The Heart of Philosophy

It is obvious that a lot of people interested in philosophy in one way or another are hurting. Initially the beauty of new and profound ideas is very attractive and from my own experience, I’ve found them easy to hide within. Yet, after a while, something is still found to be lacking and even leads to hard feelings towards one another as people strike out to cover themselves. I used to be more this way until I got it through my thick skull how foolish this was.

I don’t believe this was the initial intent of philosophy. I believe that philosophy at one time was more experiential and not just this distant beauty which seems to lend itself to experiences of hopeless meaninglessness.

We know the intellect of philosophy but what is the heart of philosophy and how to value it? I really think this is a question underneath much of the recent tension on ILP and it includes the question of how to respect ideas themselves.

So, as an experiment, I propose a book discussion for those interested of Jacob Needleman’s classic: “The Heart of Philosophy” which deals with precisely this question.

amazon.com/gp/product/158542 … s&v=glance

As you can see the man has credentials and by this brief book description you can see the possibility of moving the theoretical into the practical by allowing us into the experience.

I believe a book discussion on the ideas presented within it would be beneficial not just for me but for all that are open to share on them.

I suggest leaving the guns at the door and a temporary truce on personal disputes for those willing to be open to and share a more complete experience of what the depth of philosophy can offer.

If you would be open to discuss “The Heart of Philosophy.” say so on this thread or even PM me and we can put it together and at a designated time begin it somewhere on ILP.

Philosophy is a training in the school of argument. I see ILP as a battle ground for us, the keen thinkers. We are like gladiators on ILP, and we must win every thread to improve our reputation, and we ought to participate in all discussions to prove our worth.

and if time stooped by us then what?

Well, if time stooped by me, I’d ask him if his back was ok, and offer to carry his groceries for him.

you see it as a BATTLEGROUND!!! pinnacle, man, philosophy isn’t about winning, and reputation doesn’t come from trying to get one up on others…

lol. really? and i thought the point of ILP was:

Perhaps we should have a special gladiator arena board for PoR (and anyone foolish enough to challenge him) so he can win his threads and become the best thinker in the land!
Truly, i think we can rank PoR amongst the greatest philosophers because he can win arguments on the internet. :unamused:

I think that philosophers want a resolution, not to win, but for anyone to win leads to a better understanding.

I wouldn’t mind loosing to find out a better meaning for something.

Once again I agree with this truly remarkable woman.

Philosophical discussion for me isn’t for the purpose of winning a debate but in discovering my question and keeping it open through contemplation. I think a book discussion that deals with this heart of philosophy will be beneficial since it keeps discussion of this question that seems at the core of so many disputes more organized by providing a common ground.

I can’t see any reason for me to strive to become a poor man’s Don Quixote and out debate windmills.

Debate is often like swallowing food without tasting it. The “winner” of the debate is the one who swallows the most. Savoring a profound question through contemplation and sharing the results is like sitting down together at a good meal and taking the time to enjoy tasting good food