Do you really love philosophy?

The “rule” is (in) the title, the topic of this thread, but it is not really a rule, but just a matter of course, an implicitness. I guess your next question is: “Why?”. But if you don’t know it on your own, then it is useless to continue this conversation. Do you really think that someone who presents the title, the topic of his thread with a question, does it only just for fun? Or anorther example: Do you think that the rich are rich only for the fun of it? Only just for fun?

Too many questions? Where are the rules which dictate the number of questions per post, per thread, … per life?

“Do you really love Philosophy?”

“2 the point of self destruction: the neglect of the petty and mundane which sustains us all.”

“Would you mind explaining what you mean?”

That’s actually a bigger question than you might realize and overlaps into our cultural history as a whole –for instance, the arts. When we start our process as the creatively and intellectually curious, we start, based on our heroes (such as Van Gogh, Marx, Socrates, Jimi (both Hendrix and Morrison( etc.( with romantic notions of the tragic soul carrying the burden of the world. But what we ultimately find is that it is the petty and mundane matters that wear us down (and this is especially the case in America with its unconditional embrace of producer/consumer Capitalism and the tyranny of the functional –that which can be translated into dollar value: that constant struggle to devote our resources to pursuing our higher selves in an economic and social environment that in too many small ways demands our resources for its interests. And do not be fooled by the Randian myth that Capitalism is the only means by which we can find our higher selves. The greatness it champions must always stay within the perimeters of capital and what can be translated into profit: a formula for mediocrity if ever there was one.

(Note, for instance, the way that cable TV has gravitated towards the lowest common denominator through reality shows because they produce the same (if not more (profit for less investment than creating actual art.)

Every day that I spend on here, every day that I spend around an hour reading in preparation for this, feels like a violation of God and country in that I could be devoting that time to the numerous petty and mundane responsibilities imposed upon me by everyday life. And there would be any number of people who would argue that I clearly have my priorities wrong. I could, for instance, devote my intellect, creativity, and time pursuing more profitable disciplines. I did that for 5 years and it did work to extent that I have a decent job. But having abandoned my liberal and fine arts disposition to do so, it eventually began to feel like a carrot on a stick. I mean to what extent do you need to pad your resume before you actually achieve financial security? That is given that I am making reasonably good money while struggling as much as I ever have financially because of the petty and mundane little demands that have accumulated in my life –many of which were forced upon me because I happened to be the one with resources?

But as hard as this is, as hard as it feels to go on when the barbarians are always at the gates, it is for this very reason that I am always reminded that I must go on. As Camus argues:

“All arguments for beauty are ultimately arguments for freedom.”

I have to go on out of a stubborn rejection of the notion that the worth of my point A to point B must be based on how society and the market rewards it. While we believe in things like afterlives, higher powers, and higher principles (such as Capitalism (our point A to point B is all there is: consequences be damned.

This is why I would respectfully disagree with those who argue that you can’t love philosophy, but only like it. They sound like people who think of it as little more than a hobby (something they can just do in their spare time (as compared to a way of life –which is fine if that is all you want from it. And that way of life being one that goes against the general flow of things (the market, responsibility, and the tyranny of the functional (duty as the Buddhists would put it (you had better goddamn well love what you’re doing (to the point of self destruction if that’s what it takes (in the face of the opposition you will find yourself up against.

Arminius

.
You’re correct - there was no rule there - neither implied but definitely not implicit.

Well, from the title itself, one might perceive it to be just for fun - at the very least, not an important one…one might perceive it even to be simply an afterthought though I know it wasn’t to you.

?

That would depend on the individual. I don’t think that Bill Gates is rich just for fun. He worked diligently and hard for those riches, his father was a farmer I think, and they aren’t solely for his sake either. I don’t think that the value he holds in his riches are solely for their own sake, if I said that correctly, but for a greater use.
Someone else born into those riches might not see how valuable they could be for other humans beings, including him/her -self. Those riches are for them solely fun to be used hedonistcally to further their own cause and self-indulgence. For example, they have so much money or so much coming to them it wouldn’t occur to them to use some of it for an education, to define, refine, their life.
Others use their riches, not for fun, but to gain power and authority and to use and abuse it.

?
There are never too many questions - I value the questions almost as much as the answers - at times, even more so. Questions keep us curious about life but not all questions are valid ones. Some are meaningless to me - such as, what did you have for dinner last night. Who cares.

If you look to your left, you’ll see them go flying out the window. I’m tempted to laugh here. I actually just did but out of a deep and growing respect for you, I shan’t put that thingy in here.

Did you happen to look to your left when you read that? If you did, nothing wrong with that. It would have been natural to.

[b]Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy can be divided into five branches which address the following questions:

Metaphysics Study of Existence What’s out there?
Epistemology Study of Knowledge How do I know about it?
Ethics Study of Action What should I do?
Politics Study of Force What actions are permissible?
Esthetics Study of Art What can life be like?

There is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be seen in the Concept Chart. At the root is Metaphysics, the study of existence and the nature of existence. Closely related is Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on Epistemology is Ethics, the study of how man should act. Ethics is dependent on Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without knowledge. A subset of Ethics is Politics: the study of how men should interact in a proper society and what constitutes proper. Esthetics, the study of art and sense of life is slightly separate, but depends on Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.

[/b]

So, do I really love it? I can’t speak in terms of “love” here since that’s a term I at least try to use for human relationships but I could say that it greatly interests me. When I am in here (ilp) having a discussion, especially depending on certain categories, I am capable of really getting turned on - my mind gets turned on - it’s a challenge to me and a struggle sometimes. I am very curious about human beings, especially myself, and the universe.

I would say that the one above which least turns me on is politics and the one which most turns me on is metaphysics and ethics. I don’t really consider myself to be a philsopher per se in that I do not have the knowledge nor brain matter of many in this forum. I’m certainly no scholar or academic as some in here are. I’m not saying I’m stupid - I’m far from stupid. But I am really interested and have my own perspectives though I try to stay on the fence of skepticism but not deliberately so - I just can’t help it. I am trying to question more - not to know it, especially when it comes down to metaphics. Aesthetics is there too.

There, that’s all I have.

“Introduction to the Five Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy can be divided into five branches which address the following questions:

Metaphysics Study of Existence What’s out there?
Epistemology Study of Knowledge How do I know about it?
Ethics Study of Action What should I do?
Politics Study of Force What actions are permissible?
Esthetics Study of Art What can life be like?

There is a hierarchical relationship between these branches as can be seen in the Concept Chart. At the root is Metaphysics, the study of existence and the nature of existence. Closely related is Epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know about reality and existence. Dependent on Epistemology is Ethics, the study of how man should act. Ethics is dependent on Epistemology because it is impossible to make choices without knowledge. A subset of Ethics is Politics: the study of how men should interact in a proper society and what constitutes proper. Aesthetics, the study of art and sense of life is slightly separate, but depends on Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics. “

What you are describing here is what was introduced to me through Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy. This was the first philosophy book I ever read and one I picked up in a second hand store at a time when I was primarily focused on being a musician. (I thought it, at the time, my manifest destiny to be a rock star.)The idea was to see how Aristotle’s Categorical would influence my music –which goes to show how willy-nilly and naive my understanding of philosophy actually was at the time.

However, the order of the list went Metaphysics, Logic, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Politics, which I only point out because it goes to the hierarchical sense of it you have –something I will go into below.

But before I do, I want to cover another point you made:

“I don’t really consider myself to be a philosopher per se in that I do not have the knowledge nor brain matter of many in this forum. I’m certainly no scholar or academic as some in here are. I’m not saying I’m stupid - I’m far from stupid. But I am really interested and have my own perspectives though I try to stay on the fence of skepticism but not deliberately so - I just can’t help it. I am trying to question more - not to know it, especially when it comes down to metaphysics.”

First of all: welcome to the club. I like to think of myself as more of a writer who happens to enjoy writing about my experience with philosophy. I have no formal training either. Still, having been a musician, poet, writer of fiction, and artist, I find myself, in middle age, seeing philosophy as the poetry and art I am attracted to. And we can assume that the intellectual and creative curiosity that brought you here in the first place precludes you from being “stupid”, that is since most people go through their lives having no interest in philosophy whatsoever –in fact, will sometimes even resist and dismiss it as pointless or even dangerous. That is, of course, unless you vehemently disagree with something I am saying, in which case you would be a complete moron. On the other hand, I would expect the same to be the case from your perspective if the dynamic were reversed. So I think we can agree that the previous assumption has a little more credibility than the latter sentiment.

Okay! Now that we’re agreed on that, I’m not sure where you got your order, but I mainly have to work from the Durant order because that is the one I’m familiar with. First of all, I would deal with the issue of the hierarchy by pointing out that the term at the end, politics, is propped up by the terms before it: ethics which is propped up by aesthetics which is propped up by logic which is propped up by metaphysics. This, in turn, creates a hierarchy which runs:

Metaphysics<Logic<Aesthetics<Ethics<Politics

But there are problems here –outside of the fact that such a hierarchy tends to offend the contemporary sensibility. For one, many into philosophy would tend to see politics as a common matter and metaphysics as the highest use of our minds since metaphysics is what would establish the very foundation of how we should run society. In that case, the formula would be:

Metaphysics>Logic>Aesthetics>Ethics>Politics

But the problem with this is that we have, over time, realized that our metaphysical statements tend to be a little more influenced (founded upon (our political situation than we might realize, especially since we tend to establish a metaphysical foundation based on what will ultimately change our political situation. So now we have formula that reads in way that does not necessarily start with the first line here, but is rather an infinite regress that leads to:

Metaphysics>Logic>Aesthetics>Ethics>Politics
Politics>Ethics>Aesthetics>Logic>Metaphysics
And so on
And so on

Another problem is that a lot has changed since Durant published his book in 1929, mainly the developments of Phenomenology, Existentialism, and post structuralism and post modernism and the terminology that has come with it. So now we can revise and write the formula (in its basic sense(as:

Metaphysics/Ontology (since Ontology is a metaphysics with its feet on the ground of Being)>Logic/Epistemology (since both are about what we can know and are at the bottom of the analytic break from the continental)>Aesthetics/Ethics (since both are about value statements which, in turn, lead to how we organize>the social/political

And much as we did with the old school formula, we must reverse this into the same kind of infinite back and forth without beginning or end.

Of course, thanks to guys like Rorty and Deleuze (with and w/out Guattarri (we are no longer committed to such linear schemes. Now we are perfectly free to use whatever aspect (at any point in the process (is practical for the sake of discourse (Rorty) or bounce from the Metaphysical/Ontological to the Ethical/Aesthetic to the Logical/Epistemological to the Political/Social in any way that serves creative thought in the vast rhizomatic network of Deleuze and Guattarri: look at them as little more than tools in our philosopher’s toolbox.

Popular buzzwords on philosophy boards:
Reason, Objectivity, The Scientific Method…
Be wary of them every time you see them:
they are usually the result of TlBs
(Troll-like Behaviors(
flashing them like badges of authority
to get
(actually to force
(you to play in to their guru complexes

I have, yet again, gotten myself kicked off another philosophy board for the love of philosophy.

I have done as much on this board.

But do not confuse that for a lack of love for the board, philosophy, or Humean.

As Humean (my friend (well knows:

I hate Trolls…

They interfere with the flow of discourse.

Are all people who interfere with the flow of discourse trolls?
And what does that have to do with the question “Do you really love philosophy”?

Those who truly love philosophy, love the idea of being able , by virtue of an un channelled, unrestricted flow of thought, to find the means,as to be able to merge with that which we has come to be properly called ‘consciousness.’, with the aim of merging with the timeless essence of man, with whom he may abide in an eternal union.

Not to nitpick, but actually Logic must come before metaphysics.

 If i were to ask You 'why is that', You would have to find reasons for it, and that would be begging the question.  Therefore, i will not ask that, but perhaps suggest that time may not actually consist within the  being of consciousness, or rather, the consciousness of being.  Therefore meta physics and logic may be concurrent.

“Not to nitpick, but actually Logic must come before metaphysics.”

I can see why you say that James, that is since Metaphysics is the result of how the brain works in the face of reality. Still, that depends on a metaphysical assumption that the brain has an actual grasp on reality.

Still, it was a compelling point.

“If i were to ask You ‘why is that’, You would have to find reasons for it, and that would be begging the question. Therefore, i will not ask that, but perhaps suggest that time may not actually consist within the being of consciousness, or rather, the consciousness of being. Therefore meta physics and logic may be concurrent.”

Not to mention, obe, that the answer would be based on a metaphysical assumption about the relationship between reality, mind, and the brain. Logic is after all, as is suggested by thinkers like Chomsky and Pinker, a product of the language we use to interact with the world which is, in turn, a product of the physiological structures of the brain.

And from a postmodern perspective, via the vast rhizomatic network of D & G, they may be concurrent.

Once again, I would argue that we need to reconsider the linear relationship between the terms.

I tend to find insights in everyday mundane places, more so then anywhere else. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this story but I remember a memorable (for me) event, sometime last year where I was standing in a line in a coffee shop and a girl in front of me ordered: a grande decaf non-fat sugar-free-vanilla iced latte. She probably paid five dollars with change for…something that was and was not. And again…recently…a man in a restaurant asks a waitress for an egg-white omelet with three pieces of bacon. The way I saw it, both of them were in a particular state of mind, a self deceiving, unaware, one. It’s easy to see it in others, but not so easy to see it in yourself. Philosophical inquiry is also a state of mind. One can be very rational and elaborate, all his life in fact, but in the end, is one ‘buying’ anything of substance, so to speak?

Most people, even here, hate philosophy, and do not truly love philosophy at all.

Because most are too weak to love philosophy, and lack the power to love philosophy.

Only a powerful mind can claim to love philosophy, to begin with. A weak mind cannot, never, love philosophy. Only the strongest can love philosophy.

Strength of mind then is equivalent to a capacity to love it, but it’s a sign of weakness to hate it?
Is this a necessary or contingent argument? Must i have a feeble mind not to love philosophy?

There is an interdependence between language and logic. But which of both came first? Chomsky and Pinker say: “language”.

Logic comes first, else there can be no language. Logic is the consistency required for a language (or any thinking) to function at all, “A is A”.

Most of the people who say that they “love philosophy” either do not know what they are talking about, or exaggerate and cheat other people and especially themselves.

You really do not have to say that you “love philosophy” in order to be very much interested in philosophy and to keep yourself busy with philosophy. Those who say “I like philosophy” do not exaggerate and cheat, but do much more know about their relationship to philosophy than those who say “I love philosophy”.

is there or has there been any study to substantiate this claim? I would say it is as difficult to make such claim as it is to differentiate between objective and subjective propositions.