Who are the philosophers for?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy branches off into so many different areas I suppose , but I guess the root of my dilemma lies in what all these philosophies do and for whom?

So im going to suggest that thought is what fuels philosophy, but not just any old thought; Objective, unbiased thought. Can we all think critically?

ok ok…so im going to take a leap and suggest there are two types of people…Joe Ordinary and umm Noam Chomsky. Joe lives life and sees life as most humans do; as they view it through their own eyes … face value.
Mr Chom chom is a thinker. Someone who questions and researches these “realities” and reduces them to their lowest common denominator.

ok…Mr Chomsky travels the world and speaks his mind to the masses. He changes minds and influences many.

Most of the people he speaks to in gymnasiums and auditoriums are often predisposed to his work or the issues he presents. So for the most part his crowd is filled wiith thinkers and people who question political leaders, policy or whatever have you. Some of these listeners may exit the auditorium “enlightened” and the reality they knew before changed . Things make sense to them now (assuming what they heard was true). Their own minds took this new form of information and digested it into something they could understand in a very literal way.

ok…so lets say Mr chomsky spoke to a bunch of Joe Ordinary’s. They hear his speach and like the first group will change their minds about a lot of things they once held as truth, but will they believe in the literal reality the words of chomsky convey or just turn it into another concept to take for face value? “Mr chom said somethin I never heard of before so im going to believe it”.

When we watch the news we are given a 30 second clip of the devastation (or lack of) of a war stricken land. Most of us see that as a truth, a reality. Most do not consider that all they saw was a mere 30 second clip of a small piece of land that may or may not represent the whole.

Do intellects process information in a more practical way? A way that offers more insight into a given concept or issue?

Do average folk just take in information and decide purely on senses and feeling?

Who are philosophers truly for, Other intellects? If persuasion and influence is the only reason for passing on knowledge then philosophy is for everyone. If philosophy strives for true understanding then philosophy is restricted to the thinkers.

Im sorry if my thoughts seem a bit choppy and lacking any flow. I do this for myself mainly, but some feedback would be appreciated.

You can always tell me to go read a book about this subject, but Im not looking for standard answers. Tell me what you think, because I want to know what people living in my present world believe.

2

I literally have no idea what philosophers are for but you did make one comment that I found to be pertinent.

I’ve been to see Mr Chom Chom myself, as well as George Monbiot (who is a sort of English equivalent, though he isn’t Jewish) and I couldn’t spot a single person in the Chom Chom audience who wasn’t part of some or other anarchist or socialist or Marxist group. They were all there not to learn a damn thing, but to have their view reinforced. What struck me is that this audience is no different to the majority of the audience who went to see Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 and the general motivation is much the same.

As to the notion that an audience going to see a critical thinker like Chom Chom would be more critical of what they heard than, say, those going to Britney concert - I see no difference. The people who go to see Britney will (probably) feel vaidated in investing time and money in seeking out that particular entertainment. The people who go to see Chom Chom will probably feel validated not only in their choice of entertainment but also in their feelings of righteousness about political events.

No books, no newscast, no tect in any sense can hope to tell the whole story. The only viable method in this media mishmash is to compare lots of different images and stories in the hope of getting some sort of overview of the conflicts and agendas. I’ve no time for this ‘exposing the media myths’ baloney. It’s just the Other for the sake of it.

3

I have to agree with you on most of your points, but your argument also implys there are no such thing as original thinkers. If chomsky’s fans are nothing more than sheep following their sheperd then what is chomsky? Is he the only free thinker? Maybe he is the only kind of person that philosophy caters genuinly to. Or maybe you mean to say he is also a sheep, but a smarter version =c).

And your wrote ““exposing the media myths” balogney” which implies you believe the media is offering the most unbiased information they can offer up.

Just as a simple observation I can see that there is no purity in this world. In war stricken lands like africa warlords blatantly rule with an iron fist and make no secret their violent agendas, yet they call themselves “peace keepers” or “men of god”. Why should any other government be any different? What mass can resist the thought of power and riches? We all strive to be the strongest person, people and government by any means necessary.

Media is a very very powerful tool. Perhaps the most powerful thing we have on this earth. To think someone would not take advantage of media seems odd and not the “human way”. Im aware I have a dark perception of this concept but if you just watch th news and advertisements etc…It seems almost crystal clear.

Chomsky in his speaches always ends on the same note, “Make your own decisions”. Obviously he thinks he is right on these subjects but he does offer us the chance that he could be wrong. Not many do such a thing. Most of the world wants the masses to believe what it tells the masses no questions. Philosophy is about questioning. Chomsky seems so much like a wacko but he is utlizing the one thing humans uniquely posess. The ability to question his environment and for that, right or wrong, we should respect him. Because even if his ideas are totally wrong he has instilled in us this concept of thinking for ourselves.

What is your take on this?

4

Topic solved.

5

Im not a philosopher though and my question is whom do philosophers do this for?

6

“Man by nature desires to know. A sign of this is the delight man takes in his senses.” – Aristotle, Metaphysics

Philosophy is for man and for human society.

If Chomsky’s gotten you bitten by the philosophy bug, you might pick up some other books and see what the world of thought offers in addition to Chomsky. I like reading the older traditions; they have much to offer.

mrn

postscript: Maybe all languages have similar language construction because they are based on the logical categories (substance, quality, action) which, in turn, arise from observation and from man’s reason?

7

A sort of shepherd. One that labels himself as something other than a shepherd.

There are no free thinkers. There are thinkers. There are more and less free people.

‘Genuine’ - I have little time for such words when discussing philosophy. Ignore Sartre, he’s an idiot.

To answer your question explicitly, philosophers write for 2 audiences and 2 audiences alone, in my view. They write for other philosophers, academic and otherwise. They also write for fans of philosophy, i.e. the sort of people you’ll find here. This latter term isn’t meant in any derogatory way.

Not at all. It may imply that to you, of course. I merely meant that all media organs (the individual TV channels, newspapers, magazines etc.) have some sort of agenda, some sort of marketing strategy and selling point. Those organs that purport to be a review of mass media itself (i.e. those that try to adopt a meta-media position which to me is impossible) are simply playing a certain card in the game, they are no less biased and selective and partial than the things they claim to be considering objectively.

Have you ever seen one of those ‘top 100 movies/songs/naked moments on TV of all time’ shows? Basically they are doing the exact same thing as the mediamatters people, or the other equivalents around the world. They just package it differently.

If the aim is peace who cares how you get there? I’ve nothing against dictatorship per se.

Of course. I’m just saying the likes of Noam Chomsky and the Media section in G2 and the Onion and Private Eye and all the rest are all playing the game. None of them can resist the pull of the media game.

Yeah. Make your own decisions. Because I tell you to. That’s the problem with all individualists, they are all secretly petty dictators.

Everyone does this, more or less. Very few people claim any absolute truth these days.

Right… Most of the world. The masses. Do you see your mistake?

If the question can be framed then it is possible to answer it - Wittgenstein

This seems to have turned into you defending Chomsky at all costs, which is an unwise move. There are better people out there than Chomsky. Everything from his neo-Platonic linguistics through to his patronising assumptions about the mass psyche in Manufacturing Consent reek of a man with a massive superiority complex.

I’m pretty sure most animals are capable of asking questions. One of my cats seems to ask so many questions that he gets confused.

  1. I think the concept of ‘thinking for oneself’ is a myth, a pseudoconcept made popular by our individualist culture, little more than a conceptual fad

  2. I see little or no value in thinking for yourself because someone else told you to do so

  3. Encouraging people to think for themselves tends to lead to people disagreeing for the sake of it. I’ll say something different to the next person simply to uphold the difference between me as a discursive entity and the other as discursive entity. I don’t ‘really, truly, essentially’ think what I’ve said, I just say it to be different, to ‘prove’ that I’m ‘thinking for myself’. These days people are so scared of being accused of being stupid, unoriginal sheep that they will deliberately fail to agree.

On this last point Nietzsche has some interesting comments to make, that freedom of the will is an invention of ruling classes, the implication being that if you can convince the masses to argue amongst themselves in the name of freedom that you can get on with ruling the place. If you look at contemporary western societies this seems to be the case in most of them.

8

The word, “philosopher,” literally means “lover of wisdom.”

Everyone is a philosopher and we all do it for ourselves. There are no
“philosophers” and “regulars”. To categorize things like this is just simply shallow minded.

9

someoneisatthedoor,

How true, Chomsky, similar to other left-wing elites do have a massive ego problem. They dismiss opposing claims with insults and cries of ignorance.

Could not agree more. :smiley:

10

Who are Philosphers for?

Philosphers are for humans of course. without humans there would be no philosophy right?.

What is Philosophy? Philopsophy is why humans can think the way they can.
There is no point in human philosophy, the world that they live in was born well before there washuman knowledge. So therel attempt to believe that they know right and wrong has no acceptance as true.

AGAIN THIS IS THE BLANK FEELING.

11

Welcome to the boards, DaSteve.

This is only one reason I prefer the Ancients and Scholastics: they don’t do this despair-of-human-knowledge stuff.

“Right or wrong” has man’s acceptance according to man’s God-given reason. One might say that philosophy makes man (as rational animal) more complete, since it aligns him with the universe and with reason which knows it.

my real name,
arguing for warm, fuzzy feelings for philosophy

“Of all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is the more perfect,
the more noble, the more useful, and the more full of joy.”
–St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 1:2

12

Murdoc said

Does this imply that there is no standard in thought? Everyones Idea is valid and practical?

We all play basketball once and awhile, sure. But do we all play for the NBA?

Maybe you believe that this world is as chaotic as the universe and there are no standards to follow or emulate?

What ever you may believe…Im sorry for being so shallow.

13

Ego infection; sense defection.

14

Correct. There are infinite perspectives. None better than the other.

Not sure if I get you here.

I don’t know about the chaotic universe, but the only standards I know of are the ones my impeccability create.

15

Murdoc said

Your life dictates otherwise I would guess. If you own a car then you follow rules dictated by the government. Green is the standard most of us understand to mean go. This is such a seemingly pithy example but I don’t suppose you go out killing people for no reason and taking over their homes either. How about the clothes you buy? Im sure there is some standard impressed upon you by some commercial or friends?

When you were in school did you have teachers that were better than others? I mean to say, was there a literal change in your perfromance from a “bad” teacher to a “good” teacher? If you agree with these things then you do agree with standards.

Would you try out for the NBA? Ofcourse not. You know and understand the standards to be a professional ball player is very high. If something as “trivial” as basket ball has standards…does something as “trivial” as philosophy have standards too?

Do humans need to reach a certain standard of comprehension to truly take advanatage of thought…for now forget philosphy. To truly appreciate this world and its mechanics should humans strive for a better perception of all things?

“no. it doesn’t matter”. If your government was trying to take advantage of you would you be more capable of seeing this with more knowledge and analysis or less? You suggest having a lot of knowledge and little knowledge are both the same. Is having more knowledge a “higher standard” in your world?

“The universe doesn’t recognize standards because its a purely human concept and infiniti rules all” Practically speaking this ideology goes no where, i think. If standards were not held high then we would still be living in houses made of sticks and leaves, no?

As for those who contend that I am creating an argument to glorify Mr. Chomsky’s thoughts. No, this is not what I am doing, but now that I read my comments…hell it does look like it. I am admiring his ability to go against the grain and create interest in things that directly affect our lives. In my eyes he is saying “Wake up and smell the power!!” I never took any issues seriously concerning the government but his huge accusations made me wonder about the CHANCE of somthing going wrong in government. His accusations may totally be unfounded, BUT now I am weary and I will question my leaders.

“Chom has made you a paranoid freak and thats wrong” If we were all perfect robots that could do no wrong I would agree, but humans have a bad track record. Especially those in power. My mind will think of “anarchists” like chomsky when someone new comes to power; many will. And you better believe those new powers will feel the breathe on their necks and think twice before pulling something on the people.

I agree with past posts. At its greatest potential philosophy is meant for other philosophers and fans. The understanding makes it philosophy while the “passive acceptance” makes it just another idea that never reaches its purest form which is acceptance with understanding. … i think.

16

Philosophy was originally created to help one find him/herself. Philosophy started when some man began to think about the world around him. Anyone can do this. They just choose not to because something else has their attention at the moment (daily affairs, etc).

I see where you are coming from, though. That, unfortunately, is what philosophy has turned into. At least western philosophy. A pissing contest for brainiacs. The majority of philosophers are materialistic. What the hell do you need fans for? Yourself? Why would you debate with another philosopher? To better understand yourself? It all comes back to you. I think it ridiculous that you compare the path of knowledge with a thing like basketball. Like philosophy is some game that you go pay 40 bucks to watch. You would like that, wouldn’t you? Fans screaming for your “wise words”. Waiting to hear the great Brio; the next Jesus Christ.

17

:sunglasses: Are you a moral relativist?

18

I don’t know what I am. If defining me helps you, thats fine.

I believe we evolved into morals to make our lives easier communication wise. If we all killed eachother things wouldn’t be as easy or as efficient as they are now.

Morals also depend on impeccability. For example, I only kill if I have to. Killing is only immoral if you can be criticized for doing so. Men at war are awarded for killing because that is their job. Their impeccability depends on it.

If this is moral relativity then I am guilty of it.

19

we are for oursleves
stand alone and work together

20

Hum, so what is your stance? If a warrior kills another warrior, is this immoral. Are not warriors fighting to defend their country and themselves? Just asking. Are there just wars? I believe there are, you may differ, but please explain why.