More than everybody here, added together.
Would you mind “explaining” that, if possible?
Yes
There is a hole at the core of existence, a void, which represents the darkness of the whole universe, like a black hole. This void is obvious and palpable. And if you ever had the grave, unfortunate opportunity to meet me, then you would soon feel dizzy, nauseous, and faint with fear. Because this darkness sometimes slips out of me and into others, corrupting and consuming them, sucking them into a nightmare of infintie doubt. This deepest doubt represents the greatest possible, imaginable unknowable. And I find my home in this great unknowable universe, in the darkest locations where nobody would ever think to search.
This void represents my complete, utter, absolute lack of knowledge. And so I seek knowledge, true and pure. True and pure knowledge, is wisdom. So I know that I know nothing at all, and this makes me the wisest man. People claim to know things, but, I see through all their errors, false beliefs, and contradictions. For example, arcturus descending claims that she “knows that she is alive”. It’s observed readily by my extremely acute hypersensitivity. I see the holes in people that they don’t care for. People speak lies and errors, not even caring if it’s true or not.
Some call this, philosophy, a curse. Others call it a blessing. I suppose that just depends on how you use doubt, and attempt to search for knowledge and wisdom. Yet the more I search for knowledge and wisdom in others, in what you humans call your “humanity”, the more empty I seem to become. It chips away at what little I have left, to go searching in places that yield no end result, no rewards. It’s like asking a dog, a squirrel, a pig, their opinions on life. As if they could speak. As if they represented any form of “higher” intelligence or animal superiority, upon the hierarchy of life.
Therefore I must conclude there is a hierarchy, and wisdom is at the top of life. Do I have knowledge? No, and the more I seek it in others, the less I have. So sometimes I lose faith, and give up the search, for fear of future disappoints that will wear me closer to absolute nothingness. And I will have no soul left, and become so empty that I may see all the light of the universe at once.
Because it is within the deepest darkness that all light becomes readily apparent, and all knowledge reveals itself to you.
Maybe you are missing the truths of personal and social human experience. Maybe not all truth is literal. Maybe truth isn’t always the highest good. Maybe there is truth that transcends the factual.
Of course I’m aware there are other values than truth in life, either complimentary or contrary to truth.
The word “philosophy” means “love to wisdom”. So “I love philosophy” means “I love love to wisdom”. To love a kind of love (in this case: the love to wisdom) is exaggerated, isn’t it? Do you love exaggeration or hyperbolism?
It is possible to love the love, for example the love to wisdom. But my main question is not whether it is possible, but wether it is good, whether it is really worth living for. Perhaps it would be better or would be worth living for to hate philosophy, to fight philosophy, to be the antagonist of philosophy in order to overcome philosophy by philosophising. To work on at the philosophy in order to overcome it would be good, would be worth living for, wouldn’t it? But I think, not “love” and “hate”, but “like” and “dislike” are the most adequate words for describing the relationship between humans and philosophy.
Arcturus Descending, are you alive? And if you think that you are: do you also know that you are alive? I can’t believe it! 
Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive! 
If I had to distribute the current 31 ILP smilies on the 80% philosophy “lovers”/“haters” and the 20% philosophy “likers”/“dislikers”, I would do as follows:
- Philosophy “lovers”/“haters” (80%):
=D> 
[-o< 
:-" 
:-& 
- Philosophy “likers”/“dislikers” (20%):
- Both:
According to this distribution the philosophy “lovers”/“haters” (80%) are much more emotional than the philosophy “likers”/“dislikers” (20%).
Except that this distribution is supposed to represent also an exhilaration, one can take it somehow seriously and say that it is somehow true.
Is that suppose to be Rodin’s (?) Thinker? That doesn’t seem compelling enough.
One can grow and thrive on what philosophy brings to them. I suppose we can use the word “enamored”. For me, it’s seeking the truth, no matter where I find it or how it makes me feel. I think I actually enjoy and am turned on more by science than philosophy.
OH GREAT BLASPHEMER - GET AWAY FROM HERE. LOL
No - as I already told you.
This thread is not about art, but about philosophy; and this thread is also not about aesthetics, but about one’s emotional relationship to philosophy.
I can’t believe what you are saying.
Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism.
Immanuel Kant for example. This German philosopher is one of the most eminent and famous philosophers.
Please tell me what do you think (a) about Kant’s philosophy, (b) about the question whether Kant loved philosophy or not, and (c) about the question whether you love philosophy or not, if you think about Kant and his philosophy.
Or think of other philosophers and tell me what you think (a) about their philosophy, (b) about the question whether they loved or love philosophy or not, (c) about the question whether you love philosophy or not, if you think about their philosophy.
Arminius
Sorry, I must have missed that.
Well, philosophy could also be about art ---------------------- and aesthetics.
The title could also be about how we perceive things and lie to ourselves. Do you REALLY love philosophy or do you pretend - to yourself or others. And what is the underlying reason we think and believe we love philosophy.
Arcturus Descending"
I don’t want to assume so do you mean this statement? You can’t believe what I’m saying here? If so, why?
I don’t know what the distinction would be between being in love with something and enamored by it? So, I used the word enamored to explain an experience with something that is not alive since we cannot actually form a “real” relationship with it. We can be “in love” on the other hand with someone. On the other hand, I am beyond enamored with the stars but one can say that they are alive - at least to me they are. But then again, perhaps everything is “alive”. We need to contemplate those swirling atoms. They abound. Maybe my thinking is faulty here.
!
To Whom are you speaking?lol
Ah, yes, perhaps we are not. Perhaps we are all dreaming, within the same dream but each his own individual one. But who gave us the dream and if so and if we are dreaming within a dream, are we not in some sense, alive? lol Sometimes my dream state seems to be more real than my awoken(?) state. lol
My night I dreamed that interrerrestrial and myself were arguing about what is real. He kept trying to tell me that I was not alive and that he was not alive. I pinched him and he howled and then I said to him: haha, I rest my case. He ran after me and I shouted to him: Are you just chasing a dream? Even so, then you’re alive.
[/quote]
If you know how to diagram within your brain, you do. And always remember to use verbs…they bring everything together.
Again:
This thread is not about art or aesthetics. I like art and aesthetics too, but that has not much to do with this thread.
Please look for a different thread, if you want to talk about art and aesthetics.
Could be, but is not.
Again and again:
The title is:
I would have thought that since art and aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, it would have something to do with this thread. For instance, it might be what turned someone onto philosophy in the first place. We can find truth, at least subjective truth within art and beauty. Wouldn’t that be part of the reason someone becomes interested in philosophy and continues on with it?
I’m rather surprised that you would say that - since the love of and the search for truth and wisdom would include such statement as that which I made.
So to you, this thread is about nothing more than loving philosophy or simply liking it? How philosophical that is. lol
L
That’s a prime example of how communication gets shut down because someone is emphatic in not allowing thought and perception to go any further than what he needs it to go or what his perception is.
et’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,
Along the lines of your thinking, you might simply have asked Do you really love tomatoes. Your focus is more on love and like than anything else.
About “lol”: “[size=150]l[/size]oving [size=200]o[/size]r [size=150]l[/size]iking”? Then it would be YOUR thread, YOUR eternal “lol”.
Okay, that is what you want. I see. You want all threads to be YOUR threads.
Again: This thread is about that what the title, the topic of this thread declares.
Your “example of how communication gets shut down” is nonsense because all threads of all webforums make the same sense. The fact that threads have titles, topics, is very much meaningful, reasonable, and useful. Why can’t you accept titles, topics of threads? It’s just stupid.
If one doesn’t like a thread, one can even “leave” it and look for another thread. Why do you glue so much to this thread? Do you love or merely like derailing?
And if I asked you “do you really love tomatoes”, then you would also respond, probably for years and with absurd words and signs like “lol”. How many lols have you posted on ILP? Billions? Trillions?
You are not alive, Arcturus Descending, you are lol.
My point was that your main focus was on liking or loving it. But you are correct, It is Your thread. Let if possess you, if you will.
Gee, I hesitate to even put in that despicable smilie here but I will anyway. LOL
No, I do not want all threads to be mine. Most I couldn’t actually handle truth be told. i suppose though that what I would “like” is to be able to put in my own 2cents about a particular thread, my own perception of it. I certainly didn’t mean to step on your toes in here.
You’ve already established this.
.
I know that I am not the brightest light bulb in this place but - but I do not find the above to be true - they do not all make the same sense, common sense or otherwise.
I have no problem accepting the above. I don’t think it was even a problem which I had until you just made it one. I was simply observing that the thread didn’t go any further than liking or loving philosophy. But I suppose that all you were and are looking for is confirmation as to whether or not someone likes or loves philosophy.
I don’t glue so much to this thread although I do have a certain amount of sticktoitiveness in my character. I was just trying to understand where it was going tis all. So where is it going?
Ah geez, I just can’t help myself. [size=200]LOL[/size]I wouldn’t even begin to know or to care to know.
Maybe you might want to try and do better than that? That’s not even logical.
If I’m laughing out loud, wouldn’t that be proof not only of my existence but that I might indeed be very much “alive” in a joyful wondrous sense?
You might not begin to answer this, but perhaps my dealings with you in this thread point to my answer to the thread’s quesition. But take the time to really think. The answer might not be so obvious to you.
Philosophy is supposed to be about Wisdom. But wisdom has two faces;
- Truth
- Behavior
When pursuing the truth aspect; logic, language construct, ontology, epistemology, and so forth are all relevant.
But when pursuing the behavior aspect; attitudes, poetry, fantasy, and imagination take the forefront.
So in answering a question such as “Do you love philosophy”, one has to consider which aspect of philosophy. Some love the reasoning aspect. Some love the poetic aspect.
What I find interesting is that very few even consider the Wisdom aspect. That is the part they never get to resolving because they are so focused on its components. It is like loving biology or science but never worrying about what comes of so much narrow focus on it. The forest is lost for the love of studying trees.
Philosophy in it’s broadest sense, is systematic search for the ultimate reality. It does not and cannot be subject to the objection that there are no absolutes, since any expression entailing that falls victim to particular definitions of the absolute. Such objection regarding the invalidity of that notion, de-objectifies the implied meaning with a suggestive demand to specific definitional use. Such objection will invalidate the axiomatic use of language.
In simpler terms, just because we cannot define absolute reality is no conclusive negation of such a concept. =Which is founded on the notion that all concepts which have historical staying power are useful, and it usage which is founded on the need for such.
An interesting example is, 'if god did not exist, he would need to be invented). Therefore, he exists by virtue of that invention. -And again, 'all invented things have a useful application, therefore they acquire existenze., or a way of being in the world.
Nevertheless: at last there is an answer to the question. But if the one who should answer the question changes the question, then consequently no satisfactory understanding is possible anymore, although an answer is given (whichever).
Arminius,
Philosophy is like life, Arminius. It’s an ongoing process of thought - questions, answers, discoveries, transformation, ad continuum.
Where is the rule which says that the one who SHOULD(?) answer the question, has to answer that particular question?
Should is kind of absolute isn’t it? Philosophy is not the same as organized religion.
Sometimes it is another question, or an evolved one, which adds more to the discussion.