What if there were some things in the world that were very hard for a human to know? Or what if there was a thing that was true, but impossible for a human to know? And then, there was a thing which was easy to learn, for a human. The hard things would take more work and more time. The easy things would be compatible with the human mind. And next, each thing you would learn requires a certain amount of time and effort. You only have let’s say, 70 years. What will you do with it, if you are truly a philosopher? You could waste 20 years trying to learn the un-learn-able, with nothing to show for it. Or you could become very wise, if that kind of thing is even possible. It seems to me like this all is a sort of an exchange, a sacrifice of one thing for another. But some questions should be considered before this business.
Hey Dan,
Which questions? A precarious business to be sure if you’re not sure.
What of your sacrifice(s)?
How we should spend our life.
And for that you’d have to understand life and spending first, to a degree.
I’ve tried to replace TV and games with meditation and reading.
I was like that for years, then i got tired of it and slowed down.
2op
The alternative would be a life of not searching and trying to learn the impossible, the history books would be empty or full of meaningless drivel. Consider how much of the world we now live in was arrived at by thinkers who dared.
Not much else to do really?
I think there are a great many things that are hard for a single human know, but easier for many working together.
There are probably many things it is impossible to know, because the supporting intermediate platforms that would allow people to bridge the gap between the sum of the known, and the as yet unknowable do not exist.
The easy things are intuitive, fit the observable, but aren’t necessarily true.
70 years. Depends, if you’re lucky, you’ll live in the ‘right’ 70 years, a period which suits your skills, knowledge, and proclivities. Bit of a crap shoot really.
Sacrifice. Well, if you’re a true philosopher, you may as well take your chance. If you don’t, then you are sacrificing a life doing something you feel a calling toward, for a life you don’t. That doesn’t necessarily mean you won’t be happy, but it will leave you with regret. “I COULDA BEEN A CONTENDER” etc.
I suppose the question you have to ask is, how amenable is the world to what I have to offer, or to what I am considering developing the ability to offer…?
I dunno, just a feeling, but the lone philosopher gig has always been a toughie, and I don’t think it’s gotten any easier recently. Not if that’s the way you’re intending to pay the bills.
You can’t be born a philosopher, nor can you decide how to spend your life on your first day, so if you spend 70 years doing it, you’d better live to 96.
In fact, it might be good idea not to become a philosopher until 60 or 65, when you retire from a productive career - during which you will have learned a great many things you didn’t set out to learn. You will also have made a great many trade-offs - take this job and give up that one; pursue one romance and abandon the other, have a child or get a PHD - and probably some sacrifices. By 60, you might be much better qualified to pursue philosophy than you were at 18, and be able to prioritize the important questions more wisely.
The down-side: you may find that hardly any of what looked like big, important questions at 18 are worth the effort.