Philosophy Now Forum

Hello from Adrian in Glasgow, Scotland

I did, long ago, have three years of university Philosophy as part of a degree in Literature. The emphasis in my philosophy studies was on 'doing philosophy': apart from David Hume we read only 20th century philosophers. More richly or deeply I have maintained an 'amateur' philosophical approach to things, sort of conceptual analysis. I also enjoy the philosophical slants in literature.

While using 'conceptual analysis' as tool and filter, I am interested in commonalities of 'thought patterns' that seem present in different cultures and times, underlying surface differences. Sort of 'archaeology of thought', not quite as Foucault meant it. But imagination is part of my 'philosophical experience', approximately the 'poetic'' vs. the propositional. (Somewhat tentatively I find these 'thought patterns' and 'poetry' in (some) theology).

I think philosophy must give pleasure, enrich conatus, Spinoza's term, I suppose, for flourishing. I quite like Spinoza, also the flourishing identified by the ancient Greeks/Romans as eudemonia- and their emphasis upon 'philosophy as a way of life'. What life is no one knows: neither philosophers nor scientist can abstract it into words.

I do have sporadic enthusiasms for reading particular philosophers but generally 'philosophise' in thinking about the 'big things' cross-cutting my life- ideas and images that go to make the lenses that refract the ideated imaginaries of the world, these lenses being multiple and changing, growing and discarded.

sporadic enthusiasms are always appreciated...

a someone from Glasgow reading Hume? I don't doubt it...

welcome

-Imp

Welcome to the forum Adrian.

I've never studied philosophy, have read some though and have learned a lot from some upon this very forum.

Don't get offput by some of the posts, there are some odd characters in these parts, I am one of them!

The forum goes through periods of good intellectual debates and periods of total nonsense overdrive, please hang in there. We need more intelligent people on the forum, especially whiskey drinking Scotsman that can sit there in their kilts not worried at the chill around their iron balls and tap away to drive the hoards of idiots back to silence..

Hopefully, humour is still allowed on a British website

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm Hello from Adrian in Glasgow, Scotland

I did, long ago, have three years of university Philosophy as part of a degree in Literature. The emphasis in my philosophy studies was on 'doing philosophy': apart from David Hume we read only 20th century philosophers. More richly or deeply I have maintained an 'amateur' philosophical approach to things, sort of conceptual analysis. I also enjoy the philosophical slants in literature.

When you say, 'doing philosophy', what are you actually meaning and actually referring to, exactly?

See, to me, the word, 'philosophy', just means having a love-of-wisdom, or of continually becoming wiser, which it is only through, and from, learning that one can and does become 'wiser'. So, for me 'doing philosophy' would mean just 'being open', always. As it is from only 'being open' one can only learn. By the way, if and when one is truly open, then that one cannot not learn.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm While using 'conceptual analysis' as tool and filter, I am interested in commonalities of 'thought patterns' that seem present in different cultures and times, underlying surface differences. Sort of 'archaeology of thought', not quite as Foucault meant it. But imagination is part of my 'philosophical experience', approximately the 'poetic'' vs. the propositional. (Somewhat tentatively I find these 'thought patterns' and 'poetry' in (some) theology).

I think philosophy must give pleasure, enrich conatus, Spinoza's term, I suppose, for flourishing. I quite like Spinoza, also the flourishing identified by the ancient Greeks/Romans as eudemonia- and their emphasis upon 'philosophy as a way of life'.

How are you defining the 'philosophy' word, here?

And, does the 'philosophy' word, here, have a different definition from the 'philosophy' word when you used 'that word' in the phrase or term 'doing philosophy'?

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm What life is no one knows: neither philosophers nor scientist can abstract it into words.

'This' is certainly a very closed, and thus non open, way of looking at, and seeing, things.

Contrary to your belief, here, what 'life' is, exactly, is very easy and very simple to know.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm I do have sporadic enthusiasms for reading particular philosophers but generally 'philosophise' in thinking about the 'big things' cross-cutting my life- ideas and images that go to make the lenses that refract the ideated imaginaries of the world, these lenses being multiple and changing, growing and discarded.

Do you think that 'this' is any different from any other older human beings?

Thanks for welcome.
I'm not a Scot, was expelled from Liverpool. But my granda came down from the borderland, a slight descendent of the reivers who raided English cattle. And I like wild too. The Irish drink whiskey. We drink whisky. A complete philosophy could be written with only jokes, said Wittgenstein. Humour's human, of the humus (soil, earth). I haven't got a kilt and am generally out of kilter, unbalanced. There are many odd characters in the world. Nonsense Overdrive is aa good name for a band or an underground cabal of mischief-making philosophers. Infiltrate then wham.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 11:14 pm Welcome to the forum Adrian.

I've never studied philosophy, have read some though and have learned a lot from some upon this very forum.

Don't get offput by some of the posts, there are some odd characters in these parts, I am one of them!

The forum goes through periods of good intellectual debates and periods of total nonsense overdrive, please hang in there. We need more intelligent people on the forum, especially whiskey drinking Scotsman that can sit there in their kilts not worried at the chill around their iron balls and tap away to drive the hoards of idiots back to silence..

Hopefully, humour is still allowed on a British website

Hello Age. Thank you for your interesting points and questions.

'Doing philosophy' is in quotation marks, suggestive rather than some exact, precise propositional statement. It means to me the employment of logic and attempts to drive through the 'bewitchment of language', to aim for conceptual clarity.

I agree with your implication that everyone 'does' philosophy by virtue of being human, thinking about things.

I am not keen on definitions, neat closing-offs of what should always remain open. Philosophy itself is, for me, a very difficult concept. 'Wisdom' sprawls so far it loses any perceptible reference. In context we could agree that Socrates was 'wise' but so was my Grandma.

I'll leave Humpty Dumpty to rest content that for him, 'a word can mean anything I want it to mean'.

Language usage, a single word even, can only 'mean' in its contexts, these themselves being functions of language. I find it useful to consider the notion of 'logical levels' of propositions. The word 'philosophy', for instance can be used to carry many different meanings. These are not contradictory. They don't 'argue' with each other. Philosophy, for the Stoics and Epicureans, for instance included 'a way of living' ,and that's close to what it means in everyday conversation. But when you look at the traditional branches of philosophy such as 'philosophy of...' (mind etc.), Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, Epistemology) you tend to find different approaches to, and with, the word. I think you bring to mind the fairly clear observational fact that philosophers, of whatever sort, come to and engage with philosophy differently, often very differently, so I guess there are very wide variations of understanding what philosophy is.

Philosophy in a broad sense is evident too in what, as shorthand, I called 'poetic'. Not just poetry but all art forms. That 'conceptual analysis' I write about has no place in engaging with poetry, novels, movies etc. that deal with 'big things'. So for example when I read Iris Murdoch's philosophical books on Ethics or Metaphysics, I'm 'doing; something very different than connecting with her 'philosophical novels'.

I guess too that various aspects of 'philosophy' are prevalent in our everyday lives. Our 'ways of thinking' and our core beliefs and values bring our philosophies to conversations and discussions about, for instance, aspects of politics or current affairs. Armchair contemplations, moral or aesthetic judgments are all aspects of philosophy.

I agree that in everyday life we all know what 'life' means. We all know what death means. But when thinkers like Cicero or Montaigne write that 'Life is learning how to die', we change 'logical levels', and are invited to think deeper, philosophically.

Thanks again for your response. I hope I have resonated a little with the spirit of it.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 11:43 pm

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm Hello from Adrian in Glasgow, Scotland

I did, long ago, have three years of university Philosophy as part of a degree in Literature. The emphasis in my philosophy studies was on 'doing philosophy': apart from David Hume we read only 20th century philosophers. More richly or deeply I have maintained an 'amateur' philosophical approach to things, sort of conceptual analysis. I also enjoy the philosophical slants in literature.

When you say, 'doing philosophy', what are you actually meaning and actually referring to, exactly?

See, to me, the word, 'philosophy', just means having a love-of-wisdom, or of continually becoming wiser, which it is only through, and from, learning that one can and does become 'wiser'. So, for me 'doing philosophy' would mean just 'being open', always. As it is from only 'being open' one can only learn. By the way, if and when one is truly open, then that one cannot not learn.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm While using 'conceptual analysis' as tool and filter, I am interested in commonalities of 'thought patterns' that seem present in different cultures and times, underlying surface differences. Sort of 'archaeology of thought', not quite as Foucault meant it. But imagination is part of my 'philosophical experience', approximately the 'poetic'' vs. the propositional. (Somewhat tentatively I find these 'thought patterns' and 'poetry' in (some) theology).

I think philosophy must give pleasure, enrich conatus, Spinoza's term, I suppose, for flourishing. I quite like Spinoza, also the flourishing identified by the ancient Greeks/Romans as eudemonia- and their emphasis upon 'philosophy as a way of life'.

How are you defining the 'philosophy' word, here?

And, does the 'philosophy' word, here, have a different definition from the 'philosophy' word when you used 'that word' in the phrase or term 'doing philosophy'?

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm What life is no one knows: neither philosophers nor scientist can abstract it into words.

'This' is certainly a very closed, and thus non open, way of looking at, and seeing, things.

Contrary to your belief, here, what 'life' is, exactly, is very easy and very simple to know.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:05 pm I do have sporadic enthusiasms for reading particular philosophers but generally 'philosophise' in thinking about the 'big things' cross-cutting my life- ideas and images that go to make the lenses that refract the ideated imaginaries of the world, these lenses being multiple and changing, growing and discarded.

Do you think that 'this' is any different from any other older human beings?

Oh dear, this guy just wandered in and instantly trod on two landmines. He's doing soundalike wordplay with fishpie and movable meanings with age, which is impressively expert level targetting of the maddest aspect of two of the maddest peple we have.

If somebody can trick him into using an American spelling somewhere, he should land all of the top three in one thread.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:07 pm Oh dear, this guy just wandered in and instantly trod on two landmines. He's doing soundalike wordplay with fishpie and movable meanings with age, which is impressively expert level targetting of the maddest aspect of two of the maddest peple we have.

If somebody can trick him into using an American spelling somewhere, he should land all of the top three in one thread.

That's actually quite funny for someone that claims to be 'non-binary'. Or have you picked a team now?

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm Hello Age. Thank you for your interesting points and questions.

'Doing philosophy' is in quotation marks, suggestive rather than some exact, precise propositional statement. It means to me the employment of logic and attempts to drive through the 'bewitchment of language', to aim for conceptual clarity.

I agree with your implication that everyone 'does' philosophy by virtue of being human, thinking about things.

I am not keen on definitions, neat closing-offs of what should always remain open.

But if one is aiming for conceptual clarity, then how could this be achieved without A definition.

I agree that it is best when ALL remain open, always. But, if during the 'employment of logic' and 'attempts to drive through' the 'bewitchment of language' definitions are not defined and/or not reached, then aiming for 'conceptual clarity' will NEVER be found, nor reached. See, it is only because of a lack of obtaining clear definitions the so-called 'bewitchment of language' arises, continues to exist, and why the persistent 'aim for conceptual clarity' remains, as well.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm Philosophy itself is, for me, a very difficult concept.

Thus, why you are, still, searching and looking for answers, and always 'aiming for conceptual clarity', right?

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm 'Wisdom' sprawls so far it loses any perceptible reference.

If 'this' is what occurs to and/or for you, then okay.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm In context we could agree that Socrates was 'wise' but so was my Grandma.

And, it is, again, because you do not yet have 'conceptual clarity' WHY you are, still, 'aiming for conceptual clarity', correct.

To me, being 'wise' MEANS, or REFERS TO, just being ALWAYS OPEN, because one is OPEN, then they cannot NOT learn. Which, to me, is 'the wisest one'. And, when ANY one just provides some sort of advice or insight, then this is just a particular 'intellect', which one has just gained, along the way.

To me, one is 'wise' when they have the ABILITY TO learn, more and/or anew, and NOT because of what they have already learnt, or know.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm
I'll leave Humpty Dumpty to rest content that for him, 'a word can mean anything I want it to mean'.

Language usage, a single word even, can only 'mean' in its contexts, these themselves being functions of language. I find it useful to consider the notion of 'logical levels' of propositions. The word 'philosophy', for instance can be used to carry many different meanings. These are not contradictory. They don't 'argue' with each other.

But, at least two of the different meanings for the word 'argue' can be completely contradictory or each other.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm Philosophy, for the Stoics and Epicureans, for instance included 'a way of living' ,and that's close to what it means in everyday conversation.

But, what you 'mean' when you say the words "stoics" and "epicureans" is NOT the meaning others have and use. Also, NOT EVERY so-called "stoic" NOR "epicurean" has and uses the SAME meaning for words.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm But when you look at the traditional branches of philosophy such as 'philosophy of...' (mind etc.), Ethics, Logic, Aesthetics, Epistemology) you tend to find different approaches to, and with, the word. I think you bring to mind the fairly clear observational fact that philosophers, of whatever sort, come to and engage with philosophy differently, often very differently, so I guess there are very wide variations of understanding what philosophy is.

Which is, EXACTLY, WHY I just ASKED you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, here. 'Conceptual clarity' is best found by seeking out 'clarity', which is what I like to do, here.

Also, noted that what what you might call a "philosopher" others do not.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm Philosophy in a broad sense is evident too in what, as shorthand, I called 'poetic'. Not just poetry but all art forms. That 'conceptual analysis' I write about has no place in engaging with poetry, novels, movies etc. that deal with 'big things'. So for example when I read Iris Murdoch's philosophical books on Ethics or Metaphysics, I'm 'doing; something very different than connecting with her 'philosophical novels'.

I guess too that various aspects of 'philosophy' are prevalent in our everyday lives. Our 'ways of thinking' and our core beliefs and values bring our philosophies to conversations and discussions about, for instance, aspects of politics or current affairs. Armchair contemplations, moral or aesthetic judgments are all aspects of philosophy.

I just use the word 'philosophy' in its once meant usage of, 'love-of-wisdom', only, here. Thus, preventing ANY confusion, here.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm I agree that in everyday life we all know what 'life' means.

But, people do NOT know what the word 'life' means, in what you call 'everyday life'. Just ask any group of people, 'What does 'life' mean?' you will NOT get an agreed upon and accepted answer, and thus you will also NOT get ANY clarity nor ANY 'conceptual clarity', neither.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm We all know what death means.

Again, what you people call 'death' is also NOT YET KNOWN, or what you might call 'have conceptual clarity' OVER. And, this is just because what is 'death', itself, EXACTLY, is just NOT YET understood, and know, by you people.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm But when thinkers like Cicero or Montaigne write that 'Life is learning how to die', we change 'logical levels', and are invited to think deeper, philosophically.

you wrote 'that' like NOT ALL are so-called 'thinkers'. There is not a human being who is not A so-called 'thinker'.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 3:00 pm Thanks again for your response. I hope I have resonated a little with the spirit of it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:17 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:07 pm Oh dear, this guy just wandered in and instantly trod on two landmines. He's doing soundalike wordplay with fishpie and movable meanings with age, which is impressively expert level targetting of the maddest aspect of two of the maddest peple we have.

If somebody can trick him into using an American spelling somewhere, he should land all of the top three in one thread.

That's actually quite funny for someone that claims to be 'non-binary'. Or have you picked a team now?

He calls himself 'non binary'? How 'surprising' It must be a synonym for 'misogynistic c*nt'.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:07 pm Oh dear, this guy just wandered in and instantly trod on two landmines. He's doing soundalike wordplay with fishpie and movable meanings with age, which is impressively expert level targetting of the maddest aspect of two of the maddest peple we have.

If somebody can trick him into using an American spelling somewhere, he should land all of the top three in one thread.

Good to SEE you list your TOP THREE 'maddest people', here, which, by the way, the THIRD has arrived, here.

Anyway, and just in case ANY one is interested, I PURPOSELY USED 'american spelling, from just about the beginning, here, to SHOW and PROVE how 'the one', that 'this one' is referring to, WOULD MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, which WOULD THEN SHOW and REVEAL 'that ones' OBVIOUS BIASES.

Which, by the way, were SHOWN and REVEALED, VERY, VERY CLEARLY.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:44 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:17 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:07 pm Oh dear, this guy just wandered in and instantly trod on two landmines. He's doing soundalike wordplay with fishpie and movable meanings with age, which is impressively expert level targetting of the maddest aspect of two of the maddest peple we have.

If somebody can trick him into using an American spelling somewhere, he should land all of the top three in one thread.

That's actually quite funny for someone that claims to be 'non-binary'. Or have you picked a team now?

He calls himself 'non binary'? How 'surprising' It must be a synonym for 'misogynistic c*nt'.

And what is a synonym for a 'misandristic cock', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, for one who is VERY, VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT writing, spelling, and grammar, you sure are NOT PERFECT on quite a number of occasions.

As previously mentioned, Wittgenstein said it would be possible to compose a philosophical treatise consisting solely of jokes. Less well known, perhaps, he said it would also be possible to make one consisting entirely of questions (with no answers). Whether intentionally or not, he conflated these two at Philosophical Investigations n.250: "Why can't a dog simulate pain? Is he too honest?" Made me chuckle.

At the bus stop someone asked me if I had the time and I replied that time had me. I layered many subtleties upon my monologue. Rarely have I seen such joy as upon the face of that woman as the bus approached. Allowing me to board, she let he bus leave without her, presumably happy to sacrifice her time for greater reward. I learned from this.

Introduction done, it was lovely to be welcomed. Perhaps we'll enjoy each other's company somewhere else.

Wild Reiver wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 1:35 pm Introduction done, it was lovely to be welcomed. Perhaps we'll enjoy each other's company somewhere else.

Ach nae bother, ye've left the forum, eh? Ye've taken yer leave quicker than a haggis scurrying oot o' sight when it hears a bagpipe! Honestly, it’s nae a philosophy forum without a wee bit o’ braw belligerence. Ye cannae have a proper debate without some heated bickerin’ — it’s like a ceilidh without a wee bit o' elbowin’ on the dance floor!

..it's that shite stirrer Flashpoopypants again!


Unfortunately, dear fellow, nobody is allowed to leave the forum until they have either amassed 666 posts, or can solve this riddle (any else answers you will turned in to a dog...or...a cat, or ok a hamster if you'd prefer)


I walked along 'til I found it,
I picked it up to look for it,
I found I couldn't find it,
So I put it down,
and walked away with it..

What is it?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:21 pm

I walked along 'til I found it,
I picked it up to look for it,
I found I couldn't find it,
So I put it down,
and walked away with it..

What is it?

I'm patiently waiting to see the real answer to this. If it isn't a good one I'm going to be very cross with you. Don't disappoint