The Philosophy Discussion Forum

What do people want from philosophy?

Is there a commonality of goal or does everyone with a passing interest in philosophy want something different?

What is it that people want? Certainty? Understanding? A hobby? To find God? To find purpose?

The abstract reasoning of philosophy establishes order to the universe.

Philosophers and other humans need order.
Chaos creates anxiety.
Those who court chaos do so only to heighten order-establishing capacity, in preparation for some ultimate chaos whether it be climate-related, or the final battle.*

Just look at those wailing women when Hillary Clinton lost her second attempt for the presidency.
Their order of common agreement, reinforced by authoritative voices, was disrupted.
High anxiety.

This is why new-age folks emphasize go-with-the-flow.
Go-with-the-flow isn't just a virtue signaling motto.

It’s more of printed string around the finger for when things get just too darned hectic.
Have a cup o'coffee, a smoke or a vape, relax, philosophize, maybe be all cozy-chat about it, put a bit of order to the chaos that "they" are creating, or perhaps discover an order that "you" are creating the chaos if the thoughts linger to expand.


* I think this is likely the reason why Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche was an alcoholic.

Do you want what all people want from philosophy, or, do you want what an individual person wants from philosophy?

You are aware that a collective group of people is made up of individual persons, right? Each, their own thinking being.

Personally, i do not want any thing from philosophy. i want philosophy.

To me, 'phil-o-sophy' means the love of wisdom. A person either has the love-of-wisdom, or they do not. i want to keep having phil-o-sophy, or keep maintaining the love-of-wisdom within me.

i do not want any thing from having the phil-o-sophy [love-of-wisdom] other than wanting to become wiser. In order to keep becoming wiser i just need to keep wanting to learn more, or anew.

How i, or they, keep maintaining that true and pure love of wisdom may be a question some might ask? But what is taught in so called "philosophy" classes and what happens in so called "philosophy" forums is just about the very opposite of what 'phil-o-sophy' once meant and from where that word derived from.

Choosing a point of view and debating or fighting for that position is NOT phil-o-sophy. That behavior is just what some people would call narrow or closed-mindedness. Fighting or arguing for a position is NOT philosophizing.

Philosophizing takes place during peaceful discussions, or contemplation, with goals sort. Philosophizing takes place when logical reasoning is happening, which is when and where true answers are found. These answers are that what can be proven true, right, and correct and can be in agreement with everyone. Answers are proven true, right and correct and are shown to be that way through logically reasoned formed sound, valid arguments, which are themselves facts that can not be disputed.

Sound, valid arguments are discovered, revealed, or formed through logical reasoning. They are certainly NOT formed when just trying to prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:01 pm Do you want what all people want from philosophy, or, do you want what an individual person wants from philosophy?

You are aware that a collective group of people is made up of individual persons, right? Each, their own thinking being.

Personally, i do not want any thing from philosophy. i want philosophy.

To me, 'phil-o-sophy' means the love of wisdom. A person either has the love-of-wisdom, or they do not. i want to keep having phil-o-sophy, or keep maintaining the love-of-wisdom within me.

i do not want any thing from having the phil-o-sophy [love-of-wisdom] other than wanting to become wiser. In order to keep becoming wiser i just need to keep wanting to learn more, or anew.

How i, or they, keep maintaining that true and pure love of wisdom may be a question some might ask? But what is taught in so called "philosophy" classes and what happens in so called "philosophy" forums is just about the very opposite of what 'phil-o-sophy' once meant and from where that word derived from.

Choosing a point of view and debating or fighting for that position is NOT phil-o-sophy. That behavior is just what some people would call narrow or closed-mindedness. Fighting or arguing for a position is NOT philosophizing.

Philosophizing takes place during peaceful discussions, or contemplation, with goals sort. Philosophizing takes place when logical reasoning is happening, which is when and where true answers are found. These answers are that what can be proven true, right, and correct and can be in agreement with everyone. Answers are proven true, right and correct and are shown to be that way through logically reasoned formed sound, valid arguments, which are themselves facts that can not be disputed.

Sound, valid arguments are discovered, revealed, or formed through logical reasoning. They are certainly NOT formed when just trying to prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct.

This is my conundrum. I want philosophy when defined as the love of wisdom/knowledge!

The problem is that the largest group that seems to self-identify as philosophers lack anything that I would call wisdom OR knowledge.
Most philosophers I've ever interacted with are pretty stupid, over-zealous contrarians that manage to turn trivial matters into something so esoteric as to ensure outsiders can't participate in the debate.

Most philosophers are what I would call sophists. In the 2018 pejorative sense, forgetting that if you can't explain something simply then you do not understand it!

And so my PERCEPTION of what philosophy means (collectively) and what philosophers DO is an image that I do not actually wish to be associated with.

As to what I want from philosophy? I want it to increase the SNR level of wisdom/knowledge and clean up the sophistry! I want to modernize it, restore it to its former glory! Taking out the trash if you will.

Really, though - begging the question. What is wisdom, what is love ?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:01 pm Sound, valid arguments are discovered, revealed, or formed through logical reasoning. They are certainly NOT formed when just trying to prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct.

Sound, valid arguments can be formed when defending the truth, that is being presented as an alternative interpretation of the same-referenced phenomena.

Diamonds are formed by heat and pressure.

Sound arguments are also an ordering response to chaos, however, an ordering response need not be logical, e.g., the dadaists countered chaos with chaos.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:01 pm Sound, valid arguments are discovered, revealed, or formed through logical reasoning. They are certainly NOT formed when just trying to prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct.

Sound, valid arguments can be formed when defending the truth, that is being presented as an alternative interpretation of the same-referenced phenomena.

Diamonds are formed by heat and pressure.

Sound arguments are also an ordering response to chaos, however, an ordering response need not be logical, e.g., the dadaists countered chaos with chaos.

The Dadaist strategy wasn’t very effective, was it?

They couldn’t even maintain a movement for more than a decade.

Like freedom, dada is both a state of mind and a principle that transcends time.

Sometimes freedom manifests as a movement, sometimes in the individual, just like dada.

It's always the best of times and the worst of times, somewhere.

Dada often manifests as a balancing, manifested form to shell-shock, a natural free reaction when all that was, changes.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:09 pm Like freedom, dada is both a state of mind and a principle that transcends time.

Sometimes freedom manifests as a movement, sometimes in the individual, just like dada.

It's always the best of times and the worst of times, somewhere.

Dada often manifests as a balancing, manifested form to shell-shock, a natural free reaction when all that was, changes.

Sure. You identify the phenomenon as 'dada' - the pattern itself emerges in many different different shapes, forms and sizes.

Procrastination and shooting the breeze at individual level.
Anarchy and Rebelion ala Anonymous at the social level.

It is the human need for variety. The battle against complacency.

One still gets to ask - did it help in any way, because if not, then what was the point?

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:01 pm Sound, valid arguments are discovered, revealed, or formed through logical reasoning. They are certainly NOT formed when just trying to prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct.

Sound, valid arguments can be formed when defending the truth, that is being presented as an alternative interpretation of the same-referenced phenomena.

Yes, you are correct in that sound, valid arguments CAN BE formed when "defending" the truth. But do you really think that the truth, itself, needs defending. If some thing is true, then, in a sense, it formulates a sound, valid argument itself. The truth never needs defending. The only thing that NEEDS defending is people's own personal views, opinions, beliefs, et cetera.

I NEVER said sound, valid arguments could not be formed when defending the truth. I said sound, valid arguments are certainly NOT formed when JUST TRYING TO prove that one's own point of view is true, right, and correct. If one's own point of view IS already true, right, and correct, then the sound, valid argument would have already been seen, and thus also formed. If one does NOT already have a formulated sound, valid argument for their view, then their view is only assumed to be true, right, and correct.

There is a huge difference between some thing BEING true, right, and correct, from some thing only being ASSUMED to be true, right, and correct.

If some thing is being proposed as being true, right, and correct, then just show the sound, valid argument that supports that proposal, which by definition a sound, valid argument is a fact that could not be disputed, by any one.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:40 pm
Really, though - begging the question. What is wisdom, what is love ?

Hi timeseeker,

I am not going to say what wisdom is, nor what love is, but I will contribute some things for starters that may help US to come to some sort of agreement on what these things are;

If we take 'wiser', to be something like becoming more knowledgeable, or, knowing more.
Then we take 'knowing more', is NOT the same as, 'thinking that one is knowing more'.
For example, one might say I know that determinism is true, whereas free will is false. This IS NOT coming from a truly 'knowing more' perspective but rather just coming from a 'thinking I know more' perspective. It may well be true, but without a sound, valid argument as proof and evidence, then it is only hearsay. If it is not hearsay, then just formulate a sound, valid argument. That is not directed at any one in particular but at every one, equally.
Then we can take the word 'wisdom', to just mean something like 'actual knowing'.
Therefore, to have a love-of-wisdom is to just have the love-of-knowing. That is 'knowing', for sure what is true, right and correct, rather than just thinking what is true, right, and correct?

By the way wisdom just comes from learning.

Just food for thought.

Also, 'love', is just an internal feeling one gets, under certain circumstances. This feeling can come about at any time and anywhere but it is usually associated when being with the ones you want to be with. No matter when nor where you are in the Universe, that emotional feeling you get, or emotional sense you feel, when imagining who you would want to be sharing that moment with could be what love IS?

That feeling one has/gets when being surrounded by the ones they, dare I say it, love IS love. 'Love', is an internal feeling, which helps guides human beings to what they want in life from what they do not want.

This feeling as a starter for a definition of what love is, or could be, is NOT the definition for what 'true love' IS. That goes into much further detail, and for another topic, for later on.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:52 pm Then we take 'knowing more', is NOT the same as, 'thinking that one is knowing more'.

Since you use the words 'more' and 'less' I will get immediately to the point: propose a yardstick for measuring knowledge?

How do I know if I know more?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:52 pm By the way wisdom just comes from learning.

How do I determine that what I am doing is learning? How do I determine that what I am acquiring is wisdom?

After all, I am sure nobody becomes a devotee of Scientology well knowing it offers wisdom/knowledge? Everybody is searching!

How do you recognize wisdom knowledge if you are neither wise nor knowledgeable to begin with? So many snake oil merchants...

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:52 pm Then we take 'knowing more', is NOT the same as, 'thinking that one is knowing more'.

Since you use the words 'more' and 'less' I will get immediately to the point: propose a yardstick for measuring knowledge?

How do I know if I know more?

Well if you do NOT know, then it is, as I suggested earlier, NOT knowing. IF you are THINKING, you know, then that is very different from you KNOWING, you know. If you can NOT tell the difference from between 'what you know' and 'what you think you know', then I will have to find a way to explain the difference better to you.

You will KNOW if you know 'more' because the yardstick for measuring knowledge is that what you 'used to know'. For example, do I know 'more' now than what I knew before, or, do I now know 'less' than what i did before? The answer to that will tell you if you are becoming wiser, or not.

The yardstick is 'What I knew previously'. The measuring stick is either the word knew or previously.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:52 pm By the way wisdom just comes from learning.

How do I determine that what I am doing is learning?

If you gaining 'more' knowledge, then you can determine you are learning. You gain 'more' knowledge naturally. It is almost impossible for just about every human being to not gain 'more' knowledge, along their path in life.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pm How do I determine that what I am acquiring is wisdom?

If you would now like to jump straight into to asking questions regarding words, which you have previously implied that the definition to them has NOT yet been resolved, then I think the whole point of my post in response to your statement and question, "Really, though - begging the question. What is wisdom, what is love ?" was lost.

I only put up for starters something that we can work on to resolve your question of, 'What is wisdom?'

But if you would like to disregard that and you would prefer for me to answer your question here, then;
If as I suggested, that 'wisdom' means something like actual knowing, then by definition if you are acquiring wisdom, then you will actually know this. The, between the lines meaning, or subliminal message to this might not come to light to most people instantly now. But it will one day.

In other words, how do you determine that what you are acquiring is wisdom is, you WILL KNOW, for sure, if you are acquiring wisdom or not.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pmAfter all, I am sure nobody becomes a devotee of Scientology well knowing it offers wisdom/knowledge? Everybody is searching!

I think you might arrive at a different answer if you question the actual devotees. Is not the promises of most churches, that they have the answer/s?

Is not the whole purpose of going to churches, whilst in your searching (for answers), because you think the churches might hold the answers?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pmHow do you recognize wisdom knowledge if you are neither wise nor knowledgeable to begin with?

If you KNOW more than you did previously, then you are becoming wiser.

For the sake of this discussion only, NO human being is born with knowledge. So, no one is either wise nor knowledgeable to begin with anyway. Besides the very basic four needs of a human being, every thing else human beings know and do is learned, along the way. From birth and from watching and listening to parents, and siblings, then seeing and listening to extended family members, and then to teachers, and to friends, we ALL gain more and more knowledge along the way. Thus we are also becoming wiser, in a sense. I say, wiser in a sense, because we can gain knowledge, along the way, as we grow but the actual knowledge that we are gaining might not be actual KNOWING knowledge, but rather just be THINKING knowledge. As I suggested previously KNOWING some thing, for sure, is very different from THINKING (you know) some thing.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:00 pmSo many snake oil merchants...

So very true. And that KNOWING that there are so many snake oil merchants actually hinders that one when they are actually trying to express a real and actual truth, like for example that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. Over seven years, I think, to get this message across, but even till this day many, many years later the opposite may still well be believed to be true by some.

Another example is when one is actually trying to express a real and actual truth, like for example that one day we will drive around in horseless carriages and not just fly, but actually fly to the moon also. Human beings have been let down so many times previously and have become so fearful of being "taken for a ride" again by others that they do not trust others and will not listen to them. These people prefer to just remain fixated on their own already held beliefs and views, instead of being open to the truth and seeing things for how they really are. So, that when a person is actually trying to express the real and actual truth there is no one left to listen to it anymore.

The absolute rubbish that has got taught through religious, educational, and scientific texts is the cause of this fear. Being fed rubbish, which is completely untrue, leaves people bewildered in what to believe or not believe, which then flows on and becomes much stronger when adults are trying to sell products, with as much bullshit as they can possibly muster up, just to get as much money as they can, from each other. Adults have become so accustomed to believing in rubbish and not being open to any thing new that it is nearly impossible to even just begin to express a new idea or concept, that is, that does not involve some one making money from it. If a promise of making money is involved, then people will listen. But then when the truth of that snake oil becomes evident, then people just stop wanting to listen all together.

Most of this would just sound gibberish now, but take it as I am just thinking out aloud.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:59 pm
Sure. You identify the phenomenon as 'dada' - the pattern itself emerges in many different different shapes, forms and sizes.

Procrastination and shooting the breeze at individual level.
Anarchy and Rebelion ala Anonymous at the social level.

It is the human need for variety. The battle against complacency.

One still gets to ask - did it help in any way, because if not, then what was the point?

The Dada movement was a spontaneous reaction to the senseless slaughter and waste of war. It was a manifesto resonating with some folks as recognized by its expressions of absurdity. As a movement it was cultural PTSD. Like freedom, dada transcends time and place.

Yes, one still does get to ask, unless one's mind is possessed by a force that prevents asking. The asking is an inquiry.

The more you inquire, the more there is to see, and inquire about that. Eventually this will lead you to understanding if it helped, as you define help, and if there was a point to it, as you define point.

For example: since everything is caused, then logically every cause has a purpose, which means that everything that exists has a purpose as a cause, whether or not you know what that cause is, or could be. Everything includes dada, since it exists. The worth of a thing, including concepts because they also exist, makes that thing worthwhile. This means everything is worthwhile, whether or not you know the worth, or to whom it is worthwhile.

Human beings have been let down so many times previously and have become so fearful of being "taken for a ride" again by others that they do not trust others and will not listen to them.

Expect the worst and at worst you'll never be disappointed, otherwise often pleasantly surprised.

It is said that the number of definitions of 'what is philosophy' is the same as the number of people who attempt to define the term 'philosophy'.

Thus if one attribute 'wisdom' to philosophy, thus one will 'want' wisdom from philosophy.
If one's inclination is toward 'philosophy' as an academic subject, then one will expects results from whatever is related to academic philosophy [in extreme is incestuous and bastardized].
Thus at present, what one want from 'philosophy' will depend on how one define 'what is philosophy' which can be very loose as observed in practice at present.

I believe we should trace 'philosophy' to its etymological roots, i.e. wisdom thus love of wisdom. But the question is why wisdom? Thus we need to trace the roots of philosophy beyond wisdom and assign that to 'philosophy'.

I believe the fundamental of philosophy beyond knowledge and 'wisdom' [optimization of knowledge] is a primal drive for continuous improvement of net-positivity over a current status that will facilitate the well-being of the individual, others and the collective optimally.

What we want from 'philosophy' should be alignment with the above optimally.