Philosophy is Organized Insanity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"There are mathematical, ethical, logistic and linguistic problems, but there are no genuinely philosophical problems!"

Who said that.

No he didn't. Wittgenstein did. Although Who's in next.

[Age]

Philosophy is contradiction, it is organized insanity. The deeper the knowledge the deeper the insanity for the depths of knowing reveal a solitary idea or experience that stands apart from all others as an outcast, an outlier, that is by definition of what it means to be mad.

Now, philosophy in a nutshell...or better put knowledge in a nutshell.

A person expresses an idea.

Another person disagrees.

Another person disagrees with that person.

Very simple and obvious.

Now,

Someone will disagree with this and this only justifies the above point.

But it is not necessarily so that another will disagree with one's idea.

So, when you say and claim that some one will disagree with your idea, here, then why are you expressing and presenting ideas that could be disagreed with?

Why not, instead, just present ideas that could not possibly be disagree with?

If you did, then you will come to learn that 'philosophy', itself, is not actually 'the idea' you have, and are presenting, here.

Someone else will agree to this and again only justify the above point.

Claiming that some one will agree to, or will disagree with, 'this' is so vague and clumsy, there is no wonder you end up at 'insanity' when you have or hold ideas like, 'philosophy is contradiction'.

This may lead to the conclusion that philosophy is madness...and it may be true...or not...and that is part of the madness.

So, you are now admitting that your own made up ideas are 'part of the madness', which only you are making and creating, here, right?

But what may further be said is that philosophy exposes the human condition as competing states of insanity for the love of knowledge is a human endeavor and what greater knowledge is there than experience and what is more insane than the raw occurence of an impression. What could be more insane than just the raw occurence of a thing?

If you know, then will 'you' inform 'us'?

Some will argue that this is all part of a harmonious order and then people will agree....until they all come up with competing interpretations of how or what this order occurs and yet they will fail to realize that for all the order there is at the end of the day it "just is" or it "just occurs".

Why do you, personally, believe that some will fail to realise, at the so-called 'end of the day', it 'just is' or it 'just occurs'?

1. Some just seek more clarity, knowledge, and/or understanding than just 'the answer', 'it just is' or 'it just occurs', without ever failing to realise 'it' just is and just occurs.

2. By the way, what even is the 'it', exactly, in your claim, here?

It "just is" will be their final explanation..

Wow this claim of yours,here, is coming from one of the most narrowest and closed perspectives there could be.

.but in that note so is all of existence which differs from them where even the notion of "just is" dissolves into "just" and "is" only for these words to dissolve under the weight of scrutiny.

With claims and ideas like the ones you just presented and expressed, here, there is no wonder you ended up at 'insanity', as 'your conclusion'.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Who ever said "true" love is insane?

Freddy Mercury

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6D_BAuYCI

-Imp

This is a philosophy forum not a music forum.

What's unphilosophical about music? And vv. Discuss.