Is the mindset of a philosopher just a personality flaw? Countless billions live their lives and then die, never thinking too deeply about things. They nurse their children, work hard to feed them, watch some good movies, eat some good food, reunite with their friends once in a while when they get old, then die
Yet the philosopher in his arrogance things "I need more, there is something I must search for - I need a deeper truth. -I- above other need this deeper truth and my pursuit of it is a worthy use of time as they toil away with their worldly matters"
All of this time spent studying obscure books trying to wring from them a semblance of meaning and knowledge that would carry the philosopher forward into a more enlightened period of life, when he could have been having a conversation with a lonely old man, or making food to hand out to the homeless
Bentley Thomas
Philosophising is a luxury.
Cameron Williams
is it wrong and selfish if I was born into a religious area but I disagree with the religion and agree with another religion more often? I don't have a philospphy mindset per se, but I want something more out of life than wandering aimlessly and I'm not happy with the current religion/lifestyle I'm in. In fact I think it is very offensive to God in the way that many people around me live now
Henry Reed
I completely understand and agree with you. I guess you're right that in some cases like your own there's nothing wrong with philosophizing a bit. My OP is over-generalized to maybe apply to people like Seneca who were rich bastards with slaves and stuff but still claimed to be philosophers.
It is ironic that often the people who are so hardline on religion don't even follow their own, and the heretics would probably be more accepted by Jesus for instance than the "believers", probably same with other religions
Hunter Rivera
It's genetics at the societal level.
A society needs philosophers, but not that many. They are extremely expensive luxury goods. It takes a large population and a fairly developed civilization to sustain a single philosopher, let alone several. However, the useful information that a very few philosophers produce is more than sufficient to benefit a large population of worker/consumers.
I mean really, we still have thousands of questions that were originally asked over 2,000 years ago and have yet to be answered.
A population needs to produce a certain number of philosophers, but needs to produce an exponentially greater number of mindless drones to make up a big enough economy to monetize and commercialize something as ambiguous and abstract as "education."
Nathaniel Martinez
>Countless billions live their lives and then die, never thinking too deeply about things. I don't see how an activity being extraordinary is an argument against its merit.
Carson Roberts
>Countless billions live their lives and then die, never thinking too deeply about things. They nurse their children, work hard to feed them, watch some good movies, eat some good food, reunite with their friends once in a while when they get old, then die Yeah americans are brainless drones
Cameron Powell
I adhere closer to pragmatism, specifically in the idea that inquiry only takes place in the presence of doubt. Most people go through the motions of life without thinking because everything works. People only really inquire or think about how things in their life when they stop working. For example you don't consciously think about how your tv works until it doesn't turn on. Then you are actively thinking about it. I think people, for the most part, simply don't encounter the same doubts as philosophers do. Philosophy and inquiry are merely methods of dealing with doubt and checking one's belief.
A good example of this is perception. As useful and accurate as perception is it obviously is not perfect and can often be false. Most people would react to this error with the method of tenacity, essentially ignoring it and moving on. A philosopher recognizes this doubt and instead decides to face the doubt head on to try and relieve it.
I think you also have to keep in to account horizons of understanding. A carpentering error will stand out more and have more significance to a carpenter than someone who knows nothing of carpentry. He will have more doubt that the work will be sufficient and thus works to fix it. In the same way the horizon of understanding for a philosopher means that certain doubts and questions simply have more significance or stand out more to him than the everyday person. Due to the size of the doubt it may not be as easy as ignoring it and walking away.
Mason Young
So is using a computer to make that very post, does that make it bad?
>when he could have been having a conversation with a lonely old man, or making food to hand out to the homeless
Why must one choose one over the other? What is the purpose of me feeding the homeless or speaking to an old man. Where would this need arise from and why, oh wait, I'm philosophizing right now, better not think and just 'go with the flow'.
I agree. Its not even possible that many philosophers will pop up in any given society, due to many factors, from genetics to social stability, or if any of them will have a massive impact. Though this depends on the milieu and other conditions. Consider the impact of Karl Marx and his ideas, (I know this is very simplistic thing to say, and it ignores the complicated dialectic of human ideas).
Is it not dependent on ones value assertion? Clearly the some people, most people, do not see a value in pursuing some fantastical philosophical quest. But of course, this is hyperbole. The reasons someone may study philosophy, and/or philosophize themselves, are much more subtle and relative. And I do not see an arrogance here. It seems that you are using society as, or how one contributes to it, as a measure of ultimate value. Did Newton consider this in his work? If he did not have his personal fixation and HIS personal drive, and of course, his value assertion; he simply would have not done it. When you go to your job, you are not thinking ''Oh what a good worker I am!''. No, you are thinking about a myriad of other things. But when faced with questions such as the one you are posing now, what I have seen occur is an insecurity, and a response to that insecurity. The person in question will now, when it suits him, invoke that he contributes to society and that philosophy or whatever pursuit, is arrogant or selfish, and so on. It is a form of ''devaluing'' philosophy in order to justify ones non interest.
Camden Powell
Cont.
It is also used to resolve the cognitive dissonance of a perceived value, for which one is not well equipped enough, and thus feels insecure. Of course, this is quite generalized, but even as the anecdote it is, it is quite simple to grasp and notice.
Is it not then ironic that for you (OP) to ask this question, and for me to answer it; required this apparatus of 'Philosophizing'?
Nathaniel Hernandez
philosophers exist because they live in a society thats too comfortable
Hunter Hernandez
Its not arrogance nor a virtuous choice.
Its a genetic predisposition. Philosophers by definition means you have a higher brain capacity, forgive me for sounding arrogant/"i have high iq" meme. Its just the ability to have long foresight, rational and logically constructed abstract thoughts requires bit more than simple thoughts like what food to eat/movies to watch/gossip/etc that regular people do on daily basis.
Anyway. Again, why is this implied to be bad? I am quite sure that if you yourself did some research, you would find philosophers who have lived in some uncomfortable situations. And most definitely uncomfortable by our modern standards. Hell, Nietzsche had headaches that would almost drive him to suicide. And again, you are using a computer right now, should you cast away this frivolity? No, you are even possibly dependent on it. You seen to be acquainting the ability to think and question as some frivolity which is only expressed when a cushy society exists, and we are not being prayed upon by tigers 24/7. Maybe our ability to think and question has made us rise above such challenges?
Ryan Russell
Then why aren't everyone philosophers?
That makes no sense if you /think/ about it. Diogenes live a hobo live, he was enslaved, was dirt poor, yet still a philosopher. Buddha and the whole sramana community in India is living a dirt poor/uncomfortable life, yet still practicing philosophy.
Adam Evans
Since you idiots don't have a fucking clue what philosophy is, and can't do a simple internet search, here you go: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Matthew White
I think this is assuming something that is untrue about others.
That is, that they do not think deeply about things. I'm quite sure they do, they just do not have the knowledge of the philosophical terminology. Philosophizing is a constant and ordinary process. By definition, philosophy is the love of Wisdom. The arrogance of the philosopher is to take none as thinking as he. Is the day to day life of the so-called philosopher so different than the others?
I simply cannot stand the attitude whereby a person would put themselves upon a pedestal by presupposing their difference, then contemplating their position in a manner akin to masturbation and self-generated melodrama. Succumbing to pure neuroticism alternating between, "O, but I am one righteous!" and "O, but I am of the wicked!". The lack of self-awareness in these sorts of claims is just staggering and thinly veiled posturing.
Connor Long
Philosophy is scat
Nolan Foster
dr manhattan is such a gary stu it's not even funny.
Brandon Cruz
>By definition, philosophy is the love of Wisdom.
This is the etymology, not the definition.
>I'm quite sure they do, they just do not have the knowledge of the philosophical terminology. Philosophizing is a constant and ordinary process I agree, everyone philosophizes, most are not good at it though, or care to get good at it, or even need to.
>I simply cannot stand the attitude whereby a person would put themselves upon a pedestal by presupposing their difference, then contemplating their position in a manner akin to masturbation and self-generated melodrama. Succumbing to pure neuroticism alternating between, "O, but I am one righteous!" and "O, but I am of the wicked!". The lack of self-awareness in these sorts of claims is just staggering and thinly veiled posturing.
Where are you getting this? Do angsty teenagers somehow matter in the question of the value of philosophy? If someone is doing what you are describing, they are most definitely NOT ''doing philosophy'. What you are doing is describing a modern societal trope, which you seem well acquainted with.
Isaiah Davis
Perhaps a little of both. It's mostly just a different path than most people take; some take it by choice, but I think most just can't stop thinking about 'a deeper truth', as you say. It's a noble but lonely pursuit.
Jonathan Thompson
>Gary stu
But literally no one would want his life
Juan Jenkins
do you think alan moore is a lively optimist
Oliver Miller
Philosophy is just a way to live your life better. By understanding what I am and what is the world around me, I am happier while watching good movies and reuniting with my friends. And though I'll have bad periods when I'll read about nihilism or absurdism, once I accept these concepts as what they are, I'll no longer be bothered by these ideas, as disturbing as they are.
Blake Murphy
>Implying you can't do all of those things.
Brody Hernandez
Philosophers are autists that had a hard time in life and try to compensate that by trying to explain why things are as bad as they are.
Some are literally too damaged to engage in a normal life, so they do what else they can do to.
A philosopher is more likely to do those things though. Besides, who do you think has put work and effort into instructing people into becoming better human beings or into mantaining order for society to thrive? You fucking brat.
Isaiah Anderson
Hence all the filthy rich philosophers. Knowledge is free if you can be fucked filtering through the bullshit.
Zachary Ortiz
Yes and no.
It's flawed (in the perspective of the non-philosophizing demographic) in that they are usually in a general disbelief of what is taken for granted as concrete elements/principles/values that make that routine possible
Not flawed in that they aren't out of place in society as a whole, philosophers are a necessary contrast to neurotypicallity and ideological-typicality. Those principles and values were precipitated amongst the typical public by means of searching for new ways to deal with the change of life in planet earth. Whether you're a priest, a coffee shop thinker, or a cringey blogger, you serve this purpose of answering the big questions for people who are so bustled but so curious that they feel distraught or directionless. At least having someone around to entertain that things might be more than the eye meets is like having a parent (in the know) to reassure you that all these strangers are here to be your friends in some way.
Thomas Nelson
Working for a better world seems good to me and that is what philosophers do. The others are arrogant to believe their insignificant lives are better than to search for truth the whole live trough. Become wiser every day or you are not wise at all. To learn only one job is enough to survive if the others do the other jobs, but if you are alone you must learn all by yourself or otherwise you would die. Learn or die says the nature. Survivere de virtuii alterator in muterii envir.
Benjamin Carter
this is why theology>philosophy
Carson Flores
all the energy you spent feeding the homeless and caring for pensioners could have been spent on incinerating homeless people and pensioners
Dominic Allen
>Why not both?
Jaxon Price
Quick question, you do realize you're answering to obvious bait and nothing value would come from you long rant right?
Isaac King
Best post ITT
Ryder Howard
It's a virtuous choice since it's all about attaining wisdom. It leads to being more open minded to your fellow man, more flexibility in thinking, and better analytical skills.
Aristotle states near the beginning of his Metaphysics, "for it is owing to their wonder men both now begin and first began to philosophize."
Also, "And a man who is puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant (whence even the lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for themyth is composed of wonders); therefore since they philosophized in orderto escape from ignorance, evidently they were pursuing science in orderto know, and not for any utilitarian end. And this is confirmed by thefacts; for it was when almost all the necessities of life and the thingsthat make for comfort and recreation had been secured, that such knowledgebegan to be sought. Evidently then we do not seek it for the sake of anyother advantage; but as the man is free, we say, who exists for his ownsake and not for another's, so we pursue this as the only free science,for it alone exists for its own sake."
So no it's not a matter of "arrogance" and sheltering "deeper truths".
Lucas Gomez
A test of my own articulation. Others participate in what could be a ''bait thread'', thus these others could possibly bring up points from which I can learn, or refute, thus through activity in this, increase my own intellectual faculties.
Now, why would *you* even make such a post? Clearly you did not have enough sympathetic foresight. This means you had other, more base reasons.
