Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

This topic is intended as a complement to chewybrian's recent topic ("What philosophy offends you most?").

Which schools of thought, or particular philosophers, or ideas, do you find most beneficial to the progress of philosophy, or of mankind?

I'll start: what pleases me the most about philosophy, and philosophy forums (and the like) is the prevalence of new (to me) and interesting ideas. It is those new (to me) discoveries that please me. What ideas please you?

[stevie]

... the progress of philosophy, or of mankind ...

No concern of mine.

[chewybrian]

This is a great idea, yet I predict you'll get little traction. "If it bleeds, it leads". Folks who want attention drawn to what they say won't see the point in talking about something good. I hope I am wrong, but...

What pleases me most is philosophy that fulfills my purposes in studying philosophy. I came to philosophy expecting to find happiness, and I was not disappointed. I do not read philosophy to learn about the inside of a black hole, or the actions of microscopic particles, or even to argue about whether God exists (I doubt it) or my own free will exists (I don't doubt it). I sometimes get distracted here by some of that nonsense, but it is entirely unproductive. I think a lot of folks prefer that stuff because it is "safer" than self-examination that might end up requiring change, or an admission that they have been wrong. Why would a philosopher NOT expect to be shown to be wrong and to find a need to change?. This is only evidence of success!

I study philosophy with a primary goal of self-improvement, which is realistic and achievable. I have a secondary goal of learning how the world outside my mind might be improved, yet this is something of a fantasy or a longshot hope at best. I enjoy stoicism and existentialism, and a few one-offs like Rousseau or the American transcendentalists. Most of these ideas help me to tone down the potential negative influence of the world or others. Things are no longer happening "to me" but simply just happening. I've learned to withhold judgement and form fewer opinions. The ideas help me to gain a bit of self-respect when I am able to follow through on some of them. They help me to be more willing to act as my true self in interactions with others, rather unconcerned or unafraid of possible consequences for appearing to veer away from the norm. A few of these ideas are only a projection of a possible future after generations of education in kindness rather than conquest, empathy rather than fear. Those kind of ideas are not very productive, but still pleasing.

[Halc]

"If it bleeds, it leads".

Funny, but I haven't even looked at the 'offends you most' topic. I do see it sitting there.

As an answer to the OP, I'm in it for the most plausible philosophy. I'm in it for truth, and not to rationalize a position that gives warm fuzzies.

I do not read philosophy to learn about the inside of a black hole, or the actions of microscopic particles

But maybe you should learn about those things to help learn about philosophy. Any philosophical stance that contradicts the things you mentioned is probably false, regardless of the happiness it might give you. That's why people invent the afterlife, to help relieve the anxiety of mortality. Funny that my conclusion gives the same comfort, which turned out to be an unexpected bonus since I wasn't looking for it. So yea, I know my physics, but only because you can't do plausible philosophy without it.

or my own free will exists (I don't doubt it)

Depends on definition. I can't fly despite my will to do so. But I make my own decisions and don't hold a (majority) stance where I'm possessed by an external entity doing what it wants instead of what I want. Most definitions of free will define it as being thus possessed, even if they don't call it that.

an admission that they have been wrong.

I've been wrong too many times to count. My favored stance has changed about as many times accordingly. The one thing I'm fairly sure of is that I still have it wrong.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is a great idea, yet I predict you'll get little traction. "If it bleeds, it leads". Folks who want attention drawn to what they say won't see the point in talking about something good. I hope I am wrong, but...

Yes, I admit I thought so too, but I thought I'd give it a try?

[Count Lucanor]

Materialism fills me undescribable pleasure. Realism takes that pleasure to ethereal heights. Any day when another pillar of Western Idealism and its foundation of superstition and myth is torn down with the hammer of science, is a good day.

[Samana Johann]

"love of wisdom", is said to be the meaning behind the word, or does it mean "love for wisdom", desire after it?

What's the use of any wisdom if it does not lead to release. So getting attached to it, getting a means of joy itself, it may be the worst hindrance, at the end of a well chosen wrong, putting it into practice.

[Pattern-chaser]

I do not read philosophy to learn about the inside of a black hole, or the actions of microscopic particles

But maybe you should learn about those things to help learn about philosophy. Any philosophical stance that contradicts the things you mentioned is probably false, regardless of the happiness it might give you.

Yes, and yet the vast majority of philosophical 'stances' are not connected in any significant way to physics. Of course, in the ultimate analysis, everything really is connected to everything else. But scaling down just a little, we find, I think, that philosophy and physics rarely contradict one another. They exist quite happily, side by side. And for most of this philosophy, physics can be seen as irrelevant, in the sense that it has no (significant or direct) influence on the matter in hand.

[Pattern-chaser]

"love of wisdom", is said to be the meaning behind the word, or does it mean "love for wisdom", desire after it?

What's the use of any wisdom if it does not lead to release. So getting attached to it, getting a means of joy itself, it may be the worst hindrance, at the end of a well chosen wrong, putting it into practice.

OK, but what about philosophy pleases you the most? Pointing out drawbacks and shortcomings is easy, as chewybrian's topic displayes admirably. But what is good about philosophy, from your perspective? What pleases you about it?

[Samana Johann]

"love of wisdom", is said to be the meaning behind the word, or does it mean "love for wisdom", desire after it?

What's the use of any wisdom if it does not lead to release. So getting attached to it, getting a means of joy itself, it may be the worst hindrance, at the end of a well chosen wrong, putting it into practice.

OK, but what about philosophy pleases you the most? Pointing out drawbacks and shortcomings is easy, as chewybrian's topic displayes admirably. But what is good about philosophy, from your perspective? What pleases you about it?

Freedom form what's in the pattern of philosophy, does most ease, good householder. What ever way of thinking that goes after objectification leads just to stress. Freelosophy. Maybe a share of such: The Arrows of Thinking: Papañca & the path to end conflict here.

[chewybrian]

This is a great idea, yet I predict you'll get little traction. "If it bleeds, it leads". Folks who want attention drawn to what they say won't see the point in talking about something good. I hope I am wrong, but...

Yes, I admit I thought so too, but I thought I'd give it a try?

I'm sad to see that it seems my instincts were on the mark. Few people want to talk about how we could be good or happy, how we could improve ourselves rather than bitching about how others should be improved. Politics and science seem to dominate at all times. I don't think this is at all a reflection of their importance to the study of philosophy. It's only that these are safe areas, where we might argue until we die about how things should be in theory rather than how we might improve ourselves, which could be done today, right this moment, with a high likelihood of success.

I've become discouraged with the forum lately. The good discussions are few and far between, and often buried under the rubble of political arguments or stopped in their tracks by pointless posturing that intimidates would-be participants. There seem to be only a handful of folks like yourself who want to seek truth rather than proving that what they already believe is the truth at all costs. I'm not sure if anything could or should be done to improve the tone, or if I should respond for my own well-being by leaving or stopping in less frequently.

[Pattern-chaser]

I've become discouraged with the forum lately. The good discussions are few and far between, and often buried under the rubble of political arguments or stopped in their tracks by pointless posturing that intimidates would-be participants. There seem to be only a handful of folks like yourself who want to seek truth rather than proving that what they already believe is the truth at all costs. I'm not sure if anything could or should be done to improve the tone, or if I should respond for my own well-being by leaving or stopping in less frequently.

It is my opinion that the forum would be less than it is if you were not here. We all benefit from a diversity of opinion, even though some might not realise it. And yes, the sciencists and rabble-rousers are a pain, but they are a fact of life, like air and water. They exist, and we must learn to tolerate them, even if we would rather not.

So the more flexible thinkers among us will continue to do what we do, and others will continue their own journeys, here and elsewhere. But, while I continue to journey here, in this forum, I look forward to your continuing company...?

[chewybrian]

I've become discouraged with the forum lately. The good discussions are few and far between, and often buried under the rubble of political arguments or stopped in their tracks by pointless posturing that intimidates would-be participants. There seem to be only a handful of folks like yourself who want to seek truth rather than proving that what they already believe is the truth at all costs. I'm not sure if anything could or should be done to improve the tone, or if I should respond for my own well-being by leaving or stopping in less frequently.

It is my opinion that the forum would be less than it is if you were not here. We all benefit from a diversity of opinion, even though some might not realise it. And yes, the sciencists and rabble-rousers are a pain, but they are a fact of life, like air and water. They exist, and we must learn to tolerate them, even if we would rather not.

So the more flexible thinkers among us will continue to do what we do, and others will continue their own journeys, here and elsewhere. But, while I continue to journey here, in this forum, I look forward to your continuing company...?

I appreciate the kind words. You are definitely among the few that make visiting the forum worth the effort. I don't want to start any drama about me. I don't have any right to tell anyone else what to post or how kind (or unkind) they should be to each other or me. I try to remind myself not to judge others, to assume they think they are doing the right thing even if it seems exactly wrong to me. I just have to decide for myself if the noise is worth the bother to get to the good stuff.

The disruption of the stoicism thread forced me to have a moment. I haven't wanted to return since. It's not about being offended, but rather a combination of wondering if there is any net value in coming here along with the embarrassment of allowing myself to be dragged into the muck. The kicker is that the whole issue amounts to the weaponization of stoicism. Instead of using the ideas to learn about and improve ourselves, as intended, people have learned to turn them against others. For example, they might turn an argument into a false dichotomy, abusing the cognitive bias of all or nothing thinking against those who suffer from it. They'd sooner try to bring someone to their 'side' through deception than try to discover the truth. It's what you encounter at every turn in the U.S., at least. Sometimes I see something better here, but not as often as I'd expect, and maybe not often enough to make the effort worthwhile.

I'll just continue to come to the forum whenever (and as long as) I feel like I might enjoy it or learn something. For now, that means fewer visits. In the future, who knows?

[Sy Borg]

Potentially more interesting IMO than the thread about people's gripes. I wonder if this thread first appeared at a time when there was a lot of activity? I completely missed this thread.

Re: the topic, I love this:

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Also enjoy the tenets of Marcus Aurelius's stocism come to mind, especially amor fati and memento mori. I find existentialism interesting, but also confusing. Scientific materialism is fascinating, and seems more likely than idealism, but you never know - reality may have aspects to it that nobody has even imagined, let alone observed.

It is possible that everyone is profoundly wrong about the big questions; blinkered simians locked in a prison of sensory and mental limitations that better facilitate reproduction than provide accurate representations of reality.

[JackDaydream]

Potentially more interesting IMO than the thread about people's gripes. I wonder if this thread first appeared at a time when there was a lot of activity? I completely missed this thread.

Re: the topic, I love this:

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Also enjoy the tenets of Marcus Aurelius's stocism come to mind, especially amor fati and memento mori. I find existentialism interesting, but also confusing. Scientific materialism is fascinating, and seems more likely than idealism, but you never know - reality may have aspects to it that nobody has even imagined, let alone observed.

It is possible that everyone is profoundly wrong about the big questions; blinkered simians locked in a prison of sensory and mental limitations that better facilitate reproduction than provide accurate representations of reality.

Camus is a very good writer and I think that matters. I am probably more pleased by the literary quality of some of the philosophy writings, although the ideas themselves are extremely important too. Some of the writing of the twentieth century is a bit like 'word salad', with so many ideas compressed together. One of the books which I find most inspirational is, 'Thus Spake Zarathrustra'. I thought that Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' would be dry to read and I was pleasantly surprised. I felt that I could tell that it was the same writer who wrote, 'La Nausea.'

Sometimes, I feel that in philosophy the actual quality of the writing is not given enough attention. Of course, there are so many writing styles and it would be dull if everyone wrote in one way and leave out the author's own unique voice. One of the reasons why I think good writing is what pleases me is it enjoyable to immerse myself in such description aesthetically. Also, philosophy involves articulation and ideas in words and this is part of its craft. One book which I found to be very well written was 'A History of Western Philosophy', by Bertrand Russell.