A romantic at mind

in #philosophy8 years ago (edited)

I write a lot of posts that are philosophical of nature but most that study philosophy would likely strongly disagree or at the very best, regard it as low-level philosophy.

Personally, I have never studied philosophy and have very little interest in even picking up a book by one of the great philosophers. I do not spend any time pouring through websites and finding the nuances between this term and that. Frankly, I find it all quite boring.

Academically, I am less than gifted and my memory gives me a little bit of space to work with but, in the long-term, I will not hold the information. I can't even quote myself let alone from the books I have read. I am one of those people that do not remember song lyrics, no matter how much I listen, read and sing along.

So, they are right, my philosophical pedigree is severely lacking and does not qualify me much at all. And, they are also very, very wrong.

It is mine now.

Philosophy is not just an academic pursuit, it is intensely practical however, over time, academics have hijacked it out of the hands of the common person and staked claim. The thing is with philosophy is that it is not a science and there is no right or wrong, everything is theory. Once a theory is proven, it shifts out of the realm of philosophy and into fact.

But, when considering the nature of consciousness, reality, existence or knowledge, there is very little fact involved as science is yet to close most gaps. Philosophy is what something could be or the reason for it, not what it actually is or why. This makes argument (the angry type) over philosophies quite redundant, discussion though is always good. Discussion lets people compound and distill their ideas to build better and deeper understanding.

And this is where it gets practical. Philosophy isn't for old Greek men to discuss in forums, or academics with patches on their elbows that look down upon all those not in the top half of Mensa, it is for everyone. Literally.

Practically natural.

Everyone acts upon their own personal value systems, preferences and programming. Our experience and understanding of it gets developed into a theory of how we live our lives. We explain the nature of our existence through them as we create meaning in what we do and why we do it. We build our knowledge banks in certain ways to meet the needs of where we think things will go and our reality and experience of it is dictated by the ways in which we live.

All of this is based on a personal prediction and theory of the future, not fact. So when people say 'my personal philosophy' in my opinion, this is the core of philosophy. It is the way we interpret our world and guides us in how we are going to act within it. It doesn't matter if it was not bound in a book or supported by science.

This interpretation of experience requires thought to take place at some level and the deeper that thought runs, the better and there is no one more thoughtful about you than you. We are all selfish and should be, in this regard at least. It is about having the personal responsibility for one's own experience and becoming sensitive and attentive to one's own environment and actions within. Practical.

How high can you jump?

The hijacking of philosophical discussions by those that think big words and fancy terms are what makes something important have missed the entire point of philosophy as a personal guiding set of principles.

It has gotten so bad that now, rather than people thinking through how they should and should not live their lives and the consequences of their actions, they outsource the thinking to an authority. Invested authorities that turn individual people into a flock of sheeple. The great philosophers would be turning in their graves, except for maybe Machiavelli.

So, in my limited view, a philosophical discussion is a practical one that considers the nature of our personal existence or what it could be. The discussion should at points touch reality enough that a normal person can consider and adjust themselves to enjoy more or suffer less.

Live it, love it.

However, this is not a list of actions and procedures to follow for it to be so, is to defer to authority once again. It should be considered by the individual. From what I have experienced, very few students of philosophy have internalised the teachings they claim to follow and use them as a true guiding force in their behaviour.

Rather, they act like everyone else that uses a mishmash of experiential learning, emotional positions and irrational reasoning or worse, habit to live their world. But, many are insensitive enough to themselves so take pride in their knowledge and humiliate any who do not offer sentences with at least three citations.

I called this post 'A romantic at mind' for I think my heart just pumps blood. I am not romantic in the love sense but, I do hold an idealistic view of the world. A view that likes to tell stories that hint at greater truths and hidden worlds that may or may not exist. An imagination that will create a theory from very little and see how far it extrapolates until it fails. And then make a new theory upon the failure. One that looks intently in the mirror and sees a middle-aged man, but still feels the teenager within.

Baa Baa Blah

There are many well-read philosophical writers here. I am not one of them. I find they tend to complicate the process, use jargon and require significant pre-knowledge to join a discussion. I don't mind reading what they have to say but, for much of what I read, it is not their thoughts on any subject, it someone else's.

Many seem to have deferred their thinking also but instead of to a governmental authority or corporation, they have consumed the words and thoughts of people who were brilliant thinkers. These highly intelligent thinkers are the most dangerous authority of all as their directions are so well phrased, so logically presented, one can't help but follow.

...Still a sheep.

I was criticised by one Steemit user long ago for debasing the 'Great discussion' and as a philosophy student himself, he is affronted when he follows the philosophy tag to find everyday thoughts of ordinary people. He has missed the point.

The conversation is Great, but there is only one ongoing. It is a movement that started before humans had words and before humans themselves. It has been running a very long time and every movement that ever was and ever will be is part of it and plays an influential role. Humans need to get over themselves.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]

Having said that, everyone has their own approach to life and it is what makes the discussion interesting. It is a symphony, not a single, constant note. If interested in looking into life deeper from many perspectives @steemdeepthink is up and running and collecting minds and supporters.

Sort:  

I question everything in life , why is this , this way and why that way. Helps me to better analayze life , giving it a perspective

the way it should be in my opinion :)

I can totally relate. I have a weak memory, so remembering loads of big words is out of the question. And I do have the feeling that many of the great philosophers sometimes lose themselves in pointless debates, that have little bearing on real life. Good for you that you can say you have an idealistic view of the world. I have a nightmarish view of the world!

I guess there is a point for them and I am glad that some people are looking into it but the exclusion by 'education' is not helpful.

The nightmare of reality is why I have to live in fantasy ;)

The hijacking of philosophical discussions by those that think big words and fancy terms are what makes something important have missed the entire point of philosophy as a personal guiding set of principles.

yeah, that is why I hated Philosophy in college. Philosophie used to be a sum of all aspect of sciences, but nowadays it is a haven for the people incapable of practicing actual science, but they can quote Aristoteles like others quote the bible ;).

except for maybe Machiavelli

Big fan actually. I think he would see much more of the true meaning behind defending an opinion through semantics than your average ancient Greek beardy guy. He would not despise it because it is immoral he would despise it because it is stupid ;)

@steemdeepthink sounds interesting. I followed the people behind it to see what they are up to.

I think Machiavelli may have been misunderstood. Ideas are just more tools, how you use them matters a great deal. I actually couldn't think of an evil philosopher so went with one that has negative connotations associated. Perhaps I should read more ;)

Dont worry. Machiavelli's "the prince" is one of the two books I read in my life. I hate reading, but I love exchanging ideas preferably with people that are alive and can respond ;).

The thing about Machiavelli is: You need to see things for how they are and not how you want/wish them to be. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.

The same thing we do every day Pinky, try to take over the world.

You got to understand power to make a change, narf!

You should check out the Philosophize This! podcast. The host, Stephen West, does a great job of translation the works of the 'Great' philosophers in layman's terms. Plus you don't have to read, just listen. :-)

I didn't even read this comment.... ;)

I just added to my list. I listen to things when I drive to work rather than try to sing songs with a terrible voice and the wrong lyrics. Thanks for the tip.

The higher you climb the ivory tower, the further you are from life.

"to be or not to be" did not come from a philosopher - it came from a commoner - no?

Great post!

It came from one of the greatest of philosophers. There is more truth in the words of that poet than any science journal.

The thing is with philosophy is that it is not a science and there is no right or wrong, everything is theory.

Um. No! Or course there is right and wrong in philosophy. For instance, formal logic is part of philosophy (though some are trying to make it a discipline unto itself, divorcing it from philosophy), and there sure is right and wrong there! Wrongs are often called fallacies, and rights are often called valid arguments.

Consider this: practically everyone starts off as a relativist when they're an undergrad, but abandon it soon after. It even has a name: student relativism. It's an unthought opinion. Once you think about it, you abandon it. I could go on, about how I've never met a philosopher who thinks determinism isn't true (though there are compatibilists who think free will is compatible with determinism). About how no one believes anymore in Plato's "knowledge is justified true belief", after Gettier's seminal one-page-long paper that changed the whole discipline. Etc. Philosophy is really much closer to, say, something like mathematics than people would like to think. It's definitely not a 'free-for-all' or 'anything goes'.

The hijacking of philosophical discussions by those that think big words and fancy terms are what makes something important have missed the entire point of philosophy as a personal guiding set of principles.
It has gotten so bad that now, rather than people thinking through how they should and should not live their lives and the consequences of their actions, they outsource the thinking to an authority.

Philosophy certainly teaches you to think for yourself. We even have a fallacy called 'appeal to authority'! But like anything else in life, if I devote my life to thinking about a subject, I'm likely going to become better at it than someone who hasn't. I was just watching this today and found it interesting, and I just remembered it now cos evidently James isn't as good at thinking about his own beliefs as Anthony is. This is just how it is. The harsh truth, let's say. Like Berkeley said, 'few men think, yet all will have an opinion'.

Philosophy, like any other discipline, rewards hard work. And in this case hard work means 1. thinking for yourself and 2. caring about what everyone else thinks and has thought. I can't think of anything more egalitarian than that.

One's right is another's wrong and even fallacious logic can change behaviours suitable to the individual abd help them act favourably or motivate them to move in a beneficial way for themselves. Is that wrong?

Philosophy doesn't teach you to think for yourself, it gives tools that help to better think if applied. Thinking went on before anyone decided to think about thinking.

To have clarity of thought no one need read about it from others as attention to the self within experience will uncover a great deal of right and wrong for an individual.

Reading about it does not guarantee action upon it nir does even thinking about it.

It seems that no one likes being called a sheep in their thinking and act predictably when called it.

When I write here, I look to include as many as possible in the discussion so approach it by using my thoughts and experiences to connect with theirs. Some of my thoughts are base, sone not. Some are logical, some not. Some inspire me, some not. Some I agree with, some not. Some I live by, some not.

I write, connect, converse and my own part of the conversation develops and shifts my behaviours. I care very little for right and wrong ways to think yet do look to improve my own thinking to best facilitate my own needs. We all live in a fantastical view of reality tonsone degree.

One's right is another's wrong

Granted it's perfectly possible that good and bad don't even exist, and are mere inventions, so I'm not going to dispute that.

even fallacious logic can change behaviours suitable to the individual abd help them act favourably or motivate them to move in a beneficial way for themselves.

Agreed.

Philosophy doesn't teach you to think for yourself, it gives tools that help to better think if applied.

The latter is true, but philosophy does teach you to think for yourself, partly by doing the latter. Compare it to religious studies, for instance, where there's just indoctrination. When in a philosophy class you learn philosopher X said this, and then in the next class you learn philosopher Y said the exact opposite, and then you have to write an essay on the subject they disagreed about, I'd say that kinda teaches you to think for yourself.

To have clarity of thought no one need read about it from others as attention to the self within experience will uncover a great deal of right and wrong for an individual.

I agree that's possible. I'd say the person who does that maybe possesses 'innate talent'. There's surely been historical examples of that. But I still think it's highly improbable. It's like a person not being aware of any art whatsoever, being able to draw something like Salvador Dali, out of thin air. It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely. If you read what others have thought, you're basically saving yourself a lot of time. Plus it's the "sociable" thing to do, otherwise it means you don't care about what anyone else has to say. And just because someone is dead or lived 2000 years ago, doesn't mean their opinion is worthless.

Reading about it does not guarantee action upon it nir does even thinking about it.

You made that point in the article, and I can't disagree, but again I think you got philosophy wrong. Would you accuse a scientist of not being a scientist because he lives just like a regular Joe? "Yes, yes, I know we evolved from apes and all that jazz, but how does that change how you behave in your day-to-day life?"

It seems that no one likes being called a sheep in their thinking and act predictably when called it.

I don't know what this refers to. If it refers to me, I'm definitely not acting like people do in anti-vaxxer or flat-earther debates or what not. I just read some things I disagreed with so I'm stating them. I hope my words don't come out as combative.

No, I am not calling you a sheep but when people get called it, they often respond negatively. I think that this is part of the reason why there is a push against academia and some very intelligent thinkers. They make people feel stupid, often, rightly so perhaps.

I actually have a half worked out article I will post. I have had it going for a little while but something you said 'more mathematical' inspired a little shift. It leaves a lot of room for development and gap closing, just something to think on perhaps. :)

I don't mind combative. I learn regardless. I try to write so there is something for everyone to think upon.

Thanks for the link to the Gettier paper - I've never heard of him before and it was interesting reading. To be honest I didn't even realise that people were claiming we could definitvely "know"things. Perhaps I'm just too old school. I'm of the view that we can't really "know" anything but our own existence (ala Descarte) and everything else is just speculation (no matter how much evidence/ 'justified belief' etc we have for it).
My biggest issue with the "scientific world view" (as opposed to the scientific method) is that it ASSUMES that we things are true/ facts/ knowledge rather than taking Karl Poppers thinking onboard and understanding that these things may not be true/ known but rather they just haven't proven false.
I know that I know nothing - but if I know this then I know something, so I don't/can't even know that I know nothing lol!

Whoa, for someone who claims a love of philosophy you are very down on the people who have decided to devote their lives to it (I am certainly not one of them). "Professional" philosphers have indeed read widely around the subject, learning what other great thinkers have said/thought before them. Is this a bad thing?
You call them sheep but I think you are missing the point of what philosphy is at its heart - tools and techniques for analysing arguments. By reading the greats you can aquire new tools, new ways of thinking whether you agree with their conclusions or not.
You state that philosphy isn't a science and try to separate the two with words like "facts". You are correct phillosphy is not a science, however you have failed to understand that science is in fact a philosphy. Indeed back in the days of Isaac Newton et al scientists called themselves "natural philosphers".
Here is a 'argument' for you...
Premise: You have not read any real philosphy (by your own admission)
Conclusion: You have stated philosphers use too much Jargon and overcomplicate things (again you stated this above)
If the premise is true then you have no justification for your conclusion as by your own admission you have not read any philosphy in order to judge that too much Jargon is being used.

For someone undevoted you seem triggered enough to be part of the conversation here, read, reread and think on ways to create a valid argument against my points.

You have also run under an assumption that 'I am' down on philosophers who devote their lives to it. Whoa, that is a big assumption, is it not? Do you base your words on a few lines in one article or on my actions day to day?

I am not saying you are wrong but how do you know you are right?

Regardless of how good the tools of reason we have available are, we all work under unreasonable assumptions and speak and act accordingly.

Being part of the conversation to remove some of the personal assumptions should not be limited to a few. Peehaps if more people feel connected and empowered enough to their experience, they will take agency and truly immerse themselves into an active role in their own lives.

One can acquire a lot through the words of others. Knowing and doing are quite different.

Thanks for taking part.

Not sure triggered is the right word. I found your article fairly interesting and thought I would offer comment as apparently that's the sort of thing you have to do to build your own followong on steemit - if that's "triggered" fair enough. If I'd agreed with everything you said would you still say I was "triggered"?
Big assumption? I'm basing my statements not on assumptions but on your opinions as you have expressed them in this articlle. e.g. "academics have hijacked it out of the hands of the common person and staked claim", "I find they tend to complicate the process, use jargon and require significant pre-knowledge to join a discussion", "Philosophy isn't for old Greek men to discuss in forums, or academics with patches on their elbows that look down upon all those not in the top half of Mensa" or "These highly intelligent thinkers are the most dangerous authority of all" - There are plenty more - are you telling me these weren't negative comments? I'd have a hard time buying that. I don't know I'm right but I must base my thinking about your opinions on your opinions as you have written them - if you don't agree with what you have written here then sorry, my bad.
Not sure what you're on about with the last bit but if you are suggesting that people should try to improve their thinking and be less reliant on the thinking of others then fair play, I'd agree with that.
If however, you're suggesting that people completely ignore the opinions of "great thinkers" so they can make their own minds up to "avoid being sheep" I'd suggest that, that would lead to greater "unreasonable assumptions" in peoples thinking not less.

I would say you were potentially crazy if you agreed for within was a whole lot of stuff that should be questioned.

Of course they are negative comments.

Take responsibility and develop the thinking to analyse rather than swallow. Ignore nothing perhaps.

When I write, I hope to get people thinking in different ways, including myself. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day if you agree or not but if a thought comes to you that helps improve your position somehow, great. If not, great, you can move on and find something that does or create it yourself.

I am always glad when people take the time to respond thoughtfully even in disagreement. It means they are thinking at least something. Many these days seem to avoid anything that will burn calories above the neck.

Interesting post... i'll look to link into deepthink with a post... once I have a great thought enter my head (hopefully within a week!) (-: cheers