Philosophy Now Forum

At least Gray Kochhar-Lindgren can be philosophical about it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/129/I_Hate_Philosophy

Hi, Gray!

You say philosophy is boring. It is not, much like the board game Monopoly is boring and it is exciting to others; Monty Python is funny to some, and boring to some others; Benny Hill is hilarious and yet hateful to others. Poetry, literature, science, religion, ethics, carpentry, drug abuse, ditto.

You say practicing philosophy will leave you poor, penniless. True. So will poetry, writing novels, making music, abusing drugs, drinking alcohol, and loving women.

You say philosophy leads to nowhere, it has no practical value to humankind, it's been struggling with the same questions since day 1. -- -- Well, there has been some progress, and some far-reaching technological changes due to philosophy. Einstein's relativity theories started as mere speculation, and it helped us to harness nuclear energy, and to understand the world around us. Evolutionary theory helped us into rethinking our origins and opening up all kinds of scientific endeavours, that help us in our lives. Ethics is going through a tumultuous phase, it is about to turn into part of genetic psychology. Logic, formal logic, syllogisms, helped us create computers that work. So please don't dismiss or belittle the practical applications of philosophy.

And if you are a mediocre philosopher, much less of a genius than Darwin or Einstein or Aristotle, then you can still join an Internet forum and shoot the ideas of others down, and feel smart and smell pretty about it.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:47 pm At least Gray Kochhar-Lindgren can be philosophical about it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/129/I_Hate_Philosophy

He claims philosophy permits all these evils because of a simple question of "why?", yet in the face of the evils he claims philosophy produces he stops and fails to ask "why?" to this very same thing.

His work is strictly an exhibition, by his own admission, about his exhaustion and disillusionment.

People hate what they don't understand because of fear. The repetitive nature of philosophy he seems to detest so much, the inherent cyclical nature which composes it, manifests through all courses of existence whether it be simple athletics, a trade skill, or even the hedonistic lifestyle he not only seems to condone loosely but seems entrenched in.

If philosophy is such an evil to him, then why do his chosen pleasures appear to not allow him to avoid or overcome this perceived "darkness" of the human condition.

Pure academic garbage. Philosophy failed not because of its "ruthlessness", he seems to intuit within his writing, but because it is not ruthless enough.

He should go to a graveyard and stare at the dead if he really wants to learn something of value.

The problem with the OP is the definition of 'what is philosophy'.
It is said there are as many definitions of philosophy as the number of those who attempt to define philosophy.

I noted Gray has a very narrow view of 'what is philosophy' that is confined to the bastardized incestuous academic philosophy.
Academic philosophy has its pros but unfortunately had strayed from what philosophy-proper represented.

To understand what is philosophy-proper we need to take into account on how the semblance of 'philosophy' is known and practiced around the world and not merely confined philosophy to the Greeks and Western Philosophy.
The fact is Greek Philosophy was heavily influenced by Hindu Philosophies and its surrounding areas. There were other earlier philosophy from the East in China and other earlier civilizations.
From what is philosophy-in-general from around the world we then extract the essence of 'what is philosophy' that is universal.

From my review of >500 definitions of what is philosophy from around the world, what stands out is the elements 'wisdom' [the etymological origin]. But wisdom and the love of it is insufficient.

What is philosophy is holistic, i.e.

• Philosophy is the activity of a specific evolved mental faculty striving towards continual improvements using various mental tool to extract wisdom and applying them pragmatically to optimize the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective.

Thus I agree with Russell's purpose and value of philosophy, i.e.

Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

This never ending questioning will drive continuous improvement without any finitude, especially the finality of an illusory God!

How can any wise and rational person hate and be bored with philosophy-proper as defined above?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:00 am How can any wise and rational person hate and be bored with philosophy-proper as defined above?

1. One gets bored of talking about wisdom and rationality and prefers to apply it instead.
2. One begins to recognise that statements like the one above are a No True Scotsman fallacy.
3. One ought to question their own wisdom when one still makes such trivial errors in reasoning.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:12 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:00 am How can any wise and rational person hate and be bored with philosophy-proper as defined above?

1. One gets bored of talking about wisdom and rationality and prefers to apply it instead.
2. One begins to recognise that statements like the one above are a No True Scotsman fallacy.
3. One ought to question their own wisdom when one still makes such trivial errors in reasoning.

TimeSeeker,

Your thinking is too entangled to unknot,


suggest you reflect more deeply to unknot the tangled knots.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:02 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:12 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:00 am How can any wise and rational person hate and be bored with philosophy-proper as defined above?

1. One gets bored of talking about wisdom and rationality and prefers to apply it instead.
2. One begins to recognise that statements like the one above are a No True Scotsman fallacy.
3. One ought to question their own wisdom when one still makes such trivial errors in reasoning.

TimeSeeker,

Your thinking is too entangled to unknot,


suggest you reflect more deeply to unknot the tangled knots.

1. I am not TimeSeeker, but to prove a negative is futile. That you have confused yourself speaks volumes.
2. I am not the one committing logical fallacies.

Practice what you preach maybe and reflect?