The Big Questions - Philosophy's Failure?

[Zarathustra]

I'd be very suprised if their is one of us here following this discussion, who has taken one shred of true consolation from anything he/she has read written by any philosopher old or new. I'd bet a pound to a penny that each and every one of us, if/where we have learned the tricks of surviving life's mercurial games, have done it of our own making, by our own self-discovery.

Philosophy teaches us to talk the talk - but not walk the walk.

It's actually not a bad point. We usually form beliefs first, and then go about looking for confirmation/justification/rationalization later.

But it's untrue to say that we don't derive consolation from this process. Isn't there consolation in learning that you're not alone? Even in the way you think?

The most memorable experiences I've had reading philosophers' work have usually had the sense of, "That's what I'm talking about!" Or, "That's what I was looking for!" So from my own personal experience, I can say you're on to something here (even before I read about the phenomenon in Michael Shermer's THE BELIEVING BRAIN ). I had already come up with ideas, and the gravitated toward those philosophers who expressed those ideas better/fuller than I. But there have also been times I've been stunned and amazed by a new idea, even when it's along the lines of a solution I was already sensing, on a path I was already following.

I've also had an actual conversion via the process of reading, namely, from agnosticism to atheism after reading Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION. Perhaps I was already walking that walk, and my talk merely contradicted it, but that was part of Dawkins' point: if you live like an atheist, you're an atheist. That allowed me to finally let go and accept what I was. I think that simultaneously backs up your point while also undermining it or superceding it. It does matter how we describe our "walk" with our "talk." That's part of becoming authentic. We're not merely walkers. Part of our "walking" *is* talk.

[Orlion]

I'd be very suprised if their is one of us here following this discussion, who has taken one shred of true consolation from anything he/she has read written by any philosopher old or new. I'd bet a pound to a penny that each and every one of us, if/where we have learned the tricks of surviving life's mercurial games, have done it of our own making, by our own self-discovery.

Philosophy teaches us to talk the talk - but not walk the walk.

It's actually not a bad point. We usually form beliefs first, and then go about looking for confirmation/justification/rationalization later.

But it's untrue to say that we don't derive consolation from this process. Isn't there consolation in learning that you're not alone? Even in the way you think?

The most memorable experiences I've had reading philosophers' work have usually had the sense of, "That's what I'm talking about!" Or, "That's what I was looking for!" So from my own personal experience, I can say you're on to something here (even before I read about the phenomenon in Michael Shermer's THE BELIEVING BRAIN ). I had already come up with ideas, and the gravitated toward those philosophers who expressed those ideas better/fuller than I. But there have also been times I've been stunned and amazed by a new idea, even when it's along the lines of a solution I was already sensing, on a path I was already following.

I've also had an actual conversion via the process of reading, namely, from agnosticism to atheism after reading Dawkins' THE GOD DELUSION. Perhaps I was already walking that walk, and my talk merely contradicted it, but that was part of Dawkins' point: if you live like an atheist, you're an atheist. That allowed me to finally let go and accept what I was. I think that simultaneously backs up your point while also undermining it or superceding it. It does matter how we describe our "walk" with our "talk." That's part of becoming authentic. We're not merely walkers. Part of our "walking" *is* talk.

Agreed. When you are experiencing something you don't quite know how to explain and no one else around you has the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing, can enunciate what is happening, and can even talk in depth on the subject!

It's like what Z said earlier, it helps us to be more authentic to ourselves.

[Vraith]

I'd be very suprised if their is one of us here following this discussion, who has taken one shred of true consolation from anything he/she has read written by any philosopher old or new. I'd bet a pound to a penny that each and every one of us, if/where we have learned the tricks of surviving life's mercurial games, have done it of our own making, by our own self-discovery.

Philosophy teaches us to talk the talk - but not walk the walk.

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk
I'm a

Spoiler

woman's man

: Philosophy man no time to talk

There is a dynamic interaction.
But you underestimate the motive/active/effective power of talk.
When we had less words, we had more death, disease, cruelty, and suffering...probably more of every "bad" thing you can think of.
There's a meme around that "Humans haven't discovered a new moral truth in thousands of years." That is junk for many reasons---but even if one assumes it is true, who cares? Because we have definitely become more moral in action [as a mass]---and talk/ideas/words is why.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Agreed. When you are experiencing something you don't quite know how to explain and no one else around you has the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing, can enunciate what is happening, and can even talk in depth on the subject!

It's like what Z said earlier, it helps us to be more authentic to ourselves.

Meh. I don't need external validation from someone else. I am already authentic to myself.

I beg to differ.

Most of those people are gong down rabbit holes. Mathematics describes reality and mathematics is real but mathematics is not reality itself.

If the advances made in philosophy during that last three or four millennia have all the answers then why are there still so many questions? If no one can have any new thoughts then no one can come up with new questions, either. By this line of reasoning all the questions should already have been answered and yet if we look out our windows we see that this is not the case. What explains this disconnect? Is it that people don't even know they have questions? Could it be that most people don't care about the answers to the big questions?

Apparently I am in "reject everything" mode on this thread. I started out merely questioning why people value philosophers so highly (the answer to that question being "people would rather cheat off someone else's test paper than come up with the answers on their own") and it seems to have taken on a life of its own.

[Orlion]

Agreed. When you are experiencing something you don't quite know how to explain and no one else around you has the slightest idea of what you are talking about, it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing, can enunciate what is happening, and can even talk in depth on the subject!

It's like what Z said earlier, it helps us to be more authentic to ourselves.

Meh. I don't need external validation from someone else. I am already authentic to myself.

I beg to differ.

Most of those people are gong down rabbit holes. Mathematics describes reality and mathematics is real but mathematics is not reality itself.

If the advances made in philosophy during that last three or four millennia have all the answers then why are there still so many questions? If no one can have any new thoughts then no one can come up with new questions, either. By this line of reasoning all the questions should already have been answered and yet if we look out our windows we see that this is not the case. What explains this disconnect? Is it that people don't even know they have questions? Could it be that most people don't care about the answers to the big questions?

Apparently I am in "reject everything" mode on this thread. I started out merely questioning why people value philosophers so highly (the answer to that question being "people would rather cheat off someone else's test paper than come up with the answers on their own") and it seems to have taken on a life of its own.

You seem to be in a floundering mode in this thread. I said nothing about "external validation" yet you somehow gravitated towards that. (I'd try to re-phrase myself, but I don't know what off-topic thing you'll get from THAT).

I used mathematics as an example of how stupid it would be to re-invent the wheel instead of building on what's all ready there, and you respond with, "This isn't about math." It's almost like you're being obtuse on purpose.

Not to mention, you seem to be taking the ridiculous position that if philosophy does not solve everything, then it is pointless. That's like saying medical science is worthless because it does not cure everything.

Don't study philosophy? Fine. It shows.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Don't study philosophy? Fine. It shows.

No, actually I have. I merely found it vapid and devoid of meaning or worth. I should probably take that as a hint to vacate the thread and never venture into any thread about philosophy ever again.

Z is an atheist. Is there a word for someone who doesn't believe in philosophy?

I mentioned external validation based on the phrase "it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing". I am not interested in what someone else thinks or thought when they experienced something I experience. Why would anyone care about that?

[Fist and Faith]

I think some people value baseball players very highly. Other people value musicians very highly. Others value philosophers very highly. This thread will never exist on many sites.

Personally, as must be clear from my Northern Exposure comment, they don't concern me much. I couldn't tell you which philosophers belong to which schools of philosophy, which invented which schools, which had which thoughts.

[Orlion]

I should probably take that as a hint to vacate the thread and never venture into any thread about philosophy ever again.

Don't be too hard on yourself, we all have flaws

[Fist and Faith]

Oh! Remember the NX episode when Ed fought the demon External Validation for that babe who couldn't walk and did wheelchair races? Excellent stuff!

[Zarathustra]

Is there a word for someone who doesn't believe in philosophy?

Robert Anton Wilson used the phrase, "model agnosticism." He was talking about skepticism and questioning authority (and most "real" philosophers wouldn't consider him an authority on anything ... except taking drugs), but perhaps it's the word you're looking for. You're skeptical of other people's models. Fine. There's a place for that in philosophy! Just don't get stuck in the trap of "anti-." That can be its own model.

I mentioned external validation based on the phrase "it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing". I am not interested in what someone else thinks or thought when they experienced something I experience. Why would anyone care about that?

And yet you did mention reading Russell to have a well rounded education in math. If you recognize the value of that, why not the value of being even more well rounded in philosophy? Granted, we can't study everything. Time constraints is one of the best arguments against becoming a student of philosophy. "I don't care" is a valid argument, too. I won't slight you for that. I had a philosophy professor who complained that reading philosophy "hurt my head." He admitted it wasn't always fun.

There are many reasons to care about someone else feeling/caring about the same things you like.

Isn't that why we're all here?

[Avatar]

Haha, I think of Wilson as a philosopher. Of sorts anyway.

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I mentioned external validation based on the phrase "it's great to stumble upon someone who had experienced what you are experiencing". I am not interested in what someone else thinks or thought when they experienced something I experience. Why would anyone care about that?

Prolly cuz not everyone is a philosophical Individualist.

Just sayin'.

[Vraith]

Could it be that most people don't care about the answers to the big questions?


and it seems to have taken on a life of its own.

The first is probably partly that, and partly that most peeps think they already HAVE all the answers to the big questions. And THOSE are the millenia old answers...or that failure to find the one big, true answer means the pursuit/field is worthless...or they don't LIKE the answers that philosophy has found [like there probably IS no one big, true answer to philosophical questions---what there are is meaningful ways to examine how we are/be/become in the arena of is...there are better, deeper dances we can do, and greater arenas to build.]

Philosophy is one field where they're still asking/searching/making and moving forward.

But you don't have to care. It doesn't have to have any meaning/purpose/use for you. [[though I promise there are field effects that impact how you've come to be]].
Plenty of things [maybe most things] have little or no use for many people directly/individually...while still being of great importance to people as a whole.

But it is good that it has taken on a life of its own. People should be proud of the monsters they make. [[well, at least sometimes]].

[Fist and Faith]

A lot of people are lovers of classical music. They listen to it while doing their homework. Other lovers of classical music sit still, lights out, and do nothing but immerse themselves in the music. Other lovers of classical music do a harmonic analysis of a piece, and follow along with the score when they listen.

Who's the greater, or truer, or purer lover of classical music?

[peter]

When it comes to say, the existence or otherwise of God, does my opinion, though I have not studied religious philosophy, carry as much weight as the Pope's [who has probably attended a theological college, gained a degree in Philosophy and spent innumerable hours in deep discussion contending the various 'proofs' and arguments pertaining to the question].

If it does, then all that learning and discussion signifies nothing; if it doesn't then why not? Is it because such a metaphysical question, while by it's nature having no final answer, yet still has 'degrees' of elucidation, layers of understanding that can be peeled back at least approaching the central core of the matter - and thus the 'talk' does give the talkers a head start on approaching an understanding of the answer.

[Love is not measurable on a scale.]

[ussusimiel]

I'd say that all the thinking etc. only counts when two people start with the same premises. Since premises are totally based in belief, they are by their very nature irrational. And so cannot be touched by rational argument no matter how weighty or authoritative the source.

That said the very process of intensive investigation, meditation and disciplined interrogation of any subject deepens, develops and enriches the person who engages in it.

Personally, I prefer to engage with someone who disagrees totally with me and does so from a well thought-out perspective, rather than with someone who agrees with me, but has never put any time or effort into testing and challenging their beliefs.

u.

[Vraith]

When it comes to say, the existence or otherwise of God, does my opinion, though I have not studied religious philosophy, carry as much weight as the Pope's

That depends.
But I don't think the existence of God is a matter of philosophy.
And even if it did---there have been a lot of well-educated Popes, but most have been what Hashi doesn't like...adherents of dead argumentation/authors, on the particular issue of existence. [or of the bent that demands no arguments, just faith].
The philosophical matters [most of them] what are we, how should we act, given the existence [or non] of God.
I mean...even if God exists, and s/he/it is the exact Catholic God, 99.9999999% of philosophical questions remain unanswered. [[[and some of them are forbidden questions---sometimes death-punishable ones, though not so much anymore]]]
Heh...the existence of God is a rounding error in the realm of philosophy.
Don't believe me? Look at your own thread on free will.

[Avatar]

I'd say that all the thinking etc. only counts when two people start with the same premises.

A shared premise is not as important as shared definitions. We need to know exactly what a person means with each word if we are to have any hope of reaching a shared understanding.

--A