Can Philosophy Actually Improve Your Life?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I say ‘yes’, but it requires ‘action’ on the part of the thinker to experiment with a new paradigm of living that a new philosophy can reveal.

I know in most circles the idea is preposterous., philosophy is only a mental endeavor to exercise our ability to think logically, I wonder why most philosophers I meet are afraid to experiment with new concepts to see if these concepts are valid? They won’t even try it?

There is so much more to our ‘mind’ than we have realized, yet the very ones who seem to worship the mind want to limit it’s abilities to that of a computer???

Maybe today’s philosophers are cowards or just on an academic ego trip?

2

Waxing philosophical can indeed improve one’s life.

After all, a philosopher is someone who uses all of one’s brain – heart mind and soul – to seek the truth.

If indeed one is a true philosopher, then one will begin ontologically, take that foundation and build on it epistemologically, continue ethically from there … learning great truths of reality in the process.

Sadly, however, many people indeed mistake mental masturbation for philosophizing.

These people have skipped the ontological realities they are emotionally blockaded by guilt and fear from dealing with and they have begun with groundless epistemology in the form of paradigmic ideology.

They argue their preconceived mentalisms which function to protect them “emotionally” from facing the onotological truths of reality they simply can’t handle (yet).

Thus, without a basis in ontology, they are lacking in experience of the foundational axioms of reality that stem from the “I am” awareness which is common to us all.

Their denial of ontologically based realities causes them to negate those truths, so that their resultant epistemology isn’t true at all, but is really a dust in the wind house of cards that is false-premise based, loaded with sophistic arguments that, of course, yield false conclusions.

Thus they are not true philosophers at all, as they are not seeking the truth with attendant searing honesty that typifies real philosophers.

And thus these extreme prgamatist moral relativists give philosophy a bad name.

3

Sometimes when I am thinking really hard about philosophy I walk into trees.

4

The simple fact is, no, I don’t have the courage to truly wander; I have to keep my ‘real life’ in view; I cannot risk getting lost.

5

One has to be philosopher, it helps if one adequately acknowledges this, and strives to live up to it. It is about how deep and further you are going, how much you are recreating yourself as a human being. The notion of striking a balance between life and reason, is not very helpful, expecially if one is misled by the superfaciality of being balanced. To achieve genuine balance, is to penetrate towards the essence of what balance is. Again, it is all about how deep and further you are prepared to go, and how much you are doing for that purpose. Wisdom does not fail you wherever you want to go or whatever you want to do. The issue therefore, is not whether philosophy is good for your goals, but rather how to philosophise more and better.

Many people pass life covering an insignificant existential ground, they remain the way they were ten year ago, ten months ago, ten weeks ago. They found life to be one damn thing after another, dread their conviction in the conjecture of the eternal recurrence. If they do not, then the explaination is that their will is already quite negated by life. The naturally healthy type is those who show a pattern of constant and fluent personal development, a very much percievable pattern to the extent that it literally shows on the face. You know it when you meet these healthy types, you find yourself adjusting methods and manners when dealing with them. You must, because they change fast. If you treat them the same way as you did three days ago, you will find yourself encompassed. So goes an ancient Chinese saying.

6

I walk vapour trees into my lungs…

7

Hey There

I just read the original post, “does philosophy make your life any better?”.

Definitely. I mean, take this one for example,

Watch your thoughts: they become your words.
Watch your words: they become your actions.
Watch your actions: they become your habits.
Watch your habits: they become your character.
Watch your character: it becomes your destiny.

Now the reason why I like this one, take it for an example, is that it SHOWS that philosophy and thinking about things CAN affect and shape who you are as a person.

If you KNOW the above, and you actually DO stay mindful of it in ALL areas of your life, ie your character is consistent in EVERY aspect of your life (specifically, you have a set of values you always consider in every situation) then I can say, yes, philosophy has a huge difference.

I mean, philosophy broadly too.

I wouldn’t discard or discount philosophy as a narrow subject.

You could also think of ‘rules’ as philosophy?

To run fast you must practice. To practice properly and effectively you need to practice the proper mechanics, or rules as you might put it.

Going to the gym every day, there is a philosophy behind that i’m sure, even if it is “if i don’t go, i’ll get fat” to 'i must make this my true purpose in life…Mr. Olympia!!"

That’s my opinion for now. Thanks :smiley:

8

Maybe it’s my marxist bias, but I tend to think that people do what they want THEN form ideas and opinions to accomodate their actions or lifestyle.

9

The ‘I am’ awareness is common only to those who use grammar in such a way that ‘I am’ makes sense, thus it isn’t ontologically axiomatic at all.

Indeed, if something does ontologically precede language (something detrop and I need to sort out) then any attempt to put that something into language will fail. Just like trying to attribute the cause of an event after the fact of it happening.

Philosophy can make some people’s lives better, if used in the right sort of way. For many, it only provides confusion, uncomfortable confrontation, mental challenges that test them beyond their patience and words that they have to look up in a specialist dictionary. There are, I believe, better ways of achieving the philosophical aims of increased imagination and critical thinking, of being able to challenge arresting preconceptions and so on, that aren’t by writing and reading what we call ‘philosophy’. Of course, I’ve had to write that so I’m reopening the same trapdoor I’m trying to ‘close’, but the point is that there are many different ways to skin a cat, and philosophy is only one of them.

10

So what you’re saying is…people behave, then define for themselves what do do and therefore develop a personality around their actions?

Action–>Then Thought?

As opposed to Thought—> Then Action?

Kinda like that “what came first: Chicken or the egg?” statement.

But to do what you want, you first have to think about it, don’t you?

:smiley:

11

WillNZ:

No, you are oversimplifying. I am saying that I think people do what is fun or interesting or what they are able to do, or what makes them comfortable, then form their opinions and attitudes around those actions and that lifestyle. The model would look more like this:

simple thoughts/ simple desires ------> action------> opinions

12

It’s vary simple really, at the heart of it philosophy, as well as religion, is only a desperate search for security, that’s it. So it is no surprise at all that some philosophers will find something that works for them a little bit and then be compelled to stay with it, because it offers some measure of security. To venture off this safe ground is to risk it’s integrity, so they don’t even try.

13

Beautifulspam, I think that’s what i did say but i missed the opinions part! I don’t necessarily agree that people do what they are comfortable with, look at Lawyers, they have to take the side given to them. (but i guess you could argue they are comfortable with it, since they took up the occupation in the first place knowing they may one day have to go against their beliefs, and this they are comfortable with)

Interesting, though. Can you give us an example of how your theory would work in a real situation?

Praxis, I do agree to an extent about search for security. Security in the sense that the knowledge you’ve gained is going to benefit you in some way, whether for behavioural or emotional security.

An example would be someone who says “I smoke because Everybody i know smokes!’ maybe you could take the security as being 'If I don’t stand out in my social circle, I won’t get picked on, or become insecure because everyone else is doing something and i’m therefore missing out.”

Yeah, i like the point about that too,

because it outlines the theme of traditional vs modern/progressive thinking.

Hold on to the past? Give in to the future?

Now that’s something that interests me.