It allowed me to figure out what it is that I should have been doing very long ago rather than the distractions inherent in a malignant society, too late, as usual, but at least known. And I guess it has led me to resolve the entire field of philosophy to the point of no longer having much use for it.
i agree with the first part of Your statement, i too have learnt what i may have been doing, and yet wonder, if given a chance to do it over again, i might have repeated the same mistakes, ON PURPOSE?
But i have not resolved the issue of use for philosophy-for me, and at the very least, i am hoping for better insight into it’s future application
Not so easy to comprehend, taking into account that you seem to be the only one around here who actually developped a philosophy.
Has philosophy changed how you live your life?
Philosophy helped me to ask the right questions in order to find the right answers.
It didn’t change my way of living.
I also see the occupation with philosophy as a lifeline when nothing else seems to be possible anymore. Hopefully this works in the future as well. (And hopefully there will always be books!)
This seems a bit delusional to me.
Well don’t worry. I’m sure that if the time ever comes when anyone understands something that you don’t, the media will inform you.
One thing is for sure - that won’t be you.
You of the clues in discerning truth is that it is something they weren’t telling you.
Meaningless or ungrammatical?
Not much of a come-back.
I noticed that too. One might need to re-define the word “fool”. 
Sometimes people struggle and chase after ideas and beliefs and try to be something according to some solution for their lives that does not really exist. It gives them the feeling that doing is all that’s important for them. Not the actual achievement of whatever. Instead they move farther away from what turns out to be goals that are bogus. The more effort they put into them, the more they feel good. Like the problems they have. Trying to solve the problems is all that is important to them. But the solutions are more interesting than the problems. There’s more interest in the solutions than looking at the problems. What is the problem? Nobody tells what the problem is.
We are told that this and that are all the solutions. Which one should I use to solve my problem? What exactly is the problem? The material problems are understandable. If you don’t have health, you have to do something about your health. If you don’t have money, you have to do something about money. These are understandable. If you have some psychological problems, then the real problem begins. All these psychologists and truth-seeking people with their therapies and their solutions are trying to help you, but they don’t lead anybody anywhere, do they? The individual remains as shallow and as empty as before. What do they want to prove to themselves?
Through process we find out that lots of solutions are really worthless. Those solutions don’t solve the problem, whatever is the problem. Those solutions keep the problems going. They don’t solve them. If there is something wrong with your tape recorder, or television, that can be remedied. There is a technician who can help you. But sometimes there’s an endless process going on and on and on and on for a major part of a lifetime – more and more of something and less and less of the other.
So, the solutions are never questioned. If you really question the solutions, you would have to question the ones who have offered those solutions. But sentimentality stands in the way of rejecting not only the solutions, but those who have offered the solutions. Questioning that requires a tremendous courage on one’s part. That’s the courage. The courage to be on your own, to stand on your two solid feet, is something which cannot be given by somebody.
Mithus, sorry to pick up Your query so late,my mistake, i apologise. In answer to Your question, it was Sartre’s “Nausea” which grabbed my attention, at a time in my life, when everything fell apart, and i was very young not having any idea what i would do with my life, and dropped out and tried to rescue my immaculate idealism. Sartre was a revelation, a freedom opener. Much later did i find out, that that little novel was judged by many to be the best novella written in the twentieth century, irrespective of philosophical relevance. It was a gym, a description of the emptiness of life in post war Europe.
Hi Finishedman:
Since my teens, i reduced problems of the kind You are describing, in terms of philosophical problems. Therefore, belatedly, i realize that i was always a reductionist, seeing my choices within a set of problems to be casually determined. Descartes and was the type and maybe Spinoza, who were able to give me that kind of continuity between specific problems and their cure all general solutions. That didn’t work, and it was Sartre, another continuation, which lead me to his "self thought man"who at the time represented a literary figure. From here Nietzsche, with his psychological problems became proof definite that there are connections, albeit sometimes hidden between philosophical types and psychological traits. Thereafter, i was hooked. I fell into defensive mode, of rationalizing even the psychological defense ‘rationalization’ The literature of philosophical issues overlapped with the ideas perpetuated with those of psychology, a kind of effort of reaffirming the fact that the latter once belonged to the genera of the former. Next step- jump forward into postmodern philosophy. The practicality of it really never mattered to me at a time when learning for learning’s sake was still a rewarding experience.
I think in terms of day to day stuff, philosophy has not had much of an input on mine.
On a deeper level though, it changed the way I think, what I think about the nature of humans, my perspective on existence in the first place, and all sorts of things. So that has got to have an input on your character as a whole.
On the whole it’s just rather enlightening.
On day to day stuff, philosophy has completely altered every aspect of our lives.
Without the philosophical basis of science that is provided by such things as empiricism, reductionism, inductive logic, natural philosophy… ad infinitem, we would all still be banging each other over the head with our fists to get a bigger share of food.
The computer you are tapping, the seat you are sitting on and the toliet you are soon to take a piss in are all the result of philosophy.
Like this.
Seems like this is more about technology, but philosophical thinking can surely direct where technology can go. And advances in technology have made life way more convenient. Quality wise, we as humans have not yet accomplished the essentials of a way of life where there is at least a level of cooperation where we don’t want to destroy our neighbor due to an idea.
Any ape can use a stick to get an ant out of a hole, but you need natural philosophy to understand the world through science.
Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Descartes, Galileo, Faraday, Priestly, Einstein… and many more were all primarily philosophers.
There have been attempts to sunder philosophy from science in the 20thC, but to a historian of philosophy and science I think those attempts are unworthy of our enlightenment tradition.
Through science to techne, enables us to live our lives with scholia (as Plato would have put it), without that we have not the time to contemplate the more esoteric aspects of our existence.
Brave of you to post your own image.
Downs Syndrome people are amongst the kindest and worthy people on the earth.
Amen, Lev.
Check this out!
blueappletheatre.hampshire.org.uk/hamlet.html
40 years ago this would have been not only impossible but unimaginable.
Once “mongols” were just dumped into asylums and forgotten. Now this beautiful sensitive people with a little care and specialist teaching have fulfilled lives.