Ego...the force behind philosophy?

This is my first topic, and I am immediately aware that I am demonstrating its premise by feeling the desire to refer to myself (whatever).

Is “philosophy” really more than a human egoic experience?

In other words, this “quest for truth”-- is it not a quest to conquer with the truth, to conquer something else, be it other human minds, a power situation, a sense of personal satisfaction and accomplishment, in light of whatever that truth may be, rather than it is a quest to know the truth per se?

I mean one can know without saying, right?

Paradoxically, let’s take this post as an example, if there is a truth upon which I am stumbling, then indeed this philosophy honors, caresses, expresses that truth, right? Nevertheless, my claim is that what motivates the philosopher, as far as I can tell, is the will to some sort of ego-worship, which would not be content with the realization that ALL is reflective of truth, by nature, without its being spoken, written, or demonstrated. Truth’s demonstration from (wo)man to (wo)man can only partake in this subordinate mode to Truth itself, Truth itself truly requiring no formal or artistic demonstration outside its own necessary Way.

I don’t know if this is what you’ve got in mind, but this looks to me like what could be called the “who’s doing the fighting?” issue. In other words, when two people have a debate (particularly about philosophy) is it a battle between people, with ideas as weapons, or is it a battle of ideas, with people as vehicles for the ideas? IMO, it’s very hard to tell, but I do think that when it comes to philosophy, the extent to which it’s the latter is higher than in most other areas of life (particularly politics).

Alfred North Whitehead said education was teaching the art of good living.

I think philosophy is much the same. Its about exploring what’s important for you, what has meaning to you. Learning, reflecting, and ultimately coming to considered opinions on life’s questions.

I know some logical positivists will disagree with me but I don’t care at all about the objectivity of truth in a philosophical argument. I care about my own development and learning, and I care that what I have to say might influence in a positive way the unique path of another.

Its not about being right to me, its about living right.

cheers,
gemty

here’s my input upon this subject:
In my opinion, philosophy cannot be about finding truths, because that is impossible. It is more about finding input and opinions upon certain subjects which may ultimately lead to - settling for less- naming the opinion as a fact, as a truth.
Ex: If everyone said that God existed, that would mean that everyone would think that is is true and not ficticious. If someone came up with an opinion one day, then the people would either accept his oplinion, putting it into view, or toss it away, and call the stranger a lunatic.
I believe that there is no more truth than there are lies - and there is only these if we decide that they are to be what they are. Truth should not exist, as they are only as true as lies, inevitably. We all discover one day that everything eventually leads to a halt - a paradox. once we find this out, we make an ultimate decision based off of truths. these truths are weighted - according to physicality most of the time - and a decision is made.
So, finally, I believe that we do search for the “truth”, but we discover that the truths we find are no more real and trustful than anything else.

Here’s a question, what if people based much of their decision making upon the intangible, would societies survive…lol