1
   

What causes philosophical questioning to stop?

 
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 03:31 am
@Render,
Render;164472 wrote:
If philosophers are overly analyzing a situation,
Ex. You catch a friend stealing money from you.
They might say "well how could I even be mad at him/her- people don't even have free will and so everything was predetermined. ect. (I know this was just one example of many and it probably doesn't make much sense)
But it seems that philosophical thought always takes people away from what is actually happening, so tell me if I'm not making any sense but I feel that philosophy makes everything too objective.
Sounds like inexperienced and unthoughtful people who try to describe a situation, one should not heed such ignorent words.

Render;164472 wrote:
And so it seems to me when people are (and in order for them to be) "truly" living, they have forgotten about all the philosophical thoughts they had before.
Because most philosophy doesn't really have much relevance for the everyday life, philosophy mostly consist of navel gazing mastubational thinking ..such as "does time exist?" ..what relevance does that have for our everyday life? ..NONE! "Does existance preceed essencens?" "if a tree fell and no one was there, would it make a sound?". Sadly most of the topics philosophers commonly ask, are simple and VERY selfexplanatory.

Imo we stop asking philosophically questions because we have more importaint matters, because most questions are answerd with our life experience, but we may start again when we are hard pressed and we face a problem beyond the scope of common knowledge, or any consultant.
0 Replies
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:09 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;164843 wrote:
And know the place for the first time.

I'm not sure if you left that line out intentionally. If we don't "know the place for the first time" then it is just a matter of going around in circles and on that merry-go-round it matters little whether you are the one proposing the answers or the one asking the questions.

Just so long as you are possessed or possess one or the other.
To possess one means you are possessed by the other?
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:16 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;165478 wrote:
Just so long as you are possessed or possess one or the other.
To possess one means you are possessed by the other?

This is nonsense or you are articulating your ideas poorly. Either way, from my point of view it is nonsense.

I'm guessing English isn't your first language. That's fine. Just try saying what you were trying to say in another way.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:31 pm
@Render,
The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself into question.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165547 wrote:
The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring itself into question.
Ludwig Wittgenstein


There is too much anthropomorphizing going on. Wittgenstein may have been tormented by questions that brought philosophy itself into question but philosophy itself is not something that can be tormented at least not literally and I don't think the metaphor is all that valuable.

Philosophy itself can be neither tormented nor at peace. Philosophers are another matter. Wittgenstein may have identified himself with philosophy itself. This is rather like Christ being called the Word made flesh. Flesh can be tormented; the Word cannot.

On the other hand perhaps philosophy cannot be without philosophers nor can philosophers be without philosophy and this would suggest an identity between philosophers and philosophy.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:39 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;165573 wrote:
There is too much anthropomorphizing going on. Wittgenstein may have been tormented by questions that brought philosophy itself into question but philosophy itself is not something that can be tormented at least not literally and I don't think the metaphor is all that valuable.

Philosophy itself can be neither tormented nor at peace. Philosophers are another matter. Wittgenstein may have identified himself with philosophy itself. This is rather like Christ being called the Word made flesh. Flesh can be tormented; the Word cannot.

On the other hand perhaps philosophy cannot be without philosophers nor can philosophers be without philosophy and this would suggest an identity between philosophers and philosophy.


O.K. Then, philosophers are tormented. Is the real discovery something that stops philosophers from being tormented, and gives them peace?
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:42 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165576 wrote:
O.K. Then, philosophers are tormented. Is the real discovery something that stops philosophers from being tormented, and gives them peace?


I suppose so but then what are philosophers and what is philosophy. Wittgenstein's seemingly accidental identification between his torment and the torment of philosophy itself may still be acceptable.

I am reminded Feuerbach
"If man cannot find contentment in God" then "he must find himself in God."
and to paraphrase
"If man cannot find contentment in philosophy" then "he must find himself in philosophy."
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:10 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;165578 wrote:
I suppose so but then what are philosophers and what is philosophy. Wittgenstein's seemingly accidental identification between his torment and the torment of philosophy itself may still be acceptable.



But why do we have to take Wittgenstein as talking about himself? He seems to be talking about philosophers in general. And we don't have to take the term "torment" literally. All W. may mean is that philosophical questions are often asked endlessly, almost neurotically. So, what kind of answer would serve to stop the questioning? Isn't that what you were asking? And that would seem to go to the aetiology of asking philosophical questions. Questions which, according to some, have not answer (or as Russell once wrote, "have no definitive answer"). In fact, some people seem almost to define a philosophical question as one that can have not answer. That, in itself, gives what Wittgenstein says in the quote above importance and depth. Why should this be? People, after all, often talk about, "the perennial questions of philosophy". Why must philosophical questions be perennial? To repeat, Wittgenstein thinks that question requires an inquiry into the aetiology of philosophical questions.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:21 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;165573 wrote:

On the other hand perhaps philosophy cannot be without philosophers nor can philosophers be without philosophy and this would suggest an identity between philosophers and philosophy.


I see it this way. The good stuff mattered to the flesh that was its stem. So runs my dream...
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:26 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;165597 wrote:
I see it this way. The good stuff mattered to the flesh that was its stem. So runs my dream...


As they say in the law courts: Res Ipsa Loquitur
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:29 am
@Render,
My father used to have a saying, " that's good enough for the girls I go with"
Philosophical questions always stretch into infinity. Our finite minds will never comprehend an end to the questioning, we get tired, or maybe our brains get full.
The great mass of humanity arrives at conclusions or dogmas that suit their present mode of living, the exceptions may take a break along the way, but continue to push the edge of understanding until the day of their death.
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:31 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165594 wrote:
But why do we have to take Wittgenstein as talking about himself? He seems to be talking about philosophers in general. And we don't have to take the term "torment" literally. All W. may mean is that philosophical questions are often asked endlessly, almost neurotically. So, what kind of answer would serve to stop the questioning? Isn't that what you were asking? And that would seem to go to the aetiology of asking philosophical questions. Questions which, according to some, have not answer (or as Russell once wrote, "have no definitive answer"). In fact, some people seem almost to define a philosophical question as one that can have not answer. That, in itself, gives what Wittgenstein says in the quote above importance and depth. Why should this be? People, after all, often talk about, "the perennial questions of philosophy". Why must philosophical questions be perennial? To repeat, Wittgenstein thinks that question requires an inquiry into the etiology of philosophical questions.

I'm not really questioning the importance and depth of the W quote; I'm only questioning it. It seems to reflect what I consider to be W's personality as the tormented neurotic unable to stop himself from questioning. But perhaps W's torment has been overstated in the brief biographical sketches that I have read.

Characterizing various questions as tormenting does little to further the aetiology of such questions... or does it? Why do philosophers find various questions tormenting or for that matter entertaining and diverting? The tormented and the entertained philosophers may even have different ends in mind. The tormented desperately seek answers and peace while the entertained don't really want the conversation to end and find ways to keep it going. But where do the questions come from in the first place is the real question of their etiology and not whether they are tormenting or entertaining. So if we are serious, torment and entertainment can be left behind (or can it?). There is some peace in that and at the same time the etiology of the questions becomes less pressing...

...but how long does that last? Sooner or later a philosopher is tormented or a philosopher finds it entertaining and ask the questions again. Perhaps we should be looking at the etiology of torment and entertainment. This threatens to take us out of the realm of (what is commonly called) philosophy and into the realm of (what is commonly called) psychology and sociology.

Speaking as someone who is sometimes tormented and sometimes entertained I advocate a more holistic approach.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 02:03 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;165602 wrote:
But perhaps W's torment has been overstated in the brief biographical sketches that I have read.

I see him as an electrified man. When he was sure, he was dangerously sure. When he wasn't sure, he was ready to off himself. Now, I love Wittgenstein. But when someone like Ken, of all people, quotes him as an authority, I find this absurd. Wittgenstein was not, in any way, a "by the book" man. Examine the intro to the TLP. He doesn't bother mentioning his influences, leaning on their "authority." He had no regard for Academic pretensions or pretensions in general. This ridiculously privileged young man was going to die before accepting inanity. In the pre-Tractatus he is already writing about the ethics of suicide. This doesn't sound like a respectable well-adjusted Mr. Tweeds to me. As a teacher he dressed informally, did not prepare what he would say. Gave an enormous fortune away, remained a prisoner of war when he didn't have to until his troops were also released, live austerely but with extreme aesthetic precision. Was not afraid to criticize Russell who opened so many doors for him.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when certain types try to assimilate him. G. W. Bush was a Christian. Fred Durst has Cobain's face on his arm.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:26 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;165602 wrote:
I'm not really questioning the importance and depth of the W quote; I'm only questioning it. It seems to reflect what I consider to be W's personality as the tormented neurotic unable to stop himself from questioning. But perhaps W's torment has been overstated in the brief biographical sketches that I have read.

Characterizing various questions as tormenting does little to further the aetiology of such questions... or does it? Why do philosophers find various questions tormenting or for that matter entertaining and diverting? The tormented and the entertained philosophers may even have different ends in mind. The tormented desperately seek answers and peace while the entertained don't really want the conversation to end and find ways to keep it going. But where do the questions come from in the first place is the real question of their etiology and not whether they are tormenting or entertaining. So if we are serious, torment and entertainment can be left behind (or can it?). There is some peace in that and at the same time the etiology of the questions becomes less pressing...

...but how long does that last? Sooner or later a philosopher is tormented or a philosopher finds it entertaining and ask the questions again. Perhaps we should be looking at the etiology of torment and entertainment. This threatens to take us out of the realm of (what is commonly called) philosophy and into the realm of (what is commonly called) psychology and sociology.

Speaking as someone who is sometimes tormented and sometimes entertained I advocate a more holistic approach.


I don't find philosophy tormenting. I do find it entertaining. But mostly, I find it interesting. I like to get things right; or, if I cannot, I want to know why I cannot. I am very much like G. E. Moore who tells us that his stimulus to philosophize comes from the very peculiar, and ostensibly (at least) false things other philosophers say. Thus, the interest in aetiology. How does it happen that intelligent people say such false things, and, on top of it, things they really know are false, although they say them apparently sincerely? For example, we are told that "some" think that what will happen will happen is "made out of sentences". What a bizarre and clearly false thing to say! Yet, apparently it is said in all sincerity. Now that is, I think, worthy of inquiry. Why would a sane person say such a thing? In philosophy we usually try to find arguments, justifications, for philosophical beliefs. But when some philosopher says that what will happen will happen is made out of sentences, what would even be the use of trying to find a justification for such a belief? Only diagnosis seems appropriate.
0 Replies
 
Vaso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Feb, 2012 01:11 pm
Are any of you still active on some discussion board? I'd love to read more from you. Sorry about the off-topic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas33
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2016 12:26 pm
The knowledge of cause. The realisation of reflection: right wing politics creates the laws of physics as much the laws of physics creates right wing politics.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2019 at 12:28:44