Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Recently on this forum, a serious contributor commented to me that the philosophy we discuss here is all very well, but it's just a bit of fun. And that, when we 'return' from our Ivory Towers (this forum) to our 'real lives', we leave all this 'daft' stuff (perhaps metaphysics?) behind.

Normally, I would dismiss the idea, or demote this topic to the Philosophers' Lounge. But it is a serious philosophical question. One view says that, if our philosophy is not relevant or useful to 'real life', then what use *is* it? The other view is that this is just an intellectual pastime, a bit like sudoku. So why are we here, in Scott's forum? What are we doing here, and why?

I'm with the former view. I think what I have learned here *is* useful and relevant to 'real life', and I follow it as best I can. What is the point of philosophy as a mind-game, a simple distraction from the worries and cares of 'real life'? For me, none at all.

Over to you. Does what you/we say here have use, relevance, and meaning, or...?

[JackDaydream]

A good question, and something which I have wondered about since on another site one user compared philosophy to playing chess. I see philosophy as far more than a game, and one person used to address me as 'Truth Seeker'. I have always been concerned about finding the 'truth' about the nature of 'reality'..

Saying that, I do think that it should have a fun aspect too, rather than just heavy and dry reading and thinking. One downset of the philosophy quest and a philosophical inclination is overthinking. I experience this, especially when having difficulty sleeping. I ruminate a lot and some people tell me that I am inclined to see obstacles in life.

[LuckyR]

For me it's both it's definitely Real, since moral codes are guides for behavioral choices IRL. But putting my moral viewpoint up against those of others is Fun to do and eyeopening as we all "normalize to ourselves" and benefit from other perspectives.

[Pattern-chaser]

A good question, and something which I have wondered about since on another site one user compared philosophy to playing chess. I see philosophy as far more than a game, and one person used to address me as 'Truth Seeker'. I have always been concerned about finding the 'truth' about the nature of 'reality'..

Saying that, I do think that it should have a fun aspect too, rather than just heavy and dry reading and thinking. One downset of the philosophy quest and a philosophical inclination is overthinking. I experience this, especially when having difficulty sleeping. I ruminate a lot and some people tell me that I am inclined to see obstacles in life.

For me it's both it's definitely Real, since moral codes are guides for behavioral choices IRL. But putting my moral viewpoint up against those of others is Fun to do and eye-opening as we all "normalize to ourselves" and benefit from other perspectives.

Thanks both, for replying. So far, it's 3 votes for "for real". That's encouraging.

Yes, Jack, there should be some fun involved too. That's the reason I veered toward Taoism instead of Buddhism, I think. The former seems to have more of a sense of humour.

As for 'over-thinking', I think maybe that word carries a number of different meanings? It can mean spending too much time planning, and not enough *doing*, but it can also refer to people who others think spend too much time thinking, like maybe philosophers? In that case, it's more of an insult than a description, or at least it's *intended* as one. But maybe others wonder why thinking should be a Bad Thing? Anyway, I think 'over-thinking' is a personality trait, not something like having fun, and definitely not the opposite of having fun! [IMO]

And yes, LuckyR, things like morality apply directly to real life. I happen to think that all of philosophy is relevant, in some sense, at some level of indirection, to real life. But some things, perhaps like metaphysics, are less obviously and less directly connected to RL. But I suggest they are not *UN*connected, only connected less directly.

I wondered, when I first read the comment I referred to in my OP, whether it was directed at philosophy, or at metaphysics? Sort of like the famous Heidegger vs. Carnap discussion of many years ago? I think that was about whether philosophy should be something like science, or maybe something somewhat ... broader in scope?

I don't know. It confuses me when people don't offer that actual reasons why they say/do/think something, but instead say something they don't really mean at all. But that's probably down to being an autist, and finding NT dishonesty incomprehensible?

I'll leave it here now, and see if any further comments are offered... Thanks for yours!

[Good_Egg]

I think there are daft ideas (the Matrix, perhaps ?) that we engage with for fun.

And there is fallacious use of language (e.g. equivocation ?) that we become familiar with in debating here so we can learn to spot it in real life.

So it's both language-games that we play for love of words and a serious quest to make the world a better place by promoting clear and accurate thinking.

What I don't grok is the people who, having been shown that some particular position, argument or label is fallacious, go on using it.

[Fried Egg]

The conversations I have been involved in on this forum are all quite rooted in and concerned with real world issues but I realise there are many more esoteric subjects in philosophy that some people might wonder if there is any application in the "real" world.

That said, there is some extent that all on-line conversation is in an ivory tower or "bubble" and we do sometimes forget that things are often quite different out there in the "real" world...

[chewybrian]

I'm with the former view. I think what I have learned here *is* useful and relevant to 'real life', and I follow it as best I can.

I think you are far and away the exception. Most folks are here to defend their preferred positions.

The vast majority of discussions of philosophy concern the areas where issues are unsettled (this includes both ethics and science--if the answer is obvious or indisputable, we won't often bother discussing it). So, it is akin to discussing politics. There is little firm footing to ground almost any argument about almost anything we bother talking about. Therefore, I am unlikely to sway most folks with any argument I might try to make. They'll already agree because they assent to my foundational assumptions, or they'll fight me because they have a different foundation. Those foundations just amount to opinions or self-interest, so it's largely a time sink. The only marginal gain might be polishing our skills at expressing and defending our own positions.

*However*, there are a few corners of philosophy, mostly relating to psychology, that can be useful in self-improvement. Something like stoic philosophy, for example, can help many folks self-improve, become better citizens, and overcome their own problems, weaknesses and mental disturbances.

The rest of it, though, is useful only for that tiny fraction of a percent of folks like you who are willing to set aside their own needs, preferences and prejudices to try to seek an objective justice. Whether you are making good progress or not...I guess that also reduces to an opinion. As I see it, you are, and most of us are probably not.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think there are daft ideas (the Matrix, perhaps ?) that we engage with for fun.

And yet, when we engage such things — for fun, as you say — do we not sometimes encounter useful things; things of value? I think we do. But only sometimes.

[Pattern-chaser]

And there is fallacious use of language (e.g. equivocation ?) that we become familiar with in debating here so we can learn to spot it in real life.

I think this just reflects the underlying dishonesty of most NeuroTypical communication? I don't think it adds to this discussion. Have I got that right, or have I missed something? Yes, this dishonesty is everywhere, but I don't think many of us rely on philosophy forums to teach us to deal with it?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm with the former view. I think what I have learned here *is* useful and relevant to 'real life', and I follow it as best I can.

I think you are far and away the exception. Most folks are here to defend their preferred positions.

The vast majority of discussions of philosophy concern the areas where issues are unsettled (this includes both ethics and science--if the answer is obvious or indisputable, we won't often bother discussing it). So, it is akin to discussing politics. There is little firm footing to ground almost any argument about almost anything we bother talking about. Therefore, I am unlikely to sway most folks with any argument I might try to make. They'll already agree because they assent to my foundational assumptions, or they'll fight me because they have a different foundation. Those foundations just amount to opinions or self-interest, so it's largely a time sink. The only marginal gain might be polishing our skills at expressing and defending our own positions.

*However*, there are a few corners of philosophy, mostly relating to psychology, that can be useful in self-improvement. Something like stoic philosophy, for example, can help many folks self-improve, become better citizens, and overcome their own problems, weaknesses and mental disturbances.

The rest of it, though, is useful only for that tiny fraction of a percent of folks like you who are willing to set aside their own needs, preferences and prejudices to try to seek an objective justice. Whether you are making good progress or not...I guess that also reduces to an opinion. As I see it, you are, and most of us are probably not.

I want to believe that your view is too cynical, but I find I can't, not with any credible justification. Still, I hope you're wrong.

[value]

Recently on this forum, a serious contributor commented to me that the philosophy we discuss here is all very well, but it's just a bit of fun. And that, when we 'return' from our Ivory Towers (this forum) to our 'real lives', we leave all this 'daft' stuff (perhaps metaphysics?) behind.

Normally, I would dismiss the idea, or demote this topic to the Philosophers' Lounge. But it is a serious philosophical question. One view says that, if our philosophy is not relevant or useful to 'real life', then what use *is* it? The other view is that this is just an intellectual pastime, a bit like sudoku. So why are we here, in Scott's forum? What are we doing here, and why?

I'm with the former view. I think what I have learned here *is* useful and relevant to 'real life', and I follow it as best I can. What is the point of philosophy as a mind-game, a simple distraction from the worries and cares of 'real life'? For me, none at all.

Over to you. Does what you/we say here have use, relevance, and meaning, or...?

I personally wonder to what extent the contributions of both you and Greta (Sy Borg) have affected and changed the lives of the many people who visit this forum with questions such as "What is the meaning of life?". Some people may seriously be considering suicide.

We once had a quick interaction about the civility of this forum.

I've looked at most of the online philosophy forums, over the years. This one is the most civilised one I've come across, which is why I'm still here. Nothing is perfect, but you can have worthwhile conversations here, and maybe even learn something. I have. Just the once, you understand...!

You would have to thank the admins for that and in specific Greta/Sy Borg. I've noticed her passionate comments in topics related to the meaning of life and in topics in which people might be struggling with the consideration of suicide.

When I shortly became an administrator to recover a domain expiration in January 2021, I noticed that quite an effort is made to administrate the forum, meanwhile with almost no conflicts about moderation and almost all users feeling welcome. It seems to be a great accomplishment that deserves gratitude from the users.

Greta/Sy Borg mentioned in a PM that she was provided with the admin role apparently randomly at some point in time. She is the only admin next to the founder. It seems that it has been a matter of great luck with regard the quality of forum administration in the past 10+ years!

In my opinion, you may be one of the primary and most prominent users that defines that civility on this forum and many readers may just be 'lurking', passers by who only read and do not write.

If someone's life is impacted by what you write on these forums, can it be said that it is just selfish or 'fun'?

In my opinion, users who may be struggling with for example the idea that life is meaningless and correlated ideas and who discover, through for example your posts, that philosophy addresses similar questions as a field and that their struggle might hold great value by participating in philosophy, for example through this forum, that impact might be considered of considerate value or 'real'.

I personally was inspired greatly by a song by the hosts of Partially Examined Life after their podcast about French philosopher Albert Camus and his philosophy of the Absurd, which touches on questions related to the meaning of life and suicide.

"Does our eventual death mean that life has no meaning and we might as well end it all?"
https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2009/ ... he-absurd/

The song on the end has the following text.

My friends, please don't desert us, tho you may recall the many things that hurt us. Tho you've forgotten what it means to wish for anything at all. And you forgotten what it felt like to be subject to a call. That doesn't tempt you from this onpit of a world.

My friends, please stay around please. Please don't levitate away, stay on the ground please. Tho you forgotten how to care, if you are young enough for air, there is still use for you. We all have use for you. Don't let us down please.

My friends, please hold on tightly. When your life bucks you around it is so unsightly. But if you are smarter than a lox your place is not yet in a box. So beware your darkest edging and the darkness that it mocks.

My friends, please don't desert me. Tho your presence in this world may well subvert me. And if we try to shake you off, please don't take personally the scoff. We're just afraid of your deminor but your inside is still soft.

My friends, don't you get off here. There's so many things to hold you tho we're not clear. Please hold on to you, and I'll do anything for you. There is still love for you. There is still love for you somewhere around here!

My friends, please don't desert us. Tho you may recall the many things that hurt us. If you could just please stick around and stay out of that dark ground. That would be nice. I promise. That would be nice. I promise. That would be nice.

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2009/ ... he-absurd/

I find it beautiful and highly motivating to pursue a life in philosophy and to prevent suicide. And it indicates that the subject belongs to philosophy.

What does it mean that the question "what is the purpose of life?" has been a major subject in philosophy? What does the quest for the meaning of life imply?

In my opinion, the participation opportunity and contributions on this forum might even help save lives.

[Lagayascienza]

Philosophy can be for fun and for real. It can have real-life value. For example, it can help us get to grips with moral issues so that we can come to reasoned moral conclusions that guide our daily lives. Philosophy can also be a mind-game pursued out of curiosity and for intellectual stimulation. For example, we may enjoy the stimulation of intellectually taxing subjects like consciousness. And then there are nefarious sorts of entertainment for some who think that they are demonstrating their smarts by the unnecessarily splitting of philosophical hairs, or by demanding that we disprove a negative. They will say things like “prove that elves don’t exist” and then, when no one can do so, they think they’ve made an intellectual killing when, in reality, all they’ve demonstrated is childishness and silliness because we have no reason whatsoever to think that elves might exist. So, all up, I’d say that philosophy is a mixed bag with something for various different tastes.

[Sy Borg]

I don't see myself as a philosopher. I have never worked as a philosopher, ethicist or author. The closest I came to that was cartooning, where I had a grouping of philosophical cartoons, though it was just one tranch (religion, the sexes, medicine, animals, technology, aliens, workplaces, etc), and of course there's much absurdity.

Then again, almost everyone engages in philosophy to some extent, just as we all engage in science. Only today I came across a thought-provoking comment in (much-maligned) social media: "Traditions are solutions to problems long since forgotten". Everyone has their own collection of "little gems", picked up over a lifetime.

As humans, we like to know what's going on, and we all build up an inventory of experience, which we often hope to pass on to the next generation. We tend to be highly conscious of our mistakes, and hope we can pass on the strategic or philosophical knowledge needed not to repeat those errors.

[Lagayascienza]

... almost everyone engages in philosophy to some extent, just as we all engage in science.

True. Philosophy is interesting and we all engage in it to some extent. And we don't need to be professional philosophers - anyone who can think clearly, and who can read and write can dabble in philosophy. But to make an important contribution to the philosophical canon requires a certain level of intelligence and a high degree of dedication and an income that allows time for philosophizing - usually a tenured position at a university. Philosophy once encompassed the sciences and much else. But as the sciences developed and became separate and important areas of specialization, philosophy has been in decline at universities. Now the money goes to STEM subjects. But I think philosophy is still valuable in many ways. Unfortunately, philosophy departments at universities around the world are closing down or are under threat of closure. There is a page at Daily Nous devoted to this phenomenon. (...dailynous dot com/category/cuts-and-threats-to-philosophy-programs/). Does anyone have any ideas about why this is happening? Will philosophy as a distinct area of study at universities eventually wither away?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm with the former view. I think what I have learned here *is* useful and relevant to 'real life', and I follow it as best I can.

I think you are far and away the exception. Most folks are here to defend their preferred positions.

[...]

The rest of it, though, is useful only for that tiny fraction of a percent of folks like you who are willing to set aside their own needs, preferences and prejudices to try to seek an objective justice. Whether you are making good progress or not...I guess that also reduces to an opinion. As I see it, you are, and most of us are probably not.

I am no paragon of virtue, but I try to follow what I have described here, with some success... Is that really so unusual? I hope not.