Who needs phylosophy?

I'm here for a number of reasons. (1) to learn from many people like Fresco and Setanta, (2) to make clear to myself what I think and feel on certain issues, (3) to exercise my mind, something very essential for a retired academic of my years, (4) to enjoy the friendships I've made here, and last but not least (5) to enjoy the laughs I get from comic minds like Gus and Dys.

To be fair Setanta , Doktor S did not say "Existentialism",he said "existential..." which is a valid adjective to describe the ontological issues of "self" and "world" raised by meditational practices. On the other hand the word "defiled" does have the whiff of dogma about it which runs contrary to his claim for "wisdom". He could of course be implying the term "Ancient Wisdom" which he may be unwilling to expand upon.

(A Google search on "Baphomet" is quite revealing "........as for the word Baphomet itself, it may originate from the Greek "Baphe-Metis" which means Initiation or Baptism into Wisdom-Measurement. Although, other meanings have been attributed to the word(s) throughout the ages.....")

Yes, fresco has it. I was using it as a vague descriptive, I probably could have worded it better.
I was refering to the whole eastern philosophy set in general.

Undefiled wisdom is merely a catch phrase that means truth. Truth as oposed to lies.
Much of what is considered 'wisdom' has been twisted and suited to meet someone or others agenda(politics anyone?), or are outright absurdities.(dualism, creation, equality, political correctness in general, etc etc) Undefiled wisdom is simply truth in it's purest form, research everything, doubt everything, test everything, believe nothing. undefiled wisdom

And the Buddha allegedly said something like "Be a Lantern Unto Yourself". How do you read that, Dok?

Back in 1977 I sat under the Bodie tree in Bodgaya where Buddha had become enlightened. There was just a small gate and I went in and sat for hours hoping for enlightenment.

There are actually many similarities between what the buddha taught and my own life philosophy. This is mostly because I think it wise to take what is useful from whatever source presents itself. However, there are many many critical differences as well, primarily the aproach to handling ones Ego.

Interesting. When you have the time and energy would you please enlarge on this matter of handling the ego?

I'll make a thread devoted to just that topic.....eventually.

Doktor S, you wrote:

I tend to steer away from counter-productive existential eastern mysticism.

--and you wrote:

We may lack 'ultimate knowledge' (whatever that is) the world abounds with functional knowledge, and that is what I focus my philosophy on.
undefiled wisdom

My beef is your unnecessary use of qualifiers. Not all "eastern mysticism" is existentialist in nature; not all existentialism has only "eastern mysticism" as a referrant. Then you compound the unnecessary descriptions with your reference to "undefiled wisdom," which you now appear to assert ought to be a cognate for "truth as opposed to lies." Nothing about the mere locution "undefiled wisdom" necessarily would suggest your definition to the reader. You also seem to imply that there is no "ultimate knowledge," while asserting that it is possible to know the truth as opposed to lies.

Once again, i find this all amusing--but not convincing.

Yes, you are correct. I'll concede that.

Really? the definition seems sort of self evident to me. Wisdom that has not been twisted into unwisdom.
I am not sure what your contention is here, given I am using the word 'defiled' in accordance with it's standard dictionary meaning.

How is that problematic exactly? All knowledge we have experienced is subjective. To say there is 'ultimate knowledge' free of subjective context is absurd. This hasn't seemed to preclude us from figuring things out about other things, however.

The ideas of brilliant minds are not always easily communicable through language. Such is life.

I had no idea that i had affair with a self-professed brilliant mind . . . i exit, bowing and scraping all the way, in the deepest, awe-struck humility . . . no, no, don't get up, i'll find my own way out, and i promise not to let the door hit me in the ass . . .

rofl
I think I like you dude.

Re: Who needs phylosophy?


I don't understand your query later on, the other one you talk about, so I'm just replying to this and also because I want to reply to this one.

I think people philosophize mainly because the activity brings them happiness, no matter if there is a problem in their life, no matter if they have nothing else to do, no matter if they want to impress others. They philosophize simply because they love to philosophize, which is good. There are numerous people out there who have small or big problems, have nothing to do, would like to impress others, but they don't philosophize. Only the ones that want to do so, do. A philosopher is better than a person having nothing to do, who is unhappy and who wants to impress others, but instead of philosophizing goes and bickers, complains, makes others miserable, makes a fool of himself, etc.

Beena wrote:
____________________________________
"people philosophize mainly because the activity brings them happiness"
______________________________________

I like your definition, Beena, only "happiness" is to loud a word for this I feel.
I would say "bring them contentment", or simply "entertain their mind".

Thus, Philosophising entertains my mind, makes me feel content and busy, akin to dance or singing :-)))

Beena also wrote:
_____________________________________________
"A philosopher is better than a person having nothing to do, who is unhappy and who wants to impress others, but instead of philosophizing goes and bickers, complains, makes others miserable, makes a fool of himself, etc."
__________________________________________

But philosopher is a also a man, isn't he? And so, he/she also "goes and bickers, complains, makes others miserable, makes a fool of himself, etc." Can't say for all, but I definitely DO most of those things from time time (LOL), so I am sorry not to meet your definition of philosopher :-)))

Iamwell, did'nt quote Beena's statement far enough. I would stretch it out as such:
"I think people philosophize mainly because the activity brings them happiness, no matter if [it addresses no] problem in their life..."
I didn't complete the statement because I want only to adddress his point that philosophical problems are inherently not everyday practical problems. They MAY, however, represent issues that, unless resolved, engender a generalized angst. Like the nature of death. On an everyday basis we take precautions against accidents, illness, and violence that might bring death to our door. But the NATURE of death is itself not a practical probleme. Its invevitability, however, makes it problematical on a more than everyday basis. I just read the painter, Willem deKooning's statement that, if we go to sleep and do not wake up, everyone else will know that we are dead, but we will not know it. That's a philosophical conclusion that, I believe, gave deKooning some relief. I, however, do not think that this "truth" goes far enough. From the perspective of deKooning's ego, it is true. He (qua ego) will not know he's dead. But I say that this is nonsensical from the perspective of deKooning's afterlife condition. At that time there will be no deKooning to be in ignorance of his death. In that sense, from the point of myself, there is no such thing as a state of death, because there will be no subject of that predicate state, i.e., noone to be dead.
Now, it is obvious that such a philosophical conclusion solves no practical problem for me or anyone else. Yet it does resolve, for me at least, an existential problem. It gives me some kind or orientation on the matter of my mortality. Perhaps I could convert to fundamentalist Christianity and thereby "solve" the problem of my mortality. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that solution is not available to me. I guess I'll just have to go to Hell. The Christian might say that that is better than OBLIVION, which is what I suspect his fairytale is designed to avoid. I prefer the notion that there will be no "me" to be in a state of oblivion.

Hi, 1st post here but I've been following many of these forums for some time in search of views etc. It's a pleasure to be able to read through so much diversity in such a coherent and well thought out manner, thanks.

Anyway, I'm not sure unhappy is quite the right word to use, certainly to cover so many people. Rather, discontent seems more appropriate. When I think about the original title of the topic I can't help but feel that maybe more people should philosophise more often and if that means showing discontent with fundamental questions instead of becoming lost in squabble, so be it. Or if nothing else, philosophy is a way of developing a better 'thought before action' approach.

Welcome Ashers. Hope to see many equally thoughtful statements from you in the years to come.

Thanks JLNobody, your explanations of certain sections of Buddhism have been particularly interesting.