Philosophic breakdown. Help.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I just joined these forums in hopes of finding some ground in life. I’d usually search for answers on my own, but this time I’m so lost I don’t even know where to look.

I’m just feeling utterly lost. How am I to live?! - probably the question that draws everyone to philosophy, huh…

For the time being, I’m acting completely on impulse. No rules, no logic. Just intuition. I don’t know otherwise.

I’ve been living in accordance with Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality since I read his stuff last fall. But now, the big Q is just not an adequate enough answer anymore, I’m beginning to doubt it. Looking over “Lila” again it all seems so confusing and illogical.

I’m young, 18, but very childish and curious, not like most people my age. Definately not like most older people. I’ll be considerate of any replies I get.

I’m not even completely sure what I’m asking for here. Has asnyone else felt like this before?, just competely lost all of a sudden, not knowing what’s right or wrong or what to do? I guess I just need to start all over with the basics and completely reestablish my thiking patterns. What are the basics to life?.. I guess that’s what I’m asking: what are the basics regarding simple decision-making?

Some definitions of things would also be helpful. I’ve been thinking over and over about what the heck is “language.” The best I could come up with so far is “a format of meaning.” And I’m used to defining “meaning” in terms of Pirsig’s Quality - the meaning of anything is made up of the sum of all your Quality-judgements regarding it. But I’m not at all sure of any of this right now, and am anxious to seriously consider other definitions.

Some other definitions I’m used to but am in great doubt of: “Love” is the urge to pursue harmony. I don’t have any formal definition for “harmony.” I know it’s somehow related to Quality, and has something to do with agreement. But that’s unacceptably vague. “Selfishness” is people’s prefference of personal convenience over harmony, and “care” is anything done for the sake of establishing or maintaining this harmony. But again, without a formal definition of “harmony,” all these definitions are logically useless.

Please help if you have any idea of what my problem is.

2

Not sure how much, if at all, it would help, but you should read my own topic about free will. I don’t want to seem like I’m forcing my beliefs on you, but if there is anything that could be gained from it, then I’d be happy to have helped!

I used to be like this (if I’m understanding you right) when I was 16 or 17, having trouble finding a place in the world, and not being able to come to any kind of conclusion about anything. I finally found determinism, which was perfect for me, and I think if you give it enough time, you’ll find a great philosophy.

3

Are you looking for a myth to believe in? Or do you rather want the truth? You have just been confronted by the truth: that there is no given “ground”, that there is no given rule for decision-making.

Is your question not “what is the meaning of life?”

Just look at other people: why do other people do what they do? Why get up, why eat, why go to work? They do so for subsistence, so that they won’t die. Why not die?

You can only know how to live if you have something to live for. As Nietzsche says, when you have your “why” in life you can get along with almost any “how”. So why live? Live for what? It must be something that is worthwhile in itself - something that does not need a “why”, not need a “what for”. It is like the Christian view of Heaven: you live in such and such a manner in order to get to Heaven, but there is no question as to this afterlife: in Heaven, there is no need to live in such and such a manner, no higher Heaven to get to after this one (after the afterlife, in the afterafterlife); Heavenly life is self-justifying.

This is just a simile: I’m not suggesting you become a Christian - not at all!

You seek a life that is self-justifying. A life that does not give rise to the question “why?”.

I think the only thing that justifies itself is joy. The joy of existence. The joy of being alive.

Now how do you find that joy?

4

:astonished: …Ugh… Damn… well looks somebody realised and wrote it way before me.

I hope everything else i’ve self learnt ie all my philosophical knowledge in not in various books or i’m not going to be too happy about it.

5

You’ll probably feel whatever you take in.

Spend allot of time around people who are meaningful, happy, strong and healthy. Before long, you’ll be able to learn from them how to enjoy life. But, there may not be any of those sorts of people around, or, if you can’t relate to them… then woof.

6

What, you wanted to be an “original”? Originality does not consist in saying something new, but in saying it in a new way - and you can only say it well when you have experienced it yourself.

If your philosophical knowledge is based on experience, you should not worry about it not being new; you should be glad that there are or were kindred souls!

7

Dissallusionment. You sense that the truths you’ve been told are in fact lies - which is only natural (unless you’re a decadent knobwrench).

I suggest you go to the philosophy section of your local bookstore and read a paragraph or two out of as many books as you can. You’ll find an affinity for certain authors, I’m sure (they will just ‘click’). Buy a few of their books and enjoy :smiley:

8

Yeah. That’s it. That’s the “basics” I forgot, the “reset” button.

… So simple!

Thanks for everyone’s replies so far. This is much to think about.

I think what happened with me is that my “why to live” has been so vague and muddled that naturally everything just fell apart.

9

give me one example of something that doesn’t need a what for?

10

dan is so cuuuuuuuuuute…i love your display picture…

11

Yes, thanks, I thought I said something profound there (i.e, a word of “wisdom” based on experience).

I hope you know what you live for, and otherwise you can live for finding it out! That is, for finding something to live for.

12

Try reading Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”

Understand that his message is influenced heavily by his experience in a particular environment, the same with Pirsig’s emotivistic quality crap of the feel good 70’s.

13

Id recoment Sophies world, its a fictional book that gives you a good introduction to the history of philosophy. The book does not probe too deeply into any particular questions but is a resource thats interesting and gets your mindset right for determining some of the universes greatest unanswered questions. But if that doesnt float your boat, do what I did. Look at yourself from a childs perspective, what did you always wish you could be? For example I always wanted to be a great hero who battled against all odds for the greater good. Now look at this realistically and see if the principals behind that dream can be made real. For example, I am now a conservation voluntry leader and a support worker in a school for children with learning difficulties. Im not fighting physcially but Im still batteling it out for the greater good, and thats satisfied my inner child

14

Wow… This is amazing…

I have actually picked up “Sophie’s World” just a few days ago. I’m on the chapter on Athens.

In fact, it was this book that motivated me to join this philosophy forum in the first place.

15

Seconded.

16

Frank Zappa saves me from my breakdowns. For just about any issue I find terrible…Frank makes a parody out of it and all I can do is laugh.

I am prepared to die any second, because Frank is dead, and if Frank is dead, there isn’t much left in the world worthy of my attention.

I talk to Frank all the time. I sing along with him and play the dash-board like it was a drum set as I drive. If I could do one thing and one thing only, it would be drive around the earth over and over again while smoking herb and listening to Frank.

Many of you do not know what I speak of, indeed, cannot know what I speak of. This is not the worst thing that could happen. You could steal my Zappa albums, which would result in something like the apocalypse here on earth. The wrath of God would not be comparable to what I would do to you.

And now I will take requests. Ask to hear any song and I will upload it for you. Frank would like that.

“Most people wouldn’t know music if it came up and bit them on the ass.”

17

I have read Frankle’s book already. In a Religion class, actually. Our Junior Religion teacher was kick-ass. Him and just one other teacher from my highschool (that I just graduated from) are about the only teachers I’ve ever had that I think were any good. That’s the reason I’m going into education - to take some afwul teacher’s place and make life easier for some kids.

But perhaps it’s about time I re-read that book…

And I guess I need to try the Frank Zappa therapy also. Modest Mouse are my favorite, though. I doubt anyone could take that position from them anytime soon.

18

I read the Search for Meaning one. But I believe I would have excelled much better in philosophy if I had begun with propositional logic rather than authors trying to convey to me their painful experiences and their hope for “meaning of it all.”

I feel that using this to teach philosophy as an introduction runs the risk of trying to make people parrot what you think more than encouraging them to think for themselves.

If I had to redo my interest in philosophy from earlier on, I’d probably begin with the taxonomy of fallacies and then move into propositional logic.

The simple answer for “the meaning of it all” would be that we’re generally operating according to what we think it is. So trying to phrase it to someone feeling uncertain runs the risk of distorting what the world believes it is. What do you see done? How is it justified? What does that say about the meaning?

I suppose it helps to picture the texture, the feeling, that you believe philosophy should have for you. A lot of people signify it with the likes of harmony, that the “pursuit of wisdom” is about recognizing the “perfect balance” and whatnot. Or “courage in the face of the ideal” is somewhat standing up and being consistent nomatter what. I like “the science of inquiry.” I consider it rather cold and even cruel. But it wants to stop at nothing to get results. Perhaps more Nietzchen- it demands power and may not even really care for the people hoping to utilize it or further it. To me it’s an ultimatum- Do you want answers, or do you want to piddle-play around in repetitive pseudophilosophical experiments.

I, like all others, am guilty of the latter.

19

Wait a second. If Frank died in 93 and I didn’t hear him until 94, the above statement is not logically sound. It could be valid, but it cannot be sound given the facts.

Two points for anyone who can spot the reason.

p.s. Or is it sound and not valid?

20

[edited double post]