Philosophy ... help or hindrance?

[vfr]

I posted a similar question 'Philosophy ... help or hindrance' to a Catholic forum and was promptly banned. I did the same at a Buddhist site and they deleted it. So I will resubmit it to the Infidels to possibly hear your views if you are open to it.

Personally, philosophy has played a big role in yielding peace dividends to me. But, just as water and air sustain life, water and air also will also destroy life when in excess. So it goes with most other things when they are out of balance...especially our thinking.

Greeks used to teach harmony and balance in the Trivium in their schools. In the 'tenants of reason' they went into much details with the subject of harmony breaking it down into proportionally, prudence, balance, fitness and aptness. Not subjects you hear a lot of nowadays. I guess the philosophers nowadays find them too simplistic to waste time on? As an individual that has lived a very out of balance life, seeking and finding a modicum of balance has changed my life from one of pain, into one of happiness and peace for the most part. But staying balanced take effort, since by its very nature, balance is always in flux and requires constant adjustment.

I have talked with lots of philosophers over the past decade and many of them seem to prefer to spend their time debating the unanswerable instead of using philosophy as a tool to guide them for living a life at peace. When the topic turns to practical application of philosophical tools via personal experience, they stare at me like I am an alien. Now this is not the case 100% of the time, but I see it more often than not, at least with the philosophers I run into.

Sometimes I am guilty of getting lost in such unanswerable topics myself. The real problem is not in the discussion of concepts that no human is able to answer. We do not think in a vacuum, so thoughts come and go. But as for when they go...that is our choice. You see, the bigger problem arises when we lose ourselves in such thought or become addicted to it as a distraction from living and as we do it causes us detrimental problems in our life due to our lack of mindfulness of the present.

'Over Thinkers Syndrome'... I discuss it here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=178020


'When a mans mind is concentrated he is blind'... here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3721324#post3721324


Does philosophy serve you? Or are you a slave to it?


Take care,



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[comiezapr]

Philosophy doesnt guide my life, nor is it a tool to guide my life. Philosophy, for me, is a subject that has a particular set of problems related to the analysis and clarification of various theories and concepts. Its an academic subject for me, and inso far as it is an academic subject i think it is an enormous help. Its biggest help is with respect to clarity within other subjects.

I dont use philosophy as a guide to living life, spiritual or otherwise, so I am not qualified to comment on its helpfulness or hindrance in this domain. This is a different stripe of philosophy that i have a mild disdain for.

[Breath]

Does philosophy serve you? Or are you a slave to it?


You are implicitly positing a goal. Does philosophy serve me in what? Am I a slave to philosophy in what? What is that goal?

[vfr]

From another discussion list on this same subject. Responders coments in bold:



V writes: > Personally, philosophy has played a big role in yielding peace
> dividends to me. But, just as water and air sustain life, water and
> air also will also destroy life when in excess. So it goes with most
> other things when they are out of balance...especially our thinking.


(name removed) writes: Agreed. One can easily go off track and that's it ...

> Greeks used to teach harmony and balance in the Trivium in their
> schools. In the 'tenants of reason' they went into much details with
> the subject of harmony breaking it down into proportionally, prudence,
> balance, fitness and aptness. Not subjects you hear a lot of nowadays.

Which is indeed a pity, but not the fault of philosophers but of the ones
that define the curriculum.

> I guess the philosophers nowadays find them too simplistic to waste
> time on?

I think philosophy developed just like natural sciences from the simple
to the complex. The simple questions were answered long ago, but the
complex ones stayed and became main subject of philosophical discussions.

> As an individual that has lived a very out of balance life,
> seeking and finding a modicum of balance has changed my life from one
> of pain, into one of happiness and peace for the most part. But
> staying balanced take effort, since by its very nature, balance is
> always in flux and requires constant adjustment.

That's interesting. I'd guess my life is much more balanced from the
very beginning, which might cause the difference, but I've never seen it
as a (stressful) effort to stay in balance - maybe you've still not
found the right way to get yourself in balance?

> I have talked with lots of philosophers over the past decade and many
> of them seem to prefer to spend their time debating the unanswerable
> instead of using philosophy as a tool to guide them for living a life
> at peace. When the topic turns to practical application of
> philosophical tools via personal experience, they stare at me like I
> am an alien. Now this is not the case 100% of the time, but I see it
> more often than not, at least with the philosophers I run into.
> ...

For me philosophy was a means to learn how to find a direction for my
life. Once this was accomplished, philosophy stayed a hobby, but not a
central point of my life.

I'm doing my very best to live my philosophy, while I have to confess
I'm not always doing it as well as I wanted to.



V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[vfr]

Philosophy doesnt guide my life, nor is it a tool to guide my life. Philosophy, for me, is a subject that has a particular set of problems related to the analysis and clarification of various theories and concepts. Its an academic subject for me, and inso far as it is an academic subject i think it is an enormous help. Its biggest help is with respect to clarity within other subjects.

I dont use philosophy as a guide to living life, spiritual or otherwise, so I am not qualified to comment on its helpfulness or hindrance in this domain. This is a different stripe of philosophy that i have a mild disdain for.


Well, we approach the study of philosophy from different foundations. Nothing wrong with this, just as nothing wrong with one person that likes vanilla and one that like chocolate

When you write: "This is a different stripe of philosophy that I have a mild disdain for."

Please explain why so?

And if you do not use philosophy as a guide to live by and you happen to be an atheist and do not look towards religion as a guide, Then what tools guide you to living a life at peace?


V

[vfr]

You are implicitly positing a goal. Does philosophy serve me in what? Am I a slave to philosophy in what? What is that goal?

If you reread my post the question you asked may be answered. I believe it is the goal of all men and women to live a flourishing life and to live that life at peace. (peace within)

So this is the implied goal of life as far as I see it. What constitutes a 'flourishing life' or 'inner peace' is up for debate.

You take it from there.

Does YOUR study of philosophy promote peace within you or end up destroying your peace?

V

[Unbeatable]

If you reread my post the question you asked may be answered. I believe it is the goal of all men and women to live a flourishing life and to live that life at peace. (peace within)

Why?

So this is the implied goal of life as far as I see it. What constitutes a 'flourishing life' or 'inner peace' is up for debate.

You take it from there.

Does YOUR study of philosophy promote peace within you or end up destroying your peace?

V

The latter, probably. But since I am not sure exactly what the phrases you use mean in your mind, I can't be sure.

[Breath]

Does YOUR study of philosophy promote peace within you or end up destroying your peace?
V

My study of philosophy, paired with my study of reality, leads me to accept that "being a me" is irreconcilable with being at peace. I would extrapolate from that and suggest that a "me" who claims to have found peace is selectively blind. I do not say these things lightly.

[gnosis92]

Philosophy doesnt guide my life, nor is it a tool to guide my life. Philosophy, for me, is a subject that has a particular set of problems related to the analysis and clarification of various theories and concepts. Its an academic subject for me, and inso far as it is an academic subject i think it is an enormous help. Its biggest help is with respect to clarity within other subjects.

I dont use philosophy as a guide to living life, spiritual or otherwise, so I am not qualified to comment on its helpfulness or hindrance in this domain. This is a different stripe of philosophy that i have a mild disdain for.

i am under the impression that the reason philosophy is a part of the liberal arts is to guide your life.

(i have mulled over posting this -- philosophy, required liberal arts?)

[TruthPrevails]

Personally, philosophy has played a big role in yielding peace dividends to me. But, just as water and air sustain life, water and air also will also destroy life when in excess. So it goes with most other things when they are out of balance...especially our thinking.IMO, we should basically fine tune our thinking to view philosophy in a wider perspective rather than merely associate it with 'head cracking' academic activities, logic, ethics, etc. Thus an understanding of 'what is philosophy?' is critical.

Philosophy is basically the 'love of wisdom', knowledge or truth.

Philosophy was once highly pursued and was in the forefront of intellectual activities not long ago. The unfortunate situation is that, once knowledge have been established through the philosophical quest, it is relegated to the specific fields of knowledge for practical processing. Physics-science was once categorised as philosophy. It is now a specialized category by itself. The search for knowledge have its peak points and have now reached a plateau. The last frontiers of philosophy seem to be the question of "what is consciousness?" Now it is only sustained as a academic activity and a few professional philosophers and in forums like this.

But, the fundamental principle of philosophy should be retained wherever a search for knowledge is involved, regardless of whatever the fields involved. Philosophy is still linked to various fields in relation of their core fundamentals and unresolved issues. E.g. Philosophy of Science, Religion, Spirituality, etc.

There is range of philosophical activities and it is still relevant whether one is a student, academician or ordinary seeker of truth, but we should emphasize and revert to it's core purpose to reinstate [it's] importance. I like Bertrand Russell's definition of philosophy, i.e. "Philosophy toils the no-man-land between the known and the unknown [infinite]". It is equivalent to pure research in science or R&D in technologies.

Based on Russell's idea, philosophy to me is "finding order on the edge of chaos". This approach meant, based on existing knowledge we should make an attempt to find new (with respect to ourselves or society) knowledge. This is quite a task as we need to do extensive literature reviews. The proviso in this quest is avoid 'certainty' for there is infinity in front of us.

There are two aspects of 'practicality' of philosophy. As above, we do pure philosophy for pure knowledge which may or may not be practical immediately.
Another aspect is that we review and adopt the practicals established from the tested philosophical findings by others. One good example is the adoption of the philosophies of various spiritual teachers from Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. If physics was once philosophy, humanity is now benefiting from the fruits of it's seeds. Note; many physicists have relied on Eastern philosophy to help them to crack some the tougher questions on physics.
If we continue to philosophize now, there is possibility of future humans benefitting from the discussions and debates on for e.g. consciousness. This will involve a lot of thinking which Vfr is doubtful.

I had posted a reply to your other thread on 'thinking' and imo you seem to have a narrow view of what is thinking.
see: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3723940#post3723940

[RexT]

My study of philosophy, paired with my study of reality, leads me to accept that "being a me" is irreconcilable with being at peace. I would extrapolate from that and suggest that a "me" who claims to have found peace is selectively blind. I do not say these things lightly.
What you say is true. Consider the analogy of the infinite sea. It is one sea upon which are many individual waves (many you and me) that exist for a moment, then crashing onto the shore, we return to the infinite sea from whence we came.

It is the turbulence at the surface of being that gives rise to individuals, and their journey continues as long as the turbulence continues. There is no peace as an individual but for those moments of deep sleep, when it seems we have returned to the infinite sea.

Real peace lies beneath the surface of being, in its depths, where the currents are slow and gentle.

Rex

[Garrett]

vfr
When the topic turns to practical application of philosophical tools via personal experience, they stare at me like I am an alien.
I've been told that philosophical discussions are supposed to be divorced from real-life concerns and events. While trying to understand how to define and explain "knowledge", for example, more than once I've been told that neurological evidence is irrelevant.

I don't buy it. The goal of philosophy is to help us understand our world.

Does "understanding the world" give us peace? Some of us, maybe. On the other hand, "ignorance is bliss".

[kennethamy]

I've been told that philosophical discussions are supposed to be divorced from real-life concerns and events. While trying to understand how to define and explain "knowledge", for example, more than once I've been told that neurological evidence is irrelevant.

I don't buy it. The goal of philosophy is to help us understand our world.

Does "understanding the world" give us peace? Some of us, maybe. On the other hand, "ignorance is bliss".

I think what you have been told is that neurology is relevant to what happens in our minds when we know, and the causal process of knowing. But that it is not relevant to the question, how do we determine whether or not someone knows what he claims to know. That's because knowing involves a truth-claim about the world external to the mind, and so what is happening in the mind can be only a part of the story. The very same thing may be happening in A's mind, and in B's mind; but depending on what happens in the world independently of either mind, A may know and B not know, since what
A claims to know may be true, and what B claims to know may not be true. Now, what can be more obvious than that. But, nevertheless, it is true that a neuro-psychological account woudl be a necessary condition of whether A or B knows, since both A and B would have to believe what each claims to know, and belief is certainly necessary for knowing. So a neurological-psychological account is absolutely relevant in order to determine whether someone knows what he claims to know, but it is not sufficient. So, neurology (broadly speaking) is clearly relevant to how we come to know (if we do know) and a neurological account of knowing, but it cannot be determined whether someone knows what he believes he knows unless what he believes he knows is true. And that is something that a neurological account of what is going on in that person's mind cannot tell us.

[Garrett]

kennethamy
I think what you have been told is that neurology is relevant to what happens in our minds when we know, and the causal process of knowing. But that it is not relevant to the question, how do we determine whether or not someone knows what he claims to know. That's because
Confirming my claim in black and white. Thanks for backing my play!

[vfr]

My study of philosophy, paired with my study of reality, leads me to accept that "being a me" is irreconcilable with being at peace. I would extrapolate from that and suggest that a "me" who claims to have found peace is selectively blind. I do not say these things lightly.

Please clarify your reply. Are you of the 'no self' school of Buddhism when you talk about a 'me'? Or of another train of thought?

V

[vfr]

i am under the impression that the reason philosophy is a part of the liberal arts is to guide your life.

(i have mulled over posting this -- philosophy, required liberal arts?)

I wonder why more study of it is not mandatory for all majors if it is useful as a guide?

V

[vfr]

IMO, we should basically fine tune our thinking to view philosophy in a wider perspective rather than merely associate it with 'head cracking' academic activities, logic, ethics, etc. Thus an understanding of 'what is philosophy?' is critical.

Philosophy is basically the 'love of wisdom', knowledge or truth.

Philosophy was once highly pursued and was in the forefront of intellectual activities not long ago. The unfortunate situation is that, once knowledge have been established through the philosophical quest, it is relegated to the specific fields of knowledge for practical processing. Physics-science was once categorised as philosophy. It is now a specialized category by itself. The search for knowledge have its peak points and have now reached a plateau. The last frontiers of philosophy seem to be the question of "what is consciousness?" Now it is only sustained as a academic activity and a few professional philosophers and in forums like this.

But, the fundamental principle of philosophy should be retained wherever a search for knowledge is involved, regardless of whatever the fields involved. Philosophy is still linked to various fields in relation of their core fundamentals and unresolved issues. E.g. Philosophy of Science, Religion, Spirituality, etc.

There is range of philosophical activities and it is still relevant whether one is a student, academician or ordinary seeker of truth, but we should emphasize and revert to it's core purpose to reinstate [it's] importance. I like Bertrand Russell's definition of philosophy, i.e. "Philosophy toils the no-man-land between the known and the unknown [infinite]". It is equivalent to pure research in science or R&D in technologies.

Based on Russell's idea, philosophy to me is "finding order on the edge of chaos". This approach meant, based on existing knowledge we should make an attempt to find new (with respect to ourselves or society) knowledge. This is quite a task as we need to do extensive literature reviews. The proviso in this quest is avoid 'certainty' for there is infinity in front of us.

There are two aspects of 'practicality' of philosophy. As above, we do pure philosophy for pure knowledge which may or may not be practical immediately.
Another aspect is that we review and adopt the practicals established from the tested philosophical findings by others. One good example is the adoption of the philosophies of various spiritual teachers from Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. If physics was once philosophy, humanity is now benefiting from the fruits of it's seeds. Note; many physicists have relied on Eastern philosophy to help them to crack some the tougher questions on physics.
If we continue to philosophize now, there is possibility of future humans benefitting from the discussions and debates on for e.g. consciousness. This will involve a lot of thinking which Vfr is doubtful.

I had posted a reply to your other thread on 'thinking' and imo you seem to have a narrow view of what is thinking.
see: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3723940#post3723940


Thank your for your detailed and well spoken reply TruthPrevails


'head cracking' academic activities, logic, ethics, etc

Oh no, I am not an academic at all, If something cracks my head, I generally move away from it. I am an 'end user' of philosophy. Most academics it seems are not end users...which is the focus of my post TruthPrevails.

Academics are 'concept collectors' for the most part are they not? I could not even tell you the dates of Plato or Socrates nor the Buddha. But what I can do is study and apply their teachings with the goal to live a better life. Practical application...that is my field of study. For 'knowledge without application is useless.'


Logic? Yes, it is head cracking. (to me anyway)

Ethics? No, not so head cracking is we simplify it as discussed my post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=178080


Narrow view? Yes, I will agree I am somewhat narrow in my studies. I use philosophy very selectively and do not spend much time some of the areas you mention But are we not all narrow in one sense or another...we cannot do it all. We each have different capabilities and talents. Are not some of the academics narrow or even devoid when it comes to practical application of their philosophy? Yes, they may have much academic knowledge, but many times are bankrupt when it comes to applying that knowledge....'a wise mans knows what he says and a fool says what he knows.'

Now, I am not saying all academics are this way, but have run into many more that are than are not of the variety. I attend philosophy symposiums at a local college and am generally the only non-academic there. I listen to the professors bicker back and forth and then when I ask my breed of question I get little or nothing in terms of useful replies from the professors. So this is the foundation of my post...where has the study of philosophy ended up? Useful or useless to live a good life. Thoreau once said when people invited him to dinner they put their pride in how fancy and expensive a meal they could make. Whereas he put his pride in how simple and inexpensive a meal he could make. Where do we put our pride?

When Socrates was a young man he had to make a decision to make with which road to take in his own study of philosophical knowledge. He looked at his predecessors and their study of science and nature and also weighed his talents in this area. His conclusion? "I am not of the nature to study nature." Socrates was at peace with his own nature. We only have so much of 'us' to spend, so spend it wisely. Fighting ones authentic nature spends our time and energies unwisely.

Accepting one's authentic nature is not the end all solution to being at peace TruthPrevails. Yes, learning to accept the nature of all things is an important part of the equation for living a life at peace, but there is a missing link that needs to be added to this equation. The missing link is marrying authenticity with rightness. Or...Authentic Nature + Right Actions = Peace

Philosophy toils the no-man-land between the known and the unknown [infinite]"

I guess I cannot afford that luxury with who I am. A quote that is more appropriate for me is that from a Hindu sage..."Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires."

Going back to my original question has your study of philosophy helped or hurt you as far as you can tell TruthPrevails? And how do you apply this philosophical knowledge to live a better life? Or are you too concentrated in the unanswerable and have passed over into the oblivion of being stuck with too much fantasy and theory and not enough practical application?

Of course, we only have to answer to ourselves TruthPrevails, as well as man made law and nature if one does not believe in God or divine law. But bringing natural law into it, sometimes spiritual or philosophical practitioners forget they are spiritual beings residing in a physical body living in a physical world and must do work in both spiritual and physical areas to live a balanced and healthy life. (spiritual being such as one that is 'no-man's-land between the known and the unknown')

How does all this mesh with your study of philosophy TruthPrevails?


V (Male) For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity, compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write: vfr44@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not the opinion or belief of any group or organization.

[Breath]

My study of philosophy, paired with my study of reality, leads me to accept that "being a me" is irreconcilable with being at peace. I would extrapolate from that and suggest that a "me" who claims to have found peace is selectively blind. I do not say these things lightly.


Please clarify your reply. Are you of the 'no self' school of Buddhism when you talk about a 'me'? Or of another train of thought?

V

There are many unsatisfactory explanations of the "no self" tenet of Buddhism. This lack of understanding of Buddhism of itself is typical of any insight that becomes a religion. I find that Sartre has an insight into the nature of reality that equals that of who-ever Buddha was. Needless to say, neither Buddha or Sartre would ever have wished to become the figurehead for destitute movements. But it is the nature of reality that we get what we do not want, and that we do not get what we want.

It was clear to both Buddha and Sartre, that the nature of phenomenal existence must be essentially unsatisfactory. Buddhism, having recognised the fundamental structures of reality, descends into magic by positing an end to phenomenal reality. Sartre does no such thing.

The long answer to your question is above. The short answer is Sartre.

[marzipan]

I have talked with lots of philosophers over the past decade and many of them seem to prefer to spend their time debating the unanswerable instead of using philosophy as a tool to guide them for living a life at peaceI thought for a split second you hit the mark, but you seem to have a misconception about the aims of philosophy. Contrary to popular belief philosophers do not spend their entire time trying to solve unanswerable questions. Philosophy has helped many other branches of academic enquiry to progress. Logic for example, to name only one.
Why I said I thought you were nearly on target is because I was taught, from very early on in philosophy, that philosophy itself is merely a set of useful principles, like a thinkers toolkit. The reason why philosophers debate such open ended questions is to hone their skills and to perhaps attempt a solution to lifes mysteries, if brave enough or foolhardy enough to do so.
Other than that I was also taught that philosophy usually attempts a description of life, not a prescription for living life

[untermensche]

Ultimately philosophy is whatever the individual philosopher makes of it.

Intellectual curiosity does not distinquish between paths with practical possibilities and those without. And many a seemily fanciful persuit has yeilded practical fruit in the end.

To go where you are driven is to philosophize.

To make sure you are heading in some practical direction is to plan.

[kennethamy]

Confirming my claim in black and white. Thanks for backing my play!

Yes. You are just as confused about my intentions as you are about what I wrote. I pointed out that you were answering a particular question (the psychological question) correctly, but that since the issue is not psychological, but epistemological, your answer is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is that you systematically confuse the psychological with the epistemolgical issues. Well, at least it is systematic confusion.

[Bob K]

What is philosophy?

What is the value to humans of philosophy?

Here are proposed answers:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/whatisphilosophy.html