Is philosophy useless?

@Cyracuz,

I agree that the unexamined life is less worth living, and the unlived life is less worth examining. This justifies both philosophy and art.
I suspect that for Cyracuz there is a life well lived (especially artistically) because he enjoys examining it. This A2K process is, in fact, a form of "deep play" for him

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

How can the examiner of life assess the worth of the unexamined life? He must be intellectually incapable of it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You miss the whole point.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes, JL, in a way I do think if a2k as a playground. It is an excellent outlet for creativity, and sometimes an arena for games.

But in my experience, the hardest challenge in both living life and examining it, is to be willing to make mistakes. In many ways failure is the road to success...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

So true! Making mistakes, and learning from them are great lessons in life. Some people, however, never learn that truth, and continue to make the same mistake over and over.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I would include myself in some people. I try to have a constructive perspective, but I realize every now and then that I am fooling myself. I chose to believe that everything in my life that is not as I would want it to be is a result of either something I am doing wrong, not doing or misunderstanding.

If I am not 100% satisfied with my existence, I would be a fool to assume that my understanding is perfect. That would cage me in my misery. So I need philosophy. I would be lost without it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

That you can know that you are making the same mistakes is half the battle of trying to correct it. It takes acknowledgement before correction can happen. I believe there are different degrees of the same mistakes that may not be harmful to self or others - in which case immediate attention may not be warranted.

In my younger days, I bought too many junk stuff on impulse. I still do, but it's not as big a problem as in the past. Both my wife and I have tried to quit buying stuff during the past five years or so, and try to clean out those junk that have no value to us. We give a lot of stuff to Salvation Army and Goodwill now, but it's still a battle to clean out more that's accumulated over the years.

I used to buy a lot of stuff during my travels to foreign countries, but that's been reduced to just a few candies and snacks, and maybe a few t-shirts for friend's grandchildren.

I still have t-shirts from many countries I traveled to that are still new.

It's a matter of outgrowing our bad habits.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Never mind saying that I "miss the whole point" when I asked "How can the examiner of life assess the worth of the unexamined life? He must be intellectually incapable of it."

Answer the sodding question instead of ad homing it willya? You're an ad hom. machine. It's your only method of proceeding.

I suggested recently that shagged out old has beens like you and me and fm should be disenfranchised on the grounds that we won't be here when what we vote for takes effect and parents should be given extra votes for their children.

You ad homed that. Now it is being put forward in Hungary and Japan is considering it.

The old fogies in the US and the UK are going to continue voting for policies which transfer their debts and deficits to the little defenceless mites in the prams and in their Mom's bellies.

What the **** are you doing preening yourself on a philosophy thread when you don't know the first thing about such matters. You're a "what I want is right" merchant of the most obnoxious kind.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Your ignorant about these matters, but I've been criticizing how our politics have been screwing up the works for all Americans including our children and grandchildren. I've responded with explanations when I posted; it's not my problem you didn't read them or remember what I wrote.

spendi wrote,

Quote:

Never mind saying that I "miss the whole point" when I asked
Quote:
"How can the examiner of life assess the worth of the unexamined life?
He must be intellectually incapable of it."

Let me explain the meaning of

Quote:

"How can the examiner of life assess the worth of the unexamined life?

It has very little to do with intelligence. It has almost everything to do with the environment in which that person lives, his exposure to education, the outside world, and the ability to worry about much more than food and shelter for survival. It has to do with the available options in the individual's environment. Sometimes people's choices are far and few between survival and philosophy.

You need to understand that not everybody has a local pub they can visit at their leisure to talk about "nothings."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

JLNobody wrote:

I agree that the unexamined life is less worth living, and the unlived life is less worth examining.

Spendius wrote:

How can the examiner of life assess the worth of the unexamined life? He must be intellectually incapable of it.

JL and Spendius have just said two very different things. Perhaps Spendius misunderstood, or perhaps his line of thought is just, at this stage, unclear.

That said - the phrase used by JL 'less worth living' is problematic in the sentence it is in. The concept of less is usually used in reference to a norm - but what is the norm here? The writing structures suggests that the norm is 'examining ones life' but we all know that's not the norm.

From the other end - examining ones life may give a person more meaning (and by implication here, therefore more valuable), arguing that it thereby makes life 'worth' living - but again what is the norm that is is 'more' worthy than. Well, the norm does seem to be that most people don't examine their life (or spend very little time doing so)

It could simply be that once examined, a life has more meaning and value to the examiner...but that does not necessarily mean that those who haven't examined their life place 'less' worth on their life.

I think it's not a matter of more or less 'worth', but simply a matter of different meanings in life.

3 Replies

@vikorr,

Thank you for considering my utterance.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

All good points; the norm is different for most people. Even when two people live in the same city, their lives can be worlds apart.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Perhaps Spendius misunderstood, or perhaps his line of thought is just, at this stage, unclear.

The unexamined life is alien territory to the introspective life. Any reflections of the introspective person on the worth of the unexamined life are forms of self justification. In extreme versions the unexamined life may be exterminated if introspection is allied with power.

The seeds of such measures can be seen on the evolution threads where certain words are employed to disparage those who don't vote for what evolutionists want. The populations of Texas and Louisiana for example.

Here's a selection--

Quote:

backwoodsman/woman, boor, bumpkin, clodhopper, cornfed, country boy/girl, country cousin, countryman/woman, farmer, hayseed, hillbilly, local yokel, redneck, rube , rural, yokel.

The chattering classes are the opposite. They eat the food the farmers produce. So they might be classed as parasites. What are polluting parasites worth who get psychiatrists to examine their lives scientifically?

2 Replies

@spendius,

No matter how much one person examines their life, their worth may be based on leaders like Gaddafi.

So your statement,

Quote:

In extreme versions the unexamined life may be exterminated if introspection is allied with power.

is proven to be untrue.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Some of the things expressed seem rather cynical to me.

Quote:

In extreme versions the unexamined life may be exterminated if introspection is allied with power.

Quote:

The seeds of such measures can be seen on the evolution threads where certain words are employed to disparage those who don't vote for what evolutionists want. The populations of Texas and Louisiana for example.

I would not have said the examples provided had much to do with introspection - quite the opposite.

I dare say few people who abuse power tend towards introspection. I would be surprised if any who abused power to large degrees indulges in much introspection other than 'how do I gain more power' (or 'how do I hold on to my power') types of introspection.

Quote:

The chattering classes are the opposite. They eat the food the farmers produce. So they might be classed as parasites.

That definition would make every person a parasite (farmers included), for we all consume/use products made by others.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Are you suggesting that Mein Kampf is not introspective.

I meant that all the chattering classes contribute is chatter. I'm operating on "ideal types" for clarity of thinking. I'm aware that they don't exist is social reality. A farmer may well be at a ball game. Or asleep.

The "unexamined life" in that context is the mentally disabled or possibly the poetic dreamer. I do not see how the obsessive introspective can value the worth of such types except as them being useless. Which is, of course, self-complimentary.

You are in the fuzzy middle ground where you can prove anything you want.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I would say that the examined life is not only incapable of deciding the worth of the unexamined life but is anathema to curiosity. The extremes of curiosity are a form of "out of oneself". Being "into oneself" must dull curiosity and possibly, with much practice, eradicate it. Render it impotent.

At which point the examined life becomes all there is. Which some call moping. One glance at which tells the curious what that is worth.

But five double gins and the rock beat booming out soon stops that in all but the worst cases.

Media is bloated to the gills with examples of the "examined life". It's probably a necessary state to be in in order to qualify. So obviously the "examined life" will be presented in a favourable light. In intellectual terms it means we are exhausted as Spengler said. And Kafka I hear--I would avoid reading anything that bleak. Long, dark nights of the soul are not for me.

0 Replies

Philosophy is definitely not useless, however there isn't much of a demand for it at all in our capitalistic world today.

2 Replies

@Dosed,

It started when our business schools taught students how to manipulate the markets, and forgot about ethics.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It wasn't the markets they were taught to manipulate ci. It was the secret fears and desires of the public. And they are better at it now than they were when you were at school. Fear of disintegration and insignificance mainly.

1 Reply

Is philosophy useless?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know