I've been studying it for over 45 years now, and again, I think that a lot of it is stupid. — Terrapin Station

Some philosophy is bad and stupid. Not all philosophy.

Otherwise this just becomes a cherry-pick.

Not necessarily! Perhaps someone has spent a life time studying it and concluded that it, or at least 99% of it, IS stupid. — A Seagull

No, those who have spent a lifetime studying philosophy do not call it stupid. They may see all previous attempts as wrong or misguided, like Kant. But certainly they do not call "philosophy" stupid.

I hardly ever dream. In fact I can't remember the last time I actually had a dream, it's been at least several months. When I do they tend to be uncomfortable or scary.

Although I do have memories of a few dreams that were quite nice. My desires were instantly gratified, I was powerful and perfect. I'm not talking about sexual stuff either. I was just content with myself. I think one of these positive dreams was of me teaching philosophy to students - I did not stutter like I do in real life, I did not get anxious or nervous. I was in my element and the students apparently loved me. It was nice.

Reminds me of the Freudian theory of dreams. Freudian psychoanalysis has a complicated reputation, not altogether positive, and for good reason. In fact his theories were essentially "metaphysical" despite his protests to the contrary. An interesting theory he articulated what that dreams were the method in which the unconscious seeks satisfaction. When we are conscious, we are given these needs and desires that throw us into a state of discomfort - the real world forces us to make choices and relegate resources to accomplish our goals. In a dream, however, we're not dealing with reality. We effectively make reality and because of this we can sometimes have very pleasant dreams in which the desires the unconscious produces are instantly gratified. There are more details, mostly related to time, that aren't entirely dissimilar to the metaphysical speculations of Schopenhauer, but I can't remember them right now.

Freud's meta-psychophysics might not be entirely correct, but it certainly makes it all too evident how the dreams we experience are sometimes better than the reality we live in. It's a metaphysical scheme that, like most metaphysical schemes, tells a story with a moral, which is more important than it actually being factually correct. It makes me wish I did dream more.

Moral imperatives typically are what you shouldn't do. They are constraints on action.

People who tell you that you have a positive duty to do something, that isn't just the converse of a negative constraint, seem to tend to have some sort of agenda.

"Yes, we get it, you think you know more than everyone else - now get your head out of your ass and demonstrate it."

If something does not inflict unnecessary or unjustifiable harm, it cannot be immoral. — VagabondSpectre

Or, as I like to put it, the fundamental ethical articulation of any ethical system is that unnecessary harm or manipulation is wrong. No ifs, ands or buts.

Like Mariner said, don't equivocate between a degree in philosophy and philosophy proper.

Kant argued that when one learns philosophy, one learns the history of philosophical attempts. It is subjective-historical. You are learning how to do philosophy.

The people who call philosophy stupid are the people who haven't put down the time to understand what philosophy is about. That goes with basically any activity in general. If you call something stupid before you even know what it is, you're the one who is just being stupid.

Potayto potahto

A quote by Giacomo Leopardi has always resonated with me:

“Allow it to be reasonable, to kill oneself; allow it to be against reason to resign one’s mind to life: surely it is still a savage and inhumane act. And it ought not to gratify one more, nor should one choose, to be in accord with reason, and a monster, than in tune with nature, and a man.”

Remember how Nietzsche told us not to become monsters?

Leopardi is, in my opinion, a proper moderate between the two extremes of Schopenhauerean asceticism and Nietzschean vitality.

Why should anyone take this hypothesis serious, and ontologize such an abstract cow, anyway...? — jorndoe

Presumably because it offers the best explanation as to why things can be seen as similar or different, which can also be seen as different and "more different".

There's all sorts of issues related to Platonic universals:

Like you said, how do these Forms interact with the stuff around us? This is somewhat similar to the problem Lady Elisabeth pointed out to Descartes regarding the interaction between his two hypothesized substances.

Is there really a Form for everything? Are there Forms for only the "simpler" things that have no necessary parts and seem to be simply adjectives, or should we also see objects and structures and whatnot as having Forms themselves? Here we start to have issues with composition.

Then there's the issue of how things in the world can change but still instantiate a the transcendental Platonic Form.

And of course there's Aristotle's critique of Plato's Forms and his subsequent theory of hylomorphism - the Matter-Form duality, that places universals squarely in the world itself. But then later on there were several Scholastics that denied universals of all stripes, and we call them nominalists. But nominalism has always struggled with a regress problem, and so has Aristotle's immanent universal theory.

Personally I've been reading more into Neo-Platonic metaphysics. It's "based" on Plato but effectively synthesizes a whole bunch of things, including Aristotle and Anaximander. Universals are important to the general theory.

Has your general outlook on life and existence changed after reading the Scriptures? Just curious.

Do you take the scriptures to be reliable?

What made you drift that way?

Are we just scum on a rock? Or does a human bear some cosmic usefulness? — intrapersona

I mean, we produce entropy fairly well, but so do all successful biological systems. It's not exactly the purpose anyone was wanting, though. "You exist to entropify" doesn't really fill the gaping hole of meaninglessness. Wow, I am so glad I exist to poop out entropy. Aren't the stars just beautiful?!

Got me through final exams this semester:

I am passionate about science and devote time to improving my skills in QM and GR, as well as learning more about Thermodynamics. But I do not believe that it reveals 'Truth'. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. My interest and participation in science is driven by considerations that are part instrumental and part aesthetic, neither of which relies on a belief that science delivers Truth. — andrewk

Wait, I'm curious, unless you're in a specialized scientific or technological field, how does QM, GR, thermo, etc help you instrumentally?

Part of the aesthetic of learning science, from what I can tell, is that you're learning stuff about the world. Science finds out what is the case, what reality is like. If all it made were models that were somehow useful but were not accurate representations of reality, I wouldn't really be interested in it. It would seem empty and fake.

Groundhog Day, because I'm in it. — Wayfarer

Wait really

Would you agree with the idea that "post-modern" philosophy, in particular, has a bit of a beef with science and has more proponents of scientific skepticism or relativism than those who think science discovers the real?

At any rate, phrases like "x is just a social construct" seem to be commonly found in post-modern thinkers and I wonder why that is or what exactly it means to be a social construct. Can a social construct itself be a social construct?

I would like it if someone provided me with a good example of a post-modern philosophical theory that they dislike and why they dislike it. From my own gauging, it seems like pomo, just like any other thing, is a mixture of good and bad. I do not know that much about pomo, and the general dislike of it from others has put it on the side burner for me, but I also find myself intrigued by the idea that truth is relative, or that metaphysics is bunk, etc.

Probably the issue I have with pomo, just from my opinion, is that it seems sort of disconnected and anti-methodological. It also seems to be overly-skeptical of science. It takes the scientism of today and cashes out with an view on the complete opposite of the spectrum. Which is implausible imo.

Also I never understood how it is possible for truth to be relative, and yet believe this proposition to be true.

Have you seen the Matrix II? Oh wait, it sucked, nevermind.

I was pleasantly surprised with Ex Machina - it's not perfect, but it does tackle some of big questions of philosophy of mind, like Mary's Room, connectionist theories of mind, A.I., and ethics in an age of science. It's one of my favorite recent movies.

Blade Runner is also really good.

Interesting analogy of the vector.

What do you mean by "natural"? What distinguishes the natural from the supernatural? Is it the apparently-obvious (but actually vague) notion of "spooky" things?

Do you consider yourself a religious person? — Thorongil

No.

To what religion do you belong? — Thorongil

None.

Buddhism is chill though so I said that.

So you think the way we see emotions as "separate" from their symptoms is more of a social-language thing than an actual ontological thing?

Also:

If you look at the Iliad you'll see that there is much less talk of emotions there. Agamemnon is not a jerk in his own eyes -- "the gods made me do it". Different narrative styles. The wrath of Achilles is more like a force of nature than our modern subjective "I'm really pissed off". — Mariner

It's probably wrong, but the bicameral theory of mind uses the Iliad and the Odyssey and other ancient works of literature as examples of the transition of a split-mind consciousness to a unity consciousness. The fact that Agamemnon says "the gods made me do it" is seen as evidence of the way consciousness actually operated back in the day - where there was a slave and a master psyche. Once these two aspects were joined, people were left wondering what happened to "the gods" who had told them what to do. Lost and confused, they attempted to retrace their steps and connect back with the gods that had abandoned them.

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

No, in philosophy, everything is up for grabs. Schopenhauer talks about this in the beginning of one of his works (I can't remember which, I think it was The World as Will and Representation).

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy? — kris22

Absolutely, every great philosopher had their own meta-philosophy. Self-reflexive criticism is the greatest asset of philosophy, because no other discipline can do it.

Kant had the idea that one does not "learn" philosophy, otherwise it would be subjective-historical. When one studies philosophy, they are studying all the previous attempts people had with philosophy. They are learning how to do philosophy by learning how others did it.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

The rules are, be logical, rational, consistent, creative, honest, determined, etc. Also it helps to be a brilliant genius.

The paradox of hedonism leads me to believe it is better to simply focus on minimizing pain, avoiding harm, and satisfying basic needs and enjoy the pleasurable experiences as they come. Usually what ends up happening is that we are coping with existence more than we are enjoying it. Well actually we're always coping with existence, but enjoyment is when we're cool with it.

Okay

I'm not sure what any meaningful instance of value would be that isn't essentially a conscious judgement, that doesn't equivocate.

But even here, what about the possibility that something might have unconscious psychological value, insofar as it might benefit a person without their recognition of that benefit? — John

If a person does not recognize a benefit, it can only have an instrumental benefit by maintaining things that are recognized as valuable. I don't see how something can be valuable and yet not be consciously appreciated.

For example, fruits, nuts and seeds have nutritional value; but that value must be actualized by being consumed; it need not be recognized in any psychological sense. — John

Of course, but the value comes from the perceived ability for the food to provide nutrition. As soon as you consume it, you begin to forget about it. It is valuable only when recognized, and what is recognized typically is that which is not-be but could-be.

The food may be instrumentally valuable as a means to maintain a healthy lifestyle - but in this case, a healthy lifestyle is what is being projected ahead in the future as potential. I would say that which has the most value is that which is potential, and the actualization afterwards is the sudden burst immediately followed by a process of decline. Think about an orgasm. The build up, the anticipation, is great. The actual orgasm itself feels good, but was not as good as you hoped, and lasts only a few moments. The best positive actualizations are those which take us by surprise, as we were not expecting anything.

Perhaps you are speaking in terms of emotional or psychological value here? Otherwise, I can't see how any potential could have any actual value unless it is actualized. — John

Not actualized, but recognized, by a psychological agent capable of encountering value.

Potentiality is physical, as opposed to merely logical, possibility, then? — John

I would say potentiality is "actual possibility" whereas abstract, imaginary possibility is "hypothetical possibility". But yes, potentiality is "physical" if we are saying that the conditions actually exist for this possibility to become actuality.

I want to say there is some connection to causal dispositions of things that is important here. Something could be potential if there is a disposition that is waiting to "react" as soon as the conditions present themselves.

But I don't think we can really make any sharp distinction between potentiality and non-potential possibility. It seems like anything with potential is logically possible, and from there we just see which ones have a greater likelihood of happening.

I think that's why potentiality is the most valuable thing. It's better than possibility because it actually has a chance of happening, and it's better than actuality because it hasn't started to decay or disappoint. It's pure anticipation.

On a more serious note, I suspect that much of metaphysics is basically just speculation about things that we will never actually be able to know. The most we can do is figure out what probably is not the case in order to triangulate what might be true, i.e. an estimate of the truth.

In my opinion, the hard problem of consciousness is indeed a problem, and one that we will never solve. I do not think we will ever know why there is something rather than nothing, for even if we prove God exists, we are still left wondering why he created what he did. The question of Being is so mysterious and abstract that we have to resort to almost poetic words to articulate it.

So those are examples of things that I think are metaphysically impossible for us to figure out. But there's also things that we will not be able to figure out simply because we lack the means to. We will never have a genealogy of every single organism on earth. We will never find out what the king of England had for lunch before he was assassinated. We will never discover every single possible process or configuration in the world. We just don't have the time, energy or need to. Also nobody really cares either, because actually most of the world is extremely dull and repetitive, and if it's not it's usually only because it's ultimately disturbing.

I will never understand women.

Probably there should be a distinction between potentiality and possibility. Potentiality is a sort of possibility, but one that is "almost immanent", i.e. not just imaginary or purely abstract but literally just waiting for something to make it actual. Potentiality is possibility that is right on the edge of becoming actuality because the conditions are ripe.

(I refuse to work in retail) — Thorongil

Excellent decision.

"I believe God exists because I feel him in my heart".

"I believe God exists because faith in God transcends logic".

"I believe God exists because that belief offers me comfort".

Even pascals wager is an example of a theistic argument from an agnostic perspective. "I believe in God because I'm gambling intellectual integrity on a hypothetical afterlife"... — VagabondSpectre

Are these the sort of arguments you expect to see in philosophy, though?

But again, the gnostic-agnostic thing doesn't even exist in philosophy of religion. It's just stupid.

Right but the point of the OP isn't to figure out what the colloquial terms mean.

But why should philosophy need to cater to those being irrational?