Sometimes people describe philosophy as a dispassionate search for truth.
Alot of people think that logically is the best way to think, because things that are clear and reasoned will for the most part fit into some logical scheme.
However, as I move about the world attempting to do philosophy, I find that most of the time, I do not encounter people who are in the process of dispassionatley searching for truth, but rather I run into alot of emotional basketcases. The worst ones are the ones who don’t even recognize themselves as such.
If you are an emotional basket case, explain to me your motivation for holding that position.
I’d like to have some insight as to how such people think, so that I may more properly communicate with them.
What does “dispassionately searching for the truth” mean?
We are human, we experience the world through senses and emotion - I don’t know how anyone can hope to find anything but nonsense by disabling one of the primary mechanisms we use to relate to the world. Perhaps this is what has spawned the trash that passes for science nowadays…who knows.
Anyway, if someone is going to spend there life “truth seeking” they obviously have a passion for it.
well,lots of people have so much emotional damage they cant even control whether thier holding to that position or not. i guess the worst kind don’t fight it.
additionally some people hold to unusefull or incorrect philosophical postions,but trying to change that is both difficult,burdensome or even…
when dealing with the unknown(human society) i tend to be very coy(or cautious) and perceptive/deductive-say like sherlock.
because you never know who is at the end of thier rope or not.
hope that helps answer the question correctly or in part, and by the way smears,your avatar reminds me of newman for some reason.
This was a good enough thread to be outside of mundane babble.
I plead guilty to being an emotional basket case at times. In fact I’ve pleaded guilty along those lines directly in court.
Objectivity requires detachment. But subjectivity is necessary, otherwise we couldn’t develop separate opinions, and passionate opinions are what push us to work hard at justifying and reinforcing our claims.
I see nothing positive about being an “emotional basketcase.” Basketcase itself implies garbage. Ranting jargon about your problems, without contributing any realistic solutions. But I think that’s the main challenge of a philosopher. If you’re a bad philosopher, it’s simply because you are an emotional basketcase. Growth in philosophy depends almost strictly on growing past this problem. I could moreso say that a person matures fundamentally based on that principal. This is essntially what we are in the terrible twos. (“I want! I’m desparate! I hate!” etc). We spend the rest of our lives trying to work away from it and coming to terms with the factors we can’t reasonably change. But if we don’t experience these problems we lack the development of empathy, and the ability to understand our social world.
I think the optimal psychological approach to your emotions is to picture it in metaphore as a series of pools to dip into at your disposal. (A chip with dips, whatever metaphore you like). Easier said than done. To not refrain from anger or be immersed in anger, but to see anger as an option for you at various times. As I said, easier said than done, and I wouldn’t consider myself anymore than novice at the sport.
Also, to think of philosophy between extremes of passionate or dispassionate, I’d say the better approach is to say that it requires the same happy medium we seek in our daily life, but philosophy requires rigour in philosophy. Just like a botanist or neurologist or whatnot can have any emotional relations that motivate them in the science (with detachment that doesn’t allow their fringe obsession), but they are no scientist without the rigour of discipline in the science. In that regard I consider myself completely devoid of being a philosopher until I get some basic . . . even hamhanded . . . certificate.