Is Philosophy a way of life or an armchair recreation.

I have a dream. That one day I'll be smart enough to answer this question.

Both, Fresco

I don't understand this part of your statement, fresco. Expand, please, or rephrase.

Might be more easily understood if "comfort" is replaced with "discomfort," unless I'm reading it wrong.

Sorry if not clear.

"Deep ecologists" for example would replace "progress" with "sustainability" as a major philosophical paradigm. This means that "recycling etc" takes precedence over "consumption". I like many others find myself reluctant to consider giving up my car or air travel etc and tend to look for intellectual counter arguments to ecology like the possibility of realizing new resources, or the distancing myself from "responsibility for unborn generations".

This reminds me of a cartoon ("Family Guy") in which they flash back to their great grandfather the philosopher.

He's sitting on a chair in Ireland and his wife (with the latest of the litter fixed to her bosom) begs him to "get a job".

He stares vacantly and with a flourish answers "why....?" as if it were something to be given great thought.


I can't describe it well, ya had to see it. But to me it should be nothing more than recreation, unless you can get paid to teach it.

Depends what you mean by philosophy, I guess.


1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

I mean, we all have a philosophy, of sorts, that guides our conduct (whether we know it or not, and as well as other things like biological etc needs and desires) - and examining and subjecting that "philosophy" to rational analysis is part of the discipline of philosophy.

Moral philosophy has certainly been a real influence in my life.

The attitude of rational analysis which I learned partly through academic philosophy has been very practically helpful in my life (when I use it!).

The more abstruse whichness of what and whyness of who areas of academic philosophy are clearly mainly of interest to students and academics - but there is much of practical life decisions matter in philosophy too, I think.

As to whether we are able to operationalize our philosophical beliefs - that is an issue affecting not just philosophical matters, but also psychological ones (like - "I will stop thinking negatively", "I will stop picking those partners" - which overlap with philosophy, I know), health ones ( I will start walking every day and stop eating berliners at lunchtime) etc etc.

Philosophical commitments, like a decision to adhere to principles of deep ecology, are like other decisions - they come up against the whole range of obstacles that make it hard for us to do what we "know" to be the right thing - I don't think that makes them "just an armchair recreation" - just difficult to live.

Fresco, you are speaking of Philosophy, Definition 5, on dlowan's list. I would not have asked my question if I had known that.

I thought you meant that I would, for example, be lured by Jungian thought because I was so abhorrent of Nietzschean convictions.

You had more practical things in mind, like SUV vs. hybrid.

Kara,

I am not excluding your interpretation.

A point which I hoped would emerge without my prompting is that on the one hand "rationality" is not a neutral commodity which fits all "selves", but secondly "selves" are variable. Dlowan gives us a valuable analysis to start from, and if we take No 1. for example "truths" more often than not lie in the eye of the beholder (and even that is a problem for some!) . What each of us accepts in "normal circumstances" is subject to review with respect to external events, ( good fortune, war, bereavement etc) . So No.6 sounds good in theory...we "understand" what this means, but do we "know" what it means.

Snore...I was going to start a thread about this myself, but I might as well just post here. I studied a lot of philosophy back in the days, until I started thinking that there were simply two ideas being bandied about, the only difference being historical context. You can put all the isms and ists on the different "schools" as you want, but philosophy essentially comes down to two theories: Humankind has the capacity to better itself through knowledge, or it is incapable of escaping it's base instincts. It is clear we are caught in the middle. No surprises there. The only philosophies that ever really held my attention were those regarding self-knowledge and self-transformation. Of course, this philosophy was the realm of mystics and heretics mostly, who were persecuted and killed, because heaven forbid one should examine themselves before trying to force an opinion on the world at large. The only truly useful philosophical statement ever made throughout history was from Socrates, "know thyself". He was, of course, jailed and forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock.

cavfancier

I concur with much of what you say. Do you think there are problems with "self knowledge" ?

Well, there's Cav, as feisty as ever.

My father once said that we should "know ourselves", but when we do, we had better have a damn good sense of humor.

Metaphysical philosophy is not really relavent to a physical way of life, especially if that life includes things like art and other humanity-related things. I'll give postmodernism that, though - it can be related to just about anything. I'm not sure that's a good thing though. I mean, for instance, if I'm building a set or designing a stage for a theater, I have to use some sort of philosophy, but it's a very narrow philosophy compared to what we usually think about as philosophy - I have to concentrate on what the reactions of individual people might be, and how to cultivate the correct reactions within the cultural setting, and I can't afford to dwell on philosophical ideas that deal with humanity as a whole. The set, stage, theme, etc of the play may have no meaning at all to someone who it's not designed for, so there's no point in thinking about them while designing it.

And the same is true when you do anything that involves single people, single works or art/literature, single cultures, or specific studies - which is how we live our lives. Whether we're washing clothes, buying groceries, partying, socialising, whatever, we live in a narrow sphere of reality and universal philosophy really has no place.

Good point there Letty....taking yourself seriously is no doubt one of the problems in self knowledge !

Rufio,

There are some "universal philosophies" which extend to the minor details of life. I'm thinking of Zen for example and its emphasis on vigilent awareness of our interactions.

I don't know much about zen... but in real life, you often have to tune out the greater universe at large, and I can't see that as a good way to engage in philosophy.

Rufio,

Check out references to Blake's "to see the world in a grain of sand" or "macrocosm reflected in microcosm". Zen goes even further and looks into the "act of seeing". Ths may be a far cry from Western "getting on with life" but "they" are likely to say "we are sleepwalking".

Interesting you would say that. My son e-mailed me after the abductor of that young girl was caught in Florida. He said, I know how you feel about the death penalty but don't you think that this man deserves it? I thought about what my son said (he has an 8-year-old daughter) and wrote back that the time to think about things is not when you are caught in the throes of emotion. Then I went through all the reasons why I am against the death penalty but ended with "Then, again, if I came face to face with the abductor and killer of my child, I would tear him limb from limb if I were able." One's reasoned ideas should be come by in a state of removal from feelings. There are other times when justifiable rage would lead you to act out of passion not reason.

Interesting thoughts, Cav. Back to comment on them.

Cav, I am interested in your reduction to two ideas. They are opposites, in a way, but are they truly opposed? Is it not possible that we are stuck with our base instincts, and thus cannot escape them, but is it not possiblethat we also have an enormous capacity for self knowledge and transformation (the knowledge itself transforming us) and in doing so inform our basic clay, as we evolve into a higher being.

I have always looked at philosophy from what I think of as the opposites: the arguments from first principle as opposed to the arguments from pragmatic facts. The Latin names of these have fled my weary brain, but I have argued through the night more than once only to stare at my opponent and realize that we would never meet at the end; we had started from first principles and would never find a meeting place.