philosophy

[gauchecritic]

Be that as it may, one can discern, through history, a direction, in general, that expresses more individual choice and less tyrannical direction.

Amicus...

I think you're being confused by the seeming explosion of the so-called 'middle classes', a product of industrialisation.

Those with time on their hands have the luxury of thought and therefore choice.
Those who scrabble in dirt all day have little inclination for introspection and have never known anything other than tyranny, be it of the soil or the soil* owners and these are by far the majority.

Gauche

*for soil you may substitute many other words: mill, mine, leather factory, farm, production line etc etc.


P.S I've just read a short biography of Ayn Rand (whom I'd never heard of before this thread) and it seems to me that her entire philosophy was based on a simple hatred of a revolutionary USSR. Interestingly it states The Institute has since registered the name Ayn Rand as a trademark, despite Ayn Rand's desire that her name never be used to promote the philosophy she developed. During her life Ayn Rand expressed her wishes to keep her name and the philosophy of Objectivism separate. It is understood that this was in order to assure the continued survival of the philosophy she developed once her own life was over.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Damn... how did I miss this thread? I'll never know.

Umm, wow, I don't even know where to begin--so much talked about. Some wrong, some not wrong, some very very wrong. Speaking as a philosopher (not in hubris, but profession, passion, education, and point), and as a response to the original question...

I think it most reasonable that the best moral philosophy to live by be one of absolute action and inaction. It is, really, the cleanest. So, without "the most good" to consider, "defined good" is relied on. Of course, the question is like asking "what's the best car to drive"... the answer being "the one that does what you want it to do". Not much of a question.

A better one would be "which is the most correct ethic?"

 

[amicus]

Gauche...Your unwavering advocacy for the proletariat, the working class, those without property, is heartwarming to many, I am sure...

True, the industrial revolution, like the tide, raised the fortunes of all men, to a point where a greater percentage (USA) now 'own' their own homes than ever before in History.

And you may think that 'business owners' 'corporate leaders' have 'time' on their hands and by that luxury, use it for introspection. It doesn't work that way.

People immersed in the world of business are so focused, greedy I am sure you would say, focused on making their business even more efficient, (profitable you would say) efficient, that they have little time to think of anything outside that focus.

What they actually do, is contribute to charities, fund endowments and scholarships, invest in venture capital and put their own kids through college without borrowing from the rest of the population.

(Edited to add: The top 1% income level pay 20% of all taxes collected, and you are not even appreciative)


Your hatred of a free society, a free market system, is so blantant, I wonder you are not embarassed by the exposure.


Yes, workers with IQ levels around 100 and less are in the majority, they always have been and always will be. Fortunately, the intelligence, energy and wealth of those better endowed, spills over and provides them with machinery to run, rather than shovel handles.

amicus

 

[Guest]

... secondly, most of the aforementioned writers are so intellectually obtuse as to be nearly unreadable and uncomprehendable unless you buy into their basic assumptions.
And while some I mentioned may or may not advocate a particular political philosophy, basic assumptions and statements in there works were used as the philosophical un[der]pinnings of Marxists and National Socialists.
There is also the 18th and 19th centuries context to consider when one *cogitates* on the progress and evolution of perceived political systems.
An 'Utopian' desire has been a portion of intellectual pursuit from before the concept of 'The Garden of Eden' and 'Nirvana', it is perhaps a myth that is shared by any society that achieves the luxury of scholars/priests who think about such things.
Perhaps in my 'winter' years, I disdain the studies of youth and the dependence upon 'quoted and referenced' material from those who have gone before. I am pleased to be at a time in my life when I can consider what I have learned, or think I have learned, and express it without depending on the words and thoughts of others.
Be that as it may, one can discern, through history, a direction, in general, that expresses more individual choice and less tyrannical direction. (my emphases)

Amicus, being plainly frank, I wonder if you see what mummery you’ve written. Firstly, those aforementioned writers are not even ‘nearly’ undreadable or incomprehensible with or without regard to their basic assumptions. Do you consider yourself basically literate? If so, I cannot comprehend how you can say such a thing. Reading Kant was one of the most difficult but rewarding experiences of my scholarly life. Once I harnessed enough mind control to keep his thoughts organized among my own I felt as if I had virtually entered the man’s mind, and what a giant and awe inspiring thing it was. It had naught to do with whether I believed what he said but all to do with how he thought, which only helped me think better.

Secondly, all philosophical endeavors serve as underpinnings for the next generation; that’s how scholarship works. You mention Marsixm and socialism as if there were some abnormal stile in the path of proper thinking.

Lastly, the use of disdain in your wintery attitude toward these texts, including secondary sources I presume, disabuses you unfairly from this discussion. What are we to say to that? Not much. Au fond, you leave us with nothing but your opinions, based on the other seasons of your life we must presume, but with no evidence or mode of riposte.

I’ve read you in other threads so I will presume what I am saying is otiose, but I could not allow you to skirt the responsibility we all owe each other in communal discourse (especially after reading “cogitates” in lieu of “thinking”; really!)

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Reading Kant was one of the most difficult but rewarding experiences of my scholarly life.

Mine, too.

 

[Guest]

Mine, too.

Cool. Nice to see you back. P.

 

[cantdog]

Observer

Hi Sher.

Sorry about the delay; my new story is under the knife in the Story Discussion forum and I've had to think about the thoughtful critics over there.

Observer, you ask. In my post, I was not really dealing with a philosophical entity, but instead with a purely personal label stuck, after the fact, on an aspect of an experience I had.

I have come to believe, atheist though I am, that the experience was a mystical one. There's a pop song there somewhere, about the atheistic mystic.

I had the split in awareness not very well described in the original post, and it was the first time I had ever realized that my mind was not essentially my self. Always until that point, I felt my mind to be separate from, but responsible for, my body; and I had identified with my mind as being clearly me, where my body was an observed thing, not-really-me, if you follow me.

Upon having the experience I related, I had to call even my mind an observed thing, since there I was, you know, definitely not being my mind, nor my body either.

I had no doubt that the point of view in which I found myself-- which I have since labeled the Observer, since I can't very well use a loaded term like soul as an atheist-- was me, the real me, and separate from either of the other two.

When I read the post about body being identified with, in Perdita's sense, I didn't at first realize that she was speaking philosophically, about not rejecting, not repudiating the body. This idea, abjuring the body for the sake of the soul, seems to run through Hindu philosophy, but Perdita says for her that doesn't fly.

I took her to mean identifying with the "body" portion of my mystical three-part being.

Whereas I only came to the conclusion in the first place that what had happened to me was a mystical state by reading other mystics and seeing absolutely familiar descriptions of a soul/mind/body split, with the emphasis, the identification, going to the soul. It was the mystical references that convinced me that, rather than having had an episode of schizophrenia, I had instead had a mystical trance state.

So I had no doubt, in the terms of the mystics, that I was not my body, any more than I was my role as a father, a fireman, a manager, a lover, a citizen, and so on. Instead, unmistakeably, and I mean experientially, empirically withion the mystical state, I was only the Observer, and the rest, location, opinions, roles, body, even mind counted as observed things, not-me.

Perdita's essentially philosophical statement came off like a feminist critique of mysticism. It shook me. Did women actually feel that attuned to their body as to feel that it, not their soul, was really them?

So I inadvertently injected a mystical concept into the thread. Please ignore that, and carry on without it, because I don't think it has a whole lot to do with philosophy.


cantdog

 

[amicus]

Yes, the otiosity of your commentary is precisely that of a spiritualist. Many have read the bible and experienced the same illumination of spirit and feeling by the comlete rejection of the mind and reasonable thought. I did not expect any less of you.

"Immanual Kant, 1724-1804 German Philospher: Kant maintained that the mind, because of its nature cannot know things, 'as they are'. but rather interprets the data presented to it as spaciotemporal phenomena and that the reason, either in order to give a meaningful ground for experience or in order to make ethical conduct possible, may postulate things unknowable to it, as the existence of a god and of a personal, immortal and self determining soul."

For those who do not wish to sort through the total crap of Kant and his followers, all that is said above and about his entire philosophy can be summed up briefly.

Kant attacked the basis of 'reason' as it relates to 'reality', by advocating 'pure' reason, based on 'nothing'.

Neo mystics, pragmatists, logical positivists, all owe their existence to the assault on reason and logic contained in Kant's writings.

Kant's 'categorical imperatives' that one 'just knows' as they surely cannot be comprehended, includes a sense of 'duty' and altruistic sacrifice of the ego to a greater good that offers no benefit of any kind. Somewhat like Christianity which calls for the same sacrifice but offers the promise of immortality.

It does not surprise me that those who advocate no ethical or moral system should gather around the vultures on Kantianism. It is one of the few remaining tombstones of the dark ages.

The penultimate monument to Immanual Kant and the entire altruist morality, is the graveyard that was the Soviet Union. They practiced what he preached.

Ducky.


amicus

 

[Guest]

For those who truly care: Kant cannot be summed up briefly. And certainly not by Amicus.

Perdita

 

[shereads]

Re: Observer

Hi Sher.

Sorry about the delay; my new story is under the knife in the Story Discussion forum and I've had to think about the thoughtful critics over there.

Observer, you ask. In my post, I was not really dealing with a philosophical entity, but instead with a purely personal label stuck, after the fact, on an aspect of an experience I had.

I have come to believe, atheist though I am, that the experience was a mystical one. There's a pop song there somewhere, about the atheistic mystic.

I had the split in awareness not very well described in the original post, and it was the first time I had ever realized that my mind was not essentially my self. Always until that point, I felt my mind to be separate from, but responsible for, my body; and I had identified with my mind as being clearly me, where my body was an observed thing, not-really-me, if you follow me.

Upon having the experience I related, I had to call even my mind an observed thing, since there I was, you know, definitely not being my mind, nor my body either.

I had no doubt that the point of view in which I found myself-- which I have since labeled the Observer, since I can't very well use a loaded term like soul as an atheist-- was me, the real me, and separate from either of the other two.

When I read the post about body being identified with, in Perdita's sense, I didn't at first realize that she was speaking philosophically, about not rejecting, not repudiating the body. This idea, abjuring the body for the sake of the soul, seems to run through Hindu philosophy, but Perdita says for her that doesn't fly.

I took her to mean identifying with the "body" portion of my mystical three-part being.

Whereas I only came to the conclusion in the first place that what had happened to me was a mystical state by reading other mystics and seeing absolutely familiar descriptions of a soul/mind/body split, with the emphasis, the identification, going to the soul. It was the mystical references that convinced me that, rather than having had an episode of schizophrenia, I had instead had a mystical trance state.

So I had no doubt, in the terms of the mystics, that I was not my body, any more than I was my role as a father, a fireman, a manager, a lover, a citizen, and so on. Instead, unmistakeably, and I mean experientially, empirically withion the mystical state, I was only the Observer, and the rest, location, opinions, roles, body, even mind counted as observed things, not-me.

Perdita's essentially philosophical statement came off like a feminist critique of mysticism. It shook me. Did women actually feel that attuned to their body as to feel that it, not their soul, was really them?

So I inadvertently injected a mystical concept into the thread. Please ignore that, and carry on without it, because I don't think it has a whole lot to do with philosophy.


cantdog

Can we make a philosophy up that has to do with this concept? Because it's interesting to me.

Not that I begin to comprehend the complexity of what you just said, but because of something I've recognized in myself and a few close friends, that I will call Spalding Gray Syndrome: a belief that we are not entirely present in our lives, but are observing it - as if watching an actor play a role. And that the fullness of most experiences is lost to us, as if the achievement of the moment is not enough to deliver the emotonal satisfaction that ought to be derived. We seek extremes of experience because in those moments there's no separation between body and mind.

Did that make any sense? I Kant tell.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Random sidepoint

"Utopia" from the word outopos meaning no-where or no-place was an invention of Plato's. One of his famous bizarre settings to prove a philosophical point. Because I know this word I always scoff when people expect utopia from a particular ideology. Marxists, Objectivists, Romantics, etc. all expect utopia to come someday, expect a nirvana. However, the point is that utopia cannot be reached by man. Man is too flawed, too fucked up, too evil, and most importantly too greedy to allow a utopia. A dystopia sure. Dystopias are fine. But a genune utopia? Not on this Earth.

I know return you to your regularly scheaduled Kant.

 

[shereads]

Re: Random sidepoint

"Utopia" from the word outopos meaning no-where or no-place was an invention of Plato's. One of his famous bizarre settings to prove a philosophical point. Because I know this word I always scoff when people expect utopia from a particular ideology. Marxists, Objectivists, Romantics, etc. all expect utopia to come someday, expect a nirvana. However, the point is that utopia cannot be reached by man. Man is too flawed, too fucked up, too evil, and most importantly too greedy to allow a utopia. A dystopia sure. Dystopias are fine. But a genune utopia? Not on this Earth.

I know return you to your regularly scheaduled Kant.

Isn't dystopia curable now?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Re: Random sidepoint

Isn't dystopia curable now?

What? Huxley and Orwell's anti-dystopia cream?

Guaranteed to stop the mass conformity and pain of a society gone wrong?

 

[cantdog]

Re: Re: Observer

Can we make a philosophy up that has to do with this concept? Because it's interesting to me.

Not that I begin to comprehend the complexity of what you just said, but because of something I've recognized in myself and a few close friends, that I will call Spalding Gray Syndrome: a belief that we are not entirely present in our lives, but are observing it - as if watching an actor play a role. And that the fullness of most experiences is lost to us, as if the achievement of the moment is not enough to deliver the emotonal satisfaction that ought to be derived. We seek extremes of experience because in those moments there's no separation between body and mind.

Did that make any sense? I Kant tell.

Sher, immediacy is happening to you all the time. There is a time lag, so slight but measurable, between the instant you have any experience and the time you catch hold of it with your mind.

Your head places the raw experience in a comprehensible framework. It has to identify the objects, place the action in a time frame, and so on. Without that, the world is a stream of sensory impressions, uncategorized.

But! Every minute there is that place between the moment and its realization, that time blink when the world is still raw. It's always just ahead of where your head thinks you are.

Immediacy! How can you shut your mind down enough to stay in that space?

 

[rgraham666]

I tried reading Kant years ago, with a complete lack of success.

If I tried again now, I would have trouble getting past the prejudices I've had put in my head by my currently most influential writer.

Basically he says much of The Enlightenment was of people trying to inject philosophy into people's daily lives. Voltaire, Diderot, the Encylopediasts, were all trying to make thought a part of everyday life. They were trying to fight against the scholasticism of the times.

Kant firmly grasped philosophy by the neck and dragged it back into the universities. There it has stayed for the most part, contributing little to the world since. Now philosophy is another scholastic field, inbred and talking to itself.

I had been thinking of going back to school and getting a degree in philosophy. I borrowed a couple of university texts on philosophy from my roommate to do a little research.

Well, that completely put the kibosh on that idea. With the exception of the very few Socratic dialogues in these books, the essays in them made my head ache.

The language was nearly inpenetrable, and usually dealt with with such abstract subjects that I kept wondering, "Who the fuck cares?"

Sigh. There's no place for me in academia.

 

[KarenAM]

I had been thinking of going back to school and getting a degree in philosophy. I borrowed a couple of university texts on philosophy from my roommate to do a little research.

Well, that completely put the kibosh on that idea. With the exception of the very few Socratic dialogues in these books, the essays in them made my head ache.

The language was nearly inpenetrable, and usually dealt with with such abstract subjects that I kept wondering, "Who the fuck cares?"

Sigh. There's no place for me in academia.

Nicely and well put.

Here's my problem with philosophy in general, which in fact is also often my problem with religion, since the two are often virtually indistinguishable:

Followers and actions.

I once worked with a fundamentalist Christian who delighted in regaling me and others with why we and everybody else who disagreed with her were doomed to eternal punishment, and why it was perfectly moral to kill people who didn't agree with her. The result was that I and many others grew to distrust Christians, because quite frankly some of them behave badly and most of those that don't seem awfully hesitant to challenge those who do. Why, for example, don't moderate Christians challenge Jerry Falwell when he blames feminists for 9-11? Why don't moderate Muslims challenge bin Laden when he advocates mass murder? Why aren't Christians and Muslims publically screaming with rage at people who use their holy books to justify hate?

Now, Marx has followers too. Historically, the more extreme of these followers have murdered tens of millions of people. Why do I not hear about Marxists challenging those in their ranks who aren't bothered by this, or who simply deny it? I can give you all sorts of reasons why I think Marxism fails, but quite frankly there are few better reasons to avoid Marxism than the mute testimony of those tens of millions of dead people.

Someone above (I think it was amicus) talked about the importance of Ayn Rand. I've tried to read her writing and found it poor. She simply isn't, technically speaking, very good at writing fiction, mostly because she lectures to her readers and tells them what to think. But that's small potatoes. What isn't small potatoes is the fact that every follower of Ayn Rand I've ever met was also seething with anger, and they used the philosophy to justify their mistreatment of others. One handed me an article that said the destruction of Native Americans was justified because they weren't using the land they lived on "properly", while Europeans did. Appearantly in the minds of some Ayn Randians genocide is acceptable, and within the community of Ayn Rand fans there is no interest in rebutting or debating this. Hardly a ringing endorsement, regardless of what Ayn herself might have said about anything.

I could go on with other examples, but suffice it to say that philosophies, like religions, don't seem to encourage healthy debate within their own ranks, which is why to outsiders they often come across as morally apalling.

And best avoided.

 

[oggbashan]

A twist

Why is it that many of the French seem to regard living philosophers with the sort of awe that other countries reserve for film stars and pop idols?

Do the French know something we don't? Or do they feel the need for philosophy? Or is it because philosophy is mandatory in their education system? If the latter, how do their teachers inspire the respect for philosophers?

Og

PS: Or is it because living French philosophers LOOK like film stars or pop idols?

 

[Guest]

Karen and rg: I had the good fortune of a great philosphy teacher, a man who came to the 'profession' late in life, having been an English prof., a lumberjack, organic farmer, i.e., "lived" a full life. He inspired many students to take more philosophy courses. In his class I sat next to a nursing student (with very few electives) who was in her third course with this man.

We used only primary texts and he was strict about attendance and reading homework, but he gave us so much more back than we put into it. He also managed to never give us his opinions on any one philosphy; to this day I could not tell you what or who he favored.

I don't' know how else to say it but to state that he inspired and taught us to think deeply about the things that matter in a human life. Reading 'philosophy' can do this (of course as well as so many other kinds of texts). It doesn't matter what you feel personally about Kant or Marx, etc., but they were very fine and creative minds, and understanding how those minds worked can help yours work better, most importantly in one's thinking about Life and how to Live.

I apologize if I read didactic, I'm only passionate about this.

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by KarenAM
Nicely and well put.

Here's my problem with philosophy in general, which in fact is also often my problem with religion, since the two are often virtually indistinguishable:

...

I could go on with other examples, but suffice it to say that philosophies, like religions, don't seem to encourage healthy debate within their own ranks, which is why to outsiders they often come across as morally apalling.

And best avoided.

Moderate Christians /do/ speak out against Falwell. Moderate Muslims (I know) speak out against Bin Laden. These things do happen.

Beyond that, I can only say that philosophy and religion are very, very different. The former being my profession and passion, I suppose its just a matter of perspective. If I blamed the discipline of "technology" for every gun shot that ever happened, I'd be doing a disservice to the point of its development.

 

[KarenAM]

Moderate Christians /do/ speak out against Falwell. Moderate Muslims (I know) speak out against Bin Laden. These things do happen.

Beyond that, I can only say that philosophy and religion are very, very different. The former being my profession and passion, I suppose its just a matter of perspective. If I blamed the discipline of "technology" for every gun shot that ever happened, I'd be doing a disservice to the point of its development.

I know a Quaker who regularly rages about the excesses of Falwell and his ilk. I know a Muslim who is offended by bin Laden in ways you and I are incapable of fully comprehending (unkess your native language is Arabic). Neither does so publically. There are those that do, but they are few and far between and aren't very loud.

I don't mean to disparage your chosen profession, Joe, but while many say that philosophy and religion are different, few go to the trouble to explain how and why, preferring instead to chat with the other initiated. Those that do make an effort to explain a difference seem to invariably descend into the realm of incomprehensible babble which tends to characterize both philosophy and religion, and which to those of us outside them tends only to show that they are one and the same.

Perdita: I'm happy you had a great teacher. They are rare and to be cherished.

 

[Pure]

Sher said, about a 'pure' posting on philos., east and west, religion,etc.

//Not bad. Thank you, Pure. Particularly for the comment about separation of philosophy from religion. So do the major philosophers tend to reuinite us westerners with the sciences that our religions take away?//

Let's start with your last clause: I agree that one of main Western religions, Christianity and its variates, has generally tried to distance its followers from science, if not cause rejection of science. There are, of course, exceptions [Thomism]. But with the advent of Galileo, and later, Darwin, Christianity (Catholic and Protestant) got very hostile, in general. Nowadays the 'liberal' churches, like Anglican, have remedied this.
A liberal 20th cent. R Catholic could be a scientist, obviously; there are no papal anathemas against science these days.

Judaism and science is a bit trickier, but my impression is that the official forms aren't crazy about science; and the more recent 'Orthodox' form is pretty antsy, though there are orthodox medical scientists. The supposed creation of the world a few thousand years ago (according to the Tanach/OT) is a sticky point.
Reform Jews have no problem with the age of the earth.

As to what 'major philosophers' have done to 'reunite us with sciences' from which religions have distanced us. Most philosophers since Descartes have been pretty favorable to natural science. All the major 20th century philosophers are *very friendly to science (scientific investigation, in one way or another).
Marx, in the 19th century loved science. Likewise Kant, before him.
Kierkegaard, however, late 19th cent. and *religious* existentialists may not be so friendly, however. Atheist existentialists of this century would be quite favorable (e.g., Sartre). Nietzsche was a bit iffy, but not hostile (was a Lamarkian).

How to sum it; late 19th and most 20 century philosophers are pretty critical of standard religion, and favorable to science. If you like, they've taken the split the Catholics set up, with Galileo, and said, "Fine, to hell with dogma and 'revealed religion'; long live science."

(Note, there are occasional example of modern philosophers with some kind of 'maverick' religion [nonorthodox theism], even vaguely Christian; Whitehead might be an example. I think Phillippa Foot was Christian.)


Originally posted by Pure

In the West, the 'animal' or 'atheist' conclusion dawns on people, first, from say 1775-1875. One of the first 'out' atheists was de Sade; later, Nietzsche. Both mentioned the 'moral' implications of atheism, i.e., we're not going to be judged by the 10 C; that we're essentially animals. Sade discussed whether murder was immoral (since animals like owls, kill), and N admired the results of Caesar's conquests (in nature, the stronger overcomes the weaker... unless they get together).

Freud was an 'out' atheist, and espouser of the 'animal' view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sher responded:

"But why does the acceptance of man as an evolved animal have to hinge on an atheistic view? I've never understood why there should be any inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and the idea of a creator/creative force behind the existence of sentient life. You don't promote the existence of carpenters by pretending that a chair was always a chair, so why make the existence of God hinge on whether or not we were created out of clay and ribs?"

Well, you're right one could be an evolutionist who thought God was 'behind' the whole process. Some philosophers, like Bergson (maybe Whitehead), held to a 'creative force.'

Anglicans, churchmen and scientists, would say evolution is part of God's plan. However, in fact, if you read evolutionists, most aren't very inclined to a 'God' hypothesis, or if so, make him irrelevant (deism). Why, because 'natural selection' and other natural processes explain what happened, so far as can be explained (which is farther, each passing year).
God is unemployed, as it were.

Christians who go 'biblical' (fundamentalist), tend to go for 'special creation'; dogs were made as dogs, horses as horses. God working according to various blueprints. No scientist can truck with this.

But there is one kind of philsopher you do see with some kind of 'spiritual principle' or 'creative force', whatever. That is the one who has segmented his/her mind, and keeps their religious mystical leaning outside of philosophy. Likewise, the occasional scientist does this: Has a streak of mysticism, but one that is separated off, a bit; which doesn't much affect his/her conduct of specific scientific inquiry (roughly, like Einstein).

One last point. Historically, one issue around 'animality' was, Do humans have immortal souls? Folks like Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas wanted to keep 'immmortal souls' for humans. So, historically, the person attacking 'religion' is going to go after this 'soul' mysticism. Hence there's a general pattern, at least initially, of the atheists being the ones who say 'Humans are animals, and derived from them."

Jeez, that's a least 4 cents, but enough rambling.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Philosophy

How you treat others is the measure of the kind of person you are.

Remember the world is what you make it. Make it the kind of world you want to live in. (in other words- 'don't pee in the bathwater')

Don't necessarily equate difficult or dangerous with bad. Safe and easy are highly overrated.

It's easier to change the whole world than to change yourself. Rather than looking at what the person next to you is doing wrong, try to take an honest look at yourself. Hey, your fucked up too, I promise! Get to work on fixing your own problems, faults, sins, and imperfections and leave others to theirs. You probably just thought of somebody who could really use this advice. I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you!

Don't forget to question things and think for yourself. Don't conform just to conform, but don't be a 'non-conformist' just for its own sake either. However, sometimes it is good just to do something different just to see what happens.

Don't take pleasure in others pain or misfortune.

 

[cantdog]

I find philosophers occasionally very interesting, but frequently difficult. The difficult part is often their specialized vocabulary. There is something to be said for writing philosohy in words of one syllable so far as it is possible to do so.

Refreshing to read sweet's aphoristic post, which tells us how to do things with no foolishness. Not Ethics, but the good as seen, told person to person.

One may reject Philosophy, I believe, with the upper case P, and still live a good and examined life, still progress, still seek and even to an extent obtain wisdom. But I deny that you will do that without introspection, and without giving a good effort toward integrating what you have found to be true into the warp of your life. People freeze in place, spiritually, who refuse to think anew about their lives when the rush of events allows it.

I also attach importance to passing on what you gain in wisdom to the rest of the people you meet. The result is with a lower case p, and possibly not philosophy at all.

I read, though. Books speak to me. I enjoy new vocabularies; I study languages! I'm digging John Ralston Saul and discussing his ideas with my friends and acquaintances. I am as impressed as graham is, I guess. The insights of people who discuss in their books whole systems fascinate me and I think aid me.

We have a sort of unstructured salon once a week, usually at my place because the food is good. We talk. And sometimes we talk about the big questions, both spiritual and philosophical, but we're as likely to talk about men and women, clever scripts, cooking, politics, fashion, anything whatsoever. We tried a book discussion format for a while, but it was stilted and had a tendency to make work of it all. But the Sunday nights function as a seminar just the same.

And behold, we developed our own vocabulary to shorthand the things we have already talked over. It helps us to move the lesson of that thing into the discussion of the next. In a post like this, tags and labels and specialized references (Lamarckian!) keep us from having to write endless screeds. Benign shorthand if you know the references, babble if you didn't happen to know them already.

We take up, on our Sundays, everything. But we have all that time, days and days of talk, clarifying, incorporating a consensus, to do it.

This format makes it difficult at best to complete one argument without running too long or using the terms of the upper case Philosophy.

I doubt we'll push the discipline along very far this way, but I do enjoy immensely having a go at it with a different group from my Sunday nighters. Have at! But let's ease off on the terminology if we can, and let some less academicallyoriented people have access.

 

[cantdog]

Re: A twist

Why is it that many of the French seem to regard living philosophers with the sort of awe that other countries reserve for film stars and pop idols?

Do the French know something we don't? Or do they feel the need for philosophy? Or is it because philosophy is mandatory in their education system? If the latter, how do their teachers inspire the respect for philosophers?

Og

PS: Or is it because living French philosophers LOOK like film stars or pop idols?

I ascribe it to the French inferiority complex. They want everyone to know that they are a great civilization still, one which produces great minds and enshrines them in honour. It's a bit strident, isn't it?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm not going to be funny this time. I'll just post my personal philosophy.

1. There's enough pain in the universe without me adding to the sum total.

2. The characteristics most important for a sentient being to cultivate are empathy, wisdom and courage.

Empathy sets the destination of your life. I believe that without empathy, some feeling for the joys, sorrows and pain of others, you're unlikely to accomplish much good in this life.

Wisdom picks the road to the destination. It also tells you what paths not to take. I think lack of wisdom results in lack of restraint and lack of restraint puts you too often in 'bull in a china shop' mode.

Courage is needed because if you follow the path empathy and wisdom set for you, you're going to piss off a lot of people with power. And they don't play fair.