Philosophy: What does it take?

[Something Floaty 1,334]

What makes you say that? Out of curiosity?

 

You're waging an internal debate on the very definition of philosophy as it relates to your life. What's more philosophical than an attempt to define philosophy? 

[Discordian 6,015]

I'm saying that skepticism is healthy to the degree that a person is willing to challenge old information with new information, both in terms of facts themselves and how we validate something as knowledge, but unhealthy at the point where a person's concern with what we don't know leads them to reject the things we do.

 

I'm confident in the knowledge I have, derived logically. I say confidence, some people call it faith, you could even call induction a sort of statistical analysis? But whatever you call it, the only way to "get around" in this world, in this lifetime, is to trust what we know, even if we just think we know it, because there are no practical alternatives.

 

My first post in the thread was a half-joke about philosophers solving problems we don't know we have. I think the better ones keep their focus on the practical use of knowledge to advance our personal and social goals, and the lesser ones .. well they seem a lot more interested in the IMpractical alternatives.

Consider me completely unhealthy then. I deliberately deny existing knowledge for the sake of things we don't know or maybe can't know.

 

But now I've driven this topic way off course long enough. I'll be in my shack in the mountains if you need me.

[Nine 707]

Perhaps, but asking questions and trying to get answers about the very nature of knowledge, sounds like a good time to me even if it's not strictly "practical."

 

I would describe that as practical. It's instrumental, not a direct application of knowledge acquired, but it is essential to the process of getting that knowledge later in the chain. edit: it's epistemology, and it's fundamental.

 

I'm talking specifically about the people who want to go around the process, into some undefined, undefinable fantasy land, to be brief and blunt about it.

 

Pretty much this:

 

Consider me completely unhealthy then. I deliberately deny existing knowledge for the sake of things we don't know or maybe can't know.

 

I guess as long as it's just a weird kind of entertainment for you and you know that, it's harmless enough.

But I confess my disdain for how prevalent this is among self-described philosophers.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Nine

[Discordian 6,015]

I would describe that as practical. It's instrumental, not a direct application of knowledge acquired, but it is essential to the process of getting that knowledge later in the chain.

 

I'm talking specifically about the people who want to go around the process, into some undefined, undefinable fantasy land, to be brief and blunt about it.

 

Pretty much this:

 

 

I guess as long as it's just a weird kind of entertainment for you and you know that, it's harmless enough.

But I confess my disdain for how prevalent this is among self-described philosophers.

I've never considered myself a philosopher, honestly. I have an extreme interest in it, and in order to understand what is NOT philosophy I would have to understand what IS so these discussions still help me in a way, but I will forever stand by my way of thinking so I do not qualify to hold such a title. I really can't help it.

 

Besides, I don't really hurt anyone by doing this. It doesn't and never will affect my day-to-day life. I'm just a guy who plays lots of video games. I am a gamer before anything else.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Discordian

[Steel Accord 6,660]

You're waging an internal debate on the very definition of philosophy as it relates to your life. What's more philosophical than an attempt to define philosophy? 

 

Well I would think debating the existence and/or nature of evil is more philosophical. I get what you're saying though.

 

This is why I asked in the firs place though, does merely being introspective make one a philosopher?

I would describe that as practical. It's instrumental, not a direct application of knowledge acquired, but it is essential to the process of getting that knowledge later in the chain. edit: it's epistemology, and it's fundamental.

 

I'm talking specifically about the people who want to go around the process, into some undefined, undefinable fantasy land, to be brief and blunt about it.

 

Pretty much this:

 

 

I guess as long as it's just a weird kind of entertainment for you and you know that, it's harmless enough.

But I confess my disdain for how prevalent this is among self-described philosophers.

 

Well what would you suggest then?

 

How do I distinguish, within my own heart and mind, the difference between mere poetic and whimsical musings and true philosophical thought?

I've never considered myself a philosopher, honestly. I have an extreme interest in it, and in order to understand what is NOT philosophy I would have to understand what IS so these discussions still help me in a way, but I will forever stand by my way of thinking so I do not qualify to hold such a title. I really can't help it.

 

Besides, I don't really hurt anyone by doing this. It doesn't and never will affect my day-to-day life. I'm just a guy who plays lots of video games. I am a gamer before anything else.

 

I would say a man who at least understands the ideas, and admits to his own faulty thinking, at least has a more legitimate claim than one who continues to insist he is despite faulty thinking.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Nine 707]

@@Discordian, 

 

Don't get me wrong. I have a bee in my bonnet about some recurring things I've seen in discussion about philosophy but if I was really on your case for some perceived grievous offense, I think you'd know. Maybe I come off terse, but I am trying to give you some perspective and things to think about.

 

 

 

How do I distinguish, within my own heart and mind, the difference between mere poetic and whimsical musings and true philosophical thought?

 

 

For the most part? It's the difference between thinking about things that are real vs. things that aren't. Philosophy's not that ostensive or tactile though I realize, so when it comes to something like epistemology, it's the difference between applying reason and logic to clearly defined premises and goals, vs. daydreaming.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

For the most part? It's the difference between thinking about things that are real vs. things that aren't. Philosophy's not that ostensive or tactile though I realize, so when it comes to something like epistemology, it's the difference between applying reason and logic to clearly defined premises and goals, vs. daydreaming.

 

So studying the nuances and differences of Jedi and Sith philosophy as they would apply to real lifestyles wouldn't count?

 

Or what about the idea of "the Narrative Paradigm" that all meaningful communications between people are stories?

 

I don't mean to sound annoying, I'm just trying to get my head on straight. I appreciate your opinion.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Nine 707]

So studying the nuances and differences of Jedi and Sith philosophy as they would apply to real lifestyles wouldn't count?

I'd count it, sure. You'd be taking a fictional, but internally consistent ethos that's relatable to the real world and analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of both, I presume. Jedi and Sith don't face the same kinds of immediate and long range challenges we do, but fictional media is a philosopher's playground, because it takes the philosophy from our world and then changes the backdrop, to jar people into seeing and thinking about it differently.

 

I'm not that stodgy about philosophy. I just think that it gets abused by a lot of people who want to advocate for say .. nihilism or determinism. Anyone who wants to undercut logic, values, objectivity .. those are the kinds of people who drive me absolutely fucking bonkers, because they never contribute a damn thing that's useful to anyone.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

Oddly, I've done exactly that within the context of fictional belief systems rather than real ones. The most recent example being my pondering of the Jedi and Sith.

 

http://mlpforums.com/topic/91576-jedi-or-sith/

 

That's pretty cool! I also think about those kinds of things all the time!

 

I ask questions about a great many things. Life, morality, social systems and reactions, even logic itself. Most people would just call me a nut who isn't willing to accept that the universe has set laws of physics and logic that make the universe what it is.

 

I'm the guy who questions the very standard most professional philosophy is built on: Logic. While logic helps things make sense I often question whether or not logic is the only go-to standard. Like...things that sound utterly crazy and totally illogical are often panned because they don't follow that standard. Those are the things I am most interested in because logic to me seems like a limiter to the way we think.

 

Granted that more often than not thinking outside of the logic box serves no real purpose and will likely make no progress in the world of science and philosophy I find it a worthy pursuit simply for the sake of understanding what does and doesn't make logic itself...and the potential to understand more than logic than ever tell us.

 

I must admit, I'm pretty firm on the side of logic. I have a pretty large preference for order over chaos. But, you have brought up some interesting points.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I'd count it, sure. You'd be taking a fictional, but internally consistent ethos that's relatable to the real world and analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of both, I presume. Jedi and Sith don't face the same kinds of immediate and long range challenges we do, but fictional media is a philosopher's playground, because it takes the philosophy from our world and then changes the backdrop, to jar people into seeing and thinking about it differently.

 

I'm not that stodgy about philosophy. I just think that it gets abused by a lot of people who want to advocate for say .. nihilism or determinism. Anyone who wants to undercut logic, values, objectivity .. those are the kinds of people who drive me absolutely fucking bonkers, because they never contribute a damn thing that's useful to anyone.

 

I see, so art, and particularly narrative art, could almost be a tool of philosophical experimentation in of itself.

 

This was brought on when I played The Old Republic. Both Jedi and Sith classes have companion characters that represent their opposites, allied with you by extraordinary circumstances. The conversations the player can have with them, I found more engrossing than any lightsaber fight. It was the first time I've seen both sides actually talk and compare viewpoints. Good and evil were not factors, and both systems had to stand on their own merits.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

What you propose does sound frustrating though, perhaps you could be more specific and describe an instance of this happening?

That's pretty cool! I also think about those kinds of things all the time!

 

Why thank you! Feel free to cast your vote and comment.

 

By the way, cool username. My latin is a little rusty, but I'm guessing roughly "[Ponies] conquer all?"

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

 

 

Why thank you! Feel free to cast your vote and comment.   By the way, cool username. My latin is a little rusty, but I'm guessing roughly "[Ponies] conquer all?"

 

Thank you! I'll take a look at it!

 

Well, it technically means, "Horses conquer everything." But, the Romans didn't have a word for ponies. They would have said, "little horses." But, that wouldn't sound as cool. It's also not technically grammatically correct, but I fudged it for the paraphrase. Good job for noticing it, though! 

[Nine 707]

 

 

I see, so art, and particularly narrative art, could almost be a tool of philosophical experimentation in of itself.

It is, absolutely. I've never played TOR, but I know games have become a platform for exploring ethics and morality.

 

 

 

What you propose does sound frustrating though, perhaps you could be more specific and describe an instance of this happening?

I'm sure you've seen it before. People who say that everything is subjective, so as to make every opinion as valid or invalid as any other, or that the senses can't be trusted so objectivity isn't possible, or that everything is determined so choice is undermined. Seriously, philosophical debate is absolutely rife with this anti-reason, anti-reality, humans-are-powerless-to-know-or-do-anything kind of sentiment.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

Well, it technically means, "Horses conquer everything." But, the Romans didn't have a word for ponies. They would have said, "little horses." But, that wouldn't sound as cool. It's also not technically grammatically correct, but I fudged it for the paraphrase. Good job for noticing it, though! 

 

That's why I put the word "ponies" in brackets, because I assume that's what you meant.

 

Thank you though, looks like those three years of Latin in High School weren't completely useless! 

 

(Joking. I actually really like Latin.)

It is, absolutely. I've never played TOR, but I know games have become a platform for exploring ethics and morality.

 

 

 

I'm sure you've seen it before. People who say that everything is subjective, so as to make every opinion as valid or invalid as any other, or that the senses can't be trusted so objectivity isn't possible, or that everything is determined so choice is undermined. Seriously, philosophical debate is absolutely rife with this anti-reason, anti-reality, humans-are-powerless-to-know-or-do-anything kind of sentiment.

 

OH THAT! Oh yeah, that totally pisses me off! Especially when they quote Nietzsche out of context, and I pray I could summon his spirit to slap them for misrepresenting his thoughts!

 

This is also why I have a heated relationship with the Lovecraft mythos. On the one hand, it's actually a pretty creative and extensive universe, on the other; it makes the point that nothing we do is worth shit so we might as well not try and just wait for death.

 

Really what you describe shouldn't even be called "philosophical debate" because it's entire point is that there is no point! So what's the purpose of even trying to prove the others of their pointlessness apart from just being a dick?

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

That's why I put the word "ponies" in brackets, because I assume that's what you meant.

 

Thank you though, looks like those three years of Latin in High School weren't completely useless! 

 

(Joking. I actually really like Latin.)

 

The Romans did have a word, "mannulus," that was used for a certain type of petite horse, but it wasn't that common.

 

Latin is an amazing language! I love reading in it! It adds a certain gravitas to life! By the way, try reading medieval philosophy in Latin! 

 

Anyway, back on topic!

[Steel Accord 6,660]

The Romans did have a word, "mannulus," that was used for a certain type of petite horse, but it wasn't that common.

 

Latin is an amazing language! I love reading in it! It adds a certain gravitas to life! By the way, try reading medieval philosophy in Latin! 

 

Anyway, back on topic!

 

Well, Marcus Aurelius, whom my Father is quite a fan of, is considered quite a philosopher at least posthumously.

 

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” 

 

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” 

 

“When another blames you or hates you, or people voice similar criticisms, go to their souls, penetrate inside and see what sort of people they are. You will realize that there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you.” 

 

Truly remarkable, thousands of years after his death, yet such wisdom rings powerfully relevant.

[Nine 707]

@@Steel Accord, 

It's the unwarranted arrogance that bothers me most about these people. The only contribution to the zeitgeist of thought they've made in any era is to sew pointless doubt, confusion and apathy in people, yet they pat themselves on that back for a job well done as the guardians of skepticism.

Talking to them is the only time I really wished that leveling someone with a shovel to the face was legal, because lord knows trying to reason with them is pointless.

It's a shame that the only reason the bulk of them are like that is because they're so afraid of being wrong that they take a contrarian position they think is safe and unassailable, instead of making the elementary choice that drives the need for a code of ethics in the first place: the choice to fucking VALUE something, starting with one's life.

My apologies, I don't think there's anything in the world I despise more than this.

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Steel Accord, 

 

That's pretty cool! Marcus Aurelius was a gifted thinker! Certainly one of Rome's wiser emperors!

 

Lately, I've been leaning more towards Stoicism like him. I was recently more of an Epicurean, but I'm now somewhere between the two. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@Nine,

 

No apologies necessary, I've heard of far more trivial things summon such fury.

 

I've always tried to keep an open mind, and as much as I hold my beliefs close to my heart, I've always tried to be open to the notion that I could be horribly mistaken. I've always held that one's beliefs are deeply personal, and even if I disagree with an outlook, it is that other person's freedom and right to hold it. That being said, I would call that person friend before one who believes in absolutely nothing.

 

I don't know who said this, and it may just be something I find personal significance in, but;

 

"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."

 

@,

 

I get the basics of Stoicism, but what is the school of Epicurean about?

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[Nine 707]

"If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."

It's a good quote. Certainly true for many ..

Just as often though, the ones I'm talking about DO stand for things, DO have personal values .. but they argue for a philosophical position that is inconsistent with what they actually believe and how they act.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@Nine,

 

Oh so there not nihilist, they're just insincere and/or hypocritical.    

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Steel Accord,

 

Simply put, Epicureanism advocates the idea that the purpose of life is to attain the greatest pleasure. The philosophy was derided as, "eat, drink, and be merry," although this a gross oversimplification. In many ways, it teaches the opposite: one should live moderately and with temperance, since overindulgence leads to pain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@@Steel Accord,

 

Simply put, Epicureanism advocates the idea that the purpose of life is to attain the greatest pleasure. The philosophy was derided as, "eat, drink, and be merry," although this a gross oversimplification. In many ways, it teaches the opposite: one should live moderately and with temperance, since overindulgence leads to pain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

 

I see.

 

Whereas Stoicism calls for temperance and moderation?

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

@@Steel Accord, both ideas call for it, but with different ends.

 

Stoicism has the goal of attaining a virtuous and ethical life, with temperance being one way to achieve it.

 

Epicureanism has the goal of a life of pleasure via the absence of pain as its goal, with temperance being a way to avoid pain. Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, again a term which does not mean philosophically what popular culture defines it.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

@,

 

I understand it's meaning, to maximize happiness.

 

All in all, very interesting. I'm very much at odds with where I fall in between these two viewpoints. I do believe in the idea of virtue ethics, the Elements of Harmony themselves being a good example. On the other hoof, I believe that happiness should be one's ultimate goal.

 

Hmmmm . . . why did you swtich from one to the other? 

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

Just as a little aside, one could actually correlate the Jedi and Sith philosophies between these two.

 

The Jedi are the stoics, striving to live virtuous lives and adhering strictly to temperance.

 

The Sith are the Epicureans, striving to achieve their own, ultimate happiness. (Although it should be mentioned, that Darth Bane's reformation also attached a great deal of "pain as tool" thinking to it so the parallel is a bit rough dependent on the timeframe.) 

Edited March 30, 2014 by Steel Accord

[AlicornAcolyte 254]

Honestly, I switched after being introduced to FIM.

 

It probably sounds silly, but the friendship lessons of the show, I guess we can call it "Equestrianism," really resonated with me. For some reason, I felt like these were important ideas that a good, utopian society should have. So, I've lately been working on my own philosophical ideas. I've been trying to synthesize Equestrianism with Neo-Confucian and communitarian ideas, with a dash of miscellaneous tenets, such as Aristotelian virtue ethics.

 

I know some bronies think we shouldn't take the show too seriously, but I think there are some good ethical ideas here.

Edited March 30, 2014 by OmniaVincitEquorum