When do you think philosophically?

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

pq,

Gurdjieff argued that we spend most of our time in "waking sleep" even when we assume we are "conscious". He said that "cosmic forces" conspire against us and keep us asleep for their own ends !

Well..even if we don't beat a path to Gurdjieff's door (which many intellectuals actually did) we can say that he observed that "philosophical thought" was often an illusive commodity. Indeed, Maslow's celebrated "hierarchy of needs" implies that such activity comes right at the end the list of requirements for "everyday life", and it may be that we must either reject such a "life" for a monastic existence, or as Westerners, have the luxury of having most of our "lower needs" fulfilled by or maerial wealth, in order to indulge in "philosophy".

The last bit of your post is pretty ironic when we contrast it against the general picture of western society we gain by listening to it's largest voice (the media).

I understand the 'waking sleep' state from the courses you advised for me, Fresco.
(I would say I am rarely out of this state, apart from perhaps when I am actually asleep).
This is the question i voiced that didn't really get answered (perhaps because it is a question from a 'little me' not an 'enlightened I')-
What state do you think most western philosophers were in when they wrote most of their great works? Envisage Nietzsche in his little rented room writing whatever work- I'm sure he would have been in a 'waking sleep' state rather than anything 'greater.'
Therefore, what is the purpose of the 'higher' state?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

I have little knowledge of Nietsche, but his interpreter Heidegger's concept of "Dasein" was one in which "self" was able to contemplate its own "existence", (but not from a transcendental vantage point). I therefore think that Gurdjieff would have approved of Heidegger's existentialist leanings and he might have applauded Heidegger's attempts to establish a specialized linguistic form as akin to his own. Note that Heidegger asigned "mainstream philosophy" to the category "chatter" which is similar to Gurdjieff's "idle talk". (Gurdjieff would have rejected Niestchze's "will" as illusion).

The problem with my analysis is that both Gurdjieff's and Heidegger's systems were prescriptive and in Heidegger's case (combined with Nietzche's "will") unfortunately gave succour to National Socialism. Even Socrates had anti-democratic views consistent with his adage about " a life examined" . So it may be that "philosophy" might point towards "self-dissipation" rather than "self-actualization" and if that is the case, it would not be "self" which is actually engaged in such an activity. The "higher state" is the the one which transcends "self". To ask its "purpose" is to miscomprehend its nature.

1 Reply

@fresco,

your talk of the "higher state", which transcends the "self"; is this similar to Heidegger's notion of "engagement", of being involved in a task in the world, when we forget ourselves as "existing", and we lose ourselves in the task at hand?

1 Reply

@existential potential,

ep
No. The concept of "higher state" transcends Heidegger's "temporality" in which Dasein operates. It is synonymous with "holistic consciousness" which is observer rather than participator.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

what is it to think "philosophically"?

2 Replies

@existential potential,

For me, it is to think of things in the abstract and perceive sets of relations between concepts in the world. To constantly critique thought, and have it constantly under subtle rework and transformation.
I'm aware this may not be the best definition, but it is what it is to me.

What would your interpretation be?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

my interpretation is quite similar.

to examine our beliefs, and question our assumptions.

however, what I think is to crucial importance to everyone, is to learn to be critical of one's own attitude towards all things. to be aware and critical of your own immediate response to things, could be the most obvious thing to point out, but people seem to miss this out.

0 Replies

@existential potential,

This "critical element" is essential tied to the original thought as in thesis-antithesis. "Philosophy" may better be described as uncritical observation of that dialogue from which a synthesis might arise, albeit an ineffable one.

0 Replies

This is a great question, and it's exciting to have been asked! I feel like I've been thinking about it lately, but latently. Now we'll see how it sounds in words.

I'm much like you Pentacle Queen, I think most all of the time, but most constructively when I'm in good spirits. I'm known to go on wild tangents which eventually, and certainly unexpectedly return to the original point. It's all luck, hilarity, and my friends graciously refer to them as 'Davisms'. I spliff always helps the tangents get wilder.

For more reasonable and focused thought, it happens when I'm surrounded by a few friends who share the enthusiasm for good conversation and thought.

The night time out on the roof of my bedroom, stars overhead, overlooking the yard and neighborhood; provides great means and inspiration for reflection on myself, others, nature, space, time, community, etc. The roof is a key vantage point for me.

I have a tendency, good or bad, to try and relate these thoughts to other people, who might not think with a big T very often. Usually in everyday matters, I'll question the obvious, so others will think about the possibilites with me, and perhaps a great conversation will ensue.

Great topic though, cool.

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

Quote:

The night time out on the roof of my bedroom, stars overhead, overlooking the yard and neighborhood; provides great means and inspiration for reflection on myself, others, nature, space, time, community, etc. The roof is a key vantage point for me.

That's all very well but it doesn't take us very far CS. It is the content of the reflections we are interested in.

Quote:

who might not think with a big T very often.

What is the content of your reflections on why you made such a wildly self-flattering remark about your companions and which you singularly fail to justify. Or on that you might think the topic "great" and "cool" for no other reason than that it facilitated you driving home such an invidious point and, to pursue the thought, as philosophical reflections do once they cease reflecting upon the having of philosophical reflections, why you have a need or a desire to make invidious comparisons in the first place.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The night time out on the roof of my bedroom, stars overhead, overlooking the yard and neighborhood; provides great means and inspiration for reflection on myself, others, nature, space, time, community, etc. The roof is a key vantage point for me.

That's all very well but it doesn't take us very far CS. It is the content of the reflections we are interested in.

Actually, I believe the name of this thread is "When do you think philosophically?"

So the content of my thoughts is none of your business in this topic.
Secondly, the 'wildly self-flattering remark' was made as a joke. Sarcasm. For example, I ramble about outlandish conspiracy theories and friends of mine will get a bit of entertainment out of it. Laughingly, they'll joke of a daveism (a term I didn't make up, I'm not that wrapped up in myself). So I'm poking fun at my random ramblings and rhetoric, not boasting or trying to portray myself as some sort of superior thinker or anything. Thought that was pretty obvious.

Of course your interpretation of my message being invidious is off-the-mark as well. I don't know about you, but I've met plenty of people in my lifetime who refuse to even wonder or discuss it. (whether the wondering is based on academic studies or amateur curiosity doesn't matter.)

But to humor you on the content of my thoughts, I'll tell you they range from "what was really in that big mac?" to "what would I do without spendius belittling me on a2k?"

It also seems my use of the words "cool" and "great" must have been written as a result of my invidious attitude. The last time I checked, those are positive terms, not derogatory. Maybe they're too elementary for your liking in a philosophy post?

The reason I think the thread is "cool" and "great" is because it's an awesome question! There's many answers and many conversations that can be had with it. There is much discussion to be gained from it. I often ask the same question. But I'm not always surrounded by folks who want to talk about philosophy or anything of the like.

Pardon my excitement for a great thread.
****!

2 Replies

@CarbonSystem,

Quote:

"what would I do without spendius belittling me on a2k?"

I should think you would find some other way of comparing yourself favourably with us poor saps.

But it is a fact that military training finds it necessary to belittle recruits who are fresh from their Mom's delicate care.

As for the thread title I think it needs to have a definition of thinking philosophically. It is such a superior and posh activity to be thinking philosophically that many people think they can think philosphically for no other reason than that it allows them to think they are superior and posh. Ladies often try to look superior and posh as they head towards the toilet door in the pub but a philosopher would make short work of that. We in the UK have a thriving literary genre on the matter.

It might be worth your while to look into my thread attacking philosophy with which I began my A2K career.

Anyway--I'm glad you participate in something of the right spirit.

A good subject next time you are up there is lingerie. It's sudden appearance after all that evolution in one particular setting and its amazing popularity. You could philosophise about that at the red lights or whilst waiting for your orders to be carried out at the lunch counter.

I was looking for what you philosophise about when high on your roof beneath the glittering bowl of the heavens. If only to see if it actually is philosophising and not having yourself on.

Make your "daveisms" more memorable.

2 Replies

@spendius,

A man who knows anything at all is well aware of how little he does know.
Myself included.
Ha, I am not posh in any sense. Thrift store clothing and a forgetfullness when it comes to looking in the mirror. (not in the hipster sense either)

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

Well CS--George Orwell did go to Eton you know.

I do thrift store shoes and long johns. And I daren't look in mirrors.

1 Reply

@spendius,

George Orwell was a great man and thinker. He go it, and probably spent some time on the roof! Ha

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It might be worth your while to look into my thread attacking philosophy with which I began my A2K career.

Can you link us, Spends?

1 Reply

@CarbonSystem,

Quote:

The reason I think the thread is "cool" and "great" is because it's an awesome question! There's many answers and many conversations that can be had with it. There is much discussion to be gained from it. I often ask the same question. But I'm not always surrounded by folks who want to talk about philosophy or anything of the like.

Thanks CS!
Is your avatar Wittgenstein?

I've really gone off it recently, I must say. I was originally drawn to philosophy because I could extrapolate my experiences into 'theories' of how the world worked, which would excite me. It was Shapeless who actually put it really succinctly for me- that basically all I was doing was making tautologies which didn't really 'solve' anything but satisfied my own understanding. Now I'm trying to focus on specific issues, rather than massive generalisations.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Can you link us, Spends?

You just click on my username on top of any of my posts and then click on "My topics" and it's the 2nd one down.

How you doing kiddo?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Ah yes, I think I've seen that before, I shall have a re-read tomorrow.

I am very well thank you, I have finished my education and therefore am a real person now, not just a pretentious load of potential.
How are you?

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Well, we think philosophically (in the best sense) when we think critically, and with no attempt to be profound. The wish to be profound is the poison of thinking philosophically.

0 Replies

When do you think philosophically?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know