Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

I knew a substitute teacher who had a Master's in Philosophy. He was very intelligent and we discussed the ideas behind the Ten Commandments that I had written and he read it and had a good discussion. Then one evening He couldn't open the window. It was window. I helped him. Then he was using a pick to remove ice in the ice compartment of the frig. It freaked me out as the pick could puncture the copper coils holding the freon. I asjed him if he took any physics in high school. No, he didn't. He skipped all the math and sciences courses and went to university and got a Master's in Philosophy. He is what I call a tunnel vision intellectual. I wonder how many philosophy majors skipped the hard courses and went into philosophy thinking they can solve all the world's problems and yet avoided the hard courses in high school.

talk72000 wrote:

I think the mere fact one is thinking is philosophy. This is the way human lifted themselves from the animal stage. The better you are at it the more famously you be and this fame is associated with philosophy. However, people do think about their lot in life and we call it philosophizing.

There was drama in the Calculus and gravity matter with Isaac Newton sparring with Sir Robert Hook, Gottfried Leibniz and Bernoulli. They recognized the supremacy of Newton. Then there was the case between Edison and Tesla over the electric motors. It could go on and on.

So if I am thinking longingly of the great steak I had last night, I am philosophizing?

No, certainly not all people. My reply was re what Dlowan was talking about. Re Robert's later comment, I have had close association with english department faculties, with one friend who ran a psychoanalytic institute, and with a department of medicine. Lots of drama everywhere, however anecdotally one takes my comment. I hadn't caught at the time that the point was about forums.

Tidbit - my father was a philosophy major and poet laureate of his university. I now forget the exact years, but I think he left medical school (one of the boys had to leave to take care of the mother and he was the youngest) in 1926. I always felt lucky, having him as a father, whatever his apparent progress in life.

Reconstructo wrote:

Too much "philosophy" is indeed just noise, but there is a core in the tradition that is indeed worthy. As far as wisdom-for-life goes, we shouldn't writers like Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus or the living example, perhaps exaggerated, of a Diogenes.

On the other hand, the more theoretical philosophers can enrich life less directly, by presenting new interpretations of the human experience that make this experience grander. Unfortunately, much "philosophy" is just an insincere pissing contest, a sad sort of sport for those who are as angry as boxers but not as fit. In my opinion, don't judge philosophy by the negative side of forums. Instead, get a book like Will Durant's Story of Philosophy which is a great introduction. I wish you well and sympathize with your frustration.

What is the criterion of "too much philosophy", and how are the more theoretical philosophers to be distinguished from the less theoretical philosophers? I have a sinking feeling that your more theoretical philosophers, and your philosophers who do too much philosophy are the very same people.

One does not need a knowledge of nuclear physics to bake a cake, but if that knowledge were necessary, it is certain that at least a few would know it...

I don't take philisophy too seriously it's good for the sayings and that but it's pointless. It's full of people who think they know it all if you enter a discussion with one it never ends! Everything you try and say is never right.

By the way, I simply don't understand the title of this thread. Where did he get the idea that philosophers think "they know it all".

The examined life isn't worth any more to its owner than the unexamined life...

It is a kind of bitter resentment born of disappointment that philosophy was not what one expected. It is not at all clear what was expected since it was probably very vague, but at least part of seems to have been that one was expected to post what made sense and wasn't simply free association of ideas, and that expected was that pronouncements be supported by argument. That philosophy was not a kind of free-form expression of random thoughts and feelings seemed a kind of betrayal.

Unfortunately, much "philosophy" is just an insincere pissing contest, a sad sort of sport for those who are as angry as boxers but not as fit.

So if I am thinking longingly of the great steak I had last night, I am philosophizing?

Every person seeks that knowledge needed for survival, and everyone rejects the sort of knowledge that is superfluous to ones survival... One does not need a knowledge of nuclear physics to bake a cake, but if that knowledge were necessary, it is certain that at least a few would know it...

Baking a bread in a gas-oven with the temperature in *F is almost QM to me since I am used to an electric oven and scales in *C. Baking is not a piece of cake !

You know, I never thought philosophy was a very complicated notion - apparently I was wrong. It seems - following this and other threads - that there's a great deal of confusion. In any case, I'd like to add a few comments here, for what its worth.

Fido wrote:

The examined life isn't worth any more to its owner than the unexamined life...

Maybe a topic for another time, but to me a person is much more likely to give increased value to their life the more they understand themselves and the significance of this or that event, this or that person, this or that experience. The more we thoughtfully ponder, think through and recognize the elements of thought, ethics, knowlegde, theology (hell, even politics) the more each act, each experience, has *increased* value. Perhaps they're not the same thing - but its not a matter of giving ALL or NO value, it's a matter of degrees - that value that the mind gives to what its experienced, through a better understanding.

There's another element in this topic I'd like to talk on then I'll shut up: Idea Ownership

This is a disability, a problem, something that'll hobble us and every communication we have and it goes like this: If its my idea, and you attack it, you're attacking ME and that's going to piss me off - you'll pay!. The person who feels this way and reacts like that has NO love of wisdom, they want praise and reinforcement. If they truly valued wisdom they might have just the WEE bit of humility - that still small voice in the back of their heads - that says, "This is another mind, I need to listen and understand first, then I can analyze and think about it".

Unfortunately, there are far too many insecure whiners for which this mindset is completely foreign. Given all this, is it any wonder folks wanna blazing sendoff of profound guilt-trip laying? It doesn't surprise me a bit.

Apologies for this seeming rant - I fear we lack humility and a genuine desire to interact civily; we can call it 'philosophy' or chit-chat - the label's not near as important as what we can gain with just a little maturity.

Thanks

Khethil wrote:

Fido wrote:

The examined life isn't worth any more to its owner than the unexamined life...

Maybe a topic for another time, but to me a person is much more likely to give increased value to their life the more they understand themselves and the significance of this or that event, this or that person, this or that experience. The more we thoughtfully ponder, think through and recognize the elements of thought, ethics, knowlegde, theology (hell, even politics) the more each act, each experience, has *increased* value. Perhaps they're not the same thing - but its not a matter of giving ALL or NO value, it's a matter of degrees - that value that the mind gives to what its experienced, through a better understanding.

I agree.

1. Value is a subjective evaluation from person to person

2. Value, therefore, exists only in the mind of the perceiver

3. What I don't realize, know, place effort in has less value than what I do realize, seek to maintain, know or place effort in

4. Effort itself imbues value in the mind of the evaluator; the more effort I put into it - regardless of what that effort might or might not net - increases how much I value whatever it is we're talking about

5. As I look at my life, my actions, my thoughts/hopes/faiths; as I follow their lines of logic and motivation through, I'm "investing" in that thing - giving it effort and more "value" in my mind

6. My experiences and existence (read: life) is more valuable when I examine it

7. If I don't 'examine' at all (ponder, reflect, perhaps analyze, look at what might be or might have been, etc.) this totality has less value in my mind.

8. Thus, the poorly-worded notion: The unexamined life is not worth living

why we place such a high value on human life. The argument's been made that the creature that realizes its own existence - in that condition - therefore values it more, and dreads the loss of that condition; for how can a thing have value to the owner if they don't or can't conceive they have it.

Perhaps you do unconsciously what I do consciously, and reject the notion of useless knowledge... As the Native said: I have eaten of all nations; so I have read on all subjects, and not because I expect some good, for that would be naive, but because we cannot know the future, and cannot say in advance what knowledge will be found necessay... Yet, to date, my education gained primarily through reading has been purely luxury, and what I have needed to know I have only known well enough, and most of what I have learned has never found a proper use...

Thanks, and you know, the more I think about it the more it rings true.

Its a lot like one of the justifications behind why we place such a high value on human life. The argument's been made that the creature that realizes its own existence - in that condition - therefore values it more, and dreads the loss of that condition; for how can a thing have value to the owner if they don't or can't conceive they have it. Whether or not this rings true is yet another issue, and that philosophy comes with many caveats.

Now, I wouldn't for a minute say its NOT worth living at all (thus, the poorly worded judgment there), but I get the ideal - or so I think I do.

Also, exactly why human beings have a propensity to torture and kill each other.

manored wrote:

Fido wrote:

Perhaps you do unconsciously what I do consciously, and reject the notion of useless knowledge... As the Native said: I have eaten of all nations; so I have read on all subjects, and not because I expect some good, for that would be naive, but because we cannot know the future, and cannot say in advance what knowledge will be found necessay... Yet, to date, my education gained primarily through reading has been purely luxury, and what I have needed to know I have only known well enough, and most of what I have learned has never found a proper use...

Indeed, I do reject the notion of useless knowledge. While there are, of course, certain areas of knowledge that are less important than others (such as fashion versus medicine) its obvious that all pieces of knowledge can have some use, even if they are converted to a whole different application than the intended. For example, anything you learn you can use to enrich an work of fiction you are writing and make it seem more real.