle.

But trying to impose one's personal lazy limits on professionals is childish. — plaque flag

Creating a target in order to have something to hit is good for one thing, target practice. There are more than a few "professionals" who are critical of professional philosophy for the reasons given in the OP. My hunch is that it is a growing trend.

And speaking of professionalism, what are your credentials?

Unless of course the dualism you are presupposing — Joshs

Have your already forgotten what you said? It was only an hour ago. Let me remind you:

Here’s a little secret (don’t let it get around). Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live. Pursuing ideas for their own sake is pursuing life for its own sake. — Joshs

I know this isn't aimed at me at all, and that I'm butting in here, but I wanted a bit of clarification on this comment:

I don't quite follow the reasoning of how pursuing ideas for the sake of the pursuit leads to sacrificing pursuing life for its own sake.

I mean, anything we do at any moment, whether it be reading books to gain ideas, or going to the beach is going to sacrifice something else we could be doing.

I don't think of it as butting in.

Is pursuing ideas for their own sake pursuing life for its own sake? I don't think so. If the ideas pursued are about ideas themselves then unless those ideas relate to life they become increasingly removed from the concerns of one's life and the life of others.

The claim that learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live needs to be looked at in context. The context is certain trends contemporary philosophy. Is reading Heidegger a prerequisite of pursing life?

Is pursuing ideas for their own sake pursuing life for its own sake? I don't think so. If the ideas pursued are about ideas themselves then unless those ideas relate to life they become increasingly removed from the concerns of one's life and the life of others. — Fooloso4

That's tricky. Let's use real life examples, Newton and Einstein.

Newton got his idea of gravity or was motivated to explore the idea, by seeing an apple fall from a tree.

He then went on to pursue this thought and apply it to the moon and the planets.

Einstein was spurred to his ideas on relativity by imagining a person falling off a building, calling it "the happiest thought of my life", then went on to develop his relativity theories by thinking about how light travels and how time is affected by differing speeds.

(Emphasis added)

Maybe there are ideas that are more useless than these, as ideas, but most ideas don't go anywhere. But some could, and it can be fulfilling for those people. These ideas are quite removed from ordinary daily concerns.

The claim that learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning how to live needs to be looked at in context. The context is certain trends contemporary philosophy. Is reading Heidegger a prerequisite of pursing life? — Fooloso4

Ah, OK, this is different than the previous comment taken without this added context. No, I don't think reading Heidegger (or anybody) is a pre-requisite to live life. It's in fact impossible to do so.

What one can say, is that for those interested in Heidegger (or Kant, Einstein, Plato, choose your philosopher or scientist), life may be greatly enriched by encountering such ideas.

— Joshs

Have your already forgotten what you said? — Fooloso4

Is there a special compartment in the brain dedicated to something called ‘thinking’ or ‘ideation’? Do we manage to bypass this neurological process by living in certain ways? Or is even the simplest act of sensory perception already a form of ideation tapping into a functionally integrated background of previous experience, wisdom, feeling , attitude and intention?

Here is a good article on what he was doing there. — Fooloso4

Thanks for the reference. Sidebar, though relevant--ever read May Renault's The Mask of Apollo? I think her Alexander-worship is excessive, and she treat's Aristotle too harshly (in other works) but she's one of the best writers of historical fiction I've ever read.

Very good topic. :up:
I fully agree with the main points.

I had myself posted a topic on the subject about one year ago ("Is there a progress in philosophy?"), based on the almost obvious fact that philosophy has reached a kind of a "stalemate".

However, a great new "wave" has been spreading fast since a few years ago --although it has started since the 70s-- and expands in a very interesting and create wave. It is a scientific view of philosophy, involving esp. quantum physics/mechanics. Among many prominent philosophers-scientists in this area are Bernardo Kastrup, Menas Kafatos, Deepak Chopra, Rupert Spira, Rupert Sheldrake, etc. and of course, Fritjof Capra (one of the pioneers, with his well-known "The Tao of Physics").

So, I believe that we have to give philosophy a new opportunity for its "evolution". It is also worthwhile since it opens a wide horizon of subjects to talk about.

Even I, who is not much knowledgeable in "Physics", have started to read stuff about QM and I have already included this field in my list of subjects to explore.

You have moved away from and intentionally created distance from the thread topic.

That we think and have ideas is a truism. That our thinking and ideas develops within history and culture is nothing new, not something discovered by academic philosophers in the last hundred years.

What is at issue is not thinking but a thinking that is insular and self-referential. A thinking that calls itself philosophy.

I read The Nature of Alexander. I think I read some of her historical fiction but can't recall.

So, I believe that we have to give philosophy a new opportunity for its "evolution". — Alkis Piskas

I am not among those who have declared the death of philosophy. I think interdisciplinary work in both a path forward and a path back in the sense that disciplinary boundaries are crossed and not regarded as a divide.