Real philosophers VS message board philosophers

[d63]

Now imagine mixing that with drugs that do actually have physical side-effects, but also have creative ones, and you get a sense of where I'm at. For me, Lizbeth, it's kind of shamanic and ecstatic. I apologize for any way in which you have been caught up in the chaos of it. It's always been a friendly, affectionate, and humorous poke.

I do understand that, d63. I've just choose not to participate. Guess I'll always be a Message Board philosopher. I'm happy with that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm too old to do it like I did back in the 70's thru the 90's. Then, I thought it an essential tool and used to think that by all rights coffee, beer, and cigarettes should be sold in the art supply stores. The rest I could get from "friends". Now it's mainly just beer and Jager, which is usually enough when you add the creative act with it. And even with that, I try to keep it down to a nice glow.

Unfortunately, just a glow, the creative act, and the mental fatigue of working third shift for the last 8 years is too often enough to put me in the squirrel house.

But, yeah, there's nothing wrong with with taking a sober approach. I can testify to the disadvantage of doing otherwise. At least you don't spend a lot of time worrying about what you posted or how you said it, or getting that start every time you find on your e-mail that there's a message on here and wondering "did I do something to get myself kicked off".

[Ierrellus]

Philosophy begins with "Know Thyself". As it began in the West, historically, it begins in individuals with the same message. Philosophy is a practice. Like the practice of medicine it begins with tyos and ends with professionals. One thing I like in this forum is its democracy in which, most times, the tyro is able to speak.
Without the "Know thyself", philosophy becomes a chess game, a word game, a dismal competition among fragile egos, a self-substantiation that denies compromise. On sites such as these there is room not only to cultivate one's garden, but to also weed it.

[Typist]

Ierrellus. your last post is quite interesting.

Keep going please....

[d63]

Philosophy begins with "Know Thyself". As it began in the West, historically, it begins in individuals with the same message. Philosophy is a practice. Like the practice of medicine it begins with tyos and ends with professionals. One thing I like in this forum is its democracy in which, most times, the tyro is able to speak.
Without the "Know thyself", philosophy becomes a chess game, a word game, a dismal competition among fragile egos, a self-substantiation that denies compromise. On sites such as these there is room not only to cultivate one's garden, but to also weed it.

Yes, it is an opportunity to form something like a school -which is what most great thinkers came out of. If you look throughout our cultural history, very few, who have achieved anything worth doing, did so in a vacuum. Sartre had Beauvoir and Merleu Ponty around -not to mention Heidegger and Husserl. Derrida had Layotard, Foucault, and Deleuze. And the same holds true for other art forms.

However, this doesn't work when you have one among you who wants to be top guru, or a teacher without a classroom. Now this doesn't mean we have to become BFFs. It just means that we have to recognize that we are working toward a common goal: excellence.

Once again, it has to be like a jam among musicians in order for it to do us any good.

At the same time, you have to admit that it is a bit of a language game. It's why we debate about things for which we cannot possibly find a final answer. We do it purely for the possibility that we might come up with something that, at the very least, is impressive. '

[Moreno]

Real philosophers look around them and ponder on what they see.

Message board philosophers insist, "(Insert famous philosopher's name here) said 'da da da.'"

Answered with, "Yes, but didn't (insert different famous philosopher's name here) say, 'dum de dum dum?' "

This may or may not apply to what is being asserted above.

This site is called ILOVEPHILOSOPHY
not, for example,
The Philosophers' Club or the like.

So presumably by participating one is not asserting one is a philosopher. Though

1.
a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.

is a criterion met by most people here. I see lots of offering views going on. Which qualifies them, at least according to the dictionary, or being real philosophers. Few likely meet definition 2, so I will leave it out.

[d63]

Let us take a great philosopher like Kant. There are two modes to repeat him. Either one sticks to his letter and further elaborates or changes his system, as neo-Kantians (up to Habermas and Luc Ferry) are doing, or one tries to regain the creative impulse that Kant himself betrayed in the actualization of his system (i.e., to connect to what was already “in Kant more than Kant himself,” more than his explicit system, its excessive core). There are, accordingly, two modes of betraying the past. The true betrayal is an ethicotheoretical act of the highest fidelity: one has to betray the letter of Kant to remain faithful to (and repeat) the “spirit” of his thought. It is precisely when one remains faithful to the letter of Kant that one really betrays the core of his thought, the creative impulse underlying it. One should bring this paradox to its conclusion. It is not only that one can remain really faithful to an author by way of betraying him (the actual letter of his thought); at a more radical level, the inverse statement holds even more, namely, one can only truly betray an author by way of repeating him, by way of remaining faithful to the core of his thought. If one does not repeat an author (in the authentic Kierkegaardian sense of the term), but merely “criticizes” him, moves elsewhere, turns him around, and so forth, this effectively means that one unknowingly remains within his horizon, his conceptual field.

untab

Zizek, Slavoj (2012-05-04). Organs without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences (Routledge Classics) (Kindle Locations 624-629). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Now this goes to my point that it is primarily a matter of engaging in a discourse with a famous thinker. This is because, regardless of what you do, it is always your own journey. One could, for instance, know Sartre word for word. But the philosophy of it, however, comes down to how you have assimilated it and applied it to your own experience. This comes from the horizontal relationship, the back and forth, between the personal/anecdotal and the academic god’s eye view. It comes from thinking of it as little more than a shift in perspective.

That said, the real fault lies in simply flashing your reading list on your sleeve -whether out of praise or mere dismissal. This only reveals that you have naively embraced the vertical relationship between the personal/anecdotal, the social, and the academic/god’s eye view. In other words, you have come into it seeking status (a higher point on the corporate ladder) rather than any kind of actual understanding.

It has to be what Deleuz calls Engagement.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I think people who complain about quoting other philosophers are suffering philosophical knowledge envy.

[d63]

I think people who complain about quoting other philosophers are suffering philosophical knowledge envy.

Plus that, it makes no sense. Any philosophical text you read is generally a critique on what other philosophers have said on a given subject.


It's a discourse.

I get it to the extent that philosophy is rooted in what we do naturally: think. But philosophy, as a cultural phenomenon, develops on what the hard core thinkers before have come to. You always have to stand on the shoulders of those who have made the climb to climb higher.

[d63]

At the same time, we have to admit that there is a kind appeal to authority element to it. We quote other philosophers, as "experts", to back our own assertions. But this is only because the kind of issues philosophers deal with cannot be backed in the same way that scientific assertions can. Ultimately, it's all we have. We can point to the data, or collection of facts, we have. But data is always as interesting for what it leaves out as what it includes. So why shouldn't we turn to the more developed data of greater philosophers? Plus that, philosophers are artists as much as they are scientists. Seduction and resonance plays at much a part in it as the facts. So why would we develop any differently than artists would? And don't artists usually refer to those that came before them?

[lizbethrose]

I think people who complain about quoting other philosophers are suffering philosophical knowledge envy.

Plus that, it makes no sense. Any philosophical text you read is generally a critique on what other philosophers have said on a given subject.


It's a discourse.

I get it to the extent that philosophy is rooted in what we do naturally: think. But philosophy, as a cultural phenomenon, develops on what the hard core thinkers before have come to. You always have to stand on the shoulders of those who have made the climb to climb higher.

What happens, d63, when you post a thought that isn't backed by quotes from an established, published philosopher of either the past or the present? Do responders respond to your thoughts or do they simply not respond. And if you do cite published philosophers, do responders not respond to how they think you've interpreted the original? Where, then, is there discourse (conversation?)

[d63]

I think people who complain about quoting other philosophers are suffering philosophical knowledge envy.

Plus that, it makes no sense. Any philosophical text you read is generally a critique on what other philosophers have said on a given subject.


It's a discourse.

I get it to the extent that philosophy is rooted in what we do naturally: think. But philosophy, as a cultural phenomenon, develops on what the hard core thinkers before have come to. You always have to stand on the shoulders of those who have made the climb to climb higher.

What happens, d63, when you post a thought that isn't backed by quotes from an established, published philosopher of either the past or the present? Do responders respond to your thoughts or do they simply not respond. And if you do cite published philosophers, do responders not respond to how they think you've interpreted the original? Where, then, is there discourse (conversation?)

My girl.

Never thought that forward tilt would be directed towards me.

Then you do it with poetry. You do it in such a way that they move beyond with you.

It's still part of the discourse.

[d63]

Anyway, lizbeth:



love ya, man!


Gotta go.....

[Bodhimalik]

Philosophy begins with "Know Thyself".

This is kinda what I meant when I started this thread before I looked in the dictionary under "philosophy."

We are all, everyone, all the time, immersed in thought. We swim in it. You would think then, that thought would be something we would look into as very important to our survival. But this doesn't happen. Like a fish having fins, or a cheetah having a body that runs at high speeds, humans think..

I have run into innumerable people - like maybe 90% of people, that don't even know what a thought looks like. I have even run into a few that say they have no thoughts. And a few that say they DO look at their thoughts. But a short conversation always reveals that they don't.

None of these people I have listed here have any interest at all in what their thoughts reveal about themselves. They have absolutely no interest in their thoughts at all. It's like a fish having no interest in the water in which it lives and which makes their life. Water is so much a part of a fish's life that they give it no thought. it's just "there."

Same with us. Thoughts are so much a part of our lives that we pay no attention to them. They are just always "there.'

How on earth can anyone "know thyself" if they do not know their thoughts? The one thing that sets us most apart from all other animals is unknown to us.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the difference in philosophers - before I knew the definition. One quotes without having any idea as to the meaning of the quote. One uses another's words instead of thinking. Easier that way. Actually, that's not fair, what I said there.

What really has happened is that very few of us have been taught to think. Instead we have been taught to memorize. "When did Columbus discover America? "What's two times two?"

Before one can think, one has to have facts. Unfortunately, most of us get our facts from parents, teachers, experts, who got these facts they give to us from THEIR parents, teachers, experts.

We were never asked to check these facts. We were told to accept them.

By never learning how to check for facts, all cultures are left with mistaken myths about who they are, and what the world around them is telling them.

Oh woe.[/quote]

[Bodhimalik]

Philosophy begins with "Know Thyself".

This is kinda what I meant when I started this thread before I looked in the dictionary under "philosophy."

We are all, everyone, all the time, immersed in thought. We swim in it. You would think then, that thought would be something we would look into as very important to our survival. But this doesn't happen. Like a fish having fins, or a cheetah having a body that runs at high speeds, humans think..

I have run into innumerable people - like maybe 90% of people, that don't even know what a thought looks like. I have even run into a few that say they have no thoughts. And a few that say they DO look at their thoughts. But a short conversation always reveals that they don't.

None of these people I have listed here have any interest at all in what their thoughts reveal about themselves. They have absolutely no interest in their thoughts at all. It's like a fish having no interest in the water in which it lives and which makes their life. Water is so much a part of a fish's life that they give it no thought. it's just "there."

Same with us. Thoughts are so much a part of our lives that we pay no attention to them. They are just always "there.'

How on earth can anyone "know thyself" if they do not know their thoughts? The one thing that sets us most apart from all other animals is unknown to us.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the difference in philosophers - before I knew the definition. One quotes without having any idea as to the meaning of the quote. One uses another's words instead of thinking. Easier that way. Actually, that's not fair, what I said there.

What really has happened is that very few of us have been taught to think. Instead we have been taught to memorize. "When did Columbus discover America? "What's two times two?"

Before one can think, one has to have facts. Unfortunately, most of us get our facts from parents, teachers, experts, who got these facts they give to us from THEIR parents, teachers, experts.

We were never asked to check these facts. We were told to accept them.

By never learning how to check for facts, all cultures are left with mistaken myths about who they are, and what the world around them is telling them.

Oh woe.

[/quote]

[dan25]

The Philosopher is not the one who asks the questions for which there are no reasonable answers, but the one who gives answers for which there are no reasonable questions.

The Philosopher is not the one who quotes the authors who answered a few questions, but the one who authors the answers for the remaining questions.

No messing....
this guys a ''real philosopher''..... so he knows what hes talking about.............................................

[d63]

It's more likely the opposite. Professionals are obsessive about references, footnotes, building on the work of others, responding to others, reacting to others. I have read many, many articles, by pros, that treat nothing but the thinking of others, past or present. In fact, that is mostly what journal articles are.

Here in MB Land, we have many who seem never to have read a single word written by a professional philosopher.

I think, Faust, this is what marks the difference between doing philosophy and having one. At the same time, I think doing philosophy has to start with having one in the first place.

And you're right, philosophy does seem to be a process of building on the work of others. This is part of normal discourse which has an important role to play in that it fills in the gaps left by the latest paradigm which is the result of abnormal discourse. But abnormal, or revolutionary, discourse can only come about by working its way through normal discourse until it finds a shortcoming in the over-riding paradigm.

I kind of got sense of this back when I was an artist. I went to a local invitational and was impressed and intimidated by what I saw. But what I soon realized was that what made it seem so impressive was that everyone seemed to know what everyone else was doing. And this, I'm sure, was a result of the art journals of the time. And I think this is what one might see in the philosophy journals as well. Now I should first admit that the only philosophy journals I've been exposed to have been the online ones and Philosophy Now. And what I've noticed is how they feel like science papers as much as philosophical ones. Plus that, especially in the case of Philosophy Now, they seem to use a strait forward Strunk and White style which suggests to me that philosophy has abandoned its old continental lean towards literature. This is the part that concerns me.

However, where the continental does seem to be getting a lot of press is in the bookstore philosophy section where you get things like the For Beginners and Introducing graphic guides and the philosophy and some aspect of pop culture series. And this seems right to me in that it allows the analytic to work in the ivory tower of academia while the continental influences those who can best use it: artists: those who can be like Sisyphus bringing the fire down to the common man where it belongs.

But I really do need to read more philosophical journals since, perhaps against my will, the poetry of understanding is what I seem drawn to. It was never an issue back when I was a musician; I always heard the latest and greatest on the radio. Nor was it when I was a poet or a writer, I always got the latest and greatest from the lit mags. So I see no reason I shouldn't explore the philosophy mags a little further.

My only concern is that it feels sometimes, in all aspects of our culture, that we've fallen under the spell of Baudrillard's statement that there is nothing new under the sun, that all we can do is play with the fragments of history. I think because of this our culture has fallen into a kind of Schopenhauerian Ennui. We've gotten lazy out of fear of what it will take to make the next step. We've gotten a little too comfortable with normal discourse. It's where the money is. Therefore, we settle.

And in order to do anything more, we have to aim for something a little higher than success.

[d63]

And this world needs abnormal discourse(



think about your struggle







(bigtime.

[philosophy_1]

I reiterate: Philosophers ponder on what they see of existence. Some of them write about what they see, these become famous. Then they begin to be quoted. Those who want to be philosophers but don't enjoy thinking, then have to read what the philosophers wrote, thinking that by repeating what they read to others makes them philosophers. it does not.

I don't see why anyone would want to be a philosopher but not Enjoy thinking. Reading the work of others must constitute thinking in my opinion.

I think reading the work of others helps to structure philosophical thought, because it allows the reader to "fast track" a thought process if you like. Thinking for yourself is an important philosophical trait, but that in no way diminishes the importance of reading the work of others.

Philosophy, like science, is a social pursuit that progresses by human interaction and building on what has gone previously, historically speaking. I think some form of progressive philosophy, if you like, is dependent on the reading and analysis of the work of others before attempts are made at saying something new and original.

[d63]

I reiterate: Philosophers ponder on what they see of existence. Some of them write about what they see, these become famous. Then they begin to be quoted. Those who want to be philosophers but don't enjoy thinking, then have to read what the philosophers wrote, thinking that by repeating what they read to others makes them philosophers. it does not.

I don't see why anyone would want to be a philosopher but not Enjoy thinking. Reading the work of others must constitute thinking in my opinion.

I think reading the work of others helps to structure philosophical thought, because it allows the reader to "fast track" a thought process if you like. Thinking for yourself is an important philosophical trait, but that in no way diminishes the importance of reading the work of others.

Philosophy, like science, is a social pursuit that progresses by human interaction and building on what has gone previously, historically speaking. I think some form of progressive philosophy, if you like, is dependent on the reading and analysis of the work of others before attempts are made at saying something new and original.

Well, yeah, if we didn't do so we'd always be starting from scratch. It would be hard to imagine making any progress otherwise.

At the same time, you have to lend some credibility to Rorty's and Kuhn's assertion that the history of thought hasn't been so much a matter of progress as an ongoing shift in paradigms. The problem is that every movement has always been discredited (to some extent or other) by the latest and greatest. This is especially true with philosophy. It may be that it only seems to progress because it better suits our contemporary sensibility.

But to lend some support to your assertion, philosophy, one of things I've noticed about writing about philosophy is that back when I did things like write poetry or fiction, it was always a choice between focusing on reading or writing: input or output. But with philosophy it seems to be more a matter of bouncing off of what you are reading at any given time. Even though it all is about engaging in a general discourse, writing about philosophy requires engaging in the discourse in a strict sense.

[Bodhimalik]

Real philosophers look around them and ponder on what they see.

Message board philosophers insist, "(Insert famous philosopher's name here) said 'da da da.'"

Answered with, "Yes, but didn't (insert different famous philosopher's name here) say, 'dum de dum dum?' "

Then a real philosopher might be able to look around this board and find a surprising number of people basing reasoned arguments on direct observations of the world.

And I'll bet you would only find one or two that knows the physical world is an illusion, not real, even though the evidence for this was first given to us in high school and continues to be shown to us in several different ways every day by direct observation.

How can any observation of an illusion lead to any reasoned argument when the reasoning person is not aware of that "first" fact?

[Drusus]

There are no real difference, it comes down to critical thinking and knowledge, formal philosophical education doesn't nessesarily lead to better results.

Witnessed a professionel philospher who postulated commercials doesn't affect anyone, he got fired shortly after his speech.
Also been chatting alot with many formal educated philospohers, they usually doesn't have the slightest clue about the real world, but endulge themselves in totally irrelevant nonsens, usually because they'r sheeps who can't filter out intelligent teachings from unintelligent oudated nonsens.

[James S Saint]

And I'll bet you would only find one or two that knows the physical world is an illusion, not real, even though the evidence for this was first given to us in high school and continues to be shown to us in several different ways every day by direct observation.

How can any observation of an illusion lead to any reasoned argument when the reasoning person is not aware of that "first" fact?

Haha..

Emm...

Haha..

Well, I guess it was said on the right thread.

[Drusus]

Philosophy begins with "Know Thyself". As it began in the West, historically, it begins in individuals with the same message. Philosophy is a practice. Like the practice of medicine it begins with tyos and ends with professionals. One thing I like in this forum is its democracy in which, most times, the tyro is able to speak.
Without the "Know thyself", philosophy becomes a chess game, a word game, a dismal competition among fragile egos, a self-substantiation that denies compromise. On sites such as these there is room not only to cultivate one's garden, but to also weed it.

This is indeed very talkative cozy chat that unfortunaly has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Or am i missing something?

[d63]

And I'll bet you would only find one or two that knows the physical world is an illusion, not real, even though the evidence for this was first given to us in high school and continues to be shown to us in several different ways every day by direct observation.

How can any observation of an illusion lead to any reasoned argument when the reasoning person is not aware of that "first" fact?

Haha..

Emm...

Haha..

Well, I guess it was said on the right thread.

Why do that, James?

What harm is there in it, exactly? The burden of proof is on you, brother. I'm not a Zen practitioner either. But what did Bod do that warranted your mocking them?

I mean:

Hmmm...


what grasp have you got on the truth that is any more impressive than Bod?

[d63]

One of the interesting conclusions about trolls that I'm coming to is that they only work by acting as if they have the ultimate answer.

The real question, though, is if they actually believe it.

Or do they just get off by pretending to:


?: are they little more flashers exposing themselves in public:

taking their jouissance from the disgust of others.