Philosophy as a Problem

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Tnerb, Jun 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I think that this has been done or written, actually i'm pretty sure that it has. I don't remember where. Maybe the pragmatic thingeys. Anyway and anywho's, all that i'm trying to say is philosophy is just simply ...at least the great philosophers, I came here to this site, and thought I knew everything or something, because I have a problem that reaches so ...so. And so so, basically...
    ...
    ya know, people who freaking bloody live happy, usually catch on right? If they don't that sucks. But really, I think philosophy is just problems.
    You try to solve them. If you can't, well, what a dumbass that fucker is for not believing me!

    Now how BEEEAAAAAAAAuTIFUL that is?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well what was I saying. I think it's just a problem, and that's what we should see it as? Philosophers and philosophies, woo hee hee hoo...
    MY god. I think that's about all.

    Do I have a point at all? Am I on the right track in my thinking philosophy is problem?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    Philosophy is there just for its own sake. The love of knowledge, wisdom. At the end of the day and you reflect on what you have thought out, does the world change? Not likely. Philosophical arguments are chains of reasoning with at least one nonempirical premise or conclusion. Meaning, you cannot test it out with experience to know if you are truely right or not.

    Did I get around to answering your questions? I am quite confused as to what you are even talking about.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Meantime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    Existabrent: Philosophy is a problem? What's a problem? Something that is? Or isn't?

    Absane: Philosophy is there just for its own sake? Like asking a dog to stand or sit, to go or to come, to kick or to... love?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Philosophy, like every human creative act, is a perfect display of man’s disease and his discomfort with himself.

    It is like a sneeze: The act is one of expelling the unwanted, but it fails to deal with the disease by only getting rid of the disease’s manifestations.
    Expelling mucus does not cure the process that produces it. It just clears the way for more mucus.

    Through the haze of his own illness man dreams of health, like he dreams of utopia, forgetting that the only cure for life is one.
     
  8. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    I do not recall philosophers holding a 9-5 job with paid vacation. In what ways does our world change when a group of 5 men conclude reality is just a construct of the mind? Or perhaps free-will does not exist? Not a damned thing.
     
  9. Meantime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    Disease, discomfort; this all sounds rather permanent, but true for most I suppose. So you're emphasizing the act of philosophizing as an incidental spin-off from a malfunctioning or awkward self?

    I don't understand: the only cure for life is one? But I disagree that the act of philosophizing is only manifest during a quest for prosperity, although I'm sure there are many more "philosophers" who philosophize for the sake of philosophizing than there is philosophy that is being philosophized not for the sake of "philosophizing" but for the sake of having to -pause- outside the state of self -- malfunctioning or awkward, notwithstanding.

    I suppose that since life is an exhausting experience, and a very intricate one at that, for some there are bound to be similarities, overlaps, recognitions, identification, connections, conflicts, disagreements, oppositions, fellowship, etc., that will be reflected in a philosophy -- not a dogma.
     
  10. Meantime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    Satyr: It is like a sneeze [...]

    I only catch colds when I've been around the market square, you know, people; their germs. Just caught one, as a matter of fact. June!
     
  11. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Hmm.
    I think you're all sorta.. off just a bit.

    Philosophy is not really a problem. Or a disease. Rather, it's a solution to a problem. It's a cure for a disease. At least an attempt to find such. Many times it never gets farther than elucidating the problem. Describing the disease.

    I'm talking about the real philosophies here. The useful ones. There are other philosophies, abstruse and useless. So abstract that they wouldn't even fit into an impressionistic painting. Metaphysical mumbo jumbo that attempts to prove that nothing is, for instance. This sort of philosophy would be as Absane describes. There for its own sake. Just a pretty picture to hang on the wall with no real roots in the tangible.

    But, useful philosophy is personal. The philosopher is diseased and wishes to cure himself. He must cure himself.

    Some philosophies are about the world's disease rather than the philosopher's (but if truly honest with himself could not help but see the world's disease in himself as well...). Thus the philosophy of an age rather than a man.

    This is what seperates the wheat from the chaff. Those who philosophize a solution. And those who philosophize for nothing.

    Motive is ever important. In all actions. In all inquiries.


    I think Satyr understands and actually meant what I just said, but he loses track when he says the above.

    He goes from motive to particular.
    He goes from desire to cure the disease of a man or an age with a metaphor of the continued failure to cure anything.
    He seems to see philosophy as an exercise in futility then? Mental masturbation?

    He forgets that solutions merely lead to new problems.
    And he forgets that this is a good thing.

    Utopia?
    Who does he hate so much that he'd wish them a utopia?

    (And why am I speaking about him in the third person? Hmmm.)


    Absane,

    Oh? Ever hear of a professor? And why the emphasis on '9-5'? Isn't author a profession? Don't some authors support themselves through book sales? And don't they also, at times, go on vacation?

    However, I think that only the most abstruse and dandy philosophers are in it for the money. It's a good thing that there's not much room in the world for paid philosophers. This keeps the numbers low. Unfortunately, this simply means that it's left to those with ample leisure time to play their word games that lead nowhere. And they do. They do.

    Excellent example of a useless philosophy. And one which is so simply disproven as well. At least when one looks at the world rather than the entangling jargon of the 'philosopher'.

    By the way. You also make another point here. 'A group of 5 men'. These abstruse types require groups, don't they? They are in it for status of some sort, therefore a positive judgement is a requirement of their continued masturbation.

    However. None can fully escape this clause as practically all desire to share their philosophy. But, it's the type of men who gather that are identifying markers.

    Depends upon the context here. The free-will discussion leads inexorably to the heart of cognition and language. It can be pure masturbation, or it can be an in-road.

    Great care is required at all times.
    Even the best of us delve into masturbation at times. Hey. It's fun to play with words. But, one should never make a career out of it.

    Utility is a keyword.


    Meantime,

    The only cure for life is a utopia.

    The problem here is that philosophy is not meant to cure life, but rather, life's problems...

    Or. Perhaps he means the only cure for life is a disease?

    Prosperity?
    Is prosperity one of your criteria for utopia then?

    I always thought it was funny how Hume bashed the abstruse and abstract philosopher, when he himself was one in many ways. Especially in the times he was living in. He had no choice but to be dealing with the subject matter he wrote of. Hell, even now, with all the knowledge we've gained of the brain, cognitive philosophy is still dangerously abstract.

    It seems that he was rather railing against the failure of his previous writings to receive its due accolades.

    I always liked this particular ditty written up by Kung-lung Tsu. An excellent example:
    A white horse is not a horse
    A white hard horse has one element.
    Why is this so?
    Hardness and whiteness have nothing in common.
    Surely a horse and hardness have nothing in common.
    And surely, whiteness and a horse have nothing in common.
    Whiteness and a horse have in common nothing;
    a horse and hardness have in common nothing;
    and hardness and whiteness have in common nothing.
    Therefore, whiteness and a horse have something in common;
    a horse and hardness have something in common;
    and hardness and whiteness have in common something.
    And therefore whiteness and a horse have something in common
    with hardness and a horse; and hardness and a horse
    have something in common with hardness and whiteness;
    and hardness and whiteness have something in common
    with whiteness and a horse.
    And therefore a white hard horse has something in common.
    And therefore a white hard horse has one element in common.
    A white hard horse has no element in common.
    Why is this so?
    Whiteness has nothing in common with hardness.
    Hardness has nothing in common with a horse.
    A horse has nothing in common with whiteness.
    And therefore there is no white hard horse.
    And therefore a white hard horse has no element in common.
    Therefore a white hard horse is not white or hard.
    Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or white.
    Therefore a white hard horse is not a horse or hard.
    Therefore a hard horse is not a horse.
    Therefore a hard whiteness is not hard or white.
    Therefore a white hardness is not white or hard.
    Therefore a white horse is not a horse.

    Perhaps a white hard horse has a name in common.
    Perhaps a white hard horse remains unnamed.
    Therefore the people are unnamed.
    If the people are named, they have elements in common.
    If they have elements in common, they are a people.
    Why is this so?
    People have nothing in common.
    A name has nothing in common.
    A name is never common.

    Nice, yes?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2006
  12. JohnnyGo Registered Member

    Messages:
    18
    By philosophizing one may seek to escape disease and find a cure (or to find a solution to a problem), but both disease and cure (problem and solution) have 'existence' only in our mind, and that is as concepts. There is no cure, except in the insight that there is no disease.
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Language is funny.
    Know why?
    Your statement contains some truth, (or, rather, it jibes with my opinion on the matter partially) but for one word.
    One little word.
    One measly, peasly word.

    Know what that word is?
    "Only."

    What's so 'only' about it? Why do you choose to belittle that which is the center of your very existence?

    You say that these problems which necessitate the creation of philosophy to elucidate and to overcome are completely constructs of the mind? That they don't 'exist' sans mind?

    So what?

    You don't exist sans mind. So does that make you an 'only' too?

    Sheesh. Kids today.

    Pain 'only' exists in the mind too. So, take a hammer and smash your hand to a bloody pulp and then come back and type (one-handed) that they pain from your mangled appendage is merely an 'only'.
    I dare you.
    Double dog dare you.

    How so?

    The human animal is the only animal that we are aware of with the requisite neural structure to create the abstract representations of the world which facilitate the creation of philosophy. Which enable the observation of the 'disease'.

    It could be said that it is a form of madness. Man is a creature that is pre-inclined to madness. And many forms of madness manifest as exactly that philosophical instinct gone awry.

    But the cure is not to deny the existence of the disease. Only a solipsist would say such things. The disease exists. Without a doubt.

    To deny the disease is to deny the world's representation within our minds which is, in effect, to deny the world itself.

    Try the hammer experiment and get back to me on the existence of the world and its diseases...
     
  14. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Ok, the hammer thing. Were u talkin to me?
     
  15. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Yes, a freaking problem. It's a freaking problem that truths are lies to people.
     
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    No. I was talking to Johnny boy. I was referring to his words in the quote prior to my babblings.

    Truth? Objective? Subjective? Concrete? Abstract? Relative?

    Know what's true?
    Ask that hammer.
     
  17. Absane Rocket Surgeon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,989
    invert_nexus... sorry, what I meant was a job in the business world. Perhaps a philosopher might work in a think tank but I doubt he writes about the existance of free-will for a client. But yes, all I really see is a professor.

    SOrry for the misunderstanding.l
     
  18. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    i could type more about what was or rather IS in mind but not ATM.
    Invert nexus,
    i'm just going to type a small bit for now..

    Basically (if you're hearin me out), i want to tell what this guy said of my ramblings (quote) from a chat room once.
    he said something like this,

    "You sound to be speaking like some sort of thing dealing with the past, or present, in which a truth is presented and that makes it still true (or something like this--), anyway, it sounds like some odd offshoot of logical positivism"

    Point is though, that ..although your questions above which I surely will get to, I just wanted to post the thread for.. discussion maybe.. anyway, point is, that just simply ..
    well, there you have my atm message.
     
  19. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    I see life as a consequence of universal flux.
    Life interprets or becomes aware of this flux as Need.
    Need is living matter interpreting the absence of stability to itself as an absence of fulfillment.
    I need because I am lacking. I suffer because I strive to fulfill what is absent in me. Life, in fact, feeds or itself creating a loop.
    I lack, seeking satiation, and I feed on the lacking which can never permanently satiate me due to their own lack.
    The unstable striving for stability by uniting or consuming the unstable.

    Consciousness becomes aware of this lack as suffering or pain or hunger or thirst.
    I suffer because I need and I need because I lack. All my ambitions and wants and creations and ideals become manifestations of my instability; stigmata of evil dreaming of ‘goodness’ - the fallen imagining a past paradise – the flux wanting to return to its past near-perfection before entropic decay ensued.
    Paradise becomes a symbolic representation of the state before the Big-Bang, paradise with the serpent.

    Self-consciousness categorizes and labels this suffering. It invents language to transmit and to express and to share this lack with others, in the hope of combining forces with otherslike it, uniting for a common goal necessitating the sacrifice of individuality inherit in all unions - society - evolution.

    Words like love/hate, need, perfection/imperfection, are all labels expressing this lack as it is the manifestation of universal flux. As a product of flux, life senses it in itself as Need.

    Self-consciousness also results in the awareness of the futility and absurdity of being; that which strives for an existential fulfillment which would make existence obsolete.
    Consciousness, being a product of flux, attempts to fix itself, make itself eternal, stable, absolute, perfect in a universe that knows no such state – it idealizes the opposite state.
    It strives to overcome itself by healing the circumstances that enabled its appearance.
    Consciousness contradicts itself by striving to bring about its own oblivion.

    The only cure is death. :bugeye:

    If consciousness of universal flux is suffering – the essence of life is suffering – then the only cure for it is to become unconscious of it.
    Paradise is lost when the apple is bitten and it cannot be unbitten.

    That is why the more conscious a mind becomes the more it experiences despair {“Ignorance is bliss.”} - happiness becomes possible only for the simpleton who perceives little and has less to deal with and suffer for.
    The self-conscious mind multiplies its perception of suffering by being able to rationalize it and share it with others.
    Madness and Intelligence are relatives.

    This is what I think in a nutshell. It’s rushed and imprecise but whatever.
     
  20. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Satyre, I like your thought, reminds me too much of my inability to return to ignorance. Which i believe isn't actually ignorance. anyway.

    GUYS: I was wanting to know if or not i was getting any replys or words to wards me that may at all be positive?
     
  21. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Very nice invert nexus i'm starting to wanna be a fan. LOLseriously
     
  22. Meantime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    Invert_nexus: Granted, impressionist paintings typically engulf an overly exaggerated view of reality, but the genre itself doesn't belong to just anyone: if understood, it will permit an inclusion for the very real superfluity generated from the after-effects of an overwhelming moment -- in an impressionistic painting one has the luxury to space out, to over express, to linger, to indulge, to come, to relax. It's a very selfish genre, and totally decadent -- decadence is not just armpits and hanging cocks.

    No utopian fantasy will bask in the glory of a processing plant.

    Abstract also streamlines with age.

    {Takes deep drag from cigarette. Sips beer. Scrolls down. Then reads this:}

    {Fuck. Now must read whole damn thing.}

    Thank God I'm not common. I don't know, man.

    Okay, this is the nitty-gritty that I've been wanting to respond to. The rest was just skirting around.

    Not everyone is uncomfortable with themselves. As a matter of fact, it wasn't too long ago that I realized that I have three -- more or less -- three foremost demeanors that I can more or less pin down, and that from those three demeanors three different mainsprings will determine three different orientations, branching out in different directions, resulting in different attitudes -- different questions, different answers, different mindsets, different motivations, different conclusions. How did I come to this? I became curious to understand why it was that people had such an influence over me: only around people did I feel "diseased". Now, they are the disease. Hence the birth of my second demeanor. My third demeanor? My second demeanor allotted me that one. Now my third demeanor is making inroads. So, no, disease and awkwardness do not dictate.

    But is life really a consequence? Or are consequences perceived only as a result of living in a social infrastructure, which is itself a thing of consequence? For life to be perceived as a consequence, one has to position it outside the flux of the universe. But last I looked, the Universe held me within its own bosom. My mortal, corporeal needs, however, are held within the jurisdiction of our societal infrastructure. And being that that infrastructure places itself outside the universal flux, where else must I procure those mortal, corporeal needs? But my spirit, my libido, my love, my meaning would rather philosophize in the kingdom of the open universe than in the tinderbox shed that is man; man has no jurisdiction in my personal affairs. There are needs, and there are needs.

    Right. But that's a social consciousness.

    Because, whether we like it or not, we are, after all, mortal. This, the universe will tolerate -- if only you would tolerate it first. So we suffer. Big shit. But mortal flimsy man knows nothing of the universal flux. Big shit.

    Why manifestations of your instability? Why not manifestations of your current stability -- a stability that has already been actualized? I had a dream not too long ago. My life had seemed to take a wrong turn and I was lamenting about the oppression and fearing the loss of universal contact: I fell asleep with those thoughts: then, just before sleep knocked me out dead, I was still conscious enough to be imprinted with this dream-message: a cry baby losing its milk bottle! Too fuckin' much.

    Oh, I love it when that happens. And at the end of the tug-of-war, it's man's infrastructure that ends-up looking absurd -- a techie circus built of metallic plastic and paperwork spinning pointlessly somewhere inside the galaxy. Hilarious.

    I thought the essence of life was to be. To be. Just to be. And how do you choose to be?



















    As you must know, 21st century Earth can really bog you down, hold you back, and shove you in a peanut gallery with the most discourteous contempt.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2006
  23. baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    The above is a shining example of why philosophy has turned me schizoid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page