Philosophy in 21st century western world.

[SNADERT]

Does it still have a real function in the perspective of society? I do not think so. All the most important things seem to have been figured out apart maybe from sience. It’s kinda hard though to see a guy in white spending all his time in a laboratory as a philosopher. Some cornes of philosophy might still have some use, like ethics. Famous high-school paper subjects like “Is abortion a good thing?” etc. come to mind. I think that people now have the luxury of not having to think about philosophy. All the information is readily available and everybody can freely think what they want.

Where I want to go from here… Maybe you can say that everybody is there own philosopher and has his own personal philosophy. You must take into consideration that the time and place we are living in is absolutely unique. We do not have to work our ass of 24/7. A lot of people do work very hard offcourse but that is first of all a choice , and secondly probably not so hard as the mayority used to work in the western world or at present time in poor countries like Nepal. What this means is that people now have actually the time and energy to think about things like this, in contrast with only a small elite. Further more, we are allowed to look up and think about almost everything. At least enough I think to build up your own specific way of seeing things without being denied crucial information.

According to the above the means of being a philosopher are available. Now the only restrictions are purely personal. First of all you can choose not to be a philospher and go for a still available ready-made package like antroposophics or some dying but not quite dead form of christianity. But the people who are really serious about this seem a small minority to me (at least in The Netherlands that is). More people seem to not ask the important questions about mankind an human life at all and are happily seduced by consumerism.

This said , a philosopher, that means somebody who wants not only to create an opinion about philosophics matters, but also as somebody who wants them published, has become dated and obsolete. Society seems to have created , at least for a larger percentage of people then ever before, an enviroment where they are no longer requiered, apart from purely personal goals. Offcourse, a function in discussing philosophy can still be found , namely entertainment.

[Sauwelios]

Entertainment, in which we can discern the French word tenir, “to keep”, keeps man where he is; whereas art tries to raise man to a higher level of existence.

Philosophy, in the grand sense of the word, is a form of art, not entertainment. It is rather a form of practice than a form of recreation: practice in the art of war.

“A declaration of war on the masses by higher men is needed! Everywhere the mediocre are combining in order to make themselves master! Everything that makes soft and effeminate, that serves the end of the “people” or the “feminine,” works in favor of suffrage universel, i.e., the dominion of inferior men. But we should take reprisal and bring this whole affair (which in Europe commenced with Christianity) to light and to the bar of judgment.”
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 861, entire.]

Hail Nietzsche!

[Faust]

Yeah, I pine for the good old days, when everyone and their brother was doing philosophy. Housewives, kids, the homeless - they were all just gobbling up everything published in the field. Instead of football teams, the schools had philosophy teams. There were philosophy TV shows. Radio. The dailies had a philosophy section. Philosophy stores at the mall. Kids wore Socrates sweatshirts. Lots of philo puter games.

I get a bit exasperated with these “things are worse than they used to be” posts. More philosophy titles are published than ever before. The New York Times Sunday Magazine has a philosopher on staff, who writes a weekly column. Online philo forums, some of which hold only a tenuous relationship with the field except in name, I admit, abound. Corporations have ethics departments.

By the way, all philosophy is morality. Every word is directed at “how we should live” or “how we can live”. 'Twas ever thus.

[Obw]

In a world where there is more conflict, more cultural misunderstanding and more (or on a bigger scale, given population increases) suffering than probably every before there has never been a greater need for clear thinking philosophy types.

[Faust]

And I am proof of that need, Ob.

By the way, what happened to the Best Avatar Ever on ILP?

[Impenitent]

@Obw

In a world where there is more conflict, more cultural misunderstanding and more (or on a bigger scale, given population increases) suffering than probably every before there has never been a greater need for clear thinking philosophy types.

actually there isn’t more conflict or suffering…

there are more cameras and voyeurs…

-Imp

[detrop]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin. -Reagan

LOL.

That’s funny. I want to change the quote around a little if you don’t mind.

“How do you tell an idiot? Well, it’s someone who considers Reagan’s opinions of communism, or opinion of anything for that matter. And how do you tell an anti-idiot? It’s someone who tells the truth and gets his name in the hall of shame for insulting the idiot who quoted reagan.”

Okay, I’m ready.

Let’s do it.

[SNADERT]

Sauwelios : "Entertainment, in which we can discern the French word tenir, “to keep”, keeps man where he is; whereas art tries to raise man to a higher level of existence.

Philosophy, in the grand sense of the word, is a form of art, not entertainment. It is rather a form of practice than a form of recreation: practice in the art of war. "

Nicely said. However, it does not really comment on the issue that in my opinion a “philosopher” has become more or less obsolete. Sure it will be necissary to practice art in any form, but I think that the art of philosophy will not find, or need an audience, exept a purely personal one.

faust: "I get a bit exasperated with these “things are worse than they used to be” posts. More philosophy titles are published than ever before. The New York Times Sunday Magazine has a philosopher on staff, who writes a weekly column. Online philo forums, some of which hold only a tenuous relationship with the field except in name, I admit, abound. Corporations have ethics departments. "

I’m not really sure if you refer to my post in this one, but I surely don’t intend to be negative. I actually see it as a luxury that we do not need philosophers to guide us in our important questions of life, but we have all the opportunities to do this (or not) ourselves.

obw: “In a world where there is more conflict, more cultural misunderstanding and more (or on a bigger scale, given population increases) suffering than probably every before there has never been a greater need for clear thinking philosophy types.”

Or, these “clear thinking philosophy types” will just add to the chaos. Doesnt history offer us already enough of those? I would say so. It seems that in the mess you discribe it’s all important to choose yourself what information you regard as important and what you base your opinion and visions on, so you can tailor-make your own philosophy and create a hopefully perfect order in your life of chaos.

[Obw]

Not if they are clear thinking. Im using your argument there, if you didnt notice. You are saying “thanks to history, we’re in a better position to know things” and I am saying “thanks to history, philosophers today are in a better position than philosophers of yesteryear”. You’re also making relativist assumptions of subjectivity about the teleology of the discipline.

Imp- disagree. Population increases.

Faust- I look at my girlfriend all day long and looking at her on my computer was getting old.

[Faust]

That’s not funny.

[Milikowskian]

hi SNADERT!
Please take some pictures of a guru with you on it!!!
How do you propose to change the world into a fairer and juster place without an art of war?
Why not art aswar?

[Sauwelios]

@SNADERT

Sauwelios : "Entertainment, in which we can discern the French word tenir, “to keep”, keeps man where he is; whereas art tries to raise man to a higher level of existence.

Philosophy, in the grand sense of the word, is a form of art, not entertainment. It is rather a form of practice than a form of recreation: practice in the art of war. "

Nicely said. However, it does not really comment on the issue that in my opinion a “philosopher” has become more or less obsolete. Sure it will be necissary to practice art in any form, but I think that the art of philosophy will not find, or need an audience, exept a purely personal one.

Obsolete for whom, Snadert - do you mean the masses do no longer need philosophy? Philosophy has always been in the first place necessary for the philosopher himself; and in the second place, necessary for those like him, those kindred souls to whom he and his philosophy - two inextricably tied things, if we define philosophy as “that which philosophers do” - appeal, in the literal sense of the word.

I venture to express the suspicion that what the “cultured” of today call “philosophy” has nothing to do with what philosophy essentially is.

Philosophy has become a form of entertainment for the likes of you, whereas true philosophy is a form of art, as my signature affirms. It is a way of life of the true artist, who wants only two things: his bread and his art.

Can you explain why you think art in any form is necessary?

Do you long for your art as the lion for its food?

Why does the philosopher need philosophy? Any idea?

Wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit.

[SNADERT]

obw: “You’re also making relativist assumptions of subjectivity about the teleology of the discipline.”

Darn, I always do that… slaps himself

Milikowskian: "Please take some pictures of a guru with you on it!!! "

I do have a picture of me with 4 chanting tibetan monks!

“How do you propose to change the world into a fairer and juster place without an art of war? Why not art aswar?”

Art as war … yeah thats nice, but I would like to change the world into a fairer and juster place myself and experience all that comes with that myself extensively before even thinking about clouding other people with my idea how that should be done best. So I would like to see it as a personal war instead of inciting other to fight for what I happen to see as important.

"Obsolete for whom, Snadert - do you mean the masses do no longer need philosophy? Philosophy has always been in the first place necessary for the philosopher himself; and in the second place, necessary for those like him, those kindred souls to whom he and his philosophy - two inextricably tied things, if we define philosophy as “that which philosophers do” - appeal, in the literal sense of the word. "

Sure, sure… If you look at your Nietzsche, how can you exclude the masses as an audience for the philosopher when it goes way beyond finding a personal “truth” but is much more narrating about changing society as a whole? I believe you told me that every german soldier in WOI carried a copy of Zarathoestra with him. How can you say this when there are “philosophers” like Marx who specificly cries out to the masses and who’s most important work has become a bible for so many people later? Also do not disregard the philosophies of religions who have been a mayor influence in the lives of millons for thousands of years.

I understand what you are saying but I think there is more to it then art for the sake of art, or philosophy as entertainment, but that that use is now actually dying by how society in the western world developed, especially since 1945.

[Sauwelios]

@SNADERT

"Obsolete for whom, Snadert - do you mean the masses do no longer need philosophy? Philosophy has always been in the first place necessary for the philosopher himself; and in the second place, necessary for those like him, those kindred souls to whom he and his philosophy - two inextricably tied things, if we define philosophy as “that which philosophers do” - appeal, in the literal sense of the word. "

Sure, sure… If you look at your Nietzsche, how can you exclude the masses as an audience for the philosopher when it goes way beyond finding a personal “truth” but is much more narrating about changing society as a whole?

Because changing society as a whole is done by certain individuals. As Georg Brandes, the one who called Nietzsche’s philosophy “aristocratic radicalism”, wrote:

“I don’t believe for one minute that great men are a concentrate of the mass, are created from below, are expressions of the flock, etc. Everything comes from the great ones, everything is sifted down from them.”
[Letter to Sophus Schandorph, April 1888.]

This process of a great man changing society is explained by Daniel Conway:

“In their private pursuits of self-perfection, exemplary human beings inadvertently produce themselves as works of art for public reception. […]
Nietzsche entrusts the future of humankind to these higher human beings precisely because of their capacity to transfigure the pain and suffering that necessarily attend self-overcoming. In the eyes of their witnesses, exemplary figures redeem their own suffering, which in turn emboldens these witnesses to attempt painful self-overcomings of their own. […] They contribute to the permanent enhancement of the species by advancing the frontier of human perfectibility, which in turn stimulates in others the erotic impulse to engage in self-overcomings of their own.
[…]
Erôs arises in response to the gulf that separates the exemplary human being from all others, and it naturally aspires to bridge this gulf. […] Only when engulfed in the madness of erôs would human beings ever attempt to overcome or transcend their natural limitations.”
[Love’s labor’s lost.]

The essay is called “Love’s labor’s lost” because Conway, like you, despairs of the extinction of philosophy:

“The advent of the “last will of humankind,” the will to nothingness, marks the critical point of exhaustion at which the enervated will is no longer capable of awakening erôs, the point at which the pathos of distance vanishes altogether. […] The decadence that besets late modernity thus comprises an assault on beauty itself, as potential objects of erotic attraction are systematically debased. Indeed, if it were no longer possible to “attach one’s heart” to a great human being, in whom one sees reflected one’s own prospects for self-perfection, then one would have no means of redeeming one’s hatred of oneself. The future of humankind as a whole would no longer be warranted, and the teachings of Silenus would become wisdom once again.”
[ibid., conclusion.]

As you know, I am one who has attached my heart to (what I deem) great human beings, Nietzsche being one of them. You have often expressed debasing opinions about him, perhaps so often that it may be considered systematical. I guess he is debased in your own mind, which has been infected by cynicism, that cynicism which sees in all behaviour of all human beings only the motivations of vanity, hunger, and the sexual drive.

I believe you told me that every german soldier in WOI carried a copy of Zarathoestra with him. How can you say this when there are “philosophers” like Marx who specificly cries out to the masses and who’s most important work has become a bible for so many people later? Also do not disregard the philosophies of religions who have been a mayor influence in the lives of millons for thousands of years.

I understand what you are saying but I think there is more to it then art for the sake of art, or philosophy as entertainment, but that that use is now actually dying by how society in the western world developed, especially since 1945.

Indeed. But what do I care about that? I will continue my own private pursuit of self-perfection. I will not look around to see whether the world follows me from Hades or not.

As for l’art pour l’art:

“The fight against purpose in art is always a fight against the moralizing tendency in art, against its subordination to morality.”
[Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, Skirmishes of an Untimely Man, 24.]

However, that art does not have a moral purpose does not mean that it has no purpose at all: rather, it has a purpose beyond good and evil:

“Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l’art pour l’art?”
[ibid.]

[SNADERT]

As you know, I am one who has attached my heart to (what I deem) great human beings, Nietzsche being one of them. You have often expressed debasing opinions about him, perhaps so often that it may be considered systematical. I guess he is debased in your own mind, which has been infected by cynicism, that cynicism which sees in all behaviour of all human beings only the motivations of vanity, hunger, and the sexual drive.

Yeah , I am (not fully) aware of the fact that I am deeply affected by cynicism, but at least it’s a start. I do not try to gun down Nietzsche here in any way though, just trying to identify a difference between privately pursuiting self-perfection, and having ideas how a whole society should be related to eachother. For the latter , like I said, Marx is obviously known for but also Plato with his “ideal state”. Maybe you just mean that according to you there is no difference at all between those?

Indeed. But what do I care about that? I will continue my own private pursuit of self-perfection. I will not look around to see whether the world follows me from Hades or not.

That is awesome.

[Milikowskian]

@snarent en jakop

Milikowskian: "Please take some pictures of a guru with you on it!!! "

I do have a picture of me with 4 chanting tibetan monks!

OUTSTANDING!

@thesesamesnikkels

“How do you propose to change the world into a fairer and juster place without an art of war? Why not art aswar?”

Art as war … yeah thats nice, but I would like to change the world into a fairer and juster place myself and experience all that comes with that myself extensively before even thinking about clouding other people with my idea how that should be done best. So I would like to see it as a personal war instead of inciting other to fight for what I happen to see as important.

And what, great sage, is that?
Praytell…
Did you know Vincent got KICKED OUT OF INTRASWITCH?

[Sauwelios]

@SNADERT

As you know, I am one who has attached my heart to (what I deem) great human beings, Nietzsche being one of them. You have often expressed debasing opinions about him, perhaps so often that it may be considered systematical. I guess he is debased in your own mind, which has been infected by cynicism, that cynicism which sees in all behaviour of all human beings only the motivations of vanity, hunger, and the sexual drive.

Yeah , I am (not fully) aware of the fact that I am deeply affected by cynicism, but at least it’s a start. I do not try to gun down Nietzsche here in any way though,

I know, he’s just an example.

just trying to identify a difference between privately pursuiting self-perfection, and having ideas how a whole society should be related to eachother.

That is just what I wanted to talk to you about, and it bears a direct relation to Plato.

“Socrates […] never founds the city [polis, “city-state”] he so eloquently constructs in speech. Yet he remains an artist nonetheless, for in the process of “building” his “city in speech” he transforms himself into an incarnate work of art. His self-creation in turn awakens the erôs lying dormant in (some of) his interlocutors.”
[Daniel Conway, Love’s labor’s lost.]

I am a self-proclaimed Nietzschean Fundamentalist. My ambition, at the moment, is to construct a fundamentally Nietzschean “state in thought”. This has everything to do with pursuing private perfection, indeed, it is in the first place a pursuit of private perfection: I want to make clear to myself what I think, what my ideal state would look like, therefore I have to cut it out of the rocks of obscurity. Consciousness is internal communication. I want to make my ideal state conscious: therefore I have to communicate it.

[Obw]

@SNADERT

Darn, I always do that… slaps himself

Hehe… well, I just mean that you are assuming relativity is at the heart of philosophy, and actually that is a minority viewpoint.

[jeremiah175]

@SNADERT

More people seem to not ask the important questions about mankind an human life at all and are happily seduced by consumerism.

This said , a philosopher, that means somebody who wants not only to create an opinion about philosophics matters, but also as somebody who wants them published, has become dated and obsolete. Society seems to have created , at least for a larger percentage of people then ever before, an enviroment where they are no longer requiered, apart from purely personal goals. Offcourse, a function in discussing philosophy can still be found , namely entertainment.

The people are anesthetized. There is bread for the belly and circuses for the mind, and so the many stare out from their emptiness, in waking slumber.

“Who is this rabble rouser”, they say of the conscious one.

Accusingly and with twisted faces they sneer at him from the field, muttering insults as they chew. “Ours is peace and quiet and a blissful contenment”, they bleat, “and you are the spolier of sweet dreams!”

“What can I do for ones such as these” he wonders? “To pull you from the field, to sheer you and teach you to walk upright, all these I have longed to do for you. Yet, your legs are not strong enough to support you. Neither are you hearty enough to be taken from the field and shorn without hunger or cold overtaking you.”

[SNADERT]

And what, great sage, is that?
Praytell…

Well… My ideal situation would be : Be fully functioning, independant from others (meaning mostly money) , while not obstructing other people in their will, while creating something beautiful , or useful, while enjoying it all.

Consciousness is internal communication. I want to make my ideal state conscious: therefore I have to communicate it.

So what you say is you just need an audience to get feedback about your self. Ok, that makes sense.

Hehe… well, I just mean that you are assuming relativity is at the heart of philosophy, and actually that is a minority viewpoint.

Thanks, that’s much more clear to me.

SNADERT wrote:
More people seem to not ask the important questions about mankind an human life at all and are happily seduced by consumerism.

This said , a philosopher, that means somebody who wants not only to create an opinion about philosophics matters, but also as somebody who wants them published, has become dated and obsolete. Society seems to have created , at least for a larger percentage of people then ever before, an enviroment where they are no longer requiered, apart from purely personal goals. Offcourse, a function in discussing philosophy can still be found , namely entertainment.

The people are anesthetized. There is bread for the belly and circuses for the mind, and so the many stare out from their emptiness, in waking slumber.

“Who is this rabble rouser”, they say of the conscious one.

Accusingly and with twisted faces they sneer at him from the field, muttering insults as they chew. “Ours is peace and quiet and a blissful contenment”, they bleat, “and you are the spolier of sweet dreams!”

“What can I do for ones such as these” he wonders? “To pull you from the field, to sheer you and teach you to walk upright, all these I have longed to do for you. Yet, your legs are not strong enough to support you. Neither are you hearty enough to be taken from the field and shorn without hunger or cold overtaking you.”

I dont like how you quote me. That wasnt the point of the opening post at all.