Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

I posted this elsewhere and thought it would be appropriate for this thread.

Philosophy is not a 'thing' called science. 'It' doesn't contain patterns and principles. 'It' is not “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding”. You (collective 'you') treat philosophy as if it is a 'thing' to understand and you're right! Philosophy is the 'container' that holds all of your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about what happens between the beginning and the end of 'philosophizing'. Your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about philosophy is not philosophizing. It is kind of like the relationship between 'life' and 'living'. 'Life' is the container and 'living' is the content. 'Life' is empty and meaningless, 'living' is where the good stuff is. You're re-presentation of someone's 'life' in book or a book report is a gross injustice to the person who did the 'living' and it is always a mis-representation.

It is the same with what you call 'philosophy'. Books and reporting about the philosopher's philosophizing are empty and meaningless unless you are philosophizing. You have to step out of your subject/object world and become the conversation that is contained in the book. By 'becoming the conversation' you will sacrifice your pre-existing conclusions, your presuppositions, and your concepts.

The reason philosophy is “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding” is because the way it is taught and the way you read it is the culprit. When you start off on the wrong path you've already committed your 'self' to the wrong destination.

The way it really happens is that you (even as you are reading this) are Be-ing (living). You are the conversation contained in the book. Instead of taking animal rationale, res extensa, and cogito sum for granted and trying to understand them you realize that for example, that cogito has gotten all the attention and the sum has been ignored. (The reason the sum has been ignored is because the 'sum' can't be contained in the measurability and definability of the world.)

As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they'. You come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer be used to prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

The source of the contents of the container called 'philosophy' is you, who you really are, Be-ing. It is not the other way around. Philosophy is not some 'concept' (thing) out there for you to understand and then, when you're done, hopefully you can accumulate everything you've learned and then know the answer to “Who Am I?”.

Humans Be-ing have been trying to do that since way before Parmenides. You'd think that after several thousand years we would have put 2 & 2 together. Alan Watts said that we “haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey”. We are still defending the same territory defined several thousand years ago and making sure we keep the other monkeys out, no matter what. (I'm howling like a monkey, I just can't put on the page.)

As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they' you come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

This is what is called 'transformation'.

When you make the 'leap' from the measurabilty and definability of your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions into Be-ing, you do understand it all and 'philosophizing' becomes an adventure and not a entanglement like 'philosophy'.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

I think you go too far in criticizing what philosophy is supposed to accomplish. All humans are programmed from infancy by biology, language, culture, and the other environmental influences that makes up each individual. When people talk about philosophy, most define it as an attempt to seek truth and wisdom; nothing more, nothing less.

How each individual learns from this experience is what matters. Nobody will ever become "perfect."

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

I posted this elsewhere and thought it would be appropriate for this thread.

Philosophy is not a 'thing' called science. 'It' doesn't contain patterns and principles. 'It' is not “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding”. You (collective 'you') treat philosophy as if it is a 'thing' to understand and you're right! Philosophy is the 'container' that holds all of your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about what happens between the beginning and the end of 'philosophizing'. Your pre-existing conclusions, your pre-suppositions, and your concepts about philosophy is not philosophizing. It is kind of like the relationship between 'life' and 'living'. 'Life' is the container and 'living' is the content. 'Life' is empty and meaningless, 'living' is where the good stuff is. You're re-presentation of someone's 'life' in book or a book report is a gross injustice to the person who did the 'living' and it is always a mis-representation.

It is the same with what you call 'philosophy'. Books and reporting about the philosopher's philosophizing are empty and meaningless unless you are philosophizing. You have to step out of your subject/object world and become the conversation that is contained in the book. By 'becoming the conversation' you will sacrifice your pre-existing conclusions, your presuppositions, and your concepts.

The reason philosophy is “too broad a subject for any one person to claim understanding” is because the way it is taught and the way you read it is the culprit. When you start off on the wrong path you've already committed your 'self' to the wrong destination.

The way it really happens is that you (even as you are reading this) are Be-ing (living). You are the conversation contained in the book. Instead of taking animal rationale, res extensa, and cogito sum for granted and trying to understand them you realize that for example, that cogito has gotten all the attention and the sum has been ignored. (The reason the sum has been ignored is because the 'sum' can't be contained in the measurability and definability of the world.)

As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they'. You come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer be used to prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

The source of the contents of the container called 'philosophy' is you, who you really are, Be-ing. It is not the other way around. Philosophy is not some 'concept' (thing) out there for you to understand and then, when you're done, hopefully you can accumulate everything you've learned and then know the answer to “Who Am I?”.

Humans Be-ing have been trying to do that since way before Parmenides. You'd think that after several thousand years we would have put 2 & 2 together. Alan Watts said that we “haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey”. We are still defending the same territory defined several thousand years ago and making sure we keep the other monkeys out, no matter what. (I'm howling like a monkey, I just can't put on the page.)

As you de-construct your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions you disentangle your 'self' from the measurabilty and definability (thingdom) of 'philosophy', the 'world', and the 'they' you come to a point where you realize that the conclusions, the presuppositions, and the 'concepts' in philosophy are distractions and can no longer prove the existence of your 'self' (Be-ing). When you come face-to-face with the emptiness of the concepts you reach a point in your thinking called (by Heidegger), the "possibility of the impossibility of your existence" who you've been Be-ing dies so that you can be your 'self'. You uncover/discover that the theories, the conjecture, and 'the ability to explain' your 'self' has nothing to do with Be-ing your 'self'. This is the essence of human freedom. In Be-ing you answer the question "Who am I?"

This is what is called 'transformation'.

When you make the 'leap' from the measurabilty and definability of your pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions into Be-ing, you do understand it all and 'philosophizing' becomes an adventure and not a entanglement like 'philosophy'.

And I am also posting here the same answer to your spam, that is, post (Goebbels was the one to discover that a lie repeated enough turns into a truth, by which he became the father of modern marketing):

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not of oneself. And it is not a set of "pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions," since it is an attitude towards wisdom -- a loving attitude -- and an activity -- thinking. But above all, the mark of all philosophical schools since Thales is the valuing of reason against mysticism. Then, in the most sinister moment of the twentieth century, Heidegger turns philosophy against itself and makes it betray its origins by dissolving reason into an static, quasi-religious attitude. While giving classes that start with "Heil Hitler!," he wants to dissolve truth into a reinvention of the Greek "aletheia" by which there is no distinction between the subject and the object: he is nostalgic of a magic "being" in which there is no duality, a being that we supposedly forgot, in the same way Hitler is nostalgic of a lost German purity. What prevents us of simply saying that Heidegger wants to give up philosophy and go back to religion is just the fact that admitting this would ruin his "philosophy," since all its attractive power comes from its dissimulation of its own true nature. What is exceedingly sad in all this is that such a rotted, putrid attitude tries to sell itself even today as being something promising -- it's like the Catholic church trying to seem progressive. It is always good to remember that, despite appearances, Hitler was not a fictional character, and he seemed not so ugly to the eyes of many people, including Heidegger.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think you go too far in criticizing what philosophy is supposed to accomplish. All humans are programmed from infancy by biology, language, culture, and the other environmental influences that makes up each individual. When people talk about philosophy, most define it as an attempt to seek truth and wisdom; nothing more, nothing less.

How each individual learns from this experience is what matters. Nobody will ever become "perfect."

In other words: philosophy is the love of wisdom, not of oneself: whatever I am, I can be sure that, alone, I am nothing.

2 Replies

@guigus,

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

2 Replies

@guigus,

Philosophy is a lot like psychotherapy, and not a science, but an art... And yes, We define ourselves as we define it... Given the prejudice out there, I only tell people I am a philosopher if I don't mind them taking me for a fckin nut...The best comedians are clowns, and comedians get more respect, which is not to say comedians are not philosophers of a sort... One needs a certain understanding to know what people laugh at, and why... Still, a little respect would be nice..

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

As with all things on this earth, philosophy is a form, and every form is a form of relationship; and yet, what makes philosophers and philosophy are people who have failed at all normal, or perhaps, more common sorts of forms of relationships.. People are driven into an excess of intellectual activity by the inability to relate because relationships happen at the emotional level... It is a narrow field, and there is not much company, and the greats are more often dead than alive... I don't think of so many spooks as good company but it beats being alone...I want to take one single truth from philosophy that no one actually needs philosophy to know, and it is how to relate, how to love and trust...Yet, if philosophy held that truth, philsophers would be relating rather than philosophizing because there is the single place where happiness can be found..

2 Replies

@Fido,

That's a difficult task to assign one area of human knowledge to accomplish such a huge responsibility. Don't you think it includes all of our biology, environment, culture, religious belief, influence of parents, siblings, peers, school, church, our jobs, and our own life experiences?

We can't be protected inside the embryo forever, and the mobility of most people whether inside the village, county, state, or country, will also impact those things we call trust and love?

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's a difficult task to assign one area of human knowledge to accomplish such a huge responsibility. Don't you think it includes all of our biology, environment, culture, religious belief, influence of parents, siblings, peers, school, church, our jobs, and our own life experiences?

We can't be protected inside the embryo forever, and the mobility of most people whether inside the village, county, state, or country, will also impact those things we call trust and love?

Do you think it possible you may be misunderstanding my point???

1 Reply

@Fido,

That's very possible.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's very possible.

I'll try harder next time...

1 Reply

@Fido,

It's me that has to try harder.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

It is not philosophy that is nothing without other people, it is each one of us. And how we relate to others is central to our philosophy.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Philosophy is a lot like psychotherapy, and not a science, but an art... And yes, We define ourselves as we define it... Given the prejudice out there, I only tell people I am a philosopher if I don't mind them taking me for a fckin nut...The best comedians are clowns, and comedians get more respect, which is not to say comedians are not philosophers of a sort... One needs a certain understanding to know what people laugh at, and why... Still, a little respect would be nice..

It had already become apparent your confusion between philosophy and poetry, as it becomes explicit now your confusion between philosophy and art. Despite the possibility of a philosophical art or poetry, neither is philosophy, which exists in its own right.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

As with all things on this earth, philosophy is a form, and every form is a form of relationship; and yet, what makes philosophers and philosophy are people who have failed at all normal, or perhaps, more common sorts of forms of relationships..

Speak for yourself.

Fido wrote:

People are driven into an excess of intellectual activity by the inability to relate because relationships happen at the emotional level...

Wasn't you to say that philosophy is not psychotherapy?

Fido wrote:

It is a narrow field, and there is not much company, and the greats are more often dead than alive...

This is because the philosophy you have chosen to "relate to" is dead.

Fido wrote:

I don't think of so many spooks as good company but it beats being alone...I want to take one single truth from philosophy that no one actually needs philosophy to know, and it is how to relate, how to love and trust...Yet, if philosophy held that truth, philsophers would be relating rather than philosophizing because there is the single place where happiness can be found..

This is not philosophy: this is escapism. Or even worse: an escapist philosophy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's a difficult task to assign one area of human knowledge to accomplish such a huge responsibility. Don't you think it includes all of our biology, environment, culture, religious belief, influence of parents, siblings, peers, school, church, our jobs, and our own life experiences?

Philosophy is not "an area of human knowledge": it is an attitude. Whenever you turn philosophy into a compartment you kill it. This is something Fido certainly understands, despite not understanding other things -- his/her lack of rationality has its advantages, one of them being not falling for such rationalizations.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's a difficult task to assign one area of human knowledge to accomplish such a huge responsibility.

Philosophy cannot be responsible for anything: we are the ones responsible, and we must resume taking philosophy seriously, since without wisdom we will soon be doomed. We need a way back to reality, which has escaped us lately. The dominant interpretation of quantum physics (the Copenhagen interpretation) asserts there is no "deep reality": all we can hope for is a mathematical description of... what? Culturally and politically we are in a mess without precedent. Economics is bankrupt. And philosophy, of course, is moribund: our love of wisdom has become a romantic disappointment, or, as Fido would like to say, a failed relationship. Our heart is broken, but it is imperative that we fix it.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

It is not philosophy that is nothing without other people, it is each one of us. And how we relate to others is central to our philosophy.

I was just on the point of agreeing with this, to an extent when I scroled down and found your other comment that showed you do not know as much as this comment make it appear...

Philosophy is a form that is all about forms, like art perhaps; and every form is a form of relationship.... Cast in the most simple terms, forms represent understanding and meaning, knowledge, which is then communicated or passed to the next generation, and this ability to take knowledge and add to by way of forms has allowed us to take over this place and to an extent, ensure our survival, it we would only universally rely upon it... Our spiritual beliefs which we take out of childhood and our common past endanger our survival in spite of the forms which make life possible... What meaning would our forms have, and what meaning would life have, or God, or any moral form if there were no people alive to receive them??? They are all about relationships, not only between ideas and objects, but between ourselves and each other...

Now; a lot of the problem with philosophy is in the communication of it.... It is easy for me to find it interesting because that is natural to me, to see beauty in simple things that others may miss... If, as I suspect, our salvation lies in philosophy there has to be some way to glamorize it, and make it sexy... That is, our approach to doing it should be the same as our approach to selling it, and that is, with creativity... And the reason I made the comparison to psychotherapy was a long discussion going back long before Freud about the relations of insight to reason in creativity that I read about in a good book on Freud I am reading called the mind of the moralist, by Philip Rieff... It is not uncommon for people with emotional problems to intellectualize them and in the process, not get at the root of them so much as sweep them under the carpet... From my understanding of the subject it was essential to get patients to let go of their judgements and get a hold of their feelings through free associations and dream relations and for the analyst to do the same, and for both to feel their way through the problem creatively...

You must be aware, to do this stuff -how little a part reason plays in our lives... We shine a bright light on reason, and use unreasonableness as an insult, but behind all our careful plans is a mad house of emotional drives.... I am not arguing against reason, but as a moralist I recognize its limits at the front end, and don't expect much good out of its back side...

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Quote:
guigus wrote:

Fido wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I didn't say that, but that's also a possibility. I haven't given it that much thought to say one way or another.

However, on some level it is about both, because you can't separate seeking knowledge from the self. All this activity happens with other people, but it may also mean we are trying to make somebody else understand a point of knowledge.

As with all things on this earth, philosophy is a form, and every form is a form of relationship; and yet, what makes philosophers and philosophy are people who have failed at all normal, or perhaps, more common sorts of forms of relationships..

Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for myself, and speaking of us, people, humanity... If I were speaking of you, I would say: If your relationships are so good what are you doing on the computer at 4 in the morning...

Quote:
Fido wrote:
People are driven into an excess of intellectual activity by the inability to relate because relationships happen at the emotional level...

Wasn't you to say that philosophy is not psychotherapy?
No... I said it was like psychotherapy....

Quote:
Fido wrote:
It is a narrow field, and there is not much company, and the greats are more often dead than alive...

This is because the philosophy you have chosen to "relate to" is dead.
Maybe... We stand on the dead to reach heaven.... I think I have added to what I have found; but I will never say: I did it alone...

Quote:
Fido wrote:
I don't think of so many spooks as good company but it beats being alone...I want to take one single truth from philosophy that no one actually needs philosophy to know, and it is how to relate, how to love and trust...Yet, if philosophy held that truth, philsophers would be relating rather than philosophizing because there is the single place where happiness can be found..

This is not philosophy: this is escapism. Or even worse: an escapist philosophy.

First of all, I am more of a moralist than a philosopher, and as such I cannot divorce philosophy from human good... I start with humanity and end with humanity and only in between can I escape into the cold, clean world of reason... At some point we should all do the same thing no matter what our activity, and ask: WHO does this help???

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think you go too far in criticizing what philosophy is supposed to accomplish.

Philosophy can't accomplish anything only individuals philosophizing (thinking/Be-ing) can.

Quote:

All humans are programmed from infancy by biology, language, culture, and the other environmental influences that makes up each individual.

Humans are not programmed. They are defined by the measurable world because that is what their proclivity is to do. You are the 'programmer', not the program. You can think your way through the measuarble, definable world and determine that 'it' can't define who you are.

Quote:

When people talk about philosophy, most define it as an attempt to seek truth and wisdom; nothing more, nothing less.

Philosophy is the container (concept) where what takes place between the beginning and end of philosophizing 'Truth' and 'wisdom' aren't in the container called philosophy. 'Truth' and 'wisdom' show up in Be-ing/philosophizing. When you discover that there is no 'truth' and 'wisdom' in 'philosophy' that's when you'll start philosophizing.

Quote:

How each individual learns from this experience is what matters.

There is no 'thing' for you to 'learn'. There is only uncovering the cover-up that you are which will give you 'truth' and 'wisdom'.

Quote:

Nobody will ever become "perfect."

Everbody is perfect, they just won't fit into your concept of "perfect". Disentagle your 'self' from just that one concept and you will change the world. No kidding!!!

2 Replies

Are Philosophers lost in the clouds?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know