Philosophy - is it worth the bother? (page 3)

free2beme

Never hurts to learn, as long as you are not the type to pick up each one and agree without thinking about it some first

Abaddon

Thanks everyone for a lot of interesting comments and viewpoints.

You're all wrong and your grandmother smells of bananas!

LOL Only joking.

No seriously, my first bit of 'cogition' as I was reading the reponses was that there seems to be a difference (for me) between philosophy and thinking tools. Just as there is between a house and a hammer.

the_classicist brings out something I have observed. If you know how to argue ('state your case') in a structured logical fashion, you can indeed run semantic circles around people who aren't expressing their opinion in a similarly structured fashion. Taken to an extreme it means it is the technique which counts, not who is right. This is the 'Dark side of the Force', LOL, and it very tempting sometimes.

At the same time, as tetra also brings out, knowing that the only people who are really wrong are those who say they are absolutely right (you could run a coach and four through that sentence so maybe 'you can never have 100% certainty in your belief system.' is better) is actually quite useful.

Evil, my dad inadvertantly set-up a quandry for me. He bought me this huge (adult) natural history book about the Oceans and Islands of the World when I was about seven. I still have it. It's like a 1.01 in evolutionary biology with added bits about ice-ages and continential drift.

I can't imagine what he was thinking of. I remember at 8 being aware of the deep conflict between that book and what I was taught at the meetings, and could see even at that point that what was taught at the meetings was obviously wrong in some areas. It didn't make sense. I was out of the box and never got back in, although enculturation, good intentions and the pressures of cult existence somehow contrived to keep me in for 20 more years.

I also LOVE chewing the fat over ANYTHING, and was again lucky that my parents were intelligent, and quite liberal. We dicussed shit loads, mostly Bible based issues and extrapolations of what might be in the Milnausium. Through blind luck I got a lucky break, without which I would probably be a Dubbie, as the blind luck was learning to use my head, something many Dubbies lose out on.

Once out it was a couple of years before I started discussing my former beliefs, and I was lucky in being online by this point and meeting some people who 'I learnt my chops from' in many ways. I think I learnt logic by observation by seeing it applied (on a few occasions to my own poorly stated arguments, the ultimate learning experience), but learnt how to explain it better and be enlightened about non-scientific reasons for god being a silly idea (for me, don't really want to start a discussion about the 'if' thing).

mtbatoon, if philosophy teaches you how to think not what to think I am all for it. I suppose I am reacting to the existence of various schools of philosophy that I might quite get into if I read up on them deeply, but which seem to be silly, fanciful, or unproductive.

I mean, I know I might not exist in the way I think I do, but yes, and, so, what? I cannot escape from the reality I think I am in and even those who advance such arguments are equally powerless to escape from the reality they think might not be real. Let's have a beer instead.

I also understand by definition that not liking pphilospohpy or denying you have one is very supportably definable as a philosophy in itself! So I'm with Nark and Pole there.

Actually talesin, if I had the time and motivation I'd love to take classes in comparative religions, evolutionary biology and philosphy. I LOVE writing essays especially where I have to analyse something and present a logical argument.

jaffa has a very good point ('I bet someone proves me wrong on this'); thinking skills can help you not fall in logic traps of religion, but I have met (especially American Calvanists for some reason) who are well-versed in philosophical terms but were as dumb as a shovel. Maybe they get taught the arguments to defend their silly beliefs, but I suppost presuppositonalists who believe in predestination really NEED to have some form of defence, LOL

poppers and Siddhas both bring the 'inside out' concept, that of living experientially with a quiet mind. Is that a good way of putting it guys? I do have to learn to meditate, 'cause sometimes I can't turn this bugger (points to head) off without a large spliff. Think think think poke poke poke enough already! But surely what you're advancing is a philosophy too, as tal is implying (gently, am I right tal?).

Ego death? For ME? LOL! I think that requires sticking me round the neck of a Hobbit and having them throw me into an active volcano... or alternately some 2,5-DIMETHOXY-4-(s)-BUTYLTHIO-N-HYDROXYPHENETHYLAMINE or similar. Joking aside, it's an areas I'm interested in.

Thanks again all

Gyles

googlemagoogle

philosophy, the love of wisdom. that's not a profession to learn, that's the attraction to the art of thinking. and from what i have read, you're good at it.

poppers

Abadonn,

"But surely what you're advancing is a philosophy too, as tal is implying (gently, am I right tal?)."

I am suggesting that the one who invents any/all philosophies is itself an illusion - it is mind created. This one (ego) is what blocks the direct seeing of what is, and instead creates mental frameworks to explain what is - this is quite absurd, isn't it?

Instead of relying on a conceptual framework to filter and explain experience I am suggesting that one drop comepletely this false notion of the 'me' who would create, entertain, argue, defend, and challenge these illusory and mind created positions. This dropping of the ego leaves one in his core essence; life is then no longer tainted by any concept - this is no philosophical position whatsoever, but rather, is life lived directly in the present moment free of all concepts and philosophies. This is true freedom from everything the mind can create, and is the source of unconditional peace, contentment, and love.

To have such a life and describe it to others creates in the mind's of others what can be described as a philosophy, but to live it is beyond all philosophy.

tdogg

What else is there, after your God is dead?

googlemagoogle

What else is there, after your God is dead?

what else is where?

the "being here" of all existing things won't change with or without a god.

the_classicist

the_classicist brings out something I have observed. If you know how to argue ('state your case') in a structured logical fashion, you can indeed run semantic circles around people who aren't expressing their opinion in a similarly structured fashion. Taken to an extreme it means it is the technique which counts, not who is right. This is the 'Dark side of the Force', LOL, and it very tempting sometimes.

That's the great thing about it. Worked great in High School history debates (Who's the Best Leader for Russia: Stalin or Trotsky). I was able to argue both sides with such cunning that I won the debate from both sides (the best technique is either pushing the person you are arguing with to an extreme, or at least make them angry, which alienates them from the audience). Of course, I've only dabbled in the Dark Side a few times!

Panda

Evilforce: Descartes was quoting from Plato. Now there is the place to begin, Plato's Republic. That brought new sight to my mind. After Plato then Goethe:

"As man is,

Such is his God.

And thus is God,

Oft strangely odd."

Panda

the_classicist has reminded me of the fun friday nights out with our friends who were also exiting (the borg) at the same time we were. Bill and Barb would tell us after dinner how much they enjoyed listening to MrPanda and I discuss evolution or societal woes. I suppose MrPanda and I agree to disagree --- married 31.8 years... Argument may be our aphrodisiac!

Philosophy - is it worth the bother?

Share this