I personally can’t, so I think we can’t, any ‘we’ is a group I belong to. That’s my philosophical contribution for now: I have none. Avoid all value philosophy and value ontology and ask what would philosophy be worth doing to preserve it? Would you kill for it? There seem to have been moments where the actions and survival of one or two men were crucial to the passing on of the entire philosophical canon. That cannot be the case now, obviously, because the internet guarantees its existence. In a sense the internet is the muse of philosophy herself; the little faerie of fate that makes for asking and receiving to be such slightly and very different things. But anyone can still be excluded from it by closing the book with an ominous thud and saying “The lawn needs mowing”.
I’ve allowed 8 choices, this would provide a more subtle differential…
Only 30 minutes ago I asked the same question of myself. I was thinking do men gravitate towards Philosophy because to some it is a men’s thing, a masculine thing and do they resent a woman’s intrusion, but then I thought why would sex come into it. Men and women both have brain power, a certain type of thinking embraces philosophy, a questioning mind and ever since I was a small child I was asking why, I grew up still asking why, so what is the big deal with some men who want to exclude women from the same mental gymnastics they are compelled to partake in, because to me that is what it is.
Reminds me of what Lyssa said about virtus, vis, vir, virgo in one thread - that the Romans held the noble vigor of the hero to be such an extraordinary thing that it was attributed to a woman as naturally as it was to men; if she shows the vital spirit, it is that vitality that defines her status. It is simply more exclusive than sex; but we see this in the lineages and patronages of Europes royal houses; the women were not rarely the most warlike, and often succeeded in their schemes. Europe especially favors women.
Europa
and this is what my response would have been, that philosophy is extremely rare among men; though it is perhaps even rarer among women, the difference is insignificant compared to the difference between the philosophically inclined and the ones who do not feel the inescapable draw.
In fact I am, as a Dutchman, instinctively contemptuous of men who don’t fight their women. Women tend to be the cleverer parties and men who subject women with violence remain brutes and their women survive them in tragic irony. Children are the only ones who may temporarily benefit somewhat from stupid men, which is the same as cowardly men, until they are about 9, which is when a man begins to form. For a man it is dangerous to think. A woman always has her womb as a last resort, as well as the fixed, thus anticipated fate of fading beauty, which resigns her to life as it is.
Man has no such means to ground his consciousness in given truth; less is given to him; also less given is what he has to give, or that he has to give; he must invent himself out of himself and project outward, he must always still attain his peak; but within the confines of a fatalistic pessimistic religion, this peak is inevitably some form of perverse, exaggerated death.
“The ethics of all pessimistic religions are means of evading suicide.” - Nietzsche
Philosophy is so much more than a subject. It is how life is lived. Everyone lives their life according to their philosophies. Those that have taken courses or have a degree in philosophy tend to be rigid about philosophical topics. The laymen of philosophy go broader and more relaxed. Then you have those that just live and give opinions without thinking it is philosophy.
Of the groups the ones that paid to study at a school tend to be more rigid and closed minded. The subject is akin to religion. This is not bad , it keeps the ancients alive and still affecting society, good and bad. We cannot forget the past.
Philosophy is living wether a person knows it or not. To all it is important because the way they live is due to philosophies.
Shieldmaiden
I think that men and women live in different bodies and in every society I can think of receive a different relation. Thus, I hold it as plausible that philosophy has a different value depending on someone’s sex. Sure we all have a brain, but that brain is connected to different bodies, different secretions and so the perception of value can understandably be different.
Jakob
I think that philosophy is the systematized tendency everyone has for asking and answering questions. Even when some abandon it, they do so from a belief in the wisdom of their choice.
We are pattern-seekers and I think that life eventually slows down enough with age or with wealth that we are afforded the time to think beyond the mundane business of the day and reflect past that giving in to that curiosity we are prone to have about everything.
Any philosophy unlived is therefore unloved and not understood. Your life would not exist without the philosophy to define it; or I should state that it would not exist as it is without the philosophical criteria to define it. Even as you state you have no contribution, you have given a contribution of philosophy in this as well as a test in psychology. You would expect someone to mention the 8 choices or how interesting it is, though if they did, you might be bored by it since you expected it. If they didn’t mention it, you might get upset because they didn’t even mention the creative thought that went into it. And, in the process of stating that you have no philosophical contribution and tell people to avoid all philosophy and ontology, you delve right into deep waters of both.
What is the sound of one-hand clapping?
A stupid question, just make your fingers hit your palm on one hand and you will find out.
At what point of ennui will you pull out of the tailspin to actually live and experience and enjoy?
I’m going to just not comment on other portions of it, such as how you mention that the internet is the muse of philosophy herself where the internet is merely a part of the life/death question that many would attribute as the muse of philosophy, but then there would also be time, space, and any other part of life or death or life through death that could also be taken by themselves as muses for philosophy, though each philosophy would only tell a portion of the master philosophy that must exist for life and death both to exist in whatever form that they might exist. I similarly will not comment about you giving the spirit of philosophy a feminine aspect; try to sneak that in there all subtly as if no one was going to notice and become sexist in the process; or perhaps you expected someone to think that.
At what level is paranoia simply seeing what choices people might explore in approaching a situation? Past the panic-level of paranoia where it becomes so much ‘people are out to get me and fuck me up’.
I not-so-subtly addressed your other portions while saying I wouldn’t in an intellectual response to yours rather than any sarcasm or irony or sardonic attachment since I’m not into that ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ shit that kids are into these days.
I personally wouldn’t kill someone to preserve philosophy, since anyone that would kill to end it would inevitably start asking questions again. It’s not a matter of any one thing keeping it going; it’s the whole life/death cycle and possible life-through-death that spurs people to ask the questions that define the very nature of it all that keeps them going and the answers they get here and there are either too disturbing or too fantastic to tell directly and so would rather lay the groundwork through philosophy and life’s little lessons for people to see for themselves. Regardless of want; regardless of will; philosophy defines what binds and moves all of creation if not actually binding it with concrete laws, which I doubt is possible. Through the questioning, you may find what is able to happen beyond the norm and what may not be able to happen and if something is able to happen, do you think it would be at all times?
At what point of waxing intellectual or thinking along so complex of thought chains do you actually just go back to being a simple person for a moment or three to enjoy telling a good fart joke or sitting there staring at the beauty of nature or just walking down the road or sitting in the company of ‘idiots’?
When philosophy gets in the way of life’s enjoyment, it becomes even more useful to get back to life’s enjoyment.
Humans are trapped in a perplexing state of existence which consists of their physical existence combined with their lack of knowledge of their true origins or their ultimate fate and as such Nietzsche was not exempt from this, he knew no more or no less than any of us in this regard. I see you put great stock in his works, but I see him as a man without a fire burning in his heart.
I was enjoying this post until I realized you are just another fanatic making assumptions about other peoples lives.
You are wrong on all your earlier ‘psychology’ but it was harmless enough. Then what I suppose is ‘the real you’ popped up. Or is it the shadow? Which is which?
In any case, I’m a very happy man, and this is for a good deal because of philosophy (but Ive always been deeply joyful). A mistrustful muslim said to me; “you are not happy, you think you are, but you do not know Allah so you do not know what happiness is.” I smiled and thought “I am so very happy that I do not care what happiness means to you”.
This ties in with my philosophy, which is about standards. Your standards are somewhat discernible, but still fragile and downright puny compared to mine. It seems you have gotten used to low standards and assume them everywhere.
I guess its interesting theoretically, to catch a glimpse of a mans paranoid fears.
I could tell you that none of this went through my mind, but I’d expect you to keep imagining that it did.
Yeah no thats not me. Fart jokes do not enhance my happiness. Nor do idiots.
I’m sorry, that sounds really sad.
I wish that one day you will learn to enjoy philosophy as life.
That’s interesting. I see him as the fire of Europe, and he is the only renowned post-socratic philosopher that can see into my heart and talk to the fire there.
But sometimes we know that we won’t be able to get at the truth of things.
So, in a case like that, I can see where truth is no longer relevant. This may not make sense but that may be the moment when philosophy is more vital…especially in this place. When we’ve laid aside our absolutist attitudes and our written in stone beliefs because we realize they can no longer hold water, that is when true philosophy or philosophizing can happen.
Do we stop our questioning, our wonderment, our being curious, discussing all the Whats, Whens, Whys Hows, et cetera? simply because we understand that in some cases truth holds no relevance.
We can never truly understand the truth about the god concept but does that stop the philosopher from discussing and questioning it?
Is philosophy always about grasping the truth, holding it to us or is it more about going in search of truth, even though we realize we may never find it? The philosopher is a seeker of the holy grail I think in a way. At one point, would that seeker give up after having heard that there is no holy grail? I think not.
Philosophy is “life design”, or figuring out the most aesthetically pleasant way to live your life. It’s like “game design” except that the game you’re designing is not a virtual one but a real one.
Why does it exist? Why does anything exist? Why must there be a reason behind existence? It’s enough to say that I simply evolved to think. I cannot act without there being a sufficiently strong meaning behind my actions, hence my interest in philosophy. Most people, however, need no such a thing, and I guess that’s fine?
Why would I want to do without it? What kind of question is that?
Here’s how it works: I take all the pieces I am composed of – these are instincts – and then relate them to each other so that I can see what I miss. The missing pieces, then, become a goal that give meaning to my life. This is the process of knowing thyself without which I’d rather shoot myself in the head.
The modern environment makes it difficult for me to act out my instincts, thereby making it difficult for me to get to know myself.
But sometimes we know that we won’t be able to get at the truth of things.