Are Philosophers Generally Selfish?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Education
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level? by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it? Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,952 • Replies: 37

No top replies

@bfz,

bfz;124859 wrote:

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level? by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it? Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

It is not a method of deduction. Maybe you mean "method of argumentation". It may not be the best way to teach (although I think it is) but it is the best way to discuss an issue. This is not primarily a teaching formum. It is a discussion forum. Potential philosophers, however, ought to learn how to argue, since that is what philosophers do. Anyone who thinks philosophy is a waste of time is welcome not to engage in philosophy. There is no compulsion to do so.

0 Replies

@bfz,

No one seems too worried about acceptance here.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;124872 wrote:

No one seems too worried about acceptance here.

Oh, I do, since if what I say is accepted, then those who accept it will be right.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Yes they are, but in the best kind there is...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

Ideas generated by "intellectual elite" have often been the catalyst for real change in the general population.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;124908 wrote:

Ideas generated by "intellectual elite" have often been the catalyst for real change in the general population.

For the good, or for the bad?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

For the good, the bad, and the indifferent.

0 Replies

@bfz,

bfz;124859 wrote:

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level? by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it? Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

People shouldnt be afraid of exposing their ideas nor of having then rejected.

If we accept "inferior jugments" in order to encourage thinking, we will be encouraging the inability to withstand the truth.

Inequality is not a bad thing, we are different after all and some are more capable or more necessary than others, it is only natural that the distribuition of resources is different. After all even in a perfect (non corrupt) socialism the leader would have more resources than his citizens.

To me, the problem is not the presence of inequality, but the unability of the society of sustaining all its population. Off course inequality can be a cause of this, but eliminating/reducing it is not the only solution and may not be a solution.

I see philosophy as something very necessary to both our individual lives and the world. The need in our individual lives is obvious, as for the world, I think the world is needing better ideologies. Just the existence of conflict due to religion is a proof of the need for philosophy in the world.

0 Replies

@bfz,

To Manored- there does not have to be a leader in a socialist society, through technology in the future i hope that all our views could be put forward on any issue and the democratic decision taken, and this requires a society where equality, and society is valued above personal gain but then again can something be good if there is no bad, would we plumit into a world without meaning if we reached any closer to equality. following on from this i would like to say that the true meaning of my thread was to read how you replied that as much is obvious, but furthering this i wanted to see if i had the confidence to reply, i guess you all had all ready worked this out? one more point so far 88 people have read this thread, and 9 responded is this because its completely unuseful or because they were too scared to bother replying?

1 Reply

@bfz,

The thread has been viewed 88 times, that doesn't mean it's been read by 88 people. You seem to have a low opinion of many philosophizers...

0 Replies

@bfz,

bfz;125050 wrote:

To Manored- there does not have to be a leader in a socialist society, through technology in the future i hope that all our views could be put forward on any issue and the democratic decision taken, and this requires a society where equality, and society is valued above personal gain but then again can something be good if there is no bad, would we plumit into a world without meaning if we reached any closer to equality. following on from this i would like to say that the true meaning of my thread was to read how you replied that as much is obvious, but furthering this i wanted to see if i had the confidence to reply, i guess you all had all ready worked this out? one more point so far 88 people have read this thread, and 9 responded is this because its completely unuseful or because they were too scared to bother replying?

A leader-less socialism is called communism, so socialism must have a leader, otherwise its communism =)

I dont think that kind of "democracy about everything" would be a good idea, since it would mean a lot of people voting in decisions they dont really understand. Perhaps it should be divided into areas at least, that is, only medics can vote in matters concerning health and etc.

You can be sure that people on the internets arent scared of replying, this is the internets, our nicks are easily changed masks, there is little reason to be afraid of replying.

0 Replies

@bfz,

The first oxford english dictionary definition of socialist is 1. A person who lives in (civilized) society. however the defintion may be different in Brazil.
I am not saying that people are afraid literally, but the fear of rejection by a community, and the so forth feeling of inadequacy is still as present as ever within an internet forum.

1 Reply

@bfz,

bfz;124859 wrote:

The average post in this forum seems to argue against the previous, is this truly the best way to teach, i dont personnally have a problem with this method of deduction, however it must deter a large number of potential philsophers from wanting to put forward their beleifs due to fear of acceptance by the community, would it further society to be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to benefit the thought process in the long run as it would encourage more people to think, but at a lower level? by gaining knowledge are we creating greater inequality and damaging society, or are we leading the way to a utopia by striving towards it? Or is philsophy just a waste of societies time, when we could be helping those truly in need rather tahn benefiting a select fews knowledge?

Fortune favors the bold and so does wisdom. "Wisdom is a woman, and only loves a warrior." Who is her favorite? Does she keep us philosophers like a Sultan keeps a harem? Sometimes I think wisdom is a *****...and like any ***** she will love me all the more for saying that. I'm sorry Wisdom, you know I love you baby, you know you are the only one for me.

Yet, perhaps Wisdom is not a lover to be courted and conquered. Perhaps she is not some lusty queen to be wooed. Perhaps she is neither the Mother nor the Whore. Perhaps she is more like a child, a daughter. We care for her deeply because she is a part of us, like Jung's anima, we hope she finds her way in the world, we protect her, we hope she becomes a leader of the people for she is our truest Hope, she is the future.

0 Replies

@bfz,

bfz;126337 wrote:

The first oxford english dictionary definition of socialist is 1. A person who lives in (civilized) society. however the defintion may be different in Brazil.

but that is the definition of socialist, not socialism. They are different words, although similar, and have different meanings.

P.s: I cant acess that link, I get only a tiny image not related to anything.

bfz;126337 wrote:

I am not saying that people are afraid literally, but the fear of rejection by a community, and the so forth feeling of inadequacy is still as present as ever within an internet forum.

This is the fear I was talking about.

1 Reply

@manored,

this feels like a waste of time but socialist is what i said i never mentioned socialism anywhere, i now feel happy that not all philsophers just want to argue there own point, however i do beleive that many view there own opinion above others thanks for your comments

2 Replies

@bfz,

[QUOTE=bfz;124859][...] be more accepting of inferior judgements in order to [...] encourage more people to think, [...]. [/QUOTE]

We shouldn't necessarily accept the conclusions others derive in fear of turning people away, but as the ole saying goes, it's not always about what we do as it is about how we do it. If a new person is met too often with ridicule when he dares to speak his mind, it can become quite discouraging to continue.

People do not bring the same level of experience and education to the table, yet we all gather together, and it's incumbent on the more talented folks to show a little patience for those that are just getting their feet wet. Sometimes, people do need to be put in their place, but that should be the exception, not the rule.

0 Replies

@bfz,

I'm sorry if this is a dead thread, but I don't understand what "knowledge" philosophers hold as compared to the general public. Philosophers, at first, I believe, strove to better man as a whole (take, for example, Socrates), then it turned to more of a science of high articulation and self discovery. Sure, the information is intended for all but it is widely kept unread, perhaps on a supply and demand basis. Most philosophers, aside from maybe the structuralists, I dont really feel try to better things on a larger sociological scale, just individuals, in which sense philosophers could be seen as greedy. Nihilism I think is very self-defeatest (ironically); I don't find the immediate need to sacrifice alternate forms of truth for one "end-all" universal truth as benificial in a utalitarian sense because it doesn't seem to serve any (apart from perhaps creative) useful purpose in part due to it's basis on a general 'purposelessness', at least that's how I see it.

...sorry I couldn't give a more thourough reply, I'm on an itouch.

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 04:14 PM ----------

Also for my ego born of navity and inexperience, I'm sorry

0 Replies

@bfz,

bfz;126506 wrote:

this feels like a waste of time but socialist is what i said i never mentioned socialism anywhere, i now feel happy that not all philsophers just want to argue there own point, however i do beleive that many view there own opinion above others thanks for your comments

You said "socialist society", not only "socialist". As far as I know a "socialist society" is a society that uses socialism as its form of government, while a "socialist" is a defender of socialism, though I think the definition you gave is also correct.

Unless with "socialist society" you meant "a society that lives in a society", but I doubt so.

stripedsweaters;126520 wrote:

I'm sorry if this is a dead thread, but I don't understand what "knowledge" philosophers hold as compared to the general public. Philosophers, at first, I believe, strove to better man as a whole (take, for example, Socrates), then it turned to more of a science of high articulation and self discovery. Sure, the information is intended for all but it is widely kept unread, perhaps on a supply and demand basis. Most philosophers, aside from maybe the structuralists, I dont really feel try to better things on a larger sociological scale, just individuals, in which sense philosophers could be seen as greedy. Nihilism I think is very self-defeatest (ironically); I don't find the immediate need to sacrifice alternate forms of truth for one "end-all" universal truth as benificial in a utalitarian sense because it doesn't seem to serve any (apart from perhaps creative) useful purpose in part due to it's basis on a general 'purposelessness', at least that's how I see it.

...sorry I couldn't give a more thourough reply, I'm on an itouch.

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 04:14 PM ----------

Also for my ego born of navity and inexperience, I'm sorry

I dont think philosophers necessarly hold important knowledge the public does not, but those who search for knowledge certainly have more chances of doing so.

We are, in reality, and off course, all philosophers, but I think that admiting to yourself you are a philosopher is a great and helpful step anyway =)

1 Reply

@bfz,

This is back on the thread's original topic (which is not to say the detour was without its charms.)
What is this "selfishness" I hear so much about? That's an endless or beginning-less thread in itself.
Do thinking-types enjoy time alone? In my experience, yes. Do they obsess over material goods for pleasure or status? In my experience, no. Do they want to impose their ideas on their minds of others? In my experience, yes, but some of them (us) learn not to. Or at least to do so in a less obnoxious way.

1 Reply

Are Philosophers Generally Selfish?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know