Types of philosophers: (beta version)
Preface:
I have come to believe that although the culture of canada in part comes from immigrants, we are still quite based in a religious slave culture which preceded our present modern culture, and as such, there are within our nation many sorts of overly peaceful, easy going, utilitarian and democratic folk, which in some ways fit into my negative descriptions of them. Despite all this, and the domestication of humanity, there is some wolf left in the dog, some philosopher left in the man. So I do not see it as futile that I should be writing towards a specific type of a person.
- [some types of philosophers and thinkers will be listed below] -
[1]the overly positive
[2]the overly peaceful
[3]the overly negative
[4]the religious, and the knowers
[5]the short thinking (coming to conclusions too soon)
[6]the babbling philosophers (some of the classics)
[7]the ideal philosopher
[8]human capacity
I will list now, a few types of philosophers, and why I disagree with their mentalities.
[1]The overly positive:
Now I would not mind the love of life itself, but as you may know, too much love for something can be imbalancing. There is a difference between a raw unmastered love, compared to a stable, strong and healthy form of love, which is not despirate or causing one to feel anguish. Also at times, I happen to believe that death is necessary, especially for a carnivore or for someone which has enemies, but if there is so much love of life as to not ever want to cause death, that love has caused a restriction upon its host. Destroying life is like saying no to life. One says no to its plea, to its demand that it be let to live. But sometimes we must say no. Denial of life is also relative to self-denial, resisting pleasure or pain for a greater goal.
[2]The overly peaceful:
I have come to conclude that things such as defense and destruction, when controlled by a creature, are completely necessary, and all things would die quickly if they did not have defensive and destructive capacities. Although an ideal life would not have many needs, real life on earth requires conflict. Even though conflict and resistance is life-destroying in too large a dose, in a certain dose it is essential for strength, evolution and living. Life is at constant conflict with external forces and entities. One of the meanings of life is to fight. Now, an overly peaceful philosopher will forward all kinds of soft philosophies. To them, in their mind, a life of greatest ease is greatest good. They do not know that ease destroys strength itself, and that strength is vital for life.
[3]The overly negative:
Life is difficulty. Without difficulty there would be no life, and without life nothing would experience difficulty or suffering, but too much suffering can drive a person mad. I am not 100% sure of this, but I am thinking that humanity is at its best when there is both pain and pleasure at the same time, one compensating for the other, because pure pain is simply a soul rotting force. Pain leads to the philosophy that life is bad, which then leads to a bad form of nihilism, or anti-value. The idea is basically that something-suffering is not as good as nothing-not-suffering. Most negative philosophers, whether they admit it or not, believe that a good life is not possible, or even they go so far as to say that good is not possible. A person’s mood deeply influences their perception of the world. There are many sick perspectives, and weak perspectives, but one with a good eye can easily see a healthy and strong perspective. When under stress and suffering, the world begins to appear almost as a hell-like place. They would forget that many animals do not really suffer all that much in the wild, and if they should fall ill, truly ill, they would die rather quickly with not that much pain. Also some species have a special mechanism which limits pain, and I have forgotten the name of it. Negative philosophers are the philosophers of impossibility. To them, so many wonders are simply ignored as impossible or unreal. This type of thinking is short, too, which is bad for us.
[4]The religious and the knowers:
In canada I have come to believe that there is less religiousness than in the united states. There are many religious folk who are basically moderate, or like, non extreme. These people are hardly a problem, but the super religious still exist in some places as well. I’m not going to claim that a modern protestant is somehow insane and bad just because he has some faith in a God figure and in an ancient text like the bible, but my problem is with the people who take an intensity and a lack of humility into a holy abrahamic book. They are the know-it-all type, that I think is the worst type. The type which would say “the bible says this, but it could be wrong, but I think it’s right, because of these reasons” is hardly the problem. The type which claims the bible is perfect and 100% true, and they read it, therefor they are 100% right, that is a philosophical problem. When atheists of poor quality claim to be 100% right via science, that is also a philosophical problem. There are some reasons for why it is a philosophical problem. One main issue is that if you think you are 100% right, you wont check if you’re wrong, and we all should know we are wrong at times. So what I am describing is a non-critical mind. This has been coined as ‘faith’, by the modern atheists, even though I would instead call it absolute non-critical beliefs, combined with zero humility. So my problem isn’t with all religion, it is my problem with a certain type of extremism, with a ‘bad’ type of a man or woman, and that is all it is to me. I will add that ‘knowers’, the negative context of knowers, are people which are not self-critical, and they think the world is more simple and knowable than it actually is. The worst of the religious are a type of knower. Now its opposite, there must be a clear destiction between the common “i don’t know”, and the negative “I can’t know”.
[5]The short thinking:
Especially at ILP (ilovephilosophy.com) I feel I have noticed many short thinkers, and what I mean by this, is that they put little energy into the process of forming a thought or reading of an idea. Opinions are thrust forward before they have a chance to fully form or mature. I call this short thinking. On the other hand, the babbling philosophers have put too much time into one idea or set of ideas, but at least they can forward somewhat matured ideas. Matured ideas may even be uncommon, so that the obsessive thinker can become famous due to his knowledge of details. In some cases it might be so that the short thinker acts this way out of habit, while in other cases it might be that the short thinker acts in such a way due to his genes. There could be other factors besides. To me it seems that the short thinkers are almost inhumanly wrong when forming judgement, even misunderstanding simple ideas. I would wonder how they could function in daily life, but I have seen even more amazing foolishness as well which was even more mysterious as to how the person could function in daily life. The illusion of efficiency, it seems to me that in some cases this exists, so that the person feels they are being efficient when they put only a small amount of time into specific thoughts. What I’m trying to describe is the inner sensation of speed and correctness. A real philosopher is critical of himself, and he should notice if he is making too much error. However, a short thinker will probably not even take the time to reconsider himself. Due to the error-ridden nature of the human mind, I consider it vital to reconsider and question one’s self, in moderation, but often.
[6]The babbling philosophers:
I do not want to sound overly negative, and earlier I described why over-negativity is bad for the mind, but I feel that many of the classic philosophers, are at least in part, babbling philosophers, which use too much time and words for a single subject. The good side of this is that there are higher odds of the person learning something if enough time goes into it, and this I believe is why the classics had gained fame. The bad side is that the idea looses its speed and efficiency unless the reader manually condenses the understanding. Our time on earth is short, so we should, at least in my own perception, persue the good quickly. We have no time to obsess over minor details of things. We need to go strait to the heart of life, subjects, matters, and values, as soon as we are ready and able. It is not possible for a single person to read the whole of modern literature in the world, and when I see book stores and libraries, I think to myself that much of it is actually waste, such as a book made simply for mild entertainment, instead of being created for some greater purpose.
[7]The ideal philosopher:
Let it be known that I do not consider myself an ideal philosopher, and this whole writing was not designed to glorify myself or belittle others. It is - a list of observations. That is all I can really have.
The ideal philosopher has the good kind of pain, along with the good kind of pleasure. This type of person is so rare because of how hard it is to find and then readjust the exact balance of negative, positive, strong, weak, genetically fit, etc. As such, even the finest philosophers in history have had defects. But they did have some good things going for them, and so they happened. The ideal philosopher has the genes of wisdom and quick, clear communication between the cells. He may also have some slightly larger brain. He or she may seek to fix the world and spread light, or simply hide and let it die as it must. Personally I would consider it more reasonable to let the majority of the world die, while preserving the finest things, not over-extending our will to want to heal the whole world, since that is again an imbalanced mentality. Death is freedom from cyclical force. Life is a chain reacting cycle, and some cycles are better than others. Some are more appealing. The ideal is to have the most appealing cycles for as long as possible, carrying on and on, while the malignant cycles should be let to die. The ideal philosopher will also understand natural force, while the knowers claim to know super natural force, which is thought to transcend nature, as it is an all-mighty sort of a thing, but no. This is false knowledge. Due to the keen eye of the ideal philosopher, time will not be wasted on the endless flawed options which one person or the next has fallen to.
[8]Human capacity:
I believe this is highly relative to the ideal philosopher, for ideal philosophy is an expression of the finest of human capacity. Someone whom walks a tight rope must do so in an almost perfect way. Not anyone may do it. Likewise the person with the greatest accuracy in shooting, this person must practice, but they must also be born for it, and in their life, by something like chance, they must so happen to get the opportunity, the desire, and the prospect to develop the art of shooting. Human capacity requires use, but also requires some type of base capacity, of the genes and how well developed the body and organs are.