For example videogames, if videogames suck then they make gaming philosophy videos about it. For example if I question why Mario Kart 64 evolved into Mario Kart World, it would be because I’m dissatisfied with Mario Kart World.
For example, if the world economy is shit then people want to become philosophers of economics. If the world politics is garbage then people philosophize about politics. Philosophers are doctors. The word Ph.D. means “Doctor of Philosophy”.
Happy and content normies don’t ask “why was I born, why does consciousness exist”. If everything is perfect, people don’t philosophize about it.
I am not completely sure what you are trying to say here.
Is it that philosophy or rather “seeking answers” is a result of dissatisfaction aka “not understanding”?
Well… yes?
It follows the greater theme of the tortured artist or the tao’s concept of “perfection is inert”.
Positives and negatives need to be both present within the system in order to create motion. If there is only positive or only negative, then there is no movement. The system will be inert.
Those who have all their needs sated have no reason to move, ask, strive, hope, dream, think or… philosophy.
That’s an interesting point, it comes close to a Shopenhauer-sort of view. Suffering is what motivates and causes things to happen, suffering is what gives value. Happiness and non-suffering are just neutral states that do not really cause stuff or mean anything. I don’t agree with that view but I can understand the appeal, and it is not entirely incorrect.
I wonder though, how much of people wanting to improve or understand certain aspects of the world is really involved in their decision to pursue careers. I think people become economists or game designers or politicians for various reasons like they enjoy it, they are good at it, there are enough jobs that pay well, it is part of their life path so far and just makes sense to pursue it. I am not sure people are really thinking along the lines of “wow the world economy sucks, I better become an economist!” But who knows, you could be right in some cases. Or maybe I misunderstood your point here.
More so it seems to be about problematizing. Where problems exist, questions appear. Questions provoke response, whether by seeking an answer or an excuse to avoid answering. Like pain, problems force change. But modern humans have gotten very good at ignoring uncomfortable questions and problems in the world around them. The avoidance of cognitive dissonance is probably among the top most common psychpathological tendencies of modern humans.
However I do give you kudos for your optimistic view. You make an argument for people (the non-normies at least) being interested in the truth and doing something about it. That’s cool and admirable I may not see most people through that same lens but I do like the way you expressed it.
if they are simply curious then they would be scientists. Philosophers are like the punks of science.
Example there is cyber then there is “cyberpunk”, or there is steam then there is “steampunk”. It is like the punkified version of it.
for example game designers might do it from a love of games, or out of boredom. But once their game “sucks” and they are dissastified with their game, then they will look up “gaming philosophy” to learn the philosophy of why it sucks. With politics and economics, same thing, when people are pissed or dissapointed at the world and society, they will look up videos about politics and economics philosophy videos.
I may not see most people through that same lens but I do like the way you expressed it.